Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Welcome to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee hearing. Apologize for folks who've been waiting for a while. We start at 2:30. Want to make sure that we stay accessible for everybody who wants to be here and has a right to be here. We have 21 measures on the agenda today. The following four measures are proposed for consent.

Item one, AB14, Hart. Item nine, AB663, McKinner. Item 14, AB907, Chen. And item 21, AB1457. Bryan. In the absence of a quorum, we're going to start as a Subcommitee. I see our first author in the building. Madam Majority Leader, whenever you're ready.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Since 2011, California consumers have paid a carpet recycling fee when purchasing carpet. This fee funds the Carpet America Recovery Effort or care, which carpet manufacturers manage under CalRecycles' oversight.

I started working on this issue in 2022 when a carpet recycling company reached out to me about a plant in my district that ultimately shut down. That is why I introduced AB863 in 2023 to increase transparency, accountability and support for the California Consumer Funded Carpet Program.

This Bill, AB80, takes the next step to ensure those improvements are implemented effectively. AB80 strengthens carpet recycling in California by making key improvements. It requires CalRecycle to adopt the regulations mandated by AB 863 by January 1, 2026 ensuring the program moves forward without delay.

To improve recyclability, AB80 expands the number of collection sites, making carpet recycling more accessible. It also strengthens back stamping and and ingredient reporting standards, allowing recyclers to identify and sort carpet materials more easily. By improving governance, expanding collection opportunities and refining recycling standards, AB80 creates a more effective and transparent carpet recycling system.

With me to testify in support of this Bill is Jason Schmelzer with the California Product Stewardship Council and Randy Pollock representing CARE.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, Jason Schmelzer here on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, one of the co sponsors of the Bill. Also here to support on behalf of SWANA and Stop Waste. As the Member mentioned, this is a follow up to 863 from last year. Taking care of some last final issues.

She already walked through the various changes, so I'm happy to skip it. Answer any questions if you need me to, but here in strong support of the Bill.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, Randy Pollock, on behalf of the Carpet and Rug Institute, we are in support of this Bill. We think there's making changes that help make this program much more effective. We want to thank the Majority Leader and also SPSC. We've been having some very good conversations.

There'll probably be a few more changes, but we're working towards, towards an agreement. Thank you very much.

Well, I appreciate how well prepared y'all were. Anybody in the hearing room who's in support of this measure?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Mike West on behalf of the State Building Trades, in support. Thank you. Thank you, Mike.

Good afternoon Chair. John Shack with the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades. We're in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members Pete Escalera, Local 1247 Floor Layers, with little under a thousand men and women floor installers. We support this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. April Robinson with A Voice for Choice Advocacy, in support.

Good afternoon. Alison Wolaszewski with the Five Gyrus Institute, in support. Thank you.

Crystal Raines on behalf of Californians Against Waste, in support.

Mandi Strella on behalf of Rethink Waste, in support.

Anybody? Is there anybody in this hearing room who's in opposition to this measure? Not a soul. Questions and comments from my colleagues on the Committee. Seeing none. Madam Majority Leader, would you like to close?

The Bill before you is a product of constructive conversations with CARE and the other stakeholders involved in carpet recycling. I want to thank Randy and everyone who's been a part of those conversations for this year. You know, obviously with the main opponent of last year Bill now testifying about our progress together, we've made some great strides.

I will continue to work with you to improve the California Carpet Recycling Program and ensure AB 863 is implemented effectively. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. At the appropriate time, we will do a roll call on that Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next. My dear friend, Assembly Member Irwin.

Thank you so much. Mr. Chair and Members. I would like to begin by accepting the Committee amendments outlined on pages 4 and 5 of the Committee analysis. California has committed to the ambitious goal of conserving 30% of our lands and coastal waters by 2030. This is commonly referred to as 30 by 30.

To help contribute to this goal, AB452 will create a voluntary process for local governments to establish state surf reserves. This bill will require the Coastal Conservancy to establish criteria and an application process for local governments to designate an area of the coastline as a state surf Reserve.

California is home to a number of world renowned surf breaks including Malibu, Rincon Trestles and Mavericks Though the state does not officially recognize them. Specific recognition of surf reserves will allow local communities to identify and plan for ecological protections and continue efforts at water quality improvement and ensure enduring conservation of California's cherished surf breaks.

And this is also a. This would be great for tourism. We can imagine surfers saying hey, we want to make sure that we try out every surf Reserve in California. And I think right now we only have two recognized, but we would like to expand that.

And with me in support of the bill is Donna Myers on behalf of Save the Waves Coalition.

Thank you Members, Chair. Good afternoon Chair Bryan and Members of the Committee. My name is Donna Myers and I'm the Director of Conservation Impact at Save the Waves Coalition. And with me today is Sean Burns, our Reserves Network Coordinator and a professional surfer for O'Neal.

We are here today to support AB452 and to ask for your support of this important Bill Increasing. Excuse me. Creating a process for designating California Surf Reserves. Save the Waves Coalition is headquartered in Santa Cruz. Our programs of creating world Surfing Reserve and surf protected areas is global, globally focused. We work in 10 countries including the U.S.

our programs protect areas where surfing waves are co located with biologically diverse coastlines, cultural history of surfing and communities that support and steward surfing as a cultural and an economic principle.

Establishing a process to designate California Surf reserves aligns with coastal communities around the world that are providing legal protections and identifying stories stewardship and management actions for surfing areas. In 2018, surfing was officially designated the California State Sport.

Approving this process for California establishes the state as a leader in surf ecosystem conservation and provides a pathway for California's 300 plus surf breaks to be recognized as public resources to be managed and preserved into the future. The Bill proposes that local communities will apply for designation as a surf Reserve.

This bottom up approach is important to support as we have seen in communities throughout the world. Surfers love their surf spots and their communities. And this Bill provides them a way to provide protections and ensure equitable public access and management into the future.

We urge you to support your support today and wish to thank Assemblymember Irwin for sponsoring this important bill. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there persons in the hearing room who'd like to register their support for this measure? Do we have any surfers here today?

We do.

Good afternoon. Michael Caprio representing myself here in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Melissa Werner here on behalf of the California Travel Association and support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California and support.

Zach Cefalu with the League of California Cities, we are supportive, amended, working closely with the author's office on some. Clarifying amendments we feel are going in. The right direction and happy about the progress. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any primary witnesses in opposition? Anybody who hates surfing. We'll now turn it to Committee Members. I know nobody who likes or who cares more about our 30 by 30 goals than the Assembly Member from San Jose, Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I'm obligated to mention that I introduced AB 3030 a few years back. And I'm very proud to see the movement that it's created.

It's brought together such a unique force and a unique movement of people that for maybe different reasons have come together to support this endeavor, both in terms of protecting our land and our water, seeing tribal folks, environmentalists, recreational campers and hikers and fishermen, and now surfers as well, that understand the importance of protecting.

What is the, I think, main reason why so many people gravitate towards California. It's its natural beauty. And if we want to keep it that way, we have to encourage and support those that are part of that ecosystem of protecting our nature and protecting, certainly our coast. And so really appreciate.

The bill would love to be added as a co author at the appropriate time. Thank you,

Ms. Pellerin.

Thank you. I thank the author for bringing this bill forward as the representative of what I think is Surf City California in Santa Cruz. I think this is an amazing bill and I would love to be added as a co author as well. Thank you.

Probably going to have a little competition for that designation.

Yeah. That is a. That is a bold statement to say to the Malibu Member.

Mr. Ellis. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend your bill. I just had a question regarding the jurisdiction regarding the Coastal Commission and how that would play into this legislation.

Yeah, we. We have actually been working with the Coastal Commission for a number of several years now, specifically using the Santa Cruz local coastal plan as an example of a place where we can look at surf reserves or the designation of surf spots within the local coastal plan and understand those management access needs. So we've been.

We see this as complementary and actually part of what a local coastal plan is meant to do. We've actually, along with the City of Ventura, we're looking at language to actually identify surf spots within the actual local coastal plan by map and also by description. So we see this as complementary to.

To the work of the Coastal Commission.

Are your locations already defined?

Every surf spot is defined and mapped in California. And yes, we. We certainly are a very good characterization of each surf spot.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments from colleagues? Seeing none. Assembly Member Irwin, would you like to close?

Yeah. I just respectfully asked for your Aye vote and I do also want to. I had neglected to thank Assembly Member Kalra for all his hard work on this incredible policy that we have here in California.

Well, thank you. We're still 15 Members short of quorum on this large Committee. No one more short of quorum and then we'll call the roll at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Assembly Member Boerner, whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members. First, I want to thank the chair and his amazing committee staff for working with me on this bill. I accept the committee amendments and I'm committed to continuing working with the opposition as as this bill moves through the process. I introduced AB823 because it has become more apparent the dangers of microplastics.

And I want to do something to protect our environment and public health. AB823 would ban the sale of non rinse off personal care products and cleaning products containing microplastic beads used as abrasives to clean, exfoliate or polish beginning January 1, 2029.

It would also ban the sale of personal care products and cleaning products containing any plastic microbeads beginning January 1, 2030. Plastic pollution is a major problem. Microplastics have been found all across the earth from Mount Everest to the Mariana Trench. Emerging research is now linking microplastic beads and microplastics to serious health risks.

Microplastics have been found in the lungs and in the bloodstream, placental tissue, breast milk and even the brain, raising serious health concerns such as dementia, hormone disruption, infertility and cancer affecting the lungs, blood, breast, prostate and ovaries. This is also an environmental justice issue. It disproportionately affects those in communities that don't have access to advanced water treatment.

We have been working with the opposition and I committed to continue working to pass a sensible piece of legislation that is still meaningfully addresses this public health emergency. I respectfully ask for your I vote and with me I have two witnesses here today.

Good afternoon, Chair Bryant and esteemed committee members. My name is Alison Waliszewski and I'm the Director of Policy and Programs at the 5 Gyres Institute and a proud co sponsor of AB823. Over a decade ago, our researchers discovered microbeads from personal care products in the Great Lakes. These small particles intentionally added products like facial scrubs and toothpaste.

Were designed to wash down the drain directly into our waterways. That discovery led to the Ban the Bead campaign, which led to the passage of California's AB888 and the National Microbead Free Waters Act in 2015. These laws were critical in reducing microbeads and rinse off product, but a major gap remains.

Leave on products, including cosmetics, cleaning supplies, and these are still a harmful source of microplastics. Microplastics, defined as solid particles smaller than 5 millimeters, are nearly impossible to remove once they enter the environment.

Our researchers publish the global estimate of marine plastic pollution that found over 171 trillion plastic particles in our ocean, consequently also in our rivers, lakes, drinking water, rainfall, and even the human body. What's more concerning is that these particles also carry an estimated 16,000 chemicals that are associated with plastics.

Many are known to be hazardous, including carcinogens, mutagens, DDT and other persistent organic pollutants, including polycyclic, aromatic carbohydrates, PHAs per and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS and other heavy metals. These chemicals can leach into ecosystems and accumulate in living tissue, contributing to widespread toxicity. And microplastics also act as carriers for microbes and pathogens.

The science is clear and better alternatives exist and they already are in use. Apricot seeds, walnut shells, oatmeal, baking soda and sea salt, natural clays and more. How can we in good conscience allow leave on products to continue exposing our communities to these harmful contaminants?

I urge you to please expand legislation to cover all applications of microbeads and honor our commitment to safeguarding our water and ecosystems and the health of future generations. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Krystal Raynes and I'm here on behalf of Californians Against Waste, proud co sponsors of AB823. AB823 would prohibit the sale of cleaning and personal care products that contain intentionally added plastic microbeads in California. Microbeads may be some of the smallest plastics on the market.

But don't let their size fool you. They do pack a serious punch when it comes to pollution and health impacts. Lets be clear. Microbeads are tiny solid plastic particles that are added to products like personal care products and cleaning products.

Once they're down to the drain, they're too small for California's wastewater treatment systems to effectively catch, Especially since most of them float rather than sink. Even our most advanced tertiary treatment plants can't fully remove them.

Instead, they slip through our filters and end up in our rivers, lakes, and oceans where they bioaccumulate in plants, fish, wildlife, and humans. Okay. I don't think Californians deserve seafood seasoned with toxics and plastics. And I hope you would agree. Microplastics are released in consumer products in staggering amounts.

One study estimated that cleaning products release almost 40 trillion plastics in one year alone. And it's not a surprise that they end up in our bodies in increasing concentrations. In the human body, microplastics have been identified, as our author has said, in the lungs, hearts, placentas, blood, testicles, and even breast milk.

It's been linked to cancers, metabolic disruption, inflammations, and Alzheimer's. So while our wastewater filters may not catch them, we're hoping your legislative scrutiny will. The policy landscape is already shifting away from these substances. The EU has already taken decisive action through its reach regulation to ban microplastics in common consumer products starting in 2027.

Closer to home, Hawaii banned microbeads and personal care products beginning in 2023 with bipartisan support. Other states and countries have recognized that it's not only possible to eliminate unnecessary and toxic microbeads, but it is essential to ban the bead in the name of public health and the environment.

AB823 is a chance to get ahead of this preventable problem, especially when alternatives like our co sponsor mentioned already exist and are cost effective. We urge your support in AB823 and thank you for your leadership in protecting California's environment and public health. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thanks so much. Any supporters in the room. And while folks are lining up, if you have the privilege of serving on the Natural Resource Committee and you'd like to join us, we are one short of a quorum and we would love to see you.

Good afternoon. Spencer Saks, on behalf of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, we would love to meet with the committee, the author and the stakeholders to talk about the wastewater treatment process and how we believe so control is the most effective strategy. Thank you.

Hello. Keely Morris with Edelstein, Gilbert, Robson and Smith on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support.

Good afternoon. Jakob Evans with Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

Hi, this is Julie Wedge. I'm with Clean Water Fund. I am the ReThink Disposable Director. I stand in support for Clean Water Action and for the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Jason Schmelzer here in support on behalf of Alameda Stop Waste. Thank you.

Mandi Strella here in support on behalf of Monterey Bay Aquarium, the Center for Environmental Health, Black Women for Wellness Action Project, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Breast Cancer Over Time, the National Resource Defense Council and CALPIRG as well as Rethink Waste.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Making sure I'm at the end of the line. Lauren De Valencia representing the American Coatings Association. Not in support. We did have an opposed unless amended position to really thank the author, the sponsors and your Committee working with you to remove coatings from the scope. Thank you.

Absolutely. Before we go to opposition notice a quorum is here. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[roll call]

Thank you so much. Is there opposition in the room?

We've only got the two chairs, unfortunately.

Whenever you're ready.

All right. Mr. Chair and Members, Mandy Isaacs-Lee here on behalf of the Personal Care Products Council in opposition to AB 823. I have here with me today Dr. Iain Davies, PCPC's Director of Environmental Science Programs, here to answer technical questions. I want to start off by thanking the author and the sponsors.

We did have a very productive meeting last week and really throughout the weekend as well. And we're committed to continuing those conversations. But unfortunately we remain opposed to the bill in print before you today. Additionally, while we appreciate the Committee amendments, we remain opposed.

I think the fact that the Committee recognize that and likely exempted coatings because you can't make paint without microplastics. The same is true, unfortunately, for a wide range of cosmetics and personal care products too. In AB 2015, as the sponsors relayed, PCPC worked to ban microbeads from rinse off personal care products.

To be clear, we are very clear about what microbeads are in terms of the AB 888 ban. These are solid plastic particles used to clean, exfoliate, and polish. While while AB 823 speaks to banning microbeads in non-rinse off products, subdivision C of the bill creates massive ambiguity as to the scope of the bill because it states that microbeads that are non-abrasive are banned. Microbeads inherently are abrasive. They are used to exfoliate, polish, and clean.

And so we interpret subdivision C in a way that significantly expands the scope of the bill beyond just microbeads into a much broader universe of ingredients. And unless subdivision C is removed from the bill, we believe AB 823 would ban an entire class of microplastics for which substitutes do not exist today.

And as a result, we'll have to pull thousands of products off the shelves by January 12, 2030, I guess, now with the Committee amendments, including sunscreens, toothpaste, cosmetics, makeup, and many others. In addition, the bill fails to address the major sources of microplastics pollution. Over the weekend we emailed you guys a study from the EU that was commissioned when the EU were working on their microplastics regulation. And within that study, the product categories contained in AB 823 constitute 0.29% of the marine...

We're at 2:30, which is super generous.

Okay. This is just a small sampling of products. We have my expert here. To be clear, I don't believe that this is the intent of the author's office. But given the enormous impact on our products, we believe that AB 823's approach is wholly disproportionate to the very minimal environmental protections served by this bill.

Thank you. Two minutes.

Nicole Quiñonez. Good afternoon, everyone. Nicole Quiñonez representing the Fragrance Creators Association and the Household and Commercial Products Association. We also want to thank the author and her staff and sponsors for their willingness to work with industry. I would also like to echo the comments made by Mandy Lee and just state that both my clients, FCA and HCPA, believe that eliminating the ban on the non-abrasive microbeads would address their primary concerns.

And I'll just state that even with that amendment, AB 2823 would be the first in the nation to ban abrasive plastic microbeads in cleaning products. I'll just note that one of the most consequential impacts of this bill on the cleaning product space is that it would eliminate the use of fragrance encapsulation.

Encapsulation is one of the most efficient and effective ways of delivering fragrance in laundry products in particular, which reduces the amount of perfume that's needed by roughly 33%, allowing the scent to last longer. This leads to water and energy savings from reducing the frequency that we're washing our clothes, which actually reduces the amount of microfibers that are going down the drain, which is a much larger contributor of microplastics than the products we're discussing here today.

As it relates to health, I just want to note that of all the studies FCA has reviewed, including those that were cited in the analysis, none of the materials that have been identified thus far in human tissue and blood are the polymers that are used for fragrance encapsulation. And just quickly note, on the European Union, they had a roughly 10 year regulatory process where they developed their microplastics regulation. This includes a pathway for biodegradable and soluble materials that are extremely important to our industry to be able to innovate into the next generation of products.

So these are based on international standards that are used by 38 member countries, including the US. The US EPA uses these standards when determining wastewater removal of their chemicals. So we really see this as the most viable pathway for our industries to continue to move forward. Okay. So again, we appreciate the amendment so far. Just last note that the deletion of coatings from the scope of the bill does not delete floor polishes and waxes, which actually perform just like coatings. So we would seek that elimination as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Any opposition in the hearing room?

Good afternoon, Chair. Adam Regele on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. Align our comments. Respectful opposition. Thank you.

Afternoon. Sarah Pollo Moo with the California Retailers Association, opposed.

Mr. Chair and Members, Randy Pollack on behalf of the American Chemistry Council in opposition.

Thank you. I'll now turn it to my colleagues. Any questions, comments from Committee Members? Mr. Ellis.

Assembly Member Boerner. I like what you're... Sorry, my apologies. I appreciate this. I have... We have a technical matter subject expert here, is that correct? Can I ask a question, and Mr. Chairman, thank you. Forgive my protocol here, I'm a rookie.

We'll teach you.

Thank you. So isn't microplastics a very generic word? And when you talk about polyaromatic hydrocarbons and PFOs and metals, can you explain in a minute or two the differentiation between different plastics and particularly why facial scrubs may be different or differentiate themselves from other plastics, for example, in coatings?

Yeah, the plastics used for different cosmetic functions are carbon based to begin with. So those, those functions are specific polymers, which are separate from things like PFAS. So with microbeads, polyethylene was the main material used, and this can be replaced with an abrasive function. But really what defines a plastic is that it's solid.

It can be molded and extruded at high temperatures. So it's really in the process in which it's made. Unlike other polymers which wouldn't be described as plastic because they're not made in that way and therefore wouldn't have the same properties.

Have any microplastics been known to ingest through your skin?

Not that I know of. No. They... No.

So when you talk about metals, because she had mentioned heavy metals, what heavy metals are in these microplastics?

As far as I know, there are no heavy metals in microplastics.

Okay. Okay. I was just curious because from an analytical perspective, and we hear a lot about microplastics in our brains, and as you guys commented, and I would prefer to know some differentiations between a facial scrub versus what's in something that's non-toxic. And then do you also happen to know in wastewater treatment plants what may be... Do they have technology now like resins or anon exchange to remove the microplastics?

Yeah. So in the main way which particulates, such as microplastic, both plastic and non-plastic particulates are removed is actually via so called biosolids or sewage sludge, some people call that. So that's your typical kind of primary and secondary wastewater treatment plants.

These are more common in Western Europe, not so much the developed world. Then we have, and these are less common, unfortunately. But you have the advanced tertiary wastewater treatment plants with technologies such as membrane filters. And these remove, these are actually true filters. And these will remove more particulates as well as persistent organic pollutants.

So they're more particulate than going into solution. Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate you.

Thank you, Mr. Ellis. Any other questions? Ms. Pellerin.

Just want to thank the author for working this bill. I've just got a few questions here. So it... Will your bill actually ban any products?

Thank you for that question. This bill actually doesn't ban any products at all. It bans, per the deadlines, the microbeads and products for abrasive uses and then for non-abrasive in a later date. So the products themselves are not banned. It's the microbeads that would be banned. That's what's in the bill.

And are there alternatives to those?

The idea is that there are going to be alternatives for everybody. As we said, we had a meeting last week. We asked for a list of all products that would be considered under B and C. We did not get that list of products. But we'll continue working with the opposition to make sure that we're narrowing it appropriately so that we can get to something that is workable. I am somebody, and I think I said this in the meeting last Wednesday with the opposition and supporters. I've had skin cancer multiple times. My mom had 500 spots removed.

There's no way in the world I'm banning any type of sunscreen. Right. My risk of cancer is higher than any risk of health impacts from sunscreen. That's not what the intention of this bill is. To my knowledge, there are no micro, solid microplastic beads in any sunscreen I use. Same with mascara.

My eyelash lady tells me I have lots of invisible tiny little lashes. Not banning tubular or waterproof mascara. That's not the intent of this bill. It's to really get on the microplastic beads that our wastewater systems in the United States and in California cannot filter out because it does get into our water, does get into food, and that's how it gets into our bodies.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Pellerin.

Okay, just one more question. It looks like opposition may have some other answer. Can I ask them for their input?

If you want to ask her a direct question, absolutely.

So in your view, does this bill ban products?

Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member Pellerin. I think the answer to that is, while the bill doesn't expressly ban products, it does ban microplastics, for which substitutes do not exist today. And that's how the ban occurs. We are all, all of our companies, I think Nicole mentioned that the EU adopted microplastics regulations that were just final two years ago. Within the EU regulations, it allows for water soluble microplastics, that allows for biodegradable microplastics.

We offer that as a solution so that because all of our companies are investing millions of dollars innovating towards those exemptions that the EU adopted, and we are doing that as we speak. If we don't align this bill with the EU and concerning the ambiguity that subdivision C sets up for us, we have no other option than to interpret that this bill is going after the wide class of microplastics. And so because we don't have substitutes for the microplastics that this bill would ban today, it would require us to pull product off the shelf.

But we do have some time here to get this resolved over the next few years, of course, with the sunset extended. And I've had conversations with you. I think there's some really bright minds sitting here at this table, and I'm hopeful that you can work together on coming up with a resolution for this because.

Because any effort we can make to remove these microplastics from our systems is really going to be helpful. Just one last question. So the limit would be the 5 million nanometers. And what microplastics absorb through the skin come in about 100 nanometers. So is there any talk about changing that threshold or...

That has not been requested by the opposition. We haven't had that request. And I would like to point out that L'Oreal already has alternatives for the things that are in the bill. So we aren't trying to come up with something where there is no alternatives. And we've been clear with the opposition, that's not our intention.

Like in my definition, I can pull up the definition of a solid in the dictionary. That's what we're basing our definition. And I think there's probably an interpretation thing that we can still work on so that we're not getting at the things that don't have alternatives.

I just want to point out our wastewater systems are different in California than in the EU. And so we have to, we have to act differently. We can't just do EU because we don't have that same system, unfortunately. But thank you for the questions. And you know, the idea is that there are alternatives. They are solid plastic microbeads. That's what we're trying to get at.

Right. Okay, thank you so much.

Mr. Hoover, did you still have questions?

Yeah, if I can just ask the opposition on this EU topic, how does this legislation differ from what the EU is doing? And are, is there a, I guess a way to, would there be a way to possibly make them better align if they, if they do differ?

Yeah, I'd say the main difference is the different alternatives that would be allowed. So we call them cosmetic functions, one of which is an abrasive, which is already banned. So that's your microbeads. That's what microbeads do. Beyond that, we have functions, hundreds of functions, many of which rely on the properties that are microplastics and give those ingredients. And we can replace those, but you can't replace an anti-aging functionality with crushed apricot shells. That's just, that's just innovations a little bit beyond that these days.

So the replacements that we would be allowed and are allowed in the EU to maintain that innovation is biodegradable materials. That's really the innovation and that's what the EU allows us to do. And that's the way we keep all of these important functions on the market whilst whilst obviously mitigating any environmental risks.

Okay, so just for the author, I think like it sounds like there's obviously still conversations ongoing. So obviously there's still some needed time here to work through these things. But is that, I mean, it sounds like you're open to alternatives of some kind.

I mean, I think we're... We cannot just do what the EU does. We are not the EU. And it would be easier for me as the author just to take the EU standards and be like, hey, here we go, we're doing this in California. One, California leads, that would be one thing.

Two, we don't have the same systems. So we have to look at the biodegradable issue differently because our wastewater systems are different. So we're going to have to look at this differently. But I've been open in the conversations. This is the first time I'm meeting... I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name. Iain, I should have known. Iain with the accent. I should have figured it out. I could have taken a wild guess. But I think there's... So I'm committed to working with the opposition, finding a reasonable place. I want something... And I've started two businesses.

I want something that makes it work for them, but I also don't want it to be poisoning our children. If you look at the increased risk of cancer, what is happening to endocrine disruption. It's really, I would say from my studies, everything they do in Europe has a slightly different bend because they're more...

You don't have the income inequality in Europe the same way that you often have in California. In California, when you really look at this, it is an environmental justice issue as well. It makes it simpler to do regulations. In my comparative politics opinion, in Europe, when we look at anything, it has a different order there than here.

Yeah, well, and those are some very good points. I just, to the extent that there could be a balance track. I mean, obviously, I think having different products for different regions. I think one of the things we did on some of the other bills, like Assembly Member Gabriel's bills, where we really tried to create a parody between the two to make it easier for the companies, is great. But I appreciate the feedback. Thank you.

Mr. Zbur.

So, first of all, Assembly Member, I want to thank you for bringing this bill. I think it's an important one and, you know, both from a environmental as well as a public safety perspective. And so I just want to thank you for that. I do... As we've spoken this morning and sort of texted over the weekend, I do think there's ambiguity in this section C. Because what it's doing is it's picking up a bag for the microbeads that are not used as an abrasive.

And then when you look at the definition of microbeads, it basically is the, you know, the feed is less than 5 milliliters or less. So basically, conceptually could mean that you're going down to microscopic pirate particles, which I think is why there's so much.

Why I think there's some validity to the issue about the big amping unit and the section C. I actually am someone, as we talked this morning, that I tend to not like single product or single chemical bans, because I think these things should be going through a regulatory process.

But the Chemical Council here in California has broken down and nothing is happening, and so we do need to bring single product bands because of that. That said, and that's why I support this. It's really important that we do that. That said, I would like you to take a look, if you would, at the EU issues. I know it's not exactly the same, but the way that I was, that I thought about it was I thought what the EU was doing was looking at whether or not there was a with the amount of time that you needed sort of for alternatives.

And so I know that you don't want to be banning sunscreen and these kinds of makeups and this other stuff, but I do, I think that looking at what the EU has done as a matter of just advising and looking at those categories of products would be a sort of a fruitful thing. And I trust that you're going to work with the opponents and come to something that actually is going to result in not banning a bunch of products that are going to be safe and that everyone needs. So with that, I'm going to support the bill.

Thank you. And again, we're not banning products. It's just the plastic microbeads. And yeah, that's, you know, we'll continue working on that. You know, I definitely want to get as close to something as possible that where we're still moving the needle forward, we're still protecting the environment, still protecting public health, and accounting for our different systems and environmental justice issues that we have here in California. Thank you.

Assembly Member, would you like to use that as your close or you want to...

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you for that. And thank you to the opposition and everybody who's come today. Thank you, colleagues, for this robust conversation. Doing these kinds of things, it's incredibly hard. And I want to thank the Assembly Member. And as you mentioned, the EU went through an incredibly robust and comprehensive process that took a very long time and a lot of people at the table.

It's not quite apples to apples with what we we are doing here in California. That being said, L'Oreal may have alternatives. Henkel in Culver City may not. But there's no one I trust more to navigate this than the author. And so this has a do pass reco from the Chair. Do we have a motion. Mr. Zbur, and a second by Ms. Pellerin. Can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass as amended to Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee. [Roll Call]

We'll leave the the roll open for absent offers. Was that a motion on the consent calendar by Mr. Flora?

It was.

And a second by Mr. Hoover.

Consent items are AB14, Hart, AB663. McKinnor, AB907. Chen, AB1457. Bryan. [Roll Call]

We'll leave it on call. Send Member Bains whenever you're ready. Do you have any particular order you'd like to go in?

I have AB 1046 in front of me.

Perfect.

Awesome. Alright. Thank you. Chair.

Yeah. All right, thank you. Chair Members, let me start by accepting the Committee amendments which limit and clarify the scope of the bill. AB 1046 provides a narrow exemption from the state's short lived climate pollutant reduction program for crop preparers that do not send organic waste to landfills.

SB 1383, which created a program sought to reduce methane emissions, including the reduction of landfill disposal of organic waste. Like food safety, the law is being implemented on a county by county basis, which allows for local flexibility, but also has a drawback of creating a patchwork of uncertainty.

Many crop preparers were well ahead of the state in their stewardship, implementing environmentally responsible organic byproduct handling processes decades ago. Fresh market produce that does not meet graded standards is incorporated back into the field. Produce that does not qualify for fresh market sale is repurposed for juicing, canning or freezing, ensuring it remains available for human consumption.

Tree nut processors utilize organic byproducts for livestock feed and animal bedding, ensuring nothing is sent to the landfill. Despite these sustainable practices, some counties incorrectly classify these businesses as contributors to landfill waste, leading to unnecessary administrative burdens and misallocation of resources.

As amended, AB 1046 ensures that good actors who have utilized these practices before AB 1383 was even written can continue to do so and are not subject to unnecessary and duplicative. Duplicative regulatory requirements. With me in support, I'm joined by Roger Isom on behalf of the Western Tree Nut Association.

Go ahead, Roger.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Roger Isom with the Western Tree Nut Association, representing almonds, walnuts, pecans and pistachios. And also here on behalf of California Fruit Association. As some of the Members said, SB 1383 was designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfills.

We understand that sending food waste to landfill does create methane emissions or greenhouse gas emissions, and that SB 1383 create a regulation to regulate that. I want to make it clear that from our operations, we never have and never will send anything to a landfill. Quite honestly, it's money.

We use every byproduct and product we can, and even that that is considered waste, we'll literally put back in the field. Even food that has been damaged in terms of almonds or walnuts. We literally can utilize that as bird feed or crush it into other products and put it back in the orchard or back in the field.

So we utilize every single part. That being said, as some remember said, there are counties that we can simply prove that, show them that, and they're fine with it. And others that don't. And what we have to do because of that is we have to subject our Members to inspection report every year and put zeros in there.

And they know that. And they said, but the opportunity, you could send something to a landfill. That is not our mission. That is not what we're ever going to do. So AB 1046 would give a very narrow exemption.

I want to make sure that's clear because there's been some misconception that this would exempt US from SB 1383 and other provisions. That again, is not the intent. It's only from the food generation provisions. That's all that we're asking for. And again, because we never send anything to a landfill. That's why we're asking for the exemption.

This Bill would create clarity for those counties and alleviate one of the many regulatory burdens that our Members face on a daily basis. So accordingly, we'd respectfully ask for you to support AB 1046. Thank you, sir.

Any Members of this hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members Cody Boyles, on behalf of California Citrus Mutual and American Pistachio Growers in support. Thank you.

John Kennedy with Rural County representatives of California also in support. Thank you.

Thank you, John. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure. Smart. We'll now turn it to Committee Members. Any questions, comments?

Mr. Chair.

Mr. Flora.

I'll just make this quick and I appreciate the seminar bringing us forward. And Roger, thank you for your expertise in this area. But as a guy that grew up in California AG and the almond world and nuts it is. There's a lot of times a misconception of what we do.

And I really do appreciate this bill just clarifies that that every single ounce that we grow, it's either being used for human consumption and. Or animal consumption. And I really appreciate you bringing that forward. So thank you for this bill. So would you like to close?

Well, I'll just end by happy wishing everybody a very happy Vaisakhi. As a proud Sikh. It comes from generations of farmers. Today is the start of the harvest holiday and birthday of the Sikh religion. So happy Vaisakhi and respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. With that. Do we have a motion? A second? Yes. Beautiful. Madam Secretary, can we got the roll?

The motion is due. Pass as amended. [Roll Call]

We'll leave it on call. Would you like to move on to AB 252?

Yes. Thank you chair members. AB252 is a Stop Laying Off Firefighters Act. This bill represents an evolution in how we respond to growing to the growing threat of wildfires that have increasingly devastated our communities, our economy and our environment. The evidence is undeniable. Over the past decades, wildfires in California have grown in size, duration and destructive power.

The 2020 fire season alone shattered previous records, with five of the state's six largest fires in modern history burning simultaneously, consuming more than 4.3 million acres, double the previous record. That this is not a statistical anomaly, it represents a new reality.

In an era of climate change, accumulated fuels and expanding development, the question before us is not if we will face catastrophic wildfires again, but how prepared we will be when they inevitably will occur. AB 252 addresses this reality by requiring Cal Fire to maintain full staffing levels throughout the entire calendar year.

When we lay off thousands of firefighters annually, we create dangerous gaps in our emergency response capabilities precisely when we can least afford them. The current staffing model places extraordinary burden on our firefighters. During major wildfires, Cal Fire personnel often work under grueling conditions for 24 to 48 hours without sleep.

Many work up to 40 consecutive days without a single day off. This level of physical and mental stress is unsustainable and fundamentally compromises safety. And as a physician that was deployed out to all the fires for several years, I have firsthand seen this. The reality is that Cal Fire's responsibilities have expanded dramatically.

They respond to more than 5,400 wildfires annually that burn an average of 156,000 acres. Additionally, they answer approximately 450,000 calls for other emergencies each year. Their workload their workload demands are consistent for year round staffing.

Year round staffing also enables vital prevention work, prescribed burns, vegetation management, community education, infrastructure hardening that can significantly reduce the severity of wildfires before they start. These activities require trained personnel and are most effective when conducted consistently throughout the year. Some may express concern about the cost of implementation.

Well, Cal Fire's budget has already grown significantly from 800 million in 2005-2006 to 4.1 billion in 2024-2025. However, we must consider these costs against the astronomical costs of uncontrolled wildfires.

The economic damage from recent fire seasons have far exceeded these figures, not to mention the incalculable costs of lost lives, displaced communities, environmental degradation and impacts on public health, which we will see for decades from now. It's worth noting that while we focus on state level solutions, federal staffing shortages remain a significant concern.

With 58% of California forest lands owned and managed by the federal government, recent directives to halt prescribed burning and reduce the federal workforce directly impacts our state's fire resilience. Passing AB 252 reflects California's commitment to protecting our citizens on the lands we control.

We need to set this example and demand our federal partners live up to their responsibilities in kind. AB 252 is not just about maintaining staffing levels, it's about acknowledging the new reality we face and adapting our emergency response systems accordingly.

Just because we have done something for a long time does not mean it makes sense or justifies doing it now. Continuing to lay off thousands of firefighters every winter in the face of increasingly devastating wildfires throughout the calendar year simply makes no sense.

During the LA fires, Governor Newsom said that this time of year traditionally has not been fire season, but now any notion that there is any notion is that fire season is going to be year round in the State of California.

Pro Tempore McGuire said, With California and the west burning at historic rates and an unrelenting year round fire season, we must buckle down to make our community safer from wildfires.

And President of Cal Fire Local 2881, Edwards said, for three months out of the year we downstaffed 1/3 of our engines because of an inadequate way of staffing Cal Fire in today's world. There is no fire season in California. Fires are year round. We can't just say these things and then follow up with no action.

Let's take action by passing AB 252 with me and support. I'm joined by Terry McHale on behalf of CAL FIRE Local 2881.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Terry McHale with Aaron Reed and Associates representing Cal Fire.

Dr. Matthew Rahn of the California Fire Conservancy charged with the health and welfare of firefighters, asked specifically that in this hearing that I publicly thank the author who during the Los Angeles fires volunteered her services as a medical doctor and worked on the front lines. The danger to Dr. Baynes was not minimal.

She suffered smoke inhalation, had to be hospitalized and now lives with the same concerns that so many of our frontline first responders live with as to what are the impacts of the toxicity that she took in. They wanted to publicly thank her and say that her service made a difference. This legislation is long overdue.

The assemblywoman did an excellent job of explaining what it does. Let me say clearly that the days of fire season are antiquated and no longer exist. We have fire year round. This particular legislation is not as expensive as it would seem. These are not new firefighters. These are firefighters that work nine months out of the year.

They have workers compensation, they have health care benefits, they have full training. What we are ostensibly doing is extending that service for three months. It is long overdue. It is wise. It will make a decision. It will make a difference in how we decide to fight these fires.

And I join the assemblywoman and ask for an I vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Any persons in the hearing room who would like to register their support for this measure? Seeing none. Any persons in this hearing room who would like to register their opposition to this measure. Wise turning it back to committee Members. Questions, comments from colleagues. Firefighter Flora.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for bringing this forward. And I couldn't be in more support of this. And I think what a lot of folks don't understand is when you have crews that work together, trained together and have been together for a while, there's an aspect that cannot be duplicated.

When we talk about stripping a task force or a strike team of its complement of hose and how the hose gets put together, how quick they can get that done, training and consistency means everything. So having a year round force that has worked together, trained together, we can absolutely see a reduction in acreage on these wildfires.

We can absolutely stop fires before they get out of control and turn into these campaign fires and hopefully save lives. So yes, I think the cost to stay is minimal in comparison to the larger vision and larger problems. I really do appreciate you bringing this forward and thank you to your witness and hopefully it moves bill forward.

Happy to move the bill as well.

Seeing no other questions, assembly member, would you like to close?

Thank you assembly member for that. Actually just reminded me of a story so speaking to, you know, the true resilience of our firefighters and the true the team that they formulate on those crews. I remember one of the fires, I was at the glass fire up in Sonoma. I was serving there and there was.

They had brought one of the firefighters that suffered smoke inhalation and the entire crew came and we took him into the tent and I was servicing him and it took a while. And I remember coming outside and the whole crew was still sitting out there and waiting and I'm like, what are you guys?

They're like, no, we're all in it together. And we're a team. And so now I had to change my practices to send someone out there to let them know that the firefighter is doing good and they can get back to work.

So the true resilience of our firefighters and the teamwork that you see speaks volumes to how hard that they work. And I've seen nothing like it. And I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember. I remember when the fires were raging in Los Angeles, you were one of those people who was out there and exchanging text messages with you.

And at the start of this session, it wasn't surprising to me that you were the first person in either house to introduce legislation on this issue, important legislation, and I think it's worthy of the conversation today and definitely has a do pass recommendation from the chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is do pass to appropriations.

[roll call]

That bill is out. Assemblymember Quirk Silva, come on down.

I'm coming to this committee more often. I actually think it's my first time here in 10 years.

This is your first time before this committee?

To before this committee? Yes, and it's a pleasure to be before you, Mr. Chair.

Whenever you're ready.

All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee suggested amendments and thank the Committee consultant for their great work on this bill. Today I present AB 571, which provides a targeted CEQA exemption for the Southern California Veterans Cemetery at Gypsum Canyon in the City of Anaheim.

This project has been a decade in the making and is a project I have worked on since I was first elected to the California State Assembly, beginning this project in 2013. And so if you do the math, the numbers don't add up. So why is it longer than 10 years? I'll let you figure that one out.

It also is deeply personal to me, as my family includes proud Members of the United States Marine Corps, army and Air Force. With two of my nephews currently serving in the Marine Corps and Army today, we are closer than ever to delivering on the promise of a final resting place for Orange County's veterans.

A place of honor, dignity and peace. After years of discussion and delay, this project now enjoys broad bipartisan support. The Orange County Board of Supervisors, all 34 cities in the county, a majority of the county, state and federal delegation Veterans organizations, public safety groups and labor organizations all stand united behind this effort.

Locally, the Anaheim City Council voted unanimously last year to approve the veterans cemetery project along with an adjacent public cemetery. That approval relied on an addendum to an existing EIR report certified in 2005 for a project of greater density. So without getting too much in the weeds, if you go to the side, it was actually.

It used to be Irvine Company land, and then they dated that to Anaheim, and originally it was a master plan for housing. This allows the County of Orange, the Orange County Cemetery District, and the California Department of Veterans affairs to move forward, working together to share costs, coordinate infrastructure, and maximize the use of public funds.

There is currently 50 million in a combined state and county funding available for the early phases of this particular cemetery. AB571 will help us move this project across the finish line. It provides an urgency clause and a narrow CEQA exemption to streamline planning and permitting.

It ensures that after a decade of effort, the Southern California Veterans Cemetery can finally become a reality. With me today to testify in support is Amy Jenkins, representing the County of Orange, and Nick Barradino, USMC Vietnam Veteran and chair of Valor, the Veterans alliance of Orange County.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, humble Members of the Committee. My name is Nick Barradino. I'm a Vietnam veteran. And we have been struggling, as the good Assembly woman has pointed out, for a long time. There's one thing that we can't do for a lot of veterans. We can't promise them tomorrow.

And a lot of them we couldn't promise tomorrow, and a lot of them didn't have tomorrow. And we have great support from everybody. There isn't anyone we've had anywhere that's really gotten in the way of not supporting our efforts here. As we mentioned, first responders, 150 veterans organizations, the entire congressional delegation, everybody's been in support.

And Gold Star mothers. Gold Star mothers are mothers that have lost their children. And they have been waiting and waiting and waiting. There's nothing more, as all of you know, that can be more devastating than have a knock on your door to say, your son or daughter has been killed in combat and we will now bury him.

There's no place in Orange County where these mothers can be with their children. And they will be able now to bring their children close to them as well as every other veteran. And what we have for the veterans that go and continue, there will be a tomorrow, a place of dignity.

And for the Vietnam veterans that went into hiding for 50 years, finally we can say the final insult is over and we now will restore our dignity. Thank you very much with your Geni vote.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Amy Jenkins here on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, I want to thank the Assembly woman for her unwavering dedication to this project. I have also been working on it for more than a decade and really excited about the progress, as is the board that we have made.

I think the author and Mr. Barradino said everything that needed to be said. All I will simply say is this will remove our final barrier to progress and give our veterans a dignified final resting place. So ask for your I vote today and thank you for your time.

Are there any persons in this hearing room who would like to be heard on this measure?

Bobby McDonald, Vietnam veteran, for the Vietnam Veterans of Orange County and also for the Buffalo Soldiers and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Thank you, sir. Thank you for support.

Yes, sir. Steve Spriggs, Vietnam veteran, also Member of Valor, American Legion, VFW, AUSA. We ask for your support. Thank you.

Are there any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Any questions or comments from Committee Members? So would you like to close this?

This is a project long and coming. One of the things that I hear in the community as we've been working on it for so long, we have very few World War II veterans still with us. We have many Korean veterans, but we also have, of course, Vietnam. And they say, when are you going to get that done?

Because I want to have a place. And so there is an urgency with this because we know we are losing veterans every day.

Thank you for your work and your advocacy on this, and thank you to the veterans who are here today. I have one grandfather who was a Vietnam veteran and another grandfather who was a World War II veteran who isn't with us anymore. I want to thank you for also working with the Committee staff.

There were definitely some nuances about this that we had to better understand what makes this project different. And I think part of what makes it different is what you all have laid out today. And I wish you the best of luck removing this final barrier. You have our support today.

It has a do pass recommendation from the chair. Do we have a motion?

We've got six motions, Madam Secretary. Can we call the roll?

The motion is due. Pass, as amended, to Military and Veteran Affairs Committee. [Roll Call]

That bill is out.

Thank you, Members. Absolutely. Thank you.

We are looking for authors. If you have a Bill before the Natural Resources Committee, we are looking for authors.

We can take motions on the first two measures. We have AB80 by Agguiar. Curry. Motion by Ms. Pellerin. Second by Wicks. Can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Beautiful. And do we have a motion on the second item today? Irwin AB 452.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave it on call.

No, I've got a booming voice. I will use my Fist. All right. Mr. Chair. Present AB 1455.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. After the LA County fires, Governor Newsom signed an Executive order calling on the Board of Forestry to enact regulations by the end of this year.

To facilitate meeting that deadline, AB 1455 will authorize the board to adopt emergency regulations and enable the rulemaking process to be approved as a certified regulatory program to streamline changes to the regulations in the future. Wildfire seasons continue to grow more destructive and the lack of regulatory action has left communities vulnerable.

AB 1455 is a critical step in ensuring that homeowners, local governments and wildfire experts can rely on strong, enforceable, ember resistant regulations. By authorizing emergency rulemaking and ensuring the board meets its mandate, this Bill will help protect all Californians before the next inevitable wildfires ignite. With me to testify today is Chris Rosa representing Cal Forest.

Thank you very much. Two minutes please.

Good afternoon. Kris Rosa on behalf of California Forestry Association, also known as Cal Forests. As you know, wildfire mitigation is a key priority every single day of the year for Forestry Association. And this Bill is going to go a long way in helping us with the tools that we need. So with that we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 1455? Name and organization, please.

Good afternoon. Paul Mason, Pacific Forest Trust. Also in support. Thank you.

Alex Loomer on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition to AB 1455? Seeing none. Bring it back to Committee. Any questions from the Committee on AB 1455? Seeing that, Mr. Chair, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you very much.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave that on call. Thank you, to my former Vice Chair. That was excellently handled. Mr. Patterson.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to see you have the opportunity to get your Bill voted out before me. So—so I deferred for you. Thank you very much. I'm here today to present AB 687. This is, I think, my third attempt at this Bill.

But last year we worked with Committee a lot to—made significant modifications—and just want to thank the Committee and staff for working with my office and my team and my Sponsor on this Bill.

As you know, ultimately—the first thing I came with, when I was bright-eyed young man, Legislator, a couple years ago, was I introduced a Bill for a CEQA exemption for management. Obviously, El Dorado and Placer Counties, which I represent, are the home to too many wildfires.

And I wanted to obviously give the opportunity for, especially, public agencies to treat the land that they're—that they own, or around their water resources. And so, after not getting a hearing on that very expansive Bill, we modified it to be—to what we have before you today.

And this is actually a narrower version than what passed out of Committee, but—last year—but ultimately, what this Bill would do is, it would allow public agencies to take advantage of forest practice rules and timber harvest plans, that are publicly funded fuel reduction projects.

So, it still use existing environmental rules and applies it to—right now, commercial projects can use this, and now this would apply the same to public projects.

And the reason why this is so important is because—you'll hear in a minute—but for Placer County Water Agency, they obviously have a big responsibility to protect the water resources when there is a wildfire and that, you know, the, the debris from the fires doesn't fall into the water resource and they're going to be spending, unfortunately, millions of dollars cleaning out their water resources so it can maintain the same capacity as was intended.

So, with me, I have Tony Firenzi from the Placer County Water Agency—terrific constituent now for eight plus years, from my time on the City Council, so.

Thank you, Assemblymember Patterson. Thank you, Chair Bryan—and the Committee Members. Thank you for having me here today. We're proud to sponsor Assembly Bill 687. Placer County Water Agency manages natural resources. We have a hydropower system with 340,000-acre feet of reservoir storage up on the American River.

Our two reservoirs are just on this side of the summit, from Olympic Valley. We serve agricultural and municipal water to a quarter million residents, just east of here, in Placer County. With the last decade of mega fires torching through our watershed, PCWA had to get involved in, sort of, solving that problem.

So, we've led landscape-scale ecological forest fuels reduction projects, in that upper watershed. We've been doing this since 2014, with the first fire that we experienced. These are multi-partner projects. They include NGOs, state and federal agencies, and the like.

Working with our NGO partners on the French Meadows Project, we learned that there's an opportunity to streamline a two-year-long environmental compliance timeline, for public agencies to more effectively contribute to solving this wildfire crisis.

The Nature Conservancy, one of our partners, wrote a Lessons Learned document, out of our experience on French Meadows, with all kinds of ideas on how to streamline environmental processes, but still look for the assurances that we're all looking for in the environment. Fuels reduction projects in the lower shed is what this Bill is about.

And I want to kind of contrast that a bit. These are projects that are smaller in scale and they're essential to protecting communities in a mix of infrastructure. And this is important in Assemblymember Patterson's district. We have the railroad, we have Interstate 80. These provide hundreds of millions of dollars in interstate commerce, through that corridor.

There's a Kinder Morgan pipeline. And last but not least, my agency has these humble wooden flumes right along that corridor, all within harm's way of these fires. And I also want to point out—down in this lower part of the watershed that the—again, they're smaller projects and they're conducted by a myriad of agencies.

So, PCWA sort of occupies the space in that upper watershed doing those big projects. And you'll see that a lot with water agencies like mine. But down in the lower watershed, it's a mix of local governments. It's water agencies, it's resource conservation districts, and municipalities.

So, we're finding—even down there on these smaller projects—it's taking one to two years to get through CEQA and then once we do that...

Well past two minutes, so wrap it up for me. No worries.

We're finding—and these are for projects that only take a couple months, once boots are on the ground to get the work done. And I'll just wrap up. Recent PPIC opinion—actually last week—says there's not a one-size-fits-all solution to solving this crisis. There's, there's a whole bunch of things we need to be doing.

And that's what AB 687 is about, is just adding another option to the toolbox. And I'll just wrap up by saying, we just want our agencies like ours to be able to take advantage of the same streamlined process that's been provided for in the forest practice rules. And with that, we respectfully seek your "Ayes" on this vote.

Thank you very much for hearing me.

Thank you, sir. Any persons in this hearing room who'd like to register their support for this measure? Seeing none. Any persons in opposition to this measure?

Good afternoon. Alex Lehner, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, in respectful opposition. It has not been clearly explained why the numerous CEQA exemptions and equivalents—that are already on the books and other programs—don't solve this problem.

And we're also concerned about CDFW not being able to have a chance to engage, as either a trustee or a responsible agency. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members of the Committee. Paul Mason with Pacific Forest Trust. We're listed in the analysis as an oppose on the Bill in print, based on—and that's due to both the scope of the Bill and real questions about the enforceability.

There's some questions about whether it's timberlands, not timberlands, enforceable by CAL FIRE or not. Based on the Committee amendments and comments from the author's office to keep trying to work through some of those issues, we're comfortable with the Bill moving forward today.

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon. Jakob Evans, with Sierra Club California, in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Matthew Baker with Planning Conservation League. We're listed in opposition but align our comments with Paul Mason...

Absolutely. Turn it back to Committee Members. Questions, comments? Mr. Connolley.

Maybe a quick one. Thank you, Chair, and appreciate the author coming forward in the testimony. I understand your intent with the Bill. I had read some of the opposition and, and wanted to at least convey a little bit of worry that the Bill will lead to regulatory confusion, that will lead to unintended consequences, including for the environment.

It sounds like there's ongoing discussions happening. I appreciate your effort to simplify the regulatory process. However, I hope we can find a more efficient way, through additional work with the Bill, to achieve this goal. So, I think today I'm going to lay off, but with that said, look forward to circling back and having further discussions.

Any other questions, comments? Mr. Patterson, would you like to close?

Great. Well, thank you to, again, the Committee for the work and we'll continue to work with the Committee and the fine staff who've been working on this issue for so long now with my office, and we are committed to continuing to work on it. And I just want to be really clear—this is not a CEQA exemption.

It's actually taking advantage of an existing practice that's already used, that's been debated over years, you know, to protect the environment. And so, we're committed to—if we can clear up confusion and things like that, of course I'm going to keep working on it because you know, I'm committed to helping, you know, Placer County Water Agency protect our resources.

So, with that I ask for an "Aye" vote.

Just a point of clarification, accepting Committee amendments?

Oh, 100%. It would be a—probably my luck wouldn't be so good if I didn't.

So, I'm happy to—happy to accept them.

And your mic flickered a little bit. You said this was a fantastic Committee Staff and you...

Yes. You know, it's always good to be in a—have good working relationship with the staff of this Committee.

This Bill has a do pass recommendation and a motion and a second. Do we have a motion and a second? Flora, Wicks. Can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

We'll get them later.

I'll ask the Republicans to show up and get my vote out.

We'll leave the roll open.

All right. Thank you.

Mr. Alvarez. Whenever you are ready, sir.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I hope to have a simple bill before you here this afternoon and want to start by thanking committee consultants for the work and the analysis. I think it's very thorough. I also want to call attention.

It's not in the illicit support, but the City of San Diego is in support of this bill and I also want to highlight their specific reasons for it. Those are the exact reasons as to why we have this bill.

AB 652 seeks to address the political sorry the operational inefficiencies within the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District by providing a framework for the appointment of qualified alternate members which are currently not in existence to the governing board.

This legislative initiative would permit each appointing authority to designate alternatives who can serve, vote and receive compensation in the absence of or disqualification of regular members that are appointed.

By adopting this measure, the bill ensures that continuity of decision making process while maintaining rigorous qualifications for alternates that mirror the exact same qualifications that are required for the Board Membership. This approach is designed to uphold the necessary expertise and accountability required to tackle air quality challenges that face San Diego.

Additionally, one major concern has been the risk of losing quorum due to member absences caused by conflicts illness recusals which can stall important votes on permits, regulations and other enforcement actions. The absence of public members such as specialists in pollution related health impacts and advocates for environmental justice risks underrepresentation.

This hampers progress on issues that disproportionately affect the vulnerable communities that I happen to represent. Thus, delays in governance threaten the Air Pollution Control District's ability to fulfill its duty which was established by the Legislature in 2019. And for those reasons I respectfully request your I vote on AB 652.

No witnesses in support.

Any persons in the hearing room in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members. Moira Topp on behalf of the City of San Diego. In support.

Thank you. Any persons in opposition? Seeing none. We will turn it to committee members. Questions? Comments? Motion by Mr. Zbur. Second by Mr. Flora. Would you like to close, Mr. Alvarez?

Thank you, Chair. Just again wanting to make sure that this board can operate. The alternates will be reflective of those who are board members and I appreciate again support.

This bill enjoys a do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do pass. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Jackson. Afternoon, sir.

My man.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much, Committee Members. Mr. Chair, I'm here today to present AB317, the California first Time Home Owner Dream Act. This bill addresses two critical issues facing Californians today. Access to affordable housing and navigating the complexities. Our environmental review process.

First, AB317 proposes to streamline the environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality act for certain new single family homes. This bill would exempt the construction of homes that are 1,1500 square feet or smaller with no more than three bedrooms and priced under 400,000 from the standard CEQA requirements.

This bill would also defer property taxes for developers without penalties or interest until the property is sold, removing upfront financial burdens on developers who build qualifying homes for first time home buyers. The central question that I had. The Inland Empire where I represent has really been known as one of the last remaining opportunities to purchase affordable housing.

And one of the key questions that I have been trying to tackle is how do we make sure that young people in my district and across my region and similarly situated across the state can be able to purchase a home one day in their own community that they grew up in.

And this bill was in partnership with suggestions from the our Board of Equalization as well as members of chambers of commerce to find out how can we make sure that when calculations are made that developers focus not on the largest homes that they can build, but at the priciest levels.

But how can we make sure that it's actually more beneficial to build smaller homes so that people who have small families, or maybe they haven't even started a family, but they want to be able to be a homeowner themselves?

And so this bill is really meant to ensure that we create greater incentives for developers to build the type of homes that we know the next generation will need. And so with that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Any persons in the hearing room who'd like to register their support for this measure? Seeing none. Any persons in opposition? Seeing none. We'll turn it to colleagues, Committee Members, Mr. Zbur.

So thank you, Mr. Jackson. I plan on supporting this bill today. It's a righteous bill and it actually has. And I know we had a little bit of time to talk about it in on the floor today.

The one concern about this bill, which I don't think is the goal is, would be making sure that there's some guardrails around the situation where you have a developer coming in with a subdivision that's already subdivided and potentially building a bunch of single family homes alone and getting around CEQA on something that's relatively large by just submitting applications with the CEQA extension under 100 or 200 single family homes.

I know that that's not the intention, but, you know, the case that could be raised would be, you know, during the subdivision you actually had a CEQA document that imposed, you know, haul routes, for example, for dirt that was being removed or, you know, all to protect the communities around a subdivision or things like that.

And then someone comes in and basically says, well, I'm not going to rely on that CEQA document that actually has a bunch of mitigation measures I have to follow. I'm going to rely on 100 single family home exemption.

So I know that that's not your intention, but if you can, I'm going to support this today because I think it's a great bill. But just wanted to ask that you work on some kind of guardrails that would prevent those kinds of circumstances.

No, absolutely. And I look forward to working with your office and if the Chair will make his staff available, I want to make sure that I'm getting it right. The idea is, is that this is what this process is for, to be able to identify some unintended consequences that may arise. Certainly don't want to ensure.

I also want to make sure that we don't have bad actors taking advantage of this as well and doing other harm. Right. And so it's worth the ongoing conversation and I want to get this right. Working with all of you.

Any other questions, any other questions from colleagues? Mr. Jackson, would you like to close again?

Thank you so much for all of you who've been participating and identifying issues that we need to continue to work on.

Again, I think we need to figure this out because there's no doubt that if we do not use our authority to incentivize the type of housing that the next generation is going to need and many other professionals who are going to need it, we are. We are in some big trouble, and we got to get it right.

So with that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Jackson, and thank you for your commitment to this work. Of course, this Committee staff is available to you to work through this. A CEQA exemption and a tax credit. Not a light lift, but it's that heavy lifting and that heavy work that's needed in moments like this, and we want to lift with you.

So this Bill has a dupass recommendation from the chair. We have a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is due. Pass to Revenue and Taxation Committee. [Roll Call]

That bill is out.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Ms. Papan, come on down.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members.

It's always good to see you

Here in Natural Resources. All right, come on in witnesses. Okay, so this bill is about making a plan. We've agreed to set aside land for 30 by 30, and that's just the easy part. The hard part is how do we maintain the land?

So this bill is about setting up a plan for stewardship once those lands-- or while those lands are being set aside. So AB 900 even will require California Natural Resources Agency to develop a plan to advance stewardship of the state's current and future 30 by 30 lands.

Our state is committed to conserving 30% of lands and 30% of coastal waters by 2030, which requires those lands to be durably protected and managed. Without adequate stewardship and funding, the benefits of the conserved land, which enhances climate resiliency, protects biodiversity and provides outdoor access, will just fade.

Requiring CNRA, California Natural Resources Agency, to review stewardship needs will enable the state and all our 30 by 30 partners to develop management frameworks and an ecological workforce as we approach 2030. Excuse me. AB 900 does not affect how much land will be acquired under 30 by 30 or the 30 by 30 goal.

It instead elevates the importance of stewarding those lands to provide more benefits for the state. AB 900 will better prepare us to protect and manage the state's incredible landscape for generations to come.

With me to testify today are co-sponsors of the bill, Caroline Godkin from the California Council for Land Trusts and Michael Jarred from the Nature Conservancy. I'll turn it over to-- Okay, Mr. Jarred first. Go ahead.

Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee today. My name is Michael Jarred. I'm the Associate Director for the Nature Conservancy.

The Nature Conservancy is a co-sponsor of AB 900 which requires the California Natural Resources Agency to develop an update to the pathways by 30 by 30 report to better understand the stewardship needs and the opportunities for conserved land in California.

I'd like to thank the author for her leadership on this important issue and the committee for its great work analyzing the bill. Many conserved areas lack funds necessary for stewardship which can diminish the benefits of the conserved land.

These activities include removal of pre-existing hazards, cleanup from extreme weather events, invasive weed removal, fencing and water infrastructure work, wildfire resiliency work, trail maintenance and other important and necessary activities. Stewardship is vital to uphold conservation values of land conserved for the public good.

Stewardship needs and the costs associated with them for all conserved lands will grow due to the impacts of climate change on the ecosystem as well as increased climate-related extreme weather events. Stewardship can protect and enhance climate resilience, biodiversity, public access and the environmental services conserved lands provide.

AB 900 does not change the goals of 30 by 30 but instead increases the emphasis on stewardship. AB 900 requires the Resources Agency to develop strategies to reduce the barriers and increase the support for science-based management and stewardship of conserved lands.

This includes updating the pathways to 30 by 30 report to understand stewardship needs, best practices, benefits, workforce needs and highlight new innovative stewardship practices and technologies.

AB 900 would also require the Resources Agency to release recommendations to increase science-based stewardship of 30 by 30 lands including innovative ways to reduce barriers and increase federal, state and local support for the science-based stewardship. I'm happy to answer any questions the committee may have and I urge your aye vote on this important bill. Thank you.

It was two minutes on the dot.

You must have practiced.

Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Caroline Godkin and I am the Executive Director of the California Council of Land Trusts.

We are the statewide organization representing our member land trusts and the broader community of land trusts within the the state and we are pleased to co-sponsor this important legislation with the Nature Conservancy and we're grateful to Assemblymember Papan for authoring this bill.

As you've already heard, this bill would require the Resources Agency to review the stewardship needs of lands already conserved and those to be conserved moving forward. For the land trust community, a key partner in delivering 30 by 30, this is critical.

In a recent survey of 66 land trusts, we identified that they had already 3 million acres of land permanently protected, with another 750,000 acres in the pipeline over the next three years.

Finding ways to effectively steward these lands will help make them resilient to wildfires and other climate events, as well as all of the other things that my colleague from the Nature Conservancy listed. This bill represents a critical step in stewarding these lands.

Thank you for your consideration and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

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

Good afternoon. Alex Leumer on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, Mojave Desert Land Trust and Sonoma Land Trust, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair and Members. Doug Houston representing the Sierra Business Council and the Sierra Consortium, also in support.

Good afternoon. Tasha Newman on behalf of the Big Sur Land Trust, the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, the Wildlands Conservancy and Peninsula Open Space Trust, in support.

Good afternoon again. Matthew Baker with Planning Conservation League, in support.

Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission as well as Sustainable Conservation, in support.

Good afternoon. Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters, in support.

Mandi Strella on behalf of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, the California State Parks Foundation and the Save the Redwoods League, in support.

John Kennedy, Rural County Representatives of California, in support.

Are there any persons in opposition to this measure?

Smart. Questions, comments by colleagues here on the Committee? Seeing none. Ms. Papan, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would. This falls in the category of fail to plan, plan to fail. So I appreciate the opportunity to bring this before your Committee and request an aye vote.

Absolutely. This enjoys a do pass reco from the chair. Do we have a motion? Motion by Mr. Flora. Second by Mr. Zbur. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

We'll leave it open. It's on call.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Absolutely. Assemblymember Tangipa, come on down.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 738. I want to start off by saying that we are happy to take the suggested amendments from the committee and appreciate the consultants work on this. Although this bill has previously has been previously vetoed by Governor Newsom.

And while I understand that there are clean energy goals, this issue is too important not to work on again. Prior to being elected, I was a field rep for Fresno County. In 2020, our community faced a devastating wildfire known as the Creek Fire. I saw firsthand the impact that these disasters have on homeowners and entire communities.

Rebuilding after a disaster is a difficult and costly process that doesn't need to include unnecessary regulatory burdens that only make it harder for survivors to get back on their feet.

AB 738 provides a simple, practical solution by offering a limited exemption to homeowners whose properties were affected by disasters that have been declared an emergency by the Governor.

This bill allows them to rebuild their homes under the solar energy standards that were in place when their homes were originally constructed, without the added financial burden of meeting newer, more expensive regulations. We have all known residents who have been dropped by their insurance or are grappling with being underinsured. This example is not a blanket change.

It's a narrowly focused measure that ensures that only those who have suffered from traumatic effects of a disaster can benefit from it. The goal is not to undermine California's clean energy goals, but to recognize that in a time of crisis, wildfire survivors need flexibility, not additional costs that delay their recovery. Rebuilding isn't just about restoring homes.

It's about restoring communities and giving people the chance to reclaim their lives. Here today to testify with me is John Kennedy with RCRC.

Good afternoon. John Kennedy with RCRC. We represent 40 of California's 58 counties. I'm here today in support of AB 738. It provides important relief to those who are trying to rebuild their lives after a devastating wildfire. The legislature previously exempted the rebuild of homes from the CEC's solar mandate.

This was intended to provide relief for a universe of thousands of residents whose homes were destroyed in the devastating tubs and campfires. But we've had more wildfires and a lot of really devastating wildfires this last year. This exemption reflected the fact that many insurers are underinsured. Many homeowners don't have code upgrade insurance when their homes burn down.

This makes it really difficult, even more difficult for them to get their lives back in order and rebuild their homes and rebuild the lives that they had before the devastating wildfires.

Furthermore, more recent changes to the NIM tariff adopted by the PUC undermine some of those economic assumptions the Energy Commission relied upon in adopting those rooftop solar mandates, making it even a little more challenging for wildfire survivors. So, yes, it is less expensive to add solar panels at the time of construction than after the time of construction.

But these costs add up and it makes it, as I said, even harder and more expensive for people who lost everything to rebuild their lives. It's a narrow exemption. It doesn't apply to everyone.

Only for those residents who are at or below the median county income, can't exceed the square footage of the home, has to be on the same site and the owner could not have had code upgrade insurance at the time. So for these reasons, we urge your support of AB738.

Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room who'd like to register their support for this measure. Seeing none. In the opposition. Seeing none. Will now turn it to Committee Members. Questions, comments? Mr. Garcia?

I do have a question, Mr. Tangipa. So after a fire, are there other requirements that that are exempted for rebuilding?

I'm not aware of other requirements that would be exempt at the time of rebuilding. I can go back and try to look, but the solar mandate is one of the most expensive that we've encountered when people are trying to repeat rebuild.

And we think that this is a necessary first step to getting as many people back into the home as soon as they can. I mean, I personally know people who simply just can't rebuild because of a lot of the costs and especially the underinsurance.

I also know others that have tried to rebuild back, but they're going to have to go from a house that was originally 2,000 square feet that they bought in 1980 for less than $50,000 to now trying to rebuild that they're building less than 1,000 square feet and it's a two bedroom, one bathroom home because they can't really afford the standards that are on today.

And I know you had mentioned the criteria of who would be affected by this, the narrow scope and how many homes is actually, are we talking about how many actual homes?

Well, we think that, especially with what's happened recently, what happened earlier this year, you know, this is something that can help thousands and thousands of people.

And with the understanding that fires have been forever and the condition of our forest right now, we think that this is something that can help millions of Californians.

All right, well, thank you, Mr. Tangipa. You know, I do want to say that I think your intent here to help people build as quickly as possible deserves merit. However, I do think that it goes against our climate neutrality goals. And so. So therefore I will be voting for no.

Mr. Flora.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to say thank you to author for bringing this forward. And I understand like the colleagues concerns.

I think when we talk about paradise that hasn't rebuilt, we talk about Palisades, Altadena, I mean with those three incidences including Santa Rosa and what happened over, you know, we're talking about thousands of homes.

And I think it is interesting and something that we haven't maybe thought through as a body just yet, but we're insured to X amount of dollars on house that was built in 1980. Building cost these days is going to be significantly different.

And I think it's something that as we talk about how we rebuild, these conversations need to be had because that that insurance is not going to cover the cost of rebuilding at today's standards.

So I think some of these policies that I think are still good and are important to keep in place if we're going to talk about getting people to rebuild and getting back in homes as quick as possible, getting families back into their school districts and, and try to not minimize or like just to minimize the time that they've been devastated.

Some of these policies I think we have to really take a close look at and I think it's important. I think this bill's a modest steps. I appreciate you bringing forward and happy to support it today. Thank you.

Thank you. And I think it really does prioritize making sure that people can get back into their home because they didn't have a choice when fire came or some other type of disaster.

Any other questions, comments from colleagues? Mr. Tangipa, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Thank you, sir. You do a fantastic job of bringing kind of your lived experience in with the bills and you do such a great job that I forget that this bill was vetoed by the Governor last year held in the Appropriations Committee. In 2023. Vetoed in 2022. What I do remember is it never stopped in this committee.

And I don't think we're going to stop you in this committee today either. I recognize the balance between our climate goals and setting standards that we need folks to follow.

Part of the reason that we put these standards in place is because some of the ways we've built and planned in the past are not sufficient and have actually put us in some of the risks that we're in in this current moment. But it's a balance and it's a tough question.

And so I appreciate you trying to strike that balance with this legislation. It enjoys a do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, we need a second. Second by Ellis. Can we call the roll?

Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

There's some hope.

Yeah.

Mr. Valencia.

Sorry, Mr. Rogers. I see you in the corner. We'll get you next.

Appreciate that, Mr. Chair. And also to Assemblymember Rogers for allowing me to jump ahead. Buenas Tardes, members and Mr. Chair. AB 1358 aims to promote equity within the Santa Ana River Conservancy program.

The bill accomplishes this by requiring that 60% of funding received by the program be dedicated to projects benefiting disadvantaged communities, severely disadvantaged communities and vulnerable populations. The Santa Ana River is a vital and treasured natural resource in Southern California, especially for historically disadvantaged communities who traditionally lack open space and recreational spaces.

Over time, intense urbanization and development have reshaped the river, often without prioritizing the needs of those who live in the surrounding areas. Additionally, many local residents who live alongside the Santa Ana River struggle to access recreational activities or open space. This is unfortunate considering that disadvantaged and severely disadvantaged communities are most impacted by climate change.

These communities have the greatest need for projects that mitigate environmental harm, provide green spaces and strengthen climate resistance. AB 1358 ensures that these communities are prioritized.

Thank you, sir. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure? Seeing none. Any persons in opposition, come on down. Ms. Brown.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Amy Brown, representing the City of Riverside, respectfully opposed to the bill. We believe that the way this is crafted, the bill does not in line with the intent of our Climate Historic Climate Bond passed in November, known as Prop 4. The city.

We worked very hard on behalf of the city to support the bond bill that made its way through the legislative process last year, SB8C, during the last legislative session.

And we worked really hard to protect the existing process of the criteria that the Coastal Commission, or excuse me, the Coastal Conservancy utilizes for allocating grant funding to projects within the Santa Ana River Conservancy. Prop 4 didn't have earmarks, but rather what we felt was objective allocations of needed projects.

We believe this bill takes a couple of different avenues. It specifies heavily urban areas. It doesn't just increase the disadvantaged communities piece from 40 to 60. What it does is it gives priority to those in heavily urbanized areas. Cities over a population of 300,000 west of the line, the Santa Ana River.

So we're talking about Irvine, Santa Ana, and Anaheim. So we believe that. We've talked to a lot of you. This is a local issue between several agencies down there. But I want the committee members to really think about the precedents this bill is setting.

Because if we go down this road to sort of shuffle the deck chairs on how the dollars are spent or. And or who receives them. It's a slippery soap. And those are the reasons why we asked for your no vote today. Thank you.

Any persons in the hearing room in opposition?

Nicole Wardleman on behalf of San Bernardino County. Also in respectful opposition.

Jean Hurst, here today on behalf of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors also in opposition.

Sharon Gonsalves, on behalf of the City of Corona. In opposition.

Mr. Chair, members. Luis Sanchez, here on behalf of the City of San Bernardino. In opposition. Apologies for the late letter.

No worries. Colleagues, committee members, any questions? Mr. Garcia?

Assemblymember, I want to say thank you for. For speaking with me about the bill in its merits. However, as it's presented, it does seem that it would disadvantage San Bernardino County, the Inland Empire, which I am a fierce advocate for. And so for those reasons, I will have to vote no on this measure.

Any other questions? Comments? Mr. Ellis?

Assemblymember. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. What criteria does the Coastal Conservancy use to allocate funding?

They have an internal system that decides projects for the actual Santa Ana River Conservancy, which is something that I'm trying to address as well, to ensure that there's an equitable distribution of these resources across the Santa Ana River Conservancy as a whole.

The Conservancy was created in 2014 by former State Senator Lou Correa, who is now the congressional member who overlaps my area. And just in conversations with stakeholders back home, we would like to see a more equitable distribution of all the dollars that have gone into this program since deception, and this is an attempt to do so.

Does this bill take into consideration the products that the projects that fit the criteria outlined in the Conservancy's strategic plan?