Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Welcome to the Assembly Natural Resource Committee hearing. This is our last committee hearing of the year. It is also the last committee hearing of my vice Chair, Assembly member Stan Ellis. It has been a pleasure to have you on the committee with us. Mister Schultz notices an absence of a quorum, so we're gonna start as a subcommittee.

No one here.

The following measureS Been pulled from today's hearing. Item five, SB 1087, Cabaldon. The following measures proposed for consent, item two SB 925 McNerney. That leaves nine bills to be presented as quickly as our Senate colleagues can get here. I wanna thank the senators who are here, for being on time.

We're gonna start as a subcommittee. Senator Weber Pearson, would you like to present?

Thank you, Chair. Good evening Okay. Chair and members. Today, I'm presenting SB 958, which ensures that housing development throughout this state is not hindered by an unprecedented ruling while still upholding the state's environmental standards. This bill clarifies CEQA law so that certain impacts related to increased building heights are properly accounted for within the project's environmental impact report.

Under CEQA, lead agencies must identify potential environmental impacts, determine its level of impact, and provide ways to prevent, minimize, or mitigate those impacts. Once it is determined that a project is subject to CEQA and will have significant impact on environment, an environmental impact report is drafted, circulated, and finalized by the lead agency. The lead agency, several state agencies, and public are deeply involved in that process. Once an EIR is certified, the project can go underway.

However, there has been a growing trend of CEQA being used as legal defense to slow development of several types of projects, including housing projects.

For example, the Midway Rising project in San Diego, which would add at least 2,000 affordable units in the area, has faced several years of delays due to litigation. Despite years of analysis and multiple EIRs, the most recent ruling from the California's fourth district court of appeal determined that environmental review when related to building height needed to include aspects that were not typically analyzed, including impacts on airflow, atmospheric conditions, lunar cycles, and wildlife attraction.

This judicial ruling can set bad precedent and inhibit future development throughout the state as requiring speculative and hypothetical analysis is not reasonably feasible or practical for lead agencies. In recent years, the legislature has passed legislation to minimize the unduly burden required by certain aspects of CEQA unrelated rulings while upholding environmental protection and thorough environmental review.

SB 598 provides that for purposes of CEQA, environmental impacts solely with increased building height, including but not limited to air circulation, noise impacts, light refraction or reflection, attraction of wildlife shall not be considered significant environmental impacts if specified conditions are met.

This bill provides prospective guidance to the courts by clarifying how CEQA should be interpreted and will ensure that projects up and down the state that have already completed extensive environmental re review do not face costly barriers and challenges. Here with me today is Moira Tapp representing the office of San Diego mayor Todd Gloria's office. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Two minutes.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair and members. I am Moira Tapp here on behalf of San Diego mayor Todd Gloria as a sponsor of the measure. As the Senator mentioned, the this bill was, the what precipitated this bill was, our work on a project we call Midway Rising in San Diego.

It's a once in a generation, opportunity to to really transform nearly 50 acres in San Diego of blacktop, just, Kinda Decrepit, parking space land, into 4,250 homes, 2,000 of which will be affordable, well in advance well above what, the surplus land act requires of us.

The project has been approved twice before the voters of San Diego, and has gone through comprehensive EIR and environmental mitigation and reviews. Yet we

are here we are seven years later, and we haven't gotten shovels

in the ground. SB 958, as, the Senator mentioned, provides clarity and certainty for not just the Midway Rising project, but others seeking, CEQA compliance. So, you know, we we think this is exactly the type of project the the state has, promoted and wanted cities to engage in. This bill helps that project along as well as others. And so on behalf of mayor Gloria and the future residents of the Midway Rising Project, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. And before we bring up additional witnesses in support, madam secretary, can we establish a quorum?

Brian?

Here.

Brian present. Ellis?

Here.

Ellis present. Alanis Connolly? Garcia? Here. Garcia present.

Haney. Hoover?

Here.

Hoover present. Cholera? Here. Cholera present. Macedo Maritsuchi Pellerin?

Here.

Pellerin present. Schultz? Wicks?

Here.

Wicks present. Seper. Here. Seper present. We have four.

Quorum has been established. Are there any persons here in the hearing room in support of this measure? Are there any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?

Now I'll turn it back to the dais. Questions, comments, concerns about this measure? It's your last hearing, Mister Ellis. You can ask whatever you'd like. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 958. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do we have a motion?

Thank you for your time here.

Duke colleagues, do we have a motion? We have a motion, Mister Ellis, and a second by Mister Hoover. This bill has a do pass recommendation. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do passed through appropriations. Brian.

Aye.

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

Connelly, Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney Hoover? Aye.

Hoover, aye. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Macedo?

Maritucci? Pellerin?

Not voting.

Pellerin not voting. Schultz? Wicks. Suburgh.

Aye.

Seber, aye.

We'll leave it on call for asset members. Senator Valladares, welcome down.

Thank you.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. I'm here to present Senate Bill 1230. Illegal dumping is not happening in Beverly Hills or Brentwood. It's happening in communities that don't have the resources, the political clout to fight back. In the Antelope Valley, Lake Los Angeles, Phelan, and Pinion Hills, in my community, families are living next to open landfills.

Not by choice, but because bad actors know that there are no real consequences. Illegal dumping poses a serious environmental, public health, and fiscal challenges across California. Local governments spend tens of millions of dollars annually on cleanup, diverting resources from essential services. It contaminates soil and groundwater, attracts vermin, increases wildfire risk, and leaves taxpayers footing the bill. In my district alone, residents have documented over 100 unauthorized dump sites.

We've seen 70 plus trash related fires costing over $1,600,000. And in 2024, the Apollo fire sparked by illegally dumped material burned 800 acres and destroyed a home. Our enforcement enforcement tools haven't kept up. Fines haven't been meaningful updated since 2004. SB 1230 takes a targeted, balanced approach focusing on illegal dumping of commercial quantities with the higher fines being levied on businesses of 10 employees or more.

The increases only apply to repeat offenders. First defense fines remain untouched. The bill also creates a centralized resource through CalRecycle so local governments have the tools they need to enforce the law and clean up illegal dumping, particularly in rural communities like mine. Unfortunately, the gentleman that was here to testify, previously, John Kennedy from Rural County representation, had to take a flight since the legislature was dealing with our finances. So I have no, witness, Mister Chair.

Goodness.

The person's in the hearing room in support of this measure.

Good good evening. I'm Heidi Sanborn with the National Stewardship Action Council in support.

It's good to see you.

Travis Legault with the Rural County representatives of California in support.

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

We'll now turn it back to the dais. Any questions, comments from committee members? Senator, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We have a motion by miss Macedo, a second by Mister Ellis. This bill has a do pass recommendation from the Chair. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do passed to appropriations. Brian. Aye. Brian, Aye, Ellis. Aye.

Ellis, aye. Alanis. Connelly, Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye.

Haney. Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Calra?

No. Calra not voting. Macedo?

Aye.

Macedo, aye. Mitsuchi Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Schultz?

Aye. Wicks? Yes. Zipper. Aye.

Zipper, aye.

I believe it open for asset members. Senator Cabaldon. Welcome back.

Thank you so much, Mister Chair. I'm here to present SB 1341. I'm presenting this in my capacity as the Chair of the Senate's, select committee on wine, and this, is a issue that we're trying to grapple with. To in 2024, the legislature added wine to the, recycling program in California. We had limited cost data on the full range of the wine vessels that were in use at the time.

And since that time, CalRecycle, announced a fee increase in December of last year that was nearly 5000% increase in the processing fee effective January 1. Now, the increase, obviously, was made with very little time for the industry to respond, and and is projected to generate a lot more revenue than is needed to support recycling payments. Now that is true only because the the actual extent of recycling is far below, what it should be.

So this bill, focuses on the definitions and defines bag in a box wine, and this bill only applies to bag in a box wine. It defines the container as the bag and not the box when it comes for recycling purposes, only the interior flexible bag and the valve that connects the bag to the outside world.

So that beginning in January of next year, processing fees would be calculated on the weight of the bag and the valve valve, which ensures that the fees are tied to the product that actually drives the cost of recycling here. It's I wanna note the one is you're not trying to avoid paying the fees altogether, and I do not want to, continue a program where recycling is not actually occurring.

What the point is to encourage, and insist and hold accountable recycling over over the long term and assure that the proper fees are being paid. It is a particular challenge right now. This segment of the wine industry is the most at risk, the lowest cost segment of the of the wine sector.

We're the most the most vulnerable to, of, $4 bottles of wine from, from that are imported from elsewhere.

And so it's absolutely critical, that for the state's overall wine industry, I will say in my own district in Napa, Sonoma, not a lot of bag in a box wine, but for the overall state in wine industry, it's absolutely critical, that, that we deal with this issue, because they the the an increase of that level is not sustainable given a very, very, very, very, very thin margins that we're facing, at the moment in the global market.

So Spill attempts to to try to solve that problem, by focusing on the actual container that the liquid is in, that is drank from, for recycling purposes, and also the portion of the of the container that is actually the subject of the recycling, cost. So with that, I'd like to introduce our witness on the in support of the bill, which is, Tim Schmelzer with the Wine Institute.

Well, thank you, Senator. That was so good. I don't know what to add practically. So Tim Schmelzer with Wine Institute. When you come to work for the wine industry, you don't anticipate the odyssey of learning about the bottle bill and recycling that I've had to and the ins and outs of the processing fee and how it's calculated.

The reason that we kinda landed where where we're at presently was learning how much the weight actually is is driving that cost. And at the same time, with this Bag in Box product, we have been teaching customers who use Bag in Box products throughout the country and world that these are you take the bag out and squeeze that last bit of wine out, and then that's the the product that you can, get redeemed and the cardboard goes in your curbside.

And, with that change, we think it helps everybody, makes it less burdensome for the customer to take their product for redemption, less for recyclers to have to deal with, and it lands us in a better place for our processing fee. And, you know, as the Senator spoke eloquently about, this is the segment of the industry that is most at risk, and, any cost savings here is a big deal.

We, had almost a 5000% increase in our processing fee starting January 1, and this will help that get more right sized.

So please encourage your support today. Thank you.

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

Mister Chair members, Mark Murray with the environmental group, Californians Against Waste. We are super sensitive and really, frankly, supportive of the intent of this measure. I don't think this language does it. We think there is a solution here that can right size the amount of the processing fee. As was noted, the amount of money we have is not a problem here.

It's just right sizing that fee. Appreciate both of your analysis of this bill. Like, the first analysis better, but I think we can work something out here. So I'm not asking that this bill be held. Had a constructive conversation with the staff and the and the sponsors earlier today, and I'm really confident we can fix this.

Absolutely. Any other persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Any questions from the dais?

We have a motion and a second. Senator, would you like to close?

Simply to acknowledge and and and express gratitude to, Mister Murray, California's Against Weights. We we have been, working closely together trying to find find a solution that does both things, make sure that the the industry is not put at at risk or consumers, but also to assure the integrity of our recycling program in California.

And we've been through a couple of iterations on this and absolutely welcome the opportunity and commit to to take him up on his on his on his continued promise to work this through. And then also just to correct my witness, if you if you are squeezing out wine at the end before you go to recycling, you're doing it wrong. We wanna encourage folks to drink all of the wine first and then recycle.

Well, into your glass. I thought that was

Alright. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you, Senator. I don't think it's very common. It's certainly not common in the other house to allow an author to continue to work through things this far into the process. But I trust the good faith commitment from both sides. And while we tried to broker that as a committee, we know that both sides are coming from a good and in well intentioned place.

So if this bill language should continue to be amended, please just keep us in the loop. We'd like to see that healthy landing spot and and celebrate over a glass of boxed wine together. With that, this bill has a do pass recommendation. A motion and a second. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll leave it open for absent members.

Thank you.

But that bill is out. Senator Stern, come on down. Would you like to start with 1300?

I would. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Absolutely.

You want me to get going?

Yes, sir.

Okay. Members, we know the both this administration and our previous administration have been incredible leaders on climate change abroad and establishing memorandums of understanding with, I think, 20 other nations, subnational jurisdictions, including Canada, China, Chile, Denmark, India, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, among many others.

This bill is, an attempt to give a little more permanence to these to these agreements and, establish more of a legislative role in an ongoing basis on, exactly how these MOUs are informing our public policy, but also in a way to put us in a position when we're engaging at either the subnational or the national level ourselves, to have some support. We recently actually, today, just a few minutes ago, passed, SB 111, which, established the UC Climate Change Institute.

This bill was somewhat anticipating that budget action.

So the the current structure of the bill before you here doesn't quite conform, to exactly how we just passed that. That sets up a UC Climate Change Institute where it contemplates doing some of that that engagement on behalf of the legislature. This gives the natural resources agency the authority to establish, this climate secretariat, at one or more University of California centers. The word in the law now is institute.

So that's one flag for you all going forward is if, we we may be looking for how to sort of make these two talk to each other so we don't, try to start something entirely new here, but you've got the gist of it.

We wanna have more consistent presence that doesn't just rely on who the governor is at the time, but it has a more sort of ongoing consistent presence. We think the University of California can provide that port important legislative support. Appreciate all the work from the committee. Do I have amends to accept from you, Mister Chair? I don't think so.

No? Okay.

Not on this one.

So I'll just ask ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. Any persons here in the hearing room in support of this measure? Any UCLA fans in the hearing room? Any any persons any any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? I'll turn it back to the dais.

Any questions, comments, concerns, colleagues? Do we have a motion?

I'll move.

We have a we have a motion and and a second and a question by missus Burr.

Yes. So I was wondering if you can sort of respond to some of the concerns that have been raised about the bill allowing sort of a broad range of activities that this state department protection financing sort of

Next one. Next one. Bill.

Yep. Oh, okay then.

But reserve that one. Yep.

I thought it has to be good with the second round, so we're good.

Okay. Well, then I'll second the bill.

The secretary.

Secretary. Well, please send it over. Mister Ellis.

I just have a comment. You know, since California produces less than 1% of the world's greenhouse gases, I think those other countries should be coming to us for advice. Thank you.

I think if they were smart, they would come to you for advice. Mister Stern, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for a vote.

This bill has a two pass recommendation from the Chair. Madam madam secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do passed to appropriations. Brian?

Aye.

Brian, aye. Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Alanis.

Connolly? Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney.

Hoover? Aye.

Hoover, aye. Colra? Aye. Colra, aye. Macedo?

No. Macedo, no. Maritsuchi Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye.

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

We'll leave it open for absent members. Now going to SB 1370. And before you start, Senator, I just wanna be very clear. We're amending the bill today to add a lot of safeguards to the projects covered in the bill by establishing geographic limitations, project size limits based on ecosystems, and importantly, expressly stating that all applicable laws and regulations governing pesticide applications shall continue and be complied with.

Under the bill's fast tracked process for wildfire reduction permitting, laws and regulations are streamlined into a single review process, but not for pesticide application.

They need to continue to comply with all applicable applicable laws and regulations, and we require that the resource agency report to the legislature before the bill sunsets on, among other things, how many projects use herbicide treatment, where, and what type. With that, Senator, please begin.

I accept those amendments at the at at the gates. I I I wanna appreciate the the diligence of the committee and, the stakeholders here, both support, but especially the opposition for engaging so constructively with the bill. I think we've got a improved product before you here today with these committee amendments. I think you've seen some who had initial concerns switch actually to support.

And I and I hope that, the committee amendments at least show that in good faith, we, we hear the the some of the concerns of the opposition on on things like, herbicide treatments, amongst a variety of wildfire mitigation projects that, the intent here isn't to, reduce the transparency of the process.

In fact, we want this to be thoroughly vetted. Look. My my town's burned down. My my own you know, I lost my place multiple times over the last ten years in office. We've had, I think, 29 catastrophic wildfires roll through with property damage.

I've seen wildfire mitigation projects literally on the backside of the hill of the the street I used to live on, get denied, because people just didn't wanna do anything. We had some goats that were supposed to come in and deal with the hillside. And, and because, the process, was so clunky, not only did that money get turned down, that project didn't happen, but that exact hill burned and, tore through Big Rock. And now it's basically no one's left.

So this stuff does get personal, but it's also hard.

And these projects aren't easy, and we know that some of those who are pushing for these projects might like to, in in an ideal world, cut more corners, say than we'd be comfortable with. I think this bill doesn't allow for that, but it does, it also doesn't give total veto power on projects that, just have to happen.

So we hope we struck that balance, but, I think, you know, I think this bill, we're still open to further refinements and changes working with your committee to really provide that level of comfort and especially to make sure that those in communities, where there's a lot of property at risk feel that, that AIDS coming their way. Because we've done a pretty good job doing, forestry projects. We've done a lot of watershed health.

We've done a lot of forest health. I do have a underlying concern that not enough is being done in mitigation on projects that don't take up a lot of acreage, but have a lot of impact. That doesn't just mean a utility power line. That means, you know, that means a bunch of mustard behind a little apartment complex that, invasive species ought not be protected. But because of all the hoops we've had to have people jump through, it just isn't happening.

I think the governor's executive order has been pretty successful in its application, and so we wanna keep going with that. But at the same time, we do wanna codify some of the key guardrails that that we put into place through practice that weren't necessarily in the order. So I think the amends do that. Ask for your aye vote, and we'll get into questions, I'm sure, as we go along. So should I turn it turn it over?

I guess, go to Michael Jared first, TNC. And we'll go to you're not Brady. Brandon.

You're Brandon. And you're not Edison. You're PG and E. I know. I know.

So we'll go to Brandon and PG and E next.

Okay. Thank you, Chair and members. I really appreciate the time. Michael Jared, associate director of The Nature Conservancy. We are proud to support, SB 1370, which were placed in the law the governor's process to fast track critical wildfire fuel reduction projects.

We would like to thank the committee and the author for their work on the bill. Committee amendments improve the bill and move us to a support position. TNC conducts with its partners projects that apply beneficial fire and ecological restoration to keep California's forest healthy and resilient. TNC believes regionally in a regionally appropriate wildfire solutions. TNC supports placing the emergency proclamation process into law so that they can continue to advance important regionally appropriate wildfire resilience projects that achieve the state's goals.

Both, California Earthquake Authority's SB 254 wildfire study and the new draft of the California wildfire and landscape resilience action plan recommend the continuation of the fast track process because it's essential to meet the state's goals. SB 1370 supports that effort with important environmental protections and transparency that are not in the emergency proclamation, including better enforcement of the associated state environmental protection plan. For all these reasons, we ask for your aye vote on SB 1370. Thank you.

Good evening. Brandon Yvette here on behalf of Pacific Gas Electric. There's not much else to add beyond what the Senator mentioned and and the Nature Conservancy. We are in strong support of this bill. Very much appreciate the work of the committee and the author and someone else for a companion related measure on wildfire risk reduction.

From the utility perspective, we are very focused on reducing the likelihood of any catastrophic wildfires. This bill is unique and that it touches both utility ignitions and everybody else. We can do what we can to control our rights of way ignitions, but, obviously, we're all one California, so we need to control what could happen when sparks get outside of our rights of way.

Additionally, the California Natural Resources Agency has a very transparent public public dashboard about all the projects that have been submitted, that have been reviewed, that are either underway or completed. We think that's very helpful for the public to understand where state dollars are going and where repair dollars are going.

So we ask for a we ask for an aye vote to continue this process. We've made a lot of good progress in the last eighteen months. We don't wanna stop now.

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

Good evening. John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce and support. Thanks, John.

Chair members, Alex Torres here on behalf of Vibrant Planet. Apologies. We were late, but we are in a supportive amended position around a statewide methodology for return on investment assessment. But other than that, very supportive. Thank you.

Good evening, Mister Chair. Members, Brady Vanagon here on behalf of Southern California Edison in support.

Thank you. There's Brady. Henry.

You're not interchangeable. Good evening. Martin Radosovich on behalf of Magnifier Action in support.

Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. We're still evaluating the amendments, but, look forward to continue continued conversations in our in support today. Thank you.

Thanks. Good evening, Mister Chair. Chris Schmote on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance. Apologies for the, late letter, but we are in support. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there witnesses in opposition to this measure? This is gonna be fun.

Two two minutes each.

Yeah. Good. Yeah.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. Jacob Evans with Sierra Eagle California here on behalf of over half a million members in California in opposition to SB 1370. We appreciate the author and his staff, for working with us to better understand and address our concerns with the bill. And we appreciate the committee for direction the amendments taken today move the bill.

However, Cirocio California remains opposed to the bill as amended as the bill examines wildfire mitigation projects from nearly all laws under CNRA and CaliPA's purview and and would allow actions with broad impacts on the environment to be carried out without oversight from regulations that prevent ecological and public health harms. This approach is overbroad given that there has been no analysis on which of these laws ranging from water quality laws, stream protections to habitat protections are specifically limitations or barriers for implementing these projects.

Remains unclear what delay that a specific regulation or law has had on welfare mitigation projects that justifies codifying and expanding the timeline of the governor's emergency proclamation. Environmental protections for disqualifying projects are reliant on compliance with the governor's state environmental protection plan, but the guidelines in the plan are weak and largely optional. For example, known sensitive habitat must be avoided, but there's no survey requirements to identify the habitat.

And riparian logging and heavy equipment operations on steep slopes must be avoided, and this is not feasible to do so, leaving little protection of the risks that operations can create. The bill also lacks protections for native species.

As amended, the bill allows for expedited review of products that would convert land to bare ground, remote vegetation, even that includes removal of native chaparral and coastal sage scrub. Additionally, the bill does not actually require these projects to be cost effective or ineffective at wildfire mitigation.

The bill's broad project scope and likely sunset date at the end of twenty thirty would mean four years of expedited wildfire mitigation projects executed without regard for endangered species, project costs, or the protections provided by environmental regulation that protect our clean water and healthy ecosystems. For these reasons, we return no vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Hey. Hello. Tara Thornton of Freedom Angels. I live rural in the Northern Sierras. Very much in support of wildfire mitigation.

Know the issue well. And like most Californians, wanna see healthy forest regen and wildfire mitigation. But like most Californians, also want to see less conventional herbicide use, not more. And SB 1370 will not only fast track, but it incentivize the use of conventional herbicides and cuts the public out of transparency and due process and recourse. So SB 1370 will essentially function as wildfire like, literally textbook wildfire maladaptation, and I'm gonna talk specifically about the, pesticides conventional pesticides and herbicides.

I'm gonna use the term herbicides. So, the Chair or the alleged analysis clarified that there are still pesticide and herbicide regulations. That is correct. There are still in the bill, there are still local, state, and Fed Federal regulations. Those are around the use, the labeling, the, and the reporting.

They are not, it is very different. This doesn't address the concerns of CEQA. CEQA does very different things. CEQA does three main things. I mean, it does do well, the three main things.

One, it requires the project to go through a alternative analysis process. This is so that you have to decide, look through, and say, okay. Maybe the grazing, like Henry Sterns like Sterns talked about, or, cultural burning, or mechanical or manual, that those processes might be better than just jumping to conventional herbicide use. Without CEQA, there no incentive to have to go through the alternatives analysis process, and then you end up just incentivizing, conventional herbicide use.

That's gonna, like, 10 x the use that's already happening on the lands in California.

Second thing that it does is it cuts the public out of the process. It's CEQA that allows the public to know about a project in the spring of conventional herbicides before they happen on the project and allows them to be involved in the process so that they can determine the and the best prescription happens on that project. And then lastly, it does lock out the public from any legal recourse on it.

So I think there is you know, this is not the direction California wants to go. CEQA is very different than maintaining existing, labeling use and and and reporting on on pesticides.

So that is what has to really be considered. I think we wanna look at also how to make not only if we exempt if so if you wanna have a project, fast track

So I'll let you go forty seconds over because it's your first time before my committee. I get it. But thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?

Kelly Ryerson, glyphosate facts, and Protect Tahoe, and I oppose.

Good evening. Katie Valenzuela on behalf of the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, three fifty Humble, as well as GMO Science, and Respectful Opposition. Thank you.

David Bullock, constituent of Senator Stern, also of the SFE Alliance. We align our position with, that of Freedom Angels.

Thank you. Kim Delfino representing California Native Plant Society in opposition.

Hi. Michael Chen on behalf of Audubon, California opposed unless amended. Thank you so much.

I'll say it again. Aspirin. Like aspirin. Two would help me, 12 would hurt you. I wanted to address amounts of herbicides. First of all, they're very costly. Nobody really wants to go out there and put these herbicides and spend money, let alone worried about future environmental impacts. Everybody knows in in this world that we live in today about this. I I'm supporting this bill, and I commend the author because this is well needed.

Thank you so much. And I'll turn it back to committee members. Questions, comments? Mister Ellis. Analysis through paralysis. Sequa is like again,

And and I wanna thank you for bringing it forward. Thank you.

Mister Seberg, did you have a question?

Yes. So it sounded like there were some amendments taken that addressed some of the issues related to the herbicide use. I'm wondering if you can sort of cover those, because

Yeah. If I may or would you the Chair actually did a good job, I thought, summarizing it upfront. But the the amendments clarify that these projects can't just end around the review process of the of this project review committee that is established in this framework. So there is some process. We recognize it's not a full sequence analysis that the opposition's looking for.

So I think there are still some outstanding concerns even though we have another layer of review and also a a clarification that any herbicide treatment is gonna have to conform with the state's environmental protection plan. And if you look at how that plan is put together and the policies that are contained there, I should find you a direct quote from it, but it's essentially there is an order of preference. It is not to go straight to the the most toxic first. Right?

There's a sort of a tiering in it that says you should first exhaust sort of other alternatives.

However, it's not the same structure of an alternatives analysis that the again, the opposition's looking through through the formal sequel process. So we we recognize that it's sort of it's, you know, maybe got the trappings of that review process, but not with the the sort of, you know, the the litigation opportunity and the and the time length that a a traditional c corp review would go through. But we're open to to other ideas for how to, further tighten up that state policy.

I think there's there's very encouraging stuff going on in the marketplace too in terms of new synthetics and and and use of Bioherbicides. Bioherbicides, things like that.

So we'd like to see that be sort of the herbicides being the last resort and and then the the the kind that are toxic to really be the last last resort. There's there's also aspects of the EPP, they call it, that that have to do with load. So in other words, you can't you have to only apply a certain amount that you know won't have an impact, say, on water quality, and the water board actually sits in on that process.

But, again, we recognize it's it's not quite sufficient for those who have concerns.

And just to be clear, we actually struck the exemption and turned this into a one stop permitting process so that it's faster and it's cleaner, and expressly stating that all pesticide and herbicide laws, local, state, and federal, have to be followed and abided by and then still have reporting to the natural resource agency.

So our goal here in helping the Senator continue to refine this was to expedite the process so we can codify the best actions in the governor's executive order, but not, endanger communities in in the way that maybe the order did.

So, the streamlined process, I guess, what can you cover what the public participation is and some of the concerns that were raised were related to sort of how short the time limits were, the sixty day limit? And did you just sort of cover

yes.

In more detail?

Do you wanna take a shot at that or no? Am I am I gonna stump you? I know that the the authorization rendered by the agencies has to be within the sixty calendar days based after the receipt. That's that's sort of how it's structured. And then there is a opportunity to extend that timeline.

I believe the language in the statute is if if if the parties deem that more information is required. So it's not a sort of locked in sixty day, if you will, but that's the initial sort of expectation period, and then they can kind of they they can extend that out.

In terms of the public notice and the the public participation part, the website, which I don't have I don't have right off the top of my head, but there is a public website where public notice of the project is given. But, again, it's not the same intervention opportunity that a full CEQA EIR would be, but it is still a a pre notice. It's not like you just find out after the fact, after the reporting.

Local governments will be clued in. I think there was a concern that, you know, these projects, before you even realize it, they're done, and you never even had a chance to say anything and suddenly by, you know, by the roadside right out at front of your house or even in your backyard that they're spraying something and you don't know what it is and they don't tell you. So we wanna be really clear that that's not gonna be the case.

And if there's anything further we have to do to make that that public notice process, more clear, I think we're ready to do it. But, yeah, the idea is just to consolidate the review process, but not to end around any of the review.

Okay. I Aye, you know, I'm concerned about the the shortness of the time and and, you know, it sounds though that you're you're you're open to continuing to work with the environmental opposition. I Aye,

you know,

I did a streamlining bill that was related to infrastructure, and it took us a long time, you know, transmission infrastructure. And we stuck more closely to the CEQA process and didn't and tried to make sure that we didn't that, you know, public participation was still there and that there were still remedies at the end of that process. So, I know that, you know, that, I just wanna thank the the committee staff and the Chair for the changes, which sounds like they're moving in the right direction.

I'm and I would say, yes. Still, we're gonna keep working with the opposition and with this committee.

Keep them. I'm I'm prepared to support to support this today. But, you know, it really I'm gonna be looking at whether or not we're able to sort of consolidate more environmental support because I do think there's,

that some

of the concerns they're raising about moving too far away from, you know you can you can streamline things and still keep the basic public participation and remedies of the CEPA process in line. And it to me, this seems like it's moved too far a little bit too far away from that. So I'll support it today, but, with the pledge that you're gonna continue working Yeah.

My word.

Some of

the environmental opposition. Yeah.

Yeah. My word.

Any questions? Your comment.

Thank you.

Thank you, to the author and the committee for the work, and I apologize for coming in a little bit late. May have, missed some of the answers to these questions. But it sounds like similar concerns, And it even appears with committee amendments, the bill still seeks to exempt eligible projects from complying with almost all statutes, regulations, and permit requirements administered by agencies, within CNRA and CalEPA.

Can you identify what substantive environmental protections would still be legally enforceable and why such broad exemptions are necessary rather than the more targeted permitting reforms?

The I I think it's in section sorry. Let me get you there. In the amendments, there is a I believe it is an h of section subsection h of forty two forty. I think I got it. Sorry.

Forty two forty one h. Nothing in this section precludes compliance with applicable local and federal statutes, rules, and regulations. So that that out the gate says, you know, if you have certain, say a pesticide regulation locally, nothing's waived there. We we have that. I used to represent Malibu.

We have pesticide free Malibu. So the the local doesn't get end around it. And then federal, likewise.

I think on the state front, it's it's not so much that you're exempting, it's that you're consolidating review at a single agency with what they call the project review team, and that you are that the state environmental protection plan is supposed to be that sort of one stop shop, if you will, where regional water quality, state water resource control, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Geological Survey, Coastal Commission, and CAL FIRE are all sort of looking at what their various permits are before them.

K.

And not all these projects would on the natural require CEQA. They they they aren't all this isn't supposed to be a straight CEQA exemption or a CEQA streamlining bill. Right? These are a lot in a lot of these cases, and maybe the witness can comment, but the they're they're projects that wouldn't otherwise require sequa. So we just wanna we wanna make sure that we're not sort of imposing that in an extra layer on the process, but this shouldn't cut those agencies out of that process.

But I'm I'm

I would just add that, you know, the relevant state agencies still review the project, and they still have to sign off on the project. And there's an environmental protection plan that highlights the most likely impacts and basically ask them to avoid them all. And then if they don't, they need to mitigate and work with the state agencies to address the impact.

And so at the end of the day, those you know, the people who we put into place for our EPA and for the resources agencies sign off and believe the project doesn't have any concerns. And, you know, over 400 projects have started this process.

I think 47 have completed it, and I haven't heard any concern. Most of these projects I mean, utilities do a lot of them, and they're yeah. The senators, right, they're partially exempt already. But then also, like, land trust, fire safe councils, the UC system has all taken advantage of this to do really good projects. And I think that there's there's a balance, obviously.

Right? Like, there's impacts from doing the project. There's also impacts from not doing the project, having the area burn. You know? And we should also think about that the next significant and serious wildfire we have, which will happen this year, the governor could just declare the emergency proclamation again.

It ended in May after over a year. And so this this law puts in serious safeguards, environmental safeguards that wouldn't be present in the the prior emergency proclamation, especially if the committee's amendments.

No. I appreciate that. I'm not gonna repeat the sixty day time period concern which I share. I guess, particularly, we are talking about fairly large projects here. They may be as large as 3,000 acres.

That's a significant bump in terms of what's been addressed in prior streamlining efforts. Finally, does the bill require that projects be demonstrated to be effective or cost effective? I see that information is requested, but it's not a requirement. What safeguards prevent expedited approval of projects that may provide little wildfire benefit or could even increase fire risk or environmental damage under certain conditions?

I I share that skepticism. If you look to there's a new amendment. It is very last 42, 41 k, very, very last page of the mock up. For all publicly funded projects, Cal Fire shall conduct a risk reduction cost per unit. I I any anything that is in this bill that has any public money attached to it whatsoever, I I wanna see Cal Fire putting some rigor around these projects.

And I I don't know if that's strong enough. Please invite your scrutiny and hard look at the new k, because I think that we have limited public dollars due mitigation. And I think we have burned a lot of money. And, and I'm those of you who've been in this space, we've been very critical on the Senate side about just chasing acreage with these projects and not actually chasing risk reduction, and that that can't be our metric. Right?

It has to actually be on are you hardening the community, not just chasing and I've bought a lot of forestry goals, and there's great to have biodiversity goals. And Michael and TNC and those folks have heard me say this, but we wanna see bang for our buck from a taxpayer perspective. The one other thing I'd give you some remember is look at the new Aye, which is just in the page proceeding.

We did strike the the 3,000 acre project size piece, and we did do some tiering around that. So we're dropping below that 3,000 to 500 for anything that is a project in the forest or project to improve ecosystem health on chaparral, shrubland, grassland, and coastal sage scrublands.

So those have to be less than 500, and then you drop it down further. Any projects in chaparral, shrubland, grassland, and coastal sage scrublands other than those in the previous section shall be less than 50. So we didn't I live in Chaparral Country. We didn't wanna sort of have these giant open ended things. We need to be very tailored in the application and then be tailored to community risk reduction.

So please take another look at that. But all I'd say to you is the skepticism and the concern is welcome. I I'm happy to keep working with you and the opposition on refining that piece. But, yeah, we even the even the Chair of your committee here does have wildfire risk in his district, but rarely is that valued under the current metrics. Right?

We chase big, big projects, but the small ones are actually would tend to burn our our houses down. And so we really wanna see it get tailored, smaller, and sort of more acute. So, yeah, that's my quick feedback.

I appreciate that. And I'm gonna take you up on that offer. I I'm not sure I'm there today.

It's okay.

You are it sounds like you have teed up the correct issues. You're working on it. I'm committed to continue to working with you and the committee at all. Alright.

Thank you. Mister Miller Pellerin.

Thank you. No. I appreciate this discussion. I had some of the same concerns and whether the bill strikes the right balance between the speed and environmental protections. So it's heartening to hear your commitment to continue to work on the bill, and I trust that you'll do a good job with that. And with that, I'll support the bill today. Thanks.

Right. A lot of pressure.

We have a we have a motion, Mister Ellis, and a second

I'll second.

By miss Pellerin. Senator, would you like to close? Sure.

Hopefully, I haven't been too long winded here. This is all tricky stuff for me too to get into. And I have I fought for the chaparral. I have gone crazy on people when I find glyphosate spraying along horse trails in Thousand Oaks and have had my tussles with both local, state, government, private contractors, agriculture. I'm deeply sensitive to all this at a very personal level and also with the with the urgency of the wildfire risk.

So I'm hoping I live up to my commitments here and try to land something for you all before, you see this again. But I appreciate your consideration today. And seriously, thanks to the committee and the staff, especially both now and into the future as we lean on your wisdom. Wish my best for Ivan.

We look forward to continue working this out with you, and I think we're very close.

Yep. I think we're getting there.

Also, I can say, Senator, I have seen some things today that I thought I would never see. PG and E, Natural Resource Agency, Sierra Club, Freedom Angels, vice Chair Ellis, and miss Pellerin.

Stop it.

I don't know what kind of coalition building school you went to, but this is this is something special.

Stop it.

You have a do pass recommendation from me. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do passed as amended to appropriations. Brian? Aye. Brian, Aye. Ellis?

Aye. Ellis, Aye. Alanis Connolly? Not voting. Connolly not voting.

Garcia? Garcia, Aye. Haney. Hoover?

Aye.

Hoover, Aye. Colra? Macedo?

Aye.

Macedo, aye. Maritucci. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye.

Schultz? Wicks?

I'm not watching.

Spur. Aye. Spur, aye.

Very sick. I know. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. I know.

Just dragging myself over here to committee. My apologies. I'm not feeling too well.

Whenever you're ready.

Alright, Mister Chair. Thank you, and members. I'm here to present SB 1260. It basically codifies outdoors for all. It was launched the initiative was launched in 2021 to increase access to the outdoors, prioritize equity, think of your state parks programs.

I happen to represent in Southeast LA some of the lowest park access per capita, and we just wanna be able to ensure that we are expanding these services, free park pass programs and culturally competent programS Built by this initiative. And, also, this, bill, SB 1268, excuse me, will codify the position of deputy secretary for access within the California Natural Resources Agency and require regular updates and public engagement.

With me to testify in support, I have Pedro Hernandez from Green Latinos, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Two minutes whenever you're ready.

Thank you and good evening. I would like to say, also happy, EDM month. I was on the gallery floor when the ... And dairy month. Yeah.

So I'm from Fresno. But, yeah, I wanna talk, about a simple but hopefully significant bill, and intend to codify one of the most successful initiatives that at least I've come to know in my engagement with the state government. The outdoors for all strategy, has ushered in a new chapter of outdoor access for California. We're not there yet, but this is gonna lay the foundation for us to get to where we need to go.

For the first time in history, we have the 27 departments at the Natural Resources Agency leveraging their data, their funding, their staff, all towards the same mission, which is outdoor equity.

And I can say, at least from, my experience working statewide, it has been successful. And just in the last three months, there has been three new state parks created in the San Joaquin Valley. Now every Californian can access a free historian park pass, which allows all of us to enter the state historic parks for free. So get it before July 6. And, also yeah.

It's really cool. But then, also, you know, we're partnering with the Natural Resource Agency to update the outdoors for all strategy this coming fall as well too, because we know that a couple years ago when the plan was created, it was a good start, but there's so much different environmental risks. There's so many, new political dynamics, and we have new funding streams available as well too. So we wanna, you know, turn this up to 11 and make sure that this can be even more successful.

So, yeah, I wanna, again, just echo, Senator Gonzalez's enthusiasm as well.

I'm also a bit banged up. Aye, sprained my ankle falling from a two step flight over the weekend. But I think, you know, the fact that we're still showing up shows that yeah. That we care so much about this bill. So I wanna respectfully ask for your support today.

We're busted, but we're here.

Absolutely. Thank you for your dedication. Are the persons in the hearing room in support?

Hi. Good evening. Michael Chen on behalf of Audubon, California, the cosponsors of the bill. Also here to voice support for Los Padres ForestWatch, Resource Renewance to Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Latino Outdoors, and Save the Redwoods League. Thank you so much.

Good evening. Kendra Begley on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts in support. Thank you.

Jake Schultz on behalf of the MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District, East Bay Regional Park District, Sempervirens Fund, and the California Association of Local Conservation Corps in support. Thank you.

Good evening. Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in strong support. Thank you.

Good evening. Kim Delfino, in support on behalf of, Defenders of Wildlife and California Native Plant Society. Thanks.

Catalina Gonzalez, Center for Progressive Reform in support.

Mister Chair, members, Doug Houston representing California Outdoor Recreation Partnership. It's the outdoor chamber of commerce here in California, the California Park and Recreation Society, Save Mount Diablo, and the county of Los Angeles, all in support.

Thank you so much. Is there anybody here in the hearing room who does not believe the outdoors should be for all?

Seeing none, we'll now turn it back to committee members. Senator Pellerin.

I love this bill. I think it is so critically important that we have outdoor spaces for everyone and have it them be accessible and especially with, it's so good for our physical health, our mental health, and my Assembly district is just loaded with amazing outdoor spaces for people to get out there to enjoy. And as an ex officio of the state park, and rec commission as well, I would be honored to be added as a coauthor. Thanks. Thank you.

Absolutely. Senator Kalra

Thank you, Mister Chair. And as I think it's obligatory as the author of AB 3030 and someone who has even you know, but when I offered AB 30, which created the, Actable Outdoor Access Act, it led to this outdoors for all initiatives. I'm incredibly grateful to the Senator, for, recognizing the need, to codify it to make this permanent. Earlier on in in a previous bill, there was conversation about, you know, California should be leading. Well, 30 by 30 is an example of that.

The Senator and I, and I know others here as well as others are not in the on the committee have had the opportunity to go to international forums and conferences where California is the leader and so many others are following, our path in regards to 30 by 30. However, protecting our land and water and making it accessible is not good enough if the access is only for the select few. And that's why this legislation is so important.

We wanna make sure the more access we give to the general public, the more buy in they give to the work we're doing to protect and preserve our land in the most beautiful place on earth, our great state of California. And so just wanna express my gratitude to you, Senator, and would love to be added as coauthor as well. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments, colleagues? Seeing none, Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote, and I thank my, colleagues for their comments.

Do we have a motion?

We have a motion and a second. I also come from a relatively park poor district. Although we do have Kenny Hans State Park, which sits in the immediate footprint of the largest urban oil field in the state, something the Senator and I have also spent years trying to reconcile these two realities. This is a really important bill, and I wanna thank you for doing this work. I'm also happy to join as a coauthor if you will have me.

Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do passed to appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll leave it open for absent members. Senator Reyes, my forever majority beeper.

Sure. Good to be here.

It's great to have you here.

Would you like to start with 1075?

If I may, I'd like to start with 1213.

Absolutely.

We're on our we're on our toes.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1213, the Clean Truck Transparency Act. First, I would like to begin by accepting the amendments proposed by in the committee analysis. Second, I am pleased to announce that we have reached a deal with the opposition on further amendments that once amendment amended into SB 1213 will bring them into a support position. I want to thank everyone, including staff and stakeholders who have worked diligently on this bill.

These efforts show that manufacturers, environmentalists, public health professionals, and community members can all come together around the same goal, to address air pollution in our most impacted communities. SB 1213 will ensure California maintains its leadership in the deployment of clean, medium, and heavy duty vehicles by a number doing a number of things.

One, looking at alternative financing opportunities for vehicles, asking CARB to increase the scale of vehicles being deployed, and most of all, improving transparency to ensure the funds used to support this market lead to a decrease in truck prices. Earlier this year, CARB announced that HFIP had delivered more than $1,000,000,000 in funding for fleets statewide equating to more than 2,000 fleets, enabling the deployment of 11,600 clean vehicles. Although heavy duty vehicles make up a small share of vehicles, they are disproportionately responsible for transportation related pollution.

However, it is important that as we provide funding to this sector, we also ensure meaningful price transparency. Unlike the passenger vehicle market, medium and heavy duty vehicle mark medium and heavy duty trucks lack publicly available pricing information, and it can be difficult to understand how much each vehicle costs and the impact that subsidies are having on price long term.

This results in several policy impacts, which include weakening competition of the marketplace, limiting our ability to ensure that the cost gap between zero emission and deep and diesel is truly closing, and not allowing policymakers the necessary tools to provide proper oversight. SB 1213 addresses this while also providing direction to multiple departments to provide more options to support this growing market. Here to testify in support of SB 1213 are Guillermo Ortiz with the Natural Resources Defense Council and Melanie Law with e two.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair Brian, members of the committee. My name is Guillermo Ortiz, and I'm the senior clean vehicles advocate for the natural resources defense council. NRDC strongly supports SB 1213 because it is a common sense measure to ensure that California's transition to clean transportation is rooted in market certainty, scalability, and affordability. Right now, as diesel prices rise across our state, California's fleets, especially our small businesses and independent owner operators, are looking for predictable long term alternatives.

They want to transition to cleaner, more cost effective electric trucks, but they're navigating a nascent commercial market that currently lacks the standardized visibility required to make major capital investments with confidence. When you buy a passenger car, you can look at the window sticker and shop around. Unfortunately, that's not the case in the medium and heavy duty zero emission truck market. There really is no standard pricing information.

And so without this clear market signal, it is difficult for fleets to benchmark their costs, for financial institutions to underwrite loans, and for the broader ecosystem to scale efficiently.

This information gap is holding the entire market back. S P 13 SB 1213 offers a targeted market enabling solution. It simply requires basic data reporting for vehicles that use state incentive money, looks into innovative financing options to help fleets make the switch, and also make improvement to existing incentive programs.

This bill provides the basic market data that fleets, banks, and manufacturers need to invest safely, and it brings structural transparency to the market, empowering fleets to make smart business decisions and ensure California's taxpayer funded incentives go as far as possible. To build a clean commercial vehicle market that functions efficiently, predictably, and fairly for everyone, we must ensure our market transparency tools develop alongside zero emission technologies.

NRDC respectfully urges an aye vote on SB 1213. Thank you.

That was two minutes exactly. Hold on.

Top that.

Thank you.

Okay. Good evening, Chair and members. My name is Melanie Law, and I'm here on behalf of E2 in support of SB 1213. E two is a national nonpartisan organization of business leaders who advocate for smart policies that are good for the economy and good for the environment. California's transition to zero emission trucks is essential to improving the state's air quality and meeting its climate goals, but the framework supporting this transition must be fair and transparent.

SB 1213 would require OEMs of medium and heavy duty trucks to disclose baseline pricing in order to qualify for state incentives such as HVIP. This is a common sense action that will protect small business fleet operators, improve market transparency, and help ensure that state dollars are being spent efficiently. Traditional grant heavy incentive structures, while foundational, face natural scaling limits.

Section five of this bill aims to address this issue by requiring CARD in coordination with GOBIZ and IBANK to report back to the legislature on alternative financial tools that can help advance the medium and heavy duty zero emission vehicle market and mobilize private sector investment. This shift is critical to ensuring that independent owner operators and small fleets who lack large capital reserves are not left behind or priced out of this transition.

For these reasons, e two supports SB 1213 and respectfully asks for your aye vote. Thank you.

That was a minute thirty. Well done.

Are there any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?

Jake Schultz on behalf of Ceres in support. Thank you.

Jenna Roper on behalf of Central California Asthma Collaborative in support.

Craig Scholl on behalf of the Port of Long Beach in support.

Chloe Shea representing California Environmental Voters in support.

An-Vi Chobel on behalf of the American Lung Association in support. Also here to voice support for the Regional Asthma Management and Prevention, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Coalition for Clean Air, the Greenlining Institute, Los Angeles Business Council, Los Angeles CleanTech Incubator, Earthjustice, Union of Concerned Scientists, Federation of American Scientists, Green Latinos, and APEN Action.

Thank you.

Good evening. Lisa Tanaka from South Coast Air Quality Management District in interim support. Thank you so much.

Good evening. Victoria Rome, NRDC, but I was asked to voice support for WRI,

the World Resources Institute. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair. Chris Schmote on behalf of the California Trucking Association. Just wanna give the author a huge thank you for working with the manufacturers. Look forward to going neutral upon, seeing the amends in print.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any persons in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?

So, Mister Chair, members, I have good news. We were opposed. We are now neutral. Just a quick statement. I wanna thank the Senator and the committee staff and the sponsors for all the work and the constructive dialogue over the last few weeks.

The amendments substantially improve the bill. And as was mentioned, the medium and heavy duty emission truck market remains nascent and low volume. So it was critical we got the language right, especially around the aggregation of manufacturer and dealer data. And the success of these provisions will ultimately depend on implementation by CARB. So we look forward to working with CARB sponsors, as we move forward.

And with that, we are neutral. Thank you.

Oh, I didn't do that? Yeah.

Shane, I'm sorry.

I'm new at this.

Shane Levine with, Volvo North America. Thank you.

Thank you, Shane. We'll now turn it back to committee members. Questions, comments, concerns?

Yes, it does.

Thank you.

We have a motion by miss Macedo, a second, by Mister Hoover. Senator Reyes, would you like to close?

Yes. As we move and it I think it going along with what we've just was it was just discussed. We as we move this bill through the legislative process, I do look forward to working with CARD to ensure that the aggregation methodology will be applied in a manner that protects confidentiality given the unique production and characteristics of medium and heavy duty vehicles. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We fully trust you, in that process. You have a motion, a second, and a do pass recommendation from me. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll leave it open for absent members.

Thank you. Thank you.

Alright.

Whenever you're ready.

Mister Chair and members, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1075, the clean air promise. First, I would like to accept the committee's amendments and thank the Chair and staff for their work to make this bill's implementation stronger. Committee amendments and my most recent author amendments have removed opposition from CSAC and the League of Cities. They also address key concerns from the air districts and the Chamber of Commerce.

I remain committed to working with South Coast AQMD and the air districts, as well as CARB on technical feedback on the bill's implementation.

SB 1075 bills on the state's promise of clean air for all, improving implementation of SERPs and L SERPs, expanding community voice, and clarifying eligible uses of funding to result in improved air quality outcomes. It has been nearly a decade since the passage of AB 617, which as a part of the cap and trade negotiations that took place that year, offered the promise of local emissions reductions in our most polluted communities.

Despite the importance of this program, there has consistently been a fundamental disconnect between program goals and efforts to maximize emissions reductions, especially in our impacted communities. SB 1075 fulfills the promise of SB, of AB 617 by ensuring more effective implementation of the statewide strategy to reduce emissions. Here to testify in support are Katie Valenzuela on behalf of the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment, and Joaquin Castillejos, organizing coordinator with the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice.

Good evening, Chair and members. Katie Valenzuela on behalf of the Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment in Kern County and one of the proud cosponsors of this legislation. As our champion here noted, this fixes some long standing issues with the program and also adapts it to meet what the new practices have been, like innovative community mitigation strategies as well as the local community emission reduction program. So we're really excited to be working on this legislation and urge your support.

I will say due to the very late referral of our bill to your committee, we did not get to cross all of the amendments that we've been working on with CARB and the air districts, but we are very certain that with all of that language and print, we'll address their concerns, and this will be in fighting shape by the time it comes back to the floor. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair members. My name is Joaquin Castillejos, and I'm the organizing coordinator with the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice representing frontline and fence line communities across the Inland Empire. We're also members of the San Bernardino, Moscow AB 617 committee. I am here today in support of SB 1075 because it recognizes an important reality. Meaningful community engagement and lasting pollution reductions cannot happen on an arbitrary timeline.

Through AB 617, residents and communities like San Bernardino and Mosco has spent years identifying pollution sources, sharing lived experiences, and working alongside agencies to develop community emission reduction plans. And these plans are more than just documents. They represent countless hours of community participation and trust building. However, many of the solutions are communities and identify, involve agencies beyond the air districts, including transportation, rail, and other sources that require long term coordination.

Those changes often take years to implement, and their impacts cannot be measured immediately after a SERP is completed.

Environmental justice is not achieved by completing a plan. It is achieved when residents can see and feel real improvements all around them in the air they breathe and the health of their communities. That requires long term investment and continued partnership with the communities that have dedicated years to this work. SB 1075 acknowledges that reality by allowing AB 617 communities the time and support necessary to complete meaningful implementation and continue advancing the goals established to their SERPs.

It strengthens, not replaces the investment California has already made in community driven air quality planning.

The minimum the state can do is follow through on its investments and commitments to the most polluted communities in California and make sure our efforts do not go overlooked. For these reasons, I respectfully urge an aye vote on SB 1075.

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

Mariela Rocha with leadership counsel for justice and accountability in support, and the California Environmental Justice Alliance. Thank you.

Jenna Roper, Central California Asthma Collaborative, in support.

Jakob Evans with Sierra Club California, in support. Thank you.

Chloe Shea, on behalf of California Environmental Voters, in strong support. Thank you.

Victoria Rome with NRDC in support.

Ann V. Schoebel on behalf of the American Lung Association in support.

Are there any persons in this hearing room in opposition to this measure?

Two minutes each.

Good evening, Chair Brian and members of the committee. My name is Alan Abbs, and I'm the legislative officer for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. And with respect to the author, we remain opposed unless amended to SB 1075.

Acknowledging that the Senator has been a a really big supporter of the AB 617 program, and and I think we can all agree that supporters and any opposition that's here, we all have a interest in making the AB 617 program a success. The air district has significant concerns with parts of SB 1075, including the process for completing work in CERP communities and the enforcement requirements for the new L CERP communities.

The new amendments regarding L SERP communities require, provisions of the plan to be enforced by the local air district by CARB or both entities. And, yet LCRP grantees are not required to work with an air district in developing their plans. So a grantee could include local land use requirements, or they could require something of the air district that would then be required to be enforced either by the air district voluntarily, I suppose, or by an enforcement requirement from CARB. And so there's a problem with that.

The second area of concern has to do with the process of ending CERC, commitments.

So recent amendments allow the commitment to end when the emissions objectives are achieved as determined by the air district or upon a majority vote of the steering committee. And this sounds reasonable on its face, but this provision actually prevents the air district and CARB from being able to redeploy scarce state funding, which may end in the next couple years, to other communities that deserve similar AB 617 support and also takes away budget authority from the Air District board.

So I could get more into depth into these two issues. I know I'm running low on time. If the committee members want to talk about that more, but I respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Two minutes now.

Good evening, Chair Brian and members. John Kendrick from Cal Chamber. We remain opposed to SB 1075 as a cost driver. Now I'd like to start with praising the committee analysis, which highlights the bill's core problem. The analysis essentially asks why should informal nongovernmental plans be enforceable by CARB and local air districts?

That's the right question. As the analysis notes, L SERP is not defined in law, and it is not clear what compliance means in this context. While SB 1075 treats SERPs and L SERPs the same, they are fundamentally different tools. A SERP is a formal air quality planning document developed for CARB selected communities in conjunction with the air district and stakeholders adopted by the local air district, submitted to CARB for review and approval, and implemented by air regulators.

A SERP is an enforceable air quality program.

An L SERP on the other hand is a community engagement tool funded through a grant from CARD. It's developed by community organization to identify local concerns and develop recommendations. It is about building capacity to engage with regulators, not establishing enforceable obligations. The structure of SB 1075 and the committee analysis raise a fundamental policy question. Why should a community organization be able to dictate enforceable air district policy?

SB 1075 collapses the distinction between community input and regulatory policy by taking a community engagement tool and making it an enforceable obligation even where the air district may not agree with the approach or have the authority over the measures it contains. That raises a real underground regulation concern with major policy being developed outside of the normal rulemaking process. This backfires on disadvantaged communities by making continued operations and new investments in those communities more uncertain, more expensive.

This risks lost jobs, reduced prosperity, and a weaker local tax base for funding essential services. Ultimately, we believe enforceable air district policy should be developed, adopted, and implemented by accountable public agencies through clear legal standards.

For those reasons, we still strongly oppose SB 1075 as a cost driver.

Thank you.

I'll let you go over the time, John, because I missed you. Any other persons in this hearing room in opposition?

Good evening, Mister Chair and member. Skyler Wanakott on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, the California Business Roundtable, and NAOP, California in opposition. Thank you.

Kate Conley with Weideman Group on behalf of the Supply Chain Federation in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Adam Regley on behalf of NAOP SoCal in opposition. Thank you.

Good evening. Martin Rudasovich on behalf of the city of Fresno in opposition.

Dylan Finley on behalf of the cement industry in opposition.

Dylan Elliott on behalf of the Kern and Fresno County Board of Supervisors respectfully opposed.

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

Cindy Hillary, BNSF Railway, ops in opposition. Thank you.

Mister Chair, members of the committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the California Cotton Growers and Generous Association, Western Tree Nut Association, and the California Grocers Association in opposition.

Mister Chair and members, Dominic Demarra here on behalf of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District here in opposition.

Good evening. Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. We remain opposed to the bill. Thank you.

Hi. Leticia Garcia with the California Retailers Association also in opposition. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and members. Naomi Pajar on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association. Respectfully opposed.

Mister Chair, members Brian White on behalf of Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. Respectfully in opposition.

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

Lisa Tanaka, South Coast Air Quality Management District. First, I wanna say thank you and greatest respects to the committee and to Senator Reyes. We deeply appreciate that we've had a dialogue. Unfortunately, we've moved to an opposing less amended. But I heard this earlier that there's, you know, some room for discussion, and we look forward to it. Thank you.

Good evening. Kevin Chive on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association in opposition.

We'll now turn it back to the dais. Colleagues, any questions, comments, concerns? Mister Seber. So can you explain the difference between the l cert what's in an l cert and what's in a SERP?

Alright. Thank you for that question. Local community emission reduction programs were created by CARB to help communities that were overburdened with pollution, but not yet in the program start the planning process. So these are still public meetings that are funded by the California Air Resources Board, but it is a different process. And to that point, I have to say, in addition to the committee's amendments, we have been working on language to substantially change the role of LSIRBs in this bill.

The concern of communities has been making them enforceable eventually. So we've landed on language with the Air Resources Board to give them priority when new communities are selected and to remove the other references from LCIRPs into the bill. So that's what I referenced when I said, gosh. We got referred on Thursday, and we just hadn't put everything in print yet.

I was wondering if I could ask a question for the person from the air district. So what what could be and then, like, your response as well. What could be in an LSIRP that would be problematic for the air district to have to enforce or and what are you reading the enforcement? I guess I'm sort of having trouble understanding sort of what would be in the LSIRP if they're a community planning document, and I'm not even sure if that's a fair characterization of what those are. So I just wonder if you could

No. I think that's a good that's a great question. So as an example, we have one L CERP community in the Bay Area. That's the San Leandro. And so there's a community group that received a grant from CARB, which eventually would lead to the development of this, L SERP.

No.

And and, apparently, they've completed the L SERP. You can go online and look at it. There's four major areas that, that this L SERP, has aspirational goals to to do over the next five years. One of one of them as an example is would be a a target of 30% of the heavy duty vehicles in serving San Leandro to be zero emission. And then also having all the, electric vehicle infrastructure, in the city to support that transition.

And and so, again, that sounds that sounds like a great idea. But, but, you know, if we if all of a sudden we have a requirement where air districts are required to enforce provisions of an LSIRP, then then you get to the question of, well, is that something that's enforceable by the air district?

Do we do we have to use our own incentive funding at the expense of all the other communities in the Bay Area specifically to meet the requirements of San Leandro or in terms of their heavy duty vehicles, their electric vehicle infrastructure, or does CARB have to require us to do that, or does CARB have to make state funding available to do that? And and so that's so that's one example.

Another example in San Leandro is that they have an aspirational goal to increase the tree canopy, and and require, you know, the or have the city, you know, plant more trees, create, you know, less of a heat island effect.

And, again, that's a great idea, but does it does it create a, a enforceable requirement, for either CARB or the air district to to then tell the city you need to start planting treeS Because this LSIRP says that that's what you need to do by 2030. And and so this is just an example of an LSIRP which was created in a vacuum prior to the, introduction of SB 1075.

So if you if you think about it, if the if the bill with that language, became law, then an LCRP community would know, well, we could we could do an LSIRP, and we could put certain things in that LSIRP that CARB would have to enforce or an air district would have to enforce.

And so all all of a sudden, you would have potential LSIRP documents that would really up the game in terms of what air districts were required to do or what CARB was required to make land use authorities do or required to make the air district do. And and so I think that's that's a problem going forward.

And so I think what we would like to see is just that whole L SERP enforceability requirement, stricken from the bill. And and if a L SERP community really wants to make progress, then, you know, they have the ability to work with CARB, work with the air district, find out what's reasonable, what's possible, and and do it, through that method.

So is it sort of fair to say that the concern that's been raising with respect to the l serves is really that you've got these community plans that are setting these goals. They haven't gone through, an air district or a CARB regulatory process to understand whether they meet all those kinds of standards, and then you're worried that you would have to then enforce.

And just to be clear, the committee amendments do say that only provisions of the LCRP that are adopted by that are adopted are the ones that can be enforced. Correct? By the air district.

By the air district. Or or CARB.

So it

So it's only adopted?

They have to be adopted by the Air Resource Board or by CARB.

Well, I'm gonna support the bill today because I understand the goals of the bill are ones that and I trust the author. But I I wanna make sure that you're continuing to work with the air districts on this set of issues related to enforceability of something that's not adopted and wanna thank the Chair for that. So thank thank you.

Any other questions, Clint? Mister Ellis? We we've got Thank

you, Mister Chair.

Only two bills left. I better hear at least a question on each of them, Mister White's Chair.

Yes, sir. Mister Chair. I I'm really confused. What specifically does this bill do that CARB doesn't already do?

You slide over one. One right here. It's the enforcement.

Let me follow-up.

There's

several provisions in this bill that are addressing questions at CARB. The biggest one is when communities, quote, unquote, end the program. So there's an open question right now. There's sort of a default at five years. You're sort of done point.

But to Joaquin's testimony, communities aren't always done. And so we're working on language with CARB to make that clearer so they can establish a clear process at the air districts and communities decide when they're done. How funding can be used has been an open question where we've had community strategies like vegetative barriers in Kern County and in other places that there's been some question over whether that's eligible funding under a v six one seven. So this bill would clarify that as well.

This bill also takes a few other clerical changes around how long you can take to preserve the plans and other things that we've learned just in the course of implementing the program.

How do you address that, sir, from the air quality management?

Yes. So so thanks for that question. So, as an example, the, so the new amendments, allow, a SERP to be wound down, when the emissions objectives are achieved as determined by the air district or upon majority vote of the steering committee. So so the first thing I would say is that, you know, AB 617, SERPs, the community emission reduction plans. There's, there's a mixture of of things, you know.

We we spend years working with communities to come up with that SERP document. And so there's a lot of, like, monitoring information in there. There's information that we provide to the community about, types of, pollutants in their area, what's producing those pollutants, what the health risks are, opportunities that we have to to reduce those emissions, reduce that exposure.

But and in the end, you you get a lot of, actions that, the community and the air district agreed to that have, you know, you know, we have a a work product we can do. We can work on rules.

We can work on incentive programs. We can, you know, talk with cities and counties about, you know, doing certain things. But there are some things in that, in that emission reduction plan that are purely that are really aspirational. And and they may never be completed to the satisfaction of the community. And and so, to to say that an air district can't wind those down unless everything's been achieved kind of misses the point there's that there's some aspirational stuff in there that we may never achieve.

And at the same time, you know, the, the Bay Area Air District, we have four communities in this program. We serve seven and a half million people. And there's communities, in the in the Bay Area region that really deserve some of the similar services that we've been providing to to these four communities.

And so at some point, you know, I I think the Air District and and, you know, should be able to to look at providing some of the that support to other communities and and, you know, winding down some of the services that we provide to the existing communities.

Thank you for that. I I I have two acknowledgments I wanna make is to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District and to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. I served under you for about thirty years, and you guys have done an amazing, amazing job. So thank you. I wanna come back to the question on economics because every time we pass legislation, there's a this effect that could could lead to more to the end consumer or more cost.

Can you address that again?

Yeah. I I I mean, I think there's a there's a couple things going on here. Right?

So the form this bill will have after the amendments it's taken, it becomes almost impossible for anybody that has ongoing operations or planning to develop a new project in a jurisdiction that has a CERP or an L CERP to know whether or not that document's gonna evolve in a way that their business is going to be, maybe, you know, for just as an example, if you have a title five facility that has a title five air permit, there could potentially be an L SERP that says no more granting of of permits to title five facilities.

We saw that issue in this committee a couple weeks ago.

That's an incredibly problematic thing. There's no real constraint on that other than, as you said, the the approval by by the Air Board. But still, there there's all of these things that make it much harder for a business to plan to continue to operate or develop a new project in these communities.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

You know, fairness, I think that, the the amendments that were taken, initially, the bill had to do with, land use decisions. That has been taken out completely out of the bill, before, that was an author's amendment coming in. The as was noted, getting out of the the the the requirement that you have completed a SERP or it was we had two thirds vote. There was an objection by the Bay Area air quality district, and that was reduced to a majority vote.

So working on those things, that's extremely important.

But making sure, I mean, we did make a promise to the communities that we were going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And this is one way to try to to make sure that we do keep that promise.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments, colleagues? Miss Wicks?

Thank you, Mister Chair, and apologies for missing the presentation. I and I know you reached out this evening, so I'm sorry we weren't able to connect before. I just wanna, you know, share some of the concerns raised by the opposition today. Ask that you keep working with them. Their opinion matters a lot to me in particular given that it's in my district.

I'll support the bill today, but with the caveat that you'll continue to work with them. And I believe the bill's going to appropriations next, so I'm happy to also be part of those conversations as that bill enters my committee. And maybe we can figure out, some additional solutions to hopefully work with the opposition on this. So appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing other questions, do we have a motion? Mister Schultz and a second by missus Abur. Senator Reyes, would you like to close?

Thank you. This has been a a labor of love trying to make sure that if we tell our communities we're going to help them reduce their gas house or their their, emissions, we're going to keep that promise. It is important to make sure that our air quality, districts are in they're an important stakeholders, all of them, especially those who do have AB 617 communities within them. And so we will absolutely continue to work with them.

And we with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. And I know this was a late referral from the rules committee, and we didn't have quite as much time as we wanted to have to also work with you on this. But I think there are few people that I trust in this entire legislature to work both in good faith and towards righteous goals, especially for frontline communities. And this committee stands in service of the Appropriations Committee to try to help you land this in a way that feels most authentic to the goals that you're trying to achieve. With that, you have my support absolutely today.

Due pass recommendation. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Brian?

Aye.

Brian, aye. Ellis? No. Ellis, no. Alanis?

No. Alanis, no. Connelly? Connelly, Aye. Garcia?

Aye. Garcia, Aye. Haney? Yeah. Haney, Aye.

Hoover? No. Hoover, no. Cholera? Cholera, Aye.

Macedo? No. Moseto, no. Maritsuchi. Pellerin?

Aye.

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

Aye. Wicks, aye. Subar? Aye. Subar, aye.

That bill is out. Our final bill of the year, the great Senator from Santa Monica has joined us. Please. Let me go home.

Please. Let me go home.

Senator, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Matt. Mr. Chair, pleased to present this bill, SB 501, which seeks to expand our state's extended producer responsibility system for batteries to include medium format batteries such as those found in e-bikes and outdoor lawn equipment, portable power systems, etcetera. We know that batteries are a significant source of household hazardous waste. They pose significant safety risk when improperly managed, including potential fires and explosions.

And in fact, there was, it didn't turn out to be the case, but it looked for a while that they thought that terrible fire we sat down in Southern California was caused by batteries because they're so common now in waste facilities.

And we know that consumers are often facing really inadequate access to convenient collection options, which then, of course, just increases the chances of folks just tossing them out into the trash, which then, or some form of dangerous disposal, which then, of course, oftentimes extends costs onto local jurisdictions, which then have to manage collection and disposal of these products.

So your colleague, Jacqui Irwin, ran the bill a couple years ago to create an extended producer responsibility system to promote the safe and proper collection and management of small loose batteries.

Josh Newman did a bill that same year in '22 to extend the consumer-facing fee of the e-waste program to additional battery-embedded products to pay for disposal costs, but there's a loophole that exists for medium format batteries, which are those that are included in the e-waste program if they're embedded in the product, but not in the EPR program if they're easily removable by the consumer, which many are.