Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

We have 60 seconds before the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee begins.

The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. Good afternoon Members of the Committee. I'm going to ask that folks come to room 2100 so we can establish quorum. Until then, we will function as a Subcommitee. We do have two bills on today's agenda and no bills are proposed for consent.

So the bills will be heard in file order. And we do have a first author here. I want to welcome Senator Smallwood-Cuevas to present SB 423. And again, we'll begin as a Subcommitee until we are able to get quorum. So thank you, Senator Smallwood Cuevas.

Thank you so much. And thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I want to say, to start by saying thank you to the Committee consultants who have worked with us on this very important Bill and with my team in particular on several amendments. And I have accepted those.

I am here today to proudly present SB423, which reduces the barriers formerly incarcerated firefighters face when seeking employment upon release. More specifically, this Bill would standardize training and credentialing, provide an incarceration to employment pathway, and track and report the success of these programs to the Legislature.

Los Angeles and its surrounding areas were devastated by the wildfires earlier this year. As hundred mile per hour winds scattered flames across Southern California, it became near impossible to predict where the fire would start and end.

And our firefighters bravely risked their lives to put all of the fires out and to protect our communities as and to support our communities in protecting them and making them safe and getting them out as quickly as possible before the disaster could spread any farther and fighting these fires alongside them, the forgotten labor force, the incarcerated firefighters.

Despite incarcerated populations having been critical in working alongside local fire departments to fight wildfires and other natural emergencies, they were unable to receive any form of credit for their work experience once they were released from prison.

In other words, if they wish to pursue a career in firefighting upon receiving their freedom, they must start the process from the very beginning without being able to count their previous experience fighting fires. SB423 would ensure that the work of our incarcerated labor force is not forgotten.

And upon paying their debt to our communities, serving their time that their time be meaningful and valuable, that it be counted, and that it helps put them on a pathway to self sufficiency in a career in the fire service.

With me today to speak in support of this Bill and to answer technical questions is Lawrence Cox with the Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. Also is here is Anthony Pedro. He is the CEO of Future Firefighters and was recently awarded the Correctional Partner of the Year by CDCR.

Thank You and welcome. You each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning Chair Members of the Committee. My name is Lawrence. I am the regional advocacy and organizing associate for Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None. I am system impacted. I spent 17 years of my life incarcerated behind the walls.

I understand what it means to be able to come out and assimilate to society with pro social skills and I believe that gainful employment is imperative as well. I would like to start by saying as the Member said, climate volatility and forest fuel has actually pushed our state into a near perpetual fire season.

But despite this heightened threat, California has approximately 3,800 potential high Reese on JAC's wait list while simultaneously having more than 3,100 fire line vacancies remain unfilled statewide even as CAL FIRE allocates $124 million annually to cover overtime gaps. Whereas in counties like Shasta, Siskiyou, Lassen and Trinity, the frequency of wildfires are at its highest.

While these vacancies Widen, approximately those 3,100 incarcerated firefighters continue to respond to some of the state's most dangerous emergencies. Stationed across 35 conservation camps and prison firehouses, these individuals contribute over 3.8 million frontline hours per year, comparable to 1800 full time positions. SB 423, the enhancing workforce Development for Incarcerated Firefighters act seeks to rebalance this discrepancy.

It doesn't simply acknowledge their labor, it transforms it into an opportunity. The Bill provides scalable evidence based infrastructure to convert frontline service into a bridge to employment. SB423 will also encourage registered apprenticeships and federal leverage. Governor Newsom, Future of Workforce Blueprint aims to add 5,000 new apprenticeships within California.

SB423 eyes the vision to provide a pathway to apprenticeship opportunities which will deliver a prepared diverse cohort public safety return on an investment offer the most compelling case. And in closing, I'd like to say California asked these individuals, many of whom come from marginalized over incarcerated communities, to risk their lives for two to $5 per day.

And they did. SB423 ensures that when the siren fail silent and the canyon falls stop echoing, the skills they forge and fire remain relevant. And I respectfully ask for your iPhone.

Thank you. You may begin.

How you doing? My name is Anthony Pedro. I'm the founder CEO of Future Fire Academy. We've been established since 2021 and helped hundred folks get into the fire Service. And I've spoke to you before in the past and I heard you're actually a fire. Firefighter. Was that you? Okay. Yeah. Thank you for your service. Yeah.

And so there's one thing we know in fire service and that's like it's always the best man for the job and woman for the job, you know, like, that's one thing we learn. And so like through these programs we can.

And even with our academy, it's our job in any academy that's boot camp for the military, army, police, law enforcement and fire service. Our job to build and bring the best out of them for the ones that qualify to be the best, you know, and so like, and that's what we do.

And this, this, that's what this Bill is going to help us get there to that point. And so that way. And we appreciate the support from like Noah Pose. Right. And, and that's huge. And, and for us, because we want to work with the unions. Right.

We, we stand by CAL FIRE with them because they hire our folks, you know, so this is something I just wanted to add this time around. I know I spoke to a couple you before. Very appreciate your time and thank you.

Yeah, yeah, thank you. Any other witnesses in the room for me to please come forward to state your name, your affiliation and position.

Brittany Barsotti, on behalf of ACLU California Action and support.

Eugene Day, the Crop Organization in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Nedric Miller, all of us in non. Sacramento and LSPC support.

Thank you. All right. See no other witnesses in support. Any witnesses in opposition, please come forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Megan Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, and I am gladly here today to say that with the amendments outlined in the analysis, we'll be able to remove our opposition.

Just really want to thank the author for the amount of time she spent with us talking about this issue and the Committee and the Committee staff for working through it with us. And again appreciate all the time from the sponsors as well. We think the amendments appropriately the existing pathways and strengthen them.

And we look forward to continuing to work with the author on this issue going forward. So thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Terry Mchale with Aaron Read and Associates representing CAL FIRE Local 2881. We are the largest local within the CPF. I think it's just important to note a couple of things. First of all, we've been using inmates since three years before the First World War.

You know, over 111 years that our inmates have served the people of California. And they've done an extraordinary job. They provide an extremely valuable service. But I think, as it's already been testified today, CAL FIRE, more than any other prison program, has allowed a pathway for those who have been in prison to be hired by CAL FIRE.

And I don't think There's a single PIA program with the 8,000 employees that are eligible can make that claim. The other thing that I would say is that there were a lot of inmate bills that were out this year. And we really appreciate the authors of all of them who have been collaborative and cooperative.

We appreciate those who are sponsoring the Bill who recognize the important service they provide, but also the fact that they should not be allowed to usurp the opportunities of others who have gone through schools and educational courses and other pathways to reach service.

So we will be watching closely to see what the educational programs look like between the Department of Corrections and CAL FIRE. But we appreciate it very much. And I guess I should also mention, I know how hard your staff worked on this and putting that together.

These are two bills that we've worked with her and on the staff, and she's been exceptional on both of them. So thank you very much.

Thank you. See any other witnesses in opposition or tweeners? All right. Seeing none, we are going to bring it back to the dais.

That's just me.

Would you like to say something? We don't. We don't have a quorum, so we can't take a motion.

Right But. But I. I do have some. I have some cleanup to do from our last meeting because I don't think I clearly articulated what my issues were. And with some of these amendments, we are much closer to where people can be successful in this environment.

So, you know, first of all, while people are incarcerated, it is important if they want a future career in the fire service to be able to focus on the education that's needed. And that's like a fire science as degree, Fire science.

Taking some of those type of courses and getting those integrated into the program that you are, you're in. The other thing that people need to work on is their physical fitness.

When I first applied to be a firefighter or when I first thought I wanted to be a firefighter, I was shortly after high school and after I got done with the first year of taking like pre med courses that I thought, I am not doing this for 10 years, a neighbor got me interested in the fire service.

Well, when I graduated from high school, I was 5:2 and weighed 120 pounds. And when I wanted to be a fire, when I thought, you know what, I'm going to pursue that, I started taking fire science classes. But I also saw the need to be able to compete against people that were out there competing.

I had to raise my game and that meant I had to hit the weights and I did that. So I brought my weight up to about 155 or so. But then I went out and started doing the physical agility tests and those things. The first physical agility test I took, I threw up.

And I discovered that, you know what, I'm still not in the shape you need to be in to be a firefighter. And so I embarked on swimming and doing all these other things. When I finally got hired, I was I think 165 pounds and 59. So.

But you got to recognize what your shortcomings are, work on those and then in the meanwhile gather all this stuff. Getting a, you know, I was going to school the whole time getting my fire science credentials in line.

The physical fitness part, even emtd, that does not require you to go into a hospital and do clinicals necessarily, you can do those in other ways. Paramedic is a little bit more difficult and that's something that should be done outside after, you know, post release.

So, you know, programs that help our folks that are interested in this type of job need to be done. There's the part that they do incarcerated, so they're making great use of their time. But then when they get out, that becomes a little more. It's on them to go out there and compete.

Because the problem is if you don't compete and there's even the appearance because this highly teamwork oriented stuff and a lot of people have done a lot of things to get themselves ready to go.

If there is an appearance that there is a line skipping or a preference type thing, which this does not have, they will not be accepted by their teammates. And that means a long brutal career or a very short brutal career because you have to fit in.

And the only way to fit in is to have the respect of the other people and the other people in the fire service. And the only way to gain that is to go through the process and compete. And the last part is when you're going through that process, yes, incarcerated firefighters have some extra baggage.

And we have laws that say we can expunge records, we can do all this, but at the end of the day they'll find out. Be honest. There are organizations that are okay, and there are some that haven't arrived there yet.

Being able to go in and say, hey, look, chief, this is what I've done to prepare for my career. And I want this career really bad. You've seen, you know, you see all the things I've come out on the test, okay?

You know, I have been an incarcerated person and this is what I did and this is what I learned. I'm never, I'm never going back there again. That's why I'm here. That gets the respect of not only the upper people, it gets the respect of the people on the floor.

And at the end of the day, you better have that because otherwise you'll fail. And that's what I don't want. I don't want people to be put into a program that says, hey, you guys, here comes somebody that might not be qualified.

They won't see them as qualified because they never went through the process, they would never went through the pain. And the other part of that is when you've gone through that, at the end of the day, you have an appreciation for what this job is.

And a lot of people have been line skipped over the years in different programs. They've tried this and they tried that. And when that happens, those folks don't have an appreciation for what it takes and they don't have that dedication because that's what that process will do.

It is a wash out the people that really ought to probably not be doing it. And when they have all those tools together, nobody gives, nobody cares about what happened in the past. They care about their brother, that stand or sister that's standing in front of them. So that's what we want to accomplish.

And I think your Bill is getting towards that. It's going towards that. And so any, any areas where we're falling short, believe me, work with me, because I want people to have every opportunity to do something they want in their life and make good use of it.

But I know that, I know the culture and it's not a, it's not a mean culture, it's a necessary culture. That culture is what keeps people alive. So that's, we have to, you know, we have to accept each other and we have to have that respect.

And so that's what you're trying to build and that's what you got, a little extra burden. But you know what? They will, they can overcome that. And the ones that overcome that will be all that much better. So anyway, I'll be supporting the Bill today.

I'm glad CPF has seen some of the, has Helped arrive at a place where we can. But I'm also going to be looking to make sure that we're staying in an avenue that will arrive at a good conclusion for the people that are involved in a program. I don't want to give false hope.

They got to go through the system. They got to go through the process. They have to have it inside, and they have to prove it. So with that, I guess I'll make the motion

When we don't have. We can't make the motion yet, but when we have quroum.

I was gonna end my speech with a motion.

Well, I appreciate that. Thank you. So I want to actually thank the author from bringing this forward. We have approximately 1600 justice involved individuals who serve as hand crews or institutional fire, you know, firehouses with CAL FIRE and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

And I think that over the years, we've had a lot of discussions about how best we can protect our communities. And that discussion has included an array of. Of options and individuals who are willing and stepping up to risk their lives to save the lives of others. And so.

And so I think that this is, you know, a conversation that's generated a lot of needed feedback and dialogue. And certainly you've taken some of that you've led on this particular issue. And I want to thank you and, you know, all the folks involved to try to figure out how to move it forward, because it wasn't easy.

There was, you know, there's work that happens to try to get us to where we're at. But I do, you know, I am happy that there is now support in thinking through how we provide greater training and also certification opportunities.

And that's what the Bill is going to be offering, and expanding, you know, existing models that have proven to work, expanding those also so that we can include geographic diversity as well in our training in the certification program.

So thank you both for being here, for taking this on, for, you know, being a voice for these opportunities to exist, and of course, you know, grateful to, you know, our firefighting community broadly for engaging in this and being at the table to try to move this forward.

I really do appreciate the author leading on this and working closely to hear so many different sides and move this forward. The Committee does have a do pass, as amended recommendation when we have quorum, which might be a little bit, because I am the only Member sitting here at the moment.

But with that, I do want to allow you to close.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and appreciated the Conversation and debate. And, you know, I absolutely agree. When these young men and women risk their lives. And I met a young man at Pine Grove who, his first assignment was the Malibu fire.

And he had to cut a line, but had to march 11 miles with all of this equipment into that raging fire and back up our, you know, firefighters, our professional firefighters.

And I saw on television, I saw on the newspaper how the families celebrated them, brought food to them, water to them, and really trusted them to care and protect their communities. I think we have a. This is a.

Another sort of step in this very long road, but we are going to get there when we can see not just CAL FIRE, but every Department across our state have an opportunity for these men and women to come home with that lived experience and real life training, go through the proper educational certification program and be able to step into a quality career in any fire Department across the state.

That is our goal and our vision. And I think about Anthony and I want to thank him for his work. He shared some stories with us. You know, when a peace officer was in an accident and he had to put a tourniquet on an amputated leg, there wasn't a question about culture or anything else.

It was just, I thank you for helping to save my life. And that's where I think we have to focus. You know, this Bill is about, you know, not letting a culture eat strategy. Right?

This is about us having a strategy to figure out how we build this pathway so that we have more stories like this, because those 1600 individuals, when they go through their training program, when they get their certification, they're ready to go to work. So let's work to remove as many barriers as we can.

And I think this is a step in the right direction. So I really appreciate your comments and respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time is right.

Thank you, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, and thank you for coming. When. When we have quorum, we will take the vote. Thank you. Well, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

And we are now going to welcome Senator Padilla for SB 675. And if there are any offices or members listening out there, we are looking to get quorum in Senate Natural Resources and Water. Thank you gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you Senator Padilla.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Good afternoon. Madam Chair, I am pleased to present SB 675. I want to be clear that this is a district oriented bill. It seeks to apply the spirit and the standards of existing statute with regard to CEQA process. Although this bill is not about CEQA process, ELDP, Environmental Leadership Development Projects, which have the potential to be designated so by the Governor and rewarded with that sustainability leadership with an expedited and clear and timely process of review of those projects. That's an existing law.

This bill is all about collaboration, early communication, clear and consistent early timelines to encourage the success of such projects. I want to start by clarifying that I'm accepting amendments that were discussed in EQ which will be taken in this committee due to timing and accepting constraints along with the committee amendments on this committee.

And I want to especially thank you Madam Chair for your hard work and the team at the committee staff for struggling with this bill and working with us on the bill. It is not an easy process, as you well know. Seaport Village is the subject of the bill in San Diego County on the Embarcadero at the Port of San Diego. It's an iconic and aging waterfront destination in San Diego's waterfront and revitalization is urgently needed to better serve our community and support modern infrastructure.

A comprehensive redevelopment is currently being planned that will address long standing issues including outdated facilities, limited pedestrian and bike access, public open space, while offering climate resistant infrastructure improvements. Seaport Village can also generate thousands of high wage construction jobs and permanent employment opportunities.

It can create new plazas, promenades, parkways, public gathering spaces, restoring community and visitor access to the waterfront and is designed to meet or exceed LEED gold standards, incorporate sea level rise adaptation, and include an ocean education center.

Large, multi-agency intense projects like this one often face years of delay to multi discretionary approval processes that run sequentially to one another. First, the lead agency, as you know, prepares an environmental impact report which often takes years before certification and final approval of the project.

In the case of Seaport Village, the applicant was awarded the project as part of an RFP process included in the year 2017. After years of design, public outreach, collaboration with the lead agency and notice of preparation, the EIR was published in September of 2023.

Lead agency is currently in the process of preparing a draft which will be circulated for public comment before a final is prepared and published, public hearing or hearings are held and the lead agency decides whether to certify the EIR or approve or disapprove.

After that first process, which would take another year or more, and if the lead agency certifies the EIR and approves that stage, another complete process will begin. There are currently approval timelines in law such as the Permit Streamlining Act. They are not always adhered to and there are consequences.

Environmentally sustainability as well as cost and employment opportunities can be lost for missed approval timelines causing significant delay and frankly the need for this bill. SB 675 ensures responsible agencies act within 180 days, preventing bottlenecks after EIR certification. Early coordination between agencies as required by this bill promotes transparency, reduces duplicative work, gives applicants clarity and predictability.

But I would also note for purposes of this committee, Madam Chair, most importantly of all, frankly, it enhances the likelihood that an environmentally appropriate product is ultimately approved. Seaport may be such a model project pursuing ELDP status requiring strong environmental standards, local economic impact, and public benefits that justify targeted streamlining.

Without procedural efficiency, critical projects risk dying on the vine. This bill helps move transformative high impact development towards in a timely, responsible manner. With me today are Rick Bates from UNITE HERE and Yehudi Gaffen, the CEO of One Highway One.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Thank you, thank you. Madam Chair, members of the committee. Okay, Madam Chair, members of the committee, As Senator Padilla said, my name is Yehudi Gaffen. People call me Gaff. I'm the CEO of 1HWY1, which is the developer of the proposed Seaport San Diego project.

Seaport San Diego is the redevelopment of the existing Seaport Village on Port Tidelands in downtown San Diego into a world class mixed use destination with hotels, restaurants, retail, an aquarium, an event center, a learning center for Marine Education which is a partnership with San Diego Unified School District, a Blue Tech office building and lab space and over 17 acres of public space of recreational open space, far more than is currently available on the site.

The project overall is approximately 2.7 million square feet of development. The project originated with an RFP from the port actually in 2016, not 17, as Senator Padilla said. Following a public competition, the port selected 1HWY1 to enter into an ENA.

It has been many years of due diligence, design, and a tremendous amount of public outreach and working with the stakeholders to get to where we are today. Our vision for the project is a Seaport San Diego for all. We will have failed if everyone isn't comfortable at Seaport. Whether you have the financial means to spend a lot of money or not, we've made a big effort to really make sure that it is for all a place where everyone can feel welcome and there is something for everyone, regardless of income.

We will have hotels at a variety of price points including low-cost hostel, micro-hotel with retail and restaurant footprints from small to large, including kiosks to provide opportunities for local and small businesses. Within the 17 acres of public space is an expanded promenade which will include a bright lane, an urban beach with direct access to the water, a living shoreline for tide pool exploration, mobility connections, and free public events like live music, fitness and wellness classes and environmental educational classes. The project is anticipated to provide over 25,000 full-time construction jobs and at least 4,500 full-time annual jobs at build out, which will continue as the project is stabilized.

You're just over 2 minutes now.

The construction costs are currently estimated approximately $3.6 billion. There'll be a net fiscal impact of $1 billion to our region, to the City of San Diego, and over $400 million to the county. I'll close out by saying we're not circumventing any processes. All we're asking is for fair and timely approvals of our project. We encourage your support of SB 675. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, so you have just under two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll keep it a little bit more brief. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. My name is Rick Bates and I am here on behalf of UNITE HERE International Union, representing more than 275,000 hotel and hospitality workers across the United States and Canada, and on behalf of our San Diego affiliate, which is Unite HERE Local Authority, which is where I'm from. And I'm here today in support of SB 675, which provides the streamlining benefits for the Seaport San Diego project as an environmental leadership development project.

As amended, this legislation would apply standards for timely review by the California Coastal Commission. These Environmental Leadership Development projects, or ELDPs, are projects that create high-quality, highly skilled jobs that pay prevailing wages and living wages. These jobs are not just construction jobs, but they're also permanent jobs that can be here in California.

The Seaport San Diego ELDP project as currently proposed, includes more than 1,800 hotel rooms, which would create a very large pipeline of permanent hospitality jobs in San Diego. Furthermore, ELP projects are high quality projects that must meet stringent environmental standards, including LEED gold or better and with no new net GHG emissions.

Senate Bill 675 provides for early collaboration and would require that the Coastal Commission move quickly on subsequent approvals after the lead agency considers and approves an ELDP project, thereby avoiding those long delays that often jeopardize these large projects.

These streamlining benefits would help bring this important project to fruition sooner and creating this economic engine for the San Diego region and thousands, actually, of good jobs for Californians. I was living in downtown when the genesis of this project, this concept, came forward, and everyone was really excited. And so we look forward to your support for SB 675. Please. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in the room in support? Please come forward. State your name and position.

Esteban Nunez, on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers, California Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council on Sheet Metal Workers in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Seeing no other folks in the room in support, we're going to invite any witnesses in opposition. If you'd like to come forward, there's space here at the table. All right.

Good afternoon. Kim Delfino representing Defenders of Wildlife and also the California Coastal Protection Network. We just want to say that we did have concerns with this bill. We have an opposed unless amended position. We look forward to seeing the language as it gets worked out.

But we really want to thank the author and the committee, committee chair and staff for working on a very compressed timeline on these issues to address our concerns. We're very hopeful that when we see the language, that it will move us into removing our opposition. But until we see the language, we're sort of in this place that we're in. But again, we really, really appreciate all the work that's been on this bill. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? All right. Seeing none, we just. Are you coming forward? A tweener. Yeah, go ahead.

With the Planning and Conservation League, we want to thank the chair, author and staff or, yeah, for their work on this bill. We align position with Defenders of Wildlife as well. Thank you so much.

Thank you. And we just got quorum, so we're going to go ahead and call the roll, if that's okay. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Great. Thank you. So now we're going to bring it back to the dais. Members, if any questions or comments or feedback. Okay. Vice Chair Seyarto.

All right. I'll be supporting your bill today. I'm a little concerned we have, and you know this, you've been here a couple years now and that we have a lot of CEQA exemptions, exempt for this, exempt for that project, exempt for this group, exempt for, you know, what we, I'm hoping that this doesn't erode the opinion of people that we need to do something to make this CEQA right for today's world for all projects, because there are some things that we need to address and it shouldn't be on a project by project basis.

I don't want to hold up progress in this arena and not have this exemption in place for them. But at the same time, you know, we need to acknowledge that CEQA needs reformed. And I know it's a difficult thing for everybody, but if everybody in the Legislature would agree to do it, then, you know, we wouldn't have to, you know, walk that plank alone. So anyway, with that said, I'll go ahead and make a motion.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto. Did you want to respond?

I'll have a close matter if you'll allow me, but I'm at your disposal.

Whichever you prefer. All right. Senator Stern.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the committee and the author for working out these amendments. I think it, it makes the, the bill a lot easier to support the. So I'll be supporting the measure. I just, I guess I had a question since we have the. I forget your nickname. What do you.

Okay, I'll go with Yehudi. So the analysis just did raise this issue around like low cost, affordable accommodations and a concern about sort of access issues. Do you have any response to that, sort of how you plan to manage? Yeah, some of those issues.

Yeah, I do. Thank you for the question. The affordable hospitality on the water is a challenging issue. We have looked at it from a number of different aspects. We have a hostel which is innately low cost accommodation on the water where you can actually rent beds at low cost. We also have a micro hotel that's moderate.

And then we're also looking at various initiatives to provide the right people access to the other hotels on the property. So we have seven different price points on the property for everything from the hostel to a luxury hotel, everything in between, pretty much what is not available downtown San Diego right now.

I live downtown San Diego and for the last 25 years and most of our hotel rooms are convention style rooms selling for anywhere from $400 to $800 a night. So we're working through that right now with the port. It's part of the CEQA analysis that we're doing. We're absolutely committed to it, to make it available to all income classes downtown. So we don't have the full solution yet, but it's in process.

And I know it's a difficult needle, the thread just, I mean, the value of the land, and it's probably a very expensive project to pull off and all that. I just, I want to make sure that we're at least preserving space for that conversation to continue and to try to meet those goals through the CEQA process. And I know the Coastal Commission really has that at the heart of their mandate as well. So appreciate your attention to those, those items. And I'll defer to the motion from the Vice Chair here.

So we'll take a motion technically, once he. We've little bit more particular. Yes. So thank you.

I'll defer to everybody.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, I want to start by thanking the author. The author and his staff. The sponsors, the opposition have worked tirelessly over the last six days. This bill was just referred to the committee last Thursday. And so we are actually, I think, much closer than the bill shows and demonstrates. But time just escaped us. And so I think we are making great progress in terms of the conversations. Language is important.

Every word matters, every punctuation matter, every, you know, piece of punctuation matters. And we want to make sure to get it right as it moves forward. I do appreciate that, you know, the author and his team have really looked at some of the concerns that have been raised related to public trust doctrine, the, you know, potential broad applications, any potential interference with environmental laws. And there was always a willingness to say, yes, let's try to figure this out, let's try to address this.

And I think that that's really important. We do have an expressed commitment to continue to work on this over the next few weeks. As folks will note, there is both an analysis and the bill that we've changed, and there's some intent language there. And I think that there is.

It's important to recognize on record that there is a public interest in trying to work that out over the coming weeks as this bill moves forward. I definitely understand the desire, you know, for timely action. That is something we hear from legislators across the region, across the board, across the state, counties, cities, about what we can do in California to move things in a timely and responsible way. And that's exactly what I think we're trying to do with this legislation and trying to, you know, get it right.

So again, just a huge, huge thank you and also a public thank you to the committee staff who are also working on it a whole lot, especially, you know, in the last days. I'm committed to continue the conversations. I do want to acknowledge that there was in the analysis a little error, that we've alerted the author's office to all committee staff members on page 19 of the analysis. What you have in front of you now is the corrected version. And so I wanted to make sure that that was also said on record.

But we are all working as fast as we can to try to get this right and to try to also mitigate some of the concerns that have been brought forward, but understand the need for timely review process. So with that, I'd like to welcome your close.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I want to thank you again personally for the collaboration of you and your very capable committee staff. I want to thank you for your leadership and continuing dialogue and for giving me the opportunity in my close to just put some important comments in the record that we both discussed and that I feel very passionately about. First, Madam Chair, to Senator Seyarto's question, I want to clarify.

The bill in chief here applies the spirit of the accelerated CEQA review process that we apply to ELDP projects, and rightly so. That's a public policy decision we made as a state a long time ago, and that's an existing statute. This bill is not a modification of CEQA. It doesn't supplant or substitute any new procedural elements in CEQA.

What it does is it applies the idea that if you have an ELDP project that's forward and is seeking to be certified as such by the Governor, that we should take that same spirit and apply it to the other responsible agency here, the California Coastal Commission, primarily to their review process, such that we want timely and responsive and reasonable responses to pre application documents and technical documents that are submitted by any applicant, any applicant seeking to achieve ELDP and that we're already rewarding in the CEQA statute and guidelines with a particular program designed around that public policy.

They are seeking early dialogue, clarity, specificity and responsiveness for a reason, and that is so they can achieve that standard and that a project that is environmentally superior and beneficial can in fact be entitled. It is not out of a desire to go around the process, quite the opposite.

So this bill seeks to be very specific with respect to, to the entitlement process inherent in the review by the California Coastal Committee, if you'll permit me, because I made this commitment to you, moment of personal privilege. Just to clarify, because I know that there's a lot of interest regionally in this bill, but there's also some statewide interest. So by way of background, the commission should know.

I had a good, productive meeting this morning in my office with Kate Hucklebridge, who is a collaborator, a colleague, a friend, someone I work with many years, who's executive director of the California Coastal Commission. Prior to joining this body and working other levels of government, my professional background is in law and public policy, and I spent many years in a professional space dealing with coastal land use. I sat on this commission as an appointee of two separate speakers of the State Assembly.

I spent four years in the leadership of the California Coastal Commission and two years as Chairman of the California Coastal Commission. I understand the law around the Coastal Act very well. I understand the Coastal Act's provisions with respect to what enables an administrative regs. I understand their processes. I also understand the challenges.

I want to make it clear that what this bill is not. This bill is not and will not seek to undermine in any way the public trust doctrine that places the coast and bay and tidelands and trusts for the people of California. It does not and will not in any way replace or remove the provisions of the Coastal Act and the standards that have to be applied in the Coastal Act against any permit application. It is not a supplanting or weakening of the sequel review process. This bill is about transparency and timeliness and responsiveness.

Because in the past, and I will not apply this to this commission, but there have been concerns by applicants up and down this state. And I know it firsthand because I saw it there were occasions when a less than desirable opinion about a potential project or applicant resulted in an approval from the commission that was so heavily and intentionally conditioned as to kill it. We call that constructive denial.

In other words, it's a heavily conditioned approval that basically is designed to kill a project that somebody somewhere has a subjective opinion about not liking it. That is something that has occurred in the past, but is not part of this current commission's culture.

But this bill, given the impact, magnitude, and potential benefit of a project like this, has been intentionally narrowed to this project. But it goes specifically to making sure that there is clear response from responsible agencies to documentation that's provided so that any applicant can know what problems they have to fix and that there is a clear and tight timeline once that review process occurs, whether it's an appeal by the commission of a permit that's issued and is appealable.

That there is a clarity around when that has to be taken up. So this bill doesn't. There's been a lot of some concern, premature and assertions made about what this bill is and isn't. But I wanted to put in the record very clearly what it is not. This bill seeks to achieve clarity, consistency and timely responsiveness and dialogue and collaboration with this applicant here on this project because of its very nature. And I would respectfully submit that they're entitled to nothing less.

And I am committed to continuing to work with stakeholders with the Coastal Commission leadership, the ED and others and her staff to make sure we get the language right and try to get where we need to go so that we achieve the result we want here, which is, I think, fair. And so with all of that, Madam Chair, and thanks for your indulgence, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Members, we're gonna. Now I'm gonna ask with that close for a motion. All right. Senator Stern has made the motion. Thank you, Senator Padilla. And we will call the roll. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.

[Roll Call]

All right, that bill has five, oh. We're going to leave it on call. We're going to vote for one more bill. All right, thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you, Senator Padilla. Thank you, everyone. All right, so now we're going to go ahead and call the roll for file. Sorry, first I need a motion for. Thank you. So I have a motion for SB 423 from Senator Hurtado. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 5-0 We are going to leave that on call and we're going to recess until we have our two absent Members come back. All right, we're going to come back and we're going to call the roll for two items. First, file item 1, SB423. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations, with the chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

That is out 60. The next Bill is file item 2. It's 676. File item 2. SB 675. Padilla. Do pass as amended to Appropriations

[Roll Call]

All right. That is actually 7-0, and that is out 7-0. And I just want to make sure to call file item 1, SB423. That motion was also 70 and it's out. With that, we will go ahead and adjourn our Committee.