Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

Hello, everybody. Good afternoon. The Environmental Quality Committee will begin in 30 seconds.

Okay, let me know.

Are we ready? Because we can see it here. Okay, it's official. Good afternoon, everybody. The Senate Committee on Environmental Equality is now in order. We will start as a Subcommitee because we do not quite have a quorum.

So, we are going to go out of order because we have an author who's here. We have Senator Cabaldon. And so, we would like to ask—this is item number two, which is SB 299—and we will ask you to begin when ready. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members. I'd like to begin by accepting the amendments that are proposed in the Committee Analysis that separate this from the SB 131 work last year. As this Committee knows, last year we did, when the Legislature enacted its package, it included in many of our statements, I know, maybe not yours, I know in mine, we announced to the whole world that we had provided an exemption for childcare.

And we did that because childcare is such a, such a deep need in our communities, in neighborhoods, and near employers. But we didn't actually—that's not actually what the language said.

And so, SB 299 is designed to make the promise real, although no longer it's part of the SB 131 framework. And so, the current state of the law is simply the daycare facilities, family daycare, those decisions are ministerial and therefore not subject to CEQA and daycare centers that are in commercial or industrial zones, they're largely exempt from CEQA, but within residential zones, they are not.

And so, this simply harmonizes it. Residential zones turns out to be, big surprise, one area that families prefer to have daycare—either where they work or where they live. And so, SB 299 is intended to correct that.

What I think is an error in the statute, and it is—this issue emerged for me because the Napa County Board of Supervisors, the second all woman board of supervisors in the state, has been grappling with this very issue.

And one of the significant childcare provider in town needed to move, lost her lease, needed to move, identified a site in a residential neighborhood, former church with parking, all the things that you would ask for in a neighborhood. And she never would have—she didn't lose and would never have lost a CEQA lawsuit. That wasn't the issue.

The issue was that some of the neighbors that didn't want the facility just kept filing thing after thing after thing after thing, and she ended up not being able to meet the conditions of her substantial multimillion dollar state and federal grants to open the expanded facility.

And it just pointed out the challenges that especially women, small business owners who are trying to operate these centers, face with what are seemingly innocuous procedural requirements, but sometimes can be disabling for the project itself. And so, SB 299 is intended to resolve that challenge. So, the Bill passed yesterday out of Human Services Committee unanimously.

And I'd like to introduce our witnesses for the Bill today: Courtney Jensen with the Low-Income Investment Fund and John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California.

Good afternoon. John Kennedy with RCRC here. On behalf of 40 rural counties, we're here today to support SB 299. Thank the Senator for introducing the measure. We believe this Bill will help facilitate the creation of additional child care opportunities in our communities.

These facilities are important from a developmental and social perspective and they're foundational keys for not only economic development but also community health. CEQA is a really important law that requires disclosure and mitigation of a project's significant impacts on the environment.

We strongly support CEQA and its core objectives, but unfortunately, CEQA has been misused in the past for non-environmental purposes. Sometimes those are competitive purposes and sometimes to delay a project past the point of economic viability.

A challenge can add years to a project, hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to the costs, and can undermine viability for some projects. This isn't just theoretical. As the Senator mentioned, there was a daycare facility. We've seen food banks, challenged student housing, and most recently, playground equipment in a neighborhood park.

So, at the end of the day, CEQA shouldn't be the thing that stands in the way of timely access to additional childcare opportunities in our communities. CEQA shouldn't make this process a nightmare for those seeking to provide additional daycare centers. For this reason, we strongly support SB 299 and urge your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Courtney Jensen, on behalf of the Low-Income Investment Fund. LIIF is a national CDFI dedicated to building communities of opportunity and we do that through investing in childcare facilities and affordable housing. The child care crisis in our state, as you know, is multifaceted.

However, LIIF's focus is on ensuring childcare providers have the support they need to solve their physical infrastructure needs and reducing barriers to creating new supply in California. Programs building new childcare space are part of the fabric of communities, helping build strong, diverse, economically viable places for families.

LIIF works with child care providers, which enables them to build new child care facilities, serving more children and contributing to communities. Across the country, LIIF has seen various regulatory impediments to building supply of childcare and has worked to support policy change that facilitates supply building, which we are—which is why we're here today and proud to work with the Senator on this effort.

In California, the state has taken many actions to reduce regulatory barriers with which LIF has supported, including allowing child care facilities to be buy right in residential zones and taking some steps in SB 131 last year.

But as the author stated, this Bill is critical to ensuring that the CEQA exemption is included for childcare facilities and residential zones. Locating childcare in residential zones makes sense for many reasons, as the Senator stated, including potential to reduce driving and building strong communities.

This aligns with California environmental goals by ensuring childcare facilities, a critical resource for Californians, are integrated near homes, jobs, and transportation. Thank you for your time and we respectfully request and aye vote.

Well, thanks very much. If anybody else is in the room and would like to express support, please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the Bill.

Great. So, thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Lauren De Valencia representing the American Planning Association, in support.

Sarah Botches, with Children Now, in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott, here on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium, also in support. And apologize we didn't get a letter in in time. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities, in support.

Jordan Wells, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in support. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Now, we will go to opposition witnesses. If there are any lead witnesses in opposition who would like to come forward to the table, please do so at this time. Okay. Going once, going twice. No opposition witnesses in the room. Okay.

If you would like to express opposition but you're not a lead witness, please come forward to the microphone. Thank you. Welcome.

Hi. Alex Lehmer, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and California Native Plant Society, in opposition. Thank you.

Not an opposition witness, just Mariela Racho from Leadership Council. We are here today not to—on the policy of the language of the Bill or for which we do not approve.

I'm sorry, we're not here to read letters from the phone. So, if you want to just state your name, position on the Bill, you could say a phrase, but we're not going to read another.

Not in opposition. Just want to have more of a comprehensive approach to 131. Thank you.

Okay, thanks very much. Anyone else in the room wishing to express opposition or in between? Okay, not seeing any. We will bring it back to the Committee. Yes, Vice Chair.

Well, first of all, I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. You have somehow managed to connect two things that I'm very passionate about and that is sequel modernization and childcare. Having ran a child care facility for many years after my mom passed away, she had ran for 10 years, we lost our lease about two years ago and found ourselves in the same position of looking for a new facility.

And it is so incredibly hard to find a facility that has the outdoor space that you need to meet the capacity you're applying for, the indoor space. It's really challenging to find existing properties to accommodate childcare centers.

So, this is an extremely important Bill and I just want to thank you for bringing it forward. Would love to be a coauthor. We need to do a lot more work in the childcare space—is obviously not the childcare space committee but thank you for bringing this important Bill forward. I appreciate your work.

I'll move the Bill when appropriate.

Okay. Thank you. Senator Reyes.

Thank you. I also want to thank you for highlighting this, such a critical need for child care centers and day care centers and their essential role in the development of our children and also, the economic—local economic benefit—to our community.

We know and as was stated, that CEQA should not be used in a way that undermines timely deciding of these important community serving facilities. I also want to comment, though, that there still remains broader concerns surrounding CEQA that warrant continued attention as part of a comprehensive CEQA cleanup effort. And this was brought up earlier.

Without a doubt, I'm supporting the Bill. I have been a champion for child care facilities, more child care slots, child care funding since I first arrived here. But I also know that there's lots of cleanup, lots of discussion, and I would love for this to be part of the broader conversation.

I will be supporting the Bill today and I look forward to this broader conversation regarding CEQA issues.

Thank you. And now, I'll make a few comments on this Bill. So, first, I want to thank my colleague, Senator Cabaldon, for bringing forward this measure related to CEQA exemptions for daycare facilities and for agreeing to take the Committee amendments. And just to confirm, you're accepting the Committee amendments, right? Yes. Thank you.

So, first, I want to focus on the policy changes that are in SB 299 and then, secondly, on the context of last year's CEQA legislation in SB 131.

So, the first thing is the policy. We all have said, and I think many of us believe, that we need to do more to make sure that we have good quality, abundant childcare options. And this Bill, SB2 99, is a straightforward and simple exemption from environmental review through CEQA for daycare facilities that are in exclusively residential areas.

As the author said, many daycares are near where people live for obvious reasons. And so, in a way, it was strange that this was excluded last year at the end when this was all being thrown together. SB 299 creates the CEQA exemption and includes two important environmental guardrails.

First, daycares aren't eligible for the exemption if they're on natural and protected lands. And second, Committee amendments added the further guardrail to specify that child care facilities are only eligible for the CEQA exemption if they are located at least 3,200 ft away from oil wells and refineries.

We know that these are highly polluting sources associated with health risks for children, such as asthma. So, making sure that we don't site childcare facilities without going through the CEQA process within 3200 ft of oil wells and refineries is really important.

So, at the end of the day, this is a common sense CEQA exemption to get more daycares in environmentally safe residential areas where people live. SB 299, as written, amends a portion of SB 131 from last year's bill.

SB 131 made several significant changes to CEQA, including limiting what information can be included in the administrative record and creating a slew of new exemptions, including primarily one for advanced manufacturing and one for childcare facilities that are in nonresidential areas.

And as you will recall, there were many Senators, including me, who voiced concerns on the language of SB 131 and there were commitments that were taken by Senate leadership on the floor to address outstanding issues.

My colleagues and I, including Senator Cabaldon, co-authored a letter urging a fix to some of those issues and there were 12 other Senators who signed onto this letter as well.

So, I want to ensure my colleagues—Senator Reyes made comments about this, that I am spearheading an effort to clean up SB 131 more holistically to address the outstanding concerns that Senators raised in the Budget Committee and on the floor of the Senate.

However, given the very narrow scope of this Bill and the clear righteousness of this policy, which I know many of the bills we pass are righteous, but this, to me, does seem narrowly tailored to address something that was very clearly overlooked or excluded last year. We agreed that it did make sense to hear this Bill, SB 299, today, ahead of the rest of the SB 131 cleanup, which will then go through the full Committee process.

So, I have Senator Cabaldon's collaboration on these efforts, and I look forward to continuing to work with the author on this issue and others. Thank you. So, with that, we'll turn it back to the author—if you would like to make any closing comments.

Just briefly to thank the Chair, the Members of the Committee. I am also committed to, to that continuing work on SB 131 and to make real the good faith commitments that were made last year on exactly those issues. This is not an attempt to try to jailbreak just this one, this one issue.

But this issue wasn't really part of the debate this time around. And I think every, as I said at the outset, we all thought we were doing what we're doing now. So, this is really a correction.

But that's important work and I'm very pleased to continue to collaborate with the Chair and Members of this Committee and others in the Senate to make sure that we make that real and appreciate very much the support on the Committee for notwithstanding all of that, to be able to move forward on an issue that is having real consequences in communities and neighborhoods and for families and for providers who are just trying to make it work.

And thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Want to ask for an aye vote.

Well, thanks very much. We don't yet have a quorum, so we'll continue as a Subcommittee and we'll vote when we get to that stage. Thank you. I see Senator Padilla is in the room. So, if you are ready, Senator Padilla, for SB 58, you're welcome to come forward.

I might be leaving it to you now if you're prepared for that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We're now moving to follow item number one, SB58. Padilla. Senator, you are recognized when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm here to pleased to present SB58 and first would like to state that we're happy to accept the Committee amendments and appreciate the good work the Committee staff has done.

Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless, highly toxic gas with strong odor, detectable in very low concentrations, and is formed during bacterial decomposition of human and animal waste and much more that we're learning through more contemporary science. The standards for hydrogen sulfide were adopted in 1969 for the purpose of odor control and nuisance.

That was last reviewed in 1981 nearly 50 years ago, and has not been thoroughly updated or reviewed with contemporary data since in my district, two hot spots of hydrogen sulfide have been identified in the Tijuana River Valley and at the Salton Sea Community researchers have monitored these areas and have found that monitoring procedures are inefficient with concentrations of the gas found at much higher levels, some highly exceeding recommended safe levels.

Our current framework for hydrogen sulfide does not take into account some of the unique nature and features that are occurring in these locations. This has created confusion and has also limited our ability to create an appropriate response framework.

Exposure to this has been associated with health systems numerous, including respiratory, gastrointestinal issues, headaches, fatigue, nausea, skin irritation and respiratory irritation. These exposures disproportionately affect vulnerable and environmentally overburdened communities, including low income households and immigrant communities, Latino and tribal populations in areas already experiencing elevated rates of respiratory and other illnesses.

SB58 seeks to protect public health of Californians by strengthening our ability to detect and respond to hydrogen sulfide releases, in particular in identifying and evaluating the triggers that we're becoming aware of.

That also would primarily surround looking at public health impacts and community health impacts and making that the framework through which we look at standards which we have not done in the past.

Here with me today to testify is Dr. Arsenio Sotero, Assistant professor at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at UCLA and who's also with the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Institute. Thank you Doctor for being here.

Thank you. You're recognized for there's only one witness. Four minutes.

good afternoon Chair Blackspear and Committee Members. My name is Dr. Isabel Arzeno Otero. I'm a UCLA faculty Member and I've been studying air and water quality in the Salton Sea for over five years now.

I am here to share recent data on hydrogen sulfide air quality exceedances which show a serious gap between how air quality is monitored and regulated and what Salton Sea residents experience every day. Our findings highlight two key problems, the first being that state regulatory monitors are not capturing the full extent of hydrogen sulfide emissions.

While regulatory monitors have recorded exceedances in the region for more than a decade, data from community air sensors show that hydrogen sulfide concentrations around the Salton Sea violate the CARB state standard far more often than state monitors report. This is because the few state monitors that exist are spread far apart amidst many hydrogen sulfide events.

The second point is that updated state standards could better protect public health, especially in under resourced communities. The Salton Sea is surrounded by predominantly low income Latino indigenous and immigrant communities who experience disproportionate respiratory health burdens. Community Members consistently reported headaches, nausea, nosebleeds, irritation, and feelings of suffocation associated with odor, particularly on hot and humid days.

Residents also described regularly having to alter their daily lives in response to these conditions, avoiding time outdoors, keeping children from going to parks, restricting normal routines, and in some cases, being awakened in the middle of the night by the odor.

Taken together, these findings demonstrate a fundamental disconnect between current air quality monitoring efforts, regulatory standards, enforcement of the standard, and the persistent harmful conditions experienced daily by Salton Sea residents. And this underscores the need to lower the standard and strengthen enforcement. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Do we have any key witnesses in opposition? zero, actually, we'll move to any. Anyone here in support or me toos trying to move it along too fast.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee. Kiana Valentine, on behalf of the Coachella. Valley association of Governments here in support. Thank you. Nisette Short on behalf of Loma Linda University Health and support.

Mariela Racho with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability and support.

Jonathan Clay on behalf of the Imperial Valley Healthcare District and support.

Good afternoon. Alejandro Solis with Los Amigos de La Comunidad in support. And also on behalf of Marco Lizarraga, Executive Director with La Cobrerativa Campesina. Got a letter in, but not on. Time and support as well. Thank you.

Sophia Afakoa with the Coalition for Clean Air and support. Erica Parker with California Against Waste, also on behalf of Central California Environmental Justice Network, in support. Apologies for missing the letter deadline.

Madam Chair. Brendan Tuig, on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. That's the air pollution control officers from all 35 local air districts. We don't have a position. We'll be reviewing the amendments and we look forward to continued discussions on the issue to make sure we're achieving our shared goal of protecting public health. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair John Kendrick, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. A bit of a tweener position here. From what I'm hearing and discussions that I've had so far, it sounds like we're looking at a fundamental reassessment of how we do health standards across the state through this Bill. It's not using OEAs existing authority.

It seems to be creating a new health standard.

So I'm going to cut you off because we're just asking for support organization.

But yes, it's a tweener position. I'm sorry, can I just Say, you know, this coming in as a late amendment on a two year Bill rather than going through the full process is very concerning. Thank you.

Madam Chair. Members, Theo Paos representing the Calpine Corporation. We understand that he's looking at a legitimate problem that is currently unregulated. We just are a little bit concerned about the possible implications where these emissions are recognized and through a variety of means are regulated.

So we just want to watch this, make sure this doesn't have implications to the geothermal industry. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other tweeners or support, please. Do you have any witnesses in opposition? Having none. Anyone here to just express opposition? Excellent. We'll bring it back to the Committee. No one from the community. I just want to 1 acknowledge the author that my community too has experienced environmental catastrophe.

Chiquita Landfill is experiencing an elevated event where my residents, community Members, friends are experiencing some severe air quality issues as. As well. Well, I do need some clarification. I'm going to support your Bill today. But do is the intent of this Bill to be a statewide response that should just be prescribed for maybe your district or just.

I want to understand that a little bit better.

Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. It is and I think it's important to point out two things. There was some commentary earlier and maybe I can address this in my closet about the risk associated with the bill's intent to establish a new framework around standards and then later around response.

The issue is not that it is unknown to the state the sourcing of static sources of these emissions. That's very much known already and has been for years. The issue is the difference is that we don't have a standard that reflects the current science.

In fact, it is so far out of date that the assumptions were the monitoring standards were over the course of one hour intervals, looking at much lower parts per million emissions and thinking about it in terms of its odor nuisance.

Today we have substantial data sets and science that tells us that where these emissions occur that are static, we don't even have a framework for centering that around public health impacts or about community public health impacts. And that's the primary impact. That is a result not just on the air quality, but on public health.

And that's the reason why we need to better align and allow for the development of these standards. And then further down the road with CARB, the development of response protocols. I hope that answered your question.

Yes, it does. I do want to clarify that you are accepting the amendments.

Yes, Madam Chair indicated we are accepting the amendments. As I said, and I'm grateful to the Committee staff for your work.

There's no other Committee questions. Senator, you're welcome to close.

I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And we do still not have quorum. And we do have an author. We do not have an author either. Okay, awesome. We're going to go ahead and take a five minute recess while we wait for authors.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are back and we are now moving to File item number four, SB811. Senator Caballero, when you are ready, you are recognized.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB811, which establishes a statutory framework to ensure comprehensive and safe regulation of metal shredding facilities in California. Last year I authored a substantially similar Bill, SB404, and that Bill received overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate and in the Assembly.

In the final days of session last year, the Administration indicated that they had one lingering concern with with the Bill. They sought clarity around the Department of Toxic Substances enforcement authority over the materials listed in the Bill. We thought it was self evident, but they wanted language.

So I authored a letter to the journal in an attempt to address their concern and offered to fix their issue in the following year. However, the Governor vetoed the Bill, preferring that our office resolve the issue through a new piece of legislation. I have introduced SB11811 to fix the issue identified in the Governor's veto message.

Specifically, the Bill and print now clarifies that the DEpartment's enforcement authority over the materials covered in the Bill. In other words, it's very explicit that there's enforcement authority. Recently, our office also received written joint technical assistance from Cal, Epa, DTSC and the State Water Board.

This technical assistance further clarifies DTSC's enforcement authority and extends certain protections for groundwater. Our office plans to accept the technical assistance in full exactly as provided to us once we have the opportunity. Again, we anticipated that that was what the Bill did. They wanted clarification that we're taking care of it.

Additionally, I want to note that last year I had the opportunity to engage with with Environmental Justice Group regarding their concerns with the Bill and I was able to take a number of amendments in hopes of addressing their concerns, including strengthening the standards by which DTSC can shut down a facility that poses a danger to the surrounding community and requiring facilities to have a fire prevention, detection and response plan in place with strict standards.

Every single negotiated amendment from last year is included in SB811. SB811 is the culmination of over a year's worth of negotiations between the Legislature, the industry, the EJ groups, state agencies, and the Administration.

This Bill will ensure that California has a robust regulatory process for metal shredding, the metal shredding industry and remains a sustainability leader in reducing, reusing and recycling by fostering the recycling of scrap metal into new metal products.

And so with me to testify in support of the Bill is Bob Huffman with California Metal Recyclers Coalition and Scott Wech with the California State Association of Electrical Workers and California State Pipe Trades Council.

Thank you. You're each recognized with two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Bob Hoffman and I am representing the California Metal Recyclers Coalition, which is the sponsor of Bill. Over the last 10 years, the metal recycling industry has operated in a state of legal and regulatory uncertainty, and that's created negative impacts on all of the companies involved.

SB811 addresses those issues. And. As the Senator pointed out, the Bill is substantially identical to SB404 from last year. That Bill passed with only one no vote through its entire time through the Legislature. The Bill was vetoed because of a misunderstanding with the Administration. That issue has been and will continue to be resolved.

We now believe we have the agreement because of the Ta from the Administration of DTSC, Cal, EPA, the water board and the governor's office. With SB811, California will create a program that will set a new bar for this industry, both nationally and internationally.

So it's really a program to be proud of while maintaining the industry's role in the circular economy. Without 811, California could lose this sector of the economy, which protects our communities and open spaces from being overwhelmed by the amount of scrap metal that's generated in California every day, every month, every year. Millions and millions of tons, literally.

Just think about the impact of the floods and fires in our communities. These disasters leave in their wake burnt automobiles, burnt appliances. All of these are shredded and recycled. And it's important to note that the industry produces 70% of the new steel products in the country.

In summary, SB811 provides enforceable standards that will protect our neighborhoods, our communities, and advance this critical industry. Go ahead, Scott.

Madam Chair, Member Scott Wech on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal workers. The state's 10 metal shredding facilities provide critical recycling infrastructure as part of the robust circular economy that operates without any subsidies.

These facilities safely and reliably recover and process valuable metals from end of life materials that would otherwise accumulate in huge, huge quantities, creating a burden on local governments, on contractors that employ my Members, and pose potential threats to public health and safety.

Metal shredders successfully recycle many of the materials that are essential to California's building trades, like steel beams and supports, rebar conduit and other metallic construction materials. Metal shredding facilities safely and efficiently recover these valuable materials for reuse in the manufacture of new steel and other metal products, saving natural resources and energy.

The ability of California builders to sell scrap metal products to metal shredders is an integral part of many building projects. It's an integral part to the affordability of construction projects.

Importantly, the recycling and recovery of scrap metal is purely a physical mechanical process, not involving heat, chemicals, gases or any other material that could be considered hazardous, toxic or poisonous. Your support of SB811 will ensure thousands of employment opportunities for individuals and union shops with good salaries, significant benefits, vocational training and career enhancement.

I would just conclude that the Senators work on this Bill exemplifies really the best of what this process should represent. The work, the thorough and diligent work with all the agencies and all the stakeholders. And this Bill deserves an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move to the room. Anyone else like to recognize support of the Bill? State your name, your organization and your position.

Good afternoon. Lindsey Golihorn on behalf of the Resource Recovery Coalition of California and support.

Good afternoon. Kristin Olson with California Strategies here on behalf of RADIUS Recycling and support.

Robert Wychowski on behalf of Ecology Recycling Services with Colton California.

Katherine Brandenburg with the Brandenburg Group on behalf of SA Recycling.

Good afternoon. Lily McKay on behalf of Sims Recycling, in support. Thank you.

John Moffett on behalf of Waste Management, in support.

Do we have any. Any tweeners? Anyone in. Excellent. We're now moved to. Any witnesses here in opposition. You might need to make room or one of you make room for the opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Now, if you'd please introduce yourself. And you each have two minutes.

Thank you so much.

Did I push the button? zero, we are. Hi, my name is Scott Andrews. I'm here representing the community of West Oakland. I've worked with Ms. Margaret Gordon and Brian Beverage of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project for nearly a decade. They both wanted to be here today, but unfortunately, both of them were ill this morning.

So I apologize. I wasn't planning on making remarks, so I'm sorry I don't have a tie. So, as you may know, one of the largest metal shredders in California is in West Oakland. RADIUS Recycling, formerly known as Schnitzer Steel, and it's now owned by Toyota. We've been going back and forth for several years on this Bill.

It was originally planted as a gut and amend Bill by RADIUS attorneys, even though we're working with them in a separate coalition. The latest iteration of this Bill appears to be ignoring the views that Governor Newsom expressed in his October 252025 veto letter that the proposed legislation places a significant burden on dtsc.

It cannot be successfully implemented. He explicitly said that the author was to work closely with DTSC and interested parties to remedy this issue. That has yet to happen and that these facilities must operate in a health protective manner. As it happens.

And as I just mentioned, we helped DTSC bring together a multi agency and community collaborative a year ago this week to address metal shredding. It was the MOU is signed by the Director of DTSC, RADIUS, community leaders, 20 Seconds, US EPA and others.

And so we have a system in place already to improve this Bill and potentially write a better piece of legislation.

In closing, I'll just say that on behalf of all the community based organizations in San Bernardino, Fresno, Louisiana and elsewhere, we request that you please not support this legislation and allow our multi agency coalition to come up with a better option. Thank you.

Two minutes. And if you could keep to that, I gave a little more time on this side. Thank you.

Yeah, my remarks should be short. My name is Ben Eichenberg. I'm a senior attorney with San Francisco bakeeper. First, let me just thank this Committee for your action last year to give us time to speak with the author. We spent nearly a year going back and forth and none of our substantive suggestions were finally adopted.

There were a few little, what I would call rearranging of deck chairs. Other than that, there's nothing in this Bill that we find protective of communities or of San Francisco Bay. That's why we feel this Bill is strictly deregulatory. It drastically reduces existing hazardous waste protections for communities. Our coalition is now a straight oppose on this Bill.

Beekeeper has been struggling for over a decade to reduce the load of pollution imposed by this metal shredder in Oakland. Hazardous waste and other pollutants from this facility get into San Francisco Bay. They get into the lungs of community Members. They get into their gardens and their homes. Catastrophic fires have been a regular occurrence at this facility.

This Bill does nothing other than allow the industry to make its own fire prevention plans to prevent that. We ask this Committee to please allow local control through local agencies under existing law of this pollution. And we respectfully urge your no vote. Thank you. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Would anyone else in the room like to express your opposition? Please come to the mic. State your name, your organization and your position only. Thank you.

Alex Loomer on behalf of Earth justice, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Just Cities. Institute and California Environmental Justice Coalition in opposition. Thank you.

Mlan Rosanski with the Alameda County Office of Education in opposition.

Sasha Horwitz with Los Angeles Unified School District in opposition. Madam Chair Chris McKayley on behalf of. Athletics baseball group in respectful opposition.

Madam Chair Jael Dentas with Fulminate Strategies. On behalf of Alameda county in opposition. And we do appreciate the conversations with. The author's office.

Amanda Bloom representing the California association of Environmental Health Administrators and the CUPA Forum Board maintaining our opposed. From the previous Bill.

Thank you. We will now move to the Committee. Senator Reyes, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Recognizing the central role of our shredding facilities and what they. The role they play in managing end of life for vehicles and other metallic products, I do want to recognize that I have one in my district in the city of Colton Ecology Recycling Services.

And I appreciate seeing the bright, smiling face of Senator Wykowski representing them here today. I regularly hear from community Members who are deeply concerned about the impacts of these operations. As you mentioned, there is a significant public health concern related to the waste byproducts of metal shredders and what they generate.

As was mentioned, this is a circular economy. We have to figure out what we're going to do with this metal, these products, and figure out how we use it. I was astonished, quite frankly, at the statistic of 70% of new steel comes for the county country comes from this, the metal shredding. And I appreciate that very much.

Now, I do have a question. Now, as I understand, as of now, there is no regulatory agency that is completely in charge of licensing and, and monitoring metal shredders. Is that correct?

That is correct. There are pieces that are regulated by the water board, by the Air Board, but they're very specific to their particular charge. And one of the reasons this became an issue is that there's litigation that assumes that it's a hazardous material, but that's not the law. And so that.

That's been part of the discussion and the. The work that we've done over the past year. And I pre me it was Senator Allen that was working on this issue and he asked me to take it over last year and that he'd help me to.

To make sure that we met with as many of the people that were concerned about it.

And I understand that you have had countless conversations with DTSC to make sure that this is enforceable, because oftentimes we can put something together, but in the end it's not enforceable. And is that accurate?

Yes.

Thank you. And there are future amendments that will be considered as soon as they're provided to You. Is that accurate?

There is language that DTSC has provided to us. We couldn't take them. We ran. The timing didn't work for this Committee, but we have them. Some of them are technical, the small technical changes. But the big issue has to do with the overall enforcement authority of dtsc.

And it's explicit that they have the enforcement opportunity or they have the enforcement, the regulatory enforcement. Power. Power, yes. Struggling with that word power.

Yes. We all struggle with that word power. No. Do I understand correctly that there are only 10 in the state?

Yes.

Okay. And obviously having one in my community is of great concern to me. You know that what I always fight for is the community and making sure that our EJ groups are heard and making sure that their comments are considered.

That doesn't mean that for every organization that comes to you, that every item is going to be included, but to ensure that they are always heard because they become the voice of the most vulnerable, the most potentially injured in the community.

I do like the direction this Bill is taking and the work that you have done on it. Without a doubt, I'll be supporting the Bill today. I do want to. As amendments are taking. I would like to be apprised of that, especially since I do have one of those in my district as we move forward.

Absolutely. Happy to do that.

Okay, thank you. Seeing no other comments, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. As I said from the beginning, this is essentially the similar Bill that we ran last year. The Governor wanted some explicit language which we have taken, which we will be taking in the next Committee. It comes directly from dtsc. The language comes directly from dtsc.

We've worked very hard with the Administration to make sure that we.our I's and cross our T's. And the reference to a gut and amend is not me. I hate Gutton amends. It was in a prior iteration that someone else ran.

And we've worked really hard at looking at the recommendations for changes and including them as part of this Bill as it's gone through the legislatures. But this Legislature, it has received bipartisan support and we have complied with the veto message that Governor Newsom wrote specifically. And so respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Okay, thank you. Well, we do not quite have a quorum, so we'll need to get back to that when we do. Sounds good. So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Yes. And I. I understand the next author, Senator Allen, is on his. Okay, great. Well, so now we are going to. I'll ask the Committee consultant to call the roll so that we could establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. We've established a quorum, so we'll go ahead and vote on SB58. Senator Allen, you're going to have to wait one second.

[Roll Call]

Wait, wait, what's the. We're gonna need to do that again. We didn't have a motion on that one. Okay, I'm sorry. We need to. We need to revote. We did not have a motion. So. So the vice chair has moved SB 58.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that's five to zero, and we'll keep it on call. We're going to now vote on SB299 and is moved by the vice Chair.

[Roll Call]

That's five to zero. We'll keep that on call. And the last item we'll vote on before going to Senator Allen is SB811. Do we have a motion on that? The vice chair is moved.

[Roll Call]

4 to 0. We'll keep that on call. Okay. Senator Allen, you are up. It's SB501. This is the last Bill in this Committee, so if you are coming to this Committee, please come down to vote.

Thank you, Madam chair. This \bill, SB501, would expand California's extended producer responsibility program for loose batteries to include medium format batteries, such as those that are found in Ebikes and outdoor lawn equipment, portable power systems, that sort of thing.

We know that batteries are a significant source of household hazardous waste, and they pose significant safety risks when improperly managed. Small batteries from cell phones have caused some really dangerous trash fires. Certain EBike batteries were recently issued a product safety warning by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission due to risk of ignition and explosion.

So right now, consumers often face inadequate access to convenient collection options from jurisdictions, and that can then increase the chance of improper and dangerous disposal of these batteries. Local jurisdictions are also now facing a whole slew of significant fiscal burdens from the cost of proper collection and the disposal of these products.

So back in 2022, this Committee saw and passed IEB2440, which was by Jackie Irwin, which established an EPR program for the safe and proper collection and management of small loose batteries. That Bill required the producers of household batteries to either comply individually or through a stewardship program for the collection recycling of these batteries.

This includes planning for a specific number of collection sites and minimum recycling efficiency rates, outreach and education, those sorts of things. Then that same year we passed Newman's SB 1215, which extended the consumer facing fee of the EWaste program to additional battery embedded products to pay for disposal costs.

Now, unfortunately, medium format batteries were not included in AB2440 and they're only included in 1215 if they are embedded in the product, which that means that they're not easily removable by the consumer.

But the truth is that many medium format batteries are actually designed to be easily removed by the consumer and they've been increasing in the Marketplace even since 2022 when we passed those two other bills. So what am I talking about here? Ebike batteries, electric scooters, portable power systems, they've all become more popular and they're easily removed.

And then a lot of them are ending up in the waste stream and causing a whole slew of financial and safety problems, let alone they're not being properly sorted and recycled.

So a whole bunch of different states, I mean states as diverse as Vermont, Connecticut, Nebraska, have all included medium format batteries and recently enacted EPR programs for batteries. And that allows for greater efficiencies in distributing costs for program Administration and implementation.

So this bill basically seeks to expand the program under Jackie's bill AB 2440, that EPR program to batteries that are up to 25 pounds to basically include these medium format batteries.

You know, producers would be allowed to, they could choose to comply individually if they want to, as allowed under the current program, or they can create one more. They can create a stewardship program, you know, stewardship organization as they as they see fit.

The bill would also clarify that a key or a locking device to prevent theft would not preclude a battery from being considered a loose battery covered under the program. As long as the battery meets other criteria for being easily removable by a consumer, I'm very happy to accept the Committee amendments.

Those amendments better refine the definitions for covered batteries. They also adjust the minimum collection site requirements for medium format batteries. So we're happy to take those amendments in support here because this has become such a major challenge for our local partners.

We have John Kennedy from the Rural County Representatives of California to speak in support of the bill.

Hello again John Kennedy with RCRC. We're pleased to co sponsor the bill with please to co sponsor the bill with NSAC and RRCC. Local governments has been said are charged with managing solid waste and household hazardous waste. We run local household hazardous waste collection facilities. Generally we try to offer free collection disposal opportunities for our residents.

If we don't have those free collection disposal opportunities, oftentimes residents dump things on the side of the road that we then have to go find, pick up and properly manage as hazardous waste.

As local governments, we have no control over what's introduced into the stream of commerce in the state, but we bear the full costs of managing those commodities and the products at the end of their useful lives.

For those reasons, we strongly supported EPR programs to ensure that the people who are making profits off of the things they introduce into the stream of commerce help have a share in managing those products at the end of their useful lives. We supported SB 1215 and AB2440 to address batteries and battery embedded products.

But as the Senator mentioned, unfortunately some of the medium format batteries are not included in those programs. We are seeing more and more and more of those batteries in Ebike batteries, Escooter batteries, hoverboards, some types of power tools. They're very expensive for us to manage, can be up to to $100 for an individual battery.

So there are lots of opportunities to scale response if it's managed by a pro. We recognize there are some private for profit programs out there that are offering some types of collection opportunities that is helpful. They don't necessarily always provide timely access to service.

So we think there are ways to improve the program by including these batteries in the existing EPR programs. We understand that some opponents have suggested ideas to ensure that they can continue with their business model. We'd love to have more discussions about them.

This should be a really easy common sense program that really establishes convenient access for residents, free access for residents and local governments to properly manage and dispose of batteries. There are a lot of valuable commodities and materials in those and so for Those reasons we're happy to support support the bill today.

Okay, thank you. I will note that there's a bit of feedback happening from the microphone. Hopefully we can be dealing with that or after this hearing, if needed, deal with it because it is somewhat irritating.

All right, so if you're in the room and would like to express support, please come forward and state your name, organization you represent, and whether you support or oppose the bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lindsey Gollahorn, on behalf of the Resource Recovery Coalition of California, please to co sponsor the bill. Thanks.

Thank you. Chair Members. Chris Grogan with Capital AFC on behalf of Republic Services and support.

Good afternoon, Chairmembers. Kayla Robinson with California's Against Waste in support. Thank you.

Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and strong support. Thank you.

Mandy Strello on behalf of Rethink Waste and support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California Product Stewardship Council, in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any lead witnesses in opposition in the room wishing to come forward, you're welcome to come to the table. Okay, not seeing any. If you are in opposition and you'd like to express your name and position, go forward now. Please come forward now.

Ryan McCarthy on behalf of Redwood Materials. Definitely want to express our support and appreciation for the author and the concepts here and the sponsor. Appreciate the comments that we heard. Definitely want to work together as an active battery steward today for small and medium format batteries.

We want to find solutions here that work for what's working today and that expand collection opportunities. And to the extent there's any differences that that need to be ironed out or clarifications on the medium versus the small format, I think that's an opportunity for future discussion as well. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Okay, anybody else? Not seeing anybody? We will bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments? Okay. Well, I'll just say that I agree with the author that battery waste is a huge problem in California and it's only getting worse.

So we have an ever increasing number of batteries and types of things, even things like drinks and little birthday cards and all sorts of things have batteries. And batteries can cause catastrophic fires if they are improperly handled at the end of their life.

SB501 creates a sensible expansion of the existing battery extended Producer responsibility program to include medium format batteries like E bike batteries. We need to continue to do more, but this is definitely something. So I'm thrilled to support the Bill today. And we do actually have a quorum, so we'll be voting on it.

But we'll turn it back to you to close.

I'm thrilled that you're thrilled, and I thrillingly ask for an Aye vote.

Great. Okay. Is there. Is there a motion? Okay.

Senator Reyes moves SB501. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriation. [Roll Call]. Three. Two on call.

Okay, that's 3 to 2. We'll keep it on call.

Gonzalez and Perez are supposed to be on their way from Transportation.

Okay. We'll lift the call for Senator Gonzalez.

File item number 1, SB58. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is 5 to 0. Senators Gonzalez, Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado. Perez. 6 to 0.

It's 6 to 0. We'll keep that on call.

File item number two, SB 299. Do passes amended to appropriations. The current vote is 5 to 0. Senators Gonzalez, Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado, Perez. 6 to 0.

It's 6 to 0. We'll keep that on call.

File item number 3, SB 501. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is 3 to 2, with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Hurtado, Perez. 4 to 2 on call.

It's 4 to 2. We'll keep that on call.

File item number 4, SB 811. The current vote is 4 to 0. Senators Gonzalez, Hurtado, Perez.

It's 4 to 0. We'll keep that on call.

All right. We will come back from recess. We have Senator Perez here, so Madam Secretary, if you can run through the bills. We'll start with File item number 1, SB 58. Badia.

The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is 6 to 0. Senators Hurtado. Perez, aye. Perez, aye. 7 to 0. That one's out.

That's 7 to 0. The Bill is out. File item 2, SB 299, Senator Cabalton.

Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. The Current vote is 6 to 0. Senators Hurtado. Perez, aye. Perez, aye. 7 to 0.

7 to 0. The Bill is out. File item 3, SB 501, Senator Allen.

Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is 4 to 2, with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Hurtado, Perez. Perez, aye. It's 5 to 2. It's out.

5 to 2, the Bill is out. And the last file item, file item 4, SB811. Senator Caballero.

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. The current vote is 4 to 0. Senators Gonzalez. Hurtad. Menjavar. Perez. Perez, aye. 5 to 0. It's out.

5 to 0, the Bill is out. And that concludes the Committee. We are adjourned.