Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Today. Please note that assembly member Al Muratsuchi is absent today, and we don't have a replacement. So if you were counting on that vote. The following measures are proposed for consent. Item one, ACR 157, Hoo Hoover.

Item four, SB 899 Grove. Item five, SB 949 Becker. Item six, SB 963 Laird. Item seven, SB 108, Ochoa Bogh. Item eight, SB 127 Laird.

Item 10, SB 1428, committee on natural resources and water. Item 12, SJR 5, Becker. That leaves five bills to be presented. While we wait for a quorum, we're gonna start as a subcommittee. I see our first author is here.

Senator Laird, come on down.

Thank you, mister chair. I'm going to start with and I have, as you just said, two items on consent and two resolutions that aren't on consent. So, the first I'm gonna present is SCR 136, which is really the fiftieth anniversary of the Coastal Act. It commemorates fifty years of coastal protection in California by recognizing both the Coastal Act and the Coastal Conservancy Act that protect critical resources and public access.

These acts created and solidified in law the California Coastal Commission and the State Coastal Conservancy, two complimentary agencies.

The committee has already seen an approved assembly member Hart's ACR 149, which is identical to this resolution. So I hope we look forward to many more years of coastal protection, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Absolutely. Are there any persons here in the at the appropriate time, we'll we'll wait for a motion to move that. Are there any persons here in the hearing room in support of this resolution? Perhaps anybody from the Coastal Commission?

49. Thank you.

Hi. Good afternoon. Michael Chen with Audubon California, strong support.

Molly Colton on behalf of Sierra Club California in support.

Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in support.

Jennifer Fearing for the Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Surfrider Foundation in support.

Hello. Natalie Brown voicing support on behalf of the California Coastal Protection Network, Environmental Protection Information Center, and the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin. Thank you.

With the student support.

Thank you so much. Are there any persons here in opposition to this measure? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Just that I appreciate everybody that testified, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate moment.

Thank you, sir. Would you like to move forward with your next bill?

Yes. The next resolution is SJR 12, which is opposition to offshore oil drilling. This resolution opposes the Federal Government's proposed eleventh national outer counterment of shelf oil and gas and leasing program. It calls for the removal of California from the pros proposed plan, stronger environmental review, and opportunity for public engagement. The resolution has nearly 50 coauthors and is bipartisan, and there are coauthors from both parties and from both houses.

The plan proposed would issue lease sales across 1,270,000,000 acres of federal waters, including six potential lease sales off of California. There have been catastrophic impacts from the spill in 1969 from the Sable spill in in 2015, And the scope of this proposal is unprecedented because in the past, there's been stronger environmental review and there's been stronger opportunities for public participation.

And it's important to note, I have a little history with this in when I was a Santa Cruz City Council member in the 1980s before some people around here might have been around. We had elections in off years, in odd years, and we used to run ballot measures to get out the vote because nothing else was on the ballot. So in 1985, when I was running for reelection, I approached environmental activists and said, I would like to do an initiative on offshore oil drilling.

And they responded to me, we won't do it unless it has teeth. And I'm thinking, well, we're a city. And this is a federal process, but the one constitutional right delegated to cities and counties is the right to zone. So we had a measure that said you cannot have a zoning change for onshore support facilities without a vote of the people so that it reserved to the people the right to do that.

And that ballot measure said, and you can can expend city money to educate other cities and counties in case they just might wanna do the same thing.

So five years later, 26 cities and counties in California adopted that measure, except for one in Santa Barbara that expired after twenty five years. They were all still on the books. We beat back the industry's opposition to this in federal court after 13 of them, and that forms a blue wall in California. There's a couple of counties in Southern California that don't have it. But other than that, it exists up and down the California Coast and is in in in place for this.

And I I think it was important to note that many of those were adopted by the people and overwhelmingly when they did it. So if this leasing plan, it challenges our own direction and and our own desire to mitigate climate change. And so today, I have with me to answer any technical questions, Christina Scaringe on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity. And at the appropriate time, I would respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Two minutes.

Thank you, and good afternoon. With thanks to the chair of the committee. I'm Christina Scaringe here on World Ocean Day for the Center for Biological Diversity. I'm a little trouble with your mic there.

Sorry.

That'll work. It's on support of SJR 12. This bipartisan resolution reaffirms the state's long standing opposition to offshore drilling to protect California's $51,000,000,000 coastal economy, our unique biodiversity, community, sacred lands, and cultures from yet another devastating oils bill. The feds plan to expand drilling off our coast even as they drop bonding guardrails and cut hundreds of millions from coastal protection, emergency management, and environmental cleanup. They plan to do so without public input, likely given the decades of strong opposition.

California's had many spills, but three dumped more than 4,000,000 gallons, impacting marine protected areas and beaches, closing fisheries and killing wildlife. The 2015 spill on Chumash Lands and the 2021 spill on Tongva Lands contaminated thousands of acres, closing fisheries in state parks, costing the state millions, including more than 200,000,000 in damages and 3,900,000 in lost recreational value. The federal plan could bring another 1,900,000 gallons to Pilara Coast. National security experts caution such development and spills impede critical military training and testing and compromise military readiness.

California's multibillion dollar coastal economy enjoys over 150,000,000 visitors every year, nearly 600,000 jobs that all rely on clean beaches and a healthy ocean.

Coastal tourism and recreation are the major drivers of GDP and employment for our marine economy, but oil spills devastate ecosystems, homes, businesses, communities, and livelihoods. Californians overwhelmingly oppose drilling off our unique and beautiful Coast, so we ask for your yes vote to stand up for California voices and our unique treasures. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon. Claire Sullivan on behalf of the city of Carlsbad in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon again, mister chair and members. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of Surfrider and the Monterey Bay Aquarium and also ask to voice support for SDR twelve from Heal the Ocean, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Save Our Shores, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Orange County Coast Keeper, and the Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Leila Romero on behalf of League of California Cities in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Christina Mohabir with California Environmental Voters in support. Thank you.

Jake Schultz on behalf of the Semper Fiorens Fund in support. Thank you.

Thomas Olives with Azul in support.

Good afternoon. Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation in California in support. Thank you.

Hello. Natalie Brown on behalf of the California Coastal Protection Network, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Resource Renewal Institute in support. Thank you.

Are there any persons in this hearing room in opposition to this resolution on offshore drilling? Seeing none, we'll now turn it back to committee members. Any questions, comments, or concerns for the author? Senator Laird, would you like to close?

Just that I appreciate everybody that that spoke and let you can just trust it along the coast. This is a monumental issue. There there have been major rallies already in Santa Cruz and Monterey in my district and at a town hall meeting in San Luis Obispo on Saturday morning. There was a thunderous ovation to the fact that we were doing this. So at the appropriate time, I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

I think it's incredible that you're doing this, and I appreciate you giving us the history of how all this work happened locally. You were right. I was not around in 1985. I was not around five years later when those other jurisdictions

You didn't have to add that.

Made it happen. But what that means is I spent my entire life with that blue wall in place. And as long as I have anything to say about it, I'd like to spend the rest of my life with it in place as well. So thank you for your leadership. Once we establish a quorum, I'm sure you'll get a motion and and move that out.

Thank you very much, mister chair.

Absolutely. Senator Padilla. Starting with SB 10?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Hello. Hello.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, appreciate your patience. SB 10 requires specified state agencies to integrate gender assessment into their climate plans to address and avoid worsening inequities for vulnerable communities and individuals.

A large and growing body of research has conclusively shown that climate change affects people differently on the basis of gender and that the negative impacts of climate change fall disproportionately on women. Core international climate convenings such as United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change include a commitment to address gendered impacts of climate change.

This is a result of economic inequality, caregiving responsibilities, and biological risks that make them more exposed during climate related disasters and leave them with more limited resources to prepare for, adapt, and respond to climate change.

At the same time, women play a vital role in response and recovery, comprising a majority of California's health and care workforce. California's global peers, especially Canada and Mexico, both have robust policies and programs addressing the gendered impacts of climate change.

Despite California's commitment to climate equity, gender has been mostly overlooked and unaddressed in our previous climate policy and planning. Given this record, action is indeed needed to ensure that a gender perspective will be integrated into California's climate work to advance community resilience and promote racial and gender equality.

This bill expands on California's recent addition of gender to the definition of climate's vulnerable communities by establishing a legislative mandate for responsible agencies to integrate gender into their climate planning and policy.

This bill will advance community resilience, yield multiple co-benefits, and promote equity by including gender impact assessment in our climate plans and policies. Joining me today, I have Nancy Cohen, CEO and founder of the Gender Equity Policy Institute, and Gracyna Mohabir, an advocate for California Environmental Voters.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Members. I'm Nancy Cohen with Gender Equity Policy Institute, Los Angeles based nonprofit research and policy institute. For five years, we've been publishing research on the intersection of climate and gender, and we're grateful to be able to work with Senator Padilla on SB 10. SB 10 will enhance the state's ability to protect Californians and create a climate resilient economy. Here's why.

Imagine it's a 105 degrees and your kid's school closes early or after school programs are canceled or dangerous air quality from a wildfire closes childcare centers or schools. When the children are sent home, who's going to take care of them?

Most likely mothers. Our data analysis shows that women spend twice as much time as men taking care of children as men do on an average day. So during these climate driven events, women are most likely to pick up the slack on care.

That means disruption to their work and potentially a loss of income and a disruption of their employer's businesses. At the same time, women are important agents of the state's effective climate action. Nurses, doctors, and home health care aids serve as first responders in climate driven extreme events.

Women account for more than seven in 10 health care workers in California, and a very large share of them are mothers or caring for elderly family members. Women are the backbone of California's health care system, our first line of defense against the devastating health impacts of climate change. So SB 10 mandates rigorous analysis of gender impacts.

It means that California can also tackle other problems with roots in gender biases, such as that during climate driven emergencies, LGBTQ plus people face discrimination and the risk of gender based violence. In sum, gender impact assessments make these connections visible. By bringing gender considerations into climate planning, all Californians benefit. Thank you.

Two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. Gracyna Mohabir, regulatory advocate with California Environmental Voters. Envirovoters champion solving the climate crisis with a lens of climate justice. We recognize the disparate impacts that climate injustice has imposed and continues to impose on marginalized communities in our state.

Our vision is to solve the climate crisis by protecting those that are hit the hardest, by building resilient, healthy, thriving communities, and by creating a democracy that is just and sustainable for all. Equity is a core and necessary pillar of California's climate adaptation strategy.

As we've just heard, women are disproportionately vulnerable to climate change, and women, especially women of color, also face more acute affordability challenges, which will be exacerbated by the climate crisis. But these gendered impacts and burdens have been largely overlooked in California's climate planning.

Our state prides itself in being a global leader in our plan for tackling the climate crisis. We, in fact, often set the standard. But in this area, we have fallen behind our international peers, partners, and neighbors. SB 10 corrects for this oversight.

It tackles this missing piece of California's climate justice work. It ensures that future climate planning and policy will address women's disproportionate vulnerability in the face of the worsening climate impacts, as well as the distinct gendered impacts faced by the LGBTQ plus community.

Envirovoters is proud to be here in support of SB 10 today because this bill supports California's ability to tackle the climate crisis in a just and equitable manner. It will advance climate equity and California's climate leadership. It will help us build resilient and thriving communities in our state. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Because there's no registered opposition on file yet, we're gonna pause for just one second. Madam Secretary, can we establish a quorum?

[Roll Call]

Absolutely. Anybody in support of this measure?

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Marissa Hagerman with TrattenPrice Consulting registering support on behalf of Climate Resolve. Thank you.

John McHale on behalf of the City of Chula Vista here in support.

Alejandro Solis on behalf of Los Amigos de la Comunidad in support.

Claire Sullivan on behalf of the City of Coronado in support. Thank you.

Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in support.

Thank you so much. Are there any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Seeing nobody who hates women, we will return it... We will return it to the dais. Any questions or comments from Committee Members? We have a motion by Ms. Pellerin and a second by Mr. Haney. Would you like to close, Senator?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. And you said out loud what some of us were thinking. So thank you for that, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is out, and I have no additional comments. We have a motion on the consent calendar by Ms. Wicks and a second by Mr. Haney. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll?

Thank you so much.

Consent items. Item one, ACR 157, hoover, SB 899 Grove, SB 949 Becker, SB 963 Laird, SB 1008 Ochoa Bogh, SB 1207 Laird. SB 1428 natural resources and water. SJR 5 Becker. Bryan?

Aye.

Brian, Aye, Ellis. Alanis.

Aye.

Alanis, Aye, Connolly.

Aye.

Connolly, Aye, Garcia.

Garcia, Aye. Haney?

Aye.

Aye.

Haney, aye.

Aye.

Hoover, aye. Kalra?

Hoover?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Kalra, aye. Macedo.

Macedo, aye. Muratsuchi. Pellerin?

Pellerin, aye. Schultz?

Schultz, aye. Wicks?

Aye.

Aye.

Wicks, aye. Zbur?

Zbur, Aye.

Aye.

The consent calendar is out. And before you do your final bill, mister Padilla, I just wanna call out to Senator Benjamin Allen. If your name is Senator Ben Allen, you are the final author in this committee hearing room, and we're gonna start the clock. With that, Senator Padilla.

Good good luck with that, mister chairman. My dear friend, Senator Allen. Mister chairman and members, I'm pleased to present SB 675. I wanna begin by thanking you and the committee staff for working diligent with us, and we will be accepting the committee's suggested amends regarding the prohibition on permits for title five sources. And by striking that provision and expediting the transition of the new board to a date of 07/01/2027 and new posting requirements to the calendar year 2028.

This bill would restructure the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District to address the Board Membership to include five elected City Council members and four public members with backgrounds and expertise in agricultural labor, environmental justice, and public health, most importantly. Imperial County, as many of you know, continuously deals with some of the worst air quality in the state. The American Lung Association states it's one of 20 counties in the nation to receive an F grade using the old school system.

In all three measures, pollution, ozone, and short term particle pollution, and year round particle pollution. With the reductions in flows from the Lower Colorado Basin, the Salton Seas, shrinkage, and evaporation, which exposes toxic laden lake bed containing pesticides, fertilizers, DDT, and heavy metals.

These all contribute to dangerous dust storms and some of the worst quality air column in the country. It has one of the highest childhood asthma hospitalization rates in our state nearly twice as high as the state average. Given the unique circumstances that face Imperial County, this bill mirrors a change made for this county of San Diego in the district seven years ago by requiring a broader, more complete, and more appropriate representation and set of voices on the governing board of the district.

Requires the air district district to also post transparently critical pollution information on this website as well as permits applications, the disposition of enforcement actions, and provide vital and important information to ensure residents of this county are fully informed on air quality in their community in real time. With me today, I am very pleased to be joined by Ida Obeso-Martinez, the mayor of the city of Imperial, and Christian Salgado, a resident of Imperial County.

Two minutes each whenever you're ready.

Hi. Good afternoon, chair, members of the committee. My name is doctor Ida Obeso-Martinez I serve as mayor of the city of Imperial. I'm also a nurse practitioner.

I'm here today in strong support of SB 675. This bill is two simple changes, but very important changes. It brings balance to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District by adding city representation and public members. And it requires the district to make basic information such as agendas, permits, and enforcement actions easily accessible to the public. These are not new ideas as our Senator mentioned.

In 2019, this legislation passed AB 423, which made similar reforms to San Diego County. That effort has been widely recognized as a success. SB 675 brings that same proven approach to the Imperial County where it is long overdue. Our region consistently ranks among among the most popular, polluted in the region along with our failing air pollution with an F grade. The Imperial County has poor air quality.

And as a health care provider, I treat struggling patients with asthma and respiratory illnesses made worse by the air that they breathe. I also hear directly from our residents who feel left out of the decision making that affect their health. SB 675 helps to fix that, opening the door for more voices at the table and ensuring that the public can see how decisions are being made. This is about accountability, representation, and protecting the health of our community.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote when appropriate.

Thank you, madam mayor. Two minutes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Kristian Salgado. I'm a resident of Imperial County, and I'm thankful to be able to provide a community perspective in strong support of SB 675. For nearly a decade, I have been involved with the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District as a member of the public, advocating not only for clean air, but also for better governance. I can honestly say that the opportunity for meaningful participation have has historically been nonexistent for the average resident.

For those who do try to engage like myself, it remains an uphill battle when official avenues for participation are intentionally limited and decision making power is concentrated on a small group of stakeholders, many of whom oppose this bill.

Through my experience serving on and participating in AB 617 community steering committee and hearing board, I have seen firsthand how a limited range of perspectives often heavily influenced by industry interest can lead to decisions that impact an entire region, including communities that never had a meaningful seat at the table. This is especially concerning in Imperial County where residents face some of the worst air quality in California.

Our communities continue to struggle with high rates of asthma and respiratory illness while confronting growing threats from the shrinking salton sea and the toxic dust it leaves behind. At the same time, Imperial County is being prompted as the center of lithium valley development and is experiencing proposals for massive AI data center projects.

Many of these projects are currently being challenged in court because of the concerns that environmental reviews have been insufficient and have failed to fully analyze the impacts of air quality. The controversy only reinforces the need for a more representative, transparent, and accountable air district. Clean air is fundamental right and good governance is essential to achieve it.

SB 675 will help ensure that the diversity of voices that make up Imperial County are heard and that the air pollution control district operates with greater accountability and transparent, transparency. I respectfully urge your support for SB 675.

Thank you.

That was very powerful testimony. Thank you. Are there persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?

Good afternoon, mister chair, committee members. Jonathan Clay on behalf of the City of Imperial. Proud to be the sponsors of this measure.

Hi. Good afternoon. Michael Chen with Audubon California support.

Good afternoon. Alejandro Solis on behalf of La Cooperativa Campesina de California, Los Amigos de la Comunidad, and Lithium Valley Stakeholder Coalition on support. Thank you.

Grishina Mohabir, California Environmental Voters in support.

Molly Colton on behalf of Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?

Hi, I'm Belen Leon with the Air Pollution Control District. I'm not sure it should be

Yeah. We'll we'll take the two best up here.

We got one of them that's right here. I don't know about me.

We're about to find out. Two minutes each.

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Belen Leon. Well, good afternoon, my chairman and members of the committee. My name is Belen Leon, and I have served as the Air Pollution Control District Officer for the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District.

We appreciate the commitment to that to remove the title five section of AB 675. However, we look forward to reviewing the bill as we need more details and more commitment in order for us to move forward on it. We have concerns whether reforms that would restructure the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District to be more like a major metropolitan area, air quality District, but without the large number of committees that support it or the funding to make it mandated changes.

It is uncertain that it could affect the projects related to drill thermal energy, lithium, renewable energy, agricultural processing, clean transportation, infrastructure, and other important investments to both Imperial County and the state of California. This legislation would create significant unfunded mandates requiring expanded governance, staffing, legal, technical resources without providing any future support implementation for a county where approximately one in five residents live in poverty and local revenues are limited.

Finally, we are disappointed that the Imperial County and the Imperial County air pollution control district were not consulted while this legislation was being developed. We look forward to working with closely with Senator Padilla in the future on policies that affect the health, the safety, the livelihood, and the people of the communities that where we live. I encourage you to be supportive leaders by uniting your virtues and make an attainable decision for a rural community. We're not metropolitan. I truly appreciate this opportunity.

And for these reasons, I respectfully oppose to SB 675.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, chair Bryan and members. John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce. We oppose SB 675. We understand the author intends to remove the proposed moratorium on major air permits. We appreciate that change, but the moratorium's original inclusion remains concerning.

It would have categorically prevented the air district from issuing permits to title five facilities, regardless of whether those facilities comply with applicable law. Our title five facilities are among the most comprehensively regulated stationary sources in the state. The willingness to prohibit their permitting altogether demonstrates that this bill may be more than a simple restructuring of the board. It reflects troubling hostility toward facilities that operate lawfully and create jobs and generate local tax revenue.

It also raises legitimate concerns about the purpose and implementation of the bill's remaining provisions.

Those provisions would substantially restructure the district's governing board and layer on extensive new permitting disclosure, monitoring, and public engagement mandates. And we support transparency and meaningful public participation, but these mandates are not added to a blank slate. A major facility may already be subject to CEQA review, local land use approvals, authority to construct and permit to operate requirements, best available control technology, and numerous ongoing monitoring, record keeping, reporting, and inspecting obligations. Those existing processes already provide numerous opportunities for agency review and public participation.

These new mandates risk increasing administrative burden and creating additional opportunities for delay and litigation without necessarily producing better environmental outcomes.

That, that uncertainty is concerning for Imperial County, which already faces some of the most severe economic challenges in California. 57 out of 58 counties with a 12 and a half percent unemployment rate, fifty seventh in median in household income, and fifty fourth in education attainment. This bill could undermine California's efforts to encourage investment in the region through, you know, by making permitting more political, uncertain, and difficult. That's counterproductive to achieving the economic gains this region needs.

While removing the permitting more moratorium is necessary, it does not cure the bill's broader defects.

For those reasons, Cal Chamber remains respectfully opposed.

Thank you, John. Are there other persons here in the hearing room in opposition?

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Skyler Wonnacott, behalf of the California Business Properties Association as well as NAIOP California and, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon. Kate Eager with Weideman Group on behalf of Supply Chain Federation. We are joining the others in late opposition due to the recent amendments. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Kirk Wilbur with the California Cattlemen's Association. We are opposed unless amended to ensure that agricultural producers themselves have adequate representation and to ensure there's some mechanism by which folks can request, the redaction of sensitive information from automatic online disclosure. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Adam Regele on behalf of NAIOP SoCal in opposition. Thank you.

Michael Pimentel here on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, also in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll now turn it back to the dais. Colleagues, any questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, Senator Padilla, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. Mister chairman and members, I would briefly. First, to bring it back to dead center here, the issue before the committee and the question of the change in this legislation partly has been I would respectfully suggest has been sort of verified by some of the opposition testimony. It's overwhelmingly undisputed and has been for decades. This particular area and county has some of the worst air quality problems in The United States.

It has some of therefore, some of the most underserved and exploited population suffering from levels of air quality related health issues in the nation. And if the status quo is so perfect, then how is it possible that those statistics are real? The status quo is not working.

The control district has not been adequately doing its job with due respect when it's composed simply of the current county board whose record, frankly, if I may be frank, is not stellar with respect to responding to the needs and issues of their constituents and anything resembling the oath they took. This has gone on for far too long.

It is entirely appropriate that the air pollution control district governing body be more granularly represented both by the communities within its scope and jurisdiction, but also represented by people who have expertise, education, training, and understanding of the complex issues at play here in order to meet and mitigate those harmful air quality effects in this most urgent moment. And with that, mister chairman and members, I would respectfully and strongly ask for an aye vote.

Motion.

Thank you, Senator. This bill does have a do pass recommendation by the chair. Do we have a motion?

Mister Schultz and a second by mister Zbur and a third by Ms Wicks.

Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Bryan?

Aye.

Bryan, aye. Ellis?

No.

Ellis, no. Alanis? Connelly?

Connelly, aye. Garcia?

Aye.

Aye.

Garcia, aye. Haney?

No.

Haney, aye. Hoover?

Aye.

Hoover, no.

Kalra?

Kalra, aye. Macedo?

No.

Aye.

Macedo, no. Muratsuchi? Pellerin?

Pellerin, aye. Schultz?

Aye.

Aye.

Wicks, aye. Zbur.

Schultz, aye. Wicks?

Aye.

Aye.

Zbur, aye.

That bill is out, and I expect Senator Ben Allen to make a grand entrance at any at any moment.

Thank you, Senator Padilla. Thank you, mister Lambert. Absolutely. Like like magic. No.

No.

Forget it. Well, you know, the chair expects and the Senator delivers.

Hey. The Senator delivers.

There you go. Alright. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you for your patience. We're we're running back and forth between committees.

So as as folks know, the terrible fires in the Palisades destroyed about 10,000 homes and businesses near the coast in, in my near my home community. And, in the wake of the disaster, residents were in this very difficult situation, where they were, they were, you know, trying to decide how to rebuild their homes, whether they could rebuild at all.

So under normal circumstances, the Coastal Act establishes that developments on the coast may be regulated through permitting by the Coastal Commission to ensure the protection of coastal environments and maintenance of public access to coastal resources. The act does allow homes that are destroyed by a disaster to be rebuilt without a new coastal development permit if the new structure is similar to the original.

And this exemption, as folks can, I I'm sure understand, was intended to help homeowners quickly restore their residents after catastrophic events by accelerating the, the the rebuilding process?

Unfortunately, faced with insurance delays and skyrocketing material costs and under insurance, the reality is that many residents simply couldn't afford to rebuild and they had to make some painful decisions in many cases to to sell their homes. And, you know, we certainly saw that play out in in in Eaton as well. In fact in fact, something like 40 of the lot sold in both Palisades and Eaton communities were sold to investors rather than to single families, which then raises a whole another set of community concerns.

So not only do investor rebuilds or not only can they oftentimes have significant implications for the character of a community, they also can impact the environment and public access to the coast. So we've had situations where coastal rebuild exemptions that were, you know, granted because we wanna help real people rebuild their homes and be able to stay where they lived.

We've been seeing some of those exemptions exploited by investors or developers interested in just buying up properties after disasters with plans to redevelop them in ways that may limit coastal access all without a standard review, taking advantage of the exemption that we give, with regards to the fires. So, so this bill, seeks to address this issue for future disasters in a narrow way, but I think in an important way, and I hope folks will see the wisdom of it.

It states that that that property owners would not be exempt from a coastal development permit if the replacement structure impedes public access to the coast in a way that didn't exist before the disaster. They'd still be allowed to build just through one and more review and permitting process. So as as some folks may know, right, they allowed for a rebuild of 10% larger than the footprint of the home.

But if for whatever reason, your your 10% larger rebuild was impeding a traditional access easement to the coast, we we we don't wanna green light that kind that particular kind of rebuilding. So, you know, so so we were looking at at at at at coastal access and then some very specific environmentally sensitive areas and bluff setbacks in state timelines. And so for those kinds of cases, we wanna make sure that those protections that existed before are maintained even as we give people streamlined rebuilding opportunities.

So, this is all about, you know, prioritizing streamline recovery for disaster victims while still balancing the needs for conservation and and and and access. And, here would be to speak in support of the bill.

We have Molly Colton on behalf of the Sierra Club.

Good afternoon chair and members. My name is Molly Colton and I'm here today in support of SB 1229 on behalf of Sierra Club California. The Sierra Club is the oldest and largest grassroots environmental nonprofit dedicating to protecting wild places, natural landscapes, and the environment for all people with millions of members and supporters across The United States.

As the Senator mentioned, the 2025 Palisades fire devastated thousands of coastal families who lost their homes and have had to face an agonizing road to recovery, dealing with insurance delays, soaring construction costs, and under insurance. Many have had no choice but to sell.

The Coastal Act's disaster replacement exemption was designed to help homeowners, real people trying to restore their primary residences, get back on their feet quickly. It was not designed to hand outside investors a backdoor around California's coastal protections, but that's exactly what can happen today. Developers can buy up fire damaged coastal properties and rebuild without a coastal development permit, potentially bypassing bluff setbacks, public access easements, and sensitive habitat protections.

SB 1229 sends a clear message that the coastal act streamline permit pathway is intended for disaster victims by preventing speculative developers from exploiting it to profit at the expense of the coast. Sierra Club urges the yes vote on SB 1229, and the author will take any questions.

Thank you.

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

Mister chair and members, Jennifer Fearing on behalf of Surfrider Foundation in support.

Natalie Brown on behalf of the Sonoma Land Trust, California Coastal Protection Network and Nature Conservancy in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody in the hearing room who does not see the wisdom in this bill? Seeing none, we'll now return it back to the dais. Any questions, comments, concerns? I think you've done a good job, Senator.

Would you like to close?

Just appreciate the patience of the committee and, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Committee really appreciate you running, across the street to get over here. Seriously, we are grateful, and this has a do pass recommendation. Madam secretary, we have a motion and a second. Can we call the roll?

Aye.

Bryan, aye. Ellis?

Motion is do pass to appropriations. Bryan?

Aye.

No.

Ellis, no. Alanis. Connolly?

Garcia, Aye. Haney?

Connolly, Aye. Garcia.

Aye.

Aye.

Haney, Aye. Hoover?

No.

Hoover, no. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, Aye. Macedo?

Macedo, no. Muratsuchi? Pellerin?

No.

Aye.

Pellerin, aye.

Aye.

Schultz?

Schultz, aye. Wicks?

Aye.

Wicks, aye. Zbur?

Aye.

Zbur, aye.

I know. I know.

That measure's out. Thank you, thank you.

That measure's out. Thank you. We're now gonna go back through the other items on the agenda. A couple of them will need motions, and then we'll call the roll. Madam Secretary, can you lead the way for us?

Yes. We'll start with consent. I'm gonna go over, I'll start with consent. [Roll Call] It has 13 votes. It's out. SB 1229.

We need a motion on...

SCR 136, Laird. The motion is that the resolution be adopted. [Roll Call]

The measure is out. We now need a motion on item 13, SJR 12. We have a motion by Ms. Pellerin and a second by Ms. Wicks. Madam Secretary, can you call the roll?

That the motion be adopted. [Roll Call] Okay. Item 10, I mean two. SB 10, Padilla. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call] That measure has 10 votes. It's out. SB 675, Padilla, item three. [Roll Call] That has nine votes. It is out. And SB 1229, Allen. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call] That motion, that bill has nine votes. It's out.

Thank you, colleagues. That concludes the Assembly Natural Resource Committee. Yes. We got you.