Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Welcome to the Assembly Natural Resource Committee. We don't yet have a quorum, so we're gonna start as a subcommittee. We have two measures that have been proposed for consent. That's item seven AB 2112 ... Item 26 AB 2791 of the natural resource committee.

That leaves a few bills left, 24 to be exact. And, thankfully, we've got 15 authors already signed in. We're gonna start first with madam majority leader on AB 2026. Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, mister chair and members. I would like to start by accepting the committee's amendments and thanking the chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill. I am pleased to present twenty twenty AB 2026, a bill to help California recharge more groundwater. This bill is complex, but so are the permitting processes for which groundwater recharge for groundwater recharge projects.

Today, permitting can be too slow or too rigid. In some cases, applicants need more certainty before taking on a costly, time consuming process. My goal is to streamline permitting for groundwater recharge and make sure that the permits can actually be used when we need it. Groundwater recharge is absolutely essential to helping California navigate our new water reality. We are living in a time of weather extremes.

Most of the water comes in short intense storm events, and our current system is not designed to cap capture those big floods when they occur. During floods, we need the ability to divert water to recharge to protect our communities from extreme flooding. During drought, we need stored water to provide water to communities and the environment.

Our large largest water storage reservoirs are naturally formed aquifers, a cost effective and natural way to store water that can support both water uses users and the environmental flows in dry times. Groundwater recharge creates environmental and public benefits by preventing land subsidence, diverting flood flows, and helping communities meet their segment goals affordably.

Last year, the legislature passed SB 72, which required the California water plan to identify 9,000,000 acre feet of new supply to protect against water scarcity. Groundwater recharge could be the major factor in finding water solutions. Right now, relatively few permits have been issued for groundwater recharge even though reports have called for more. Even when recharge is permitted, less than 4% of the permitted recharge actually takes place. We are missing opportunities that could be a win win for our communities and the environment.

We can't maintain the status quo. We have to take a look at the issues and make changes today to store water for our future. This bill make makes needed common sense changes to streamline the permitting process and make the permits more usable. These changes are designed to move water during high flow conditions while maintaining existing environmental and water user protections. For example, this bill allows the water board and the groundwater agencies the tools to create flexible permit timelines for operators.

This means that people can apply for permits before they know if the rainy season will be wet or dry. It allows applicants to secure permits in advance, but only use them when conditions are right instead of losing the opportunity because of rigid timelines. This bill codifies CEQA exemptions for diversions to recharge our groundwater supply. These exemptions have been used based on executive orders for over a decade and provided regulatory certainty for operators.

AB 2026 provides additional guardrail by clarifying that these exemptions do not apply to construction projects.

This bill also ensures tribal consultation to mitigate and avoid impacts on tribal cultural resources. With me today, I have Kristen Cicki on from the, Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and Ryan Ojekian from the Regional Water Authority.

Two minutes each.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair Brian and committee members. As mentioned, I'm Kristen Cicky, general manager of Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, here to speak in support of AB 2026. The fabric fabric, excuse me, of Yolo County is deeply rooted in its agricultural heritage and defined by its rural and productive soil and the legacy of the Bracero program. Farm workers are essential to the county's productive agricultural industry, which we all know is very dependent on water availability.

Our irrigation district is a conjunctive use district. We use surface water and groundwater to grow food. Surface water comes from upstream reservoirs in Cache Creek in wet years. Groundwater is considered our savings account in dry years. We have optimized our system to divert excess winter water from Cache Creek to replenish groundwater using our unlined earthen canals.

And our winter recharge program is using, green infrastructure, and it's considered to be very cost effective. As was mentioned, more recharge is necessary, and the state has done its best to prioritize recharge, during wet years. But somehow over the past decade, the process has become much more complex. We're considered to be the most successful applicant with the State Water Board's a hundred and eighty day temporary permitting process.

Of the eleven years that we've submitted a hundred and eighty day temporary permit applications, we've diverted winter water in seven years successfully, while protecting downstream users and the environment.

And the diversions have totaled a little more than 42,000 acre feet. The first year that we diverted, we spent about two months consulting with state and federal agencies, and we received an eight page temporary permit six days later with nominal fees. This last year that we applied for a permit the eleventh time doing so, we received a 30 page permit, a hundred and twenty five days after we submitted the application. And the fees were about $35,000.

So we are committed to scaling up recharge, and we think AB 2026 is the best way to do that. Thank you.

That was two minutes exactly.

Well, I'll try to deliver on the same or even shorter. Good afternoon, Chair O'Brien and members of the committee. Brian O'Jackie with the Regional Water Authority. RWA is cosponsor of AB 2026 with the Northern California Water Association. RWA is a joint powers association comprised of 20 local agencies that provide drinking water to 2,200,000 people in the Greater Sacramento area.

The job of RWA members is to make sure that when people go to the tap and turn it on, there's water that comes out. It's safe for them to drink, and that service is provided at the lowest possible cost. We've been very successful thus far at doing that, but climate change is creating significant challenges to that success. The sin the system simply won't meet our needs moving forward in a low snow, extreme between wet and dry. And so we have to make changes.

Analysis from the Public Policy Institute of California, PPIC, tells us there's significant opportunity in wet years to do more recharge and to do that in a way where we're already meeting existing water user needs and environmental needs. That's the volume of water that is available to us out there. The analysis is also telling us, as the assembly member laid out, that we aren't doing a good job on that opportunity at this moment. Here's the good news.

There's broad consensus that groundwater recharge is a good thing. It's utilizing our natural infrastructure, and we've got lots of water to put into that natural infrastructure. So eighty 2026, what it does for us is provide a pathway to do that within our existing processes, not creating new things, but saying, let's take our existing system and make it work better. Right? So, importantly, within that, we're we're starting from a place in AB 2026 where it's wet out. Right?

If if we do that, we can make good on our promise to protect the environment and protect other water users. So, with that, I do wanna reemphasize, as the assembly member noted, because I gotta stay on time here, I know you got a busy schedule. That the analysis calls out that we are not creating a new exemption from CEQA, but we're just codifying exemptions that have existed. With that, I'll thank you, for your time and attention. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Or, actually, I'm sorry. Anybody in the hearing room in support of this measure? It's gonna be a long hearing, y'all.

And chair members, my name is Cam Bezdek, and I'm with the Northern California Water Association. Happy cosponsor in support. Thank you.

Soren Nelson with the Association of California Water Agencies in support. Thank you.

Any persons in opposition to this measure?

So opposing last minute, but I'm the only one here. I'll try and keep this two minutes just because you guys have a busy day. Chair Brian, members of the Natural Resources Committee, I'm Alex Bloomer on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife. We respectfully oppose AB 2026 unless it's amended to address our concerns. We're grateful to the member and her staff for the time and effort to work with us and for the amendments offered by this committee.

While we look forward to continued conversations, we must remain opposed even with committee amendments. I wanna walk you through one significant issue pursuant to the committee's jurisdiction and then quick high level overview of our other concerns. First and foremost, this building exemptions from CEQA and the Lake and Stream and alteration agreement laws for a water diversion program and certain water rights permits.

Specifically, the bill contains this exemption for the experimental program from the water code, which does not require a water permit at all to divert surface flows during floods. In addition to no requirement for a water right, this bill proposes to further exempt any sort of environmental review for these water diversions that have potential to degrade our over appropriate rivers and streams.

The CEQA and LSA exemptions in this bill also apply to other permits, including the five year temporary permits or even, quote, unquote, minor amendments to water rights permits that could last thirty years or longer. We agree we need to we need sustainable groundwater supplies, but it needs to be done in the right way. Exempting these water permits from bedrock environmental protections creates a loophole that could exacerbate conditions in our over allocated water system, not solve it.

This is particularly concerning given the impacts of the climate crisis. We currently have one of the slowest snow packs in record.

We strongly urge the committee to not include any CEQA or LSA exemptions unless tribal consultation is preserved for federally and nonfederally recognized tribes, and there are additional provisions added to the bill that protect public trust resources. This bill is also problematic for other reasons. So just super quickly, the bill will allow diversions from the declining delta even if diverters violate existing endangered species act and water quality protections.

Second, the bill redefines flood flows in an overly broad way that would allow diversions of flows to the detriment of the environment, water quality, and public health and safety. And third, we oppose extending the current sunset to 2034.

There are not sufficient guardrails in place to ensure that these water diversion programs won't continue to harm our over appropriate freshwater habitats. The current sunset of 2029 should remain in place. For these reasons, we urge to no vote on this bill unless it's submitted to address our concerns. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon. Assembly members, Matthew Baker with Planning and Conservation League. We don't have a formal, position on the bill, but we do share many of the concerns expressed by the lead opposition here. But we do also care very much about getting this right and are very committed to working with the author and the many stakeholders in getting this policy. Alright. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Does the mic seem to be working?

Good afternoon. Gabriel Tolson registering opposition on behalf of Friends of the River and the Golden State Salmon Association. Thank you.

Yeah.

Good afternoon. Jacob Evans with Sierra Local California in opposition. Thank you.

And good afternoon. Jamie Minor, with Turlock Irrigation District. We are a member of the San Joaquin Tributory Authority. Have been working with the author and the sponsor on a a problematic provision that we are currently in opposed unless amended position, but are are working to ensure that recharge can be in all parts of the state due to one specific provision of the bill. But we are hopeful that, you know, conversations will continue to happen, and we appreciate all the work today. Thank you.

Good afternoon, mister chair, members. Karen Lang on behalf of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, also a member of the Tributaries Association, opposed unless amended due to the one provision, and we're hoping we can continue working and find a solution. Thank you.

Afternoon, mister chair members. Alex Hallenings on behalf of the Modesto Irrigation District. Also share the, comments by the previous two speakers. Thank you.

Mister chairman, I I'm out of turn. I'm sorry. I am in support of this bill on behalf of Pechanga Band of Indians and thank the majority leader for including the tribal language.

We will now turn it back to the dais. Questions, comments, concerns from committee members. Miss Macedo.

Thank you, mister chair. And madam majority leader, I just wanna tell you it's so wonderful to hear people talk about recharge because in the valley, I really am pushing for water infrastructure investment. But until we address subsidence, that infrastructure is just going to crumble. And this conversation needs to continue, and I'm very grateful that we're gonna continue this conversation. I do we have a forum available?

Well, at the time, I will move the bill and support it, but would appreciate you considering some of the input from stakeholders on this. But once again, please continue this conversation about recharge that is vitally important, not only for water quality, but also for the safety of the people of Central Valley. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

We are one member short of a quorum. So if you belong to this committee and you are nearby, we would love to see you. Madam majority leader, would you like to close?

Yeah. I'll make it easy because it's a long day. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Absolutely. Once we get a quorum, I'm I'm sure we'll be able to move this.

Thank you very much.

Absolutely.

I have a long speech for you, but I decided not to do this.

Assembly member Bara Kayehan. Fifteen seventy seven.

Nice work, ma'am. Later that works. Did you like that? I did like that. I know.

I got daylight. That ways.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Today, I'm proud to present AB 1577, the data center energy accountability act. AB 1577 requires data centers to report various energy usage statistics to the energy commission on a monthly basis and report estimates of energy and water usage to local planning agencies during the permitting process. Energy intensive data centers ring built at an unprecedented rate.

The PUC's public advocate's office recently wrote that inter connecting data centers to the grid poses risks for rate payers because of the enormous infrastructure costs required to serve them.

These costs may ultimately be passed on to all rate payers, especially if the facilities use less energy than projected or shut down before the utility is recovered the associated interconnection costs. We all know that the cost of energy is one of the top concerns for Californians right now. And so this very simple bill that merely requires transparency is one way to start to address it.

I am obviously well aware of the Gen AI revolution happening, and I am not here to stop it or prevent it as you will hear from the opposition. But we do need to know what the demands on our grid are going to be so that we can build out the energy infrastructure to meet that need and ensure the costs aren't being born by ratepayers.

California cities and counties should also be empowered to make informed decisions when improving permits for new data centers, which this bill will empower. And the Energy Commission and local planning agencies will have critical information for protecting communities and strengthening our grid. With me today is Ethan Rehrig, executive director of the Little Hoover Commission.

Thank you very much, mister chair and members. The Little Hoover Commission is an independent bipartisan, agency charged with recommending to the legislature and governor improvements in state policy. Earlier this month, we released a report on the growth of data centers focusing on how that will impact the, state's electricity grid and, in particular, rates for average rate payers. As you know and as you as the assembly member just mentioned, experts are predicting significant growth in energy demand over the coming years.

This growth has important implications for grid reliability, infrastructure planning, water use, and community impact.

Our report identified four key principles. First, that the additional costs imposed by data center growth should be born by the centers and not by average rate payers. Second, that they should be integrated into the grid in a way that avoids needless cost and ensures grid reliability. Third, we should maintain the state's commitment to clean energy goals. And fourth, most important for this bill, we should ensure that California regulators have access to relevant information such as how much power is used.

This bill obviously addresses the fourth of those, key principles, transparency and data access. Regulators currently rely largely on aggregate, electricity consumption data, which can make it difficult to understand how individual facilities interact with the grid or impact specific communities. Better data, more data would allow the state to plan responsibly for the rapid expansion of data centers while protecting communities, the electricity grid, and rate payers. Our report recommended that California allow regulators to confidentially access facility level electricity use data from large data centers.

This bill does exactly that, by implementing a reporting framework. For these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Is there any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?

Good afternoon. Christina Scrantz with the Center for Biological Diversity. We have a supportive amended position. We'd really like to see the water consumption reporting back in the bill, but we thank the author and look forward to continued conversation.

Good afternoon, mister chair members. Vince Huerta Naja with MC California Super CCA in late support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jacob Evans with Sierra California in support if amended. Thank you.

Ruth McDonald representing Climate Action California in support. Thank you.

Dave Shukla, Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy, support if amended.

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

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

Jack Wurston from Nossaman on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Water District in support.

Thank you so much. Any persons in this hearing room in opposition to this measure? Two minutes each whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Kara Boonder, and I'm a director of state policy at the data center coalition presenting today in respectful opposition to eighty fifteen seventy seven. DCC serves as a national voice for the data center industry, and our members include leading data center owners, operators, and companies that lease large amounts of data center capacity.

While we fully support California's goals for energy efficiency and the data center industry is committed to paying for its full cost of service for electricity, we are unfortunately opposed to this legislation. Data centers are the backbone of California's digital economy.

They enable everything from telehealth and digital classrooms to the smart meters and UV charging station that the state relies on. We often talk about data centers as large energy users, but what's lost in that conversation is the efficiencies that we've gained. Between 2010 and 2018, while computing output jumped 550%, energy consumption only rose by 6%. AB 1577 singles out data centers for monthly reporting of granular metrics that go beyond understanding low growth and efficiency standards that are not applied to other large energy users.

Isolating one end end user fails to provide a holistic view of the load coming onto the grid.

Data centers are just one part of a massive demand search that includes EV adoption and industrial electrification. California also already has robust mechanisms like diaper and CEQA aimed at better understanding energy needs and potential impacts to environmental quality. This bill creates a parallel potentially conflicting track that adds costs without providing tangible benefits for that long term grid planning. AB 1577 risks cycling the very innovation and job creation that makes California a global tech leader.

We urge the committee to move away from this heavy handed mandate and instead favor a collaborative framework that leverages existing reporting and protects our digital infrastructure. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, chair Brian and members. I'm Ahmad Thomas, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, representing our region's most innovative employers in respectful opposition to AB 1577. We share the author's interest in making sure California has the information it needs to plan for growing energy demand and to protect communities. Our concern is that the bill creates a reporting regime that is disproportionate, duplicative of work the state has already authorized, and uniquely punitive to a single industry.

SB 57 signed into law last year directs the CPUC to assess the extent to which data center loads result in cost shifts to other rate payers.

That assessment is due 01/01/2027. AB 1577 layers an entirely separate reporting framework on top of that. Data center operators would be required to report monthly across more than a dozen energy categories plus water consumption, water usage effectiveness, and sound levels measured at the property boundary. No other energy or water intensive industry in California faces anything comparable. The definition of data center is broad reaching any facility housing computing infrastructure above the 500 kilowatt threshold.

That sweeps in midsize enterprise operations and colocation providers that simply do not have the staffing or systems to manage this level of compliance. California is already a high cost environment for data center development. Our member companies are investing billions in the state in capital, jobs, clean energy procurement, and in grid reliability.

But AB 1577, stacked on top of the other six data center bills proposed, sends a cumulative signal that California intends to single out this industry for regulation that exists nowhere else in the country. We therefore respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

The other persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?

Good afternoon, chair Brian and members. John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce. Opposition.

Thank you, sir.

Hello. Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council in opposition. Thank you.

Hi. I'll Timothy Burr on behalf of TechNet in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll now turn it back to committee members. Questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, miss Barakayan, would you like to close?

Gonzales on behalf of the California Business Properties Association in opposition.

Thank you, mister chair and members. I'm glad to be here today, and I look forward to continuing this conversation. Hopefully, if this were to pass out in committee when you have a quorum and have the opportunity to take a vote, one more member or maybe less now or now. Two members on behalf of the chair. I'll ask you to join him.

And, you know, invite the opposition. We have made some of the changes that were referenced in the opposition, testimony prior to this hearing actually in utilities and energy, but happy to continue working on this bill, but look forward to actually seeing constructive red lines from the opposition. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. This bill has a two pass recommendation. And when a quorum is present, I have no doubt you will get out today.

Thank you, Mr. Bryan.

I don't see assembly member Wilson, so we're gonna jump to p town's finest, assembly member Rodriguez.

Thank you, mister chair and members, for the opportunity to present AB 2245. I also want to thank the committee staff and stakeholders who have worked with us on this bill. We will be accept accepting the committee amendments. AB 2245 establishes a responsible framework to improve the collection and recycling of vehicle lubricant products under containers that are currently not captured under existing programs.

The bill creates a producer responsibility program that builds on California's existing recycling infrastructure and aligns with the framework already established under SB 54.

By leveraging certified collection centers, household hazard hazardous waste facilities, and existing used oil haulers, the bill strengthens our ability to safely collect and recycle these materials while minimizing new costs and bureaucracy. AB 2245 also ensures producers help fund and manage a system while supporting local governments that play a key role in collection and recycling. Here to me to testify is Tristan Steichen. Steichen with the NLCRC, the sponsor of the bill.

Thank you, Chair O'Brien and members of the committee for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Tristan Steichen. I'm the executive director of the National Liquorating Container Recycling Coalition, the NLCRC, and we're the sponsors of the bill. The NLCRC is a coalition of companies in the lubricant industry. This includes both large and independent oil companies, used oil haulers, recyclers, and packaging manufacturers.

Two minutes.

We're committed to the development of a national program for collection and recycling of lubricant packaging and products. The purpose of AB 2245 is to fix two very critical pieces of environmental legislation. S P 54 and the used oil recycling act through an EPR mechanism. The intent is twofold. First, to pull certain packaging products out of 54 that would otherwise contaminate and lower the value of other curbside materials collected.

And the second is to include certain products not already covered by the used oil recycling program today to offset HHW collection burdens on municipalities. Twenty two forty five achieves three primary outcomes. First, it lowers the cost to all stakeholders, particularly consumers and municipalities, producers, and retailers. Second, there's a faster achievement of recycling goals for lubricants in their packaging where this packaging is currently being landfilled today. And finally, this creates a better environmental outcome for its citizens.

This bill is industry led, but we also have the support of environmental groups. Unfortunately, Heidi couldn't be here today with the National Stewardship Action Council, but she did provide her testimony last week at ESTM, and I wanna provide that commentary for you. So I'm quoting Heidi. I'm not gonna do all the inflection, but just imagine me being Heidi here.

Quick quick so we're gonna do a second testimony through you?

Through me. I'm channeling Heidi. Is that alright?

That's one way to get this.

Did she submit it in writing to the committee already?

It was the same comment she submitted last week.

How about you give us the quickest highlights you can?

Quickest highlights I can is not every product needs an EPR solution, but lubricants in their packaging do. As one of the key negotiators of fifty four, my goal was to exclude any packaging from hazardous products from being included with food grade materials. Unfortunately, the references in SB 54 did not separate the two and left packaging for lubricants as a covered product. AB 2245 resolves that conflict for lubricants and packaging, and she's very grateful for the industry being willing to take responsibility.

So as Heidi stated, there's still some outstanding items to address, and we're working with opposition and other stakeholders to to to to do that.

We're in the process of finalizing those negotiations, so we respectfully ask for your aye vote today, and I welcome any questions.

That's perfect. And and we are definitely missing Heidi here in the room. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure? Alright. Any opposition?

Two minutes a piece whenever you're ready.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Sarah Polomu with the California Retailers Association. First, I wanna thank the author and sponsor for their stakeholder engagement. Last week, we were we were at a place of confusion due to multiple drafts and red lines on the bill. But throughout last week, we've made a lot of progress.

Unfortunately, due to the very short time frame between policy committees, we remain opposed as our chief concern remains, which is the continuous piling on of EPR and product stewardship programs before existing programs begin implementation. California's retailers are under all 14 of California's product stewardship and EPR programs. And we have significant concerns that adding another complex program will only create further compliance burdens and litigation risk, which will drive up consumer costs.

AB 2245 seems to provide a solution for legislation that hasn't been implemented yet, which is California's SB 54, the packaging EPR. Among other things, AB 2245 removes packaging from SB 54s requirements.

But at this point, we don't know how or if SB 54s pro is unable to account for these products. Additionally, while it has become clear that retailers will not be mandatory collection centers, which meets a major concern of ours, we still have concerns with the creation of another pro, including expensive unchecked startup costs. Retailers are also concerned about the potential for lack of transparency, accountability, and due process.

But we do, however, support a pilot project to see how AB 2245 would work before passing a statewide program. It's our understanding that the bill sponsors exploring a pilot project project in LA or another local jurisdiction in California and working through that program on a smaller scale before pursuing a statewide model makes good policy sense.

In closing, we will continue working on the bill with the author and sponsors and remain committed to sustainability, But we feel it is essential that policymakers focus on helping existing frameworks work before piling on new regulatory schemes. So we remain opposed at this time.

Thank you, chair and members. This committee, Ryan Perini on behalf of the California Automotive Wholesalers Association, as well as the Auto Care Association. Collectively, we represent automotive parts manufacturers, jobbers, warehouse distributors, retailers, and program groups, an industry that supports over 229,000 jobs across the state and generates more than 49,000,000,000 in annual economic activity. Our members are deeply committed to responsible environmental stewardship and have a long track record of supporting and participating in California's used oil recycling infrastructure.

The author, her staff, and this bill sponsors have facilitated a robust and meaningful stakeholder engagement process and one we will remain engaged in until a reasonable solution is agreed upon.

Thank you all for spearheading this issue. Unfortunately, at this time, we must respectfully register our opposition to AB 2245 as currently drafted. Our concerns are largely aligned with CRA, so I won't reiterate them in the comments right now at length. I would, however, underscore three key issues that remain unresolved. First, the need for clarity to avoid duplicative regulatory obligations.

Second, ensuring transparency and appropriate cost controls around pro fee setting to prevent excessive costs from being passed on to consumers. And third, minimizing administrative and compliance burdens to the greatest extent possible. Like I said, we are committed to working with the author, the sponsors, regulatory agencies, and this legislature to find a reasonable solution. Thank you, and I welcome any questions.

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

Mister chair and members, Christopher Fenarelli on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association. We don't object to the premise of the bill, but have a narrowly focused issue related to how aerosol products would be handled under the program. We look forward to working with the author and the stakeholders, throughout the process as the bill moves along.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Kayla Robinson with Californians Against Waste here with a concerned position. Appreciate the author and sponsor for their work and for the committee for the proposed amendments, but look forward to continued conversations to try and hash this out. Thanks.

Good morning, or good afternoon. Mike Robeson here on behalf of the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association. There's a, we were retained this afternoon on this bill, and the ILMA has some very specific concerns with this bill that haven't been resolved over the the last year of of of stakeholder negotiations.

You know, I love you, Mike.

And I'm here to I'm I'm here to help make sure that the seven amendments reasonable amendments that they have get incorporated into this process going forward.

That's about as far as I love you.

Yeah. I got you.

Thank you.

Appreciate you. We'll now turn it back to the dais. Any questions from committee members? Seeing none, Miss Rodriguez, would you like to close?

Thank you, mister chair and members for and the thoughtful discussions today. I also want to thank the committee, staff, stakeholders, and all those who have engaged with us throughout the process and provided valuable feedback on the bill. I appreciate your questions raised around affordability. AB 2245 is designed to build on California's existing collection and recycling infrastructure and place responsibility with producers to manage these materials responsibility at end of life.

By leveraging existing programs and facilities, the bill does not result in additional net cost.

While ensuring these products and containers are properly collected and recycled, we remain committed to continuing conversation with the stakeholders to address implementation details and ensure the program works efficiently and cost effectively, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We don't have a quorum yet. But when we do, this bill has a do pass recommendation from the chair, and I have no doubt we'll get it out today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. Miss Burner.

Thanks.

456728.

Okay.

I'm ready.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. First, I wanna thank the chair and his committee staff for working with me on this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments. AB 2170 will improve language access and strengthen environmental protections for overburdened communities by modifying select provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA. CEQA provides an important mechanism for local communities to provide input on projects that have had a significant impact on their health and their lives.

This bill focuses on the highest impact projects and most overburdened communities by adding protections for communities where English may not be the principal language spoken. In those cases, it's it is important to provide access to groups that have historically been disproportionately impacted by massive projects. Just as we push for transparency in our public process to restore trust in government, we should ensure that there are environmental protections for projects that impact nearby communities, air, water, and health.

At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I have here with me Doug Carstens with the Planning and Conservation League and Annabelle Marquez with the Committee for a Better Shafter with Alma Mar Marina Marinas? Martinez.

Sorry. There's a t missing. Alma Martinez with the Center for Race, Poverty, Environment who will be doing the translation. Thank you.

Good afternoon, honorable chair and honorable committee members. My name is Doug Karstens. This bill is desperately needed, and it has been for a long time. It's vitally necessary to level the playing field by empowering communities with information in their own languages and to participate in decisions affecting their lives and their families' lives.

For over twenty eight years, our office, which is located in Redondo Beach, has been working with disadvantaged communities all over the state, which are overburdened by pollution and economic and other challenges, not to mention being targeted by ice raids recently.

That includes communities around the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and Oakland and in the urban areas of Los Angeles, Fresno, San Diego, and elsewhere. And in rural areas like Tulare and Cantuah Creek and Bakersfield, many people in these areas face language access challenges and barriers. They are often the neighborhoods most lacking voices in the halls of government and therefore most vulnerable to to proposals that pile onto the environmental harms that they are already facing.

This bill is saying, let's give everyone a fair chance to participate. While there may be necessary proposals, they need to be vetted at least to the same extent as they would be in other areas.

While some environmental impact reports are done, they are very rare, and they're especially rare for overburdened communities. And negative declarations, provide some review, maybe twenty days, but exemptions cut the public out of the review process entirely, and they are claimed too commonly and for the wrong reasons. The theory seems to be that certain neighborhoods are burdened already, so more pollution won't make a difference. But that turns these areas into sacrifice zones rather than areas for special attention.

This bill specifically addresses those communities very near and within areas that allow industrial development, there it's not about housing.

And there are people in these areas that need protection. It is high time to ensure common sense public involvement and translation requirements and to make it stick. Thank you for your consideration. I would be glad to answer any questions.

My name is Annabelle Marquez on behalf of the Committee for a Better Chapter here in strong support at AB 2170. The Committee for a Better Chapter is a volunteer organization. We advocate for environmental health and justice in the Central Valley. Our community, one of the most overburdened in California, is plagued by pollution from oil and gas industry, agriculture and pesticide, industrial manufacturing, heavy traffic, and warehousing.

CEQA is an important tool for communities like mine because it requires agencies to inform us about incoming projects or expansions.

Agencies often try to find loopholes to avoid CEQA review, weakening its ability to protect us. The industrial pollution that surrounds us has increased our risks of cancer, asthma, other illnesses, premature death at higher rates than the entire nation. AB 2170 allows CEQA to live up to its promises by ensuring that new industrial projects and environmental justice communities go through environmental review.

This is crucial so that our voices can be heard when projects are proposed so that we can mitigate harm and stop the vicious cycles we currently face. AB 2170 would greatly improve our communities by ensuring important notices are translated into the languages we speak.

This would make it easier for us to understand proposed projects and their impacts. It would give us the chance to participate in decision making to ensure these projects benefit us. For example, on Lerdo Highway, several industrial and railway projects have been approved. And now along the same streets, there are plans to build housing.

The approval of AB 2170 will guarantee that if there are any other polluting projects approved near homes, we will be notified, and we will meaningfully be able to participate with our ideas and commentary.

Therefore, we strongly support AB 2170 to promote greater transparency and create a healthier future for our communities.

Thank you. Are there any other persons in the hearing room who'd like to raise their support today?

Asha Sharma on behalf of Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, cosponsor in proud support, and would like to register support as well for Asian Pacific Environmental Network Action, Clean Earth for Kids, and public interest law project. And I'm also here to answer any technical questions on the bill. Thank you.

Alex Loomer in strong support on behalf of Green Foothills, Restore the Delta, Mercury Press, Friends of the River, and Catholic Charities of Stockton. Thank you.

Kayla Robinson with Californians Against Waste in support. Thank you.

Kaitlyn Alcon with Communities for a Better Environment in support.

With the Center on Race, Poverty, and Environment, also a proud cosponsor in support and registering support on behalf of the following organizations, Youth Leadership Institute, three fifty Bay Area Action, Building Healthy Communities Kern, TODEC Legal Center, Clean Water Action, Food and Water Watch, Environmental Health Coalition, Chicano Movement, Central California Environmental Justice Network, Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Diana Mireles, and on behalf of and I'm in support.

Elizabeth Olvera Tapia, a Wascaux resident, and I support on behalf of the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment.

Gabriel Tolson of the Planning and Conservation League in support, Also registering support on behalf of the Council of Mexican Federations in North America and Committee for Land, Air, Water, and Species. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Christina Scrunch with the Center for Biological Diversity in in support.

Ada Welder with Earthjustice in support.

Jacob Evans was here at Cook California in strong support. Thank you.

My name is Hugo Trujillo, and I can support the bill AB 2570. I live in the Martini truck for twenty four years. My community

Thank you, sir. Name organization and position on the bill, unfortunately.

It's very important for me. I'm sorry. I I wish I wish I

I wish I could. We've got 24 we've got 24 bills we've gotta do today. I'm I'm deeply sorry. But if you have it in written form and you wanna submit it to the committee in writing, we'll definitely put it into the record.

Please. My community I live in that Tulare, and my community is now in the center to the industrial park. My community and the school, Palo Verde School. I need your help because I need this proposal because we need more communication. We need more information and more participation.

It's very important in the life for the children in my school, Palo Verde

Thank you, sir.

And for my community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Brian Aleulua, resident of Fresno, in support.

Mariela Aracho with Leadership Council will be providing some translation if needed for residents.

Do you need translation?

Adela, in support of AB 2170. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

She's from Pixley in support. Thanks to Sequa, they were able to stop a Pixley facility.

We're gonna do name, organization, and position on the bill.

Thank you. Hi, everyone. My name is Rosalina Pena. I'm from Fresno, from Community ADAM, supporting twenty one seventy.

Thank you so much.

Marta Dominguez, representative Fresno, California.

Thank you.

Adela in support to breathe healthier. Thank you.

Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Property. Western Center is a cosponsor of the bill and also wanted to register support for the with the Fossil Free California Environmental Defense Center, Center for Environmental Health, FACS, Center for Food Safety, Esperanza, UDOS network, center for community action and environmental justice. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dave Shukla, Long Beach Alliance for Clean Energy Support.

Thank you. Thank you.

Jonathan Pruitt here with Say Hi Action, proud cosponsor of the bill and speaking on behalf of Podare, California Coast keeper Alliance, restored to Delta, communities for better environment, communities interventions, San Francisco Bay keeper, Center for Public Environmental Oversight, Planning and Conservation League, Greenpeace USA, and Green Foothills. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Marquise Mason with NRDC in support. Thanks so much.

Laura Dehen, Environment California director in support.

Michael Torres from Fresno and lives in an area like that. So we need your help.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Is there anybody in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Yeah. Come on down. We're gonna need one of those seats, unfortunately.

No. We just need one. Yeah. We just need one.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Adam Ragland on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and NAEP SOCAL and a coalition of opposition to AB 2170. This bill in print has been labeled the cost driver. We haven't had time to fully analyze all of the amendments that have not gone to print yet. So we will do that, but we can only speak to what we've heard on the amendments and then what the bill says.

The committee analysis appropriately notes that Section one was extremely large in terms of its impact to all categorical exemptions. And so we appreciate that the bill is being narrowed to eliminate the categorical exemption portions of it. We we still think it'd be an expansive element of CEQA to do the translation piece, which I wanted to speak briefly about. I think it's a very laudable intent to wanna translate EIRs, MNDs, NEDECs notices.

With the liability provisions as written in this law, the the idea that a local government could potentially have its entire environmental review invalidated turns on whether you think it's a quote minor mistranslation, which at any litigation is generally where the heart of the discrepancy comes into.

We think there should be liability protections if you're gonna require local governments to translate into it could be it's not just Spanish. It could be Vietnamese, Chinese. You're gonna need technical staff at local governments being able to translate highly technical documents into, other languages that are sometimes terms of art, not only in the main documents, but sometimes in the notices. And so I think there should be some, language or amendments that really address that liability concern because local governments are already stretched on resources.

I don't think it's fair to say that they can translate it into potentially any language that triggers that threshold in the law.

And so I think as much as people say, hey. I can translate it. Well, there's massive legal liabilities if it's done wrong. And so if the liability protections the trust, then there's a conversation to be had on the notice piece.

Ali. Thank you so much. We're gonna establish a quorum real quick while we have eight members. Madam secretary, can you call the attendants real fast?

Brian?

Here.

Brian present. Ellis? Here. Ellis present. Alanis Connolly?

Here. Connolly present. Garcia, Haney?

Hoover? Here. Caller present. Macedo? Here.

Here.

Macedo present. Maritsuchi? Here. Maritsuchi present. Pellerin?

Here.

Pellerin present. Schultz? Wicks? Zipper. Here.

Zipper present.

A quorum has been established. Thank you, colleagues.

There's a procedural loophole that I get to keep going or no?

I I'm just kidding. I I was You can take the two minutes. You have the option of taking the two minutes from your fellow witness. It's up to you.

I will defer, I will defer. I didn't know I went two minutes.

Good evening, mister chair and members. My name is Ben Turner, from Maxim Advisors, speaking on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. We appreciate the committee suggested amendments, but they do not resolve our core concerns, and we must remain in opposition. The proposed amendments would preserve categorical CEQA exemptions, but do not address the invalidation of both statutory CEQA exemptions and ministerial review processes that may apply to many types of projects, including AB 130 statutory housing exemption.

As the committee analysis correctly points out, the bill's geographic scope covers more than half of the Los Angeles Metro Area, most of the San Joaquin Valley, and a significant portion of the Bay Area.

These are communities with the greatest unmet housing need, and making housing more difficult to build in these regions is counterproductive. Beyond the sequel reform rollbacks, the bill's zone to allow industrial uses trigger remains far too broad, and it captures mixed use in commercial zones where home builders are constructing housing today, not just industrial south, sites. The sixty day expanded notice radius and prescriptive hearing requirements remain unchanged by either amendments, and these will extend entitlement timelines for, every affected project. So we urge a no vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Any other persons in the hearing room who'd like to be, like to be heard on this measure, like to bridge to their opposition?

Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California cities respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Sarah Brennan with the Weideman Group on behalf of supply chain federation in opposition.

Eric Will on behalf of Rural County representatives of California and Urban Counties Caucus in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in respectful opposition.

Charles Delgado, California State Association of Counties in opposition.

Thank you, Charles. And I'll turn it back to the dais. Colleagues, any questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, miss Boerner, would you like to close?

Yes. I think it's really important that the committee amendments have narrowed the scope of these projects to the largest projects that impact the most polluted communities. I don't think anybody representing the people we represent want to have our children breathing polluted air, drinking polluted water, and growing up sick. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. We have a motion by mister Marasucci. Second. Second by mister Calra. So as a do pass recommendation from the chair, madam secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Brian.

Aye.

Brian, Aye, Ellis. No. Ellis, no. Connolly. Aye.

Connolly, Aye. Garcia. Haney. Hoover.

Aye.

Cholera, Aye. Macedo. Maritsuchi? Aye. Maritsuchi, aye.

Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Schultz. Wicks, Zipper.

Aye. Zipper, aye.

We'll leave it open for absent members. Miss Wilson, assembly member Wilson. We know you have your own committee that you're chairing right now, and so we will try to get you in and out.

Thank you. This is the least controversial bill, so I know it only takes two seconds.

Less controversial now.

I know. Right?

Mister Chair, Members, I am proud to present AB 2059. I'd like to thank the Chair, committee staff, and stakeholders for their work to find a landing place on this bill. I'm pleased to accept the proposed amendments. AB 2059 is a narrow, practical update to how transportation impacts in rural communities are analyzed under CEQA. It does not change our climate goals, and it does not weaken CEQA.

It strengthens the integrity of our environmental review process by ensuring that mitigation requirements deliver real, measurable environmental benefits rather than just compliance on paper. When SB 743 was enacted, it was intended to modernize CEQA, shifting the focus away from congestion and towards broader environmental outcomes with flexibility to reflect local conditions. But over time, implementation has become increasingly rigid and standardized, often disconnected from how communities actually function. AB 2059 is a modest course correction.

It applies only to the 21 of the state's most rural counties, just 2.3% of California's population, and is designed to better align policy with real world conditions.

In rural communities, travel distances are long, transit options are limited, and land use patterns are dispersed. Driving is not optional. It is a necessity. As a result, the standard VMT mitigation strategies like transit investments, trip reduction programs, mode shifts are often infeasible or ineffective. In many cases, they don't meaningful meaningfully reduce vehicle travel or emissions.

When we require mitigation that doesn't work, we're not advancing our environmental goals. We're undermining them. So this bill, also focuses on public infrastructure projects that improve safety, support goods movement, and enable emergency evacuation. The current VMT framework was designed to influence land use decisions, not to constrain essential infrastructure. Applying it to the same way applying it the same way creates a mismatch, adding cost and delays without reducing emissions.

At a time of declining transportation revenues, our rural communities should not direct scarce public funds towards ineffective mitigation measures, especially when delays can compromise safety and wildfire evacuation readiness. AB 2059, with the help of, this committee and our stakeholders, is a targeted fix. It prior to it prioritizes outcomes over assumptions and ensures our policies remain grounded in evidence and tailored to context. With me today, I have Kiana Valentine with Transportation California and Mike Woodman, executive director of the Nevada County Transportation Commission.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members of the Committee. Kiana Valentine on behalf of Transportation California, proud sponsor of AB 2059. Would also like to acknowledge the great work of the chair and the committee staff and all of the stakeholders to arrive at the bill as proposed to be amended this afternoon. I wanna start by grounding my comments in the original intent of SB 743. Passed in 2013, SB 743 was never meant to stop transportation projects.

It was intended as, Chair Wilson acknowledged to streamline CEQA, to reduce the cost of infill development, and to modernize transportation analysis so it considered the broad range of environmental outcomes more effectively. But over time, the state's implementation of the VMT framework has moved well beyond that intent. What was supposed to be flexible and context sensitive has oftentimes become too rigid, especially for project level transportation improvements. Today, critical public infrastructure projects in rural areas are being delayed, scaled back, or not advancing at all.

Not because they create meaningful environmental harm, but because they face mitigation requirements that are often infeasible, extremely costly, and in many cases, ineffective.

In rural communities, travel patterns are shaped by geography and long distances. People drive to work, school, to access health care, and other basic services, and these are necessary trips that cannot always be replaced by biking, walking, or transit. Yet agencies are still being asked to mitigate VMT in ways that don't actually reduce vehicle travel or greenhouse gas emissions. When we require agencies to spend limited funds on mitigation that does not work, it diverts those dedicated resources away from other vital improvements.

And that's not just an inefficient, but it undermines the credibility of our environmental review process.

AB 2059 offers a narrow practical solution. It applies only where the current framework is the least effective, and it helps ensure public funds spent on actions that actually deliver results. And so for these reasons, we respectfully urge an aye vote.

Absolutely. Two minutes for you, sir.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair, Members of the Committee. Mike Woodman, executive director of the Nevada County Transportation Commission. And I'm here today to voice my strong support for AB 2059. For rural communities like Nevada County, the current BMT framework and statewide policies often unfairly disadvantaged the varied transportation projects our rural residents depend on for safety, reliability, and access to lifeline services. Currently, rural highway improvement projects that propose to add highway capacity, in my experience, are not being supported for state funding.

This is the case despite the fact that the key prerequisite factors of induced vehicle miles traveled are not present in these rural corridors. And these rural counties have very low levels of growth, if not losing growth and also low levels of development. Overestimation of rural vehicle miles traveled can add significant costs, delays, litigation risks, and uncertainty to projects, with most of the required mitigation measures being infeasible and beyond the ability of rural agency to fund.

To put that into perspective, NCTC's biannual highway formula funding share is typically less than $5,000,000 And that $5,000,000 is what we use to advance improvements to the hay the highway system in Nevada County in partnership with our state and federal partners. AB 2059 represents a practical reform, and I thank Assemblywoman Wilson for bringing this forward.

It recognizes that a one size fits all approach does not work, and rural counties only represent 4% of the state's BMT. In rural counties where where travel distances are longer, facilities are substandard, and safety and evacuations are top priorities such as in State Route 49 in Nevada County, transportation investments must be strategic with limited resources. This bill helps ensure that scarce transportation dollars are spent delivering real project benefits, not chasing costly mitigation measures with little real world value, that aren't based on substantial evidence.

I respectfully urge for your aye vote on AB 2059.

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

Thank you, Mister Chair. Todd Blumstein for the Southern California Contractors Association in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Delilah Clay on behalf of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association in support.

Hello. Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support. Thank you.

Mister Chair, Chris Schmote on behalf of the California Trucking Association in support.

Crystal Moreno on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers in strong support.

Any persons here in the hearing room in opposition to this mission?

Excuse me. Good afternoon, chair and members. Jeanne Wardwaller. We're actually on in a neutral position. So I wanna say on behalf of Climate Plan, the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, Transform, Move LA, Streets for All, three fifty Bay Area Action, and three fifty San Diego, based on the amendments in committee where all those organizations are going neutral.

And also on behalf of, NRDC, They are really happy with the direction the bill is headed in. They wanna see the amendments have a little more time, but, yeah, they like the direction the bill is going. So thank you.

Good afternoon. Matthew Baker with Planning and Conservation. I think we were on that same coalition letter, and and I'm not able to declare that we can fully take off our opposition yet. But we do think we greatly appreciate the amendments. We think the bill is headed in the right direction. We greatly appreciate the author's willingness to work with us, and we just have a couple more concerns we'd like to work on with you. So thank you.

This is my favorite testimony. Please tell tell us how great we are.

Jacob Evans with Sierra of California. I really appreciate the amendments, and we'll be reconsidering. Thank you.

We'll now turn it back to the dais. Colleagues, any questions, comments, concerns? Mister Ziburr.

Just one just one question. Did the 5% cap come out as part of the amendments?

It did. Absolutely. We basically moved to an exempt status. And so we noted that, we are we have a rule definition when it comes to housing from the California tax credit allocation committee, which I think is 22. I might have said 21 in my testimony.

Basically, the ones that are listed there as rural, which basically, it's a population less than a 150,000 and doesn't have an urban center. That's all those counties listed there. So we're using existing definitions, and then we're saying they're exempt. However, if they are doing, highway widening, then there's language around you can only do that when you have documented basically, an issue as it relates to safety or evacuation. And so those are the amendments we made.

So the 5% completely gone and was replaced with that. And that was with consultation with our, as you know, with stakeholders and, committee staff.

So I'd like to, let you know that I appreciate you working with the environmental community on this. It looks like they're pretty much content neutral, and I think Sierra Club looks like it's looking at this. So with that, I'll be, happy to move the bill today.

Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you.

Would you like to close, miss Wilson?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I wanna thank the author for her willingness to engage with me and with our team. And I wanna thank our team for all of the work that went into this bill. We've been talking about this bill since last October or November. I started with a conversation in Los Angeles, and it took a lot of work to get to this point. So thank you to everybody who's been involved.

It does have a do pass recommendation from me. We have a motion and a second. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Brian.

Aye.

Brian, Aye, Ellis. Aye. Ellis, Aye, Alanis. Connolly. Aye.

Connolly, Alanis. Garcia. Haney. Hoover. Cholera.

Aye. Cholera, Aye. Macedo, Maritucci Alright. Maritucci, Aye. Schultz, Wicks, Sabur.

Okay. Subur, Aye.

We'll leave it open for absent members.

Thank you.

Thank you. My brother from Palmdale. Assembly member Carrillo.

Thank you, mister chair and committee members. I'm here to present to you Assembly Bill 1808. I would like to thank the committee chair and his staff for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. Let me just be clear. My intent with this bill is not to undo the hard work that went into the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act.

In fact, I believe I am the only member of the legislature in the Joshua tree range that supported a trailer bill. And that is in part why I feel so much responsibility to make sure it works well. The western Joshua tree is an iconic species in California that is both ecological and culturally important. Joshua trees span across a large portion of California's desert, and I do believe that we need to preserve it as it's an iconic tree in the High Desert.

In my home of town of Pammville, where I serve as a city planner and later as a council member, we have been requiring developers to mitigate and preserve yashua trees for decades.

Regardless of the proposed development in the city of Palmdale, its developer have to conserve on-site or transplant the yashua tree two yashua trees per acre. But my district is disadvantaged, left behind, and in desperate need of housing and economic development. We need this conservation program to work to work and make it work.

We need to make sure local residents who love the yashua tree can admire and preserve the tree, while also still having the ability to do work on a property and have safe, effective public infrastructure. The current Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act allows the department to enter into an agreement with any county or city to delegate limited authority to permit the taking of a Joshua tree associated with single family residences, multifamily residences, and renewable energy projects.

This bill has commercial and industrial projects to the list of projects that can be permitted locally. This should be a win win for everyone involved. The department, which has been chronically understaffed for decades, can pass on responsibility to local governments. A developer can then use City Hall as a one stop shop who will need to deal with state for their Joshua Tree permits. And local governments will have more control over the timing and efficiency of delivering this desperately needed economic development projects.

Additionally, this bill will allow the department to waive fees for the removal of up to 10 trees for single family homeowners to do work on their own property and up to 40 trees for maintaining existing public works. Public works put in before the Western Yasha Tree Conservation Act are pieces of critical infrastructure often surrounded by the Yasha Tree because of how prominent the Yasha Tree is in my district.

Currently, any maintenance on this critical infrastructure has a high price tag, leading to delays in necessary improvements and increased cost for locals who are already low income. Similarly, local homeowners who love the Joshua Tree are also unable to do work on their own property without paying high fees. Here to testify in more depth and on the fact, this has some residences former assembly member, Chad Mej, for the city of Yakovale and Jennifer Cusa, general manager of the Bighorn Desert View Water Agency.

Absolutely. Usually, we do two minutes a piece, but seeing as this is my former seatmate, you may speak as long as you'd like, mister Maye.

Oh, that's a lot. Thank you. Thank you. But I got two minutes. I got a script to keep me on to two minutes, so be careful of giving former politicians microphones. But good afternoon, chair and members of the committee.

My name is Chad Mayes, and I'm here today as the contract lobbyist for the town of Yucca Valley in support of AB 188. This one is a little different for me, because I grew up in Yucca Valley. I served on the town council and as mayor. So when I say I know this community, I mean it personally, not just professionally. Joshua Trees are a part of who we are in Yucca Valley.

They're in our backyards, our front yards lining the roads I grew up on. My friends, my family have always lived alongside them, worked around them, and genuinely treasured them. This isn't a community that wants to see these trees disappear. We understand better than most what would mean to lose them. But loving them and living among them means facing realities that are easy to miss from Sacramento.

In Yucca Valley, virtually every existing homeowner has Joshua trees on their property. That means almost any home maintenance or improvement project can suddenly become a regulatory challenge, including civil compliance. Putting in a pool that a family has always dreamt of, a new water or sewer line, hardening your home against wild fire, any of it can trigger fees that run into the tens of thousands of dollars. I've sat across the table from residents who simply couldn't afford it, retired folks on fixed incomes, young families, people trying to do the right thing buried in paperwork and fees they never expected. That's not conservation. That's a burden falling hardest on the people least equipped to carry it.

ABH 1008 seeks to provide some relief limited to the built environment.

It's measured. It's reasonable, and it protects the trees that matter most while giving homeowners a workable, affordable path forward. Wanna thank the committee for their their work on this bill. Also wanna thank the author for being responsive to his constituents because I know you've heard from folks in the Antelope Valley as electives have heard in, in the Victor Valley, in the Morongo Basin, and even Kern County. So, again, thank you so much, and the Tanyaka Valley urges your aye vote.

Good evening, chair Brian and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Jennifer Cusack, general manager of Bighorn Desert View Water Agency, a very small water district in the Mojave Desert. I am here in support of Assembly member Carrillo's Western Joshua Tree Bill, AB 188. I come from the Morongo Basin, Yucca Valley, where the western Joshua tree is not just a symbol of our landscape, it's part of our daily lives.

These trees are prolific around across a vast range from Joshua Tree National Park through San Bernardino County, up into Inyo, Los Angeles County, and even into Bakersfield. We value and respect the Joshua tree. Our communities have been protecting these trees locally for decades, much like the long standing protections for oak trees in other parts of California. And the science matters.

The March 2022 California Department of Fish and Wildlife's own scientific report, page 53, documents the Western Joshua tree does not meet the current criteria for listing under CISA, the California Endangered Species Act.

But as such, we are glad it is protected statewide as they exist across a large diverse area in large quantity. Under the current Western Joshua tree conservation act, even routine yard maintenance can become unclear and potentially restricted and costly. Joshua trees naturally shed sharp, rigid leaves and spikes that accumulate on the ground. In residential yards, those spikes can pose a real hazard, especially for children. Even basic yard raking and clearing just to keep the yard safe can fall into a gray area of a take.

That creates confusion and concern for residents who are simply trying to maintain safe livable spaces. At the same time, it is increasing costs through the Western Joshua Tree fees being charged on placing additional burdens on critical infrastructure projects, including water systems and improvements on their private property, including water lines and water line repairs and septic system pumping, projects that are essential to public health and affordability. Fees are being paid on trees that are not taken necessarily. They are still standing and surviving. These added burdens are not resulting in meaningful new protections.

Our communities have already demonstrated long standing commitment to stewardship as evidenced by their prolific nature throughout our communities. Assembly member Carrillo's bill helps correct some of these unintended impacts. It maintains appropriate protections for the Western Joshua tree while providing clarity so people can reasonably live among them. It supports affordability, allows essential infrastructure to move forward and keeps conservation grounded in practical reality. It's about balance, protecting the tree, while also respecting the people who live among them every day.

This bill is very important to our communities, and I respectfully request your aye vote.

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

Nicole Ortelman on behalf of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors in support.

Good afternoon. Nathan Skatzin on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in support.

Jennifer Aguilar on behalf of the California Building Industry Industry Association in support. Thank you.

Tim Worley on behalf of the Community Water Systems Alliance speaking in support, also representing Palmdale Water District and the Morongo Basin residents for reasonable Joshua Tree regulation, and individually San Bernardino County supervisor Don Rowe, all in support. Thank you.

Ben Turner on behalf of High Desert Water District in support.

Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?

Good afternoon again, chair, committee members, and staff. My name is Alex Loomer, and I'm here on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, and the Mojave Desert Land Trust. We continue to oppose AB 188 because we believe this bill is unnecessary. We appreciate the amendment suggested in the committee analysis and that Assembly member Creo has taken the suggested amendment. But even in its amended form, we still must oppose this bill until Section two of the bill is either deleted or modified.

The Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act already includes the tools necessary to ensure faster permits for homeowners, local utilities, and commercial and industrial projects. The act authorizes CDFW to delegate permanent authority to cities and counties, particularly for housing, infrastructure, and public works projects, Allowing local agencies to issue take permits concurrently with project approvals, which accelerates timelines. Unfortunately, none of the local governments have availed themselves of this permanent delegation of opportunity. Instead, they continue to send their constituents to CDFW to resolve permanent issues.

In addition to the concurrent to the current opportunities within the act itself, CDFW also is undertaking a regulatory process to facilitate faster permitting.

In November 2025, CDFW issued a notice preparation for a program, a programmatic environmental impact report for the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act permitting program. The PEIR is intended to streamline CEQA compliance for projects that may result in limited take of Western Joshua trees, while ensuring that impacts are avoided, minimized, and mitigated through standardized conservation measures. Finally, CDFW is undertaking a fee adjustment process that is statutorily required to be completed by the 2026.

The fee adjustment process offers the best opportunity to adjust fees to better reflect impacts and cost to homeowners and other project developers. Indeed, CFW has indicated that it plans to reduce or eliminate fees to single family residents, and we support that outcome.

Given the concurrent ongoing processes regarding permitting and fee adjustments, we do not believe that it is appropriate or timely to change the law regarding fees or mitigation. For these reasons, we urge a no vote on AB 188. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Any other persons in the hearing room in opposition to this matter?

Good aft good afternoon. Christina Sprinter with the Center for Biological Diversity. We also maintain an opposed and less amended position. Thank you.

Jacob Evans with Sierra California in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll now turn it down. Turn it back to committee members. Seeing no questions. Any comments, mister Carrillo?

Would you like to close?

I'll just respond to a couple of things that were mentioned by the opposition. I we continue to work with the opposition. When I hear that it's working, believe me that when I hear constantly every time I go back to the district, not only from developers, but also from single family homeowners, how frustrating the process is. And I'm also speaking as a retired city planner. I did that for about twenty years.

The City of Pemba, like I mentioned in my my comments, we had a ordinance that allowed for the city to have developers say to Yashua to respirator regardless of the type of development. When you drive through the Antelope Valley and the Victor Valley, you can clearly see that there's a lack of economic opportunities for for the region.

And and some of that has to do because how much time it takes to go through the department to get a permit, And, also, because they cannot be the industrial and commercial development is is not there right now. And, primarily, it is single family homeowners that are suffering through it because there are requirements.

For instance, they have to comply with sewer connections, for instance, if the sewer becomes available, like in Jacque Valley, and they just take so long and are so costly for single family homeowners that want to do improvements or that they have to do improvements on the property.

That's why we included that in this bill today, and we will continue to work with with you and with anybody else that has these kind of concerns. The program EIR that was mentioned, you know, as a parent myself, I don't know how long it's gonna take for that to to go through. There are so many, ways that, these processes can take even longer. And, again, I'm speaking as as a city planner with over twenty years of experience.

So I respect that the department is trying to address these concerns, but I don't think that we can afford to continue to wait.

The region is this bill because we need to make sure that those economic opportunities come through the desert, to high desert, and also to alleviate those burdens by single family homeowners. So, again, I continue to to work with the concerns. And with that, I should respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I made a motion.

Well, thank you, mister Carrillo. Do we have a motion on this measure?

Mister Ellis made a motion. Do we have a second? I'll give you a second. I suppose a do pass recommendation from the chair, madam secretary. Can we call the roll?

Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Brian?

Aye.

Brian, Aye, Ellis? Aye. Ellis, Aye, Alanis, Connolly, Garcia, Haney, Hoover, Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye.

Macedo, Maritsuchi? No. Maritsuchi not voting. Pellerin, Schultz, Wicks, Zibur. Zibur not voting.

We'll leave it open for absent members.

Thank you, mister chairman.

Thank you.

Is that not a gift basket for us? Thank you, sir. Assembly member Erwin. It'd be 2182.

Good afternoon, colleagues. As you may know, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from industrial facilities is one of the greatest challenges we face in reaching our climate goals. One of the tools we have available to deploy, industrial upgrades to cleaner technologies is the energy efficiency program overseen by the CPUC. However, the current program excludes many promising industrial upgrade projects. As a result, large industrial facilities are struggling to effectively invest in cleaner technologies despite their potential to deliver significant emissions reductions.

AB 2182 will restructure the industrial energy efficiency program in the following ways, shift program administration from the CPUC to GO Biz, assess project benefits based on the performance of existing equipment rather than a hypothetical baseline, and only use funds paid by the industrial facilities themselves, ensuring that no other projects are subsidized by other customers.

AB 2182 will align the industrial energy efficiency program with the realities of industrial decision making, encourage timely investments in decarbonization projects and support industrial emissions reductions in California.

Today, to testify with me is Bruce Magnani, a representative of the California Large Energy Consumers Association.

Thank you very much, chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity. Bruce Magnani on behalf of CLECA. As the author mentioned, the current system is broken. In fact, a lot of our clients won't even apply for projects anymore under the current system.

And so, what 2182 will do as described, will take those energy efficiency dollars that are paid on your monthly bill and put them in an escrow account where you can go and apply for your own money to be returned back to you for projects. No cross subsidies. No other rate payers are paying into this for you. You also have to do a dollar for dollar match on these projects.

So you have to con you have to also commit capital along with the money you get back in this energy efficiency program.

The reason that matters so much are a lot of these large facilities are owned by large, international or national companies. And when you're inside those discussions, those capital dollars, it's a competitive it's a competitive market. And what this does is this tilts the table in favor of California when those when those capital dollars come to the table.

So rather than those companies investing somewhere where they might get a larger return, say in Texas or Ohio or outside of this country where you have a lower regulatory threshold to overcome, it really makes it attractive to invest in your own facilities in California to make them more efficient and decarbonize and continue to operate. Thank you very much, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Sir. Any persons in the hearing room in support of this meeting?

Chair and members, Cassandra Mar on behalf of the California Efficiency and Demand Management Council and the supportive amended position looking for some definitions, clarity around energy efficiency. Thank you.

Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?

David Bullock is a Me too, industrial power plant worker in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll now turn it back to committee members. Questions, comments, concerns? We have a motion by Mister Zbur.

I second.

Second by Mister Ellis, and a third by Mister Kalra. Assemblymember Irwin, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

This bill has a do pass recommendation from the chair. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do passed to appropriations. Bryan?

Aye.

Brian, Aye, Ellis.

Aye.

Ellis, aye. Alanis? Connolly? Garcia? Haney? Hoover? Kalra?

Aye.

Kalra, aye. Macedo? Muratsuchi?

Aye.

Muratsuchi, Aye. Pellerin? Schultz? Wicks? Zbur?

Aye.

Zbur, aye.

We'll leave it open for absent members, but I feel like you've got a good chance.

And I hope you appreciate how fast we went.

Very much so.

We got a lot of bills done.

Mister Ahrens, the pride of Cupertino.

Thank you. It's actually the pride of Silicon Valley.

I was just gonna say my favorite, but

I don't know.

That that also works. Good afternoon, mister chair and members. First, I wanna thank you and your committee, for working with my office on this important district bill. We are accepting the committee amendments, which shift from a CEQA exemption to a streamlining approach. AB 2231 supports the timely development of two critical health care infrastructure projects in the Bay Area, one in my district in the heart of Silicon Valley and one in Emeryville.

As our region continues to grow and innovate, our health care system must keep pace. Sutter Health's new medical center in Santa Clara represents a major investment in the future of health care for Silicon Valley. This project is about more than just a building. It's about expanding access to high quality care, supporting a strong health care workforce, and ensuring our infrastructure meets the needs of a diverse and growing population.

Unlike the other CEQA bills before this committee, these hospital projects are fully prepared to move forward, shovels in the ground, and they are and they are desperately needed, to be timely to support and deliver a real public benefit for California.

With me today is Cynthia Lee, chief strategy and growth development officer with Sutter Health.

Thank you. And thank you, mister chair and committee members. My name is Cynthia Lee, and I'm the chief strategy and growth officer for Sutter Health. I'm here today in strong support of AB 2231. Sutter Health is a not for profit health care integrated system serving some 3,600,000 Californians across the communities of Northern And Central California.

We are making major investments, thank you, in the Silicon Valley and the East Bay to expand access to care by modernizing our existing facilities and building new ones where they are urgently needed. Two generational projects are the two new medical campuses, one in Emeryville and one in Santa Clara. Both will provide a full spectrum of outpatient and inpatient services with hospital new hospital capacity as well as emergency room capacity. The Emeryville Hospital is is, especially critical.

It will replace our Alta Bates Summit Ashby campus in Berkeley, which must stop operating as a hospital by 2030 to comply with California seismic safety requirements.

Without a timely replacement, the East Bay risks losing essential inpatient and emergency care, including our very busy maternity and neonatal intensive care unit. The Ashby campus, after the hospital is built, will transition to an outpatient campus, and the new hospital will be in Emeryville. The Cigna Clara project is a rare milestone. It's a net new hospital for the state of California. At a time when many hospitals are cutting services or closing beds, Santa Clara County has already among the lowest inpatient bed availability in the state.

Population growth and rising acuity are only increasing the strain already set on the stress system. This new campus will add critical inpatient and emergency services, reduce travel times, ease pressure on nearby emergency rooms and hospitals, and serve patients across Santa Clara and surrounding counties. AB 2231 helps to ensure these essential health care projects are not delayed or halted and that patients and our communities are not underserved.

In closing, we respectfully urge your support of AB 2231 and ask for your yes vote. Thank you so much.

Committee, mister chairman, committee members, chair Gregor is here to answer any questions for their help.

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

Michael Lane with SPUR in support.

Hello. Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.

Good evening, mister chair and members. Jasmine Vai on behalf of Civil Justice Association of California in support of this measure. Thank you.

Nissette Short on behalf of the private essential access community hospitals in support.

Adam Ragley on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support. Thank you.

Michelle Balcava representing the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in support.

Ashanti Smith on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in strong support.

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

Good afternoon. Again, Matthew Baker with Planning and Conservation League. Respectfully opposed to the bill in print, but we appreciate the the conversation going here. We don't have any objection to the to the the projects at hand here or or have an opinion about their merits. Really, what we object to is the increasing number of legislative proposals to just have these single project sequence.

We don't think that that's really an appropriate way a good way of of planning, and we don't think it's really an effective way for the legislature to to guide planning and development policy in the state. We think that if there are projects of merit that the state does want to incentivize and accelerate it, that we should have a well thought out policy for for how to do that.

And we we have suggested that the environmental leadership program is such a a policy that governs that kind of accelerated development for things that we wanna incentivize. So we think that the proposed amendments, like the like the proposed amendments for the the the the bill that passed through this committee last year, it'd be 830, I believe it was, you know, put the guide the conversation in the right direction, and that's a conversation that we're willing to have.

So with the amendments, we'll we'll review review our our our position, but are willing to work with the author moving forward.

Thank you.

Yeah. Absolutely. And I just wanna say I recognize that the opposition's testimony is to the the bill as it came to the committee. We actually went exactly that route with streamlining it through the environment environmental leadership route because we agree that patchworking exemptions is is probably not the best guidepost for the state, but there is a method to do this and do it faster.

I will also say that this particular author is probably the only person who could have negotiated the kinds of conditions that that this bill ultimately received.

Are there any other persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? We'll now turn it back to the dais. Colleagues, questions, comments, concerns? Motion by mister Zbur. Second.

Second by miss Wicks. Mister Ahrens, would you like to close?

I would just say, thank you so much for your consideration. Happy to continue working, with the opposition. Thank you, mister chair, for clarifying the record. This is not a CEQA bill. It's a streamlining bill.

But let us be clear. If we continue to keep seeing these bills come forward, the real solution is to fix what's breaking California, which is CEQA itself, needs to be fixed, or else you're gonna we will continue to see these bills keep attacking it. So let's actually tackle the problem instead of resisting. I respectfully ask for your aye.

Thank you so much. This bill does have a do pass. I would also say it's important for us to plan. Seismic retrofits for hospitals has been put in the regulations since 1996. I was four years old.

The fact that we are now building the hospital that we need because 2030 is only four years away, I think is also part of the planning conversation that I've had locally with my hospitals as well. And so

I think all things are true, and all of these conversations should be had. But this is important, and it's timely, and we're gonna move it today. Madam secretary, we have

a motion in the second. Can we call the roll?

The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Brian?

Aye.

Brian, aye. Ellis? Aye. Ellis, aye. Alanis.

Connolly?

Aye.

Connolly, aye. Garcia? Haney? Hoover, Kalra.

Aye.

Kalra, aye. Macedo, Maritucci? Aye. Maritucci, aye. Pollard, Schultz, Wicks.

Aye. Wicks, aye. Suburgh. Aye. Suburgh, aye.

One more. That bill needs one more. Good luck.

Thank you, mister chairman.

Yes, sir. Mister Alvarez. Good afternoon, assembly member. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, mister chair and colleagues. I'm here to present assembly bill twenty four thirty three. It would not be a legislative anomaly to have a bill on density bonus come before you as I've worked on this issue now a few years here in the legislature and prior to this as a city council member. Mister chair, I wanna begin by stating that I accept the amendment consistent with current law related to section m, related to the Coastal Act as presented by your committee, and thank you.

We are taking that amendment. California's housing crisis is not a mystery. You heard it all. I'm not even gonna go over the numbers. You you know what they are. We are not producing the amount of housing that we need, and we need to look at policies that have actually worked.

And to that effect, last week, all of our staffs were invited to a briefing that occurred with Circulate Planning Policy. This is a document that was produced based on data obtained from cities on what's being built in our state. I highly recommend it. What this, summary of all the work happening in the state says is that density bonus is working.

And so I am here before you to try to, strengthen this one tool that has produced the most amount of housing built in California, bar no other policy that the state has approved.

This has been the most successful. Since 2021, bonus law has entitled more than a 140,000 homes across all of California at no cost to taxpayers as these are not subsidized product. This works by getting builders who commit to affordable housing. They must build affordable housing in their projects. It gives them certainty and flexibility they need to make projects pencil out.

Density bonus law is, unfortunately, sometimes being used, only to create rental housing, which I think is very important. But, this bill in particular also talks about new incentives for homeownership opportunities that I know you probably, like me, are hearing from your constituents that, they would also like opportunities to buy their first home. This bill is specifically focused on that. We also have data in this that will, from HCD that has determined that, some people are not utilizing density bonus even though it's available to them.

And so this bill is attempting to remind them, of something that's already available to, those who build homes that they can use this as a tool to create housing using the certainty and the flexibility that is allowed in density bonus.

So I bring you today this this proposal, which allows for builder to build derestricted units at income levels lower than what the law says. There's a little bit of a a misunderstanding, and, some jurisdictions are not thinking they can provide the density bonus, incentives to developers if they build even more affordable than what is, strictly stated or, obviously stated in the current statute. That is not the intention. We want affordable housing to be built, and if it's more affordable, even better.

And the developers should be able to have access to those benefits.

If they are building that even deeper level affordability. This bill clarifies that. It also allows for ministerial approval projects that qualify for density bonus and AB 130 infill exemption that the legislature enacted last year, and it aligns with recent court findings related to these issues. Again, you know the housing crisis is. I continue to work on and committed to work on this project on on making sure we have the housing built for the people of California.

And I thank you for the opportunity to present this. And now I'd like to turn it over to, Jordan Grimes with Greenbelt Alliance for our one witness today. Thank you.

Well, good afternoon, chair and members. As the assembly member said, my name is Jordan Grimes. I'm the legislative director with Greenbelt Alliance. We're an environmental organization in the Bay Area that has worked for the last sixty, seventeen years to advance sustainable land use policy, climate resilience, and conservation work. And over that time, we have learned that being effective conservationists actually really requires us to be as zealous in our advocacy for infill housing as we are for our climate and for natural resources.

The primary driver of sprawl and the destruction of California's natural, and sensitive landscapes, is the demand for new homes. And to combat that destruction, we have to be ardent champions of making it easier to build within our existing communities, ensuring that we are putting new housing in all of the right places in California. AB 2433 modernizes and strengthens density bonus law, which is, as the assembly member said, one of our state's most successful tools for producing affordable housing.

By facilitating dense environmentally friendly infill, we are directly reducing the pressure to develop our natural and working lands, the forest, the wetlands, the agricultural areas that serve as our state's best defense against climate change. AV twenty four thirty three makes several targeted improvements, including enabling a 100% affordable developers to provide those deeper levels of affordability that and while still providing and qualifying for the stacked bonuses that we are talking about.

It increases incentives for affordable, for sale units, adds additional waivers and concessions, creating those vital pathways for homeownership in the transit rich sustainable neighborhoods where this housing belongs. And then importantly, it adds a critical layer of transparency by actually requiring jurisdictions to proactively notify applicants and developers of the density bonus eligibility. This shifts the burden away from the applicant themselves and ensures that the state's most powerful housing tool is being used to its full potential rather than remaining hidden behind often complex bureaucracy. Finally, the bill offers certainty. And,

you know, currently, even the most sustainable infill projects are often subject to a gauntlet, of discretionary approvals that can take years to navigate. These delays end up acting as a hidden subsidy for sprawl. And when it is easier, and or when it is harder and more expensive to build a transit oriented development, an apartment building rather than a subdivision on a hillside in a high fire area, the environment loses.

So by creating A Buy right approval process, and pathway for infill projects, AB 2433 ensures that code compliant, affordable housing cannot be watered down or killed arbitrarily by local opposition. By removing these roadblocks and streamlining the path for infill development, AB 2433 protects our natural resources and addresses our housing crisis simultaneously.

We are proud to support the bill today and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Michael Lane, whisper, cosponsor and strong support.

Thank you so much. People in the hearing room

Holly Fraumeni de Jesus, for Like house public affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Field stead and Company, Habitat for Humanity California, and San Diego Housing Commission on support.

Ben Turner with Axiom Advisors on behalf of CBIA in support.

Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY in support.

Dominic Demari here for, the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce here in support.

Kate Rogers on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition in support.

Sofia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.

Orocio Gonzales on behalf of California's business roundtable in support.

Any persons here in opposition to this measure?

Alex Loomer on behalf of California Coast Protection Network and Committee for Green Foothills. Just removing our opposition. Really appreciate the author taking the committee amendments to clarify the scope. Thank you.

We'll now turn it back to committee members. Any questions, comments? Miss Wicks?

Thank you, Mister chair. Thank you, Mister Alvarez, for your leadership in this space. I think I heard you say this, but I just wanna confirm. So should this bill pass and consign into law, these projects, if qualified, would enjoy the benefits of AB 130. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay. Great. I would love to be added on as the coauthor at whatever level you'll take me, and happy to make a motion to move the bill.

Thank you.

We have a motion by Miss Wicks.

I'll second.

Second by Mister Kalra. Mister Alvarez, we've got a question for Mister Muratsuchi.

Thank you. So first of all, Mister Alvarez, I just wanna make sure I understand. The committee amendment is to harmonize your bill with the Coastal Act. That's what the committee analysis says.

We are reaffirming it's already a requirement. As part of density bonus. We are just restating it once again as requested by the committee that Section M, which is a reference to the Coastal Act, also applies to any of these new changes that we're adding.

So, yeah, I this is not our first conversation over these housing issues. I appreciate your ongoing efforts to; you know boost housing production in the State of California with the ultimate objective of making it more affordable for all California families. I was just meeting with a constituent in Manhattan Beach a couple weeks ago. Have you ever been to Manhattan Beach?

I have not been to Manhattan Beach.

I imagine it's probably similar to a lot of communities in in San Diego. But it it's primarily single-family homes. And there's a big controversial project, multistory, you know surrounded by single family homes that the city is telling all the residents that are complaining that, well you know, we can't do anything about it because it's ministerial by right. Speak to your state representatives.

And the residents are talking about, you know how they've worked hard, you know, saved up over the years to buy their dream home in the beach cities. And now they have this development right next door that's completely out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. What would you tell that constituent?

Yeah. I would tell them at least that in this case, if you vote for this bill, you you are not voting to change local zoning. If your local city is allowing a type of development that is multistory, that is your local city who is choosing to do that. I don't know the circumstances of this particular parcel that you're referring to, but this bill at least does not touch the authority of locals to zone.

If they made what this bill does do is that if they made the decision to allow a more dense development, multifamily type of development on a parcel, then they can use this, but that was a decision made by the locals.

Okay.

That this does not change that. I don't know the circumstances of the particular project you're talking about. But again, if you were responding to your vote on this particular issue It does not this would not impact that. And if Manhattan Beach is in the coastal zone, this would also not impact that as much as I would just tell you, and I think we disagree on this, that I believe the coast has a role to play in providing housing for people of all incomes.

This would actually not apply to a coastal city, if that's the case there.

Yeah. I mean, I suspect the city's response would be that in order to get the housing element approved that they have to they've had to rezone many of their residential neighborhoods in order to comply. And yeah. So, you know, I just want to voice the frustrations of my constituents who, you know are seeing all these changes being forced upon them. And for that reason, respectfully, I would not be able to support your bill.

Thank you. Mister Zbur.

Good afternoon. I actually think density bonuses are actually one of the tools that are really important in terms of providing more affordable housing for our communities. And so we'll be supporting the bill today. The one pause I had was, related to one of the letters that indicate there aren't any labor standards. I'm wondering if you're having discussions about that.

Yeah. No. In fact, the labor standards that we have in the assembly bill, one thirty are also included in this bill. And so, I don't believe that I don't wanna misspeak, but I don't believe, and I will follow-up and correct the record if that's the case with you. I don't believe that the opposition remains on this bill.

I think it's good.

And if there is you you're open to working with the building trades on-

Absolutely.

Related to labor standards.

Correct.

Okay. Great. Thank you very much.

Seeing no other questions or comments, Mister Alvarez, would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you again, Mister chair. Appreciate always being able to come to the committee and to work with you particularly on issues that I think, address real issues for Californians, in this case, housing. I wanna thank all the questions. I do believe that California needs to be a place where we all welcome people of all income levels into every community.

I think we can find a way to do so. This is my contribution to that, and more specifically, I don't want this to get lost, housing ownership opportunities. This bill has that. We haven't done a lot of work in that space. I look forward to this being perhaps the beginning of much more work that we do to incentivize development of homeownership opportunities for Californians because I think we also need to we owe it to them to not just create rental housing, but housing owners ownership opportunities.

And for that reason, respectfully, ask for your aye vote. Thank you.