Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

Okay. Good morning. Senate Committee on Local Government will come to order. Thank you for joining us for this meeting of the Senate Committee on Local Government. We welcome the public in person, and we are holding our committees here in the state capitol. We are back.

I don't know if we'll have time for another hearing, but we may have to squeeze something else in. We only have one bill on today's agenda, AB 98, by Assembly Member Juan Carrillo and Assembly Member Eloise Reyes. So, I ask all Members of our Committee to come to Room 112. We can establish a quorum and begin the hearing.

This item is being considered under Senate Rule 29.10. This bill was substantially amended so the Senate Rules Committee has referred it to us to hear those changes. I can see by looking around me that we do not have a quorum. We will operate as a subcommittee.

I just want to remind everybody that we will have the presentation by the Assembly Members, and then each side will be permitted to lead witnesses who will have two minutes each for their testimony. So, they'll come up two minutes each and give their testimony. Everyone else other than the two for and the two against.

Everyone else will can come up and give their name, affiliation, and position on the bill. So, I think we'll get started. If we could have the Assembly Members please come up and make your presentation. Yes, right there. Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning.

However you want to go ahead and get started.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members, for having us today presenting this bill in front of you. Senators, our state, and our world's economy is increasingly relying on the movement, storage, and delivery of goods from all over the world.

The logistics industry has boomed over the past 15 years as the rise of e-commerce and our constituents' expectations for rapid shipping has grown. For nearly a decade, the Legislature, often led by my joint author, today, has grappled with how to protect impacted communities from the risk that heavy-duty diesel trucks present.

This fight predates my time here in the Legislature, but at the request of the speaker, I dedicated much of my time this year to helping find a just compromise. To address this issue, my staff and I tour logistic facilities in the surrounding communities in Southern California, Northern California, and the Central Valley.

Also, I've been a city planner for nearly 20 years. I'm a recovering city planner now. There is no doubt in my mind, and I think you'll agree, that there are places where houses should not be built. They are simply too close to people's homes, schools, and community.

Unfortunately, I saw more than a couple of warehouses that, as a city planner I would have never recommended for approval. It is my opinion that something needs to be done to protect vulnerable communities, and the status quo is not working.

It is also my opinion that creating laws that force warehouses to be built in the middle of nowhere or in other states is also not an acceptable outcome. The economic implications and the climate implications of forcing industry to the far corners of the state or worse, out of the state altogether would be a mistake.

Senators, this is a very delicate compromise that, as you will soon hear, has disappointed parties on both sides.

While that was not my hope when we started this process, I would argue that it's a sign that we did a pretty good job of finding a fair compromise that for the first time has a chance to improve the status quo. With that, I will turn it over to my joint co-author, Assembly Member Reyes.

Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Member, Senator. I'm here today along with my colleague Assembly Member Juan Carrillo to present AB 98. The journey to today has been long, but the issue has only become more severe with the passing years.

The proliferation of warehouses in the Inland Empire has been touted as a great economic gain for as a great economic gain for the Inland Empire with the jobs for local residents. The history of goods movement in California would be incomplete unless we talk about the role of San Bernardino and Riverside counties.

We were an area with lots of open land that has been developed in order to support the supply chain and support industry. The journey here has been long and trying, and I've always put the health of our community above all else in all of our conversations. Today we propose an important step.

We confirm that we want to minimize adverse impacts on residential communities and enhance transportation efficiency. And we confirmed that the impact on public health is a matter of statewide concern.

This is why we introduced AB 98, and this is why the speaker put together this working group and had my colleague, Assembly Member Juan Carrillo as Chair of Local Gov., Chair of that Committee. Many meetings and many months have passed since then.

AB 98 now proposes common sense policies relating to the siting and planning of logistics developments across California. As an Assembly Member representing the Inland Empire my community feels this acutely. The Inland Empire is home to over 4000 warehouses taking up over 1 billion sqft resulting in over 600,000 truck trips per day.

This has resulted in a public health crisis in my community where, among other things, we have the worst ozone pollution in the country according to the American Lung Association. AB 98 has been thoughtfully crafted. But I want to be clear.

This is not the perfect bill I do not believe the sensitive receptor setbacks in this bill adequately protect our most vulnerable communities. It is important to note that these, however, are only a minimum. And nothing in this bill stops cities or advocates for pushing to put in place stronger standards with local cities and counties.

This bill does have significant benefits, however, that move our community forward. AB 98 puts in place 21st-century building standards for new warehouses. It prohibits heavy-duty diesel truck aisles from being adjacent to a sensitive receptor property line.

AB 98 puts in place a mandatory update of truck routes statewide to ensure trucks do not route themselves through residential streets in our communities. AB 98 requires a two-for-one replacement for homes demolished in order to make room for more logistics, development, and 12 months' payment for displaced renters.

AB 98 puts in place significant property line buffers for new warehouses. AB 98 includes an interim report in 2028 that allows for us to track our progress in reducing emissions and to evaluate our next steps.

We have important partners and as my colleague has indicated, it appears that all of our partners in one way or another are unhappy with the final result. This has been a difficult process, but a very important one.

And what we have before us in AB 98 represents a compromise that provides for both protections of jobs and some standards that are going to help as we move forward in protecting our community while not stopping the industry altogether.

In summary, there is still work to be done and I believe passing AB 98 is a part of this work. This is a first step, not the last, and I look forward to working with everyone on the work ahead. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I think we're going to move on to our support witnesses. So, if our two support witnesses would come up here. Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Joe Cruz, on behalf of the Labor's International Union of North America, representing 80,000 hardworking construction workers throughout California, many who work directly in the industrial warehouse industry. And I'm proud to support AB 98 today with Assembly Members Carrillo and Reyes who share my passion for the community and workers.

Over the past several months, the laborers have worked tirelessly in good faith with many good key stakeholders, along with leadership in identifying a pragmatic and balanced approach to addressing air quality concerns in those very communities. My members working, but also protecting thousands of good paying jobs.

The laborers have spent years organizing the warehouse tilt up industry, especially in the Inland Empire and the Central Valley, where areas that have been hardest hit by unemployment. So, we're providing a really good pathway to the middle class by building these warehouses throughout the state.

California's ports and distribution centers are critical for a local state and our national economies and it's imperative that we come up with a comprehensive solution that improves the environment, continues to grow California, the 6th largest economy in the world, and supports goods movement which is key to to our very long-term economic health.

AB 98 brings innovative solutions to tackle immediate air quality, safety and supply chain issues while also bringing building standards that promote a real green, clean, 21st century warehouse in California.

The work associated with the industrial warehouse construction has provided opportunities for thousands of hard-working laborers to purchase homes where they work, to build for their family's future, and to live again in the communities that they work in and reside for years.

AB 98 is a well-thought-out compromise that will continue to grow the state's economy and drive down poverty. There'll be many groups who stand up today to oppose this bill, who say it doesn't go far enough. There will be many groups who oppose this bill who says it goes too far.

But I sit here right now and ask you respectfully to support this bill because it's fair. It's fair for workers, it's fair for businesses and it's fair for communities. Thank you for your time.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members, my name is Jassy Grewal, here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council to testify in support of AB 98. Research has well documented the negative environmental and health impacts of warehousing.

The diesel exhaust from logistics has contributed to worsening air quality, especially in San Bernardino and Riverside County, which have two of the worst levels of ozone in the United States.

Residents of San Bernardino County have reported higher levels of asthma, with the majority of census tracts in the City of San Bernardino having asthma rates 70% to 96% higher than that of other census tracts in California.

Across these two counties, there are over 4.6 million at-risk individuals being exposed to unhealthy levels of ozone and particle pollution each and every day. The negative impacts of warehousing development is now being felt by communities and workers all over the state, not just in the Inland Empire.

These impacts are compounded by the fact that warehousing is being disproportionately cited next to low-income communities of color. These communities are often working-class Latino and Black communities, older adults, and those living with preexisting health conditions, our members.

It is unjust to place the public health burden on historically disadvantaged communities who are seeing a staggering decline in their quality of life when these facilities are sited next to their homes, schools, parks, and other sensitive receptors.

AB 98 implements a statewide framework that deters the demolition of housing for warehouse development requires building standards that promote worker safety and sets a floor of standards for warehousing development and expansion that allows for local governments to strengthen. This bill, while not perfect, moves California in the right direction towards protecting our most vulnerable communities.

But more work is still needed. We strongly believe further protections are needed under this framework for logistics facilities smaller than 250,000, and stronger setback limits for sensitive receptors. Acknowledging that more work is needed, we have an opportunity today to establish a baseline standard of protections from warehouse development for all California communities. That is why we respectfully urge your aye vote today on AB 98.

Thank you very much. Okay, we will move on now to hearing. Yes, yes. Support. So, if everyone who is in support, if you would go up to the microphone and identify yourself and your organization and where if you're supporting, just clarify that you are supporting.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Todd.

Hold on just one second. Okay, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Todd Bloomstine, for the Southern California Contractors Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Matt Cremins on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Keith Dunn on behalf of the District Council of Ironworkers, as well as the state building Construction Trades Council, in support. We appreciate your hard work and years of dedication.

Manny Leon, California Alliance for Jobs in support.

Good morning. Mark Farouk on behalf of the California Hospital Association in support.

Morning. Melanie Parent on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California in support.

Good morning. Don Mattey for BNSF Railway, in support.

Good morning. Faith Conley, with Wyoming Group, on behalf of the Supply Chain Council. We are a tweener. We're looking forward to continue to provide technical expertise as we move forward on potential cleanup. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Chair and Members. Adam Regele on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, we have a neutral position, but would like to see this compromise advance. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Frank Molina on behalf of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Ryan Allain on behalf of the California Retailers Association. We have a neutral position as well and would allign our comments with the chamber. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Matt Sutton, with the Restaurant Association. We, too, are neutral. Our supplier network is large and vast and is interested in seeing a compromise on this issue. So, they do believe AB 98 represents that. And if we can get closer to compromise, that's where we're trying to get.

So we're not quite in support, but we're trying to get there. Thank you.

Thank you.

Nick Cammarota on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. We're neutral on the bill. Thank you.

Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association. We are also neutral. Thank you.

Okay. Anyone else in support? Okay. Seeing none. Okay. And as I have it, here is the two lead witnesses in opposition. If you would come up front, Andrea Vidaurre. Vidaurre. Welcome. And Mark Neuberger. Okay, welcome. Good morning.

Good morning. Chair and Members, my name is Andrea Vidaurre. I'm with The People's Collective for Environmental Justice. While I greatly respect the work that Assembly Member Carillo and Reyes have done to uplift the importance of addressing warehouse development, I must urge your no vote on AB 98.

I live and work with community members and workers in the Inland Empire who are the most impacted by warehouse development, some of whom are here today in opposition.

Every day we deal with the impacts of harmful land use decisions from warehousing, such as the over 100 days out of the year, it is unsafe to breathe outside, the all too constant pedestrian accidents and fatalities from truck routes, being too close to homes and schools, and most importantly, the looming threat that our life expectancy is at risk of being cut short because of where we live.

Instead of addressing the cumulative health impacts of warehouse development and bad land use, this bill seeks to set arbitrary setbacks, distances set from thin air that research at CARB shows is insufficient to protect public health.

This is among other issues that we think could have been improved in the bill if we were given a chance to provide input. We believe that ushering in a bill at the 11th hour with no opportunity for community input is the wrong and unjust way of addressing this issue.

We have fought countless warehouses from coming into the backyards of community members, which many of them fought or are fighting for setbacks larger than the inadequate setbacks that this bill would deem legal. This is not a reasonable compromise between groups. This is a bill.

This bill is a result of closed-door process that left out critical community voices. The striking list of opposition is evidence of the disconnect to the purpose of the bill according to the authors.

This law will harm our local organizing work to push for stronger health-protective land use policies by green lighting business as usual as an acceptable practice. We want to see comprehensive solutions to warehousing that includes community input. Thank you for your consideration. I urge you to vote no on AB 98.

Thank you. Go ahead, sir.

Good morning. Mark Neuberger with the California State Association of Counties, also providing remarks on behalf of Cal Cites.

Our major concern, first off, is that AB 98 was introduced for the first time in the final days of the legislative session after months of exclusive closed-door negotiations which excluded CSAC, Cal Cities, and other relevant local government associations and key stakeholders.

While the bill's intentions are aimed at addressing air quality and related concerns adjacent to warehouse operations, its stringent requirements will severely impact the ability of local jurisdictions to site based on unique geographic and community characteristics, which is the guiding thought process behind local control, allowing local leaders to adapt development to local realities and limitations.

This is especially true in rural settings where agricultural logistics centers and warehouses will be impacted by this bill and have a different set of concerns that local governments address. However, this bill may either conflict or create new requirements for these projects that don't make any sense in rural settings.

The bill would also likely stifle economic and workforce development plans that have been developed in these communities with community input.

AB 98 also overrides existing good neighbor policies that cities and counties have developed where locals have determined appropriate setback requirements and conditions for logistic use developments based on specific geographic and regional factors in their communities and would also allow local and it also has been allowed through local governments the ability to engage the public to develop these good neighbor policies.

We believe local governments should retain the ability to exercise local discretion when citing local logistic use developments prior to any state mandated conditions being provided, as this bill would provide.

Many cities and counties would also not want to encourage citing housing or other conflicting uses with logistic center, which this bill allows for the collocation of these conflicting uses to get out of the bill's provisions. I also want to touch on the circulation element and enforcement.

AB 98 expressed an extensive circulation element update requirement on all local government cities and counties with no regard for the actual development of logistic-use warehouses in their communities. Additionally, local governments are looking at being required to update four additional elements unrelated to this bill in the same timeframe, which is unrealistic, and we believe unreasonable.

Further, many of the truck route provisions in this bill may violate existing federal regulations focused on prohibiting local barriers to interstate commerce activities that medium and heavy-duty trucks are engaged in. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, everyone in opposition who wishes to come forward again, please give your name and organization. Hold on just one second so we can get some folks. Okay, go ahead, get started.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Lauren De Valencia here today representing the American Planning Association, here also respectfully in opposition, I would echo my comment, the comments raised by my colleague at CSAC, particularly on the circulation element. Our members will be charged with implementing the bill, so just really have concerns on that implementation. Thank you so much.

Okay, I just want to remind everybody just your name, your organization and where you stand. Thank you very much.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of San Bernardino County in respectful opposition.

Trisha Almeron on behalf of the City of Ontario, in opposition.

Max Perry on behalf of the City of Rialto, also in opposition.

Melissa Sparks-Kranz with the League of California Cities as well as the Rural County Representatives of California, in opposition.

Cassandra Mar on behalf of the town of Apple Valley, in respectful opposition.

Mark Fenstermaker on behalf of Earth Justice, respectfully, in opposition.

Horace Gonzalez on behalf of the California Business Roundtable, in opposition.

Andrew Mendoza on behalf of the California Building Officials, in respectful opposition.

Josh Gauger on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, in opposition.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors, in opposition. Thank you.

Karen Lange on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Dane Hutchings, in opposition on behalf of the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Corona, Eastvale, Beaumont, Merced, and I've also been asked to provide opposition on behalf of the California Association for Local Economic Development.

Daniel Conway, California Grocers Association, also in opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Ross Buckley on behalf of South Coast Air Quality Management District, in opposition. With your permission, do you mind if I say a little bit more?

No, you can't. Sorry. Otherwise we'd have to give it to everybody. Thank you.

Esmeralda Tavarez with Concerned Neighbors of Bloomington, in opposition.

Audrey Ratajczak, on behalf of Sacramento County, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Skyler Wonnacott, on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, BOMA California, and NAIOP California, in opposition.

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

Asha Sharma, on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Clean Earth for Kids, and Sierra Club, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Alondra Mateo, on behalf of Unite for Colton, Robert Redford Conservancy, and Focus Nuevo in opposition.

Good morning. Daniela Vargas here with Concerned Neighbors of Bloomington, in opposition.

Hello. Carla Cervantes, on behalf of Mead Valley Coalition for Clean Air, Inland Valley Alliance for Environmental Justice, Perris Neighbors in Action, Riverside Neighbors Opposing Warehouses. We oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Tanya Gonzalez, on behalf of the People's Collective for Environmental Justice, Warehouse Workers Resource Center, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, Yucaipa Valley Conservancy, and Save Yucaipa. We oppose this bill as well.

[Testimony in Spanish]

Thank you.

Gracias.

Hi, my name is Ana. I'm from San Bernardino, and I don't approve this bill.

[Testimony in Spanish]

Gracias.

Good morning. My name is Jose Solorzano, and I'm also against this bill.

Good morning. Katie Valenzuela with the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition. Also, on behalf of the Central California Environmental Justice Network and the Carbon Cycle Institute, in opposition. Thank you.

Doctor Catherine Garoupa on behalf of the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition, Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment, and Clean Water Action in opposition.

Good morning, Senators. Matthew Baker, Planning Conservation League, respectfully opposed.

Good morning, chair and Members. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of Community Alliance with Family Farmers in opposition.

Phoebe Seaton with Leadership Council. Also, on behalf of PSR-LA, Fresno Building Healthy Communities, and Central California Asthma Coalition in respectful opposition.

Jonathan Pruitt on behalf of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, the Coalition for Environmental Equity and Economics, and the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, respectfully, opposition.

Tobias Wolken with the California Taxpayers Association in respectful opposition.

Sharon Gonzalves on behalf of the City of Bakersfield in opposition.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Okay, seeing none before we go on to the Members for your questions and comments, we want to establish quorum.

[Roll call] You have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Okay, I'll open up to our Members here, my colleagues, any questions or comments? Oh, Senator Wiener. Sorry.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I move the bill. I want to thank the authors, and I know especially Assembly Member Reyes, I know you for years, this has been an ongoing issue, and I've watched it. It's actually come to the predecessor of this Committee before, and ultimately it wasn't able to move.

And I know this is an incredibly hard issue, and it's always, I know, sort of an interesting situation when you have the Business Roundtable and Earth Justice testifying back-to-back against your bill. And it is the bill. This bill is a compromise, and there are folks on both sides who are unhappy with that.

And I completely respect that. This is an incredibly hard issue in terms of how do we have a functioning system of warehouses and that economy and also protect public health. And I think you're trying to navigate that. Obviously, not everyone agrees with it, but I commend you for doing that work, and I'll be supporting the bill today. And again, I move the bill.

Thank you. I want to express my appreciation to both of you for your work on this. It is progress. It will improve the circumstance in terms of air quality in the area.

And again, as my colleague from San Francisco said, and I think you probably did, though I wasn't able to hear your opening, it wasn't everything that you wanted. However, it is progress, and that's what I think is hard for some of us. It is legitimate to be concerned.

Well, if we move on this, will that freeze it at this? Will there never be any further motion? But actually, in my experience, and this is now the end of my 14 years in the Legislature, while I'm not someone who necessarily likes incremental, it often has to happen that way.

And that we have to make progress and then let that progress, let it show how it's working or not working, and then we make additional improvements or changes. And I think that's the spirit that you have done this. And with that, I will also be supporting your bill.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. I would just like to understand the stakeholder engagement process in developing this specific language. You know, I just want to highlight that many of the opposition folks have stated that they were not involved in the conversation, specifically the environmental justice group. So I'd like to hear.

There was a warehouse working group that was on the table from both sides. And I know that there is a feeling that not everybody was allowed to be able to participate. But this issue, as both of you mentioned, as the Assembly Member Reyes knows very well, it's been in conversations for years.

We had to take an approach where we had a working group. That working group was on the table from both sides of the business community as well as the EJ community. And if the Assemblywoman wants to elaborate.

And who from the EJ communities were involved?

From what community? The EJ community?

Yeah, you stated it. Right? So, who on that your list was involved?

Do you know better than community than I do?

What's that?

Cal Enviro. Voters.

Cal Enviro. Voters. Okay. And that was the only group?

I believe so.

Okay. Would you like to?

I'm sorry.

Through the chair.

Thank you. Okay, go ahead.

Thank you. Sorry. First time. I don't believe Cal Enviro. Voters represents environmental justice frontline communities. So, I. And there were zero environmental justice communities that represent neighborhoods in that Committee.

Okay. Assembly Member Reyes, do you want to address that? I know you have been involved in this for many, many years. If you could respond to my colleague's question.

I initially, I was not part of the workgroup also. There was an attempt to include business. There was an attempt to include labor.

And the representative for Cal Enviro. Voters, Jenna Price, also communicated, perhaps limited in a limited way, but communicated with CEHA, communicated with EJ groups, including the People's Collective for Environmental Jjustice, in a limited way, and also CCAJ, specifically in our community. I don't know which others.

Okay. And the reason why I ask, and I understood.

Just one second. Could you? Let me, let me. Okay, go ahead. What's the name of. If you could say what it stands for.

You know, I know it's for communities for environmental justice. They are the group that had been here during the last hearings providing testimony. And I am absolutely.

I'm sorry that I cannot remember the acronym, what the acronym means, but it is the longest-standing environmental justice group in the Inland Empire, which is along with the People's Collective for Environmental Justice and so many others that have fought tirelessly for the community.

Okay, let's go back. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. The reason why I speak about this, and I know that compromise, as our Senator stated, is incredibly important, especially on difficult issues, especially if we're trying to make some changes.

One of the reasons why I'm concerned is because I represent a large community of color, and oftentimes the folks and the neighbors that live in the surrounding areas that we are trying to govern are not part of that conversation. And many of them, especially communities of color, immigrant communities, don't even know conversations are happening. Right?

So, there is a lack of engagement to begin with. That is problematic for me. And I do want to highlight that also.

The fact that the California Manufacturers and Technology Association are also here, and specifically in my district, D 10 has dozens of manufacturers that would be encompassed in this bill, and yet they weren't consulted in this bill as well.

And just in one of my main cities of Fremont, we have 900 manufacturers in my city, more than any other city in the State of California. Right? And when you have environmental justice groups, as well as, you know, the business community and so forth, I still believe that there's work to be done. That is my concern.

Not a big fan of incremental change. I like to, you know, make sure that, you know, we're moving the ball forward. And I also really value the community voice. Right? That was clearly not at the table.

I will be supporting this bill out of here, but I also would like to have more conversations as we're moving forward, and some cleanup done. I know that you guys have worked with a lot of different stakeholders. I know this is a little bit last minute put on our plate.

And I don't think it's necessarily fair, but I will continue the process and the dialogue for you guys. So, thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? Senator Seyarto?

So, there is a lot to unpack here. I've sat in the house with you while you tried to address this issue in the last three years, and there are reasons why it didn't get further.

But two days before end of session to appropriately address the issues that are raised by these amendments in a Committee hearing that is supposed to be done in 10 minutes is not an appropriate forum for the complexity of this issue. I have an additional question that kind of follows up on her.

What Cal City representative and what CSAC representative were part of the working group? Can you give me their names?

We consulted with several groups out of the working table back and forth throughout the process. This was put in place since March.

What part of - who on CalCities and who in CSAC? Because I was part of calcites at one time, I was the President of the, the mayors and councils.

So I would expect that me or somebody we knew associated with somebody representing our cities who are being affected by this would be at that table to discuss this issue with you. Is that, did that happen or.

They were not cities. Specific cities were not on the table, no.

There were no city representation counties, because there's a lot of unincorporated areas that are having this type of growth.

No specific cities or counties were at the table.

No. Okay. So they were not at the table.

I think you've asked it a few times. So any more questions?

Yeah, I have a lot of questions. If we're going to discuss this particular issue in a region that I live in and I grew up in, yes, I have a lot to say about this because as far as-

Specific questions. Thank you.

Well, they're not specific questions. They're also comments.

This involves the housing element, it involves a circulation element change, it involves public safety, it involves all of those things. And we're putting on cities to try to get this done in our area in Riverside and San Bernardino county by 2026, or they're going to get $50,000 fines. Is that correct?

Every six months in my area, yes, that is correct.

Okay, you're a planner. You've worked for cities?

Yes, sir.

When cities are competing for the same people to try to update their general plans, because when you have these circulation element changes, everything else changes too. And you have to do a general plan update. Those general plan updates cost millions of dollars in fees because you have to also do a new CEQA environment document.

So there's a bunch of stuff that goes with that. And you're talking about having this done by 2026, which is in 18 months. I've been involved in a lot of these. I've not seen one that has been able to do that.

That surprises me that we think we can get this done and then start fining cities $50,000 every six months because they weren't able to get it done. So that's another issue I have with this, the air quality issues in that region.

For somebody that actually grew up there and have a full understanding of what it was versus what it is now, it was a whole lot worse when I grew up there and we didn't have a bunch of warehouses.

The reason it is so bad out there is because the air, the prevailing winds blow all of the smog from the basin, the LA basin, the Southern California basin into that region and it trap, and the mountains trap it there and we have an inversion layer that traps it there. That's why our air quality is so bad.

So yes, there are a lot of things that we've been doing over the last 20 years to 40 years to fix that. I forgot how old I am, and it is a lot better than it used to be. But if this is all hinged on the diesel particulate, we're getting rid of the diesel.

So why would we go through all these changes and make all these restrictions on what communities can do if the diesel part of this is going to go away in just a few years here? Because all these industries are spending millions of dollars updating their stuff so that they can get rid of the diesel.

So if the diesel is not there, then what part of the air particulate environment are we basing some of these regulations on?

Thank you for your question, and I appreciate that you feel that the air quality is the best. The American Lung Association does their studies. We've been receiving the award, not just San Bernardino, county, but Riverside County, for the worst pollution areas in America. That doesn't happen just because we're in a valley. That's one of the factors.

But I appreciate that. I think that it's so important to set the guard rails because we're talking about the investment of business and I absolutely appreciate that. And I want businesses to come in, but I want us to recognize that the health of our community has to be one of those considerations.

As you're figuring out what your truck route is, if you're going by the sensitive receptors and you can go elsewhere, go elsewhere. So if there have been so many mistakes made over the years, there has to be a beginning to start riding that ship. We've got to begin doing things the right way.

And if it cannot be done by 2026, as to the circulation element, then the conversations have to be done with the Attorney General's Office. There can be cleanup legislation, there can be many other things. I'd love to work with you on that, but something has to be done.

We cannot continue with the status quo and continue to allow our communities, and as has been mentioned, it's usually the poorest, the immigrant, the black, the brown communities that have the warehouses built right next to them or within a very short, short distance.

So there is, I want to make a point of clarification, I didn't see our air quality as the best. I said it's the worst for a reason, and I gave those reasons.

So who better to figure out a truck circulation element based on what you're building in your community than those communities and the local planners that know the streets, that know the traffic patterns, that know all of those things?

Who better to do that than them without the state telling them how and when and how they have to do that? An example in our district, Riverside, had one of these big projects, and it's on hold because they're making them change part of that project.

What that shows is that local government, whether it's the county or the city, are the people that should be in charge of determining how those go. Not people that live in Northern California, that have never, ever been in our district. They don't know our cities like we do. This is a local control issue.

That was the issue the last two years is you're taking away local control. You're punishing them and trying to make them do something they cannot get done. And that's what I'm talking about. All on the premise that the diesel particulate is going to kill everybody. But we're getting rid of that. So that doesn't make sense to me.

And certainly there's a lot more to be unwrapped in this. But because we are here at the end of our session and trying to deal with something that is so much more complex, and I'm sure this is probably going to be one of the last things that we have to deal with at midnight on Saturday night.

And I think it's wrong. I think the process that we used to get here is wrong. And I think the process that we used to negotiate this thing was wrong. So that's all I have for this. I will not be supporting this. And I look forward to further discussions on how we can make our region better.

Because I live there and I want it to be better.

I live there, too, born and raised.

So was I.

Senator, I would just like to make a comment. I don't have any questions. It's been obvious to me through the discussions here today that there's been a whole lot of folks left out. And I think that's unfortunate that here we are at the last of the session, and we have, you know, a cooked deal.

Uncooked, I should say. And we're jamming it through. Obviously, the EJ community hasn't been there. The counties haven't been there. It's been stated with the authors of the bill that they really don't even know who they are. They're asking their staff to who was there, who was not there.

So this has been cooked in the smoke-filled backrooms and I think it's unfortunate for Californians to have to at the last minute deal with this situation and not in a way that is out front and open to California. So I will not be supporting the bill today.

I have a few questions. Assemblymember Reyes or Carrillo, can you just, in a short version highlight the key changes that you consider are going to change from the status quo?

Yes. Thank you. There will be new building standards for all new warehouses built after 1126. Heavy-duty diesel truck aisles will not be allowed adjacent to sensitive receptor property lines. Mandatory update. Truck routes will be required to ensure trucks do not route themselves through residential streets and communities.

It will require two for one replacement for homes demolished in order to make room for these warehouses and also for the renters who are displaced to pay them for 12 months. It will additionally have a buffer next to the property line next to a sensitive receptor, 50ft or 100ft depending on the measurement of the warehouse.

Although in San Bernardino Riverside County it will always be 100ft. This will include trees and shrubbery, irrigation, a wall to protect the sensitive receptors, and it will also include an interim report so that we can see what the progress is.

If this progress is enough that the community's health is not being harmed, something to be taken into consideration, but if these studies prove to us what others have, that the community is being harmed by this, then we do have to revisit it.

It's important and it is stated that we recognize that the movement and storage of freight and the impact of this activity on public health and communities across the state are a matter of statewide concern. This is extremely important.

If we are concerned for all of Californians, then we need to be able to put standards that all Californians are going to have to abide by. And our local communities can look at this as a floor.

We have some communities that are doing more than is listed here and they have every right to and they have an obligation to for their local residents because every city is different, every county is different. But to set at least a floor. Thank you.

I'd like to ask Miss Andrea, I just want to make sure I didn't mispronounce your last name. If you could highlight, you know, in a quick, short way, the issues that you think that still need to be addressed.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I assume there's some of this or some portion of this that you agree with, but if you could describe what more, what other areas that you think could be improved upon.

Sure, I'll try to go on the same way that assemblymember Reyes did. So she mentioned the building code standards.

My understanding, and I wish we could have let South Coast AQMD talk because I'm actually interested in their opposition because we helped pass a warehouse indirect source rule years ago which are gonna that address 4000 warehouses in the region starting at 100,000 sqft, not 250,000 sqft like this bill does.

And it does have building standards and it does push them to slowly electrify over the next couple of years. So that was a big question mark for me. Like how does this interact with that regulation and does it make it weaker?

Because that's the last thing we would want, because that was also decades of people fighting at the air district. The other part was the truck routes. We have a lot of communities already living off of arterials, so I'm kind of unsure how this would help those communities.

And if we had more warehousing on arterials, would that mean that homes and schools and parks on arterials would now be truck, would have more truck congestion? Okay. Anyways, third point, we talked a little bit about the housing replacement. The housing replacement is the good part. Do I think it's in replace for everything else? Absolutely not.

I think it can be a standalone thing and I'd love to work on that next year because that is true. There is a physical and emotional trauma happening from the displacement from warehouses in our region. And then lastly is the buffer. The buffer comes out of thin air. Like there is no logic behind 300ft and 500ft.

CARB says at minimum 1000ft. And to be honest, our organizations, based on both the anecdotal evidence that we have and then also the scientific evidence, we think those buffers have to be huge. And to be honest, this isn't an issue of numbers anymore. This is an issue of how we're doing land use.

Stepping back and actually making sure industrial sites are staying in industrial places and residents are staying in resident places. And our buffers look different. They're just not a couple feet away.

Because in the letter that over 30 environmental justice organizations sent, we showed you, we show multiple examples of how the warehouses that were so highly contested in the region would be okay. And I also know the regions we work with.

It's pretty ironic to be in opposition with folks that are the ones that keep the floor so low. But I know that is going to be a ceiling, so I'm not, I'm not looking forward to that. And so there, there are warehouses. Sure.

You said it's going to be a ceiling.

I would have, I would think it would be looked at as a ceiling, not a floor. I would think that warehouses right now that are at 500ft at best would be like, okay, we're following the law now, and that's not protective enough.

We need to be taking a step back and looking at how warehousing is not encroaching into communities. And that's a larger land use issue. Yeah, I'm sure there's more parts of this, but it was just so last minute that I. Yeah, and we weren't involved in the process.

So I don't know how many more details I can give, but I think some pieces are good. I just think it's, the other parts need a lot of work. And if we were there, we could provide that.

Do you have any reason to think that improvements couldn't be made on this? Because we go through this a lot and my colleagues here. Right. Every time we're pushing for all the things that we believe in.

I know and thank you and everyone here who was active on the issue of a healthier community, and I commend you for that. I don't think we would have even this proposal for law weren't for the activism of the community and all the organizations. And that's why we're here. That's why we have what we have.

So the, you know, some of us see it as a potential. Here's an opportunity to move forward, but still not have everything that we believe and we'll continue fighting for.

Why are you not convinced that this is, this is a good step forward with all of the issues that were listed, one, and Assembly Member Reyes in particular, in that area, because she represents that area, has invested many, many years with you.

I remember when this issue has come up before in the committee and didn't win, didn't have anything to move forward. I think you were fine. Go ahead, try again.

No.

Hello. Okay, there we go. I think it was to my first point, I am unsure, I don't think that this, the benefits of this is better than what we have now. So I don't. I. Yeah, I mean, I just, I just stated that we have a regulation that addresses warehouses that start at 100,000 sqft.

That buffer is what we're dealing with right now. So we don't think that this is necessarily an improvement and I respect and appreciate Assemblymember Reyes' work to get us here, but we're not done yet. This isn't it.

Well, I would hope it's not done. You mentioned the south coast. Maybe we could have them come up and speak for a minute or two since our. I don't want to give more time than what our key witnesses did, but if you want to make a few comments.

Yeah. Thank you, chair and members. Ross Buckley, South Coast AQMD. South Coast has a number of concerns around the modeling and monitoring study proposed that require extensive work and potentially divert limited agency resources. We've not had time to scope this fully out, but it likely costs several million dollars and takes several years.

We've also conducted extensive mobile monitoring already as part of the AB 617 efforts and also conducted comprehensive monitoring and modeling analysis as part of the MATES study. We think the study is potentially duplicative. The sifter approach dictating how we should conduct outreach for penalties for single world's also problematic.

I will just say we've had a number of conversations with both authors about these issues over the year, and we appreciate their work on this issue. But, you know, we're reacting to language that was put in print this week, so we're still, we're still conducting analysis of that.

Can I just ask you one more question? I'm not sure of all the implications of this, but do you have an indirect source rule?

Yes. Sorry? Yes.

If you could comment on that.

Indirect source warehouse rule that we have put in place and worked with many stakeholders over many years on that issue. Yes.

Okay.

I have a question for either of the two authors, co authors. Where do you see or how do we handle the enforcement and compliance on a number of these issues?

Well, the local governments will have the ability to enforce it. As far as the development standards placed through this bill, they will have to make sure that the development proposals meet these requirements. And if local jurisdictions still have more restrictive mechanisms, they are always welcome to use that as what other enforcements the air quality.

There is going to be a report in 2028, I believe, something that we talked about, both authors, something that Miss Reyes wanted to make sure that we had a report to see how the industry keeps improving. As mentioned by one of the Senators, with industry improvements in technology, the particulates, other alternative fuels, those will improve over time.

We don't have that as of yet. We're not capable of providing that through the study that Miss Reyes requested be put on the bill to see how things are improving. That's a way to enforce what's being put on the bill. I'll be happy to address any other specific enforcements that you are asking.

Or maybe Miss Reyes can do that too.

Yes, go ahead, Miss Assembly Member.

On the indirect source rule. Specifically, I think we need to be clear that that is monitoring the trucks. The bill that we have today has to do with land use. And if there is any conflict, there was lots of involvement for that indirect source rule that was received from CARB.

And if there is any conflict, we need to resolve that in cleanup legislation because that was long and hard fought. That is important. I would also say that AQMD said that they've done a lot of studies with AB 617 and that some of that information would be duplicative.

Something else that we can consider for the future is to make clear that we don't want them to have to duplicate their efforts. We just need a study.

So if they have preliminary study results from AB 617 and it included two of our communities in the Inland Empire, there may be others, but two that I am, that I am intimately involved and aware of. We don't want it to be duplicative.

We want a report so that any decision on these setbacks can be an informed decision. We are told that what we have now is too old, the studies are too old. We need something that is more recent. And I don't know if that answered the question because I may have missed part of it. Okay.

Okay. I think we're any. If there aren't any more questions, I'll just make a few comments.

Again, I said this a few minutes ago, have enormous amount of respect for the activism, including the Assembly Members, who have been very active, having been in a hearing before, and knowing that what it means to completely walk out the door and not have anything in our hands to be able to show the next step that we're taking.

I think you all should take credit for the progress that's been made in this bill, even though it does not cover everything that needs to be done in that community. I must say, for the local governments, I think, to say, not to move forward with this, taking away their powers.

Local government has had the power, and in some cases, because of the community, has implemented stricter and better protections for public health. But overall, this has been in the hands of local government. Local government has failed.

And so to try to say, let's keep it and restrict it to local government, I think, is not the way we want to go. We certainly want local government to do better than what we're doing at the state level. But certainly local government without the push of the community.

Has not taken the public health serious the way that it should. I see, obviously things that will change the status quo. But much, much more needs to be done. And I certainly would be an ally for that. For all these reasons and other testimony, I would be supporting and urge an aye vote.

Can we take the vote? Oh, yes. Recognize Senator Weiner's motion?

Motion is do pass to appropriations [Roll Call] 4-2.

Motion - measure's out. Yes. Thank you all very much. Wait, wait. Here we go. Okay, the bill is out. We have concluded the agenda. And the Senate Committee on Local Government is adjourned.