Senate Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Water

Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee will come to order. I know this is a busy day today here in the legislature, so we've folks will be running in and out. We had 10 bills on today's agenda. One bill is proposed for consent. Bills will be heard in file order. We are starting as a subcommittee. I'm going to lead off and present Senator McGuire's bill. That's file item 8, SB 1393. And I'm gonna hand over the gavel to our former Chair, Mr. Laird.

When you're ready, sir, please proceed.

Okay. Good afternoon, Members. Senator McGuire asked me to let you know he's very sorry he couldn't be here today. He also wanted to be sure I extend his sincere thanks to the committee staff for their work on this bill. SB 1393 is an omnibus updating California's Fish and Game Code with several key provisions covering steelhead trout and Dungeness crabs.

California's Dungeness crab fishery is one of the most valuable in the state, supporting coastal fishing communities from Crescent City to Half Moon Bay in my district. Steelhead trout are equally vital. Rivers of Northern California are world renowned fishing destinations that form the economic and cultural backbone of tribal and coastal communities alike.

Together, these fisheries represent not just industries, but a way of life for thousands of Californians. SB 1393 strengthens the steelhead trout fishing report restoration card program. Secondly, extends and refines the Dungeness crab fishery management structure. And third, establishes clear rules for vessel transit through closed crab fishing areas.

The members of California's fishing communities deserve clear and reliable laws that support their livelihoods while continuing to protect our natural resources. SB 1393 continues these important missions, and it has no opposition. With us today are two technical experts, Kate Kauer, fisheries strategist lead for Nature Conservancy, and Matt Clifford, executive director of Trout Unlimited California. Who would like to go first?

Welcome to the... Welcome to the committee. You have up to two minutes, each of you.

Thank you, Senator Laird, Members. Thank you, Chair Becker. My name is Kate Kauer, and I lead The Nature Conservancy's fisheries work. TNC is pleased to provide our strong support for Senate Bill 1393. TNC is a science based organization that works worldwide to deliver conservation solutions that benefit both people and nature.

And in California, we partner with the Dungeness crab fleet and serve as an active member of the Dungeness Crab Task Force, and help shape adaptive climate ready fisheries management strategies that balance both economic and environmental priorities.

The Dungeness crab fishery is one of the highest value, most productive fisheries in California. However, it is under increasing stress due to climate related delays, closures, and uncertainties that are having real impacts on commercial fishing fleets and coastal communities as well as marine species.

SB 1393 will implement longstanding recommendations from the Dungeness Crab Task Force, which is a legislatively mandated advisory body, and will ensure the continuity of the current Dungeness crab management programs and support an economically viable fishery and meat conservation goals.

Dungeness crab fishery is one of the Dungeness crab fishery is one of the only California fisheries managed by the legislature, and the legislature's role is critical to ensuring that it remains a productive, sustainable, and culturally and economically important fishery.

This bill is an important bill that will provide for the uninterrupted sustainable management of one of California's most valuable fisheries. And for these reasons, we strongly support SB 1393. We greatly appreciate Senator McGuire's continued leadership on the Dungeness crab fishery, and we thank Chair Becker for presenting the bill on his behalf, and we respectfully request an aye vote on SB 1393. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman and Members. My name is Matt Clifford. I'm the California director for Trout Unlimited. And I am here to speak on behalf of SB 1393, which we are co-sponsoring with our partner, California Trout. And I'll talk briefly about the steelhead report card portion of the bill. I'll just say that, as you may be aware, steelhead anglers are are a pretty passionate bunch. I'm one myself.

This is a program that's been around about 30 years. The steelhead angling community knows this program. They're used to it. They like it. I think anglers really appreciate knowing that they are contributing, they feel like they're contributing to conservation.

They like that the data collected goes to make management decisions and other regulatory decisions. They like that a portion of the revenue goes to support habitat restoration projects. And it's just a broadly, widely supported project, program. I will say briefly that we'd like to thank the committee staff for the work on the bill, and particularly for the amendments, which we do support.

We think they make it a better bill and will lead to better returns, you know, which has been an issue with the bill in the past is return. We think some incentives in there are the right direction and will help make a better program. And so I can leave it at that. I'd just like to thank our co-sponsors and the author, and happy to take any questions about the bill.

Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for anybody that is a me too in support of this bill. Name, organization, and the fact that you support it.

Alex Leumer on behalf of CalTrout, proud to co-sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Emily Brezinski on behalf of Andrew Govenar and our client, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Association, in support.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else. This would be the opportunity for anybody in opposition to speak on this bill. Seeing no one. We'll bring it back to the committee. And I get to, in a very snarky way, ask the presenter, are you gonna accept the amendments that the Chair of the committee forced on you?

Yes. Yes, indeed.

Great. I'm glad that's clear. Comments from Committee Members or questions? Then let me just say, if one of the interesting things in the analysis is if you look at the past legislation, it's almost been Senator McGuire on this issue.

And I think that what he's really doing with the group that met and taking their recommendations and other things is just moving this whole program forward consistent with where it's been, but consistent where the stakeholders have weighed in and suggested improvements.

And we know that with the climate changing and with this industry really suffering due to closures because of many different pieces of the climate that it is a moving target on what the right thing is to do. And so I think that's why this bill is a very good addition to statute. Any other comments? Then would you like to close?

I wanna thank the sponsors and witnesses today. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. And when we have one more person, the Chair will call a quorum and we'll start voting on these bills.

Sounds good.

Thank you very much.

Okay. At this point, we are waiting for presenters, so we will be on hold for right now.

Okay. We're gonna reconvene, and we will start with Senator Jones on filing five SB 1212.

Thank you, mister chair and members. I am here to present Senate bill twelve twelve which will update California's antique antique old current law to allow the importation and sale of kangaroo products.

This bill applies only to qualifying kangaroo products harvested in compliance with existing wildlife protections and both Australian and international law including the endangered species act current code reads that it is illegal to import or sell products made from a polar bear, leopard, ocelot, tiger, cheetah, jaguar, sable antelope, wolf, zebra, whale, cobra, python, sea turtle, colobus monkey, vicuna, sea otter, free roaming feral horse, dolphin or porpoise, Spanish lynx, elephant, or kangaroo.

One of these things is not like the others. Kangaroos in Australia are abundant with a population of over 35,000,000. There are four abundant non-endangered species, the Eastern Grey Kangaroo, the Western Grey Kangaroo, the Red Kangaroo, and the Common Wallaroo. And harvesting is limited to the management of these species. Threatened or endangered species are never allowed for commercial harvest or hunting, and Australian law is especially strict in this area.

This bill does not change that fact. Among these four species that are allowed for commercial harvest in Australia, populations have remained steady for over forty years, thanks to that country's stringent regulatory structure and world leading stewardship programs. In fact, there are so many rues in the wilds of Australia, the country faces an overabundance problem it must manage through the active cooling of kangaroo populations.

The overabundance of kangaroos disrupts ecological balance and threatens animal welfare, not just for kangaroos, but also native vegetation, reptiles, insects, small mammals, and birds. To mitigate these issues, the Australian government issues a certain number of tags each year for the purpose of population control.

Tag numbers will not and cannot change because of this bill. That is simply not the way Australian law and stewardship practices work. In fact, not a single additional kangaroo will be harmed as a result of this bill. The yearly limits are based on scientific data that incorporates in a variety and environmental factors. The issuance of tags is never based on market demand for kangaroo products.

When kangaroos are harvested in Australia, they are done so under the most humane wildlife management standards in the world. The Australian code of practice was developed after years of research and consultation with leading scientists and veterinarians in Australia. Organizations in the development of the code of practice included Australian Veterinary Association, the royalty the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Australia, and the country's two leading animal welfare organizations. Australian practices are the gold standard.

California's ban does not impact existing harvesting practices or tag numbers, and this bill won't either.

California's ban affects a loss of tax revenue and business income, but has no effect on the harvesting of kangaroos. Prior to the ban going into effect, most recently in 2016, there were over 600 retailers in California selling kangaroo products. Most notably, boots and personal protective equipment for police and fire, food for dogs with, severe food allergies, my and my personal favorite, of course, protective leather gear for motorcycle enthusiasts.

These products shouldn't be illegal, and Californians shouldn't have to take their money out of state to acquire them. California has fallen behind the rest of the nation and is the only state in the country, in The United States, to with this ban still in place.

Today, we can take a few steps forward fixing with an aye vote on SB 1212.

Thank you, mister Jones. Do you have witnesses in support who would like to

I do not, sir. Just there you have letters of support from the Australian government and recent letters from Cal Chamber.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wanna add on in support? Alright. We'll go to lead opposition.

Do we have two lead opposition witnesses

who can come forward?

Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Jenny Berg, and I'm the California state director for Humane World for Animals. We work to ensure that wild animals are valued as individuals and as vital parts of our ecosystem, not merely reduced to products that fuel a global market. Kangaroos are an iconic species who are valued not just for their cultural and ecological role, but also for their intrinsic worth as a sentient animal.

SB 1212 will open would open California's market to products derived from the largest land based commercial slaughter of wildlife in the world, undermining our state's long standing ban on the trade of wildlife products.

Right now, the sun came up in Australia, and the commercial shooters are wrapping up a night of killing kangaroos in the Australian bush. Australia's commercial kangaroo industry kills over 1,000,000 animals annually. The Australian code of practice requires that young kangaroos who depend on their mothers be killed when their mother is killed. For joeys still in their mother's pouch, this includes methods such as depredate decapitation, cervical dislocation, or a for forceful blow to the head.

For young joeys on the ground, shooters are only required to make reasonable efforts to find them.

And in practice, many are left to die of dehydration, starvation, or depredation or predation. An estimate of 400,000 joeys are killed each year. A 2025 report showed that seventy eight percent of Americans surveyed find commercial kangaroo killings causes unnecessary animal cruelty. California has led on this issue since 1971, and although this it has been contested in the past, we must uphold the ban on kangaroo products. California has the right and responsibility to keep cruel products off of our markets.

Please vote no on SB 1212. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Hello, chair, members. SB 1212 would reverse protections this legislature put in place in 1971 and instead align California with an industry facing serious ethical, scientific, and regulatory concerns. In fact, the New South Wales parliament's official inquiry into the industry confirmed that population estimates, the very data used to justify killing quotas, lacks transparency and sound methodology.

It also found that there are not adequate systems to monitor compliance with the code of practice at the point of kill, making welfare regulations meaningless, and that the widespread killing of kangaroos has a profound mental health impact on many Australians, particularly Aboriginal communities for whom these animals hold deep cultural and spiritual significance.

There are also public health concerns. Kangaroo meat is widely considered a high risk wild harvest product. Californians would be shocked to learn that our government would allow importing these high risk meat products that countries such as China and Russia do not allow. Meanwhile, major brands such as Nike, Adidas, Gucci, Prada, and many others have phased out kangaroo leather from their products.

California has been adding species to section 6530 of the penal code, including seven species, which we worked on with some of them remain Chine in 2019.

We should not be taking animals off this list. Lastly, I'll read New South Wales legislative council member, Emma Hearst's message to the committee. Quote, kangaroos are brutally slaughtered, and their babies are being bludgeoned to death as part of the commercial kangaroo industry. As an Australian MP, I know Australians are horrified by this cruelty. And after visiting The USA, I I know Americans are equally horrified.

We need politicians in The United States to work with us to end this industry, not open up new markets for it. And with that, I respectfully ask for a no vote.

Okay. Do we have others in opposition that would like to weigh in, please?

Afternoon, chair and members of the committee. Sosan Madinat, w Strategies here on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Jennifer Feering on behalf of myself in strong opposition. Thank you.

Alright. We'll take it back to the committee. Comments? Thoughts? Seeing none.

Seeing none, I'll say for my own part, with great respect for the author, I know you're responding to your

constituents who have interest in in some of these products and and that you were telling me earlier some of the the the, you know, benefits and and maybe they're not accessible and other you were mentioning hypoallergenic dogs and other things that were that were somewhat sympathetic. On the other hand, I I think the the opposite made a very compelling case to me about why we should continue this this ban. I mean, this has been fifty years here.

I know others have tried in the past here, and, I know this is your final year, and you're attempting this, but I just it's not something I can support at this time. So, with that, would you like to close?

Sure, absolutely. I understand the opposition's arguments and the points that they are making. I think what's important to understand here is that kangaroo harvesting in Australia is highly regulated by the Australian government, in very great detail. 49 states and the Federal Trade Commission, have come to the point where they have accepted the Australian regulation of this, and are allowing these products to be imported to The United States. California is the only state that continues this, antiquated, I think I said that correct, ban.

And Californians are left, you know, somewhat in the lurch on this because there are products that are important to your constituents and my constituents that are as a result of Kangaroo Harvesting, and I think that California legislature and us as leaders of our state should give our constituents the same opportunities that 49 other states have and would ask your aye vote on this.

Okay. Please call the roll. Do we have a motion, I guess?

When you lift the calls and the rest of the members are here, you can take a motion then.

We'll wait then for a motion to be made on that.

But then maybe I'll come back and close again. Just kidding. Alright. Thank you all very much.

I saw Senator Ochoa Bogh. Wait one moment while she Senator Gonzalez, welcome. You are here to present file item seven, SB 1268. Please go ahead when ready.

Thank you. And good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I wanna begin by accepting the committee amendments and thanking the committee staff for their work. I'm here to present SB 1268, which will codify the goals and programs of the Outdoors for All initiative. The Outdoors for All initiative was launched in 2021 to increase access to the outdoors, prioritize equity, and combat historical inequalities that have limited access for people with disabilities, lower-income communities, communities of color, and much more.

This initiative spans the 27 departments at the California Nat Resources Agency and focuses on achieving equitable access to outdoor recreation for all Californians, prioritizing programs and park expansions in underserved communities, and coordinating efforts with the state's existing outdoor equity and conservation goals. Despite its impact, this initiative is not currently codified in state law, meaning that it could be altered or undone by a future state administration.

Testifying in support, I have Pedro Hernandez from Green Latinos, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 1268.

Okay. Please go ahead. You have two minutes.

Yeah. Good afternoon. Possibly good evening to you all, everybody. My name is Pedro Hernandez. I'm the California state Director with the organization Green Latinos.

We work at the intersection of conservation and environmental justice to make sure that we can solve both people's problems and address our ecosystem decline as well too. I wanna start off with some of my own personal history where, I grew up in Fresno County right up the intersection of Highway 41, a dairy feedlot, a junkyard, and an irrigation ditch where they, you know, sprayed pesticides on us.

And so we technically did grow around grow up around a lot of nature, but the nature that was around us was not restorative and did not, you know, support the resilience that California's climate policies and environmental policies are trying to support. But in my professional career, you know, I've worked in communities that are two streets, like the community of Tulliville or in megacities like in Los Angeles.

And despite the regional vary variances, one trends cuts across every region of California, where Californians want healthy nature, but yet many of us do not have access to it.

And across the the the datasets, every metric shows that millions of Californians lack nature access. For example, 8,400,000 of Californians live less than a half mile or sorry about that. I'm nervous. 8,400,000 Californians live more than half a mile away from a park. 24,000,000 Californians live in areas of less than three acres of parks per 1,000 people.

Eight oh, more than 8,500,000 folks don't have access to a neighborhood park. And so when we talk about the Outdoors for All strategy, this is an innovative, cutting-edge, leading initiative that coordinates the largest natural resource agency all towards the one goal of leveraging data, leveraging staff, and leveraging resources for outdoor equity.

And we all know that when we close the nature gap in California, we support not only access, but we support public health, climate resiliency, biodiversity, and we support the multi benefit natures, nature solutions that help California retain its leadership, throughout the nation. So this is a good project, it's a good initiative. We hope this proposal can make it even better, and we can actually reach an Outdoors for All for all Californians.

So thank you.

Thank you very much. You did an excellent job. Would you have others in support who would like to add on support? Please come forward.

Hi. Good afternoon. Michael Chen, on behalf of Audubon California, the cosponsor of the bill. Thank you so much.

Afternoon, Mr. Chair. Mike Sharif with Fanslau Government Affairs on behalf of River Partners in support.

Good afternoon. Griselda Chavez, on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps, in support. Thank you.

Mercedes Macias, Sierra Club California, in support.

Good afternoon. Kendra Begley, on behalf of the California Association of Recreation, Park, and Districts, in support.

Good afternoon. Kim Delfino, on behalf of the California Native Plant Society, in support.

Okay. Do we have any, anyone in opposition, to this bill? Anybody who does not like the outdoors? No. Just kidding.

Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments? Oh, we'll see none. I'll just say from my part, I'm I wanna really thank you for this bill.

This is certainly one of my passions in this role as chairing this committee. It's one of the things I most wanna do, both in the building, which you're letting us do, but also outside the building to promote Outdoors for All.

In my role as the, on the board of UC Merced Foundation, I got to see students come and who had never been to any of our parks, certainly any of our national parks, and then participate in Yosemite leadership program and then tell us in tears how they were gonna spend the rest of their lives working in in the in the forest service, and as a ranger.

And I know the library pass is now one of the most successful pieces of of of policy that we've done to kinda enable folks to get outdoors. But there's a lot more that we need to do to promote access.

We spend so many so much money and time preserving these great outdoors. We need to make sure that they're really accessible to all. So thank you for that. Be supporting the bill. Would you like to close?

I thank you, Mr. Chair, for that, and I'm just grateful for Green Latinos. In fact, I represent in LA County in Southeast Los Angeles, some of the lowest park acreage per capita throughout the county, so this is even more important for us to continue to proliferate green space. So with that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. We have a motion for Senator Cabaldon. The motion is to pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll.

[roll call]

So it's 3-0. We'll keep that bill on call. I see Senator Ochoa Bogh. You have several bills with us. Please come up when you're ready, and we'll start with SB 1061.

A little snack here. Great. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Senator Becker. So today I'll be presenting three bills on regarding the Joshua tree. The formal process to protect the Western Joshua tree began in October 15, 2019 when the Center for Biological Diversity submitted a petition to the California Fish and Game Commission to list the species as a threatened as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act, CESA.

In September 2020, the commission determined that the listing might be warranted and designated the tree as a candidate species providing temporary legal protection under CESA. Following this designation, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife department conducted a status review, which it submitted in March 2022, concluding that the listing was not warranted.

According to the department, it recognized that the threats faced by... And this is from the executive summary from the California Department of, the Department of, State of California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife.

And this is a report to the Fish and Game Commission status review of March 2022, which stated that while the department recognizes the threats faced by the species and the evidence presented in favor of the petition action.

The scientific evidence that is currently possessed by the department does not demonstrate that populations of the species are negatively trending in a way that would lead the department to believe that the species is likely to be in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all or the significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future.

The department recommends that the commission find the recommended action to list Western Joshua tree as threatened species not warranted. In addition to that, the Federal Register, volume 88, number 46, Thursday, March 9, 2023.

The Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Services at the federal level concluded that after thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that the listing Joshua trees as endangered or threatened species is not endangered or is not warranted.

So having said that, in June, in June of 2023, or in June 2022, the commission considered the department's report, but it could not be, could not reach a decision. To resolve the administrative deadlock and provide a long term conservation framework, the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act was introduced in a budget trailer bill in 2023 and signed into law in July 2023.

So based on those scenarios in which the both the California Commission of Fish and Wildlife as well as the federal on the federal level, it was not considered a threatened endangered species. The residents of the desert in my district, in Senate District 19.

Which I've inherited since 2024 with redistricting. It's been a great injustice to the folks out there. Being subjected to fees that are really not warranted and have no basis for it. So these bills are a product of those findings and that realization and the impact that it's having on local residents. So the first bill that we're going to be reviewing today will be SB 1061.

Proud to present it. Which is a narrow and very practical bill that focuses on allowing property owners to relocate a limited number of Western Joshua trees without payment or fees or other mitigation when certain conditions are met. The goal of the bill is to incentivize the preservation of these trees rather even though they're not subject to extinction, rather than the destruction.

Right now, the definition of the word take as it pertains to the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act is very broad and based on a framework that was built for wildlife that can be hunted or pursued, not for plant that stays rooted in the ground.

The result is that even when a homeowner or small project is trying to save a tree by moving it a short distance, they can still be pulled into a full take permit process. However, even inside the formal process, the true killing of a tree is not usually the result because the California Department of Fish and Wildlife often conditions the permit on relocating the tree instead of cutting it down.

In other words, the practical outcome on the ground is already relocation, not destruction. SB 1061 simply recognizes the reality upfront by making it clear that moving a tree within a limited commonly owned footprint should not trigger the same permitting burden as cutting it down.

There is no net loss of a tree in that situation, and the law should recognize the difference between relocation and removal. Instead of requiring a take permit and then effectively issuing a relocation permit, this bill creates a streamlined process for homeowners to relocate trees in a responsible way and allows CDFW to focus on cases where real loss is at stake.

This bill just seeks to clarify the law so that when a tree is being preserved and moved a short distance on commonly owned land, it is not regulated in the same way as a true take that removes trees from the landscape. SB 1061 keeps a meaningful protections in place, but makes governments and the CDFW staff who are trying to do the right thing on the ground.

With me today, I have Jennifer Cusack from Bighorn Desert View Water Agency and Chris Wysocki from the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association to share their perspective and answer questions.

Great. Just before we get to your witness, can we confirm you're taking the committee amendments on this bill, on file item 1, SB 1061?

Yes. I am.

Okay. Great. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Jennifer Cusack. I'm the general manager of Bighorn Desert View Water Agency, a very small water district in the Mojave Desert, and a lifetime resident of the Mojave Desert. I'm here in strong support of SB 1061.

This bill is critically important because it addresses real unintended impacts of the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act on everyday homeowners while maintaining protections for a species that our community values and has long protected.

In our region, some homeowners have been straddled with thousands of dollars in fees related to the Western Joshua Tree and work around it. Even in situations and most of the time in situations where these Western Joshua Trees are still standing. So just to do work around them, they're paying fees.

This creates a serious burden, particularly in the Mojave Desert where we are have a very disadvantaged community. And housing is often, we have affordability challenges in the desert. Adding high regulatory cost to routine home maintenance, small scale development puts residents at even greater disadvantage.

SB 1061 provides common sense solutions. It clarifies how the law applies to homeowners and allows reasonable relocation options, making it possible for families to maintain and improve their homes whilst still protecting the trees.

It is important to recognize the Western Joshua Tree is prolific in our region. They're in large quantity across a very large diverse range, as documented by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's March 2022 report on page 53.

And it found it does not meet the criteria for listing under CESA. That said, we support protecting the species, as we have locally under local ordinance just much like the oak tree. The current framework has created confusion, cost, and unintended consequences without adding meaningful protection.

We are two minutes. Last. Oh,

I'm sorry. Thank you.

If you can wrap up.

Yes. So this bill strikes a balance and helps to fix some of the unintended consequences, and I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Are there others who would like to add on in support of this is 1061, first bill that we're doing. We have several folks.

Good afternoon. Richard Filgas with the California Farm Bureau in support. Thank you.

Chad Mayes on behalf of the County of San Bernardino, the Town of Yucca Valley in support.

Tim Worley on behalf of the Community Water Systems Alliance. And additionally, as a courtesy on behalf of Palmdale Water District, San Bernardino County Supervisor Dawn Rowe, San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, and Twentynine Palms Water District Thank you.

Ruieta Da Silva in support. I represent the Morongo Basin Residents for Reasonable Western Joshua Tree Regulations. Thank you.

Madelaine LaVoie, local real estate broker and resident Yucca Valley, in support.

Cassandra Mar on behalf of the Town of Apple Valley in support. Thank you.

Okay. Now we'll hear from opposition witnesses. Do we have lead opposition? Go ahead. Feel free to...

Yeah. Actually, just Kim Delfino representing Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, Center for Biological Diversity, Mojave Desert Land Trust, and the Native American Land Conservancy. With the amendments that have been taken, appreciate the fact that they've been offered and accepted. We remove our opposition.

Okay. Well then, anyone else in opposition or anyone who wants to comment? Okay. We'll take it back to the committee. Would we have any comments on the committee? Okay. Well, I wanna thank you for working with us.

We know we have a couple other bills to discuss here, but you've indicated very clearly your passion on this issue and for the impact on your constituents in the region. We appreciate you taking the amendments and that has withdrawn opposition. I'll be supporting this bill today. And I would love a motion. Do we have a motion?

Oh, yes.

Consideration of a motion. Actually, give you an opportunity to close. Did you wanna close on this bill?

I would love to an opportunity to close. So as I stated earlier in my opening remarks, this is has been, the Joshua Tree Conservation Act has been one of the biggest injustices to the people of the desert that I represent.

And I don't have words to describe how appalled I was to see that something that based on what the Commission on Fish and Wildlife as far as the report went stating that it wasn't endangered and at the federal level in 2023 stating also that it wasn't endangered.

And then to put place the Conservation Act in the, in the budget trailer bill where it didn't have an opportunity to be vetted and have a discussion on it has had great significant impacts on our residents in the desert. So with that, this simple bill is just a way to mitigate that injustice to those local residents in our in our communities.

And with that, SB 1061 is just a simple clarification, not a rollback of protections for the Western Joshua Tree. It reflects what already happens in practice when someone seeks to remove a tree. CDFW often requires relocation instead.

This bill simply says that if a Western Joshua Tree is being preserved and moved a short distance on commonly owned land, we should not treat it the same as a true take. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Well, thank you. Well, see a few words for your next two bills on this topic. But listen, I, you know, I do wanna say, you know, in this committee and in this body, we're always trying to strike the right balance. And, you know, there was a move to protect the Western Joshua Tree.

We understand that, you know, this is, you know, believe that this is a common sense fix in this bill. Do we have a motion? So Senator Stern moves the bill. The motion is to pass as amended to Appropriations. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Two to zero. I may need to weigh in on that one. Now we'll go to your second bill, SB 1062.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Now for the second bill, once again, understanding the the fact that, this would push forth with, without the understanding that, the Joshua Tree Conservation Act, was placed in a trailer bill without actual evidence at the time to make it endangered. This second bill, 1062, aims to make the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act workable for publicly owned utilities and other public agencies that deliver water, power, sewer, and communication services.

This bill requires the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to consider setting mitigation fees proportionate to the impact of a project and consider using tiered fees that correlate with the project size, type, and other criteria. Most importantly, this is not a brand new idea.

The Western Joshua Tree Conservation Plan that CDFW developed already addresses project level permitting and coordinated project wide avoidance, mini minimization and mitigation measures. SB 1062 simply elevates that existing practice, current practice, from guidance and clearly outlines it in statute. So we're just codifying practice already. So agencies know that option is available and that CFW has explicit authority to use it when circumstances are appropriate.

Under current law, even routine upgrades can trigger full mitigation fees and broad avoidance mitigation fees and broad avoidance buffers for every affected tree, and those costs end up on rate payers bills.

And those costs, just for the record, could vary anywhere between $500 up to $5,000 depending on the location of the, the bill. And even the little buds, the little spuds are, are also have a fee on them. This bill clarifies that the CDFW may approve project wide measures and adjust overall fees for a project and does not alter the underlying conservation framework. With me today, I have Jennifer Cusack from Bighorn Desert View Water Agency to share her experience with this very process and answer any questions.

Okay. Great. Again, just like to add just for clarity, do you accept the committee amendments on this bill?

Yes. Okay.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thank you, chair and members. I'm Jennifer Cusack, general manager, Bighorn Desert View Water Agency, and a community member. And I have experience with public infrastructure projects, including water and electricity. And I'm here in support, strong support, for SB 1062.

This bill is essential because it will correct and bring clarity to the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act as it's impacting public water systems and critical infrastructure. Today, even routine infrastructure work like replacing aging water lines and existing roadways, maintaining systems and implementing groundwater recharge projects can trigger substantial mitigation fees and complex permitting requirements. We already go through the secret process on our projects and have mitigated for the Western Josh Tree and relocated in the past.

These additional costs for these fees go directly to our rate payers and we're trying to keep the cost of water down. In our disadvantaged desert communities, this matters because every dollar counts.

SB 1062 provides a practical solution by allowing the department to consider making fees proportionate to the impact of a project. This is critical. Water infrastructure project should be able to move forward quickly and cost effectively, especially when they are maintaining existing systems.

And equally important, this bill recognizes fees should be proportionate. One size does not fit all. If the long term risk of the Western Josh Tree is driven by climate change over one hundred year horizon, it is not reasonable to shift that cost burden onto small local water systems and the ratepayers today. SB 1062 ensures we can continue to deliver safe, reliable, and affordable water while maintaining protections for the species. This is about balance, practically, and fairness- practicality and fairness.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

We've others, who went away in support.

Hi. Brenda Bass, on behalf of Mojave Water Agency in support. Thank you.

It's Cassandra Mar on behalf of the town of Apple Valley in support.

Richard Filgas, California Farm Bureau in support. Thank you.

Madelaine Lavoie in support.

Chad Mayes on behalf of the county of San Bernardino and the town of Yucca Valley in support.

Tim Worley on behalf of Community Water Systems Alliance, and additionally, again, as a courtesy to Palmdale Water District, San Bernardino County supervisor Don Rowe, San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, and twenty nine Palms Water District all in support.

Thank you.

Ruieta Dasilva on behalf of the Morongo Basin Residents for Reasonable Western Joshua Tree regulations. Thank you.

Good afternoon, mister chair and senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the California Groundwater Coalition, also in support. Thank you.

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

Okay. Thank you all. Do we have anyone in opposition?

Good afternoon. Kim Delfino on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, Center for Biological Diversity, Mojave Desert Land Trust, and the Native American Land Conservancy. With the amendments taken to this bill, we remove our opposition. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. So we'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments? Senator Grove.

Thank you. I just applaud the author for bringing this bill forward.

I too represent that area, and it's really disturbing to me that somebody trying to even, and I realize it doesn't have very much to do with this bill, but just a family income, a family of four that has $57,000 a year, and just to hook up to city water would cost them almost $200,000. It's crazy to me that this district produces 11,000,000 tons of cement, excuse me, 11,000,000 tons of cement in California; 9,000,000 come from this district.

They already have a mining permit, which means that you were going to disturb the land and then reclaim the land after you're done mining, and they just had to pay almost $200,000 to relocate Joshua trees that were within the mining area because it was within 40 feet of where the trucks would go. And I just, it is miles upon miles upon miles, over an hour drive away from the national forest.

And I think it's a very, a very good approach about trying to address some of the issues. And if my colleague, the former Secretary of Natural Resources, was here, I would give him a bad, a bad time about this being a succulent and not a plant. Thank you.

I've heard that debate before in the legislature. Okay. Well, for, for my part, again, you know, appreciate your efforts to find solutions for this district issue. And, and I just wanna again say for the record that the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act is not perfect. It does remain a high priority for the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the department is taking multiple steps right now to improve it.

The goal is to provide for the conservation of Western Joshua trees so permanent listing under the California Endangered Species Act is not required for the future. I would like to thank the author for accepting the committee amendments, which require the Department of Fish and Wildlife to consider that the fees charged are proportionate to the impact of the project. I think that's reasonable. Affordability is critical. I would also encourage you to continue to work closely with the Department of Fish and Wildlife on your legislation.

With that, I mean, I vote with the amendments. We have a, do we have a motion? Senator Grove moves the bill. The motion here is to pass as amended to appropriations. Oh, we'll give you an opportunity to close again.

That'd be great. Thank you. I just wanna highlight, you know, you know, we don't have all our members here, but Senator Grove just, just arrived.

And I just wanted to highlight that in my opening remarks, before presenting all three bills, I mentioned and read the findings under the, the Fish and Wildlife Commission, in which it stated that according to the scientific evidence that they currently possessed at the time, in 2022, the department did not demonstrate that the population of the species were negatively, negatively trending in a way that would lead the department to believe that the species is likely to be in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future.

The department recommends that the commission find that the recommended action to list the Western Joshua tree as a threatened species was not warranted.

And that was on the commission here in California, ma'am. And then on the federal level, it was also found in, the Federal Register on 03/09/2023. The Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service at the federal level stated that after a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that the listing of the Joshua tree as endangered or threatened species is not warranted. So not only at the state commission level, ma'am, but also at the federal level.

And yet we are succumbing, and all of these water infrastructures, any, any business or any, private residence subject to these fees on something that doesn't, didn't have scientific evidence behind it.

And yet, we've passed the conservation act under a trailer bill without the ability to be vetted or have any, justification for it. So based on all of that, we're trying to mitigate these, these injustices to the local residents in the desert with these three particular bills, ma'am. So with that, thank you, mister chair. Members, you may not have the Western Joshua Tree in your district, but you all have ratepayers who depend on affordable, reliable utility service.

SB 1062 keeps strong protections in place while giving public agencies a, a clear, lawful way to negotiate project-specific conditions that make their services affordable and more predictable.

And with that, you know, just trying to make, mitigate the injustices to the folks on something that was not vetted and placed into law. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Good. Well, you restated some stuff for Senator Grove. I won't restate all my points, but, you know, they did not advance it for candidacy based on the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act. I think they are taking feedback and, and input, but we, again, we understand your passion to take action now given the impact on your constituents.

I'm going to have an aye vote. The recommendation, the motion from Senator Grove is to pass as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Would you like to present your final bill, SB 1063?

Yes, sir. And once again, considering the fact that, you know, I was appalled to learn of these issues that happened in the district that I've inherited as of 2024, in which we find these injustices, people having to pay all of these fees, prohibited fees.

So having said that, having made that case, I'm pleased to present SB 1063, which aims to ensure that no Californian is left without basic utilities or a safe, habitable home because of a permitting delay under the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act.

It creates a narrow, expedited pathway for projects related to residential electricity, gas, water, sewer, telecom, and wildfire hardening work to move forward without prohibited fees, which once again, for the record, have no scientific basis based on the California commission report or on the federal level, department findings. These are mitigation when a Western Joshua Tree is in the way.

Today, a homeowner who needs to connect to the grid or fix a failing septic system may have to wait weeks, pay significant mitigation fees, and even take responsibility for relocating and maintaining a tree for the rest of its life. In some cases, that has meant families cannot afford to complete basic work to keep their homes safe and functional. SB 1063 allows the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to issue a permit within thirty days without fees.

They're not justifiable technically, or added mitigation when the work is necessary to install or maintain life sustaining services for residents. It's also very important that we look at the underlying evaluation of the Western Joshua Tree and understand the context in which these trees are living.

In its 2022 status review, CDFW acknowledged potential threats to the species such as climate change, development, and wildfire. But the CDFW also found that the Western Joshua Tree is currently widespread and abundant, and that scientific evidence does not show populations negatively trending in a way that would lead the department to believe that the species is likely to be in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout its range in the foreseeable future, quote, unquote.

Using the best available science, state and federal analysis of the Western Joshua Tree found that listing the species as endangered or threatened is not warranted. Understanding that context, it is clear that SB 1063 does not open the door to large scale habitat loss. The bill simply says that in the limited circumstances where a tree stands between a family and access to power, clean water, wastewater service, or fire safety, human health and safety should come first.

With me today, I have Madeleine Lebois, a resident of Yucca Valley, and Chad Mays, on behalf of the town of Yucca Valley, to share their perspectives and answer the questions.

Thank you. Welcome both. You'll be two minutes. Would you like to start?

Good afternoon, chair. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Madeleine Lebois. I'm here today as a resident and a local real estate broker in Yucca Valley. I'm here to speak on behalf of the Morongo Valley communities in support of SB 1063.

The Western Joshua Tree study has had unintended consequences for the property owners, and this bill will help. First, our community wants to protect our trees. We know what we're doing. We've been building and developing alongside these majestic Joshua trees for seventy years plus. They are already everywhere, including a lot of baby trees.

Big and beautiful hardy trees are lining the main commercial highway, even along the sidewalks. I know the community, I mean, personally, not professionally. I raised my children in Yucca Valley, my grandchildren. We love our trees.

Most of us have dozens in our yards. We have had huge issues due to the regulations of the Joshua trees for three years, and we need relief. The fees are outstanding. In Yucca Valley, virtually every existing homeowner has Joshua trees on their property. That means almost every home maintenance or improvement project can suddenly become a regulatory challenge.

Installing a new water line, sewer line, septic system, a well, gas line, electrical, or hardening against wildfire, any of it can trigger fees that run into the tens of thousands of dollars. These are life sustaining services needed for residential properties. Most residents simply can't afford it. Retired people, fixed income people, young families, people just trying to do the right thing.

Buried in paperwork and fees that they never expected or voted for. The fees are unmanageable for most residents. That's not conservation. That's a burden falling hardest on the people least equipped to carry it. This is a big deal.

People are asking for relief. I invite any of you to come visit my neighborhood and understand firsthand more of the financial impact this study has caused to our local community. We need a permit without being charged fees by the state. Thank you, Assemblymember Wallace and State Senator Ochoa Bogh. And we ask the committee for an aye vote today.

Well, thank you, Mister Chair, and senators. My name is Chad Mayes. I represent the town of Yucca Valley, and I'm here today because our residents need your help. I've got a script here. I'm gonna come off the script here, just for the purposes of time.

You know, the town of Yucca Valley is my hometown. It's where I grew up. I was the mayor. I was a council member there. It's great to be able to now be a contract lobbyist, but I can tell you from what you've heard from the Senator, what you've heard from other folks here today, the residents in that town desperately need some help.

They desperately need some relief. The existing single family homeowners, which is a little bit, we're seeing the two bills. If you just give me a little bit of grace to talk about those other two bills, it's really the goal and the focus. We also need some focus as well in regards to providing public works infrastructure. The one line that I have here, and I'm not sure I'll be as articulate, so I'm gonna read this.

But if you just think about this for a little bit, in regards to the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act, a law designed to protect a beloved species has made that species, in the eyes of desperate homeowners, a problem to be solved rather than a treasure to be kept. That is the very definition of an unintended consequence. The Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act, working with the department and others over time, was to try to solve a real problem, but it's not yet perfect.

It's not yet it it definitely needs to be fixed. And so I'm thankful to the committee.

I'm thankful to the opposition as well, because I think they understand this, and we look forward to continuing to work to try to fix this imperfect bill.

Thank you for your work representing that district for many years. Now we will have, anyone else voicing support? Please come forward.

Thank you, chair. For the third time, Tim Worley on behalf of the Community Water Systems Alliance, as well as Palmdale Water District, San Bernardino County Supervisor Don Rowe, San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency, and the Twentynine Palms Water District. We urge your aye vote.

Cassandra Mar with the Town of Apple Valley in support. Thank you.

One more time. Richard Filgas, California Farm Bureau in support. Thank you.

Jennifer Cusack, general manager, Bighorn Desert View Water Agency, and a lifetime Yucca Valley resident in support.

Ben Turner from Axiom Advisors on behalf of California Building Industry Association and the High Desert Water District.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the Mission Springs Water District, also in support. Thank you.

Hello. Ruieta DaSilva, a long time Yucca Valley resident, and on behalf of the Morongo Basin Residents for Reasonable Western Joshua Tree Regulations. Thank you, everyone.

Thank you. Okay. Opposition. Do we have another opposition?

Kim Delfino, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, California Native Plant Society, Center for Biological Diversity, Mojave Desert Land Trust, and the Native American Land Conservancy. These organizations are working on the conservation of the iconic Western Joshua Tree.

And the Joshua tree is threatened with extinction due to a combination of factors. Loss of habitat is certainly one, but also the science shows that this is a tree, or a species, that will disappear due to the impacts of climate change. And the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act was enacted as a way of trying to facilitate avoiding listing and trying to get ahead of what we see as an inevitable decline of the species.

You know, I had an opportunity to talk to Senator Ochoa Bogh last week and I really appreciated the conversation.

I really respect her level of concern around the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act. But we believe that the issues that she's raised, which she's raised some valid issues, can be addressed through the bills that we've already talked about today, but also the existing tools in the act and the administrative processes that are going on right now at the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

SB 1063 would allow for the destruction of Joshua trees for the building of infrastructure, and we've listed through what that infrastructure is for. The definition is actually quite broad, and that is a big concern to us. And it would allow that destruction to happen without any avoidance, minimization, or mitigation, which we think would really upset sort of the design of this act.

And I think the committee analysis does a very good job of sort of walking through and explaining how that would fracture the current framework. The Joshua Tree Act already authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife to delegate permitting authority to cities and counties, particularly for housing, infrastructure, and public works projects, allowing local agencies to issue take permits concurrently with project approvals such as CEQA, which would accelerate timelines. However, none of the local governments have availed themselves of that.

CDFW also is going through a regulatory process. I think anyone else, I will go fairly fast. I don't think anyone's behind me. CDFW also has a regulatory process underway, doing a programmatic EIR for the permitting program, and that is supposed to be finished by the end of the year. And they also have a fee setting adjustment process, which we have testified at, and we expect will be completed by the end of the year, saying that we believe that the fees for single family residents need to be drastically reduced, if not eliminated.

So we believe that there's ongoing processes right now to address these issues. And because of that, we do not believe that this bill, as currently written, we have to continue to oppose it. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Others in opposition? Who else would like to weigh in?

Mercedes Macias, Sierra Club California, in opposition.

Okay. I will take it back to the committee. Any comments? Senator Grove.

Thank you.

I don't have questions, and I questioned Senator Allen on something. Driving over 178 past Lake Isabella, thousands upon thousands of Joshua trees. I give Senator Laird a hard time. I sent the videos to Senator Becker just now. I bet within a two mile radius of driving and videotaping there, you could count over 200,000 Joshua trees. They're everywhere.

All up and down the landscape of high mountain tops. Again, far from the national forest. Driving through there, you'll see sporadic houses that have 25 Joshua trees in their front yard. There's no way somebody could connect to city water and pay the mitigation fees for that. And I appreciate you working with local residents and at least making an effort to make sure that these families that they're out in the desert for a reason.

There's very few jobs out there. And they built their house out there around the Joshua tree. They respected it. I deeply respect what former Assembly Member Chad Mayes said, that, you know, people in that area, they did treasure the Joshua tree. And now it's a burden and a hindrance and a detriment to their lifestyle.

They can't get water deliveries. They can't drive on their driveway. And that's a freedom that we're upending on the people that Miss Ochoa Bogh represents. And where do you live? Can I ask you that question?

I live in Sacramento, but I will say that for my thirty years, I've spent an enormous amount of time down in the desert working on the Salton Sea, the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, Desert Tortoise Conservation. I've spent a, I don't live there, but my husband probably felt like I spent more time there than I did at home.

But when you built your home, or you live in your home now, you didn't have to mitigate hundreds of thousands of dollars for a tree being in your front yard. You were able to connect to city water. I submit to you, Mister Chair, and I know you have no recommendation on this bill, this state is very diverse.

You live in Menlo Park. I had a witness that lived in your district that had a catastrophic event in your district that you supported a bill earlier. And I just bring that up because this district is Senator Ochoa Bogh's district. And she's trying to defend the people that elected her to be here to defend and protect her district.

And with all due respect, I don't think someone from Menlo Park should tell her that she doesn't have the ability to do that in her bill that she's presenting, which is based on the constituents that elected her to do her job to defend her district.

Now, you don't have a lot of Joshua trees in Menlo Park, but we have hundreds of thousands of them in this area, in the Yucca Valley area. And I'm not saying, I've been to the Joshua Tree National Forest. It's gorgeous. It's beautiful. We would fight to, just alongside all of you, to preserve that.

But having these Joshua trees everywhere, and if you watch those videos, you'll see how many Joshua trees there are just on a two mile drive. And they're all over the Yucca Valley area. They're all over, I mean, they're everywhere. And as soon as one of those seedlings drops, they sprout. So you might have one in your yard when you build your house, and by the time two or three years goes by, you might have fifteen or sixteen.

Because the wind blows and puts those seedlings down, and now we're having to mitigate, pay to have them removed, pay to relocate them, pray to observe them and make sure that they're not dead.

If they are dead, you have to pay somebody to go out there and keep telling you they're dead for the next year, and it costs money for a scientist to do that. And to put parameters on individuals who are just trying to live their life, and live in their home, and be represented by an incredible woman sitting before you to defend her district, is crazy that we don't take that into consideration that this is a district bill, and it's not affecting the national forest.

Well, I will remind you that

Move the bill.

We did just vote on two bills forward on this topic focused on homeowners, and, you know, fortunately, this is a committee vote, so I don't alone get to decide. Everybody gets to weigh in here. So any other comments, Senator Allen?

I'd love to just ask the opposition witness for a response, because, I mean, she's been talking to us quite a bit about her sense of onerous rules associated with Joshua trees. Yeah, Senator Grove, my colleague, because Senator Grove also represents areas that have a lot of Joshua trees. I'd love to get your thoughts on how we should be balancing these kinds of residents' concerns with the concerns that you've raised.

She doesn't work there.

So, let me

Just because she hasn't lived there, doesn't it? I mean, like, you guys have the Coastal Act, which impacts the coast, and yet everyone gets to vote on that. So okay. Well yeah. Anyhow.

Well, thank you for the question. As I already said, I will admit the implementation of the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act, it's been a little rocky for sure. Part of the problem is that, when we wrote, and let me also be clear, I was not part of the drafting of that act. It was a trailer bill that was enacted. But the act itself has a certain issue in that when we charge the Department of Fish and Wildlife to implement that act, we provided no fees and funding to implement that act.

And that has created an issue because basically, the people that work in the Department of Fish and Wildlife down in Region 4 and Region 6 are having to take on an additional responsibility on top of all the other things that we ask them to do. And so, yes, that I think has been complicating.

So the lack of our funding is required to

Yes. We're not staffing the implementation properly. The other issue is that we are asking local governments to delegate, and we're asking them to take on this authority, but yet there's no funding that's been made available to them to help alleviate whatever the cost pressure would be on them. I would agree that that's an issue. The fees as they were set, I think that it was well intentioned.

It has not played out the way I think people intended it to, and because the Department of Fish and Wildlife is going through the fee adjustment process, which we desperately do need to have completed, they are statutorily required to have that done by the end of the year, and we have testified in the public hearing or public meeting that they've had so far, and we will continue to tell the department this.

We think they should be reducing the fees for single family residences, for sewer hookups, for the very issues that the senators raised here. We just think it makes sense.

Well, they're going through the process now. They will complete it at the end of the year. The way that this, if this bill becomes law, or, you know, the fee issue becomes law, they would, it would require the department to start over again. So we believe that this is being dealt with administratively.

And then with respect to the permitting, since the local governments don't want to take on the permitting responsibility, the department has started the programmatic EIR process, and they've issued a notice of preparation. They're going through the process. We believe that when that's done, it'll create a streamlined permitting process for the types of projects that we've been talking about here today. And then so we just think that those are issues that will get addressed. And, you know, the act was enacted in 2023.

It started in 2023 or 2022. I can't remember. Was it '22? We're only a few years in on a brand new and novel approach on how to do this. I think that it has had growing pains, and people are trying to adjust and fix the issues.

We just think the flexibility to fix these issues already existing in the act and with these administrative processes.

I guess my, so my question, I suppose, maybe I direct this to both you, Kim, and also the chair. You know, if we're gonna follow the chair's recommendation to oppose this bill, and I take the chair's point, we just, we're supporting the first two bills on this topic, which provides some relief to residents on this with regards to Joshua Tree. You know, what is the plan?

What do we need to do collectively to make sure there's better funding, so as to, you know, both offset the cost of some of these fees and get better staffing? Is there a work in progress on this that we need to get behind more aggressively?

Because that would seem really dissatisfying to be kind of passing on our lack of investment and focus on this issue onto the homeowners.

Would you see opportunity I mean, it seems like there's opportunity for us to work together, again, with the senators.

Other bills in the assembly as well, coming over here as well, also on this topic, but in addition to the work that's been going on right now at CDFW as well. Right.

But I will say that there is another opportunity through the budget process. I mean, on May 7, the sub budget sub two will hear the issue of open positions that are slated to be reduced at the Department of Fish and Wildlife, including positions in Region 4 and Region 6. And the loss of those positions does have an impact on all of the work that they have to do in those regions, including the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act.

So I would say that, you know, when the Senate and the legislature works on the budget and they consider whether or not to eliminate those open positions at the Department of Fish and Wildlife, it's 164 positions.

That, you know, this is something they think about when making that decision. Because when you eliminate those positions, you are basically saying, well, you have to do all of the work with the existing people you have, and we're not gonna be helping you out.

And they're basically then, so so then her residents are kinda left stuck. Yeah. That's really dissatisfying. I mean, look, I'm happy to stand with the chair on this bill, but I do think that we all have to, if, you know, commit ourselves to addressing this budget issue over there. And it sounds like there's actually common ground, and I think we have to figure out a way to do it meaningfully so as to provide some relief to these residents.

Okay. Thank you. With that, would you like to close? I have a question.

Senator Grove, one one more quick question.

So I was looking online. The tree fees for mitigation or removing a tree is $150 to $2,526.09 at the highest. And with higher numbers for every inch after the five meters that are acceptable under the $2,609. Most of the trees in that area are in the one to five meter, like one meter to five meters. Because some of them are pretty tall. Some of them are over five meters, which is a higher price.

Let's take the middle ground, $521 to $1,075 per tree that's removed for these houses. Where does that money go?

Any of the fees collected, they go into a fund at the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and that money is supposed to be used to pay for land acquisition.

So the residents of Senator Ochoa Bogh's district are fully funding the entire land acquisition, because all of these trees are in her district.

So, I don't exactly know how it all breaks out, but any project that is taking trees has to pay fees into that fund. So it could be a large solar project. It could be a single family residence. It all goes into that fund. And then the Department of Fish and Wildlife is supposed to be going out and acquiring lands for mitigation, for the collective take of all those trees.

And the idea is that with the conservation plan, they are supposed to be identifying some of the highest value areas. And the sum of the parts is greater than the individual, so that they would be, instead of piecemealing the mitigation, they would be maybe buying larger chunks of land. The first and only acquisition they've done so far, which is an issue that we've raised with this bill, or the act.

There was a 100 acres in conjunction with the Native American Land Conservancy.

I understand what you're trying to do, but I'm trying to explain to you, and you just basically admitted to it, to make the point, is that Sacramento County doesn't pay for the mitigation. Sacramento County doesn't pay into Fish and Wildlife to acquire land for acquisition. There's very little in Kern County, there's none in Tulare County, there's none in Fresno County.

No one other than Miss Ochoa Bogh's district residents. And it's an unfair tax on the residents that live in that district that are funding the mitigation in order to hook up to city water.

So this is why I don't think we're disagreeing, in that we're saying we think those fees should be dropped or eliminated.

There's one cement plant there that provided all the cement to SoFi Stadium. How do you plan to build SoFi Stadiums and other infrastructure projects like high speed rail when all the cement comes from this one plant who can't stay in business because they don't have the money to mitigate the mold.

Let's give that witness a chance to answer.

What I'm saying is that it doesn't affect you, and it doesn't affect the rest of the state. It affects her district, and we're paying for it. Our constituents are funding this entire project for the state of California, and it's not right.

Well, the entire state funds DFW's budget, but would you like to respond?

Well, I, what I would, let me just say that, again, I appreciate the issues that have been raised, and I think we are working very hard to try to find solutions that are alleviating the impacts to folks that are, I think, perhaps disproportionately bearing them, particularly single family residences. I mean, we really do understand that issue.

Large projects is a different issue, but even with that, I think that, you know, this is going to be an issue that gets revisited with the fee adjustment. Can we more equitably design the fees that are being imposed? And I think that this is a good thing that the act was written to allow us to do that right now.

Okay. With that, would you like to close?

Certainly. Thank you, Senator. My third close.

I just want to reiterate, for, you know, for Senator Allen, that did not come here. You know, we're subjecting my constituents to fees on something that both the commission on Fish and Game Commission stated that there was no evidence to support that this was a threatened species. The commission said it wasn't.

The Federal Government stated in the federal register, the Department of Interior, that after thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that the listing of Joshua trees as endangered or threatened species is not warranted. And yet, the legislature passes the Conservation Act through the budget trailer bill with no vetting being completed, just passes it on there as an endangered species.

There is no scientific evidence for that. And yet, my residents are responsible to pay all of these mitigation fees, whether they're small or large. They're subject to something that has no scientific foundation behind it. There's nothing. Nothing behind it.

There's nothing that actually allows it for them to be able to justify the fact that they're being subjected to these fees. How can we, right now, the legislature, the committee, has the opportunity to remedy a great injustice to the people of Senate District 19 of the Desert. I'm hoping that, you know, the chair, the members here will reconsider the no recommendation on this and understand that there is absolutely no basis for this.

We're subjecting these people on something that is baseless, based on a budget trailer bill with no scientific evidence behind it. And I just want to note for the record that I am not, I love nature.

I'm an empath. I find healing in nature. I am carrying a bill to designate the monarch butterfly as the state butterfly here. I am very much pro nature, but I do think that this is a great injustice, and all we are trying to do is, SB 1063 is incredibly narrow. It just creates a pathway for families to secure basic life sustaining services without being priced out of the state.

I just want to reiterate that the CDFW's own science says that the species is widespread and abundant and that the listening was not warranted to begin with.

Within that context, this bill keeps the broader conservation framework intact, but makes it clear that as lawmakers, we value the health, safety, and quality of life of all Californians.

You may not see this exact situation in your districts, but my hope is that your vote reflects how you would stand up for your own constituents if their basic needs and access to services were on the line. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote, sir.

Okay. Well, I appreciate it, and understand your passion. Just, you know, we've, the three bills, because we're at three closes, so some of the same stuff is getting a little repetitive. But I appreciate that. You understand, you and I have spent a considerable amount of time on this, meeting on this, have we not?

So I just do wanna say, Senator Grove, because I know we have joshing, you know, as we say between here. I remember when you were saying in some of our previous things that we had no cows in my district, and then we pointed out that we had thousands of cows in my district, and you were kind enough to acknowledge that on the floor of the Senate here.

But listen, we do all have to weigh in on all these bills.

Again, I supported two of these bills with amendments. I cannot support this bill today because we found that, in consultation with the committee staff, that this was just too broad. You know, the definitions were incredibly broad in this bill. That's why we'll not be supporting this one today. But I think, as we've discussed, this will be a discussion point throughout the rest of this year with the legislature.

I've also spent, in addition to you, a lot of time with Assembly Member Wallace, who will have other bills on this as well, and Assembly Member Carrillo. So I think we are trying to find the right balance, and I do understand, you know, the feelings of the district. We want people to be advocates for this species and not feel like this is a burden. So, with that, do we have a motion?

Yes. I'll send it approval.

Okay. So the the motion would be to pass the appropriations. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. So that is no, one to two, and we'll keep that one open. Thank you. Okay. Senator Allen, would you like to present your bill?

We have you up for SB 1318.

Yes.

Very wonderful to share.

Alright.

Good evening.

Enormous housing challenges, in our coastal communities. Rents are rising. Vacancy rates are extremely low. Working families are increasingly being priced out. Folks are being priced out.

So this bill, addresses a fundamental mismatch that exists between current coastal policy and today's rental, kind of today's housing reality. So when the Coastal Act was adopted, the rapid growth of short term rentals simply wasn't contemplated. This was in the late you know, very, very different time, long before these online tools for short term rentals. And that market, of course, has now expanded to a scale and scope that was really starting to directly reshape coastal housing supply.

And we've seen in many coastal communities even a small number of homes being converted into short term rentals, that can then have a real outsized impact on the community.

These are some of the tightest housing markets in the state. When its units are removed from the long term rental market, it drives up rents. It reduces options for local residents. And, at the same time, the idea that short term rentals provide affordable coastal access really doesn't reflect reality. Many of these units are high cost homes serving the higher income visitors, often priced at levels comparable to hotels, the fancy hotels, really out of reach for our average Californian.

So in practice, they're they're simply, you know, not functioning as a meaningful affordable access tool. What they are doing, however, is reshaping the balance between housing and visitor serving uses in so many of our coastal communities. So homes that could be supporting local workforce housing are increasingly used for short term stays because that's more profitable. This is now contributing to longer commutes, workforce shortages, increased pressure on inland communities. It's also leading to a decline in full time residents and community stability over time.

So this bill seeks to establish a clear framework as to how unhosted short term rentals should be considered along California's coast, specific to to to giving local communities some additional rights associated with the regulation of, these, these unhosted short term rentals, as long as they're meeting certain standards associated with visitor serving use and housing needs. The challenge, of course, is that without this guidance, short term rentals will continue to drive rents higher, strain housing markets, displace lower income residents that support coastal communities.

With me to support this bill, we have Juan Munoz, who's political coordinator with the Unite Here Local 11, also Silvia Solis Shaw from the City of Santa Monica. Great.

Thank you, sir.

Just to confirm, so the amendments, though I think author amendments, are your amendments.

Yes, yes. We are we're taking them, and we've done it in in close Right. coordination and cooperation with the committee.

Okay. Go ahead.

Great. Good afternoon, Chair Becker and Vice Chair Cejudo and members of the committee. My name is Juan Munoz, and I'm here on behalf of Unite Here Local Eleven. Our union represents hospitality workers across Coastal California. These are the workers who sustain the coastal economy, but too many cannot afford to live near where they work.

We appreciate the Coastal Commission's long standing role in protecting access and balancing competing priorities. SB 1318 builds on that mission by addressing a growing challenge, the loss of long term housing due to unhosted short term rentals. There's growing consen consensus supported by research and local experience that unhosted STRs are not reliably providing low cost accommodations and are contributing to housing pressures. We've met with environmental partners and took their concerns seriously resulting in amend in amendments to this bill.

We are committing to, continuing to work together, but what we are hearing clearly is that there is no consistent framework for local communities today on this topic.

Santa Monica shows a problem. The city adopted one of the strongest STR laws in the state, but has not been enforced in the coastal zone because it lacks an approved permit. That means strong local policies are effectively on hold due to uncertainty. This bill provides that necessary clarity. It does not mandate bans.

It does not affect hosted home sharing. It simply affirms that when a local government restricts unhosted STRs, that decision can stand. Importantly, the idea that these units provide affordable access is not supported by the data. Less than 10% of an unhosted coastal STRs qualify as low cost, and they are contributing to rising rents and displacement. This is also a workforce issue.

Coastal economies rely on workers in hospitality, retail, and other industries. When housing is converted into tourist use, those workers are pushed farther away or forced out entirely. A coastal economy cannot function if the people who sustain it cannot afford to live there. SB 1318 draws a clear line. Housing should first serve the people who live and work in our communities while still preserving access to the coast.

We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Silvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the city of Santa Monica. Santa Monica is known for its beaches with miles of white sand, which draw millions of visitors every year. For decades, the city has worked hard to enhance and protect our beach by reducing plastic pollution, improving water quality, and creating more recreational opportunities. We also have projects underway to address coastal sea level rise and flooding.

We take our, responsibility as a coastal steward very seriously. At the same time, Santa Monica has also long supported efforts to increase and protect affordable housing in the city. Currently, the city authorizes a form of short term rentals known as home sharing, wherein a resident is free to host visitors for compensation for a period of less than thirty one days as long as the resident and visitor are both present in the home.

We believe this strikes a balance, an important balance, by enabling current and prospective residents to supplement their income through home sharing while ensuring that the city's housing units, particularly affordable multifamily housing stock, has not converted into de facto hotels leading to tenant displacement. For these reasons, we are pleased to support SB 1318.

Thank you. To the others in support.

Good evening, chair and members. Connor Gusman on behalf of Unite Here International Union in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Do we have any, lead opposition witnesses?

Good evening, mister chair and members. Camille Wagner representing Airbnb. SB 1318 would require the California Coastal Commission to automatically approve coastal development permits and local coastal programs that restrict unhosted short term rentals along the coast, effectively removing the commission's ability to act as a check on local government that wanna eliminate affordable overnight accommodations. Further, the bill would prohibit the commission from considering the full range of existing visitor serving accommodations within the coastal zone.

This approach contradicts one of the central tenants of the coastal act, maximizing public access to the coast for all Californians.

Local agencies do not need further help in severely restricting short term rentals in the coastal zone. In the last three months alone, the coastal commission has approved four different LCPs submitted by local governments. Every single one of these LCPs was also either submitted as approved or amended to increase restrictions. These cities and counties also happen to be locations that have seen sharp decreases in the number of budget and economy hotels over the years.

In fact, in 2024, the commission itself noted that 70% of all coastal hotel rooms eliminated between 1989 and 2016 were economy rooms.

Despite this, the commission has continued to approve these LCPs, both as proposed and in an amended form, but still with very restrictive regulations in place. Also, the assumption that a reduction in short term rentals will produce more housing, availability, and affordability is a fallacy. In the places where short term rentals exist on the coast, they usually make up less than 1% of the overall housing stock. Several cities along the coast already have primary residency requirements in place.

Meaning, if you ban short term rentals where the host isn't present during the stay, all you're all you're doing is limiting the ability to make for them to make extra money.

That host will still reside at that property. Third and most concerning is the bill's attempt to disregard the availability of lower cost accommodations, particularly at a time when cost for all goods and services in the state has increased. Consider this: 60% of all visitors to the coast are Californians, not national or international visitors, but Californians. So when you're deciding whether to cut off access to overnight accommodations as this bill does

should wrap up.

Okay. Thank you. I respectfully urge your no vote in order to keep the coast accessible to all Californians.

Okay. Anyone else in opposition? We do have a few folks making their way.

Good after or good evening, I guess, at this point. Kim Delfino on behalf of the California Coastal Protection Network, with an opposing unless amended position. We agree with the author that the presence of, unposted short term rentals in some communities has a significant and adverse impact on housing supply in the coastal zone, and we're very grateful that he's raising the issue.

However, we cannot support removing the Coastal Commission's discretionary authority to approve or deny amendments or permits, and we look forward to continuing to work on the bill.

Okay.

Alright. Mister chair and senators, Coby Pizzotti with the California Association of Realtors, who respectfully we are in opposition as well.

Good evening, chair Becker and members. John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce. Opposition.

Good evening. Alyssa Stinson with Expedia Group in opposition. Thank you.

Good evening. Caitlin Johnson with political solutions on behalf of California Travel Association in opposition. Thank you.

Pat Joyce on behalf of the Bay Area Leadership Council who was unable to be here. Thank you.

Alright. Let's take it back to members. Any comments?

Vice chair, go ahead. Thank you. I had I think one of the last acts I had is when I was mayor of Murrieta was dealing with short term rentals, and it is definitely a local community local agencies have the power to do what they need to do, to regulate, the short term rentals according to what the issues are in their communities. Coastal communities have more of a really a real vacation rental market.

Cities that are inland had more of a party pad type of environment going on, and so we had to mold a policy that worked for us.

I would like us to get out of the business of telling everybody what to do with their property beyond, some of the basics.

You know, with the short term rentals, there's some, you know, there's some business, regulatory, stuff that needs to be adhered to, But we just keep going down this path of of trying to restrict people's ability to to have a house where they might not have been able to afford it because they use the income from their Airbnb to be able to to make that payment.

And and and also in some cases where, you know, they can't live there anymore, enables them to keep the property in the family. And, so, I don't think every solution that the state comes with, needs to impose its will on, private property owners. When you're telling private property owners what they can do with their property, I think we need to tread very carefully.

And what I'm seeing here is

But you guys this this is this is about local ordinances. It's not the state imposing an ordinance on on these folks. Right.

And that's that's what a local ordinance then why are we here? Why are we doing a bill? Local ordinances local agencies can already do that.

No. That's the problem. That's exact thank you for asking the question. The problem we have is that the way that the Coastal Act is framed, the Coastal Act feels that they have to, they have to, almost exclusively prioritize visitor serving accommodations over anything else, including housing needs in the area.

And so all we're asking for here is in in the amendments and I wanna just make sure that because there was a comment and said that made that the this forces the coastal act the coastal commission to accept any ordinance that restricts certain that's not true.

If you look at the amendments that we're taking on page eight, it says that it that the commission should approve a local ordinance if it makes fine if, the commission determines that the that this ordinance strikes a reasonable balance between local housing needs and public access to the coast. So it gives the commission the discretion to take to look at a local ordinance and say, hey, is this reasonable?

Is this is this gone too far against property rights and and visitor serving? The problem is right now, they have to on the side of visitor serving such that they are have been denying, or jamming up local ordinances that seek to strike a balance between all of these local needs that exist with regards to these short term rentals.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Other questions or comments? Senator Stern. Sure.

Thank you, Senator Allen, for the clarification. You always do a lot of homework on your bill. So, look, I get the the challenges that places like Santa Monica are facing and used to represent a lot of the coast.

Now I live in Van Nuys, and that's, I guess, my struggle with this is, you know, is there anything that gets in the way of and maybe it's just a selfish interest on my part, but when we're looking this summer at how to go to the beach, not just for a day trip because it takes an hour and a half to get there sometimes, but just to go there and to find somewhere, it is darn near impossible.

Aye, I don't have the same antipathy, I guess, for Airbnb that I maybe once did, living, you know, in Malibu.

And so, you know, now that I'm on sort of the other side of the coin, I'm I'm using Airbnb quite a bit to get out of the valley on hot days and and get somewhere where my kids can, you know, enjoy themselves. So I appreciate the immense day. I'm still trying to figure out what to do.

I do think you've you've moved, I think it's much more accommodating and maybe, you know, a little little less heavy handed maybe than when it first came in.

Yeah.

I know that it's still a work in progress here, but I'll let the conversation play out.

I'm just I'm still sensitive to this idea of access, and I appreciate I mean, there's these sort of overlying factors of of RHNA and things like that that also are driving a lot of strange pressures where we think that somehow in super, super expensive areas that somehow they should be and and especially in fire areas like Malibu, that somehow they should be hitting their RHNA targets and that there's no way they could pay for any other housing right over the hill where actually we have a lot of room for growth.

Somehow we have to squeeze all that housing in there. So it's putting cities and local governments I get in a in a very tricky position. So, that that's just my challenge here.

I think we're trying to solve one piece of it, but we're sort of leaving all those other structural pressures. So I get where local governments are coming from on all this, but, yeah, maybe I'm just in a self interested mode as just a normal dad now trying to get to the beach. But, yeah, anyway, I'll let the conversation play out. But I appreciate your work. I think you've you have improved the bill, and I appreciate the the committee's amendments on this.

Alright. Thank you.

Go ahead, mister Cabaldon. Go ahead.

Thank you, mister chair. So I'm basically in the same exact place. My district is not on the coast. It's a little closer than the vice chairs. And but I grew up on the coast in Senator Allen's district and I understand both.

And and I do I was not supportive of the bill in this first form for the reasons that have been said and this does go a substantial way in that direction. It this form is still to me is not is not enough in terms of the balance and the standards and all of that.

I like the first sentence of the amendments, which is the it's the intent of the legislature to provide guidance and all of that, but then we don't really provide much, actually. We're like, well, hey. The local jurisdiction said it it's necessary for housing needs.

That's a very broad statement. I think the like, the language that the commission has been using for the last ten years around the criteria that it's that it's using to make that evaluation useful. If the jurisdiction is meeting one of its RHNA categories or it's a pro housing city, so, like, where they're also demonstrating they were actually doing something about this too. We're not we're not hiding behind the housing question.

So I'm not proposing any specific thing, but just to say it it seems like there this is absolutely the right direction, but it's I it feels like there needs to be more refinement, more accountability, you know, a a bit more here so that we're not providing that pass because those two things are the access to the coast is the fundamental.

The Coastal Act passed by the a larger margin than Prop 36 Yeah. And we we need to make we need to give it life.

Yeah. Absolutely. And look, I so the challenges on that so on page four of your analysis, it refers to, the the public resource code 30222, which prioritizes the use of private land suitable for visitor serving commercial recreational facilities designated to enhance public opportunity for coastal restoration over private residential.

And so what we're trying to do here is to allow to basically allow this the Coastal Commission, which is entrusted with the with the preservation of the Coastal Act, and of course, they are all very committed to public access to the coast. I mean, that is a core principle everybody goes on to the Coastal Commission.

But to allow them to do a little bit more of a balance, kind of a weighing of the various factors when considering a plan from a local community that's trying to grapple with these challenges. And that's all, that's all, that's what the bill is allowing for. That's what the bill seeks to do. You know, to allow the Coastal Commission to grapple. Now, I understand we probably ought to give more guidance and I welcome everybody's participation in that.

Now, as you all know, it gets incredibly tricky.

The more the more you know, the more prescriptive we are, the harder it will be to to control basically, we're not we're not trusting these commissioners with with striking that balance, and it can get us and part part of what we're in the situation we're in right now is that we've weighted the balance so so much that the coastal commission has found that the pretty reasonable ordinances that are sent up to them are getting struck down because they are not allowed to incorporate these other factors.

You know, so that's the challenge that I'm trying to I'm seeking to address here. And and it is tricky. And if folks have suggestions or ideas, I'm certainly welcome I would certainly welcome them.

Yeah. I think I appreciate that. You know, I think it is a real issue and a real problem and the and the like, getting where the needle is is kind of the point. And I guess just to spitball, I mean, the like local local needs and access to the coast, they're not exactly equivalent, in at least unless we were to specify more what local housing needs meant because that's also in the either the beholder.

So I don't know if I would if I would make them make the Coastal Commission feel like the legislature has said, on the one hand this, on the other hand this, like, you weigh them equally.

But also, like, what is the only thing that this jurisdiction doing to meet its local housing needs banning short term rentals, or, like, are they so it's not just is the need, but does the local, does the local jurisdiction is it doing something about acting

And one of the challenges in Santa Monica, remember, it's not banning offshore terminals. It's it's the unhosted. Yeah. Right? And a lot of places have remember, that's not it doesn't mean you're living down the hall from the from the owner.

Right? They're they're unhosted hosted includes an ADU, a a side entrance, a totally separate apartment. All of that is considered hosted, for the purposes of this.

And in the case of of the Santa Monica Ordinance, for example, they've actually, you know, provided for they've been very careful to ensure that there is a really robust number of properties that are available for short term rental under their ordinance, that will actually be on the market if their ordinance is allowed to go through, because they wanna make sure that this is you know, they're meeting their, you know, the the the spirit of the Coastal Act, while also making sure that we're not really screwing up the housing market in the community.

And so that was a careful consideration in the development of their plan.

And again, I just think that ought to be taken into consideration. I that we ought to allow the Coastal Commission to take that into consideration, when determining whether to approve or disapprove of an ordinance like this coming up from a local community. It's actually trying. And this is a pro housing city. I mean, the city has endorsed, you know, the city council voted for, you know, endorsed SB 79.

I mean, you know, so this is not as though these are folks that are, you know, trying to restrict they really do care about, about housing production and so we're just trying to figure out a path for communities like this that want to do right by both their visitor serving function and also their responsibilities to their broader responsibilities.

I will say, you know, with the rules as they are, as you point out, Senator Stern, it's still incredibly expensive and difficult to get it's it's not as though the status quo is providing a lot of low cost accommodation for, you know so, you know, I just think that if a city comes forward with a really thoughtful plan that actually does provide for a lot of access to short term rentals, albeit hosted, that that also make sure that they're not getting hollowed out.

We ought to give that some consideration.

I'll just and then I'll stop. Mister I agree with you. I think I it's hard to write a statewide law that assumes everybody is like Santa Monica on this stuff.

So the the Santa Monica ordinance, the Santa Monica Santa Monica's other work on housing is makes the case, which is why I said, you know, if if this is only applied to pro housing cities or somebody that's doing something on the problem because I think the challenge is virtually every jurisdiction in the coastal zone is gonna be able to justifiably say we have local housing needs. Like that that's that's almost almost by definition.

So it's it's it's really I agree with the commission should have all that discretion to be able to evaluate is this is this ordinance properly balanced? Does it do all the you know, does it is are they doing are they tackling their housing challenge? Is short term rentals part of it? But just, you know, local housing needs is a very broad statement.

So I'm ,that's I think you're you've gone a long way here, but it feels like that, with Santa Monica in mind, but, like, how do we recognize the Santa Monica in the wild, in the rest of the coastal zone in the rest of the coastal zone that we can give some some nod to the commission, give them all the discretion that they should have in order to effectuate the Coastal Act, but that does not that that seems like if there's local housing needs that's, you know, treated equivalent and which there are in every single place, that that's treated as more or less equivalent to the

Yeah. I'd be happy to to turn to wordsmiths with these Senator. I mean, because I hear you. I hear you and I agree with you. You know, I so, yeah.

The beauty of this is that I think that the beauty of the hosted is that it both helps the housing and it also helps on affordability, for because actually the Coastal Act is, with so much respect, it's less about you and me getting to get to the coast. You know, it's about making sure that, like, a lot of people that are the average income in the state is significantly lower than our not particularly high income. Right?

So, you know, it's about working people getting to the coast. And one of the beauties of really emphasizing a hosted approach to this is that tends to be lower cost, for for people.

But I'd, you know, I'd welcome I mean, I love this dialogue, and I'd love to you know, we got some smart people here at the committee. I'd love to work with you to hone this in a way that will be wise.

Okay. Senator Laird. I'm

at this unbelievable disadvantage of having been out of the room for most of the debate. And that's just painful because this is the one I was looking forward to as somebody that represents almost 25% of the California's Coast and spent eight years as an ex-official member of the Coastal Commission and represents local governments that have been grappling with this issue in major ways. And in Airbnb. Yeah.

Well, if you if you if you look at well, first, on one side, and and I don't know to the extent this has been talked about, one of the big issues is trying to make sure you don't create Swiss cheese out of the Coastal Act.

And when when Scott Wiener had his bill a year ago to just start legislating what was in the coastal zone in his district, that's what it was at that point. And I immediately had people in very wealthy areas of my district say, oh, he's doing that. Let's get added to that. And it was like, no. Because it doesn't have meaning unless it's coherent and and in the whole.

And so there's that structurally, but on point, and I'm sitting here looking at Senator Caballero, who used to represent a bunch of Monterey County, and now I represent all of Monterey County. They really grappled with this issue. And if you were on the Peninsula, one of the wealthiest and most expensive housing markets in The United States, because they've been derelict on water over time, essentially, you cannot build a new unit of housing right now.

And and we have been trying to rearrange the water order in the Carmel River just to allow a 200 unit affordable housing project in Monterey. We can't do it yet with the state.

So here you are where you cannot build essentially new housing so that any non hosted or hosted one of these is actually reducing the housing stock in the area. It's reducing it. It's not just sort of and that is a problem. And so they really grappled with this. They did it a number of years.

They couldn't totally figure it out. And finally, they did. Even though it wasn't unanimous. I think it might have been even three to two. They adopted an ordinance that went to the Coastal Commission.

And even though I couldn't watch, I heard anecdotally that the county supervisor that represented the district most affected went to the Coastal Commission and felt like she had to fight the battle all over again. Even though they upheld it and they upheld it with a fairly strong vote in the end, She felt in her talking to me, she felt like it was at risk at certain times in that debate.

And so you have all these conflicting values, which is it's taking housing out of stock in certain places where where, boy, there is much more needed. You don't wanna override the Coastal Commission's authority or after a while, it's just the legislature doing that. Right.

But at the same time, when there is a genuine ordinance that has been adopted, that has been worked through, and has been compromised in many, many ways, it deserves some credit at the Coastal Commission. Right. And so I think that's the nub about this whole bill. Some of the there is not a center space in the Venn diagram between some of those values. And so how do you figure this out?

And so, you know, your amendments that I saw earlier get a lot closer to it. Yeah. But it's still there's a certain amount of coastal commission overriding and there's you you know, and there's still and you have the problem that we all have in doing legislation, which is the the situation in the Monterey Peninsula is not the same in Santa Monica, not the same we're trying to do this law that applies to everybody.

And so, you know, on one level, I sort of think you're moving in the right direction, and I wanna give you a chance. On another level, I wonder if you actually can resolve some of these issues at any point in the process.

Is there a way that the Coastal Act is not overridden to the extent that it becomes a little meaningless. And I and I have to say, as much as I am a Coastal Commission supporter, there are times that the access the goal of access seems to be in conflict with managing resources. I mean, Big Sur is the perfect example. Whenever the highway for twelve months is actually goes through, 4,000,000 people pass through. There's not restrooms for 60 miles.

There's all these different things and you cannot manage the resource of all these people and yet and now Bixby Bridge is a safety hazard. Somebody was killed there last year because it's a 50 mile an hour speed limit to a place where all these people are parking and just spontaneously walking across the highway, and it's sort of like, oh, we're for access. But access was some sort of balance of safety and managing the resource and other things.

And and yet, should that be done through the Coastal Act? Or should we nickel and dime it in the legislation that comes to us here?

All that rolls up into your bill. And that's the challenge here Right. Is is how do we meet those goals in a way that we hope it's not mutually exclusive with the others?

I mean, the I think as you know, right, and we spoke about this, the MELO act explicitly took consideration of housing or the ability of the coastal commission to impose housing requirements, stripped the commission from you know, with that with that power.

And it's now the imbalance has now swung in the other direction, such that the law explicitly states, and it's section 30222, which is on page four of your analysis, that says that the commission has to, it has to prioritize and favor visitor serving over any other need except interestingly for agriculture or coastal dependent industry, but certainly explicitly mentions over private residential development.

So it's created the situation where if a city comes forward with a very thoughtful, you know, plan that, you know, that that really strikes a wise balance, it sounds like something similar to what you're, you know, you know, what we have in various communities, it's really made it difficult for the commission to feel comfortable approving these plans even if they feel as though they're wise they they strike a wise balance.

And it's why we've crafted this not to create Swiss cheese, but just to literally if you look at the amendments on page eight, it's all about giving these people that we've entrusted with upholding and protecting the Coastal Act a little bit of discretion to to look at the totality of the circumstances and say, okay, does this strike a does this strike a good balance?

You know, we are committed to the coastal act and the visitor serving public access, component to this, but we also recognize there are other factors at play, and is this a wise and well balanced plan that's coming up to us from the city? Now again, if you wanna if you know, I'm so open.

I don't think any of us are wedded to this particular wording if there's ways if there are ways to frame this section at the bottom of page eight of the analysis, you know, in a way that will be more careful or, you know, smart. I mean, I'm so happy to get your input.

I mean, you know, the folks on this committee, I mean, you've served in the cabinet and and on these topics and and represent this area and and I think know the Coastal Act incredibly well.

So, we're just trying to address the input the impacts, you know, where the where the Melo Act basically, you know, the Melo Act without making other changes created this a new imbalance in the act that has led to some skewed outcomes. And we're trying to right the balance a bit in a way that really respects the Coastal Act the Coastal Commission's discretion.

Well, you see, I was concerned about the places where you would be too prescriptive and the tough thing about that is is is actually if you look at the part of the coast that's much closer to where I live, they did it legislatively and years ago. It's it's already been seven or eight years, and yet one of the places that was most impacted with high impact rentals right along the coast was next to one of the few more affordable housing places.

And believe me, affordable by not a standard even you and I, but affordable relatively there. And and so what was happening is it was moving into the residential neighborhoods in the place that had been affordable and it was sort of driving out Right. Some of the affordability of the existing housing stock by how that was happening.

We take a look at how we have it phrased at the bottom of page eight, and, you know, we we were really trying to allow for

Well, I was initially concerned because I read it wrong, when I've well, I didn't I had nothing to read for the longest time. I heard about it wrong. And that was in part that I thought it was really dictating to the Coastal Commission what to do.

And as somebody that has authored the bill that requires the local coastal plans to do sea level rise planning, I didn't want an overall coastal plan to be required to be approved when maybe that wasn't together, and you wanted to make sure that people looked at it and made sure that that was adequate.

I think it was our I mean, arguably, that was how the bill was originally it was it was more prescriptive and stringent. We worked intensely with the committee and stakeholders and others to come up with language to provide significant more discretion, and that's that's reflected in the amendments here. Again, nothing that we're wedded to, but at least, I think it does. Anyway, take a look and see if it meets your if it passes muster for you.

Well, I'm still struggling, but it but I appreciate the movement.

Okay. Any other comments? Would you I have some thoughts, but would you like to close given

You're gonna have thoughts first.

You're gonna hear my thoughts first?

I do. Okay. I'll hear my thoughts. I appreciate it. But it's true.

We so we do it sometimes different ways. But listen, I just wanna first, I appreciate the conversation. This is also a very relevant issue in my district, and and so what Senator Laird was speaking about the real difficulty of building and then, you know, net net, you're taking one, you know, if somebody takes out buys a house and, you know, to use it effectively, with the primary intention of short term rentals, it takes off the market.

And, you know, in various like Pacifica, which is the last affordable more affordable, I should say affordable, but, you know, more affordable, you know, traditionally working class areas in my district that happens to be near the coast. You know, this is a massive issue.

I was just looking at the Chronicle article that was talking about how literally this issue was dividing the the town in two. So and, you know, and I and I wanna say with all respect to the the the Coastal Commission, I found that some cities were reluctant to speak up because they're worried about other stuff they have in front of the Coastal Commission and they don't wanna and and that's just a bad like, it just shouldn't be happening.

We shouldn't have, cities that are scared to speak up on an issue like this because they're worried that, somehow it'll affect their other, you know, things they have in front of the Coastal Commission. So I know that's not something the Coastal Commission wants, but I just wanted to air that, that that feeling is out there. And that's not, I think, the way that any of us want to, you know, proceed, including the Coastal Commission.

We should feel like city should feel like they can speak up on all the issues, including this one, and not feel like somehow it's gonna be, you know, used against them later for a subsequent issue. So we have given the Coastal Commission a lot of power and authority and and, you know, they've used it in in many great ways to protect our our coast, but we need to make sure we can have the dialogue around issues like this. And I appreciate you bringing this forward.

I know it's not a simple issue. I appreciate the concept around hosted.

I hadn't really really really occurred to me that much around the hosted nature, which I think is a pretty elegant way of of getting through some of these issues. But, you know, I've personally been supportive of your efforts to to do this because I think, you know, Reese's mentioned when we, you know, all these, you know, cities go through these debates, we know they're not easy.

As I mentioned, you know, Chronicle saying this is putting the town in two, and then they have to go through it and then not know, ultimately, if that even is even gonna be accepted going forward. So I think it creates a bit of an unnecessary hurdle there. Well, with that, I guess I'm getting cut off too.

So now we'll so I'm an aye vote on this, and now we'll ask you to close. Well,

is there someone from Coastal that wanted to speak or Sarah? Okay. Anyway, thank you. I mean, I look, I appreciate no? Okay.

You wanna help with okay. Gotcha. Okay. Alright. Okay.

Okay. Alright. Thank you. I just wanna thank the members for being thoughtful. I do I agree maybe one of our challenges is that the bill as originally proposed, it was different than where it is now.

And I actually, you know, welcome where it's gone because I think ultimately this is about addressing a real rigidity in the act now with the MELO act having been, you know, changing having changed the act. We're seeking here to give the commission, the opportunity to to balance, these concerns and to help us address a very real phenomenon that's happening in the coast that really is harming, our a whole slew of issues from housing to affordability.

And that's what I'm trying to address here. But I really welcome people's input, if the bill gets out of committee today, and I'd love to work with you all to see how we can land this in a way that will be helpful for our state. And I just, ask for an aye vote.

Do we have a motion?

I'm gonna curtess the motion.

Senator Stern, motions with courtesy. The motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Please call the roll.

Senators Becker?

Becker, aye. Seyarto? Yes. Seyarto, no. Allen?

Aye.