Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

[Background]

The Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will begin in 60 seconds.

All right, the Senate Natural Resources and Water will come to order. Good morning everyone. We are meeting today in Room 112. We don't yet have quorum and so when we have quorum we will establish quorum. We have 18 bills on the agenda today. 6 of those bills are on proposed consent.

Bills will be heard in file order. So we are going to begin as a Subcommitee. I do see two Assemblymembers here already. We have Assemblymember Alvarez and Assemblymember Lowenthal. Assemblymember Alvarez will go ahead and begin with you with AB 357. Please feel free to come up to the dais or table.

Thank you very much Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 357. I want to start by accepting the Committee amendments and thanking the staff for their work on the Bill.

Assembly Bill 357 fast tracks and tries to create certainty for affordable students and faculty housing with by requiring the Coastal Commission to issue permit decisions within 90 days, attempting to reduce bureaucratic delays while maintaining the environmental safeguards of the Coastal Act.

This is part of the Fast Track Housing Bill package presented by Senator Wicks and others, an initiative to address California's housing crisis by expediting housing development. You've all heard the stories of students who are couch surfing, sleeping in cars and often choosing between rent and just food to earn their degrees.

The 2019 report by PPIC found that 45% of estimated average total cost of attending UCs was due to housing, 45% while 39% of tuition was for tuition and fees.

At CSUs, housing made up 53% of the costs while tuition and fees were just 28%, almost twice as much much for housing than it was to attend the University at CSUs.

According to data from the California Interagency Council on Homelessness, one in four California community colleges experience homelessness, one in 10 CSU students report experiencing homelessness and one in 20 UC students report experiencing homelessness. So you've heard all the statistics.

AB 357 seeks to offer a solution by accelerating much needed housing for students while maintaining the environmental safeguards through a time bound process helping campuses and coastal areas build more efficiently. The goal is not to bypass environmental safeguards, but to create smart and streamlined pathways that meet urgent student needs while also respecting coastal California's coastal values.

With tools like AB 357, thoughtful local planning and continued collaboration, California can tackle the student housing crisis and preserve its iconic coast for future Generations. And to provide testimony on this Bill, I'd ask co-chair of the Student Homes Coalition Kate Rogers, to please provide testimony.

Good morning, chair and Members. My name is Kate Rogers and I'm the co-chair of the Student Homes Coalition. I'm here today to respectfully request your support on AB 357. The Coastal Commission's mission is to protect and enhance California's coast for future generations. Future generations. No one in this room has a greater stake in that than I do.

And that the students that are with me here today do. And same goes for the UC Student Association and the Youth Bridge Housing Commission at UCSB, our co-sponsors on this Bill. So collectively, the sponsors on this Bill represent 240,000 students, many of whom care incredibly deeply about the environment.

Our futures quite literally depend on the work that this Committee is doing. And we never would have pursued this proposal if we thought that Coastal act reform would harm the environment in any way. Similar to, but separate from local coastal planning processes, universities and colleges can work with the Commission to create certified development plans.

The idea here is that housing projects that are consistent with these plans will be able to move forward without further review. And that process has worked well at times.

The problem arises when these campuses need to amend these planning documents to accommodate more student housing due to unexpected increases in enrollment or lack of development of multifamily housing in the surrounding areas, for example. And we really appreciate the Coastal Commission's willingness to work with us on this issue.

And we would like to thank them for approving the recent San Benito project in a timely manner. We hope that this will serve as a model for future project approvals. So AB 357 is a step in the right direction towards coastal planning flexibility. We do not have to choose between affordable higher education and coastal protection.

And we look forward to continuing to work with the Commission to improve to approve more student housing projects. I'll be available to answer any questions and thank you. And I respectfully request your support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support, please come forward, just state your name, affiliation and position.

Good morning, Madam Chair, and Members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles and stand in strong support.

Thank you. And we are going to pause because we just established quorum. So if we can just please call the roll, please. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Quorum established, you may proceed.

Chair Members, Nick Romo, on behalf of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities in support.

Good morning, Chair and Member. Sosan Madanat W Strategies here on behalf of California YIMBY and support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Lauren De Valencia representing the American Planning Association and support.

Good morning. I'm Lucia Hermoso. I'm here on behalf of UCSA as a student from UCSB. I'm here in support.

Rima Hooper, here with UCSA as well, also a student at UCSB in support.

Thank you. Now, do we have any witnesses in opposition. Please come forward. You may sit here at the table.

All right, you have a total of four minutes.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Marc Chytilo. I'm an environmental attorney that has been involved in Santa Barbara on behalf of the Sustainable Universities now organization and deeply involved in the 2010 Long Range Development Plan.

I'm here today on behalf of SUN as well as community groups, the Citizens Planning Association, Santa Barbara County Action Network, the Committees for Land, Air Water and Species and the California Coastal Protection Network.

Previously, before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, our group opposed AB 357, until the author agreed to amendments allowing opposing groups, these groups to reach a neutral position.

We appreciate the author amending this Bill to a form closer to what the Assembly Natural Resources Committee approved, and recognizing the value of enabling an abbreviated De Minimis Commission review process of long range development plan amendments to create a path to expedited approval of expanded housing projects.

SUN and others have been staunch supporters of additional campus housing for students as well as faculty and staff. We've learned that a consistent and predictable long range development planning process is essential to set and achieve campus housing objectives. The Committee's amendments help advance these goals. So we thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today.

Any other witnesses in opposition. All right, seeing none. We're going to bring it back to Members. And Assemblymember Alvarez, I just want to clarify you will be accepting the Committee amendments. Thank you. Members, questions, comments. Senator.

Just want to thank the both parties and the chair and the Committee staff for helping to craft a solution that works. So move the Bill when appropriate.

All right, so we have a motion, but I'm going to just thank the author. We had some conversations and I think that there is a commitment not just to get through this Bill, but also continue working on this in you know, in the future to try to figure out how we address the housing shortages along the coast.

Certainly I know that that's a goal that we all have. We all identify that we have a problem that we need more housing and trying to determine how we create more housing not just for students but also for our communities all throughout the state.

So I appreciate your work and also the commitment to continue to work together with that I would like to allow you to close.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. As you stated, the problem the crisis is statewide and we're trying to identify solutions so that the state as a whole can participate in housing crisis and in this case hoping that students can have access to housing at our universities and colleges that are along our coast.

Appreciate that and appropriate ask for your aye votes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We are going to go ahead and then call the roll and the motion is do pass as amended to the Housing Committee.

Senator Limon. Limon, aye. Seyarto. Allen. Allen, aye. Grove Grove, aye. Hurtado. Laird. Stern. Stern, aye.

All right. Thank you. We will leave that Bill on call. That is four to zero. We're leaving it on call. Next we are going to welcome Assemblymember Lowenthal, for AB 462.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. I am pleased to present AB 462. It's a bill that will help streamline the approval process of ADUs in coastal zones across California. I'd like to thank the chair and committee staff for their work on this bill.

Together we worked on amendments that take an alternative approach at achieving the same goals of the bill. The amended version of the bill will require that completed ADU applications for Coastal Development Permit are either approved or denied within 60 days by a local jurisdiction under a certified LCAP or the Coastal Commission.

The amendments require that the review for a Coastal Development Permit must happen concurrently with the required ADU permitting by the local jurisdiction and a local jurisdiction's Coastal Development Permit decision cannot be appealed to the Coastal Commission.

AB 462 was introduced in response to the devastating loss of thousands of homes in the Palisades and Eaton Fires that took place in the beginning of the year. Los Angeles County faces a severe housing crisis which became immediately worse after the fires.

Los Angeles County was required to add over 800,000 new homes by 2029 to meet the housing needs of current and future residents. As of the beginning of this year, only 71,000 homes were built. Due to the devastating catastrophic loss caused by the wildfires, there are now entire communities in Los Angeles that are unexpectedly looking for housing, putting more strain on the already existing housing shortage.

With displaced residents and the reduction in available housing, Los Angeles needs assistance to ensure it can adequately accommodate its population and promptly increase its housing supply. One way the state has successfully facilitated rapid housing production is by facilitating the construction of ADUs. Under current law, ADUs are generally allowed by right on all residentially zoned parcels in the state. ADUs must be reviewed and approved in a streamlined and ministerial fashion at the local level within 60 days.

Recent legislation has helped ADUs become a huge success in enhancing the housing supply. Now, one in five homes constructed in the state are ADUs. Unfortunately, homeowners in California's Coastal Zone do not enjoy the same streamlined process. The coastal development permitting process to build an ADU can take years for a homeowner to successfully navigate compared to the 60 day permitting timeframe mandated by state law for ADUs outside of the Coastal Zone.

This poses a barrier for homeowners seeking to add much-needed housing supply, especially in Los Angeles County where ADUs can be used to house those displaced by the fires, assist in freeing up other housing inventory, and increase the housing stock.

AB 462 seeks to provide vital relief not only to the rental market in Los Angeles that was already facing a serious housing crisis prior to the loss of property caused by the fires, but in all coastal zones throughout California. This bill will ensure ADUs in the Coastal Zone can be approved faster with fewer delays.

It is essential for California to implement policies that facilitate the efficient construction of housing, especially in areas where there is a lack of housing. Here to testify in support of this bill is Nolan Gray, Senior Director of Legislation and Research at California YIMBY.

Thank you. You have four minutes.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Nolan Gray. I'm the Senior Director of Legislation and Research at California YIMBY and an AICP city planner, here to speak in support of AB 462.

California YIMBY is a statewide organization of over 80,000 neighbors dedicated to making our state an affordable place to live, work, and raise a family. Los Angeles County is facing a severe housing crisis, made worse by the destruction of thousands of homes in the Palisades and the Eaton Fire.

Even before these wildfires, the county was required to build over 800,000 new homes by 2029, but we've made little progress. One of the most effective ways to create new housing quickly has been through accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, otherwise known as granny flats, mother-in-law units, casitas.

ADUs now make up about 20% of the housing construction in California and as much as a quarter of housing construction in places like Los Angeles, providing affordable rental options and stability for homeowners, yet ADU projects are occasionally imperiled by our state's infamous permitting delays, which can often scare off especially homeowners who don't want to deal with a long, unpredictable, and complex permitting process.

While ADU projects are protected by state law in many contexts and enjoy strong protections in the permitting process, this is less true in the Coastal Zone, where the housing shortage and housing affordability are among the worst in the state. AB 462, with the new amendments, will now require that Coastal Development Permits for ADUs are approved within 60 days.

If the Coastal Commission does not act within 60 days, a Coastal Development Permit will be deemed approved, providing needed certainty and speed to the process. This bill will empower homeowners to quickly add much-needed housing, particularly for those displaced by the recent wildfires. It's for this reasons that we respectfully request your support for AB 462 and thank you for the privilege to testify this morning.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in support of AB 462, please come forward. Just state your name, affiliation, and position.

Madam Chair and members, Lauren De Valencia, representing the American Planning Association, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Caitlin Loventhal with the California State Association of Counties, in support.

Katie Jennings, on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Nina Weiler-Harwell, AARP California, in strong support.

Thank you. All right, any witnesses in opposition?

Not in opposition, Chair Limón, but a tweener. Sean Drake, Legislative Manager for the Coastal Commission. The commission doesn't have an official position yet on AB 462, but we just really want to express our gratitude to the committee for their work, to the author for his willingness to advance today's committee amendments.

We do have some concern with the provision that would prohibit appeals of local permits for ADUs, but we look forward to continuing discussions with the author as the bill moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Four minutes.

Will not need that. Good morning, Chairwoman Limón and members. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of Surfrider Foundation. We truly appreciate the engagement we have had with the author and the speaker's office staff on AB 462, and we commend the efforts of the chair and the authors to amend AB 462, consistent with our suggestion that we pivot from a Coastal Act exemption to aligning the approach to ADU permitting throughout the rest of the state, 60 days from a completed application to approve or deny inclusive of all permits, including a CDP.

This maintains coastal access and resource protection while bringing consistency in the treatment of ADUs across the state without the need for an emergency declaration to create eligibility. Deeming permits approved after 60 days would bring further consistency, but because we are still evaluating the impacts of the proposed amendment to prohibit any appeals, we are unable to remove opposition today, but we appreciate the direction that AB 462 is moving, and we look forward to continued conversations with the authors and the Senate.

And I was also asked to convey similar sentiments by the California Coastal Protection Network, Endangered Habitats League, Environmental Center of San Diego, Green Foothills, Sierra Club California, and Puvunga Wetlands Protectors. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition, please come forward.

So, Kim Delfino with Earth Advocacy, on behalf of Audubon California, Defenders of Wildlife, and Sonoma Land Trust. Would align our comments with those of Ms. Fearing. Thank you.

Thank you.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors with the current position of oppose unless amended, but we will be reviewing. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Senators. Matthew Baker of Planning Conservation League. Also align our comments with the opposition made by Ms. Fearing. Remain respectfully opposed unless amended, but appreciate the amendments.

Thank you. All right, we'll bring it back to the members. Any questions or comments? We're going to start off with Senator Stern or--

Thanks, Madam Chair. Thank you to the author for working with the committee. Sounds like things are moving in the right direction, at least from a coastal protection perspective. I just wanted to see if I could ask the, your sponsor--was mentioned in the Humboldt letter, but the high fire severity zone issue.

I know that's a separate issue from, say, coastal protection, but in those areas that are both Coastal Zone and high fire, very high fire severity zones, is there still any underlying authority to kind of address those risks?

So, you know, the narrow one-lane ingress egress from a steep sort of canyon right in the middle of fire zone, where, you know, we just saw people have a lot of trouble getting out, you know, doubling density in those kind of areas, is there still a public safety underlying authority when reviewing these kind of applications or is that--it might be outside the purview of this, but I just wasn't sure if you could comment.

Thank you for the question, Senator. To my knowledge, none of the protections regarding ADUs and fire zones are changing with the law. It's purely with respect to the Coastal Development Permit, so any, any standards that would affect an ADU and a fire zone inside or outside the coastal zone, to my knowledge, there's no change happening in the bill.

Thank you.

Senator Allen, did you also have a--or--

Yeah, you know, I had some similar concerns and I just appreciate the work you've been doing. Could I just get a sense of how the conver--let me ask Jennifer. What's your sense of how the conversations are going?

Oh, we've--they've been excellent, you know, constructive conversations again. I mean, the author's pivoted the bill in a direction that we think is to the advantage of accelerated ADU production and also making sure that we're able to protect coastal access and resources at the same time.

Again, the prohibition on all appeals is just something we're thinking through because while there are very few appeals on ADUs in the Coastal Zone, we are thinking through because we just learned about this over the holiday weekend, the impact that the, the ability of folks to appeal improves the applications in the first place so that they're in good conformance. So, you know, we want to make sure we're comfortable with that and/or keep the conversation going to see if there's ways to allow for appeals under limited circumstances.

Okay. All right. Well, in that spirit, I'm happy to move the bill.

Thank you. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a few questions to the author just so there's clarity for not just me, but the public as well in case there was an issue. ADUs, accessory dwelling units are on someone's existing private property, either connected to the house or separate from the house, but on their existing private property?

Yeah, that's correct, and this does not change the definition of ADUs or the process by which people have to go through within their local jurisdictions to, to do so.

Okay. I was just trying to make the point that this is existing private property and to allow somebody to, I don't know, have an investment property that helps to pay for their home or an additional income if they're a retired couple or a retired individual or whatever, they have the ability on their own private property to be able to have their own rights on their own private property to add within a local jurisdiction in an ordinance a--it's not a, it's not, you're not going to put up a tool shed and say it's a private property.

There are certain standards that have to be assessed with this ADU, and so I guess I'm very concerned that the opposition would come in and say--no offense--but very concerned that the opposition would come in and say, you know, you can't do this on your own private property and we want basically veto power to be able to say you can't do that. So I appreciate you working with them and making it more malleable to them, but I support the bill. I thank you for taking this on.

I think our predecessor from Berkeley had worked years on her private property to get an ADU, and she still has not been able to complete it yet, and she hopes to do it by next year, and I think it's just a little absurd that we deny people's property rights to be able to create either an additional income or to add to their, the value of their property. So thank you for taking this on.

I think this legislation comes at the right time, Senator. We'll be--provide a tremendous amount of relief and compression on price of housing, certainly the rental market in the Los Angeles area, so I think it benefits the homeowners and the entire marketplace.

Absolutely. Thank you for taking it on.

All right. Well, I want to thank the author for the conversations we had, for the work that's been put into this bill, and bringing the amendments forward. Certainly sensitive to both the protections of, you know, properties and environment and the coast, but also the mandate from Californians to do more on housing. So I really appreciate that balance and you bringing that forward. With that, I am going to allow you to close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. So we have a motion by Senator Allen. The motion is do pass--it's dual referred to the Senate Committee on Housing--do pass as amended. Excuse me. Do pass as amended to housing.

[Roll Call].

Alright, that is 5-0. We'll leave that on call. Thank you very much, Assemblymember Lowenthal. I do see Assemblymember Schultz. If you would like to come on up. While Assemblymember Schultz comes forward, we're going to go ahead and take a motion on consent, please—on the consent calendar—and we have a motion for this consent calendar from Senator Grove.

There are six items on consent. That's file item one, AB 261. File item two, AB 300. File item five, AB 616. File item 10, AB 1143. File item 16, AB 1520. File item 17, AB 1531.

[Roll Call]

All right, the consent calendar is 5-0. We'll leave that on call. Next, we have Assemblymember Schultz. You have three bills with us today. So, we're going to go ahead and start with AB 734 and then we'll go to AB 902 and AB 1319. You may begin when you are ready.

Well, thank you very much and good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 734. In 2023, the California Energy Commission amended its regulations associated with the permitting of power plants, which included restricting the public release of maps that contained biological resources.

This change in the regulations represented a significant departure regarding the scale of biological resource maps associated with the review and permitting of projects under a multitude of laws, including the California Endangered Species Act and the California Environmental Quality Act.

As we develop projects, including energy projects, it is important that we consider the near term impact of development on our biodiversity, fish and wildlife habitat, and natural landscapes, while addressing the long-term impacts of climate change.

Projects must be planned, sited, developed, and operated to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts on biodiversity and land with known high resource value. Withholding locational information and other scientific information and data makes it impossible for the public to evaluate potential project impacts and provide informed analysis of appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, and potentially mitigate project impacts.

Quite simply, AB 734 will provide the public with the necessary biological resource information, at a scale, that will allow people to participate effectively and efficiently in the public review and comment processes associated with project permitting at the California Energy Commission, including, importantly, making biological survey maps available to the public for review at a scale of 1 to 6,000, which has been the standard practice for decades.

I will note that AB 734 has received bipartisan support and has no registered opposition. With me to speak in support of AB 734 is Pam Flick from—the California Program Director of Defenders of Wildlife.

I'd also like to note that we have with us today, Kim Delfino, here with Earth Advocacy, to answer any technical questions and with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much. You have a total of four minutes. If you want to do 2 and 2, please feel free to begin.

Great. Thank you very much. Good morning. I'm Pamela Flick and in support of AB 734 on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, the Bill sponsor.

Defenders has participated in the CEC certification process for more than 15 years, with the goal of ensuring that clean energy projects are designed, built, and operated in a manner that protects our state's important natural resources, while providing the critical clean energy necessary to meet our climate goals.

To accomplish this, the public needs to understand what biological resources are on a proposed project site and where they're located, in order to provide useful feedback on avoidance mitigation and minimization and mitigation.

As Mr. Schultz explained, AB 734 came about because the CEC recently changed their standard practice in posting applicants biological survey information from a scale of 1 to 6 to 1 to 350,000. In perspective, to give—put this in perspective, a scale of 1 to 6,000 is useful for details like city streets or hiking trail.

A scale of 1 to 350,000 is good for showing larger regions like states or countries, and doesn't provide nearly as much detail. This change represents a significant departure of past practice by the CEC and differs from what agencies do under CEQA and other permitting that impacts biological resources.

This change has made it impossible for the public to provide meaningful comments to—in—the CEC proceedings. AB 734 remedies this problem by returning to the past practice of disclosing biological survey data at a scale of at least 1 to 6,000.

However, as part of the effort to be sensitive to when species information should not be released at a more refined scale to protect against illegal collection of plants, for example, or other forms of take, AB 734 was amended to allow CDFW to require the CEC to release this information at a coarser scale, if necessary, to protect the species and if the source of the information is the California Natural Diversity Database.

AB 734 is a good bill for both biological diversity and clean energy. And it has no opposition, as Mr. Schultz noted.

For all these reasons, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. All right, we are good. Any other witnesses in support, please come forward. Just state your name, position, and affiliation.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Christina Scringe, with the Center for Biological Diversity, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Gabriel Tolson, on behalf of the National Audubon Society, as well as the Sonoma Land Trust, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Molly Colton, on behalf of Sierra Club California, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Candace Manigan, with Coastal Ranches Conservancy, in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition—or not other, but any witnesses in opposition? All right. Seeing no witnesses in opposition, we are going to bring it back to the dais. Members, questions? Comments? All right, we have a motion and no additional questions or comments. I want to thank you for bringing this forward.

And certainly, the Bill is a simple fix to recent, you know, CEC regulations that end up restricting public access to biological resource information when no listed or rare species are involved. So, the Department of Fish and Wildlife can still protect sensitive information from being released, if necessary. So, we will be supporting the Bill.

We have a motion by Senator Stern for AB 734. The motion is do pass to Appropriations, but I'm going to allow the author to close first.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. We'll go ahead and call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is 4-0. We will leave that on call. Next, we're going to go to AB 902.

Wonderful. Thank you again, Madam Chair and Members. As my witnesses come up, I'll just dive right in. I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 902 today. And I'd like to begin by thanking the Committee and your staff for all of your work on this Bill.

I hereby accept the suggested Committee amendment starting at the bottom of page six of the Committee analysis. I'll note that these amendments include amendments that I previously agreed to take in the Senate Transportation Committee and revise the findings and declarations of the Bill to conform to prior amendments.

As proposed to be amended, AB 902 would require lead agencies starting in the year 2028 to implement wildlife crossings in identified connectivity areas for projects where a new highway is created or a new lane is proposed to be added to an existing highway.

Roads are a major cause of wildlife death in California and a major contributor to the decline of wildlife populations that become isolated by habitat fragmentation and lose connectivity throughout their range. Obstacles to wildlife movement are also a major threat to public safety.

Between 2016 and 2020, over 44,000 collisions with large wildlife were reported to or by the California Highway Patrol. This fact is a startling one for me. On average, five people are killed and over 250 people are injured in California in reported wildlife vehicle collisions every year.

Despite California's progress in prioritizing wildlife connectivity, local and county transportation planning processes do not currently require consideration of wildlife habitats and wildlife connectivity. Considering connectivity on local and county roads will improve species resiliency, protect animals and people from dangerous collisions, improve climate resiliency, and preserve California's remarkable biodiversity.

This could include adding features like overpasses, underpasses, lighting, and directional fencing to guide wildlife away from traffic. Wildlife crossings can improve wildlife movement while reducing wildlife vehicle collisions by up to 98%. In closing, with better planning and design of transportation projects, California can better protect both people and wildlife.

Here to testify in support of AB 902 today are Candace Meneghin, Executive Director of the Coastal Ranches Conservancy, and Mary Galloway, California Program Director for Wildlands Network. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. You have a total of four minutes.

Good morning, Chair Limon and Committee Members. My name is Candace Meneghin. I'm the Executive Director of Coastal Ranches Conservancy in Santa Barbara County. For the last 20 years, we've been a fierce advocate for the Gaviota coast and its wildlife.

Gaviota is also home to a stronghold of southern steelhead, and yet transportation infrastructure is a major cause of decline in the majority of anadromous species in California. 45% of California's 32 native fish species will likely be extirpated in the next 45 years, with 11 of the 21 anadromous species statewide critically endangered with extinction.

I am speaking in support of AB 902, which is necessary to address ongoing fish passage needs and support cell monitored recovery, particularly as SB 857, which is referenced in the Governor's Salmon Strategy for a Hotter, Drier Future, is set to sunset this year.

The sunset presents the need to recognize the intent of Fish and Game Code Section 89.5's definition of wildlife to include fish as an imperial imperative to ensure that room to roam, safe roads and wildlife protection and connected community acts will support the Governor's salmon strategy, pathways to 30 by 30 and Wildlife Action Plan objectives. Fish and Game code 89.5 states that wildlife means all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, reptiles and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability.

The impact of transportation infrastructure on fish passage and connectivity is undeniable, and ensuring these agencies consider fish passage and habitat connectivity in their transportation projects is instrumental to balancing California's biodiversity and transportation goals. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have and request your aye vote today.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair Limone and Members of the Committee thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of AB 902. My name is Mari Galloway. I'm a lifelong Californian and Director of Wildlands Network's California Program. In that capacity I lead landscape scale collaboratives with local, state and federal agencies and communities across California to reconnect habitat hats for wildlife.

I support AB 902 because we have a responsibility not just to protect wildlife, but to uphold our public trust responsibilities when we alter our transportation infrastructure. Wildlife movement isn't just an ecological issue, it's a safety one and one that's too often overlooked on roads that fall outside of the state highway system.

Research from Rota colleges show that when traffic exceeds 2,500 vehicles per day, a road becomes a death trap for wildlife. At volumes over 10,000, it becomes a permanent barrier, cutting off migration routes and genetically isolating populations.

And while we've made progress considering wildlife connectivity on the state highway system, other transportation infrastructure like county roads that span tens of thousands of miles still fall through the cracks of current legislation. In California, over 6700 miles of county roads meet the death trap threshold. Nearly 650 miles of those cut through protected natural areas.

Nearly 500 intersect lands with the highest levels of habitat protection, places where we should expect wildlife to thrive, not die crossing roads. This is not theoretical. In San Diego, federally endangered peninsular bighorn sheep face similar dangers along County Road S22. In Santa Clara, we are watching a native newt population banish on Alma Bridge Road.

AB 902 gives us a chance to address this by making sure all jurisdictions incorporate wildlife connectivity into their planning, not just CalTrans. This is about helping lead agencies advancing transportation projects to access the same tools and foresight we're already using on the state level. The problem is clear, the data is compelling, and the fix is reasonable.

I'm grateful to Governor Newsom and the Legislature for your leadership in reconnecting California's landscape through passing the Safe Roads and Wildlife Protection Act and Room to Roam Act. This Bill is the next step towards smarter, safer and more responsible infrastructure planning for wildlife and for us. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses and support, please come forward to state your name, your affiliation and position.

Morning Chair and Members. Sosin Madden at W Strategies here on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund in strong support.

Doris Nguyen for Clean Earth for Kids in support. Also supporting this Bill is North County Equity Justice, Eco Sustainability Peeps and Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice.

Isabella Gonzalez Potter with the Nature Conservancy in support.

Good morning. Jake Schultz on behalf of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, East Bay Regional Park District and California State Park Foundation in support. Thank you.

Kim Delfino on behalf of Mojave Desert Land Trust and the San Diego Humane Society in support. Thank you.

Mark Fenstermaker for the Peninsula Open Space Trust and the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority in support.

Allison Eto on behalf of Environment California in support.

Benton Buecker, legislative intern with Environment California on behalf of them strongly support.

Pamela Flick on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife in strong support.

Molly Colton, Sierra Club California in support.

Marquis Mason, Envirovoters with support. Thanks.

Gabriel Tolson on behalf of the Planning and Conservation League in support. Thank you.

Paul Mason with Pacific Forest Trust also in support.

Elizabeth Reed Wainscot with the Center for Biological Diversity in support.

Ruth Mcdonald with Climate Action California in support. Thank you.

Karen Jacques with 350 Sacramento in strong support.

All right, do we have any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition, either testimony or just me too? Seeing none. We're going to bring it back to the dais. Members, comments or questions? Senator Laird.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There was a situation in the Santa Cruz Mountains where CalTrans closed a culvert in an improvement project, not realizing that was a wildlife crossing and a mountain lion was killed coming up over the road.

Somebody almost injured another mountain lion later similarly, and we worked really hard to make that one of the first wildlife crossings of a state highway. And in doing it, CalTrans wouldn't approve it for shops money or money under its grants program unless it was an endangered species.

And even though it was endangered individually by what happened there, it was not an endangered specific species. So we worked with Fish and Wildlife to redo the definition, which basically allowed as a mitigation for funds to be used. And it worked. And that is very successful.

And then Senator Stern in 2021 took that definition that was used for that project and by statute spread it to the state so that everybody would have the benefit of it. And I know we have one under planning by Lexington Reservoir, one by northern Monterey County, one by Pacheco Pass, there's many in Southern California.

And I think this Bill just takes the whole process to the next step. It sort of takes advantage of that and says we have to coordinate it. We shouldn't lead it just to transportation planners to decide how we're going to implement wildlife crossing. So I think this is a good Bill. I would move it.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Any other comments or questions? Vice Chair Seyarto?

All right, thank you very much. And you know what, and thank you guys for your work in this arena trying to help our wildlife. The question here isn't whether we help our wildlife or not, it's how do we pay for it and what process we go through to make sure that happens.

For me, we just went through a budgeting process where we had billions more dollars than we had before. We should be committing out of the General Fund the money to have a program to put these wildlife crossings in. And I'll tell you why I feel strongly about that.

When we're taking money from gas tax and creating more costs for adding a lane, a lot of times we're adding lanes. And I can use a perfect example of this, Clinton Keith Road.

In my district, we were trying to get that expanded because the traffic was enormous and the building out on the other side of Clinton Keith Road. From this side of Clinton Keith Road, it became a dangerous two lane road.

And so they needed to expand it into pretty much it's a six lane road on each side, or it's a six lane road of three on each side. That project, when I left the City Council in 2006, it took them 10 years to do the project.

And the reason it took them 10 years was because of the wildlife crossing. We need a program that accomplishes this without taking money away from that gas tax. The region that I represent is a high growth region. We are having problems connecting our roadways or improving already dangerous highways that are killing people right now.

And if we're going to tie the hands of getting that road project done by creating an additional studies and planning and construction costs and taking more money away from the gas tax, we're going to get a Whole lot less done and some of it is urgent.

In San Bernardino County we have some very dangerous two lane roads that need to be expanded. And if we're going to go through this process every time, not only are we going to get half as many expanded, but the dangerous roads are going to continue to be there and people are going to continue to be killed.

And I can bring you up a string of accidents out there that are just because of this.

So, you know, I would be supportive of an effort to better prioritize some of our spending in this state so that we can have a real program that focuses just on this and the money that is set aside to do that can be there every year so that the planning can be done to do it in the way that it needs to be done.

Every animal has a different need. We have the fish, we have the mountain lions, we have the Kino checkerspot butterfly and then we have the kangaroo rats. All of them have a different way of getting from A to B. And all of those have to be studied in order for an over cross to be effective.

It's not just about building an overcross, they don't care about. There's no signs that say animals go to that overcross. They don't read. So we have to design these carefully with a lot of thought. And we can't keep taking money from gas tax to do it.

So that's what my opposition to this is, is let's do this, but let's figure out a way to fund it so that it's not taking away from the desperate needs that we already have, especially in the areas that I represent. Thanks.

Thank you. Any other comments, Members? All right, seeing none. Thank you, Assemblymember Schultz for bringing this forward. Certainly the Committee, the Committee and the Legislature has passed legislation previously to help limit the fragmentation of habitat by the state's road and transportation infrastructure.

And we recognize the sometimes inability of a species to cross roadways and highways can reduce some of the genetic diversity and impact their survival.

I do think that this step is a step forward and also want to recognize our Vice Chair's comments and just add that we have about 30 million that comes from the General Fund for the Habitat Wildlife Porters and also Prop 4 is another source of funding for some of these projects as well.

With that I'd like to to allow you to close.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I too appreciate the comments from the Vice Chair. I echo your responsive comments. And what I would just close with is that in amending this Bill we have strived to find that right balance.

You know, as you'll see on page four of the Committee analysis, this would apply to new highways or new lanes to existing highways. We also understand that if the project is going to significantly impact wildlife to connectivity, that's a threshold that has to be met. And lastly, there is a feasibility requirement in bullet two.

On the top of that page, we are looking at what can we do feasibly to help mitigate these significant impacts. We believe that the current iteration of the Bill, with the help of this Committee and the prior Committee, strike that right balance. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Laird. The motion for AB 912 is due do pass as amended to Appropriations. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 4-2 and we will leave it on call for absent Members. And your final Bill of the hearing is AB 1319.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I've tried to keep you all busy today. This will be my last appearance. Pleased to be with you to present AB 1319. I'd like to begin by thanking the Committee and accepting the suggested Committee amendments noted on page eight, correcting a cross reference.

AB 1319 puts into place a clear and expedited process at Fish and Game Commission to protect imperiled biodiversity when federal protections are repealed or weakened.

The California Endangered Species Act states that all native species and their habitats threatened with extinction and those experiencing a significant decline, which if not halted, would lead to a threatened or endangered designation, will be protected or preserved.

Currently, there are 80 fish and wildlife species and 65 plant species in California considered endangered or threatened but are protected only by the Federal Endangered Species Act.

California law also includes protections for international species experiencing decline by prohibiting the trade, for example, in line on elephant parts. The current federal administration has made it clear that it intends to weaken protections for biodiversity, particularly endangered and threatened species. Since January, President Donald J. Trump has issued multiple Executive Orders with directives to weaken protections for species under the Federal ESA.

Just last month, the Federal Government has issued a draft rule that would significantly reduce the scope of protections for imperiled species, under the Federal ESA. AB 1319 would not add any new species to the state endangered species list that are not already protected under federal law.

However, and importantly, it would ensure that federally protected California native species could be considered for protection under California law, should they lose their federally protected status.

AB 1319 creates a clear and orderly process by which the state can evaluate the changes in federal protection and decide if endangered and threatened California native species left unprotected by changes in federal law should be protected by the state's Endangered Species Act. It also keeps in place existing protections for hunted international species currently protected by federal law.

With me to speak in support of AB 1319 today is Pam Flick, California Program Director for Defenders of Wildlife, and Kim Delfino with Earth Advocacy, for Audubon California. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. All right, you have a total of four minutes, two each.

Thank you. Good morning, once again. Pamela Flick, in support of 1319, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, the Bill sponsor. For many years, the federal and state Endangered Species Act—Acts—have created a safety net for declining species.

Unfortunately, that safety net is about to be torn apart with the changes in protections for federally listed species. As noted in the Committee Analysis, President Trump has issued Executive Orders to weaken protections for endangered species. Further, the Federal Government recently proposed to eliminate protections against the destruction of habitat for endangered species.

That means that while you cannot cut down a tree with a nest in it, if there's a listed bird or an egg in it, you can cut down that tree once the nest is empty.

While the Fish and Game Commission currently has the power to list the specific—list as species—under the State ESA through a petition, either from a private party or from CDFW, and the Commission can use an emergency rulemaking for such a petition, AB 1319 is drafted to create a more proactive, thoughtful, and controlled process at the Fish and Game Commission, in response to the impending loss of protections of species only protected by the Federal ESA.

This Bill would direct CDFW to prepare quarterly reports on which species have experienced a decrease in federal protections.

The Commission would then consider whether to adopt an emergency regulation to make that species a candidate under the California Endangered Species Act. If a species is made a candidate under CESA, the Commission will go through the regular one-year review and decision process to list that species under CESA.

The Bill also allows the Commission to rely on federal take permits and biological opinions to permit take of the species during the pendency of listing process at the Commission, as long as that permit rule or biological opinion was issued prior to January 2025. The opposition will say that this Bill creates uncertainty. It does not.

This Bill is in response to the massive uncertainty created by the Federal Government—uncertainty for declining species as well as uncertainty for projects. For those reasons, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Kim Delfino and I'm here to speak on behalf of Audubon California. Audubon is dedicated to the conservation of birds and their habitat. The Trump Administration has made it abundantly clear that it will continue to reduce environmental protections, with a particular aim at endangered and threatened species and habitat.

Habitat loss is the biggest reason for the decline in in wildlife populations. For example, California once had 5 million acres of wetland habitat and was home to 35 to 40 million acres of duck acres—of 35 and 40 million ducks and geese.

Today, we have less than a quarter of a million acres of wetland habitat and the waterfowl populations have declined to between 6 and 8 million birds. The opposition—it has been noted that the opposition will say that this Bill increases uncertainty.

But the uncertainty has been created by the Federal Administration that has put forward a slew of proposals that will weaken protections for species and habitat. And what is looming before the Fish and Game Commission is an inevitable wave of listing petitions that will be filed once these changes are made final.

AB 1319 will give the Commission and the Department of Fish and Wildlife an opportunity to be proactive in this chaos and set an order of operation, in terms of what species they can evaluate for listing. It is also intended to create a faster and more efficient process with sufficient time for them to do these evaluations.

Further, the opposition will say that the definition of what a decrease in protection is too vague. However, this Bill lists out specific actions that the Federal Government could take to decrease protection.

And the opposition solution that was suggested to this definition would be to limit it to only when a species is delisted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA fisheries. This definition is so limited that it would not even include the repeal of the Federal Endangered Species Act itself as a decrease in protection.

California is a biodiversity hotspot and the Department of Fish Wildlife and the Commission have an important job of ensuring that our most imperiled species are protected against extinction. AB 1319 provides a means to ensure that these sensitive species are conserved, regardless of federal rollbacks. And for this reason, we urge an aye vote.

Thank you. All right, any other witnesses in support, please come forward to state your name, your affiliation, and position.

Good morning. Christina Scringe, at the Center for Biological Diversity, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jake Schultz, on behalf of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, in support. Thank you.

Doris Nguyen, with Clean Earth for Kids, in support. Also supporting for North County Equity and Justice, Ecosystem Peeps, Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice, and Activist San Diego. Thank you.

Carla Caribe Garcia, with Monterey Bay Aquarium and San Diego Humane Society, in support.

Alice Donizo, on behalf of Environment California, in support.

Molly Colton, Sierra Club California, in support.

Benton Buecker, Environment California, in strong support.

Marquis Mason, California Environmental Voters, in support. Thanks.

Gabriel Tolson, on behalf of the Planning and Conservation League, Environmental Defense Fund, South Yuba River Citizens League, California Native Plant Society, Sonoma Land Trust, Californians for Pesticide Reform, Clean Water Action, and Resource Renewal Institute, in support. Thank you.

Ruth Mcdonald, with Climate Action California, in support. Thank you.

Paul Mason, with Pacific Forest Trust, also in support.

Candice Manigan, on behalf of Coastal Ranches Conservancy and Friends of the Santa Clara River, in support.

Thank you. All right. Witnesses in opposition, please come forward.

You have four minutes. Good morning.

Do I need to press it?

It should be on already. You can bring it closer to you if you'd like.

Good morning, Chair Members. My name is Julia Hall, with the Association of California Water Agencies.

We do have an opposed and less amended position on this bill with a focus on Section two of the bill, which would require the California Fish and Game Commission to consider whether or not to adopt emergency regulations to list species under the California Endangered Species Act if a federal action would decrease the protection of that species.

We appreciate the recent amendments to add a sunset date and to provide some permit protection as well as the thoughtful Committee analysis.

That said, we're still concerned that this bill, as the sponsors so rightly said, will create additional certainty uncertainty for permittees with the potential to lead to extensive delays in implementation of ongoing projects and also ongoing maintenance of existing facilities. So first, the emergency authority is unnecessary in our view.

The Commission and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife already have appropriate and expeditious tools to address any concerns related to species. The CDFW can already utilize the emergency process if it is necessary for the immediate preservation of a species. So they already have this authority.

And CDFW staff can submit their own petition to the Commission for consideration and if there is not a public petition, that is out there and that helps expedite the traditional candidate status as well. Second, this bill's requirement for the Commission and CDFW to review decreases in protection increases uncertainty.

While the Commission could act in response to federal actions when appropriate, there's nothing in current statute that would require them to consider every possible federal action that decreases protection.

We think it could create a situation where the Commission would be considering almost every federally listed specific species on an ongoing basis, which makes it kind of challenging for the Commission to decide where they should act. We would request this special process, as the sponsors indicated, be limited to delisting of species only.

We feel like this is a clear bright line that is easy to understand and, you know, I would have to think about this more, but I think if the ESA was redacted, that would mean there is no federal protection.

So I think that that would count as delisting, but I'd have to think about that a little bit more further.

While we appreciate the recent amendment to create an extension of the use of existing permits during the pendency of an emergency regulation, federal permits are routinely amended, which would negate the continued use of these permits and potentially create additional uncertainty.

We'd request further amendments that would require consistency determinations to be issued by CDFW to remain in place to help shield permittees until such time that CDFW can issue a new permit under its own statutes. Finally, this bill will have a significant fiscal impact on cdfw, an agency that is already significantly understaffed in recent budget data.

CDFW is only staffed at 40% of what it would actually need to meet its permitting and environmental protection goals. So they already have limited staffing, and we're placing a lot of new burdens on them to protect new species and associated permits.

We're concerned with the broad application of this section, and at this point, we would respectfully request your no vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition, please just come forward. State your name, affiliation and position. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Members. Danny Merkley, with the GUACO Group on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance. In opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce. Respectfully opposed unless amended.

Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Committee. Willie Pelote, representing The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, opposing this amended.

Kasha Hunt, with Nan on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning. Beth Olasso, on behalf of the Water blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley Advocacy Fund, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Lilly Mckay, on behalf of San Luis Delta Mendota Water Authority and United Water Conservation District. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair, Members. Rich Felgus, with the California Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau doesn't have a registered position on this bill, but we have been working with the author and sponsor over the last few months to get some amendments that address our concerns. And I just want to take a moment to thank them for that.

One of the Farm Bureau's primary remaining concerns relates the bill's potential to impact growers. Voluntary participating in conservation benefit agreements that were adopt are adopted after January 19th of 2025, namely the forthcoming CBA for monarch butterflies. So we're looking forward to identifying a solution.

Provides adequate protection of listed species and also ensures growers that are voluntarily implementing these practices are not at risk of liability. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. See no other comments, a member's questions or comments. Vice Chair Seyarto.

All right, I will go again. So this is the ping pong ball esa.

Every Administration has a different idea of how it should be administered, but I look at some of these issues in the grand scheme of things, and one of the speakers up there talked about balance and finding that balance, watching a community growing from 26,000 people to 115,000 people.

And being part of the decision making process while we did that, there were so many projects, there were so many housing projects, commercial projects, critical infrastructure projects that wind up getting torpedoed or delayed by years and years by unreasonable parts of the, an esa.

The inability to comply with one, the inability to do, you know, I remember one project, critical infrastructure project, got held up for two years because when they, when the truck drove through the mud, it created a little truck indentation and then when it rained they couldn't do anything because they said the fairy shrimp, we're going to be endangered.

That kind of regulation is the kind that I think they're trying to curb because that's just, that's anti development, trying to stop development. And you see a lot of that and you go to court and you spend lots of money and all that money is our taxpayer dollars.

Right now we have a housing crisis and along with the housing crisis goes an infrastructure crisis for some areas like the one I represent. And the ESA on the federal level was a pain in the butt. It has a good purpose, but it can also be misused just like any other of our regulations and it gets misused.

And I think that's the ping pong ball part where one Administration is trying to eliminate the misuse and so it looks like they're getting rid of protections whereas the other one is trying to blanket them in an effort to appease.

So you know, I don't think that we need to respond to the Federal Government's efforts yet until we see what exactly they are because they were in effect before and it didn't seem to have much of an effect one way or the other. And so I think this is a little premature.

And so I will not be supporting today. I am very concerned that this is just one more of those barriers that we are all talking about. Cost barriers, legal barriers to achieving what we're supposed to be achieving, housing wise. And you know, I don't know when we're going to recognize that or bring that into balance.

And I don't think this goes in that direction.

Thank you, Vice Chair Seyarto. Senator Grove.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of comments and questions. It's a diverse state. We have an extraordinarily diverse state. I know my colleague that just spoke about his area and infrastructure needs and housing explosion and development that's taking place with growth.

And I think we have to strike a balance. Nobody wants to have an endangered species or something that's listed. Nobody does. And I'm not from my perspective. I don't think anybody does. But we do have to have a balance.

I can tell you about a housing project in Taft, California where somebody was trying to build 12 units of. They were like 1,200-1,300 square foot houses. And it was tied up in court and litigation for nine years over a squirrel. I'm talking Taft, California, in the middle of nowhere in nine years.

They had to trap the squirrel, put a collar on it, they had to monitor it, find out its existence, its life expectancy, where it live. You know, they had a whole tracking system on them.

That was when it was Fish and Game and then when it switched to Fish and Wildlife, the Fish and Wildlife find the developer for altering the squirrel existence. So there has to be a balance. And I think sometimes the pendulum swings so far one way or the other, and it creates delays in projects.

We have a housing crisis. You know, I applaud the Governor and the legislative body that, you know, approved the CEQA exemptions for housing that we have. And I. That was a big heartburn to a lot of people that like our witnesses. But we have to build affordable housing and we can't do that.

This particular issue addresses a lot of concerns or has a lot of concerns with it regarding our water agencies that are trying to navigate stuff. I represent and my colleagues get tired of hearing this. They probably have my comments memorized. My friend, the former Secretary of Natural Resources is taking notes every time I say it.

I think at the last night of session they're going to say she said this 1,352 times. That's why he's taking notes.

But you know, there is 11 tons, 11 million tons of cement produced in this state and 9.5 million, it comes from my district and it's in jeopardy of producing cement over the Joshua Tree, which is not anywhere near the Joshua Tree National Forest. It's two and a half hours away from that.

But you talk about the mitigation cost for that just because of the listing or the possible listing. And now CDFW is, you know, trying to work through this process. How do you rebuild la? How do you build freeways? How do you make progress happen in the State of California? What's your backup plan?

Is it Turkey, where the other cement plants are, or Korea? So I guess there has to be a balance. We need resources, natural resources to be able to produce the things that we have to use every single day. We need affordable housing. We have to have water connectivity and infrastructure projects and they can't be continuously delayed.

For long periods of time over a squirrel or a salt marsh mouse or whatever it is. And then I had. So I want to make that comment. Then I had a question. It's got a Sunset date of 2031. Where'd that date come from? December 2031. Where'd that date come from?

I think we just decided that we would see how this progresses out through the current Administration, and then the Legislature would have an opportunity to revisit it in 2031. So. Yeah. So it wouldn't apply to the next presidential.

Well, actually, it would because of it being 2031, I guess would have a little bit of an overlap with whoever is in the next Administration. I think it was just an op. We. The Legislature frequently puts sunset states on. On these types of bills in order to revisit it later on to see how it's working.

Okay. I was just curious about the date. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. All right. Seeing no other questions or comments. All right, Senator Stern has moved the bill. Thank you, Assembly Member Schultz, for bringing this forward. Certainly the bill does not predetermine the outcome of the state assessment, but it does say that it must occur.

So I think that that's an important piece as we think about protecting our species. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Very briefly, I just want to thank the comments from the Vice Chair and Senator Grove. I agree that balance is important. What I would say is that, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, there are 80 Fish and Wildlife species and 65 plant species that only enjoy federal protection.

This bill does not automatically add those species to our state endangered species list. But what it does do is create an expedited process so that the Administration here in California can respond more efficiently, more timely to any changes in federal policy.

And the last thing I'll say is, when I was presented with this bill and I thought about bringing it forward, my initial thought was, is this necessary? Regrettably, the President's actions have proven already that this is a necessary bill. This is something that Californians cannot afford to pass upon.

And with all of that, and with great deference to the comments of the chair, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote today.

Thank you. The motion for AB 1319 is do pass as amended to Appropriations Committee. Can we please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

All right, that is 41. And just for clarity, that was Senator Stern who made the motion. All right, thank you. Assemblymember Schultz. Good job today. All right, now we have Assembly Member Wilson here to present AB 697, who has been waiting patiently. Thank you, Assembly Wilson.

You may begin when you are ready.

Madam Chair, Senators, good morning. Today, I'm pleased to present AB 697, a Bill that will help facilitate mobility improvements for the residents of Solano County and the larger Bay Area. Many of us are familiar in this room with the Highway 37 Corridor, which runs from Vallejo in Solano County to Highway 101 in Marin County.

Today, SR 37 has two lanes in each direction except for a 10 mile stretch where it narrows to one lane, creating a major bottleneck. That bottleneck, between Mare Island, just outside of Vallejo, and Sonoma Raceways, just out where Sears Point is, regularly adds an hour and a half to round trip commutes.

It is so unreliable that the North Bay Transit operators won't even run buses on the corridor because it would be impossible to stick to a regular schedule. The roadway is in constant need of repair as it deals with commuters, 25% of the North Bay's freight traffic, and weekend travelers, many with RVs, headed to coastal campgrounds.

Additionally, the highway bisects the biologically rich San Pablo Bayland's habitat restoration. For years, the four counties, along 37 corridor, have worked collaboratively with the state and regional partners to provide options for improving the corridor.

In fact, when I served on the Solano Transportation Authority Board, I was involved in many of those local discussions on how to best forward—move forward—with corridor improvements. Now, what evolved from this process is a plan to improve the corridor in phases, starting with near term projects and then much more ambitious long term.

Now, to put it briefly, the long term project is decades from construction and will cost over $10 billion. However, in the meantime, the near term project will deliver time sensitive mobility, quality of life, and restoration improvements, while buying more time for the long term prime.

Specifically, AB 697 will authorize the Department of Fish and Wildlife to issue an incidental take permit for the near term project between Mare Island and Sears Point for four species, subject to specific conservation species monitoring and management requirements.

The issuance of this permit will limit the near term project's impact on habitat and the public, while facilitating vital improvements to the 37 corridor and providing both an economic and commute relief for workers across the Bay Area.

Now, with me today to speak in support of this Bill are Nick Burton, representing Solano Transportation Authority, who I've known for a very long time, and Stephanie Moulton-Peters, Marin County Supervisor and Vice Chair of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

You each have about 2 minutes, 4 minutes total. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Nick Burton, Director of Projects with the Solano Transportation Authority, here, just, you know, seeking support for AB 697 and the Interim Project. I just wanted to highlight some of the benefits of this project, but first, just represent that this is a partnership. And along with me, what I represent, is other transportation agencies, other transportation authorities.

We have Napa as well as Sonoma, MTC, and Caltrans, all a party to this. This partnership has also signed partnership agreements with CDFW and BCDC to continue to meet and discuss the project as to how we move forward appropriately. Everybody acknowledges that the long-term vision is necessary.

However, Section 7, as identified in some of the documents, Sears Point to Mare Island, is probably 10 times the cost of what the interim project can deliver. So, what we want to just highlight is that phases 1 and 2 of the interim project are mostly funded. Phase one, completely, Phase two, almost completely.

Phase three is being worked on. And these will deliver several benefits that have been already discussed. But one, I just want to highlight that it will reduce vehicle miles traveled. Also, too, it will allow for transit to be incorporated into the corridor. There's also a number of critical environmental restoration efforts associated with the interim project.

There's the Bay Land strategy, specifically strip marsh east dredging and lengthening of Tolle Creek, which allows for further upstream Tolle Creek restoration, as well as Sonoma Creek restoration. Some of the pushback to the interim project is that the project will be then inundated in 2050, due to sea level rise.

And what I just want to identify is this 21 mile corridor is not all at the same elevation. You have the section that is west of Atherton, which is very low elevation, 2 to 4 feet. And there is an ultimate project that Caltrans is working on, on Nevada Creek, to address that.

The interim project, however, sits at around 12 feet of elevation. And the most recent data suggests that 12 inches of sea level rise will occur over the next 25 years. And so, the effect of sea level rise on the interim project has been overstated. Beyond the numbers and the technical details, this is about people.

The residents of Solano County. They sit in daily congestion with no short term relief in sight, no transit alternatives. The interim project is the most effective way to provide that relief while advancing key environmental and mobility goals.

And so, I respectfully urge the support advancing AB 697 and want to thank Assemblymember Lori Wilson for authoring.

Thank you. All right, you have about a minute. That was three minutes.

All right, I'm going to go fast. Good morning, Chair Limon and Members. I'm Stephanie Moulton-Peters, Marin County Supervisor and Vice Chair of MTC. So, State Route 37 is a vital corridor for North Bay families and workers, including several of my own county staff who come in from Solano County.

They each lose 90 minutes one way to the backups in this choke point. And so, that's time away from their families and away from civic life. It's not just frustrating, it's inequitable. SB—AB—697 would deliver improvements to finally address the bottleneck quickly. This project is two lanes in each direction.

The ultimate project is two lanes in each direction. What we're doing now for a fraction of the cost is opening up this bottleneck to make it usable for workers who need to get to their jobs. It's nearly shovel ready. It will reduce travel time. It will allow for transit.

As Assemblymember Wilson said, we reduce vehicle miles traveled and we do the critical restoration of the wetlands, which will not only benefit the habitat, but are an early solution to sea level rise in the Bay Area. So, we complete the puzzle pieces of restoration in the North Bay. So, thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Next, we will have any witnesses in support who want to add on. We're going to go ahead and ask you to come to the microphone. Please just state your name, your affiliation, and your position.

Good morning. Joanne Webster, CEO of the North Bay Leadership Council, representing leading employers of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, and Solano, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Steve Wallach, on behalf of the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, in support.

Michael Quigley, Executive Director with the California Alliance for Jobs, also on behalf of the commuters who travel on the Highway 37 corridor, in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Mike Monaghan, on behalf of State Building Trades, in support.

Good morning. Matt Cremens, California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Chris Lee, on behalf of the Sonoma County Transportation and Climate Authorities, in support.

Madam Chair and Members, Scott Wichem, on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and the California Coalition of Utility Employees, in support. Thank you.

Eric Turner, on behalf of the California Construction Industrial Materials Association, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jason Bryant, on behalf of Transportation California. We're in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we're going to welcome witnesses in opposition. Please come forward. Have a seat up here. Hi. All right, so you have a total of just over four minutes total, so you want to split it up about two minutes each.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Jeanne Wardwaller, representing transform. Transform works to reshape housing and transportation decisions that center community needs and combat the climate crisis. With all due respect to the author, we have an opposed position on this Bill, along with 20 other environmental and community groups in the Bay Area. And we have two primary concerns.

One, we are concerned with fast tracking the development of the interim State Route 37 project at the expense of fully protected species. This Bill proposes to use a streamlining provision established in SB 147 from the Governor's 2023 Infrastructure Package that was explicitly not to be used for highway widening projects.

Allowing this highway widening project to take advantage of this provision sets a dangerous precedent for future climate-damaging highway expansion projects. Second, we have concerns about the fundamental purpose and need for the interim State Route 37 project.

The interim project will cost roughly half a billion dollars to widen the roadway at the current level, which is projected to be underwater due to sea level rise, as soon as potentially 2040. Accounting for the time it will take for construction, the interim project is unlikely to be completed until 2030.

That means expanded roadway may only be used for 10 years before it is permanently underwater. Federal transportation funds require at least a 20 year design life for major roadways and structures, which means any funding gaps or cost overruns will be borne by the state or the locals.

Further, adding lanes to the roadway will significantly increase driving and emissions which will accelerate the timeline for putting the project underwater. We appreciate the interim project proposes to improve tidal flow at Tolley Creek, however, greater ecological benefits would be achieved by moving forward sooner with the ultimate project.

We believe the interim project will actually delay and undermine a long term climate resilience solution for the North Bay. We are committed to working with the author and sponsor to advance truly climate resilient solutions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed & Associates, representing the Federated Indians of Great Rancheria, and we're opposed to the Bill. The Bill is notably silent on tribal consultation. The proposed improvements to State Route 37 run directly through Grayton's ancestral lands, yet the Bill includes no requirement for tribal input, no commitment to enforceable agreements, and no recognition of tribal cultural resources that may be affected.

Now, under AB 52 and Executive Order B-10-11, state agencies are obligated to consult with tribes in a meaningful government-to-government manner when projects may impact tribal cultural resources.

This Bill circumvents that responsibility and moves forward without any assurance that our voices will be heard and our sacred places protected. AB 697 would simply greenlight the take of cultural species for a temporary near term project that has so far lacked meaningful tribal consultation and fails to address climate change impacts.

Grayton has raised numerous concerns with the environmental and cultural impacts of the two designated projects, but has seen little evidence that Caltrans intends to meaningfully consult with Grayton rather than blindly trudging ahead along its preferred path. Grayton citizens and many of its employees regularly commute on State Route 37. It's a critical quarter that deserves a state's investment.

However, temporary solutions in Caltrans' normal approach of sidelining tribal concerns are not up to the task of addressing climate change and the important opportunity for durable environmental restoration and important cultural resource protection. Now, we've seen many bills introduced this year that suspend CEQA for a whole host of reasons.

When you suspend CEQA, you eliminate the requirement to consult with tribes on the impact of tribal cultural resources. We saw that with 130 and 131. We see that in many other bills that are going through the legislative process and once you open that door, it's hard to close. And we're opposed to this Bill.

We've offered amendments to the author that would require continued consultation. Those were not accepted, so therefore, we have to oppose the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition, please come forward. State your name and position.

Yes, Madam Chair and Members. Victoria Rome with NRDC, Natural Resources Defense Council, in opposition.

Excuse me. Karen Jacques, with Climate Action California, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Doris Nguyen, with Clean Earth for Kids, in opposition. In addition, the following organizations are in opposition. North County Equity and Justice, EcoSustainability Peeps, Interfaith Coalition for Earth Justice, and Activist San Diego.

Good morning. Jamie Pugh, with NextGen California, in respectful opposition.

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

Thank you. All right. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, we're going to—seeing other witnesses in opposition, we're going to bring it to the dais. Members, questions or comments? Senator Laird.

Thank you. This is a, just a hard situation, in the sense that the Bill is just about the take of a few species, but the whole thing is about whether a certain project goes ahead, as opposed to another project. And we're just voting on the species, but the underlying thing is the project.

And so, let me just ask a couple of questions and first, would you respond to the testimony of the Great Casino about their opposition and whether or not there's a way to deal with that?

Absolutely. Thank you for asking that question first so I can address that. And so, we've had meaningful conversations, although they haven't gotten to the result where we have amended language in the Bill.

Part of that is as we discussed potential language, when we were in the first house in the Assembly, we had to have not just the two of us agree the great...and myself as the author but also the Chair and making sure the language is appropriate.

We are in the Fish and Wildlife Code, in comparison to, I believe it was the streets and highway code, where the language around this dialogue, government-to-government, and ensuring that there's protections in place which still exist.

And so, whether it should be in this particular code and how much we could put—how much we can transport—the language there and drop it in this language, we were limited. And so, that's where it wasn't accepted.

And I would say that it was more of between the three parties not accepted, more than our office fully not accepting it. Trying to figure out what is the appropriate language to go there.

And we are still open to those conversations to figure out what is appropriate to ensure that there are meaningful government-to-government conversations and agreement reach as it relates to this project and any project that occurs in my district.

So, you're continuing the conversations?

Absolutely, but we do have to have the chairs. It is not just our, it has—we have to have the chairs' agreement and it be appropriate in the right section. And so, that's where the limitations have occurred so far.

Okay. Then, on a different subject, the State and Federal Government have invested tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars on the wetlands from the former Hamilton Air Force Base, all the way around this area to Mare Island.

Yes.

And if this project goes ahead, does it jeopardize any of those wet ones? Does it become a dam with how it will do or does it work in harmony with all that investment on the wetlands?

Yeah, I would say harmony and give it to...

Absolutely, Senator.

Well, I know we're pro harmony but.

We are but thank you for the question. You know, the two wetlands, the east strip marsh and the Tolle Creek are the last remaining wetland pieces yet to be restored in that whole North Bay wetlands area. So, they are two critical pieces that will be addressed that have not yet been addressed. Nothing will be disturbed.

It's all additive and we'll have a cohesive whole, finally.

And I appreciate that. It's just whether or not the effect of the highway project will have a deleterious effect on the wet ones by closing off title action or other things along the area where the highway does not have a bridge.

It actually expands. Part of it is—there is an expansion. And so, currently, it's quite narrow and had a chance to tour it directly and walk on it, not just drive on it, but actually walk around there. And we got to view what the—how it would be expanded.

And so, it would be very harmonious and allow for a greater flow, compared to where it is today.

Well, as the author knows, I am the only Vallejo native in the Legislature.

Very true.

And I spent a lot of my childhood on that highway. And there was no shoulder and it was a drop off. And the whole even statement that you could walk around is terrorizing.

We did, they stopped, and we got off on the side of the road, if you know there's that...there, and then we walked through there. It was dry so we had an opportunity to walk through. But you're right, it was precarious, and we were protected.

Then, let me ask the elephant—the last question is the elephant in the room question, which is there are options here for the road project and this is referred to as interim. And to me, the real issue was—is—on the side toward Marin, away from the 11 mile stretch, it has flooded twice because of whether it's rising seas or whatever. And it's been—one time I think it was closed for six weeks or eight weeks.

And this needs a long term fix and yet, this is an interim fix and in 20 years, we'll be back to where we are, where the cost of the long-term fix would be increased exponentially because we didn't do it. And I have trouble with a $10 billion cost. It seems like it would be less.

But the question is why not do a long term fix now, rather than a so called interim one?

Yeah, I want to comment but I'll give it to my witness first and then follow up.

Yeah, absolutely. It's a great question. And I think to think of the entire 21 mile corridor as being at the same same elevation is incorrect. The area west of Atherton is the low lying areas. Those are the areas you described as being closed.

The interim project, that's the Sears Point to Mare Island, is at a very much different elevation. That sits around 12 feet and so, the impact to sea level rise varies greatly across the corridor. So, to think of, so, the, basically the...

But does that mean that with the interim project, there's limited impact over time that this actually would be some sort of fix long term and the real place that needs to be dealt with is the half of the road that's closer to Marin?

So, in 2024, the Ocean Protection Council did a, did another study and in 2050, the estimate was 12 inches of sea level rise. And so, when you take a look at what one foot does compared to 12 foot elevation along the interim, there's certainly a level of protection there that exists.

If I might. The segment close to Marin County is going to be elevated right out of the gate. That's part of this project. That's the one you care about. It is going to get raised out of the water because.

Oh, I would like to say I care about the whole thing.

I was going to say, he cares about the whole thing.

But most immediately, we are taking care of the segment that's lower elevation, that we know will flood again.

Right. And noting that the 10 billion cost is related to the future project. And of course this is the money—what it would cost today.

And we do know that prices change, and we've been talking about this for decades and you're full aware that we've been talking about this for decades and with the hopes of doing the long term project and we haven't yet been able to get that financed or get or get to that point.

And so, but there needs to be relief now. And so, we feel like this is a, this interim project or this first phase feels like a short term solution that will give long term benefits as we navigate around funding an entire project that goes for the 20 plus miles.

But this goes to our immediate concern of this 10 miles that is causing a pretty significant bottleneck. We talk a lot about emissions but cars idling on a 10 stretch mile is very damaging to the environment as well.

Not only when you think about the environment, think about the quality of life of those folks who, for all intents and purposes, are going to minimum wage jobs or low paying jobs. And so, time is money, right? We know that.

And so, that is a loss of income to those folks who are going to these low paying hospitality jobs by sitting on this highway for anywhere to—adding anywhere—from 90 to 120, because it can happen both ways, to their commute every single day.

Then one last comment. I also, for eight years, chaired the Ocean Protection Council and supervised the two previous studies to this one. And I could not feel certainty the way the certainty was stated about what will happen over time. And it's really if we don't get on top of our climate issues, it's going to be more.

If we miraculously did, it would be less. And so, that would make me nervous about just sort of the absoluteness with which there was a figure stated because I'm not sure there is—the smirking of the Senator from Bakersfield notwithstanding.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Any other comments or Senator—who's going to go? Senator Stern.

Thanks. I just want to I guess build on the last conversation. I saw a little bit of shaking in the head from the opposition witness, maybe about that—I wanted to drill down a little further on this, the sea level rise issue. The elevation, you're saying, sorry, is 12 ft or so through that problem stretch?

Yeah, through the 1—the 10 mile stretch that we're talking about—yes, is a much higher elevation than the elevation where it regularly floods.

Right. And then, the OPC report that Senator Laird, you were discussing, has a one foot prediction, 12 inches by 2050, give or take. So, it would be all right if I just asked the opposition, do you all...

There was a lot of talk about sort of the stranded asset concept and that sea level rise will sort of subsume the project before it really has any use. Do you dispute—is the dispute about the sea level rise modeling that they asserted or that the elevation won't really be able to mitigate that?

I'm just sort of—I want to drill down on that a little further where the nature of the.

Well, I think Senator Laird actually said it really well. I mean the sea level rise projections are projections. They're estimates.

We do have concerns that there are low lying sections of this, of the Sears Point to Mare Island portion of the roadway, that it was not my understanding that the whole length of this expanded route was 12 feet above. That may be an average and maybe we can get some clarification on that, but I believe some is lower.

And the sea level rise predictions, I mean just frankly, like, we're not addressing climate change. And so, the idea that we can assume that the projections that we have today, while we're expanding a roadway that will increase driving and emissions to actually exacerbate climate change is going to be lower than, you know, what we're projecting today.

So, we have big concerns about that. And just to clarify, the Marin end of the project that does regularly flood, that was referred to, that is a separate project that's being addressed with shop funds and that is another $500 million project.

So, we're investing a huge amount in this corridor for only interim solutions, none of which do address the long term sea level rise. So, that's a huge risk that we just ask you to consider.

Would you mind—can I just come back to maybe the author or your sponsor? The 12 foot number, consistent throughout changes, elevations, just comment on that.

Yeah, yeah. So, Tolle Creek is the bridge that will be lengthened and elevated. And so, that area is actually rising probably 5 to 6 ft. There's also other segments of the...

Sorry, the bridge is rising—the bridge would go up five to six feet?

Yes. And then, also too, there's some parts of the approach and there's also other segments that are being elevated around 8 inches.

And the idea though that yes, generally I'm not speaking specifically to the entire corridor, that everything's being designed specifically to a 12 foot elevation, but it was merely in a short amount of time to tell you just kind of scale where the, where the project sits at the interim and what the expected sea level rise will be.

Other factors come into the issue of flooding that has to do with king tide and storm surge. And these all are, you know, complicate the issue of flooding, but an inundation, but short term and long term.

But I just wanted to give those facts as a way of kind of identifying the difference between the west end and the east end.

And also, if I could, Senator, to note that we are all using estimates, the opposition is using estimates, in terms of the impact of climate change or the lack thereof, in terms of our ability to address that. And then we're using estimates.

And so, I think that the dismissal of estimates, you know, when we're all using them and it's about what study do we trust more or what's more accurate. I would note that the study that we're relying on was just done in 2024 based on, you know, the information at hand.

So, I would note, note that for one, and then two, this Bill is around the 10 mile stretch and the $500 million investment, as we noted, this is 20 plus miles of, of roadway to get to—from one particular area to another, from one economic center to another.

And so, although there might be further investments down the road, we do know that there needs to be multiple investments, so, I hope that we would not discount this particular project even though this is about the incidental take.

But as the Senator noted, it's, it's about the project as well for another project that is going to happen using additional funds that's already funded and already in play.

I appreciate that. My struggle is just in general, the Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act. And I appreciate that this, this project has significant importance in your community and is affecting a lot of real people. I—yeah, given the recent budget actions we've taken, I'm just, I have a bit of a hangover from yeah, that.

That effort and I feel like we're just on defense here. I know that there's, you know, I do worry a little bit about the precedents as well and how many more kinds of bills we're going to be seeing to, to make, you know, to make these sort of incidental take exemptions.

But I, you know, I appreciate that, that it's a priority back home and that, you know, I guess I would just, my final question would just be about the mitigation and there's a sea level rise question, but there's also this sort of storm surge question, right?

And those moments, I mean, I can't help but think about Texas right now and flooding and flash floods and things like that. I mean it gets scary out there. So, and given a lack of good data and modeling, like not just the long term, but in the near term. Noah's in shambles. National Weather Service.

You know, we're going to be sort of on our own here. So, I just want us to go into this really eyes wide open from a public safety perspective, as well as, of course, habitat protection and the things that are sort of germane to this Committee.

But yeah, I guess if you have any—maybe you can address in your close—but just how we're, not just the sort of long term stranded asset question, right? But in those near term emergency circumstances that can arise and we've seen arise and could get a lot worse. I get that it's not 12 ft across the board, right?

It varies. But just how to, how to be dealing with that in these narrow circumstances and hopefully that we're building an asset that is not just going to, you know, it's not going to be useless by the time we, we go, we, we get it done. So, you can address now or in your close.

I can, I might address in close. Unless there's other comments. I can address it now, but if there's more comments...

There's more comments.

Okay. I can address them all in close.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I, I learned more about the salt marsh mouse and the, the species that are listed in this as an incidental take. We did really research it and so, two comments.

The first one, I'd like to remind my colleagues when they talk about long term stranded assets, investing millions of dollars in a project that may not ever come to fruition. I'd like to remind them that the high speed rail is in my district, destroying lots of land, impacting farmers when we have floods.

And that is, that is evidence of a stranded project that is never going to come to fruition. And so, to say that only having this project in place for 10 years, that's more than we will ever have in the central valley. So, that's one piece.

I do have a grave, a really—a concern—about a government-to-government cooperation. And the reason why is because I think that our tribal governments have not had a seat at the table in most cases. Some of them were granted that seat in recent years, but it's something that's significantly important.

And I have grief when we do compact agreements and this government demands their government do certain things like you will do this, you will hire these people, you will sign a project labor agreement. You will not build a gas station. It's their land.

And so, I have concerns about the tribal—the government-to-government situation—that rest in this Bill. But I don't completely agree with the opposition that you are disinvited to the table. I checked with Caltrans, and I checked with the Department of Transportation—high level—and there has always been a communication when it comes to consideration of government-to-government relationships and the potential damage or harm to tribal lands.

So, I do have one question for the opposition, if that's okay, Madam Chair.

I looked at a map and I could have missed it, but the Great Rancheria, their land is north of this 10 mile project, correct? It's not near this 10 mile project.

The Great Rancheria Casino is located in Rohnert Park.

Okay.

I will have to mention that the original site for their casino was on the State Route 37 corridor. It was deemed—the property was deemed so environmentally sensitive and the cost of mitigation and whatnot was so expensive they sold it to a land trust. It's now a park and that's why they moved.

That's how important that whole area is to Grayton. And with regard to our amendments, our amendments were drafted by our, our tribal attorneys and our...they're really good at drafting this. They do this all the time. And if it was just a matter of finding a place to locate the language, that would have been fine.

But the first counter was no, we'll give you more information or we're supposed to get information now under current law, which we oftentimes don't get. And then, the second counter was changing our "shall engage in good faith consultation" to "may engage in good faith consultation," which, of course, is a nonstarter for us.

Are you saying that the California Department of Transportation or Caltrans has not engaged in good conscious conversation with? Because my understanding is that they do, on a continuous basis, and specifically on this project.

It depends on what your definition of a good faith consultation is. Inviting you to a meeting with, you know, 20 other people and giving them, giving information, saying, here, here's our project, what do you think? That's not meaningful consultation.

Meaningful consultation is sitting down and reviewing what, what TCRS, our tribal cultural resources are and how to mitigate for them and entering into enforceable agreements to do just that. So, that's our position.

Yeah. Thank you, Senator Grove. So, I really value the relationships with Grayton. In fact, I'm meeting with them later this week. It's my understanding that we've increased the number of consultations. It's resulted in changes in the CEQA planning process and we will continue to meet with Grayton to develop a relationship to incorporate their input into this project.

And is that your assessment to—to the author, Assemblymember Wilson?

Absolutely.

That—I don't want to do anything that's going to disingenuously, you know, be disingenuous to another government that operates within our state.

But I do think on the impact for the climate change issue or the issue of, you know, cars idling for an hour and a half, delaying families from going back and forth to work, leaving three hours early for work and leaving, you know, taking three hours additional in your day to get home, the impact on travel, all of those things make a difference.

And again, I do think, you know, there's a, I believe in progress and making us, you know, a greater state for any transportation infrastructure, those kinds of things. But the concern I have is the government-togovernment issue, that's important.

I have Tejon Tribe, I have Table Mountain Casino, I have Rancheria, I have all these—Big Sandy—I have all these tribes that I feel like get, I don't want to say pushed aside. I think that their voice is greater in some cases, but I think it really needs to be.

I mean, we don't tell Canada how to operate. We shouldn't be able to tell a tribe how to operate. They're a separate government within our borders. And so, I think the government-to-government relationship is very important. And I just want a commitment that you're going to continue to address their issue.

Absolutely. I think that, you know, the tribes, all the tribes in California have fought really hard to have a voice and a seat at the table in all conversations in our government. I think, you know, over the last 25 years, we've seen great strides where the presence is meaningful in all conversations.

And so, I would hate to do anything that would erode that and want to continue that and even strengthen that for them. At, like I said, at a government, not a gift, because a government-to-government level.

And so, I believe that that is happening, and any way to strengthen that, I will do and have committed to do. And it's just a matter of language and where and what code section. We're dealing with one particular code section. And where most of this is handled is in a different.

And so, that's where there's been more of this, how do we put in Fish and Wildlife a particular meaningful language that matters and doesn't take away from strong language in another code section? And if we have to strengthen that, I've said continually, happy to introduce something that strengthens that language where we see that the—our—government is not being faithful.

Okay. I really do appreciate that because, you know, I just want to reiterate that I have big heartburn when things go through that affect the tribal communities, because, whether it's, like I said, a compact, whether it's, you know, building in Tejon area to where the Tejon, tou know, it's this mitigating CEQA on their own land.

They care about their land. They don't need to follow. I don't—they don't need to follow, to me, CEQA laws that are instituted by California because they're the original owners of the land that, that they care about the land, if that makes sense. They don't need somebody to tell them to preserve this whatever.

They do it through their culture, naturally. Yeah.

And I have big heartburn that when we try to impose rules and stuff on their, their land and their cultural sites. I remember being in the Assembly and they were gonna—it was down in the Orange County area—they were gonna put a landfill next to a cultural site.

You know, it's a different faith or a different belief, but if you were trying to put a landfill next to a place where Jesus was crucified, I would fight it tooth and nail, too. Right. So, again, another country, but just an example.

And so, I do think that we need to continue those relationships, and they need to be fair and they need to be balanced and that tribes do have to have a seat at the table in making sure that, that their cultural lands are preserved. So, thank you for making that commitment.

Thank you. All right. Seeing no additional comments. I want to thank the author for your presentation, but also for your work on this. I know—I think my colleagues have shared a lot in terms of just the thinking about this. For all of us, we certainly want to address issues that impact our constituents.

And I know that this is where it's coming from. How do we address the issues that impact our Constituents? And Route 37 and your time on it, your ability to get to and from work to and from school, to and from a medical appointment, are all key pieces to what we think are needed issues that need addressing—or issues that need addressing—and certainly, respect the congestion aspect to it.

I think you've heard from our colleagues that there is great concern and desire for there to be, you know, more conversations, particularly related to our tribal nations. And it sounds like you are committed to continue those conversations.

Certainly, I think that that will be an issue that will keep coming forward if it's not resolved. But I do want to, you know, I will be supporting this Bill today and will allow you to close.

Thank you so much. I appreciate the robust discussion and as well as the opposition, both—from both viewpoints—from our tribal nation, as well as from the, our environmentalist groups, and the conversations that we've had and will continue to have.

Also noting, you know, the concern about these, the safety and flooding. You know, I would say and argue the current road is unsafe and that this would allow it to be safer, it would allow more flow to go through and less likely of flooding and it raises the level, albeit it doesn't do what the long term project does.

But we've been waiting decades, multiple decades, for the long term project. And so, I don't want the striving or idea of perfection to be the enemy, you know, of good.

And there's an opportunity to do real good things for the community, especially for the City of Vallejo, which if you count every metric, they're on it, from environmental score to community of concern to, you know, sensitive population, all of that.

And so, this is an opportunity for them to be able to get to work safely and in a, in a more and quicker way, more efficient way, as well as ensure that we are taking care of the environment at the same time. I appreciate all the collaboration from all the multiple agencies.

It was not easy to get to this point. I will have to say that every single one had different viewpoints and that's part of the why it's taken decades and so, for everybody to be on the same page and figure out that this is the way to go, I'm happy to carry this Bill.

Happy to hopefully get it to the Governor's desk and happy to get a project done and deliver for my community. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I do need a motion. All right. So, Senator Grove has moved the Bill. This is AB 697. The motion is do pass to appropriations. Can we please call the roll?