Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Welcome to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, second to last hearing before House of Origin. The following three measures have been pulled today. Item 2 AB 52 Aguiar Curry Item 10 AB 854 Petrie Norris Item 14 AB 1023 Gibson the following nine measures are proposed for consent.

Item 6 AB 555 Jackson Item 7 AB 605 Marisucci Item 8 AB 729 Zbur Item 9 AB 803 Garcia Item 13 AB 996 Pelerin Item 15 AB 1095 Papin Item 20 AB 1311 Hart Item 21 AB 1395 Harbedian Item 25 AB 1456 Bryan that leaves 13 bills to be presented. Noticing an absence of a quorum, we're going to start as a Subcommitee.

If you are an Assembly Member who serves on this Committee, please make it to the hearing room as quickly as you can. In the meantime, Assemblymember Arambula, would you like to present?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I want to start by thanking the Chair and the Committee staff for their hard work on this bill. The San Joaquin river has been a critical resource for millions of Californians, serving as a key water resource for our farming communities and a cultural landmark for local indigenous communities.

Moreover, the state has invested millions of dollars and created jobs to improve public access to the rivers, trails and natural green space within the San Joaquin River Parkway.

Unfortunately, the river is at risk due to an unregulated process known as pit dewatering, which involves draining the water that accumulates in open pits during mining operations and permanently alters the groundwater tables lying underneath.

A recent project proposal would propose a pit dewatering a mere 200ft from the river, a process that includes a plan to blast and drill a 600 foot pit that's a depth that equates to more than the height of the Washington Monument.

A CEQA review of the project attempted to outline the consequences of these practices, but it failed to fully assess the hydrologic impacts of increased flood risk and groundwater surface water interconnectivity. During the public comment period, There were nearly 600 letters which were submitted overwhelmingly in opposition to this project. Public comment letters from the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation and the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency highlight the extreme risks this project would have for groundwater contamination, river contamination, flood risk and additional overdraft in our local Groundwater Sustainability Agency.

While CEQA is an incredibly powerful tool for protecting the environment, its effectiveness hinges on appropriate implementation by responsible agencies, in this case, the fatal flaws identified in the permitting process.

The DEIR evaluation by public agencies make it clear that the lead agency would be unable to make a decision that truly protects the San Joaquin river and its surrounding communities. As Members of this Committee are well familiar, California is already struggling with limited water supply.

Between our worsening climate conditions, agricultural needs and high water costs, the risk to our water is too severe. AB 1425 is a narrowly tailored Bill that would prohibit pit dewatering in areas where subsurface river flow or groundwater levels are shallower than 50ft below ground.

Only within the San Joaquin River Parkway to protect our river and water resources from harm. Here testifying in support of Assembly Bill 1425 is Sharon Weaver, Executive Director of the San Joaquin River Parkway Conservation Trust, and Roman Reigntree.

Good afternoon, Committee Members. I'm here to just speak on behalf of the river. The San Joaquin River Parkway is a 22 mile stretch of the San Joaquin river between Friant dam and Highway 99.

And our organization, along with the state conservancy, has been working on creating a series of parks, trails and open space on this stretch of the river since 1988. Now, if you don't know much about the history of the San Joaquin river, this river is one of the most overused rivers in America.

It's been called the hardest working river in America because of all the dams that have been placed on the river. All of the resources we have taken out of the river, including sand and gravel and the water itself. Over 95% of the river's flow is diverted at Friant Dam. Now, there are pros and cons to that diversion.

It supports a lot of agriculture, but it has harmed the river system. So I'm just here to ask you today to support AB 1425. We think this Bill is critical to protecting the future health of the river. We have been mining this river for over 100 years.

And all of the other mining companies in the region have moved away from the river. However, I'm concerned that if the project that is proposed moves forward, that may give rise to additional proposals in the future. And that's why I think AB 1425 is critical to protect the health of the river in the future. Thank you.

Hi everybody. Thank you. Really just want to talk. As someone who's born and raised and is indigenous to those lands that we're speaking of, the San Joaquin river is sacred to us. It's something that my family has always been close to, not just the Mamedia family, but for generations. And it's just kind of.

We haven't even filled the tribal Rep for the board yet. And it kind of shows the lack of indigenous input, the lack of respect. I mean, we're talking about a Dumna tribe. D u M N A Google it when you get a chance and find out that this tribe faces extinction.

This tribe is not a lawfully recognized tribe. The dam, the Frian dam, has displaced them. The first time they had sea ceremony in 50 years was in 2002. These folks do not have access to the river, let alone access to the land. And you're about to approve something that might, that's not even accepted in Mexico.

But we in America and California in our backyard are going to have to live with. It's just appalling as an indigenous person where we know and regard not just that that's our parent or something sacred, but. But we are that river. That river brushes over us when we're coming our age.

Ceremonies for our young ladies, for our men who go out and fast and searching for their vision. That land is very holy for us. And it's not like we're trying to say that the community is not taking the exception to jobs or any kind of displacement.

We're just asking the company to look at the sites that it's already identified as possible alternatives and consider those more strongly as the benefit for the community at large to be fixed on this one. That is the most destructive just shows us as indigenous people that there's no care, there's no respect.

And there certainly has not been any outreach to the tribes in that area and good nature. And so that's why I've come to kind of echo that voice and really just be the voice for the river. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Are there any persons in this hearing room in oppos or any persons in this hearing room in support of this measure? In the hearing room or in the hall or in the hallway. Bring them in 100 at a time while they're coming in. A quorum has been established.

Madam Secretary, can you call the roll or establish our presence?

[Roll call]

We have a quorum. Quorum has been established.

Fatima with California environmental voters and strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Scott Bailey of Fresno Building Healthy Communities. We drove up from Fresno today. We are strongly in support of this Bill.

Doesn't look like it's on. [Unintelligible]. Long Beach Alliance Clean Energy.

A member of the Frank community for 44 years. Please protect our river from the mining impacts.

I'm Joyce Bottenreich from Fresno and I vote for 1425. I want to have a river like you do in Sacramento Sacramento and American River.

Elise Higgs, Born and raised in Fresno, California. I strongly support AB 1425.

Lori Garcia, Fresno County, retired Clovis Unified Teacher is standing firm support of AB 1425.

Fresno County island been in for more than 25 years until my family. Moved away within a few years. But for the longest time I lived. Within a few miles of that river and I wanted to see it open to the public and I strongly support AB 1425 to keep it safe.

Jim Durando, resident of Frank, California. Our family has been there since 1938 on the property that I live on adjacent to the to the project. I strongly support Arambula AB 1425.

John Shelton, Senior Policy Advisor for Friends of the River. Our organization highly supports AB 1425. We are also a settling party for the San Joaquin River Restoration where we're reintroduce spring run salmon with Friant water users, the Bureau of Reclamation, several other environmental groups.

We are all completely worried about the extra water that's going to be needed that goes into these ponds.

My name is Valerie Swalef. I've lived my entire life in the valley. I presently live in Madera County a mile from the river. My father lived his entire life here and he used to fish for salmon on the river before the dam was built. And I'm very much in favor of protecting the river.

It's time to do something for nature.

Jeffrey Singel, Fresno City and Fresno County resident. I live within one mile of the San Joaquin River. Former board member of both the Conservancy and the Parkway Trust board and a 40 year professional conservation player in the in the San Valley in the region. This is an exceptionally important issue.

There's a lot of state money invested in this project, in this whole concept which is coming to fruition at this time. Yes sir. And this is a protective measure which will provide benefits down for generations to come. Thank you.

Carol Goyburn, Fresno county resident for 40. Years I'm here on behalf of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. And we support AB 1425. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sunny Corr with the Jakarta Movement here from Fresno County. Myself as well as my 25 additional colleagues who cannot be present today strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Joshua Tavito with the Central Valley Pacific Islander Alliance alongside with Central Valley AAPI Solidarity Table. We said we stay here today to support Bill 1425 behind Dr. Arambula. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other persons in this hearing room in support of this Bill? Seeing not seeing none in the hallway as well. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Two minutes each.

Mr. Chair Members. Scott Governor on behalf of Cemex, which owns the 100 year old Rockfield facility outside of the assemblyman's district, I think the thorough analysis says it best. This Bill circumvents the CEO process for the proposed project before the review is complete, undercutting the value of that law.

People often come before this Committee seeking carve outs from ceca. We're asking for the opposite. Cemex has been involved in the CECA process for seven years. They've spent $5 million preparing report after report after report. The process isn't even done. Right now the lead agency is responding to over 600 comments.

The agency can reject the project, they can modify the project and the Board of Supervisors can reject the project. There needs to be some certainty that if you're a business in the State of California or a developer that if you play by the rules, you do CEQA and if it's approved, you can actually build.

This Bill does the opposite. It turns CEQA upside down and says regardless of what happens, regardless of the science, regardless of the process, we can ban the project. Because that's what this is about. Dewatering. They are dewatering today. They have been dewatering since for 100 years. You have to dewater an open pit mine.

That water isn't pushed into the river or some field. It goes into holding ponds where it's used for dust mitigation. There is nothing new or novel here. In fact, because they're dewatering today and this really gets to, I think what some of the witnesses have suggested. This is about shutting down the existing project.

This isn't just about the expansion. Because if you can't dewater the plant, the come January 12026 this all union facility will shut down. It's 100 jobs between administrative staff and union Members, which is why they're all here today to testify in opposition that are gone.

So I think the author's office did reach out to say what can we do? So long as it's not in that space, you can't move a mine. This is an existing operation. So to permit a greenfield mine would take 20 years and they would oppose it too.

So we're asking you to support the unionized workforce and let CEQA play out and oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Two minutes for you too, sir.

Good afternoon. My name is Andrew Finch and I'm very proud to be a Teamster and work for Cemex. July 16th will mark seven years I have worked there.

Most of the men and women behind me and outside that didn't get in today are well over a decade and a few are close to or over 30 years of employment today. We're here in opposition of AB 1425 since the beginning of Rockville that dates back over 100 years.

Most of us are second and third generation employees who have spent their whole careers at Rockfield. Working at Cemex isn't just a job, it is a career. And because of that and our union benefits, we earn a great wage in retirement.

Since working at Cemex, my wife and I were able to buy our first home and raise our family right in Fresno County. We pay our taxes, contribute to society and spend our money locally. We are very well established within the community. Fresno county is our home along with my fellow employees.

Our roots run deep here and our careers are very important to all of us. We are union strong and I'm proud that Cemex has a great working relationship with the three unions that we are signed with, which include the Teamsters, laborers and operating engineers who we have representatives here with us today.

We work hard to supply our community with aggregates. This Bill would be life changing and directly affect 90 Cemex employees and countless vendors, subcontractors and customers just within the county.

I would like to add that Cemex has been dewatering along the San Joaquin river for the last hundred years and we are today at Cemex we have a strong safety culture. Today we are wearing safety vests to show our solidarity and urge you to vote no on AB 1425.

My job depends on aggregates and I believe the future of Fresno county depends on Cemex. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. Are there any persons in this hearing room in opposition to this measure?

Yes.

Go on to the mic, fellas and ladies. Anybody, anybody in the room?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairman and Members. Matt Cremens here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers and Operating Engineers Local 3 respectfully in strong opposition. Thank you.

Jason Thompson with Cemex, strongly opposed.

Thank you, sir. Just name organization, position on the Bill.

Amir Spinoza, Material Movers. Been a lifelong resident of Fresno and I oppose 1425.

Thanks, Craig Schluter, resident of the Fresno area and health and safety manager. And I strongly oppose. Thank you, sir.

Eric Vasquez. I strongly oppose. Thank you.

My name is Francisco. Came from Farmsville, California all the way over here, over here to Sacramento to opposite 1425. Proposed. Thank you.

Ivan Sinkovich. And I strongly oppose.

Warren Martin. I oppose.

Todd Kromrick. I strongly oppose.

Gardo Marquez. I'm a Cemex employee. I'm a OE3 Union member as well. And I strongly oppose.

Thank you, sir.

Daniel Maupin, Operating Engineers. Strongly opposed.

Chad Laney. Strongly oppose.

My name is Jeremy Buck. I work for Fryant Rockfield Plant. I strongly oppose.

Frank Johnson, Local 3. I strongly oppose.

Mo Rendon, Teamster. Strongly oppose.

Pete Locastro, live in Fresno County. Strongly oppose.

[Unintelligible] Marquecho. I strongly oppose.

Tim Morse, ready mix sales for Cemex. I strongly oppose.

Anthony Martinez. I strongly oppose.

Ricky Phillips from Fresno County. Third generation minor at Cemex. Strongly opposed.

Ms. Meridian Flores, Fresno county employee of Cemex. Strongly oppose AB 1425. Thank you, sir. Sorry.

I'm Tracy Kaler, second generation employee with Cemex. I strongly oppose.

Scott Poulson. I strongly oppose.

Don Lightfoot. I'm a subcontractor that works with them. I have five companies that would lose over 100 jobs if they are shut down. Strongly opposed.

Craig Anderson, Local 3 operator. Also working with subcontracting. We probably have six or seven different crews at seven to eight people. Strongly oppose.

Mike Vrioff, ready mix sales in the Fresno area for Cemex for 24 years. Strongly opposed.

Jason Gresham, Local 3 operator and longtime PAC Committee Member. I strongly oppose. .

Anthony Myers, work at Cemex. I strongly oppose.

Deborah Wells, Director of Public Affairs and Communications. And I strongly oppose.

Joseph Manzanito, second generation minor. Strongly opposed.

Ronnie Knoyer. Strongly opposed.

Savas Castillo. Strongly opposed.

Eric Abbott, three operator. Strongly.

Steve Whitaken, teamster. There's a lot of people that aren't here today that strongly oppose.

Good afternoon. Delilah Clay, on behalf of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association. In opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the Committee, Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. Also opposed.

Chairman, Nick Romer on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. In opposition.

Thank you so much. Anybody else in this hearing room in the hallway in opposition to this measure? Seeing none. We'll kick it back to Committee Members. Questions? Comments? Mr. Ellis? I'm going to start looking this way.

Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Assembly Member. I have several questions, actually. First of all, Is the primary function of this plant. I'll direct it to. Expert witness here is aggregate for the construction industry. It is, sir.

And do you have any idea how much the price of an average home would go in if they could not use that aggregate for cement in that area? I could get that for you. I do not have it. Now, when you talk about dewatering, are there any negative scientific impact reports regarding metals, organic compounds?

I mean, it's just literally water that has seeped through the aggregate into the pit. Is that correct?

None that I'm aware of. Yes. The primary dewatering that occurs there is rainwater, actually, because it is a hard rock mine, you don't get much seepage. So you're pumping the rainwater out, putting it into the holding ponds for dust mitigation.

So is geology, is it granite? Basically. Okay. And then how many acre feet a year are pumped out of there for dewatering?

Again, I'd have to.

I don't know if they know. I don't know the answer. Do you know how many acre feet are pumped out of this reservoir? Okay, so then. And the water is used for dust control, is that correct? That's correct. And there's no contaminants in it whatsoever?

Not that we're aware of, no.

Thank you for answering my questions.

Any other questions from Committee Members? Vice Chair, Good call. Yes. My money's on you.

Okay. I do. So the analysis states that this Bill circumvents the CEQA process for the proposed. Project before the review is complete. So can you elaborate on that CEQA process that CMEX is currently undergoing and why is this process not sufficient in this instance?

Thank you for the question and appreciate it. First, I'll start with they're under a draft EIR that was posted in December or January of this past year, 2020, for going into 25. They received 600 comments.

They're currently in the process of responding and writing to those 600 comments as they are required by law, anticipating that they will make a decision on that draft EIR in the next several weeks at a minimum. The issue really comes down to the information they are receiving.

And what's problematic is their understanding of hydrology and where the river is now versus where it will be in the future. And so I'm just going to, If I can, Mr. Chair, explain a little bit of our history.

We had an 18 year lawsuit that happened between NRDC and led to a settlement with the Friant Water Authority leading towards restoration flows, more water that would be released down the river in a future time. Their calculation under their draft DIR did not calculate or incorporate those restoration flows.

That increased water has interconnectivity is not analyzed by them, despite them spending their millions of dollars, did not incorporate what we know the future river to look like. That's problematic on a number of fronts, doesn't allow us to determine whether or not their quarry is in the floodplain.

Their current analysis is based on the river flows today, not where we'll be in the future. And that doesn't allow that local agency to have the information they need to make the appropriate determination.

That's what's concerning and why the Bureau of Reclamation, a state agency, is raising so many areas of concern with the proposal is that they're not looking towards where the river will be in the hundred years that they will have a lease through this draft DIR process.

That's why there are so many community Members who are concerned with this process. Our local agencies are only able to use the information that they're given and that they receive. The concern many of us have is they're not incorporating that San Joaquin river restoration program and where our river will be in the future.

Mr. Yeah.

Follow up to that then, because I had the same concern about this Bill and I think that the analysis put it directly about circumventing the CEQA process. If there are concerns with it or inadequacies, isn't the process itself the way to resolve those, including, if need be, legal intervention? I think we all recall the settlement.

I think it was a step in the right direction given the issues around the San Joaquin river, particularly down in the Frian area. But I'm very concerned about the precedent. If you don't like how the CEQA process is playing out, you circumvent it.

That, I think, opens up the door to a lot of issues, to the point, frankly, where I don't feel I'm in a position to support this today. But if you have any further, what is your sense of why isn't the process? And I get it, oftentimes there are challenges to whether the draft is adequate, etc. Right.

Why can't that be handled through the, the CEQA process?

Litigation is always an opportunity that may present itself later on in this process. And I won't speak for anyone who's here at this table, but I know there have been conversations about that possibility if they are to go forward.

The concern that many of us have is actually that we're changing the way in which we're getting into this pit he talked about pit dewatering, but he didn't mention that they're not blasting today. They're not using dynamite today to blow up that granite. They're pulling the aggregate that we have. That's river rock right now.

But they're not talking about those chemicals that will then be used to blow up. And then what happens to that water that gets sent off? What happens to the groundwater? What happens to our farms? What happens to the best agriculture in the entire world that we have?

How do I help to defend my community if we can't have an honest conversation about why this new pit dewatering is more concerning why their new way of extracting rock? Because they're actually out of rock if we're going to be real. We had more than one company that used to pull aggregate from that area.

We don't anymore because we ran out of rock. This is the new way that they're trying to get it. Well, what they're also not telling you is we have sufficient aggregate in the San Joaquin Valley.

We have an analysis from CALGEM which shows us at 183% of aggregate needed, we're estimated to have all the aggregate we need today without having to have this pit and the risks that are associated with it. We have a mine in Madera and we have the Kings river that are options for us to be considering.

Not every one of us has the privilege of having local agencies that are as protective as this body is.

Some of us come from communities that can be a bit of a rubber stamp, that don't put in the effort to dig in and to really look at the science, as evidenced by the fact that they didn't make them go back and look at the San Joaquin River Restoration Program and the restoration flows as a way to make sure that we were talking apples to apples.

If they're not talking the same river that we're expecting to have in the future, that draft EIR doesn't mean much. And their approval and their moving forward with it is why so many of us have concerns.

I hear you about trying to preempt ceqa, and I think for many of us, we just have concerns that the process has been flawed, that we may have to try and repair a river that's already been damaged.

As a physician, if we have an opportunity to prevent that damage from happening in the first place, I feel a responsibility to make sure that we're doing that.

Mr. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I also have the same concerns as my colleagues does with circumventing the ceqa. I mean, I think we're going to start seeing more bills like this, you know, that are also going to want their projects also to be bypassed. So for the.

The opposition, could you respond to the blasting that was brought up by the Member? Sure.

And I guess I could defer to someone from Sebex if Debbie can come up perhaps to talk about the process. But just to be clear, it's not like you see on TV or cartoons where rocks are flying through the air, a hole is drilled, a blasting agent is put in there, and you see a puff.

I think maybe we're only going to get one shot at the response to this question. You want him to take it?

May I?

Yes, sir.

He says dynamite. Dynamite will not be used. We've been saying that on. On the microphone, if possible. I'm sorry, Dynamite. Dynamite will not be used. There are other explosives that are used that contain no contaminants. They, when the explosion occurs, those contaminants are released into air. We do it all over the United States.

That answer your question on the explosive contamination? Thank you for clarifying that.

The other issue I have is obviously we have a lot of people out here in the audience today that apparently, if this is passed, are going to lose their jobs. Very concerning, I'm sure, for most of us up here. Is there a remedy to that?

Do we know how soon, if this Bill was to pass, how soon they would be losing their jobs or need to go find another job?

There's a conditional use permit that they currently have that's operational until the end of 26. It's at a separate site than is being proposed under the draft eir and their groundwaters are different for where their current site is versus their proposed site, which is right next to the river. So I'm not sharing that same concern.

We had a town hall this past Thursday right next to the river, and we had 250 people show up. And at that, we also had our Central Labor Council reps as well as our operating engineers reps.

And I gave that direct answer to them as well, that I believe the conditional use permit allows them to have employment until the end of that permit, which is the end of 26. Our Bill is really dealing with the future site that potentially is proposed.

While acknowledging this Bill is not drawn for any one company, any one agency. It's to protect the river overall.

And then the other concern I just want to bring up is you said that there are some other sites that, that you would prefer. Do we know how long it would take, with the CEQA process, how much that would cost for them as a business to relocate and do that as you wish.

Those other sites are already. Excuse me. You're talking the alternatives that are being proposed.

Yeah, you had mentioned that there's plenty of aggregates in the Central Valley.

Those are other companies that are present within the Central Valley. It's not directly Cemex, which is a multinational company based out of Mexico. And if you'll allow me, Mr. Chair, this practice was debated in their lower house last year in Congress, and they banned pit dewatering in Mexico.

And yet here we have a Mexican multinational company that's going to come and pollute in our rivers, is going to come and extract our materials, and then leave us holding the bag. It feels as if we have a company that's prioritizing profits over public health, over biodiversity, over the jewel that we have in our backyard.

And just the last one. Do you have any response to those questions? Are those answers?

I don't, sir. I mean, they followed the process, and it's not done yet, as has been indicated. So we'd like this process to play itself out and maybe it'll be rejected. We don't know. But it is a process.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Seeing no other questions, Mr. Muratsuchi.

Thank you, Mr. Arambula, for always fighting for your communities and your constituents. I. You know, you said that as a physician, you have to try to prevent harm. You know, as a lawyer, I have to respect the CEQA process, and so I will not be able to support your Bill, but I will make the motion.

For out of respect to you and your. What you're doing for your community, I will make the motion so that we can at least have a vote on your Bill. Thank you, sir. I move.

We have a motion In a second, Mr. Ramba. Dr. Rambula, would you like to close?

Members, I urge you to help us to protect the San Joaquin River. They weren't able to provide testimony today, but I want to read from the Table Mountain Rancheria public comment letter. We have a responsibility to protect the land and the San Joaquin river, not only for ourselves, but for those who will come after us.

There are alternatives that do not require sacrificing our environment and our cultural heritage. I implore you to explore these options and to reject this destructive proposal. We stand with countless others in the community who oppose this project.

We urge you to listen to their voices, to honor the cultural and ecological significance of this land and to take immediate action to protect it. I respectfully Ask for an aye vote when. When the time is appropriate.

Thank you, Dr. Arambula. Powerful closing. A powerful testimony for the people from Fresno who came up today and those who might be watching. I can't think of any stronger advocate for clean air, clean water and a healthy environment in their district than you, sir.

I think the challenge that I've grappled with is one that many of the colleagues on this Committee have, which is the responsibility we have in this Committee to defend the CEQA process when it is still underway, given all of the different off ramps that it can be utilized and be challenged for cultural, tribal reasons, poor tribal consultation to a number of other reasons.

But while there's a draft EIR and the process is still underway, I don't know that I feel comfortable giving a recommendation yet. I also know that this is not an issue that you're going to stop fighting for today. Nor should you. But I do not have a recommendation on this Bill today.

But I wanted to make sure that you and the community who care so deeply had a place to be heard in this Capitol in our. One of our final hearings. Madam Secretary, can we call? The roll?

Motion is due. Pass. Two Appropriations. Brian?

Not voting.

[Roll call] No. [Roll call]

We'll leave it open for absent authors if they are not here and you are not here. Do I have your permission to motion for reconsideration so we can take this item up again in January for conversation?

Yes, sir.

I believe we've got Ms. Petrie Norris.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got some witnesses coming, but I'll just get started. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I'll start by accepting the Committee amendments. I want to thank you and your team for working with us on this bill. AB 881 will enable carbon capture and sequestration technologies to help advance California's climate goals.

So carbon capture and sequestration technologies, as many of you may know, come in many different forms. Carbon capture technologies either capture carbon directly from the air or from industrial emissions. That carbon then needs to be sequestered and often needs to be transported. The safest way to do that is through pipelines.

Recognizing the importance of carbon capture technologies for California, a couple of things happened in 2022. Number one, California set carbon removal goals of 20 million metric tons by 2030 and 100 million metric tons by 2045. California also passed legislation to establish a regulatory framework for carbon capture here in our state.

At the time, the federal EPA was in the process of developing federal guidelines for pipeline safety. So at that time, California put a moratorium on pipelines for carbon dioxide. Fast forward to 2025. In January of 2025, a draft of those federal regulations was released by the Biden administration.

However, three days later, Donald Trump was inaugurated and that regulatory press process was paused. What comes next from the federal government is unknown. At best, this will be delayed and our carbon capture goals and our climate goals will be delayed. And at worst, we could be looking at a federal framework that is insufficiently protective for California.

So, reckoning with the reality that we face today, AB 881 builds on those federal guidelines and directs the California Fire Marshal to build on those draft federal regulations and allow our state to lift our current moratorium. AB 881 will also ensure that California does not miss out on billions of dollars in federal support. There's 3.5, $3.7 billion that are available right now from the federal government for carbon capture projects. And these projects will also create thousands of high road green jobs.

I want to appreciate the ongoing commitment of this bill's sponsors to continue to work with community advocates to craft a bill that is both protective of the communities where these pipelines will be placed and is supportive of the nascent carbon removal industry that is so essential to mitigate the worst effects of the climate crisis. With that, I'm pleased to be joined today by Steve Lins from SMUD and Scott Wetch, who is here on behalf of the California Carbon Solutions Coalition. Mr. Lins, thank you for being here.

Afternoon, Chair Bryan, Members. I'm Steve Lins, the Deputy General Counsel and Director of Government Affairs for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. SMUD is the nation's sixth largest community owned electric utility. We serve about 1.5 million residents in the Sacramento region.

I'm pleased to be here today in strong support of AB 881, a bill critical to to the advancement of carbon capture and storage technology. SMUD has a goal to reach zero carbon in our emissions in our power supply by 2030 if we can do that affordably and reliably. This is the most ambitious goal of any large utility in the United States.

We believe that proven clean technologies like hydro, solar, wind, biomass, short duration battery storage can get us about 90% of the way. There's but for that last 10% we're going to need emerging technologies such as carbon capture and storage to close that gap. To this end, SMUD is partnering with the Calpine Corporation to retrofit a 550 megawatt Sutter natural gas plant near Yuba City to a carbon capture and storage facility.

SMUD's going to be the off taker of the energy produced at that facility. The project will provide us with clean and, most importantly, dispatchable energy that's necessary for us to maintain reliability as we transition to cleaner energy sources. The project is affordable for our customers because it allows us to leverage existing infrastructure while at the same time reducing 95% of the carbon emissions at the facility.

AB 881 will ensure that carbon capture and storage projects can proceed in a manner that protects public health and safety while also preserving existing jobs and creating new jobs. As a community owned electric utility, we put community safety first. We wouldn't consider this technology if we thought we couldn't do it safely. So the technology is going to help advance not only SMUD's zero carbon goals, but also the state's climate goals as well. Thank you for your time, and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chair and Members. Scott Wetch on behalf of the Carbon Capture Solutions Coalition, the California State Pipe Trades Council, who is the co-sponsor of the bill, and the State Association of Electrical Workers. We were sponsors of the Governor's AB, SB 905 by Senator Caballero, his centerpiece of his clean energy package that created the framework that the author mentioned around carbon capture.

In the final days of the negotiations, the issue came up about pipeline safety, and there was an agreement between the houses that we wouldn't go forward with pipelines until PHMSA came out with their regulations. But in recognition of the fact that the federal process sometimes can be complex, there was an agreement that if the state fire marshal issued a report to the Legislature by February 30th of 2023 expressing that they could produce safety standards, that then the Legislature, sometime in the future, if the need were to arise, would authorize state regulations.

And that was memorialized in a letter to the Journal that year. We were hoping we weren't going to be here, but with the change of administrations and the fact that our scoping plan has got 100 million metric tons of carbon capture in it, so it's a necessity. This is really an essential bill. We have a window of about...

We had a window of 10 years when 905 was passed between the sunset on the bill and also the money that the Biden administration set aside for carbon capture subsidies. So this is really at the pinch point where we have to take action or we're going to lose the opportunity. Lastly, I'd just like to point out an argument that Dr. Weber in the Senate made in Committee that I thought was absolutely spot on and had not occurred to me. She spoke to pipelines as an actual resource for environmental justice.

Her point was that, in her district where there's a lot of carbon produced by manufacturing facilities, cement facilities and whatnot, that there's no place to sequester carbon. And her point was, without pipelines, districts like hers that produce a lot of carbon would actually become carbon islands where they wouldn't have anywhere to dispose of the carbon. And I felt that was a very salient argument. So with that, we'll be here to answer any questions and would urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Well, now you know I'm going to have to reach out to Dr. Weber after this. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?

Leah Barros on behalf of Calpine and the Independent Energy Producers Association.

Virgil Welch on behalf of the California Carbon Solutions Coalition in support.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Valerie Turella, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, in support.

Dylan Finley on behalf of the California Nevada Cement Association in support.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Jon Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Melanie Law here on behalf of Clean Air Task Force in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Jeremy Smith here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, also in support.

Good morning. Mike Robson here on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association in support.

Thank you. Any persons in opposition to this matter?

Katie McCammon with Climate Action California in opposition.

Do we have primary witnesses in opposition? Okay, we'll do everybody after this. Two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Marie Liu. I'm here on behalf of the California, the Central California Environmental Justice Network that has an opposed unless amended position. It's imperative for the state to ensure that the safe transportation of carbon dioxide through pipelines is safe. And this is an independent issue from the use of CCUS.

The communities that CCEJN represents in the Southern San Joaquin Valley are the ones who are most likely to be heavily impacted by these pipelines. CO2 pipelines are hazardous compared to a natural gas line. Leaks are more likely to lead to zipper line failures, which will release substantial amounts of CO2 that can hang in a dense cloud, posing asphyxiation risk that can travel several miles from the rupture site.

Even at lower concentrations, CO2 can hamper emergency response and evacuation, as the CO2 cloud can cause oxygen levels to dip below what is necessary to run internal combustion engines, something we saw in Satartia, Mississippi. We share the author's desire to make sure that California has strong regulations to regulate these pipelines, especially in the lack of federal action.

However, we also must be aware that the state's ability to regulate intrastate pipelines can be taken away by the feds and that regulating CO2 in high concentrations and in the supercritical state is new, something that the state fire marshal nor any other state agency has any experience doing.

So while we have a good baseline from the PHMSA draft regulations, it's imperative that this bill gives the state fire marshal more direction than normal in regulating these pipelines in order to ensure that we have the safety provisions that we have. We thank the author for working with us on amendments and the Committee for their amendments. This moves in the right direction, but there's still a number of gaps that we believe need to be closed. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Now, for persons in the hearing room who'd like to register their opposition, come on down. And if you went before, go again.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. On behalf of Sierra Club California, Molly Culton in opposition. Thank you.

Katie McCammon, Climate Action California, in opposition.

David Derrick with the Center for Biological Diversity in opposition.

Thank you so much. We'll now turn it back to Committee Members. Questions? Comments? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Ellis. Ms. Petrie-Norris, would you like to close?

Well, thank you. And like our opposition witness said, it's absolutely imperative that California implement the highest safety standards for carbon dioxide pipelines. And that is absolutely my commitment. I think that it is imperative as well that California take our destiny in our own hands, given the current moment that we are living through and what I think we all recognize as the urgency of the climate crisis and the urgency of our leadership in this moment. So with that, thank you again, Mr. Chair, and to your Committee for your work with us on this bill. We'll certainly continue our work with the opposition as well. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. It's actually a very weird position to be the only person on the dais who remembers these deals and the conversations back then around that whole package of bills. And I think, you know, honoring our past commitments and working in good faith is how we make progress in some of these spaces.

And it's good to hear that you will continue to work with the opposition. I think we did make some progress with these amendments. I think there might be some more progress to be made, but I know that you are the right author for this one. This bill has a do pass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll? Do we have a motion? Pellerin and Ellis.

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

We'll leave it open for the absent 50 Members. Ms. Irwin.

Good afternoon, colleagues. We are living in a time of urgency and uncertainty for climate policy. The urgency is clear. Climate change is impacting Californians like never before, including contributing to the devastating wildfires which impacted my district and others earlier this year.

This uncertainty stems from a Federal Government that has shown hostility to any efforts to research climate change, not to mention steps to address. This head in the sand approach is a disservice to our constituents. We have to ensure that our policies are science based, data driven, affordable, and provide tangible benefits to Californians.

AB 1207 will help achieve this by setting the price ceiling in California's Cap and Trade allowance market to correspond to the real, to the social cost of carbon, which reflects the real world impact of greenhouse gas emissions, as was assessed by the US EPA in 2023.

This Bill ensures that California's Cap and Trade program continues to be informed by the best available science and insulates the program from the politicizing of the US EPA. With me today is Caitlin Rodner Sutter with EDF to testify about the Bill.

Thank you very much, Chair and Members of the Committee Caitlin Rodner Sutter, California Director for Environmental Defense Fund I'm also your Assembly appointee on the Independent Emissions Market Advisory Committee, though I'm speaking just for EDF here. First, I want to speak to the underlying program that EB 1207 addresses, that is Cap and Trade, the state's landmark climate policy.

For over a decade, the Cap and Trade program has been driving emission reductions and generating billions of dollars for the state's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that the Legislature has reinvested in myriad projects across the state.

Assemblymember Irwin underscored the need for continued climate action at the state level and at a time when the cost of living is front of mind for so many, Cap and Trade is the most cost-effective climate policy that the state has.

Leaning on this program to continue to deliver emission reductions and revenue to address affordability, climate resilience and environmental justice is essential and urgent. Secondly, I want to speak to the specific change to the program proposed by AB 1207 and that is considering a specific social cost of carbon as one of the factors in determining the price ceiling.

Right now we are seeing the Federal Government delete wholesale science and economic data across many platforms and California needs to rely on facts in making our policy decisions. Our climate policy should be evidence based and data driven. This Bill will support the inclusion of fact based estimates of the social cost of carbon.

EDF is very pleased to support AB 1207, the Cap and Trade program more broadly and we deeply appreciate Assemblymember Irwin's tireless leadership in establishing the future of this program.

Thank you. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure? Seeing none. Any persons in this hearing room not, oh. Seeing one.

Faith Conley with Weidman Group on behalf of Next Gen California in support.

Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Seeing none. We'll now turn it back to Committee Members.

Questions? Comments I'm a little bit annoyed of the colleagues who were not here who pulled it off of consent. Assemblymember would you like to close?

I didn't realize that. Respectfully asked for your aye vote.

This Bill has a do pass and I know that this is the vehicle for a lot of good work that you are leading and working on. It of course is a do pass recommendation and should have been on consent. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

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

We just like watching you lead up close. We'll leave it on call for absent Members.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Rodriguez.

Thank you Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to present this important legislation. Assembly Bill 1106 strengthens California's air quality Incident response by establishing a modernized coordinated network of air quality incident response centers.

In collaboration with the California Air Resource Board, CARB and local air districts, these centers will enhance emergency response capabilities, improve air quality monitoring and protect public health during disasters. As we have all seen over the past several months, California has experienced numerous catastrophic events, most recently the day of a stadium wildfires in Southern California.

Despite the rise in natural disasters, our state currently lacks a coordinated multi agency system for real time air quality monitoring and emergency response. Without a unified approach, agencies often struggle to deliver timely, accurate data during air pollution crisis, limiting the effectiveness of response efforts and putting public health at risk.

AB 1106 addresses this gap by expanding CARB's incident air monitoring Response Program and creating a regional network of air quality incident response centers, each located within an operated, each located and operated by local air districts. This is a common sense, proactive piece of legislation that ensures our state is better prepared to respond to environmental emergencies.

With me today to testify is Jason Low from Southern South Coast Air Quality Management District. Jason serves as a Deputy Executive Officer of the Monitoring and Analysis Division.

Great. Thank you very much. So good afternoon Chair and Members of the Committee. I am Jason Low as introduced and I am the Deputy Executive Officer of the Monitoring Analysis Division at South Coast AQMD.

I have around 20 years of experience leading air monitoring operations surrounding large scale incidents impacting air quality, including but not limited to the Station Fire, the Port of Long beach fire, the ExxonMobil refinery explosion, the Aliso Canyon gas leak, Chiquita Landfill emissions, the Tustin Hangar fire and most recently the Southern California Wildfires.

We are in strong support of AB 1106 and serve as a Bill sponsor. The Bill would strengthen California's existing air Quality Incident Response Program by establishing a network of modernized, well equipped and coordinated air quality incident response centers through collaboration with CARB and other local districts.

As mentioned, there's been over the past several years there's been a lot of incidents where air quality has been impacted and the recent unprecedented urban wildfires in Southern California has further demonstrated that the critical need for an increased dedicated and local resources to expand and modernize incident response for air monitoring.

Wildfire smoke poses a significant public health hazard, particularly due to PM2.5, which can cause respiratory and Cardiovascular problems that exasperate existing health conditions. Moreover, for urban wildfires, especially those impacting large areas, air toxics are a major concern as smoke and ash from from homes and businesses can contain asbestos, heavy metals and other pollutants of concern.

The demand for immediate and ongoing air quality information for this event and many others, especially in communities and areas most impacted by the incidents, highlight the critical need for enhanced localized emergency and air monitoring response.

This information is vital to inform the public, first responders as well as the public health agencies who can use this data to Better Evaluate Potential Individual Actions as well as provide good public health guidance.

AB 1106 would provide the infrastructure for timely information on levels of potentially dangerous air toxics emitted as a result of wildfires and other disasters or emergencies. In addition, this Bill would help improve emergency preparedness and and coordinated response and for the main goal of protecting public health.

Thus, we respectfully request your support for AB 1106 and this important program. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure.

Brenden Tuig, on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, which are. The air pollution control Officers from all. 35 local air districts in support.

Alan Abbs with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in support. Thank you so much.

Any persons in opposition to this matter. Smart will now turn it back to Committee Members. Motion by Ms. Pellerin. Second a second by Mr. Connolly. Mr. Ellis, you have a question?

Just a quick question. Can you specifically tell me what type of monitoring that you would do post catching fire? Is it PM particulate? Is it organic compounds? Is it EID photo ionization detector? Poc? Could you explain?

Sure, that's a great question. So I can already relay what we've done for the most recent fires. So we have conducted paramobile surveys. So these are mobile laboratories that have different equipment. You seem familiar with some of the equipment.

So one of them was equipped with a PTR mess which can look at hundreds of VOCs in real time to get a snapshot of the different compounds that are there. The second platform that we had was X ray fluorescence instrument mounted on a mobile platform to look for the metals. Again, getting a snapshot.

Those results fed into a strategy to do stationary air monitoring where we did have real time PM the larger particles as well as the smaller particles that go deeper into lungs. We also are measuring for metals including arsenic and lead. And then we are also sampling and analyzing for asbestos in the communities.

Longer conversation this has been, but thank you very much.

Absolutely. And happy to have a meeting with you afterwards.

I strongly encourage it. He's a good guy to meet with. Any other questions from colleagues? We have a motion by Ms. Pellern in a second by Mr. Ellis. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair. And I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And it's a second by Mr. Connolly. This reminds me of a Bill that a former Assembly Member, Rodriguez, would have run. It's a really, really important issue, and I'm glad that that voice around emergency management is not lost here in the Legislature. Thank you for bringing this Bill. It has a dupass recommendation from the chair. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

We'll leave it open for absent authors. Thank you, Ms. Schiavo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I am very happy to present AB28 today, which is the Landfill Fire Safety Act. And I'd first like to start and thank Elizabeth Committee staff who's worked very, very hard on this bill and I will be accepting the Committee amendments today.

I am incredibly proud to represent the community of Castaic and Val Verde. This is a community that is, it's a community that is historic actually in our state. It's a, it's a beautiful community, a rural community, not something you would think of when you think of LA County. A lot of people talk about finding their forever homes here.

It's a tight knit community and it's historic because it used to be called the Black Palm Springs where black Angelenos and folks from other areas would come and vacation in the 30s and 40s. And a vibrant black community was born in this area. Our first state Black Parks and Recs Director is from this community.

A lot of folks are very proud to live in this community. But unfortunately it is now the only place that we still have a fire burning in LA County.

That's at the Chiquita Canyon landfill where there is a subsurface elevated temperature event or a set event that has been burning for over three years now and, and its temperatures have increased to over 200 degrees. It's grown from its initial 30 acres to 90 acres of burning trash.

So if you think about everything you put in your trash can, that is what's burning in this community. Lots and lots of plastic and toxins. This is a disaster and it's a public health crisis that's affecting residents within a five mile radius or more. And despite a robust multi-agency response to the landfill, it's grown.

And the landfill employees on the landfill who have been working on the site to address the fire, they have all kinds of protections for them. They're breathing supplied air, they have hazmat suits to protect them from the dangerous chemicals. Literally looking like they're wearing a spacesuit.

And yet a couple football fields away we have community members who have none of those protections.

We know that they're breathing toxic air with carcinogens like benzene, acrolein, which was actually used as a chemical war agent in World War I because it burns people's skin and eyes and 19 chemicals or more total that are in the air that we've already tested for.

The root cause of this crisis is really the negligence of the operator at the landfill. Because of that level of negligence, it's allowed what is typically an isolated hotspot to grow into a subsurface chemical reaction that's covering nearly 100 acres.

It's hard to imagine an underground fire this big, but imagine if 100 acres of a landfill was burning with flames on top of what kind of crisis that would be. And yet so many people don't even know about this. The Chiquita Canyon landfill is now expected to burn for multiple decades.

There are children from my community in this room who will be having children before this crisis is over. The goal of Assembly Bill 28 is to ensure that Chiquita never happens anywhere else in any of our communities in the state.

The Bill requires that landfill operators diligently monitor their subsurface temperatures and requ consistent reporting to local agencies, the LEAs and state departments about elevated temperatures. And if temperatures rise to an alarming level, that corrective actions must be submitted to the local enforcement agencies and to calrecycle.

A multi agency coordinated group needs to be convened which will provide advice and corrective action plans to enforce the plan. And if temperatures exceed 162 degrees, then they have to in accordance with federal regulations, that is a danger zone. The LEAs have the authority to pause and revoke permits and file for a state of emergency.

If these terms and conditions are ignored, then fines will be implemented. So aside from the policy of the bill, I wanted to take a moment just to talk about the lives that are impacted by this bill.

We have people in our community today who came and shared their stories earlier and I know one of our community members will also testify today. But I wanted to lift up how many people this is so broadly impacting. Brandy and Micah are here who Brandy is just recovering from treatment and stage three cancer. She's had five miscarriages.

Her son has severe nosebleeds and actually had one while we were doing a press conference during our legislative tour in our community. We have Erins here who helps people, who works in farming and has seen thousands and thousands of bees dying over and over in our community. Literally a canary in the coal mine.

We've seen many, many family pets, turtles, tortoises that live to 100 years, dying at 20 years old. We have Cher, who's a community Member, has been doing a community survey and found that 13% of the respondents miscarriages.

Hugo, who is now at USC but was a high school student where many of his friends have autoimmune disorders now and are struggling to stay healthy. Jennifer and her daughter Kaylee, who, Jennifer has ocular headaches where she cannot see her kids have uncontrollable nosebleeds, which is a common complaint for kids.

Kaylee is now and her little brothers are now having to leave their school and all of their friends because they cannot be safe in their own community. They cannot go outside and play.

And the kids will come home with rashes and Jennifer will rush them into the showers so that they can get the toxins off of their skin because they're having skin reactions. And one of the people who couldn't be here today, but Darcy is, is a giant 6 foot 6 teddy bear veteran who loves to shoot guns.

And because he has hand tremors, which is very common now in our community, he can no longer shoot guns. I went to lunch with him where he was trying to eat miso soup and his hand was shaking so much he couldn't eat his soup. So people are becoming disabled.

We have a cook whose tremors are so bad he can no longer cook. He's lost his home. There are massive impacts in people's lives. We need to make sure that those who cause these kinds of disasters are held accountable and fix it. We can prevent them in the first place.

Today I have with me another Castaic community Member, Elizabeth Jeffers, who is going to speak and also Jane Williams with the California Community Against Toxins. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. Thank you for having me today. My name is Elizabeth Jeffords and I just want to say when I first saw my house in Castaic, I fell in love immediately. It sits on top of a beautifully lined, tree lined community.

It's very suburban, it's very rural, it's very family oriented, it's full of life and it has killer views. When we saw the house, I told my husband, if you buy this house for me, I will never ask you for anything else. I was determined to be in there forever.

It is what we were hoping to be, our forever home. Shortly after we moved in, things began to change. I started to get extremely sick and we used to joke that I was allergic to my new house. It started off with nosebleeds, trouble breathing, tremors, burning eyes, dizziness.

And a couple of years ago I became bedridden and unable to work because the vertigo was so bad I could not stand up. Shortly after that, I discovered we were in the proximity of this Chiquita Canyon landfill. A landfill that is burning underground fire of 90 acres.

It's still burning and it's burning toxic waste that continues to burn, poisoning our air and our quality of life. I've always been very athletic, very active. People always ask me if I ever slept, because I never did. Now it's all I do, the fatigue is settled in and there's nothing else to do.

My husband and I ran several businesses within the community and one day I just stopped running. I've been living in Castaic five years and within that time I went from running two miles a day to running two inhalers a day on a daily basis.

My experiences are vision loss, debilitating headaches, nausea, vomiting, tinnitus, fatigue, gut pain, tremors, skin rash, slurred speech, internal vibrations. The internal vibrations are so bad now that I started to lose my teeth. If I weren't living in this, I wouldn't believe it. But it is 100% for real. And it's happening to many of my neighbors.

Louisiana County Health and Supervisor Barger have been ignoring us. They have the authority to step in and help us, but they just choose not to. Our BOS chair refuses to even make this an agenda item. This is a public health crisis. And without making it public, how can we expect our health care professionals to properly treat us?

This is 19 plus chemicals burning in our air 24/7/365. And now known for three years. Ignoring us is gross negligence. Unlike the LA wildfires, we haven't been given any health town halls. Unlike the Aliso Canyon gas leak, we haven't been evacuated. We have been forgotten.

And it is critical that these landfills be strictly regulated so that communities like us can get the help we need and so that other communities don't suffer the way we are today. You have the power to take the action. Please help us. Please vote on AB28. It's the landfill Fire Protection Act. Thank you.

So we normally do two minutes per witness, but there was not a chance I was going to stop.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Well then, Chair, I will be short. As long as you know me well enough to know is difficult for me. So I just wanted to tell you that three years ago in February, I received a phone call from a family that lives here in Castaic and at Val Verde.

And as many of you may know, I do chemical disaster responses across the country. Country respond to chemical facilities that catch fire in Louisiana. Respond to the Lahaina fire. Respond to large tank farms catching fire in the Houston Ship Channel.

Some of you who've known me for a long time know that the reason I do this work is because the community I live in still has the worst childhood cancer cluster in the state where we had 11 children contract brain cancer and die in a three year period.

Now, I have the wonderfulness of being in front of the Committee today to tell you that after 33 years of work protecting Children now at the Chiquita Canyon Landfill is the longest continually operating chemical disaster in the country's history. And it's happening right here in California.

And it's happening right under the noses of what is supposed to be the most stringent regulatory superstructure in the country. That's why this bill is so important. Because clearly whatever we're doing is not working, or I wouldn't be here in front of you after three years of working on this. That's why AB258 is.

It's a bad boy bill. You don't want to be here or you're going to be required to do a lot more, and it's going to be a lot more costly when it's clearly under the purview of a landfill operator to make sure that their landfill doesn't catch on fire.

So we can't have a situation where we just allow these landfills to catch on fire and then destroy communities. We need to make it difficult. If you decide to let your landfill catch on fire, it's going to be rough. And that's what this bill is designed to do, right?

Is to make sure that if you pass that 131 temperature requirement that your life's going to get a lot harder as a landfill operator. So thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I look forward to working with you all as this bill moves forward.

Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?

Hi, my name is Hugo Turner. I am in support of this measure. Thank you.

My name is Kevin Smalling. I'm in support of this measure.

Thank you, Kevin.

Hello, I'm Alma Bogdan Turner and I'm supportive of this measure.

Thank you. My name is Cher Arballo from Castaic and I'm supportive of this measure.

My name is Adelaide Vasquez of Castaic and I supported this bill.

My name is Osha Orchid. I'm with the Val Verde Civic Association and we are in support of this measure.

My name is Nathan Elkins and I support this bill.

Thank you, Nathan.

My name is Kaylee Elkins and I support this bill.

Thank you, Kaylee.

My name is Jennifer Elkins. This is Luke Elkins, Val Verde resident and community organizer. On behalf of myself and my neighbors who are too sick to be here today, we strongly support this bill.

I am Randall Elkins and I support this bill.

Hi, My name is Erin Wakefield and I am in full support of this bill. We have a thousand dead bees. We have a thousand dead bees. Thank you. We need your help.

Hi, my name is Brandy Howes, Val Verde resident. I'm strongly in support of this bill.

My name is Micah Howes, and I strongly support this bill.

Erica Parker, Californians Against Waste in support. Thank you.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in support of this bill. Thank you.

Brock Campbell, on behalf of the Freedoms Way Baptist Church in Castaic in strong support.

Emily Campbell with Freedoms Way Baptist Church in Castake in strong support.

Reid Addis, on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Two minutes each.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Mark Apraya with Capitol Advocacy. I'm here on behalf of Republic Services in opposition to AB28. First of all, no community should have to endure with the community in and around Castaic have had to go through. We also know that the author is sincere in her desire to solve the problem.

We have had many conversations with the author. However, regrettably, we must continue to oppose for the following reasons, as the Committee analysis well describes.

While there is a description of factors that may have led to this event, we do not yet know the operational failures that caused the subsurface elevated temperature event, nor do we know what regulatory action should have been taken to prevent or address this event.

Yet, even before we know the cause of the problem, this bill seeks to propose a solution that will impact approximately 200 active enclosed solid waste landfills throughout California. This will result in higher cost of managing solid waste, raising ratepayer costs, and further compounding California's affordability problem.

Further, while AB28 seeks to address this problem, because we do not know the cause of the problem, we cannot know if AB28 will solve it. Rather than prematurely proposing a solution, we urge that this bill be amended to direct the regulatory agencies that are responsible for regulating solid waste landfills to provide the Legislature a complete report.

The report should be completed by a date certain and the detail and detail the operational failures that caused this event. Describe what regulatory action should have been taken to address the event, and if necessary, propose regulatory or statutory changes that will prevent such an event from ever occurring again.

Until such changes are made, we must respectfully remain opposed to AB28. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. John Kennedy with Rural County Representatives of California. We're here today to regretfully oppose AB28. The current situation in your district is unacceptable and it's terrifying what everyone's going through and the prospect that the fire may consume the entire facility.

As local governments, we share your concerns about what's going on in your district, protecting our communities and ensuring that landfills and other businesses operate safely. As operators of landfills, we have many concerns about the current contents of the bill and the regulatory enforcement regime it creates.

We appreciate the extensive conversations we've had with your staff and with Committee staff on this bill. We want to get this bill right. It's a tough topic. We want to make sure we get it right.

So we understand there are significant amendments in Committee today proposed by a Committee that we look forward to reviewing them and commenting on them after we review them with our counties.

On first glance, these amendments appear to significantly improve the regulatory framework, integrate ARB's current efforts to update the landfill methane regulation, and weave in OEHA to better understand and evaluate health risks from these landfill events. Elevated landfill temperatures are fairly common, but are often addressed through operational controls and quickly addressed. Some take a little longer.

Gas temperatures are an indicator that something is happening, but not always an indicator that the public health. That public health risks are present. Sometimes operators will see other things, wisps of smoke, changes in landfill surfaces.

But the important thing is to take immediate corrective action, identify a course of action and take that action and ensure there are no public health risks associated with the facility.

So While we oppose AB28 as it's currently drafted today, we look forward to continuing to work with the author and with the committee to ensure that we can better protect our communities going forward. Thank you.

Any persons in the hearing room in opposition?

Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, and respectful opposition for the reasons stated. Thank you.

John Mchale, on behalf of Waste Management. Opposed, unless amended, to the previous iteration of the bill. We look forward to reviewing the new language.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Questions, comments, concerns by Committee Members. Ms. Pellerin.

Thank you. First, I want to thank the author for coordinating the tour that we got to do and go down to see the Chiquita Canyon and talk to the residents and see for ourselves the health hazard and the environmental hazard that's happening for three years now. Correct?

And at the press conference, one of the young gentlemen, young kid, his noes started bleeding and it was devastating to see that. And then the veteran speaking had the tremors going as well.

And so I witnessed all this for myself and wondered, how can this be that this has been going on for three years and there's no attention to this. There's nobody raising the alarm except for you. How grateful I am that you're in this body to raise the alarm on behalf of your district. Curious with one thing.

This is one horrendous landfill fire. Are there others that are currently on fire here in California as well?

There is one that we know of. Elsebrante Landfill, which is in Corona, operated by Waste Management, is on is has an elevated temperature event. It's contained to, from what I understand, four acres, not 90 acres. So it's in a whole lot better shape and we're hoping that they can contain it to that.

But you know, even with their, you know, from what they reported pretty quick action, it's still been burning for six years. So it's happening elsewhere. And I think that my witness Jane can speak to some of the concerns around how changes to trash are making these kinds of set events even more, possibly more common.

Yeah, I think one of the real problems here is that because of our efforts to divert waste from landfills, increasingly what's happening is more and more plastic is making it into landfills. And essentially plastic is a type of fuel since it's a hydrocarbon.

So those of us that are watching all these regulations, both at the federal level and the state level, are very concerned about the fact that California now has two landfills on fire. Just to put this in contextual space, this is an extraordinarily rare event to have one landfill on fire. Now we have two landfills on fire.

We have major compliance problems at the Sunshine Canyon landfill, which is also in the Assembly Members district. That landfill has now been issued 6 NOVs in the last 12 days. So clearly something is happening and our response is not adequate. And so we need a better response from state agencies.

Okay, thank you. And I just have a question for the folks representing landfills. What is the highest temperature that you have at your landfills?

Assembly Member, I don't know that I can give you that answer, but I'll certainly get back to you on that.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Anyway, I just. I think this is a great response to what's happening in your district. And I. Look, I will move the bill. Thank you. Thank you.

We've got Mr. Muratsushi and then I've got you, Ms. Ellis.

Ms. Shalvo, you are such a dogged fighter for your community. You know, every time I talk with you, it seems like you're talking about Chiquita Canyon. And so you Know that your passion for your constituents is obviously noticed.

You know, so much that I'm tempted to call you Chiquita Chavo, but I know that that would be politically, politically incorrect. Yeah, but, yeah, I, you know, so I, I hear, I hear the concerns being raised by waste management folks.

And I'm sure you'll continue to work with them to try to find a practical, you know, something that can protect your constituents, protect your communities, and at the same time recognize the realities of operating these landfills. But I'd be happy to second the motion for your bill.

Mr Ellis.

Yes, this is catastrophic.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yes, thank you.

So it frankly irritates me. How deep, may I ask, how deep is this fire?

I think, what does it fit? Around 30 to 40ft deep. Is that right?

Yeah, I think it's.

Community members go to three meetings a month on this.

Okay, so, so it's, it's less than 50. But here's the important thing. I know what you're getting at. The landfill, because it's burning, is now sinking and so it subsided by 10ft.

A few. For it to burn, it has to have oxygen. Okay, so, so let me ask you what techniques have been used to try to extinguish this?

I can answer that. There, there's been a number of things. So there's been a, there's been a. I don't want to give the impression that there hasn't been a robust response. There has. There's a multi agency team. They've been working with the landfill. They've been on the ground meeting weekly for a long time.

I don't think that's happening. I'm not. Well, that's a lot happening. But they've covered it. They've done a cap, basically a 40 acre cap because they thought it was a 30 acre fire. And so they tried to cap it, capture all the gases, a welded shut capped landfill or landfill cover. But now it's 90 acres.

So obviously it's not doing the job anymore.

They've put in over 220 wells, I think, to take out the gases, the leachate, which is the toxic liquid fluid that is a normal byproduct, but they have millions and millions of gallons that they are producing because as the fire burns in the landfill, it creates gases, it creates this liquid and leachate, and then those also help to feed the fire.

So they've been trying to starve the fire by taking the liquids and the gases out as quickly as they can. But it's frankly, it's millions of dollars of Work, and it's not working. It's tripled in size.

Have they tried injecting, like, nitrogen or an inert gas?

The latest orders from the state require them to try to inject bentonite clay in the toe of the expanding fire. To create a barrier.

Bentonite is like a sodium rillonite. And what it'll do is it will seal. It acts as a sealant. A barrier. Yeah, it's a barrier, but it's not a distinguisher extinguisher.

No, it's just trying to let it. You're trying to create a barrier, like it's called a vertical barrier inside the landfill.

We'd love your bright ideas if you have them, because what we're finding is that there's not a lot of. This doesn't happen very much. And so there's not a lot of experts in this area. And it's a hard. It's a hard thing to put out.

So just to add to my experience, we've drilled Wells that are 20,000ft horizontally, and we have done all kinds of amazing things in formations that you would never even think could happen. It's possible. So my mind instantly goes to. I'm sorry. We could probably take this offline.

Yeah, we should definitely have an offline conversation. I would love that.

Okay. Have there been any medical studies on clusters? Like, is there? Because you obviously have an issue. This is very alarming to me, and it irritates me that we're not attacking this.

Yeah, you and me both. So the LA County Department of Public Health is technically the LEA, the lead enforcement agency in this situation. Calvert has given them the authority over the landfill. Unfortunately, their response has been abysmal, I would say. And what they've done is they've emailed out a survey. People can optionally fill it out.

There also was. Because we are seeing cancer a lot. Brandy, who I mentioned, just is recovering from cancer. All four of her neighbors have cancer. Darcy, the veteran that I mentioned, he has a rare form of cancer.

10 people on their street in this community right next to the landfill, all have cancer, and two of them have died, I believe. And so we asked for a cancer study. But unfortunately, the study that was done, how they have to do it is by census tract. And so it's because it's a really rural area.

They're very large census tracts, and it really waters it down. So they can't just point to this community right next to the landfill and say, do they have a higher rate of cancer? They can't study it like that. So it didn't really bring back the kind of conclusive results we would have liked.

My only concern with this is that it kind of punishes the good guys how well you're making them that have good folks, that have good practices and aren't having any problems have to comply and spend more money on monitoring. I'm not saying that this is.

They don't know because you only have to start reporting if you have elevated temperatures. So every landfill who is taking care of business and not having any elevated temperature issues, they are fine. They don't have to worry about anything in this bill.

How do they monitor then? Are there subsurface temperature gauges or something?

Isn't that a cost they're required by federal law to monitor? Well, they already are required to monitor, yes.

Okay, thank you.

So the additional monitoring, reporting, all of that doesn't come into effect until the temperatures are elevated.

And you're working with waste management as well right now, Is that what I hear?

Yeah, we've been having conversations. We're working on setting up a meeting to discuss further. We're not, you know, we are. We are really trying to make sure that we are capturing this is our goal twofold. One is to catch things early so it does not become a Chiquita Canyon.

And then two is to make sure that if you are negligent and not taking care of your work on the landfill and really preventing disasters like this, that you're held responsible. And so we are not trying to make this incredibly difficult for everyone in their daily operations.

Only in instances where there are elevated limits temperatures and you can get ahead of it.

This solve this problem now. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Muratsuchi you already asked your question. Any other questions from the Committee? Seeing none. Ms. Schiavo, would you like to close?

I just want to thank the committee for your discussion again, the staff, for their hard work on this bill. We believe that this is a really important bill. We have, you know, we have so many stories that I could tell.

I could take all day and into the night and I get texted them, I get emailed them daily. I am seeing the pain and hearing the pain that people are experiencing. And I would not wish this on my worst enemy. And so really with that goal, that is what we were trying to accomplish with AB28.

And we respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this forward. And thank you to all the community members who came up here who made this committee a place where people who are directly impacted by real environmental hazards could be heard today your voice is powerful and very well received. You should know if you are from the members district.

She has said the words Chiquita Canyon every single day this year. The member from Manhattan Beach is not lying. It is a part of every single conversation, an important part. And we've been trying to work this through this committee because we know that you care about what's happening in your district and across the state.

Although to be clear, what's happening in your district is unique. I know you mentioned sunshine and what's happening in Corona. I'm not saying other folks are perfect. This is disastrously unique. And there's a lot of work we need to do to make sure that it can't happen again and that it won't happen again.

I think getting through this committee with the incredible work of the team and I to start this bill off and your leadership, I think you're on a pathway there and we want to be a part of that pathway. So this bill has a dupass recommendation. Madam Secretary, can you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

We'll leave it open for absent authors.

Thank you.

Or absent Members. We don't have absent authors. Because Mr. Alvarez is here. Whenever you're ready, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Good evening, everybody. Thank you for, for being here and for allowing us to present Assembly Bill 357, the Student Faculty Housing Success Act, to your Committee. This Bill was introduced as part of the Fast Track Housing Bill package a couple of weeks ago, maybe months ago now.

An initiative to address California's housing crisis, as you all are well aware of, by significantly expediting housing development in general. In the case of this Bill, it was an attempt to work on student housing and faculty housing specifically and ensuring that reviews by other bodies, in this case the Coastal Commission, to issue, to allow these projects to move forward in an expeditious manner.

The amendments before you today, which we are accepting, what it does to, to the Bill is to require the Coastal Commission to issue a final permit decision within 90 days of a project being submitted, which would cut any delays while maintaining all the environmental safeguards that are sought in the work that is done. California's coastal communities face real challenges.

We know it. Just like the rest of California when it comes to building housing, affordable housing, including housing for students due in part to the complex regulatory process in the coastal zone, which this Committee has heard a bit about. A recent report highlights how these processes can unintentionally slow down projects that support equity and access to housing.

The challenges are especially urgent in the context of California's student housing crisis where tens of thousands of students face homelessness or overwhelming rent burden. I'll give you some statistics. A 2019 report from the PPIC found that 45% of the total cost of attending a UC school was spent on housing. In the CSU system, that was 39, excuse me, 53% of the total cost was on housing costs, compared to the tuition costs being 39% for UC and 28% for the CSU.

According to data from the California Interagency Council on Homelessness, homelessness and housing insecurity are widespread among California's college students, with 1 in 4 California community college students reporting experiencing homelessness, 1 in 10 of CSU students experiencing homelessness, and 1 in 20, excuse me, UC students experiencing homelessness.

So limited housing near campuses forces students into long commutes, overcrowded apartments, or unstable living arrangements, which impacts obviously their academic success and their wellbeing. So AB357 offers a solution. The Bill would accelerate much needed housing while maintaining environmental safeguards through a time bound process helping campuses and coastal areas build more efficiently.

This approach aligns with the efforts already underway in cities such as Santa Cruz which worked with the Coastal Commission to update local coastal plans and successfully support more housing. The goal is not to bypass environmental safeguards, but to create smart streamlined pathways to meet urgent student needs while respecting California's coastal values.

With tools like AB357, thoughtful local planning and continued collaboration, California can tackle student housing crisis and preserve its iconic coast for future generations. I'd now like to turn it over to our two witnesses, excuse me, Kate Rodgers, co-chair of Student Homes Coalition and Scott Anglim from the UC Student Association.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Kate Rodgers. I'm the co-chair of the Student Homes Coalition and also a student at UCLA. So Homes represents students from across the state at different campuses, including those in the coastal zone.

So we're proud to sponsor AB357 along with UCSA and Youth Bridge Housing at UCSB and we respectfully request your support today. So at Homes we have like a bottom-up approach to legislation and housing costs across the entire state have become unmanageable for students, but this is particularly true in the coastal zone.

So off-campus housing in the coastal zone is more expensive than the state average by about $3,000 every single year. And so it's these students that really need AB357. So housing in the coastal zone, of course is expensive and this is in part due to high demand.

But it also has to do with the Commission's broad mandate to regulate development and their general prevention of multifamily development or just other rental options in general. So these policies restrict, like I said, multifamily development and they've prevented the majority of renters from moving to the coastal zone. But one major exception to that has historically been students.

We have UCSB and UCSD alone, which attract 55,000 students to the area, the majority of which rely on off campus rental housing. So this means increased cost congestion and just more driving in general. The solution to this is to build more on-campus housing.

We understand the need for the Commission to regulate private development to prevent environmental degradation, but in the case of university and college housing, this is just not the same issue. So these institutions are not driven by profit to start with, and they're also state agencies, which means they're already subject to a high standard of environmental review.

At UCs, for example, every single project is already subject to an environmental impact report and campus development plans also include stakeholder feedback as required by the constitution of the UCs. And so these projects should just not be subject to the same type of review as general private developments, especially given the the incredibly dire need for student housing as you heard from the Member.

By imposing the 90 day time limit for the approval of these projects, as we're intending to do with the amendments here, we can take a valuable step towards making sure that the Coastal Commission's review and input is still included where necessary, but not causing years long delays and expensive redesigns that ultimately cost the state millions of dollars.

So with that, I'd like to end today by thanking the Committee staff for working with us on this Bill. We look forward to continuing that conversation. I'm also happy to answer any questions that the Committee might have on the proposal and I respectfully request your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. And just a reminder, we try to keep witnesses at two minutes apiece, but since you are a student at UCLA, there was a courtesy bump. When you're ready.

Appreciate that as another Bruin. Good afternoon Chairman Bryan and Members of the Committee.

As much time as you need, sir.

Thank you, thank you. I'll let the lobbyists know. My name is Scott Anglim. I'm here to testify on behalf of the UC Students Association in favor of the Bill, of which the UCSA is a proud sponsor, AB357.

840 miles of waterfront. 420 public beaches. 39 million Californians, including the 2.5 million enrolled college students in the state are so lucky are blessed to have access to the greatest waterfront in the world. Thanks to the Coastal Commission's commitment to protecting and enhancing our coasts and ocean for present and future generations. That's their mission statement.

Thanks to their work, we continue to have access to that front, to that waterfront, miracle that it is. 1 out of every 20 UC students is homeless. At the CSU campuses it's 1 in 10. 1 out of 4, that's a quarter, of community college students are experiencing homelessness. We know it's a crisis.

A majority across the board are rent burdened or housing insecure. Students can't afford to learn if we can't afford to live. With few options after their first year, most students live near but off campus. According to HUD, it costs a student $21,700 annually to live near UC Santa Barbara in a shared two bedroom.

That's 50% more than a year of in-state tuition. As you know, the rental markets in Santa Cruz and SLO and La Jolla are not much better. Several of our colleges and universities sit on some of the most valuable real estate on the planet. We need, we desperately, desperately need more on campus housing.

But time and time again, the biggest hurdle to housing these students has been the long and redundant review and approval by the backlogged Coastal Commission. And housing delayed is housing denied. The Coastal Commission and everyone in this room, everyone in this room is committed to protecting and enhancing our unparalleled coastline for present and future generations.

Let us commit ourselves to the protection of those future generations so that they can afford to live and continue to learn. So on behalf of the students of the University of California, including the 8% who are currently homeless, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Lauren De Valencia representing the American Planning Association, in support.

Thank you, Chair and Members, Kate Singer, UC student displaced by housing and I'm in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair. Adam Regele on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, I wanted to apologize, we don't have a letter in, but we want to issue our support. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Afternoon, Chair and Members. Keshav Kumar with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Spur, Abundant Housing LA, Circulate San Diego and California YIMBY in support.

Thank you so much, sir. Any persons in opposition to this measure? Sir, come on down. You're not Bruin by chance, are you.

Sir? I'm not.

Whenever you're ready.

Mr. Chair. My name is Mark Chatillo. I represent a number of groups in Santa Barbara and Cali- and throughout the state. The California Coastal Protection Network, the Citizens Planning Association, the Committees for Land, Air, Water and Species and the Santa Barbara County Action Network.

For the past 15 years I have been fighting for affordable housing, student housing on campus at UCSB on behalf of a coalition of these groups that includes the organization Sustainable University Now.

And we recognize the importance of the author's intentions and the- the need to expand housing on campus for students as well as for faculty and staff in our Coastal Zone campuses as well as throughout the state. I do have from the UCSB experience extensive experience with the Long- Long Range Development Plan process, the LRDP and the Coastal Commission's role.

I understand that amen- the amendment has been introduced and I have not had an opportunity fully- to fully review that. But we understand that it has- it has the effect of ensuring that the Coastal Commission will retain its jurisdiction over these, its regulatory role over these projects and in effectuating student housing projects. And we think that that's very positive.

In our experience, having the Coastal Commission involved has expedited and has strengthened the efforts to secure student housing and faculty and staff housing on campus at UCSB and- and elsewhere.

In our experience, that oversight provides an assurance in the LRDP because once the campus makes a commitment in the Long Range Development Plan that it's going to provide housing commensurate with increases in enrollment that provides a vehicle to ensure that we actually get the housing that we were promised at UCSB,

we've seen that promise delayed for a number of years, not because of the Coastal Commission in our view, but really from other factors that made that- that delayed the process unnecessarily. We- We- The other point that I want to stress to the committee is the importance of integrating housing decisions with the other surrounding jurisdictions and the resources that are present

on campus. Not only do we need housing, it needs to be commensurate with enrollment. There needs to be commensurate transportation capacity so that we're not isolating students in various areas and in- and in particular for any off campus housing which the bill potentially authorizes, at least in its original form of the exemption.

We think that there needs to be the opportunity to provide emergency services and to protect the habitat and natural resources that are part of the resiliency of our campuses.

So with that, we support the- the- the concept of the amendment and would like to withhold, until we've had a chance to study it further, a final position on that- on that amendment to the bill.

Absolutely. That is, that's understandable. We want to make sure you got the same time as everybody else.

Thank you.

Unless you went to USC and you kept that from me. Are there any persons in the hearing room in opposition?

Good evening, Chair and Members. Molly Colton, on behalf of Sierra Club California, in opposition.

Hi. Natalie Brown with the Planning and Conservation League. Apologize for not getting a letter in, but we echo some of the concerns that we don't have official position at this time. And I'm a bruin. Go bruins.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Sean Drake, legislative manager for the California Coastal Commission. USC alum. Please forgive me. I'll just note the commission doesn't have an official position on the bill at this time. We appreciate the direction of the amendments. I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

That was interesting. Any questions, comments from Committee Members?

Ms.- Mr. Zbur.

So thank you. I support the, the goal of the bill and, you know, I've got a similar bill that's actually trying to expedite student housing. It really is at crisis proportions, especially with the community colleges where we know a quarter of our community college students are living in their cars, are, you know, experiencing homelessness.

So I think the more we can do to expedite housing, the better. I'm going to support the bill today with the 90 day amendment.

I do say, though, from having practice before the Coastal Commission, that I think that some additional thought needs to be given to those circumstances in which the 90 days, it could actually be processed within 90 days.

And I'm thinking about making sure that this is sort of in an infill sort of circumstance, that we actually don't have the property on ESHA or sensitive habitat or on wetlands or near coastal bluffs.

I just think that if you're actually putting student housing in something other than an infill circumstances, it's just, there's just not enough time within a 90 day period of time to do the analysis, given the way the Coastal Commission operates.

But with that, I ask if you would think about those things and work with both the Coastal Commission and the opponents to think about other ways of making sure that within the 90 days we're actually not harming any- any of the coastal resources that I think are worthy of protection.

Ms.- Ms. Pellerin.

I'd like to echo those comments and- and I'm just wondering how long does it typically take the commission to review student housing projects? Do we know or do we need to call the Coastal Commission person up to ask that? Answer that.

Sure, you can ask the Coastal Commission on other projects. One of the recent examples of why one, the amendment was requested on the 90 days that we thought this would make sense is one of the recent projects which was San Benito Village project at UC Santa Barbara, which was done within that three month timeline.

That's why I got comfortable with the idea. Okay, maybe a three month timeline seems appropriate. That's the most recent example I can speak to.

Yeah. And I could just add to that. We've seen projects in the past be delayed up to two years, if not just canceled outright because forced redesigns or just sort of arduous requirements for the development to be approved have basically raised the cost of the project so much that it's canceled entirely.

Those are a bit harder to track because there's no official document from the commission on those because they don't, you know, end up being built.

But yeah, I could point you to, you know, the San Mazanita Village project was delayed by two years as well as the San Clemente Village project, which was delayed by two years and also had the imposition of a parking requirement that cost, you know, millions of dollars to build as well to the university.

Is that a sufficient answer for you?

I'd like to hear from the Coastal Commission too, like, what's your average time for approving student housing?

I don't have an average value for you on hand. Assemblymember Pellerin, although we'd be happy to look into that. I think the two things that I would note is for the two processes that university housing projects can be processed through.

Currently the timing from a- for approval is if it is not subject to a certified long range development plan, it would be 180 days from a completed application. If a project is subject to a certified long range development plan, it would be 90 days from a completed submittal to the commission.

There was mention of delays that can occur with projects that are submitted to the commission, to Assemblymembers Zburs' point. And I'll choose the Manzanita Village example from the late 90s.

When a project is proposed in an area that is primarily natural open space, in that case in the middle of three wetland basins, it can take time for the commission and the university to resolve those issues and arrive at a project that is consistent with the university's own long range development plan policies.

Those instances, I would say are rare and more normal is the instance that the author described, the San Benito project, the most recent approval, which was roughly a 90 day turnaround. And so I think that starts to provide a timeframe on what this can look like. But we'd be happy to provide more detailed information for you.

Okay. And as far as can you speak to the commission's ability to meet the 90 day, is it just because of environmental concerns or do you have enough staffing? Do you have enough funding?

So, the commission doesn't have policy concerns with shortening the timeline for review, I think there will be a need for additional staffing in order to meet that review deadline consistently.

And so should the amendments be passed today in this committee, the commission will look at the distribution of universities in the coastal zone and get a more detailed sense of what those staffing needs would be in order to meet the required deadline. But again, from a policy perspective, we don't have a concern with that shortened review period.

Okay. And then I- I agree that if they can't meet that 90 day period, I think we need to be looking at what kinds of extensions we can provide if- if warranted. So would you be interested in looking at that? The other-

If- If the-