Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Item 11, SB 1136. Stern. Item 13, SB 1176. Niello. Item 15, SB 1207. Dahle. Item 20, SB 1425. Gonzalez. Item 21, SB 1433. Limon. Six. That's a quorum, Madam Secretary, can we establish a quorum?

[Roll Call]. We have a quorum.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. We're looking for that motion on the consent calendar. Motion by Pelerin, Bauer-Kahan, and Friedman. Second by Flora.

[Roll Call]

At six, we'll leave it open. Madam Aktins, for SB 1342. I will hold that motion until after the presentation.

Mr. Chairman, Colleagues, thank you so much. I am here today to present SB 1342. It would authorize, but not require, CEQA streamlining for two key clean energy and clean water projects in the San Diego region.

This is the same CEQA streamlining the Legislature and Governor approved last summer in SB 149 for other energy, water and microchip infrastructure projects. The San Vicente Project is urgently needed for clean energy and load support in the San Diego region to save ratepayers millions in energy costs.

The second project is for the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant, which urgently needs an upgrade and possibly reconstruction. Years of delay and ongoing discharge of raw sewage from the treatment plant spewing into the Pacific Ocean in San Diego Bay have resulted in closure of beaches and adverse health effects for local communities.

Nothing in CEQA streamlining weakens environmental mitigation or the rights of parties to challenge projects. It simply speeds up key CEQA processes to shave months or years off of final approval. The Committee Analysis indicated that current law may already streamline CEQA for the San Vicente Pump Storage project.

It's not entirely clear under the law, and if it is, there's no harm to further clarification and certainty. Extending CEQA streamlining to these projects is entirely elective and at the option of the project applicant. Nothing in this measure requires or suggests mandatory application of the law or use of the streamlining process.

If the project applicant determines it does not want to use the process in SB 1342, it will not apply. So, SB 1342 is sponsored by the San Diego Water Authority. It's supported by the building and construction trades, the carpenters, iron workers, operating engineers, teamsters, and the San Diego Chamber of Commerce and others.

I would ask for your support with me today, Mr. Chair, as the key witness, is Bob Giraud and he represents the sponsors, the San Diego Water Authority.

Thank you, Mr. Giroud. Good to see you.

Thank you, Senator Atkins. Thank you, Mr. Bryan and Committee Members. I'd like to first thank Mr. Lindbloom and Martha, your Committee staff, for their excellent work on the analysis. The San Diego County Water Authority is a sponsor of the bill.

We have been working with Senator Atkins on the San Vicente Pumped Hydro Project for a number of years. In fact, I'm on a personal lobbying campaign to have it tombstone after Senator Atkins. I just, I want to say that we're the sponsors of the bill. We support it. And I'd like to ask for your aye vote.

And before the supporters come up, I'd like to say on behalf of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, that we support the bill as well.

Thank you, Mr. Are there any witnesses here in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?

Mr. Chairman, Members. Mike West, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Members, James Thuerwachter with the California State Council of Laborers in support.

All right, any witnesses, primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition? Seeing none, turn back to Committee Members. Any questions for the author? Seeing none. Ms. Atkins, would you like to close?

Well, thank you so much. I appreciate it. I hope not to have a tombstone anytime soon that you have to vote on, but this particular piece of legislation is critically important to my region, and it will be something certainly, that we appreciate your support on. So I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Bauer-Kahan, second by Mr. Flora and Ms. Pellerin. This bill enjoys a do pass record from the Chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Leave the roll open. Thank you. So I've got Mr. Newman signed in. I don't see him. I've got Senator Wiener signed in. I don't see him. Senator Dodd popped in and out. The first Senator who walks in, you're next. I saw Senator Laird, too. Sure. Let's open the roll back up.

The motion is do pass through Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Madam Secretary, can we open the roll to add Senator Muratsuchi to the consent calendar?

Absent Members. Hoover, cholera, [Roll Call]

Thanks so much, Senator Newman. Come on down. SB 1113.

So we got a witness. Maybe get him when you're ready. I do not have a witness. Mister Chair, Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1113, which will extend the sunset date on 10 existing beverage container recycling pilots across the state.

As I'm sure this Committee is aware, the California Beverage Container Recycling and Reduction Act, enacted in 1986 and often referred to as the bottle Bill, authorized a five cent fee on all cans and bottles to be collected for consumers at the time of purchase deposited into the California Beverage Container recycling Fund overseen by Cal Recycle.

As a result of changes in consumer behavior and other challenges to recycling bottles and cans, from 2013 to 2022, California saw more than half of the redemption centers across the state shut down.

Unsurprisingly, this resulted in a material decrease in rates of beverage container redemption across the state, from the healthy overall 74% at the time to a suboptimal 58.5%.

In response to that decline in recycling redemption in 2017, the Legislature passed SB 458, authored by Senator Wiener, which authorized Cal Recycle to establish five pilot projects which would explore innovative methods of can and bottle collection and CRV fee redemption.

Subsequent legislation in 2021 expanded the pilot program to 10 projects while also expanding the eligibility criteria for participation due to the usual lags associated with implementation. However, it was not until late 2023 that the 9th of the 10th authorized pilots was operational.

At the time of the introduction of this Bill, the 10th pilot, located here in Sacramento county, is still working toward achieving operational status. These pilot projects are working diligently to test and implement recycling methods and approaches which they believe offer promise toward increasing CRV recycling and reducing landfilling of these recyclable resources.

As it stands, the existing pilot authorization is set by statute to expire in 2027, leaving these projects with only three years remaining to prove out their methods and without any guarantee of continued operation or the surety needed to seek outside investments. While there have been mixed results with some of the initial pilot projects.

The amendments taken in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee affirm that these pilots will be supplemental to the retail take back and other cooperative arrangements negotiated in 2022 under SB 1013, authored by Senator Atkins, which expands CRV fees to wine and liquor bottles and requires retailers to conduct in store, take back, or form cooperatives in their service territories.

One of the pilots and the sponsor of this legislation, Recycling from home, operates in Irvine in my district, offering curbside pickup for cans and bottles and providing customers with convenient CRV redemption through an app.

While this may not be the most effective method for all recycling, this service offers those with mobility issues, transportation and time constraints, or other hindrances an easy way to access CRV fee redemption.

Under the provisions of SB 1113, the service and the services the other pilots provide will be authorized through 2034 and will be supplemental to the retail take back mandates enacted under SB 1013. I am respectfully asking for your aye vote this afternoon.

Thank you, Senator Newman. And no witnesses? I have. I've never done that in the Senate. That's a sign of a good Bill. Sure. Yeah. Are there any persons here in the hearing room who would like to register their support? There it is.

Hello. Kayla Robinson. I'm on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is there any opposition in the room? Also the sign of a good Bill. Well played. Well played. Questions? Committee Members assume Member Bauer-Kahan.

Senator, I just want to thank you. This is actually one of the things that my constituents complain about. They go to the grocery store, they pay these fees, and they have. They're supposed to be able to get that money back, and they have no way of actually getting that money back.

So they said, well, at least just call it part of the cost. Don't act like I'm going to get the money back if I can. And they really see it as a failure on our part. So I think that this is critically important.

I hope we will go further than this in the future, but I think it's a great first step.

Appreciate that. Absolutely. We have a motion by Mister Fu. Would you like to close Mister Newman?

No, I appreciate the comments. And again, this Bill only extends the sunset, doesn't do any material changes to the program, but this is to give those pilots a chance to test and prove out their methods while giving them also opportunities to secure outside financing if necessary. I respectfully ask your aye vote. thank you.

For this leadership on this. We've got a motion by Mister Flora. Second by Miss Barrackhan. This enjoys a do pass record from the chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll leave the roll open for absent Members, but that has six votes. Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you, Members. Thank you, Senator. I see Senator Blakespear is here. Would you like to come down and do both of your bills?

I would, in fact, have three.

You have three. Yes, you do. Would you like to start with 1045?

Yes, I would. Thank you, chair and colleagues. Hello. SB 1045 simply requires the Office of Planning and Research, otherwise known as OPR. I'm sorry, chair. Are you ready for me to start? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. I'll continue.

SB 1045 requires the Office of Planning and Research, known as OPR, to develop a model ordinance for siting compost facilities and requires locals to consider this advisory. Developing this much needed organic waste infrastructure is critical to having us meet our SB 1383 targets, which we are far from achieving.

In order to meet these targets, calrecycle estimates that the state needs approximately 5100 new or expanded organic waste recycling facilities right now. One obstacle to getting these facilities up and running is the time consuming and complicated process of getting them cited and permitted to address this issue.

A technical advisory developed by OPR on best practices for facilitating the siting of compost facilities and requiring locals to consider this advisory will help tremendously. With that, I would like to introduce my sponsor, Neil Edgar, Executive Director of the California Compost Coalition. May he speak?

Absolutely. Good afternoon, Chair Bryan and Members. So, our Members are predominantly service providers who provide compost and organics management services for municipalities throughout California. As Senator mentioned, calorie Cycles predicted the state needs to double our existing composting capacity, adding some 50 to 100 facilities.

Since SB 1383 has passed in 2016, we've added about a dozen facilities, only two of which are permitted to take food waste, which requires a higher bar for permitting. In my day job, I permit and develop composting facilities.

Having permitted 44 facilities in 23 counties, I know firsthand the challenges of getting them on the ground and operating across the state. This Bill is intended to resolve one of the key hurdles, and we are facing moving forward with this critical infrastructure.

By providing model zoning ordinance language, local governments have every incentive to plan for and permit organic waste facilities in the interest of meeting SB 1383 requirements I just don't believe they have the right tools to resolve the issues that delay numerous projects. This Bill will help provide some of those tools.

Agraman, one of our Members spent 12 years to complete two zone text amendments in Ventura County to expand an existing facility, largely because the zoning ordinance did not explicitly allow the commercial composting operations on agriculturally zoned land.

We think closing the loop on organic materials will require in part, that compost be returned to agricultural land and local solutions are important to limiting transportation impacts. We appreciate the Committee staff work on the analysis and I want to thank Senator Blakesville for bringing SB 1045 forward.

Thank you, sir. Are there any persons in the hearing or who would like to register their support for this measure?

Priscilla Quiroz, hear on behalf of stop waste and support.

Sorry, John Kennedy with Rural County Representatives of California in support. Thank you.

Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities in support.

Good afternoon. Mike Caprio with Republic services here in support.

Tony Hackett with Californians against waste in support.

Hi, Stephanie Warrell. On behalf of ercology and support.

Thank you so much. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure? Seeing none, we'll turn it back to Committee Members. Senator Flora.

Thank you Mister chair. And I just want to say thank Senator, thank you for bringing us in to your sponsor of the bill.

We understand your concerns on the permitting issue and I'm excited that the speaker of our house is create a Select Committee chaired by Misses Buffy Wicks tomorrow at 09:00 where we're going to be dealing with some of the challenges of permitting in the state.

So if we're actually going to meet the state's goals, I think there are considerations that we need, you know, look at, because we all know the goals, but if we can't build infrastructure, we're never going to meet them. So thank you absolutely.

Any other questions from colleagues? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Senator Blaser, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Absolutely. Do we have a motion?

Yes.

Motion by Mister Flores, second by Mister Maratsuchi. This Bill enjoys a do pass from the chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do passed to local government. [Roll Call]

Has five. We'll leave the roll open. Would you like to move on to 1077?

Yes, thank you. Thank you. Chair and colleagues, before I begin, I'd like to state that I accept the Committee's proposed amendments. Thank you for working with my staff to work that out. As you know, California is in a housing crisis of unprecedented magnitude. Since 2010, homelessness has skyrocketed 50%, and last year, 180,000 Californians did not live inside.

We in the Legislature have passed over 100 bills to address the root cause of this crisis, which is the underproduction of housing. One of the most notable successes we have seen so far has been the state's loosening of restrictions to adding accessory dwelling units, or adus, to residential properties.

Despite these changes, homeowners in the coastal zone face administrative challenges to permitting adus or jadu projects. These challenges make projects cost prohibitive for all but the wealthiest or most determined homeowners.

Cities and counties in the coastal zone report that the AdU design review standards enforced by the Coastal Commission conflict with the minimum AdU ordinance standards enforced by HCD.

The Department of Housing and Community Development, SB 1077 will direct Coastal Commission and HCD to develop, solicit public feedback, and publish unified guidance for local governments on how they must update their ADU ordinances and their local coastal programs to comply with the Coastal Act and the government code.

This exercise will allow HCD and Coastal Commission to examine and resolve conflicts in how they enforce the law. This will address the logjam and Adu permitting and promote production of naturally affordable housing stock in the coastal zone. Now, I'd like to introduce my witness in support, Louis Morante, Vice President of public policy at the Bay Area Council.

If he is in the room.

Lewis is not in the room, but he is a frequent flier in this Committee.

All right, well, he was going to speak in support. Okay.

Are there other persons in the room who would like to register their support for this meeting? Measure. And, Louis, if you're watching, this is your moment to walk right in.

Priscilla kiddos, here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica, in support.

Brian Leahy, on AARP volunteer and our 3.2 Members and support.

Chair Members. Max Perry, on behalf of the City of Long Beach and support.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair Members. Moira Topp, on behalf of the City of San Diego, in support.

Catherine Charles, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and support.

Afternoon. Mark Neuburger, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support.

Thanks much. Is there any opposition here in the hearing room? None whatsoever. Well played, Senator. We'll turn it back to Committee Members. Any questions? Comments? Concerns? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Yes. I appreciate your support of this Bill? This is a good governance Bill coming from a local city and serving as the mayor of a coastal city. We ran into true problems with HCD's requirements and Coastal Commission process and requirements.

So hopefully this Bill will help solve that for cities in the future, and we'll be able to get cities in the coastal zone to be able to have ADU processes that are more direct and streamlined. And with that, I respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Thank you so much, Senator. This measure has a do pass from the chair. We have a motion by Mister Flora, a second by Miss. Bauer. Cahan. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass as amended. Housing and Community Development Brian Aye. Brian I Flora Flora I Bauer Cahan Bauer Cahan I Friedman Hoover Cholera Lackey Lackey I maritsucci maratsuchi I Pellerin pelerin I Wicks Wood.

That has six, but we will, we will leave the roll open. Senator Blakesbury, would you like to go to 1092?

Yes. Thank you for your patience with my natural resources bills. I appreciate it. SB 1092. Hello. Will require the Coastal Commission to study and provide a report to the Legislature regarding its timelines for review of coastal development permit appeals and the factors that can drive above average timelines for certain projects.

California's housing and homelessness crisis is a consequence of the state's failure to plan for and permit housing construction at a rate commensurate to California's population and economic growth. Complicated permitting process and long approval timelines threaten the viability of housing projects. This is especially true for affordable housing projects, which by nature have limited profit margins.

To address this, the Legislature has passed laws to reduce administrative barriers and permitting timelines for housing development in environmentally safe areas of the state. These evidence-based laws focus on reducing risk in the permitting process. In coastal zones, the CDP, or coastal development permit process, still imposes a high degree of uncertainty and risk for housing developers.

That's because appeals of local government CDP approvals can drag on for years, which can make projects financially infeasible. This can make the coastal zone a hostile place for builders to build, and this is especially the case for affordable housing builders.

SB 1092 will require the Coastal Commission to investigate the causes of these long appeal timelines and report findings to the Legislature. The last point that I'd like to make is that the CDP appeals process and its impact on discouraging housing projects creates challenges for coastal local governments.

The RHNA process requires local governments to plan for and permit levels of housing production that affirmatively further access to housing for all, regardless of income. And since many affordable housing developers avoid building in the coastal zone because of the uncertainties, CDP appeals make it more difficult for local governments on the coast to meet their state housing mandates. With that, I would like to introduce Sean Drake from the California Coastal Commission to provide testimony in support of SB 1092. Thank you for being here today.

Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Sean Drake with the California Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission supports SB 1092, which would direct the commission to prepare a report on the frequency and timing of appeals of locally approved coastal development permits in the vast majority of the coastal zone, about 88%.

Issuing coastal development permits is the responsibility of local governments, not the Coastal Commission. In these areas, the commission's primary function is to serve as an appellate body that reviews local permit decisions that are appealed to the commission.

The appeal process is an important feature of the Coastal Act because it allows the state to maintain a measure of oversight over local decisions involving certain sensitive coastal areas. The commission believes the appeal process should serve this purpose efficiently and without undue delays to projects.

Unfortunately, in recent years, the commission has encountered a growing amount of misperceptions among the public about the appeal process. While the commission has made efforts to educate project applicants and the public with accurate information, we believe it would also be beneficial for the commission to programmatically track, analyze, and publish data about appeals, which is something the commission historically hasn't had the capacity to do.

SB 1092 would take a step toward addressing that information gap by directing the commission to prepare a report that gathers and analyzes data from the last four years of local coastal development permit actions. This data would provide unambiguous, objective facts about how often permit appeals occur and how long they take.

In doing so, this report would level set the public discourse about the Coastal Act's appeal process and also provide a factual foundation for the commission and the Legislature to consider whether and how any adjustments to the appeal process would be beneficial. We appreciate the author's partnership in advancing the bill in this form and her commitment to using facts and data to inform thoughtful legislation. We respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Are there any persons here in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?

Catherine Charles again, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and support.

Max Perry, on behalf of the City of Long Beach, in support.

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

Thank you so much. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure? Seeing none, we'll turn it back to committee members. Nothing. Senator Blakespear, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We have a motion by Mr. Flora, second by Miss Pellerin. I think this is an important measure. We have had many debates, not just in this committee, but out in the public and in the other house, about the appeal process, about the delays. The Coastal Commission is often blamed for stopping development.

In some cases, there may be some truth to that. In some cases, there just isn't. The fact that this data isn't collected in a comprehensive way for us to evaluate and use it to inform both narrative and decision-making. I think you're stepping into that gap. So thank you for your leadership. This bill enjoys a do pass from the chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

We'll leave the roll open. Congratulations on your trifecta. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Wiener. SB. SB 951, when you're ready.

What are you trying to say? Maybe. Picture.

Happy to have pictures. You can begin.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Thank you for working with us in this Bill. We're happy to accept the Committee amendment. Regarding email notice to the Commission, this Bill does two simple things.

The first, it aligns with the deadline to rezone pursuant to an approved housing element with a deadline to approve local coastal plan amendment. Right now, cities, once they have an approved housing element, have usually either one or three years to rezone in conformity with that housing element.

If they're in the coastal zone, of course, that requires an LCP amendment, and it could put a city in a position where they missed their deadline to rezone per the housing element, because an LCP amendment approval is taking a long time. So this aligns the two timelines.

The second thing it does is right now in terms of one aspect of appellate jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. There are situations where the Commission has appellate. Someone can appeal to the Commission in counties, but not in cities.

And the rationale for that is that coastal counties are more likely to be rural and have more sensitive coastal resources. Cities are less likely to be. So a certain city and county is treated as a county, not as a city, even though San Francisco is many things, but it is not a rural area.

And so the bill will simply classify San Francisco as a city. For purposes of this appellate jurisdiction, we have worked intensively with the Coastal Commission. The Commission removed its opposition in the Senate, as did a large list of environmental organizations. And I respectfully ask for yourself. I vote. Thank you, Senator. Your witness.

Good afternoon, chair Members. My name is Katherine Charles and I'm here on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, again in support of SB 951. As the Senator mentioned, SB 951 introduces two common sense reforms.

First, existing law allows projects within the coastal zone and coastal counties to be appealed to the Commission if a project does not conform with the main permitted use. This has allowed the Commission to have a hand in conserving agricultural lands across the coast.

However, this provision is intended to apply to rural counties, as the Senator mentioned, not urban San Francisco, which is both a city and a county. SB 951 refines its appeal, maintaining its application in rural California while treating San Francisco like the city it is.

Second, when local governments are required to upzone by HCD, they're typically given one to three years to comply. These required actions often result in updates to LCPs, which are required, or which require Coastal Commission review, which obviously takes time. Local governments often end up stuck between two state agencies working on two very different schedules.

SB 951 alliances processes, giving one to three years to both the required upzoning and its associated LCP update. This bill simply provides clarity for local governments while maintaining coastal resource protection to most importantly help California achieve its housing goals. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Are there any persons in the hearing room would like to register their support for this measure?

False alarm.

Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities. We just wanted to express our appreciation to the author, his staff, the Committee, for working with us to get to a neutral position with the latest amendments. So thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure?

Mister Chairman, Members. Paul Yoder, on behalf of a certain city and county still in opposition to the Bill, the City and County of San Francisco would like the Board of Supervisors, which voted unanimously to oppose the Bill, respectfully ask the section two of the Bill be removed. Yeah. Thank you.

It was not unanimous.

Absolutely. We'll turn it back, turn it back to Committee Members. Any questions? Comments? Senator Bauer-Kahan.

I wonder if anything in San Francisco is ever unanimous. Once in a while. Once in a while. Okay, so thank you for the overview of the Bill, Senator, because I actually was. This is complicated stuff for those of us that don't work in this area of the law, which, which I am one.

I'm gathering from the comments by the City of San Francisco that the answer might be one I'm favorable to. But we've seen in San Francisco recently a zoning change that would have reduced the housing being built in the city. That's a concern for me.

So I'm just wondering if you have losing this appeal, does it make it easier for them to make such zoning changes or harder?

Well, thank you for that. And I was vocally opposed to that down zoning as well, and the mayor vetoed it, and it was overridden that area. Of course, that was not in the coastal zone. San Francisco, it's a few blocks on the west side. And so if they.

I think the state would have something to say if they started engaging in other down zonings because you can violate the housing accountability or actually, it was SB 330. There are various state laws that are potentially violated, and, you know, ultimately the Board of Supervisors needs to just stop doing that.

Wait, no, I understand they need to stop doing that. And I also understand the part of the city doesn't apply to. But they could do it in other parts of the city, obviously.

So I know they need to stop doing it, but I'm wondering if we're making it easier by removing one of the appeals for them to do that.

I don't think so. You don't think so?

And I know you're opposed to that. So I think we share a.

I'm glad we agreed. No, actually, the appeals that we're talking about are about individual projects. Not about a rezoning. So that's. It's. If you have, you know, a zoning that allows two different uses and you're going with the secondary use, not the primary use in counties, that makes it appealable in cities. It does not.

So it's about the individual project, not about a rezoning.

Got it. Appreciate that.

And for the other piece of the Bill, the LCP would. It would. The alignment is with the housing element that's been approved by the state.

Perfect. Awesome. Thank you, Senator.

Seeing no other questions from Members, would you like to close?

Senator Wiener, respectfully ask for an aye vote we have a motion.

Motion by barking. Second by Mister Flora. Seeing as the entire San Francisco delegation in the State Senate is behind this Bill and enjoys a do pass from the Chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass as amended to Housing and Community Development. [Roll Call]

We'll leave the roll open.

Thank you so much. Absolutely.

Thank you, colleagues. So Senator Dodd did sign in pretty early. I believe that makes you next, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Today I'm presenting SB 1159 regarding roadside wildfire risk reduction. I'll start by accepting the committee amendments and thanking the chair and committee staff for working with us. The bill requires that by January 1, 2026, the Office of Planning and Research, in consultation with the appropriate departments, evaluates a category categorical exemption for roadside vegetation management projects that reduce wildfire risk and meet appropriate conditions, which the secretary of natural resources must consider. SB 1159 does not create a statutory exemption.

Rather, it states that the roadside vegetation management is a legislative priority and that projects undertaking this program meeting appropriate safeguards should be considered for inclusion on the list of categorically exempt projects. OPR and the secretary already have a history of evaluating and appropriately tailoring categorical exemptions.

Roadside ignitions are a significant source of wildfires when a spark from a passing vehicle or cigarette comes into contact with dry brush and grass. Vegetation management along roadsides is highly effective at limiting the spread of these ignitions and also decreases the potential for an existing wildfire to spread across the road.

With thousands of miles of roads and wildfire-prone lands, roadside vegetation management is constantly required to look to minimize the risk of uncontrolled fires. An exemption for roadside vegetation management projects would vastly increase the amount of roadside vegetation management work that can be completed in a given amount of time. The bill is supported by the California Fire Chiefs, CBIA, numerous counties, and other organizations. With me here today is Fire Chief Dave Winnacker, representing the California Fire Chiefs Association.

Yes, sir, whenever you're ready.

Thanks, Senator. Thank you, Chair, members of the committee, and of course, Member Bauer-Kahan, who is a member of the district, has been very supportive of all of our efforts. As we move forward into a fire-prone future, we're certainly seeing that this week where numerous fires have broken 10,000 acres and several are being contained through firefighters' efforts anchoring on existing roads, some of which have mitigated roadside shoulders.

Combined with the potential, very real potential for shrinking state budgets with regard to wildfire risk reduction activities, I think it's imperative that we find ways to be more efficient with the allocation of these mitigation dollars, particularly those mitigations that build upon the non-burnable nature of existing roads so that we are not only less likely to see roadside starts, but we will give the firefighters the tools they need to hold fires that started somewhere else when they encounter a roadway as a manner of keeping them out of our communities. We appreciate your support and consideration. Anything that will allow us to get more good mitigations on the ground quickly will be beneficial to our efforts to create fire adapted communities.

Thank you, sir. Are there any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure?

Mr. Chairman. Chris Micheli, on behalf of Humboldt and Mendocino Redwood Companies, in support.

Mr. Chair and members, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors in Napa, Solano, and Sonoma counties, in support of this bill.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the City of Santa Rosa, in support.

Mr. Chair and members, James Thuerwachter, with the California State Council of Laborers, in proud support.

Jeff Neil, representing the counties of Contra Costa and Yolo, both in support.

Chair and members, representing the California Building Industry Association, in support.

Good afternoon. Sarah Noceto, on behalf of the El Dorado Water Agency, in support.

Good afternoon. Catherine Freeman, on behalf of the California State Association, in support. Thank you.

Kayla Robinson, on behalf of the East Bay Regional Park District, in support. Thanks.

John Kennedy, with RCRC, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Noelle Cremers, with Wine Institute, in support.

Good afternoon. Peter Ansel, California Farm Bureau, in support.

Thank you, Peter. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure? Seeing none, we'll turn it to committee members. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan.

Well, now you've all met the incredible man that keeps my family safe every day, and I think this is such important work, Mr. Dodd. I know that I live on one of the evacuation routes that his firefighters drive on to make sure I'm doing my work. I had a dead tree, they made sure I removed it. And you know, living in one of these communities, that's a high fire zone, with the fire chief who tells me that I'm really screwed where I live, which the insurance companies just confirmed.

That was a nervous laugh. Sorry.

No, it's okay. I have to laugh about it. You know, what keeps me safe is the evacuation routes and the mitigation that is done every day in our community at the behest of the fire chief and some of these. And I'm a huge protector of CEQA. I almost never vote on a CEQA exemption, but the environmental impact of these wildfires is incredible. And the faster we can get to them and the faster we can prevent them, the better our climate is. I think this is one of the best CEQA exemptions I've seen in my time.

I'm happy to support it and I think it will give us the tools we need to better protect our communities. And hopefully it will help Caltrans do the work that they're supposed to be doing on our communities. It is a fight every day to make sure they do. But we are now going to say they have no excuse. So thank you.

Any other committee members? Mr. Flora.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Senator, thank you for bringing us forward. I just align my comments with our dear colleague. But over the years, it's been doing this for eight years, sitting on this committee, seven of those. And it's awesome. We're finally making these changes.

When you drive up 50,-80 and you seeing private property versus state-owned or federal-owned, and some are maintained properly and some are simply not. And we don't always get to pick and choose where an ignition source is starting. Right?

But when we give firefighters the ability to get on it fast, I mean, you know, Chief, the resources on any type of ignition this time of year, the amount of manpower and equipment that's sent on initial attack, when we give those men and women the opportunity to catch that, we can do it. We have to give them a little bit of backup as well. And this type of risk reduction is incredibly important. And I'm just super thankful this bill's brought for us today. So thank you. I'll make a motion.

Thank you, Mr. Flora. Mr. Dodd, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. We have a motion by Mr. Flora, second by Miss Bauer-Kahan. Thank yo, Chief, for your presentation. Senator. This enjoys a do pass record from the chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

We'll leave the roll open.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Appreciate it.

Absolutely. At the request of the author, we are going to pull SB 1308, Gonzalez, for a future hearing. And with that, no, you can present her second bill. Senator Laird, you are welcome to come down and present both your Bill and SB 1182. Gonzalez.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair and members, it's my pleasure to present Senate Bill 1280 that transitions California to more sustainable outdoor recreation by requiring small propane cylinders sold in the state to be reusable or refillable starting on January 1, 2028.

And we do have a prop, but the prop is the status quo right now everywhere in this state, and especially for those of us that have a lot of parks or beaches in our district. These are left. What you're seeing is a truck that trucks these out of Yosemite National Park.

It costs $75,000 to truck them just out of Yosemite before the recycling. And right now, it is the obligation of the parks, the cities, the counties, the parks districts to do it, which is why the League of Cities, counties, rural counties, waste management organizations backed this bill.

The reason it allows it to phase in until January 1, 2028, is really allow the market to catch up with the market signal that this bill will send.

When I was in the Assembly, I did the bills on more efficient toilets, and when that happened, when it was actually in the regulations of the building codes, we had troubles. But when we allowed it to trend in, in percentages by year in the market, the companies could get with it.

It went that way, and that's what we're doing here. And a 2021 report from the Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling said that single use, one pound propane cylinders are a threat to human and environmental health.

When empty, and so-called empty, they still contain a small amount of gas, posing a danger to the sanitation workers due to the risk of explosion and resulting fires. And I mentioned how much is paid.

There's been an animated debate about whether to go back and forth between extended producer responsibility, and frankly, I support a universal extended producer responsibility. That's where we should go but that costs money, and that is highly unlikely to be passed this year in the legislature. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.

This bill has passed both houses before, and I'm asking to do it again.

There was an animated debate and six weeks of leafleting outside the Capitol, and other things got out of the Senate: 32 to 7, with Republicans joining Democrats and doing it because I think when the argument sees the light of day of what this is, it's not about systems or processes or do this or we favor that bill.

It's about addressing this issue now. That's the status quo, and we have a chance to change it. I have two witnesses, Priscilla Quiroz on behalf of the bill's sponsor, the California Product Stewardship Council, and John Kennedy, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California. Appreciate the chance to present and look forward to your questions.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, proud sponsors of SB 1280. I just want to thank the Senator and his staff for all their work this past year on this issue. Non refillable, one pound propane cylinders pose significant challenges.

They're expensive to manage properly and dangerous due to their flammable content. There are some jurisdictions that pay approximately $3 per tank and some that pay as high as 65 per tank. Ultimately, the ratepayers are the ones who bear the costs associated with the cylinder disposal.

As the committee analysis noted in 2022, Senator Wieckowski introduced a similar legislation, but it was vetoed. We took that veto message and worked with Senator Laird last year and earlier this year and tried to do work with the opposition on a California based EPR program. However, the opposition continued to stall and pose challenges throughout the process.

For perspective, we couldn't even get past definitions in that past bill. Since the veto message, however, the availability for refuellable one pound propane cylinders have rapidly expanded with their growing network retailers offering options to purchase refill exchange these cylinders.

The number of locations offering these cylinders have increased significantly, including major national retailers like Ace Hardware, True Value, Home Depot, and REI. Our latest analysis indicates that there are currently 250-500 venues in California that we suspect that will increase.

Additionally, in the last two years since that veto message, we've seen a 50% increase for exchange model and 200% increase in the cylinders sold nationwide. Transitioning out of the disposable propane cylinders will move consumers to a more sustainable option. From a waste perspective, this bill provides actual source reduction.

From a financial perspective, the bill saves local, state and federal government money because they won't be spending millions of dollars at disposable containers entering the waste stream for these reasons. That's why we respectfully ask for aye vote.

And then just on behalf of Stop Waste, Western Plaster Waste Management Authority and Solid Waste Association, North America Legislative Task Force, they are all in support of this measure. Thank you.

Good afternoon. John Kennedy with Rural County Representatives of California. We're pleased to be here in support of this bill today. We think it's very important. These single use propane cylinders are very difficult for us to manage. They end up in our landfills and our HHW collection facilities.

And it's really difficult for us to figure out whether they're empty and can go into the trash or not.

And so, we've got to manage them as hazardous ways as the author mentioned, as little as $3, which is a huge portion of what it actually costs the consumer to purchase these at the point of sale, end up significantly. We have a lot of rural counties. We have a lot of parks.

We have a lot of state parks, national parks and campgrounds. So, we see a lot of these propane cylinders come to our counties and get left there, and we don't have a lot of people. And those smaller populations then have to pay for the costs of managing these propane cylinders, getting them safely disposed.

So, we appreciate this bill. We think it's a small step in product redesign with incremental costs. At that point, we'll reap tremendous rewards on the back end, not only for local governments, but for consumers who don't have to pay these costs associated with managing these at the end of life. So, for those reasons, we support 1280 today.

Thank you.

Are there any persons in this hearing room who support this measure?

Catherine Freeman on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and support. Thank you.

Melissa Sparks-Kranz, with the League of California Cities, is in support.

Tony Hackett, Californians Against Waste, in support.

Jean Hurst, on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Kayla Robinson, on behalf of Rethink Waste, in support. Thanks.

Stephanie Morwell, on behalf of Recology, and support.

Good afternoon. Michael Caprio here for Republic Services and support.

Good afternoon. Lindsay Gullahorn with the Resource Recovery Coalition of California and support.

Josh Simpson with Little Kamper Propane and strong support.

Jordan Wells with the National Stewardship Action Council and strong support.

Thank you so much. Is there opposition in the room? Come on down. And since we allowed Senator Laird to have props, we got your request to also share a picture.

My big prop...so I do appreciate that. Thank you. Mike Robeson here on behalf of Worthington Enterprises in opposition. The picture does tell us a bit of a story, and it's part of my testimony, to be honest. So, I appreciate you letting me show it. So, looking at the picture, this is a fuel container collection bin. It's actually at Yosemite.

So, this is at the Yosemite campgrounds, and they're collecting all the cylinders that are, that are being used at the park by their consumers or the people who are camping there. And so, what you want to look at in there is that the middle cylinder is the propane cylinder that this bill would ban.

That's the one-pound disposable cylinder that would be banned. The one to the left of it, the blue tall one, that's a torch cylinder. It also holds propane. It has the same valve as the middle cylinder. It's the exact same valve. Obviously, people are using that on their camping stoves at Yosemite.

And to be honest, if this bill were to pass and become law, they'll continue to do so. They will simply take the $6 cylinder that's in the middle and swap it for the tall cylinder to its left, or they'll use the other fuel cylinders that are there. They'll change their camping stove.

If you have to buy five or six of the reusable refillable cylinders, you're hitting a price point that actually just begs you to swap out your stove and say, "Oh, well, I just won't use a propane gas stove anymore. I'll just use an isobutane gas stove."

All these products are being used today, and all of them, if this bill were to pass, all of them will continue to be used at Yosemite, at all the other parks, because people are going to find their way to do the cheapest, most convenient fueling option that they have.

They'll still get even the product that you're banned because there's no enforcement in this bill and there's no way it would be enforced. But some other points that I just want to bring up is, well, the right solution, the picture tells you, is EPR. So, we want an EPR solution.

We want, as the producer, as the biggest producer, Worthington wants a producer responsibility program for these cylinders in California. We unfortunately haven't got there, but Worthington is helping to implement Connecticut's EPR law. They're working in other states. They are doing this in Canada. Worthington is fully in Canada's producer responsibility program for all these pressurized gas cylinders.

So, if you want to solve the environmental problem, solve it for all the pressurized gas cylinders. Don't just pick a winner and a loser in the marketplace, because that's what this bill actually does. The bill is actually just designed to push one product out of the marketplace in favor of a single other product that is reusable.

And there's a reason Worthington doesn't make a reusable product today. They certainly can. They're the largest domestic manufacturer of cylinders in the country. They don't believe, besides the fact that consumers don't want the inconvenience, they also don't believe it's safe.

The one-pound cylinder, the reusable product that this bill will help sell, doesn't have an overfill protection device in it. And the overfill protection device is pretty critical. That's what's in a 20-pound barbecue tank now.

So, when that barbecue tank is full, the 20-pound tank is full, it shuts off this one, doesn't it just, it just spews propane out the side. And so, if you're lending yourself to a situation where consumers are going to be -

We've been incredibly generous.

I know. You're great. Where consumers are going to be wanting to refill these cylinders themselves. In fact, one of the, one of the proponents in the proponent's stuff, Flame King actually markets a refillable valve kit. And so, people are going to be sitting in their backyards or out campgrounds or whatever possible. You know, they're just not safe.

And Worthington, as a responsible manufacturer in the United States, doesn't want it, doesn't think that the risk and the liability is worth it. I'll stop right there. Hopefully somebody asked me something, because I have a lot to say.

Thank you, sir. Can definitely tell that this is an important issue to you. Any opposition in the hearing room who would like to add their voice?

Ryan Allain: I'm with the California Retailers Association, respectively oppose.

Thank you so much. We'll turn it now to committee members. Questions? Comments? Mister Hoover.

Got a couple questions, Senator. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. Is there - I guess, how long has the refillable product been on the market? Do we have an idea?

I don't even know. I mean, I just know it's on the market. But what this does is this really says the refillable will be the market by 2028. And as was said, worried about the comparison in dollars. 80% of the cost is the non-refillable cylinder.

So, if you are refilling it, you're reducing the cost on an ongoing basis.

Okay. So, I guess, Senator, real quickly, and then I do have a question, and I'll ask you, but why not an EPR? I mean, why? First of all, are these currently, are we able to recycle these currently and why not go with the EPR approach?

Well, actually, we tried to go through do the EPR last year. Everybody opposing it, including the guys sitting at this table, stalled completely. Their goal is to not have this. We wanted that, and that was our goal last year.

Now, as I said in the opening statement, no EPR, in my view, will pass this year because of the cost. So, advocating for EPR this year is advocating for no solution this year.

Is there a reason that these refillable products haven't gotten more of a market share? I mean, I think I do have some concerns that there's just no, there's no market for the consumers for these. I mean, you said there's 250 of these in the state. I mean, that seems like a really small number.

Yeah, but let me say, the car owners in Detroit said there was no market for hybrids or other things because people weren't given the opportunity to have them. And the minute they did, it turned out there was an unbelievable market. And that's what we're trying to do with this bill.

Okay. I mean, there certainly is a market, obviously, for the larger tanks. Right. So, we do know that that exists. It just seems interesting to me that that doesn't translate to this market. So, can you, if I may ask the opposition on the current recycling practices of these, can they currently be recycled? Like, is that happening?

And is this really just like a cost issue or other issues involved?

I believe they can. They are recycled. I don't know the process for how these are recycled. I know they get collected. They go through either through the waste stream and probably a lot of them do end up at HHW facilities and then they get sent to a scrap metal recycler.

But just for what it's worth, also Assemblymember, the refillable products been on the market for 10 years. And it's been, and it's, and it's been - the state has been funding a refuel your fund marketing and advocacy campaign for nine years. Analysis points out two and a half $1.0 million has been spent pushing this refillable product.

Yet there's only 250 retailers.

Last question, Mister Chair; I apologize. So, I guess, is the opposition open to coming to the table on this alternative issue? I mean, obviously there's a cost issue there, as the Senator mentioned. But I mean, you know, is there another method we can get to here?

I mean, again, we do support a producer responsibility program. Here's the thing. I don't want. I don't think we stalled. I mean, you know, I don't know what to say to this is that, you know, Worthington is involved in an EPR program in Connecticut. They want to do it in other states. They want to do it here.

Something just for this committee, producer responsibility. You know, we got to start thinking about public policies around producer responsibility to ensure that the producer actually has a seat at the table and a program that is designed for them to be responsible for.

We can't just legislate producer responsibility laws and not have the producers have some say in how it's crafted. And so, we had some breakdown on language. There was language in that bill that would have required collection sites based on population that had no bearing on how the product is used.

And so, we would have ended up with on the language. The last version of language that we saw, there would have been like 1100 collection sites for this product. The paint care program only has 700 collection sites. So, you would actually be, it's just a lot of bureaucracy for no gain.

If you want the producers to be responsible, hold the producers, set some goals and hold them responsible. And if they're not, if they don't make that, if they don't meet their obligation, then they can't sell their product.

Thank you so much.

So I apologize. I got a call and had to step out. But if I heard correctly, as I stepped in, the reason Worthington doesn't want to get into the refillable business is a concern for liability.

They believe it is an unsafe product today.

Okay, that's what I thought. Yes. So, we've confirmed that this has been around for a decade. Can you tell us what harm has come to pass in the last decade of these refillable being on the market that causes them to believe that?

Well, I can speak to it. I mean, I will say. And they have the information, too. And so there is a - the way it's used, if you self-refill, you flip a 20-pound barbie tank upside down, you put a little adapter kit and a valve on there, and you fill it.

And the valve on the refillable doesn't have an OPD. And they think that's not safe. And as far as accidents, I can't point to one.

So, it's been 10 years and nobody that we know of has been harmed. And we can't go to refillable because we're afraid that somebody might be harmed. That seems irrational.

Well, they haven't sold that many of them, to be honest, in the course of 10 years, either. We could point to a situation where somebody tried to fill a reusable. I mean, a disposable. They filled the disposable, which they shouldn't do, and Worthington's product says, don't refill. It's not, not to be refilled, but somebody did that.

It exploded. It killed somebody. And it didn't explode because it was the disposable cylinder, it exploded because of the valve connection. The adapter device was not working properly, so that situation would exist. Whether it was a reusable or a disposable.

Are the refillable - I mean, I can't imagine ever, but I'm not super handy, trying to refill one of these myself, and I didn't think that was the intent. I thought places like REI would refill centers for these things.

Yeah. So, California product Stewardship Council really is trying to get more of an exchange model like the 20 pounders. Right.

We are encouraging that with the refillable one pound propane cylinders, there is a bleeder valve, which does make it safer for a consumer to refill it, or they can go to, let's say, U-Haul or an Ace Hardware and get it refilled by a professional, and it actually saves them money over time because it's only like a dollar or two to refill it.

And so, we encourage for those two, we don't really encourage for consumers to refill it themselves, but we have seen that consumers try to refill the non-refillable cylinders, and because it doesn't have that bleeder valve, that's what makes it dangerous. And that's where you see a death.

And so that's why it's in, you know, we're encouraging this different direction of having, ensuring that, you know, if folks do want to, because we see YouTube's on there of folks encouraging, like, hey, you can refill these non-refillable.

So, we're educating folks, but really what we're trying to do is mimic what the 20 pounders have always been, which has been refilled.

Right. And, well, the 20 pounders are refilled? Oh, refillable but not at home. Yeah. I'm like, oh. I've never tried to refill mine. Sorry. And then does the law currently require on the refillable ones a warning of any kind? Do we know?

I think there is a safety warning.

Safety warning: I mean, I think that if not, and it's not the jurisdiction of this committee, but I do think that would make sense if we're requiring them all to be refillable, even if not that there be some sort of safety warning telling people not to turn over their barbecue and do this.

So maybe that's something you could consider, Senator. But given that it has been a decade, and we have zero evidence of harm to individuals, I actually think that there's not much reason for folks to not all go to the refillable model, which obviously is significantly better for the community.

So with that, I'm happy to support the bill.

Thank you. Other questions or comments by Committee members? Vice Chair?

Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you, Senator, for the bill. And thank you for the opposition. And to my colleague, this is a weird bill for me.

It really is, because I in a lot of ways support the idea, but on the practicality and the safety of it, I actually do have a ton of concerns and my colleague kind of brought up a few of them.

And for the record, I am going to be laying off this bill and I look forward to having continued conversations before it gets to the floor.

But on the safety side of things, which is absolutely where I'm coming from on this. In last 10 years, we've had these on the market, very few people are actually doing this right. I don't know the reasons why, other than convenience, where you can just go buy new ones.

It is a huge concern of mine that you would take a 20-pound tank and figure out how to refill a one pounder at home. And I can guarantee you when we ban the disposable ones, that will happen more often. There will be a lot of folks that are trying to do this at home.

And so, I find this, and I know my colleague, she says she's not handy. I disagree. But there is a lot of safety mechanisms that I feel like are missing in this piece of legislation. There really are.

And when you talk about convenience in society, when you take a 20-pound tank, and I don't mean how many times I've gone to an Ace or Home Depot or whoever has those and you're waiting to exchange it, people aren't available because they're busy doing their jobs and you end up just swiping your credit card and getting a new tank.

I mean, I currently have probably five tanks in my garage that are empty that I should probably go exchange. Right? So, I just, there's a lot in this that I think we need to work out. And I prefer the recycling mechanism.

I really do and I understand that, you know, last year's is last year and, you know, it's a new bill today. But anything you can comment, maybe or opposition or supporters like, we do not want people filling these tanks at home. We don't want that, and we want convenience.

If we're actually going to create a system where we want people to take a one-pound tank from a camping trip, we need to make it convenient for them as well. And I don't feel that we have that right now.

Sorry, sir. I would just, on the safety point, and maybe I might not have answered Mister Hoover, Assemblymember Hoover's question well, but if you're going to create an only in market for the reusable product, you ought to have something in there as, even as Assemblymember Bauer-Kahn said something to ensure safety.

Canada prohibits self-refilling of these cylinders, even the refillable ones. They prohibit self-refilling. They require these be filled by trained and licensed personnel. Well, that's, the Ontario, Canada, province of Ontario requires it to be done by trained and licensed personnel.

I mentioned the overfill protection device that it's lacking in the, in the, it's in the 20-pound tank, but it's lacking in the one pound refillable. You should require an overfill protection device in the refillable cylinder. If that's going to be the only product in the marketplace, then require an overfill protection device in it.

That'd be some suggestions for this committee to think about.

Yeah, absolutely.

So, if I can just mention one thing with products liability, you're going to develop a product that is actually safe for the marketplace. So, if that's what's required to make this refillable product safe, you as a manufacturer are going to do that. Otherwise, you're going to have significant product liability claims in the future.

So, I'm kind of scratching my head at some of that stuff.

Any comments, Senator?

Oh, I'll Reserve it for my close, if we ever get to it.

We should at some point. Is there another question from a committee member?

I just would like to hear what you have to say about the, if you have anything to add on the consumer protection side of this.

Well, I honestly believe what was said is there's product liability. It's going to incent it. We have till 2028 if there are any issues that really reserve. we'll deal with it.

And that I have an endorsement letter from the California Professional Firefighters because they think the current situation is at risk to firefighters, both in what the gases is occasionally left and when they have to go into homes, and they don't know when they're going in with regard to it.

So, I'm confident there's something, anything here we could deal with if it is not already dealt with. And the real issue is that it's not that there's existing recycle, there's existing disposal and the existing disposal presents risks as well that.

So, it's a balance sheet on the safety and we have to deal with, and we have an option to getting to completely safe.

Senator Laird, would you like to use that as your close?

I would. I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you. And thank you colleagues for this robust conversation. I think this bill has been on a multiyear trajectory because this, this policy conversation is important. This bill does enjoy a do pass record from the chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll? oh, do we have a motion, Miss Bauer-Kahan. In a second? By Assemblymember Friedman.

The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Cal].

Gail, are you going to present your bill?

We'll leave that bill on call. Would you like to do, Senator Gonzalez: 1182?

After much reflection, I'm prepared to present Senate Bill 1182 by Senator Gonzalez. I would begin by saying accepting the Committee's technical amendments and thanking the Committee staff for their work. This would require cross agency collaboration and communication on how California can keep its schools safe. It maintains thousands of acres of school grounds.

Students, faculty and staff who utilize these facilities each day are increasingly impacted by climate related threats. Frontline and Low income communities bear disproportionate amount of climate impacts. This Bill would establish a statewide plan that will better position California school districts to tackle the generational challenge of transitioning to climate resilient facilities.

Here to testify and support is Doctor Lisa Patel, clinical associate Professor of pediatrics at Stanford, and Tiffany Mock, legislative representative for the California Federation of Teachers. At the appropriate time, I would respect respectfully. Request an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. First witness, two minutes peace.

Thank you so much for hearing my testimony. I'm Doctor Lisa Patel. I'm a clinical associate Professor. In addition to being an environmental scientist and a mother to two children in San Francisco Unified School District, I'm here in support of SB 1182 to safeguard our children's health in a changing climate.

As a hospital based pediatrician who cares for premature infants, sick children, and, well, newborns. I have been on the front lines of how climate change is affecting our children's health, and doctors understand that climate change will be the greatest determinant of health for a child born today.

Our schools were built for a different century, and if we don't act now to prepare our school systems, it will threaten our children's lifetime of health and learning. For example, worsening heat waves make classrooms without air conditioning too dangerous for children. Last year shattered all records. This year will likely do the same as global warming intensifies.

In the hospital, I see more kids with asthma flares on hot days or smoky days, athletes who end up with kidney damage, and children with thermal burns from playground equipment that becomes overheated.

We also know that hot days result in poorer learning outcomes, with black and Hispanic children experiencing a 5% gap in standardized test scores compared to their white peers.

The EPA estimates that heat driven by climate change will result in a 7% decrease in annual academic achievement per child, which translates to billions of dollars lost annually from poorer rates of graduation, poor paying jobs, and inability to procure health insurance. Wildfire smoke also threatens kids health and learning.

We estimate that wildfire smoke is 10 times as toxic as regular air pollution from burning fossil fuels. Many of our schools are not equipped with updated or efficient HVAC systems to keep kids safe.

We estimate an 11%, 11% of asthma cases from air pollution will be driven by climate change, and children in California already miss 1.2 million days of school from asthma. We predict an increase in hospitalizations due to wildfire smoke by 50% by 2050.

For kids, it should be mission critical that every school offers safe air for a child to breathe, but they can't get there without help. The Bill can help align federal and state dollars to ensure we use our resources wisely to create safe, healthy spaces for children to thrive. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Two minutes, please.

Thank you Chair Members Tiffany Mock, representing CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals. CFT is in strong support of this legislation to ensure every student reaches their learning potential and to ensure that our schools epitomize the values of our community and create the best learning environment. This legislation truly epitomizes the reason we need collective action.

The cost for this master plan is just enough that no one single school district has a specific incentive to to create a guide of best practices for a school, both from the energy savings and to be a good Member of our community.

Whether a school has a campus that is a good model for solar panels, what type of heat pump makes best sense and how to start a green schoolyard. These are all decisions that take time, thoughtfulness, and financial resources.

This legislation will help a school find these answers in a best practices guide whose benefits will go far beyond one heat pump, a replaced roof, and will benefit the whole community. By having the state make a small investment, it will create large gains for our state, our students, and our world. For those reasons, we support 1182.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of SB 1182.

Mister Chair, Members. Mike West, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council in support. Thank you.

Nora Lynn, with Children Now in support.

Kayla Robinson, on behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition, in support. Thanks.

Good afternoon. Janice O'Malley, AFSCME California here in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sasha Horwitz, Los Angeles Unified School District and also on behalf of Los Angeles County Office of Education, in support.

Chair and Members, Norland Asbrik, on behalf of Rewiring America, in support.

Francesca Grici, on behalf of the Blue Green Alliance, in support.

Darrell Little with NRDC, in support. Thank you.

Cassie Mancini, on behalf of the California School Employees Association, in support.

Thank you so much. Anyone else in support of 1182? Seeing none. Any any opposition to SB 1182? Seeing none. Bring back Committee Members. Any questions from Committee? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

The motion is do pass as amended to education Committee. [Roll Call]

We'll leave it open for absent Members. Senator Skinner, presenting SB 1073.

Somebody can sit here. Somebody can sit here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, SB 1073 allows California to encourage the development of low carbon concrete and cement products, in effect, encourages the research and development and actual marketization of new technologies and new methods for producing concrete and cement. And why are we doing this?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, SB 1073 allows California to encourage the development of low carbon concrete and cement products, in effect, encourages the research and development and actual marketization of new technologies and new methods for producing concrete and cement. And why are we doing this?

Or why do we want to do this? Because the cement industry is one of the most difficult to decarbonize. Currently, that sector is responsible for 8% of global emissions. And as we move forward with our infrastructure plans, constructing new buildings, fixing our roads and bridges and such, we're obviously going to continue to use cement and concrete.

So we want to be able to have the lowest carbon, cement and concrete possible. Now, what does SB 1073 do? It allows for advance purchase agreements, and advanced procurement or purchase agreements have been used very successfully by the Federal Government, by DOE and other agencies to help bring to market clean energy technologies.

So DOE and DOE, for sure, DOT, Department of Transportation and others, have used these, and what 1073 does is allows state agencies, if they choose, it does not require to enter into contracts for future purchase of low carbon cement and concrete products.

So the agency would still use the specifications that they need for the durability of the material, for the ability, for the strength and all the things that you would expect. So there would be no change in that. It would just specify that they have a lower carbon content than currently available cement and concrete products.

The state agencies would still decide for what purposes they might want to use this, or even if they do want to. There's, again, as I said, no requirement that they take advantage of it.

But the benefit, if they do is that there, right now, there are many companies who are testing, developing, and also a few that are already in the market, but they're not yet so widely in the market that say they would be economically competitive, say, with other concrete or cement.

But by communicating through an advance purchase agreement, let's say 10 years from now, we want to purchase this, then it's sending that market signal that we want investors, we want companies to continue to work on this and to bring them to market, and if they meet our specifications, and if they're economically feasible, we'll buy them.

So that's really what the Bill does. And my witnesses in support are Simon Brandler, from the Decarbonized Cement and Concrete Alliance, representing some of the companies that are exactly doing this, and Lauren Kubiak from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Thank you very much. First witness, two minutes apiece please.

Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Lauren Kubiak, and I'm a senior scientist at NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council, speaking as a supporter and co-sponsor of SB 1073. SB 1073 authorizes state agencies to enter forward contracts to purchase low carbon cement and concrete products up to 10 years in advance.

Clarifying such authority will remove a key barrier to unlocking deep decarbonization of California cement sector, which is critical to achieving California's net zero greenhouse gas emissions targets for both its economy and cement sectors.

Cement, the key ingredient in concrete, is the building block of modern infrastructure and accounts for nearly 8% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Here in California, cement production is the second largest industrial source of greenhouse gas emissions. California has enacted legislation, including SB 596, requiring all cement used in California to be net zero emission by 2045.

Complementary policies, including ensuring that the state can purchase low emission cement and concrete, will be critical to meeting this goal. The U.S. Department of Energy, in its commercial liftoff report for cement decarbonization, has identified advanced procurement models as a tool necessary to scale ultra low emission cement and concrete.

SB 1073 clarifies this is a tool that California State agencies can deploy in line with the state's cement decarbonization efforts and climate targets at large. We greatly appreciate your "Aye" vote on this important issue.

Thank you so much. Next witness, please.

Thank you, Senator Skinner. Thank you, Chair Bryan, Vice Chair Flora, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of DC2, which is the Decarbonized Cement and Concrete Alliance, in strong support of Senate Bill 1073.

My name is Simon Brandler and I serve as VP for Policy and Public Affairs at Brimstone, an Oakland, California company with a deeply decarbonized process for making industry standard cement. We helped found DC2, which now consists of 12 innovative, U.S. based, venture backed companies with solutions to tackle cement and concrete emissions.

Four of those are based in California. Passage of SB 1073 would mark a significant milestone towards achieving California's climate goals and cleaning up a sector accounting for about seven and a half percent, or 8% of global carbon carbon emissions.

Achieving California's climate target goals depends on procuring cement and concrete with much lower carbon levels than anything commercially available at scale today. SB 1073 would clarify the discretion of California State agencies to secure sources of these essential materials years in advance.

Similar to power purchase agreements used to develop clean energy, this contractual tool would enable state agencies to create a pipeline of low carbon materials. Critically, these commission commitments would also unlock financing for emerging suppliers, allowing them to scale their processes sooner and bring transformational ultra low carbon cement and concrete solutions to the market.

SB 1073 would put California at the forefront of the growing national and international effort, including from the U.S. DOE and the First Movers Coalition, to use forward agreements, also called advanced market commitments, to catalyze the clean industrial transition for cement and concrete. We greatly appreciate Senator Skinner for introducing this important legislation and the Committee for its consideration.

I ask for your "Aye" vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of SB 1073? Name and organization, please.

Megan Shumway, on behalf of Climate Action California, Climate Health Now, Sacramento 350 in Sacramento. Act in support.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Chris Rosa, on behalf of the Sierra Club, in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition to SB 1073? You have two minutes.

Mister chair Members Brett Barrow with the National Electrical Contractors Association, the California Legislative Conference of the pumping, heating and piping industry, and united contractors, of which we're the largest union contractor contractors in the state doing roadways, bridges and highway work. We certainly support building clean and using clean materials.

However, we are here today opposed unless amended for reasons that go to the contractor's liability in a project and feasibility.

And currently, when a bid is awarded, the contractor will source the concrete for a project, especially highway project, that will be available and will meet the specifications of the state, including modifications that were needed for strength, temperature, color, etcetera.

And it's a very complex process, and we want to make sure that if the state uses this optional procurement method, which is a forward contract to purchase concrete, that it doesn't end up in a situation where the state purchases that concrete.

And then we find the contractor liable for supply issues, deliverability issues, or project completion issues, because ultimately that liability would fall on the contractor's head.

So we've asked for amendments that would say that the state should evaluate and warrant the feasibility of using these type of projects in the future, and that they would stand behind those products when they are used. And for those reasons, we are opposed unless amended. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in opposition to 1073? Seeing none. Bring about the Committee Members. Any questions from Committee Members? Mister Marutsuci.

Thank you. Senator, could you respond to the plea of the contractors to hold them free from liability?

Certainly. I've not seen language from them, but certainly we'll very open to those discussions. We'd obviously want to write that carefully because there could be other reasons that they have liability. So, but certainly if there was a.

If it were very narrowed to the use of a new cement or concrete product that was due to the state's low carbon goal, again, we'd have to come up with the wording carefully.

And I obviously would be also happy to talk to the state agencies too, to make sure that in doing so we were not further adding to state liability. So, but very open to that conversation.

Thank you very much. Did you have a response to that?

Yes, in fact we included our request and amendments in our letter of opposed unless amended. And so it essentially says the two things is that the state would evaluate the feasibility which, which, you know, says is the material capable of being installed in a successful manner.

Is it safe for health and safety project using materials can be designed to provide equivalent function, same useful life performance, durability as the baseline materials and onwards.

And that in fact, if it should fail, cause bodily injury and otherwise that doesn't fall back on the contractor because it's not the contractor who's purchasing and securing that supplier, it's ultimately the state. So I have that language. Okay.

And I'm now recalling some conversation not with the, with that, with your folks, but that there. And we'll have to go back and talk to agencies too. But that the, some of the language in the Bill gives that protection already because of the issue of that, it must meet the specifications that the state requires.

But I'm happy, like I said, I'm very happy to look into that further to make sure that it is properly addressed.

Thank you very much. Ms. Bauer-Kahan.

I think you just addressed this, but I guess I'm a little bit confused why if the standards are the same, there would be increased liability, which I think is what the Senator just said. But I guess that's my question.

So when we bid a project, we bid it based on the specifications that the state has laid out for the right.

And the Senator has said that nothing in these can be different than today's, which is why she's putting it 10 years out. She's not doing it tomorrow because they couldn't meet those standards tomorrow as I understand it. Is that right?

Right, which the state would in this case.

But the difference being. So we bid to the specifications and then we go as a contractor, find a supplier who can meet those specifications for the project and location that we're doing the project. We purchase that contract from them, our supplier then supplies the project and we've completed and hold liability for that.

Under the future purchase agreement, the state would be purchasing from a supplier, leaving the contractor out of that. So essentially the state is saying, we have secured this concrete, you must go use that concrete.

And if the contractor goes to use that concrete, from whatever supplier or multiple suppliers there are, and it becomes a problem either with supply or condition or strength, then the relationships, the contractors have been left out of, that it's.

Essentially. Yes.

Breach of contract liability you're concerned about.

Yes.

Got it. Okay. That makes more sense. Yes. And glad we could nail that down. Yes. Right. And that does make sense that if we are contracting in advance, that it does change that relationship. So hopefully you guys can continue to work on that. And that does seem distinct from liability for falling bridge or something of that nature.

I think this is actually a brilliant Bill, because I think it does exactly what the Senator says, which is really signal to the market this is where the state is going to go and put our money behind it. And I think that when we do that and we've done it in other spaces, innovation happens. Right.

Because the market feels confident they'll be able to sell the product they're innovating around. So I think it's a great Bill, but hopefully we can address this contracting issue.

You have my commitment.

Any other questions from the Committee? Right. Thank you, Senator. I don't think this is your first rodeo in the concrete space, actually, so. And I appreciate the dialogue from our colleagues, and I have every confidence that you'll work through. I mean, you have no intentions on hurting the contractors out there at all.

So I think we can sort through that as a do pass from the chair. I recommend that. We need a motion a second. I think we got it. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

The bill is out. We'll leave it up for absent members. Thank you, Senator. Next up, will we go to Senator Min, SB 1402.

I like that suit.

Oh, thank you.

Very stylish today.

I try. Thank you.

Go ahead and proceed, Mister Chair.

I'm sorry. Absolutely.

Thank you, Mister Chair and committee members. SB 1402 would require all state agencies to consider the 30 by 30 goal of trying to preserve and conserve at least 30% of California's land in coastal waters by the year 2030, whenever adopting, revising, or establishing plans, policies, and regulations.

In 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-8220 to adopt this goal. And then I authored a bill and a couple years ago to codify the 30 by 30 goal into law SB 337. I also want to thank this committee and the work of our colleague, Assembly Member Kalra, for your leadership on this issue as well.

We know that conservation is one of the best tools we have to prevent further extinctions, protect our biodiversity and ecosystems. And while California has made critical investments in conservation to further the 30 by 30 goal, my concern is that this goal needs further planning in our policies and regulations of our state agencies to gain hold.

I have no witnesses here today.

Thank you, Senator. So, any witnesses in support of SB 1402?

Hello. Kayla Robinson, on behalf of the environment front, East Bay Regional Park District, Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, California State Parks Foundation, and Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon. Melissa Romero with California Environmental Voters in support.

Thank you.

Megan Shumway, on behalf of Sacramento 350 in strong support, and also Sacramento Area Congregations Together in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition to SB 1402? Seeing none. Bringing back to the committee. Any questions committee members? Mister Kalra.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I think I'm constitutionally required to mention that I author AB 3830. And I'm very grateful to the work, Senator Min, the partnership in your strong leadership, and not just the codification, but the follow up legislation.

Because again, at the end of the day, not only do we need to track what we're doing, but we need to ensure that our agencies really have the 30 by 30 goals at the front end of their policy work.

And so, the thing is incredibly important, and it further assures that we're going to meet our goal, our 2030 goal. As difficult and challenging as it is, I'm confident we'll do it. And actually, I'm quite confident we'll exceed it because of legislation like this.

Thank you.

Any other questions from Committee? Seeing - oh, Miss Friedman.

Thanks. Well, I also want to acknowledge my colleague Ash Kalra's work in this area, and to thank you for bringing this bill forward. I chair a select committee on biodiversity, and biodiversity is only now really starting to be understood as the imperative that it needs to be.

We're in a crisis of mass extinctions, and climate change is incredibly important, of course, and kind of overarches everything, but biodiversity is really important as well, in 30 by 30, and making sure that it's real is tremendously important.

So, I just want to thank you for bringing this bill forward and for your leadership, and I'm very proud to support it today.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions from committee seeing? None. We need a motion. A second. We got a motion. We need a second. Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to Water Parks and Wildlife Committee. [Roll Call]

You're thinking about it. Thank you.

That bill is out, we'll leave it open. All right, colleagues, on Natural Resources, we are going to start from the top, so if you're not in the committee, please come on down. We're going to start with consent, and then we're going to start from item number one and move on down to file.

Consent calendar items are SB 941 Skinner, SB 972 Min, SB 1014 Dodd, SB 1101 Limon, SB 1136 Stern, SB 1176 Niello, SB 1207 Dahle, SB 1425 Gonzalez, and SB 1433 Limon. Absent members [Roll Call].

Bill has 10 votes. All right, we'll start with file item two, SB 951.

Motion is do pass as amended to Housing and Community Development. Absent members [Roll Call].

Bill has nine votes. We'll leave it open for a minute. Moving on to file item number five, SB 1045. We're good on that one?

Wiener goes to admission bill, and you're reflexively off.

Exactly. You're on the safe side.

All right. Going on to SB 1045 Blakespear.

Motion is do pass to Local Government Chair voting aye. Absent members [Roll Call].

Bill has nine votes. Moving on to file item number six, SB 1073 Skinner. Moving on to file number seven, SB 1077 Blakespear.

Motion is do pass as amended to Housing and Community Development. Absent members [Roll Call].

Bill has 10 votes. It's out. Moving on to file item number eight, SB 1092 Blakespear.

The motion is do pass to Local Government. Absent members [Roll Call].

Bill has 10 votes. It's out. Moving on to file item 10, 1113.

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. Absent members [Roll Call]

Bill has 10 votes. It's out. Moving on to file at number 12, SB 1159 Dodd.

The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. Absent members [Roll Call].

Those 10 votes, it's out. Moving on to file item number 14, SB 1182 Gonzalez.

Motion is do pass as amended to Education. Absent member [Roll Call]

That bill will leave open for the Chair. Moving on to file item number 16, SB 1280 Laird.

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. Absent member, [Roll Call].

Seven votes, it's out. We'll leave it open for a minute. Moving on to file number 18, Atkins SB 1342.

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Chair voting aye. Absent members [Roll Call].

Bill is 9 in votes. We'll leave it open for a minute. Moving on to file item -

Colleagues, everybody that's here is good. We're gonna leave the - we'll stay here till the Chair gets back. So, you're welcome to.

SB 1342 Atkins. [Roll Call].10 votes.

Bill is 10 votes.

Welcome back, Mister Chair. We're going to go to file item six, SB 1073.

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]. Has nine votes.

Those nine votes is out. Go on the file item 14, SB 1182.

Motion is do pass as amended to Education. [Roll Call]. That has eight votes. It's out.

Bill is out. Moving on to file item 19, SB 1402.

Motion is do pass to water Parks and Wildlife Committee. [Roll Call].

Bill is out. Mister Chair, it's all yours.

Thank you, Mister Vice Chair, for your leadership in this committee. If you'd like to gavel us out, this concludes Assembly Natural Resource Committee here today.