Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

Good morning. We are now calling to order the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. We have our first author in the room, and it is file item number one, AB163, Assemblymember Schultz. We welcome you to present when ready.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and good morning, colleagues. I am pleased to present AB163 today. And I'd like to begin by accepting the committee amendments listed on page 13 of the committee analysis and thank the Chair and the committee for your hard work on this bill. We all know that PFAS is a large class of chemicals that are used in many consumer products and industries because they are long lasting and waterproof.

However, they are also associated with numerous serious health effects and buildup in water, so soil, and in our bodies that simply don't go away.

Because of PFAS's very problematic properties, the California legislature has enacted in recent years legislation to prohibit their use in many consumer products, including but not limited to textiles, food packaging, and cosmetics. And state officials have limited PFAS use in carpets and upholstery and are about to regulate PFAS in cleaners. All prior state legislation banning PFAS in products bans PFAS as a class. There are no good PFAS, if you will, when it comes to impacts on human health and our environment.

I was shocked to learn that the state was not only, not doing, much about PFAS containing pesticides, that are regularly used on California crops.

The state has banned PFAS in food packaging, but nothing when it comes to PFAS pesticides used on crops grown here in the great state of California. I was even more shocked to find out that these PFAS pesticides are present on the fruits and vegetables that we feed our families every day. For example, strawberries, a fruit known for heavy pest pesticide use, can contain the residue of 10 different PFAS pesticides.

According to a recent environmental working group analysis, California currently allows 53 PFAS pesticides to be used on California grown crops, and more than 2,500,000 pounds of this PFAS is deposited on our agricultural and urban lands every year. Simply put, the reason for this bill is that California is not adequately addressing the use of PFAS.

To start, California should prohibit new PFAS pesticides from being registered for use in the state. There are PFAS pesticides not only being used for agriculture, but in consumer goods used in our homes. And by reducing PFAS at the source, we can begin to stop this pollution from entering our bodies, our soil, and the state's waterways.

I wanna close by saying that I appreciate the committee's amendment to have the Department of Pesticide Regulation list PFAS pesticides in the pesticide use reporting database and to share that information with the county ag commissioners. It would be valuable in my mind to have greater transparency about PFAS use in the state.

And I'd like to note that here today, we have some, true experts to testify in support of the bill. We have Varun Subramanian, science analyst with the Environmental Working Group, which, put together the report that I previously mentioned. We also have Andrea Ventura with legislative and the legislative and policy director with Clean Water Action. And for technical assistance and questions, we also have Sarah Aird, policy director of Californians for Pesticide Reform. And at the appropriate time, Madam Chair, I'll respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Thank you. Well, thank you. Welcome to all three of you. You the two of you each have two minutes.

Yep. Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I hold a graduate degree in health data science as well as a degree in environmental health. I coauthored recent reports which found that each year, millions of pounds of PFAS pesticides detected in high frequencies on fruits and vegetables grown in the state of California. PFAS pesticides are also often found in surface water and soil near agricultural areas.

PFAS in any form post serious, well documented health and environmental risks that warrant strict limitations of their use and regulation as a class. Exposure to PFAS is linked to liver and kidney disease, reproductive problems, child developmental delays, cancer, weakened thyroid function, and reduced vaccine effectiveness in children among other effects. Additionally, all PFAS share the core characteristic of a carbon fluorine bond that results in extreme environmental persistence. They do not fully break down in the environment.

This drastically increases the time frame of exposure with today's contamination potentially harming health for decades.

These PFAS pesticides fall into a regulatory blind spot. Current regulatory evaluations of PFAS pesticides do not adequately account for potential immune system harm or the impacts of very small forms of PFAS that form from many PFAS pesticides, including trifluoroacetic acid or PFA. Immunotoxicity is one of the most critical health effects for PFAS risk assessments, so we are overlooking key, not fringe information by not considering studies of immune effects.

In addition, TFA, which is linked to reproductive harm, has been detected in nearly all water in human serum samples where tested. Fortunately, farmers have options that are not PFAS.

Of the roughly 1,000 active pesticide ingredients currently approved for use in California, 95% are not PFAS, and other states like Maine and Minnesota have already planned phase outs for these chemicals. The health and environmental risks of PFAS exposure are significant. Scientists across the world agree that we must act swiftly to halt this multi generational cycle of contamination. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Senators. It's an honor to be here. As you heard, I'm Andria Ventura with Clean Water Action. First thing I wanna say, I've been working on PFAS for since 2018. The class approach, looking at them as a class and not individually, very, very important.

Wanna support that. My primary reason for being here, however, is because obviously clean water action, the water effects, and particularly drinking water. What this does to drinking water because of the human health aspects of that. Let me be very clear here. We're facing a PFAS crisis in our water.

Okay? We really started doing heavy duty monitoring of our

water systems in 2019.

And since then, it is systems in 2019. And since then, it has come to light that twenty five million Californians have PFAS in their water sources. I'm one of them, but also so are your constituents. So this is a major problem. Now it's been argued that don't worry about these pesticides.

We are watching this. We are monitoring for these in drinking water. We've got our eye on them, And I'm here to clarify that. We do not test for the types of PFAS found in pesticides in California drinking water or anybody's drinking water. Okay?

That is because the methods for studying drinking water can only identify about 29 PFAS at a 14,000. So in that sense, we are extremely limited. However, the information about TFA that is coming to light is very sobering. The water board, which we are proud to say is very innovative, has worked with the US EPA and the Department of Agriculture to figure out how to measure TFA in water. And as you just heard, in every single case where they've measured TFA, they have found it.

They cannot do that broadly because of the extreme expense of testing for TFA in water samples. However, the bad news is really this. We expect to find TFA in every water system, and we don't know how to get rid of it. A reverse osmosis cannot get rid of all of it. The carbon that we are gonna put in to deal with some of the, currently regulated, PFAS by the Federal Government will not take TFA out.

And if we were to put in more stringent technology, the costs will be prohibitive for Californians. So we support this bill because as this committee has worked on trying to stop the source of PFAS in the past, as well as making water more affordable, This is an important step toward those goals, and that's why we ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony, both of you. If there's anyone else in the room who wishes to express support, please come forward. State your name, the organization that you represent, and your position on the bill.

Good morning. Jacob Evans with Sierra California in support and registering support for the California Coastkeeper Alliance, LA Waterkeeper, and San Francisco Baykeeper. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association in strong support.

Hello. Myra Sanchez with Californians for Pesticide Reform, also representing California Federation of Teachers, SEIU 521, Teamsters 856, UFCW Local 5, Unite Here Local 19, California Farmer Justice Collaborative, Dideras Campesinas Campesinas Unidas del Valle, California Food and Farming Network in strong support.

Good morning. Keeley Morris on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support.

Good morning. My name is Anne with Santa Clara Valley Water District in support.

Morning. Noam Elroi Baff, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, California Environmental Voters, California Public Interest Research Group, Center for Biological Diversity, and Earth Justice in support. Thank you.

Nora Angeles with Children Now and also, the following organizations are in support, cleanearthforkids.org, Go Green Initiative, Sonoma County Youth Environmental Action Committee, Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, and Rewild Your Campus. Thank you.

Good morning. Jim Lindburg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support. I'm also registering support for Access to Thrive, Encampment for Citizenship, Indivisible, Lahonda and Coastal Communities, Parents Against SSFL, Poison Free Malibu, and Topanga Town Council. Thank you.

Good morning. Isha Iyer on behalf of the City of Burbank in support.

Good morning. Susan Little with Environmental Working Group. Thank you very much for having us here today. Wanted to express support for from consumer attorneys of California Center for Race, Poverty, and the Environment, Community Water Center, and Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And now we'll invite opposition witnesses to please come forward. Welcome. No rush. You each have two minutes, and you're welcome to begin when ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Taylor Triffo on behalf of a coalition of California agricultural associations in respectful opposition to 1603 based on what is in print today. First, we wanna thank the committee for their incredibly thorough analysis, and thanks to the author for the amendments that are gonna be taken. The bills made serious progress, and we appreciate the engagement of the Committee, and Mister Schultz.

While we have not seen the amendments, we conceptually don't take issue with the transparency obligations under pesticide use reporting. Unfortunately, however, we must remain concerned with the bill's prohibition on the registration of future products. Pesticide regulation is different than consumer products because they undergo a pre market review to ensure they're safe before they're eligible for sale and use. California agriculture faces increasing pest pressures, invasive species, and intense competition from growers in other states and countries that don't come close to our labor, safety, and environmental standards.

For the first time in California's history, we have become a net importer of food, even though we produce two thirds of the nation's fresh fruits, nuts, and vegetables.

That is price pressure. And in the last few years, we've seen new and novel pests never seen before in California. Two years ago, exotic fruit fly infestations cost California $210,000,000 in eradication. And in the advent of e commerce, goods movement, and population change, climactic extremes, this will only get worse. By prohibiting new products, this bill could deny California farmers access to next generation of crop protection tools that are safer, more targeted, require lower use rates, and help address emerging pests and diseases.

Moreover, a failure to allow for pest pressures to manage pest pressures will only drive up imports more, with products that are treated with pesticides we would never register here in California. California already has the nation's most rigorous pesticide regulatory standard. The DPR is the second largest agency regulating pesticides in the world, staffed with the best scientists and under the most stringent system in the nation. We believe decisions about future products should be based on science rather than a categorical ban.

So for these reasons, we respectfully request a no vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Nicole Quinionez on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association and Cal Chamber today, respectfully, in opposition to AB163. We first certainly want to thank the author and his staff for their work amending the bill, up to this point, and the Committee, and the author, again, for the amendment proposed in the analysis. While the bill has been narrowed from, its first introduction, we do remain opposed because of that prohibition, on the registration of any new products.

We believe DPR has the expertise to determine whether new or existing products should not be registered, and we believe that determination sits today within the department.

I want to acknowledge the author and sponsor's goal of moving the market away from PFAS chemistries. Our members are also working toward that same goal. However, by limiting the state to the, product registered today, California risks missing out on future product innovations and formulations that could use less PFAS while on the road to fully eliminating them altogether.

Meanwhile, those new innovative products or, you know, new formulations would be available potentially in every other state, once they were approved by the US EPA, putting California at a disadvantage. Finally, I just wanna mention AB2113, which was passed in 2024.

It was negotiated by, industry, the legislature. It was passed by the Senate EQ committee, as well as environmental, governmental organizations to provide specific significant new funding to the department, in exchange for requiring them to do much more as it relates to reevaluation of existing product pesticides. It also provides additional funds for sustainable pest management grants, which will fund projects aimed at eliminating and reducing pesticides of concern, along with a host of other, obligation and fundings that were also included in in twenty one thirteen.

So we would encourage the legislature to work within the current regulatory structure. If there are pesticides that this body is concerned about, we could work with DPR, ask them to do additional research before resorting to a ban with very significant consequences.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Others in the room wishing to express opposition, please come forward. State your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Matthew Seiberling on behalf of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Steelers Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Erin Norwood on behalf of the Almond Alliance in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Melissa Kozlczuk with Western Growers in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Isabella Quinones with the California Farm Bureau. Just wanted to, again, thank the author and his staff for working so closely with ag stakeholders, but we are still opposed. Thank you so much.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California and California Association of Nurseries. Appreciate all the work of the author on the amendments. We do remain opposed to the bill in print.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Tim Schoestick, with the American Chemistry Council, also in opposition, but, do certainly appreciate the work that's gone into this bill so far. Thank you.

Margie Lee Sampson, advisors here on behalf of the California League of Food Producers in respectable opposition.

Okay. Thanks. Anybody else in the room? No? Okay.

Well, then we'll bring it back to the committee. Do either of you wish to make comments, Vice Chair?

Thank you. I just do have a few questions for the opposition is every piece of legislation that I look look at the past two years has really been through the lens of affordability. And what is it gonna do in terms of cost to business? What is it gonna do in terms of cost to to Californians? So I'm just curious to know, could this policy increase the cost of food?

Could it reduce domestic production by limiting pest control? Is that is that a a real challenge or possibility?

Through the Chair, yes. Absolutely. It could one of the largest driving costs outside of labor for the agricultural sector is pest management, and it becomes more expensive when less products become available. We have to rely on broader spectrum products that we're applying potentially more of versus if we had a softer, newer product where we're limiting its use, that application would be less costly. The challenge we've got here is that agriculture is price takers.

Right? The retailers tell the growers, this is the price I will offer you, or I will go and take my business outside of California. And so in those situations, the farm has to absorb all of those costs. In the last, we lose four farms every day based on USDA data, and predominantly those are small farms that are looking to diversify and, and grow. And so we're seeing loss of farms and consolidation, which only push pushes up prices for domestic products.

And then to the sponsors, why why are we moving ahead of federal regulators here and or rather, why has the f the EPA not determined or made not made more determinations about these?

Thank you. Thank you for your question. It's very important to understand, the reasoning why the EPA hasn't advanced this. There are currently for many reasons underlying this, the EPA, operates under a different definition of PFAS than the international community as well as, scientists around the world and what we have endorsed. Furthermore, we know that regulation has lagged significantly at the federal level, leaving states to take the burden of acting on things like PFAS.

I will say, there are many examples at state levels. We see Maine and Minnesota have acted on this already. At the international level, we know the European Food Safety Authority is currently re reviewing pesticide approvals in light of findings on PFAS pesticide toxicity specifically. So it is absolutely that the federal regulations are lagging, and that is why we need state regulations like this in the absence of comprehensive nationwide policies.

And to the opposition, do you do do you have a similar take on why the APA has not defined or added, I guess, more of these, to the no use list?

Yeah. So, you know, as they mentioned, there is a more narrow definition for PFAS that was actually adopted under the Biden administration. So, you know, I think California and other states have taken a broader look. You know, I will say any pesticide regulatory department has to weigh the benefits and the risk. There is no aside that comes risk free.

They are, at the end of the day, meant and intended to, prevent a pest, to kill a pest. And so, you know, it it's the regulatory scientists are trying to do their best to say this is going to combat a very significant issue that could wipe out a whole crop if we'd have no tools in the toolbox to use it, and then how can we apply it in the safest possible way?

I would also offer, California is the only state in the nation with a bona fide Department of Pest Head Regulation, so we have a dual review process. Items are approved federally, and then they're taken under a second level of scrutiny here at DPR. So other states that are moving forward, the European Union, do not have a state specific Department of HESID regulation that is a product pre review.

Right. So to the author, you know, I obviously care about safety and food and water and environment. That's the whole intent of our committee, right, is oversight on this issue, but I have serious concerns. I was able a couple years ago to go out to visit some some ranches and some farms that produce different things in the Central Valley.

And there are major concerns about the ability to protect against pets pests and what that does to crops and then thus thus food prices and food costs for for Californians, let alone the nation.

So I have serious concerns about this. I understand what you're trying to accomplish, but I'm not gonna be able to support the bill today.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the comments. And I just wanna recognize Assembly member Schultz. Thank you for working to address PFAS contamination.

I think your sponsors, ably describe that it is it is a major public health problem, especially for our water systems. I, I wanted to just hear from you or or your sponsors about this connection between pesticide residue and our water our water systems. Because I think there's a conflation of these two. And, you know, just, you know, reviewing the information provided to me, I, it seems like attribution studies have not been conducted.

And there are, there could be maybe more targeted approaches, I guess, that would address what's going into our water systems and then our water systems problems and but that, you know, that connection back to pesticides.

So if you could just address that, your understanding of that.

Well, let me with with your your permission. So the, the pesticide that we're seeing we're talking about TFA here because that has been associated with the PFAS are used in pesticides or the breakdown materials that end up in pesticides. Okay? So it's a very specific type. And that's why I mentioned before, we traditionally have not looked for that in drinking water.

However, we did the state board did do some limited testing on, on specifically looking for TFA. It is very expensive to test for. Okay? It's a whole other way of doing things that is about $600 per sample, and that's an average. But what we found was it's everywhere.

And this is not a surprise because it's a worldwide phenomenon that TFA is getting everywhere. Now no one is saying the pesticides are the only source of TFA. However, we are putting millions of pounds of these chemicals directly into the environment. They're not going through a consumer product and going through your washing machine or some other source. Okay?

Or ending up in a landfill. These are paying directly, so they're gonna have an impact. And we know that because we do regulate other p other pesticides in water, and we find them all the time in drinking water supplies. And I would say that your concern, Senator, about the cost to consumers is a very valid one. I'm a consumer.

It's a major issue, but what we're trying to say is we cannot afford to get these chemicals. These are very small molecules that are gonna require extensive treatment. We can't afford the water. Your your cons your constituents are not gonna be able to pay for their water bills if we don't stop the bleeding of these chemicals into it. So it does have a consumer effect in that regard as as well.

And if I can just add to that with the permission of the Assembly member, it's a very valid point. Absolutely, there have not been attribution studies. However, we do know from federal data from the USGS and modeling estimates in peer reviewed literature that the TFA formation potential from California's PFAS pesticide usage alone can contribute between a 185,000 to 616,000 pounds annually of TFA, and that is just from PFAS pesticide usage within the state. That is a staggering number. I'm a data scientist.

That is a very concerning number from a public health standpoint. Secondly, in terms of how PFAS pesticides or which PFAS pesticides can transform into TFA, this can be determined simply looking at the chemical structures and looking at the bonds in each of these pesticides. And we know most approved PFAS pesticides can transform into TFA. Lastly, I would also like to, address the comments about affordability, definitely, very important.

I will say, however, my background is in public health, and we cannot accurately account for the public health costs yet given how long lasting PFAS chemicals are.

These public health costs are already severe, totaling billions of dollars, and that isn't accounting for either PFA transformation or the fact that these are multigenerational contaminants.

Okay. And what about the concern, that that this could limit pesticides that have less PFAS? You know, so it would be that's one of the, things the opposition noted. But, but, basically, because if, there's a prohibition on new pesticides, then if a pesticide has less PFAS, so it's like another generation of it. It's not zero, but it's less.

What what about that concern?

You know, the only thing I would I would add, Senator, is that that's a a concern that I'm hearing for the first time today. And should this advance out of committee, would love to explore that topic of conversation with the opposition.

But I think not to overdo it, but I think just to echo the comment of my witnesses today, I think we really need to endeavor to find as many products on the market that don't have PFAS in them because of not only the known, but the yet to be studied and yet to be fully understood negative impacts on our health, on our environment, and the costs that are associated with all of that, which are also incalculable to a degree.

We all know the right thing we need to do. And I and I really do wanna thank the opposition witnesses because though we might be at out at odds on on this issue for now, even in their comments, what I heard and took away was a lot of recognition of yes.

Even the industry itself wants to move away from these products because we all know how dangerous they potentially are. That's a fact.

Yeah. Thank you. And I'll just ask another question in part because we don't have another author here. So it's okay if we have a little more wide ranging discussion on this topic. You know, this comes up a lot in in this committee, the EQ committee.

The relationship between what we do legislatively versus what we have these agencies that have deep expertise, versus what we have these agencies that have deep expertise, what what they do. And so sometimes, you know, we get really into the science and competing science competing reports and things. And in some ways, the reality that DPR and the State Water Board are are both really involved in this topic. So how much should we be directing them versus them coming up with it on their own?

So if if you'd like to just address that.

Yes. Thank you so much, Chair. There are a couple of things that I'd just like to say. So I've been working with the statewide coalition Californians for Pesticide Reform for more than ten years. That coalition has existed for more than thirty and has been working very directly with the Department of Pesticide Regulation during that time.

The department is ill equipped to deal with this issue on a on a this is not a case where we can look at these pesticides on a case by case basis, which is what the Department of Pesticide Regulation typically does. There are a number of aspects of how they're addressing the current issue or not addressing the current issue, which is one of the reasons why I think we're here and why the bill is here.

One is just, for example, the way the process works because it also interacts with the US EPA is that, their immunotoxicity reviews are waived at the US EPA level when it comes to California and then the Department of Pesticide Regulation reviews. It also is not asking for or demanding immunotoxicity data even though we know that's a very significant endpoint for this problem. That's one point.

Another point is that the Department of Pesticide Regulation doesn't typically do cumulative health effects. It's not looking at all of these and how they interact with each other. That's a real problem for these particular pesticides. And then the other thing that I just like people to kind of understand a little bit better about how the department works is it struggles very much with a couple in a couple different areas. So one in the registration process, it's much less transparent than maybe other agencies are.

But just for example, in the registration process, if we want to try and weigh in, we need to do public records act request to get the actual data so that we can wait that the public can actually weigh into that process, which is pretty unusual. We also have concerns around, the review.

So I know that I, I, I know that in the materials that have been presented to the committee, AB2113 has been brought up a number of times as a vehicle for really strengthening how the department regulates pesticides. I will highlight for the review component of that. It is true there was an improvement, but it was extremely minimal.

It's important, but extremely minimal. So the only thing that AB2113 requires is initiation of one reevaluation of one pesticide per year. There is no requirement to finish anything. There's no that's nothing. You know, that's nothing.

So and we have I was just looking the other day at the reevaluation, some of the reevaluations that have been taking place. There are at least two pesticides that have been in reevaluation for more than two decades. So, I mean, I have, you know, nieces and nephews who were been alive less than that amount of time. So there this the department is just not equipped to deal with something this serious and, and really needs to be looking at this as a class of pesticides.

The final thing I'll just say is that at the moment, the department is out of sync with its sister agencies.

So DTSC, the California Biomonitoring Program have all accepted the definition that is in AB163, but the Department of Pesticide Regulation has not recognized that yet. And so this is also really important to put all of these agencies in alignment with one another.

Okay. Thank you. Well, those are great points. And, spending two decades to reevaluate one one, substance does seem unreasonably long. I'll stipulate to that.

Okay. Well, we'll turn it back to the author for close.

Well, Madam Chair, I'll, I'll keep it brief, but I really do appreciate the questions and the discussion today. And I do wanna emphasize that all of the points that were made by all members of the committee are equally valid. I just wanna close with really noting that we all have a very tough job in this building. Our responsibility is to balance affordability, but also public health and safety. And, you know, I like to think of it as a three or four legged stool.

They're all important. That's what this bill seeks to achieve, is safeguarding public health, public safety, by putting in place transparency guardrails, which I'm really pleased to hear, you know, that at first blush, even the opposition recognize the importance and the value of that. I think the public should be more aware of what is truly in our food supply and our water stream and what is impacting our lands.

And I do think that we need to really develop that glide path to have a day where we do have fewer of these chemicals in our food supply. No.

It's not the only thing polluting our bodies in our environment, but it's substantial 2,500,000 per year, in fact. And the last thing I would just add, Madam Chair, is that in running this bill, I always struggle with that issue of, well, you know, is this really worthy of a legislative effort or is it better left to the executive branch? What I would add is this. In an era when it feels like on all levels of government, we're leaving far too much of the executive branch.

I do believe it is the role and the function of the people's representatives in this building to talk about issues like, yes, we do need more transparency around these products.

And, yes, we have a public health crisis because if the executive branch had done its job, there wouldn't be a need for this bill. But it's the people's turn now to say that this is a public health crisis, and we must do more to address it. Thank you.

Okay. That's a great point. When we get to having a quorum, we will vote on this bill. So thank you everyone for your time.

Thank you very much.

Still no others.

Still no others.

Well, welcome. You're actually last on the agenda, so we're so happy that you made it.

I've been seeing the trend where there's openings. I thought I would test my luck.

Yeah. That's right, that's great.

So, we are on a file item #10 AB 2635, and you're welcome to begin when ready.

Thank you so much. Well, good morning. Originally, I thought I'd be saying good afternoon, so I'm glad it's morning.

I want to first begin by thanking the committee for their analysis and work on this bill and say that I will accept the committee amendments. AB 2635, the Just Transition for Landscapers Act, is about ensuring that California's cleaner policies move forward in a way that is both effective and equitable.

California is home to nearly one third of the nation's landscaping workforce, and a significant share of those workers are Latino immigrants, first generation entrepreneurs, and small business owners who have built their livelihoods through hard work and determination.

For families, landscaping is more than just a job. It's a pathway to economic opportunity, homeownership, and small business ownership. In 2021, this legislator passed AB 1346 to phase out the sale of new gas powered small off-road engines, including those used in landscaping equipment.

Since then, more than 35 California cities have adopted local ordinances restricting or banning the use of gas-powered landscaping equipment.

Some local ordinances carry a seat penalty of up to a thousand dollars for a subsequent violation. California has established a really important path towards cleaner air, but we must ensure that there is a realistic path for workers expected to make that transition.

This bill establishes a fair and practical framework to help landscapers comply with the changing requirements. The Just Transition for Landscapers Act does a couple of things.

It requires air districts to implement voucher programs that help cover the cost of electric lawn equipment, establishes privacy protections, and sets a reasonable enforcement structure that does not put low-wage workers in deeper financial challenges.

More than 100,000 landscapers across California maintain and beautify our neighborhoods, our schools, our parks, our businesses, yet many work on extremely thin margins and simply can't afford to replace thousands of dollars' worth of equipment, all at once.

Today, many local ordinances impose significant fines, and in some jurisdictions, repeat violations may carry criminal consequences. Even when affordable alternatives remain out of reach. That approach creates barriers to compliance rather than encouraging it. The landscaping industry is also unique because of its large informal workforce.

Many workers are day laborers or individuals without formal business licenses, making existing incentive programs difficult to access. Even where funding exists, many programs require participants to pay the full cost upfront and wait for reimbursement, an option that's simply too unrealistic for small operators.

We know these incentive programs work because the demand already exists. The legislator has invested in a voucher program, and those funds have been utilized.

This investment helped hundreds of Californians transition to cleaner equipment, demonstrating both the need and the success when we provide financial accessible assistance. By switching to a voucher model, I'm referencing your analysis a lot, and we're of course, here for questions as well.

But by switching to a voucher model, this bill removes the upfront cost barriers and helps accelerate the transition on the ground, which is the goal for all of us. It also takes a balanced approach by adopting an enforcement framework that neither criminalizes the use of gas-powered lawn equipment, nor imposes unreasonable fines.

I have with me today, Matthias Prudencio, a landscaper from the Sembrando Semillas Day Labor Center and member of NDLON, and Luz Castro with Inclusive Action to provide testimony.

Thank you. You both have two minutes.

My name is Matthias. It is an honor to be here today. I am a member of Sembrando Semillas and Day Labor Worker Center, which is affiliated with NDLON. I am an immigrant and arrived in this country six years ago,@ hoping to find a better life for myself and my family. Since arriving in The United States, I have worked as a landscaper.

It has been a difficult journey with small jobs and low wages, but thanks to this trade, I have been able to get by and contribute to my community. As a landscaper, we help keep our neighborhoods clean, safe, and pleasant for everyone. Our work improves the appearance of communities and helps care for the area where our families reside.

When I first heard that some cities were banning the use of gas-powered equipment, I was very concerned, not because I'm against clean air and clean energy initiatives, but because many landscapers like me don't have the financial resources to make a quick and just transition to electric equipment.

To do my job, I need at least $6,000 for a brush cutter, a hedge trimmer, a leaf blower, a tree pruner. Replacing all that equipment would be a huge expense. It would also mean losing the investment I've already made in my gas-powered tools, which weren't easy to buy. Each one required a year of effort and sacrifice.

For many landscapers, the lack of resources to make this switch, and the possibility of facing fines complicates our lives and makes it harder to get by. We want to continue working, keeping our communities in good conditions, and its important environmental efforts.

But we need you to consider the economic challenges faced by those of us who depend on these tools to earn a living. As a landscaper, we want clean air, and by supporting AB 2635, we will work even better, together as a team. Thank you.

Good morning, and I will be translating for Mister Matias today. My name is Fatima Garcia, and I am the executive director of Sembrando Semillas Day Labor Worker Center. My name is Matthias. It is an honor to be here today. I am a member of Sembrando Semillas and Day Labor Worker Center, which is affiliated with NDLON.

I am an immigrant and arrived in this country six years ago, hoping to find a better life for myself and my family. Since arriving in The United States, I have worked as a landscaper. It has been a difficult journey with small jobs and low wages, but thanks to this trade, I have been able to get by and contribute to my community.

As a landscaper, we help keep our neighborhoods clean, safe, and pleasant for everyone. Our work improves the appearance of communities and helps care for our families.

When I first heard that some cities were banning the use of gas-powered equipment, I was very concerned, not because I'm against clean air and clean energy initiatives, but because many landscapers like me don't have the financial resources to make a quick and just transition to electric equipment.

To do my job, I need at least 6,000 for a brush cutter, a hedge trimmer, a leaf blower, a tree pruner. Replacing all that equipment would be a huge expense. It would also mean losing the investment I've already made in my gas-powered tools, which weren't easy to buy. Each one required a year of effort and sacrifice.

For many landscapers, the lack of resources to make this switch, and the possibility of facing fines complicates our lives and makes it harder to get by. We want to continue working, keeping our communities in good conditions, and its important environmental efforts.

But we need you to consider the economic challenges faced by those of us who depend on these tools to earn a living. As a landscaper, we want clean air, and by supporting AB 2635, we will work together as a team. Thank You.

Hi. Good morning, Chair Blakespear and members of the committee. My name is Luz Castro. I'm the Associate Director of Policy at Inclusive Action for the City. We are a community development financial institution, a CDFI based out of Boyle Heights, serving all of LA County.

Our mission is simple. We champion working people, we invest in entrepreneurs, and we change systems to build an economy that works for everyone. Some of you may already know this and you just heard from Matthias, but landscapers are workers that work in our neighborhood. They maintain our properties and are part of our community. Landscapers are small business owners and workers who take immense pride in their work, and who have turned to landscaping after being shut out of other opportunities.

Despite their economic contributions, they face physically demanding working conditions, wage theft, and limited economic mobility. Now, they are being tasked with navigating the transition from gas equipment to electric equipment. Landscapers, as you heard, they support the transition, and they understand the health impacts of gas pollution, and want cleaner air for their communities. At Inclusive Action, we work directly with family owned landscaping businesses and landscapers who are actively trying to make this transition.

We have supported Jose's landscape landscaping company in LA, CME Landscape Corp in South Gate, Bonterra Landscaping Company in Pomona, and Elmer's Gardening Service in South LA.

We've supported them with loans ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 helping them grow their business and purchase climate friendly equipment. In 2021, AB 1346 phased out the sale of new gas powered small off road engines. And it established a critical framework to support this transition. Unfortunately, many landscapers have struggled to access the benefits and resources intended to help them make the transition. At the same time, local bans on gas powered equipments are written to trap landscapers in cycles of debt.

For many, a citation can mean choosing between paying a fine and putting food on the table. These penalties also make it harder for landscapers to invest in climate friendly equipment as their resources are then diverted toward fines instead of the tools that they need to comply. AB 2635 helps ensure that California's transition to cleaner equipment is successful by providing landscapers with the tools and support that they need. In particular, the bill expands--

You're gonna need to wrap it up. Thank you.

AB 2635, sits at the intersection of environmental justice, workers' rights, and small business, and I respectfully urge you for an aye vote on AB 2635. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. Do we have any opposition witnesses in the room wishing to come forward?

Oh, I'm sorry. We have Me Toos. Yeah. Those wishing to support this bill, please come forward to the microphone at this time. State your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill.

I am Ricardo Milo for NDLON, for Pasadena Job Center. I support.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Maria Rivera. I'm support the law.

Thank you.

I'm Giovanni Roselle. I'm here with NDLON, the Pasadena Community Job Center and Grupo Alto Defensa Rapid Response Network, and I'm in support of this bill. Thank you.

Hello. My name is José Madera, director of the Pasadena Community Job Center. I'm also part of the Dena Rise Up Coalition, and and I support this bill. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jose Rivera. We came from Altadena, and we belong to NDLON, and we support the bill.

Anayeli Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center in strong support.

Rachel Mueller on behalf of the California Coalition for Community Investment, a coalition of 55 CDFIs across across California in support. Thank you.

[inaudible]. with Mesa Verde Group here on behalf of Central American Resource Center, CARECEN, in support.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And now we have opposition witnesses. Welcome to come forward to the table.

You have two minutes, and you're welcome to proceed when ready.

Good morning.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Brendan Tuig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. That's the air pollution control officers from all 35 local air districts. We understand that the authors and sponsors are trying to help the workers, and we definitely appreciate that. The lens that the air districts are looking through as well is is we're focused on how can we improve air quality and public health for more people in the community with the limited dollars that we have.

And it's simply like lawn and garden programs while we support them in the transition to ZEV materials is from a cost effectiveness perspective, they don't necessarily compete with other projects like heavy duty. So we believe that, it's not appropriate to mandate this, that it should be the local air districts that determine, how best to meet their goals, attainment, the attainment standards that they're required to meet under federal law. And so we don't think it's appropriate to mandate it.

As far as the contingent language that was accepted related to the mandate, we have a lot of questions around that. Is that gonna go for staff as well as it just incentives?

What happens when an air district hires staff to implement these programs and then the incentive dollars and those funding dollars maybe go away? What do we do on that front? And so there there's there's a lot there's a lot of issues with that. There's other provisions in the bill that are problematic. I did want to say on that too is that in some cases, you could put more into staff resources than the amount of the vouchers that you could actually be providing.

And I did wanna point out there's the business verification provisions that are also problematic because air districts could get sideways with with state law as far as transparency of public funds and expenditure of public funds and accountability related to that. So that's an issue. While we support privacy provisions, there's the language in that's contained in the bill would make it difficult, if not impossible for us to interact with third parties that may administer, air district, lawn and garden programs if the district so chooses.

And then, also I wanted to point out there's a requirement in the bill that requires air districts to provide language assistance in any language. There's over 200 languages spoken in California and so that's not feasible either.

So again, we appreciate what what the author's trying to do, but we think that it actually is is gonna be problematic in our efforts to to achieve our clean air goals, frankly. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express opposition, please come forward. State your name, organization, position.

Thank you, madam Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for the Bay Area Air District. We haven't opposed unless amended for many of the reasons that CAPCOA laid out. Appreciate what the author is trying to do here and the amendments taken today, but we still think there's room to go. Thank you.

Good morning. Sofia Fekoa, the Coalition for Clean Air. We had an oppose unless amended position, but actually with committee amendments, we're moving to neutral, and so wanted to thank the author, the bill sponsors, and the committee for working with us to address our concerns.

Well, thank you very much. And now we'll bring it back to the committee, and I'll just, make a few comments. So I appreciate the author, and the your sponsors being willing to work with the committee on making some changes to this bill. I think it's in a good, it's in a good position now, and I'll just, share that my perspective comes from having been in local government when we passed a leaf blower ban.

And the reality of gas leaf blowers is that they they produce an enormous amount of pollution, and it's very localized to the person who's the landscaper actually blowing.

You know, all of that the gas pollution is right around them. And it's also the amount of noise pollution is substantial compared to electric leaf blowers. So it's much healthier for the landscaper and for the community to be using an electric leaf blower. So we you know, transitioning as quickly as possible to having that be the reality is what there are multiple overlapping policies, as the committee report states that are trying to drive toward that.

You know, most one of the most important being, not being able to buy a gas leaf blower after a certain date.

So but that doesn't mean, that doesn't mean that the old stock isn't available and also used equipment isn't available. So one of the things that we did in this in the city of Encinitas is the obligation to comply and and any potential consequences did not sit on the landscaper or the landscape company, but on the homeowner or the business owner.

So if it was Target that was blowing or if it was a homeowner that hired a landscape company or a landscaper, they were the ones who would receive a violation or would receive the warning notice, and they also could collect the incentive, or they could have the landscaping company collect the incentive at their choice. But, basically, recognizing that that if there is a violation, that there should not be consequences that are on the landscaper.

And I I wanna note that the bill still, prohibits air districts from collecting or disclosing specified information from applicants, which is which is a really good provision for protection.

But I think there are ways to both drive toward having the landscape business be more electric leaf blower and other equipment, but largely leaf blower based, without, without having some of these, you know, penalties for violations falling on the landscapers themselves. I think the opposition makes a good point, the concern about, do we get more bang for our buck if we invest in larger the larger, types of equipment instead of individual leaf blowers.

But but it is true that we all have a part to play in creating cleaner air, and there is a serious health consequence for those who are blowing. And whenever somebody is you know, it's the particulate matter, of course, that's being blown as well as the exhaust, but carrying exhaust carrying gasoline on your back and then having to be in that environment. So localized really is a problem.

And, you know, I'm always concerned when people aren't wearing a mask when they have that kind of work. But, but anyway, Aye, I do appreciate the author's willingness to take the amendments. I know this is going to local government next. And, you know, it's important that we're charting the right course here. So we're still incentivizing cities, or we're not disincentivizing cities, but we're also not putting, burdens and penalties where they shouldn't be.

So, so, you know, I I appreciate that you're trying to walk find that line right there. So with that, Aye, will call on the vice Chair to make any comments.

Thank you. And first of all, I wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward and happy to move it when the time is appropriate. And to your witness, I wanna thank you for sharing your testimony. You are the reason I'm here to fight for people like you in which California has not prioritized in this so called transition. They haven't prioritized our working families.

They haven't prioritized the people that are here trying to make a living, trying to put food on the table. And there's there's there's not enough thought. There is not enough planning in this transition that prioritize you. So I wanna thank you for being here, for sharing your story, and to tell you that you're why I'm here for families like you. And I appreciate you being here.

And it's a perfect example of why it's so important that in this committee and in this legislature, we look at the impacts of legislation on working people. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. We don't, yet have a quorum, but we'll turn it back to the author to close, and then we'll vote when we have a quorum.

I first just wanna thank you both for your comments. Senator Valladares, this came from bringing together folks to talk about how policy was impacting them and what sort of solutions we could bring to the table, and that is why we are all here today. And it's exactly how policy should be made. And you, obviously, Chair, recognize the challenges that we are trying to address and figuring out that balance to ensure that we're looking out for everyone and still achieving our clean air goals.

You heard it yourself.

Landscapers are not asking to opt out of California's air quality goals. They're asking for a fair chance to meet them. And so this path provides a realistic pathway to compliance, one that protects livelihoods while keeping us on track to meet our goals. And with that, I respectfully request your eye vote at the appropriate time.

Okay. Well, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Al Horace is not in the room. Yeah. I don't see Al Horace. I know. Okay.

I'm excited. We have a lot of authors in the room. I think the next one on the on the list is Addis, file item number three. Alvarez. Oh, is Alvarez here?

Oh, there he is. Okay. Good. Then you're actually next. I'm sorry, Don.

Number two. AB 1732.

Thank you, madam Chair, and thank you, committee members. Appreciate the opportunity to present Assembly bill 1732, student and faculty housing opportunity act. Before, begin testimony, I just wanna thank the committee staff for the analysis on this bill. We all are proud of our most amazing, higher education, the greatest public university system in the world, the UC, the CSU, and the community college system.

They're obviously on ramps to the middle class for many families, but unfortunately, there's one area that we're really failing the students who walk through the doors of our university campuses.

And that's the inability for many of them to find a place to sleep at night. The LAO report recently said that roughly seven percent of UC students and 11% of CSU students face housing instability. And at community colleges, that number is much higher. One in four students face instability in housing. And we've heard the stories about students sleeping in their cars and couch surfing and sometimes dropping out because of the lack of finding stable housing.

At the same time, we know that the UC, the CSU, and our community college campuses hold land that in many cases are already planned for, have been studied and approved for development of housing through years of rigorous institutional review. Current law allows private colleges, private colleges, and private universities to access streamlining within CEQA with AB 130 framework that was approved last year. However, we missed adding our public colleges and universities to the same streamline streamlining opportunities.

A B 1732 closes that gap by extending an existing exemption that applies to affordable housing. As the analysis notes, this exemption known as AB 1449, which I offered a few years ago, has been used 10 times this year alone.

We know that it works, so we wanna put it to work for our students seeking higher education. I'm proud to say that this bill is being led by students, first and foremost, with the sponsors such as the Student Homes Coalition and the University of California Student Association, who you will hear from in a second. AB 1732 is also supported by the University of California, the California School Employees Association, and the California Faculty Association. We have no opposition.

Seventeen thirty two gives our universities a clear path to build the housing their students and faculty desperately need, and respectfully request your aye vote at the right moments.

And now to testify, representing the UC Student Association, Kai Wong, and then Tyler Aguilar from the UC.

Okay. Welcome. You have two minutes each.

Hello, Chair Blakespear and members of the committee. My name is Kai Wong. I'm an incoming second year student at UC Davis and serve as a colegislative director of ASUCD Lobby Corps. California is currently facing a housing crisis in its public higher education system. Our campuses simply do not have enough housing for the students who need it, and I know what that means firsthand.

Last December, I was notified that I had been wait listed for campus housing for the following academic year. Like many other students, that was the only option that I could realistically afford. And so for the next six months, I lived in uncertainty, not knowing where I would be living come September. But this situation here is far from unique. Across the UC system, twenty seven percent of students report facing housing insecurity, and the consequences are clear.

Those experiencing insecurity face worsened physical health, mental well-being, and academic outcomes. AB 1732 would offer housing security to thousands of students by providing public university universities access to the same housing streamlining tools that are already available to other qualifying infill projects. And those benefits won't come at the expense of the environment because UC and CSU projects must still fulfill LEED requirements.

So by reducing unnecessary procedural barriers for university housing projects, AB 1732 serves as a housing solution that accounts for environmental solutions, but more importantly, a catalyst for making higher education truly accessible for all. Higher education should open doors for students, not leave them looking for one.

So for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony today.

Thank you. Good good morning, madam Chair and members. Tyler Aguilar here on behalf of the University of California. UC and its 10 campuses are pleased to stand in strong support of AB 1732. We thank Assembly member Alvarez for his leadership on this issue.

And as Kai said, California's housing crisis is a current reality that does create significant challenges for campus communities and for students. This instability translates into a struggle to balance academic success with the basic need for shelter, and that disproportionately can affect low income students, first gen, and Pell eligible students. At the UC, student housing remains a top priority. For the twenty twenty five to twenty thirty one, UC Capital Financial Plan includes an additional 8,000 beds of identified funding and 7,000 that are in early planning stages.

These projects represent not just the physical expansion of UC, but our commitment to improving the student spirit, to student experience overall.

Simply put, this bill will help the university build this housing faster and more efficiently and stretch limited financial capacity much further. And by providing us a clear streamlined pathway for approval, this bill allows us to better meet the needs of our students, faculty, and staff without any cost and delay often associated with the CEQA process itself and any associated or subsequent litigation. Importantly, the streamline does not sacrifice our commitment to environmental or social responsibility.

These projects are amongst some of the most environmentally friendly in the state, and we remain committed to that aspect. So in closing, by streamlining CEQA for public higher ed projects, we can accelerate this construction of housing that we sorely need, and for these reasons, we, request your aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to come forward, express support? Please state your name, the organization you represent, and your position on the bill.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Jason Momosidios on behalf of California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair members, Bob Naylor representing Field Stud and Company. That's Howard Umenson Junior. Happy to be in support.

Good morning, Chair members. Kate Rogers on behalf of the Student Homes Coalition as a proud sponsor and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair members. Brett Burn, UCLA Student Homes, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Monica Salas on behalf of Bay Area Council and Housing Action Coalition in support.

Good morning. Caroline Tessa, California School Employees Association in support.

Good morning. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Xavier Burchfield on behalf of Santa Monica College in support.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs. On behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, California, EMB, Circulate Planning and Policy, and spur in strong support. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Any opposition witnesses wishing to come forward? Seeing none, anybody in the room wishing to express opposition? Seeing none, just like the author said, there is no opposition on this bill.

We'll bring it back to the committee, and I'll just, thank the author for your great work in this area. I have an incoming freshman going to a UC, and I want her to be able to have housing. Just and I appreciate your witness coming from UC Davis being willing to tell his story about feeling really uncertain for six months, not knowing where you were gonna live. You know, that's an added stress to college that we hope a lot of students don't experience.

So, this is a straightforward bill.

It creates a sequel exemption for university and college housing, meeting the criteria established for infill affordable housing in Assembly member Alvarez's earlier bill, AB 1449. The definition of infill is broad and based on access to amenities like stores and transit. And as you noted, Assembly member, the exemption has been used 10 times since the bill was signed into law in 2024. So that's just a year and a half already been used 10 times, which shows what a great law.

You know, it's, like, really provided the opportunity for important housing to get off the ground.

So, thank you for your work on this, and, it's too bad that this was, inadvertently left out of the a bill last year, but this is essentially cleaning that up. So, thank you, and when we get to it, we'll vote. But I'm gonna also see if any of my colleagues wanna make any comments. Okay. We'll turn it back to you to close.

Thank you. As you stated, this is about, students. It's a very student centered bill. This is about creating opportunities. And as you all know, we'll also be making the decision as a legislature to place something on the, ballot in November for student housing.

And so, hopefully, all these things align, and we produce more housing for students. So thank you. And at the right time, respect respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Great.

Next, we'll go to number three on the list, Assembly member Addis with AB 1744.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and committee members. I am excited to present AB 1744, the CLEAR Labels, CLEAR Sees Act. And I will say that this, bill was brought to us by McClatchy High School Eco Club, who is on summer break right now. So our witnesses aren't able to make it today, but you've got me, and we will be hopefully very quick.

So as you know, California's rocky reefs and marine ecosystems are critical to maintaining our state's biodiversity, our fisheries, and our coastal tourism.

And just five years ago in 2021, coastal tourism and recreation made up 67% of California's $51,000,000,000 coastal economy. However, there are man made factors that are directly contributing to their decline in recent years, and this has a drastic effect on our natural environment and climate. So what we're seeing is that certain chemicals found in sunscreen are of particular concern as they wash off people's bodies when folks go swimming in the ocean.

And these chemicals have harmed coral and other marine life by disrupting photosynthesis, damaging DNA, causing coral bleaching. We also know that most people who buy sunscreen wanna know if a product is labeled as reef safe or reef friendly, that it actually is reef safe or reef friendly.

And in effect, consumers want to know what's in the products that they're buying, and that the labeling is accurate. So we have AB 1744 that clarifies that if products are marketed as reef safe or reef friendly or any other term implying that the product does not harm marine ecosystems, that it does not contain these chemicals. The bill does not ban any chemicals. It's simply about transparency in transparency in labeling, by making sure we all understand what reef safe means.

So with that, I will respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you, Assembly member. Is there anybody wishing to express support in the room? Please come forward. Okay.

Not seeing anybody. Anybody wishing to express opposition? Well, this is an easy bill. Anybody wishing to express opposition in the room as a me too? No?

Okay. Well, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments? I'll just recognize, I appreciate you bringing this bill forward. Aye, in my district, represent 60 miles of coastline in Southern California.

And, so protecting our marine environment is really a priority for me. And I want to, also recognize you for working with students from a school that isn't even on the ocean. So, you know, this McClatchy High School is the students from that school are sponsoring the bill, which is a local high school here in Sacramento. Marine ecosystems and also just contamination, in general is really important.

So I'm grateful for the students for, to work that they're working on it and that they're getting the opportunity also to see what it what is what does passing a bill look like in Sacramento.

It's too bad they couldn't be here today, but thank you for working so closely with them. Seeing no other comments, if you would like to close, you're welcome to.

Sure. I've, I've said a number of times this is my favorite bill, mostly because so many people have had positive reactions, and it really has given the students a good experience. They've been able to come to three other hearings before they went on summer break. So, I think I just wanna compliment our legislature for providing them, a quality experience going through this process and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Great. When we get to that point, we will vote. Thank you. Okay.

Assembly member Gonzalez, welcome to come forward. Thank you for being here.

Alright.

Thank you, madam Chair and members. Today, I'm here to present AB 2152, a bill that offers judicial streamlining for fire station and offers a sequence streamlining should the project meet basic requirements. And I just wanna take a point of personal privilege that, my district has been affected by a large fire warehouse fire in Boyle Heights. So I wanna thank the firefighters. Who are continuing to put out that fire going on a week today.

I also wanna thank the Chair and her staff for working with us to ensure that the bill balances valid environmental concerns while offering our brave firefighter personnel a pathway to bolster fire infrastructure across the state. Negotiations resulted in amendments that will cross as the bill goes onto the floor strictly due to timeline issues. These amendments are as follows. Changing judicial streamlining from three hundred and sixty five days to two hundred and seventy days to align with SB 676 wildfire recovery efforts.

Given that this is bolstering fire infrastructure and the size of the project is quite small compared to other projects such as housing, manufacturing facilities, etcetera, we'll also allow the lead agencies to bypass the consideration of alternative sites and growth inducing impacts in an EIR.

Lastly, we are amending the bill to adjust the PLA language to reflect the construction of new fire stations rather than ongoing maintenance, which does not trigger a CEQA review. In cities like Los Angeles, studies have shown that despite a massive surge in population service demand, infrastructure has not caught up. 62 new fire stations, that is how many new stations LA fire department needs to install.

And with the last constructed station in Los Angeles resulting in two sequel lawsuits, a two year delay, and almost $2,000,000 to taxpayers delay cost, we need to offer some path of assurance as we are about to invest hundreds of millions of dollars. With me today is Doug Subris on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. Take it away.

Thank you, madam Chair. Doug Subris on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. I'd like to thank and really appreciate the work of the committee working with us to achieve, I think, a measure that will move fire stations forward more efficiently in communities across the state. I'd like to talk I thank the author for bringing this measure forward. As Assembly member Gonzalez noted, the city Of Los Angeles is working on, an effort to fully staff and appropriately staff and build their their fire department and build more stations.

They only have eight more firefighters in the City Of Los Angeles they did do today than they did in 1965. That is while, call volume has exploded, population has exploded, and yet we only have eight more firefighters than we did then. We have six less fire stations. So we are hopeful that this measure will help create more efficient permitting for fire stations so we could get them built more quickly and effectively. Fire stations will help improve community safety.

They will also improve firefighter safety. New fire stations have better living quarters for the firefighters, do a better job of segmenting personal protective equipment that often is has toxics on the on the personal protective equipment and often has extractors or cleaning equipment on-site to better maintain and Clean P P P PPE, reducing exposures for firefighters. So for those reasons, we'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We'll now move to anyone else in the room that would like to express support. Please come forward, state your name, your organization, and your position only. Thank you.

Judy Yee with the State Building and Construction Trades Council in support.

Patrick Foye with the City of Redondo Beach in support.

Thank you. Seeing no others, we'd like to invite any key witnesses and opposition forward. Please have a seat, and you are recognized for two minutes when you are ready.

Good morning, madam Chair, members of the committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California. Excited about the amendments. Unfortunately, we haven't had an opportunity to review them. So my, comments may be a little dated here, but I will try to adapt as I continue.

Let me begin by saying that AGC strongly supports the goal of building more fire stations faster. California communities need modern fire protection infrastructure, and we generally support CEQA streamlining when it helps public agencies deliver critical projects more efficiently. Our concern is not with the fire station. Our concern is with the precedent this bill establishes. This bill would condition access to CEQA streamlining on a project labor agreement requirement for construction, at this point construction, for contracts exceeding $50,000.

We'll see if that threshold is different with the amendments that were, mentioned. However, any threshold is unprecedented to require project labor agreements, which have been traditionally used on large complex multi trade projects where the structure provides value. Depending on the threshold, this could capture small projects, routine maintenance work, which I think is being struck. And to that end, that would be a good amendment. But however, we do not believe that there's a demonstrated need for a mandate to require project labor agreements.

The committee analysis notes that the vast majority of fire station projects are already processed through sequence exemptions or streamlined environmental review documents, such as mitigated negative declarations and negative declarations. Only a small number are subject to lengthy litigation. The bill is driven largely by a single project in Los Angeles and we should be cautious about creating a statewide policy based on an isolated example in the case of the Van Nuys fire station from many years ago.

This requirement would especially be challenging for small and rural fire agencies that rely on local contractors. It could reduce competition, increase costs, and make it harder, not easier, to deliver fire station projects quickly.

AGC supports CEQA streamlining. We support fire stations. We support Assemblymember Gonzalez, but we do not believe a PLA mandate at a 50,000 threshold as the bill is in print right now is necessary to achieve either goal. For those reasons, we respectfully, request a no vote on this bill.

Okay. Thank you very much. We've transferred the gavel back. Anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition, please come forward to the microphone. Alright.

Not seeing anybody. We will bring it back to the committee. Any comments? No? Okay.

Well, we'll turn it over to you to close.

Thank you, madam Chair, and thank you. Yes. Some of those amendments have been adjusted, so we'll we'll up we'll update each other on that, but continue to work together. At the end of the day, the bill this bill is about something pretty simple, making sure firefighters can do their job safely and effectively irregardless of cost and competition. Right now, the demand is growing.

The infrastructure is aging, and the gap between the two is getting harder to ignore. We can either keep delaying critical projects or we can be honest about the consequences of that delay. Because when a fire station is held up, it's not just paperwork that's stalled, it's response times, it's emergency care, it's lives. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Well, thank you very much. When we get to that point, we will vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Next, we have item number five, Assembly member, Ahrens, AB 2231. Welcome. You may proceed when ready.

Alright. Well, good morning, madam Chair and senators. AB 2231 is a judicial streamlining measure that will help ensure two critical hospital projects in Santa Clara and Emeryville can move forward without unnecessary delays and costly litigation. As California faces health care demands and uncertainty surrounding federal health care funding, it's important now more than ever that we support investments in medical infrastructure that expand access to care.

These projects will increase access to emergency, inpatient, and specialty health care services for communities across the Bay Area and Silicon Valley while supporting a strong health care workforce and meeting the needs of our diverse and growing population. Sutter Health's new medical center in Santa Clara represents a significant investment in the future of health care in Silicon Valley and the broader region.

A B 2231 preserves the important environmental protections while providing a clear and efficient pathway for these essential health care projects to move forward and deliver meaningful public benefits. With me today is Joe Grigorich with Sutter Health.

Good morning, Chair members. My name is Joe Gregorich with Sutter Health here in support of AB 2231. Sutter Health serves a large community across Northern California and Central California, and like many systems, we're seeing an increased demand for care. At the same time, we're seeing increased capacity for capacity is under real pressure. Our focus right now is making targeted investments to expand access, both by modernizing our facilities and building new capacity where it's needed most.

That's why we've announced plans to build two new hospitals in the Bay Area in Emeryville and Santa Clara. Both are designed to address growing capacity constraints and add critical needed hospital beds in their communities. The Emeryville Hospital is intended to replace our Alta Bates Ashley campus in Berkeley. This facility is required to cease operations as a hospital by 2030 due to the state seismic standards. So without a replacement, the reality is the East Bay would lose a significant amount of inpatient, maternity, and emergency care capacity.

And while the Ashby site will continue to provide outpatient services beyond 2030, those are simply not a substitute for inpatient beds. Our Santa Clara facility in the Assemblymember's District is a rare opportunity to build a net new hospital in California at a time when many systems are reducing beds and scaling back services. In Santa Clara County, there's also a limp already a limited, inpatient capacity and demand continues to grow. This project is also tied to Sutter's new medical school partnership with Santa Clara.

And by the way, this is the first medical school built in the Bay Area in over a hundred years, which will rely the facility is gonna be relied on for the clinical training.

We believe that this partnership is essential to ensure that we are expanding our health care workforce in California. So taken together, this is about preserving the loss of care in one region while finally adding new capacity in another, both of which are essential to maintaining access for our patients. And that's exactly why AB 2231 is so important. These projects are already ready to move forward, but they are vulnerable to delay under the current process.

AB 2231 helps to ensure that critical healthcare infrastructure like these can proceed without delay and that patients are not left without access to care.

At the end of the day, these are essential investments and needed health care services and timing really matters. Thank you.

Okay. Well, thank you. Anybody else wishing to express support? Hello, Chris McHaley. Go ahead.

Good morning, madam Chair. Chris McHaley on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. CJAC supports this judicial streamlining bill. Thank you, madam Chair.

Good morning. Nicole Quinones on behalf of Cal Chamber in support.

Good morning. Monica Salas on behalf of Bay Area Council in support.

And Jeff Neal representing the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County also in support.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody in opposition to this bill wishing to come forward? Nope. No.

The author says no. Anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition? Okay. So that's that's lucky. So this is an important bill.

It ensures that two hospital projects in Emeryville can move through the CEQA process without risk of extenuating litigation. While CEQA litigation is uncommon, less than 2% of CEQA documents are litigated. When it occurs, it's costly, time consuming, and uncertain for project developers. Hospitals provide essential services to the public, as you stated. And AB 2231 adds certainty to the project developers that these hospitals will be expedited through the courts in the case of a lawsuit.

This approach also retains all the important environmental review of CEQA, which can help improve projects through mitigation measures and public input. So I wanna thank you for this bill, Assembly member. And with that, I will, ask if you'd like to close.

I'd like to ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Alright. Calling all authors to Senate EQ. We have one, two, three, four authors we're waiting on. Oh, we actually have three authors we're waiting on, And we're waiting on senators. We need one more Senator to have a quorum, and then we can vote.

Alright. We are going to go into a recess until either an author or member show up. Okay. We have an author, so we're going to, come out of recess, call this EQ committee back into order, and we will hand it to you when you are ready, Assembly member.

Thank you, madam chairman. So and senators, thank you. I wanna start by saying that I will be accepting the committee's amendments and thank the committee for working with me on this bill. I'm proud to present AB 2410, which is a necessary measure that will ensure the critical wildfire prevention projects continue to be carried out in a timely manner. It is evident to everyone just how critical an issue wildfires are to the state.

In 2025, we witnessed some of the most destructive wildfires in our history. These wildfires now are considered among the most costly, natural disasters. Recognizing the urgent need to reduce wildfire risk, the governor issued an emergency proclamation in March 2025, which was extremely successful and suspended CEQA, the coastal act, and other regulatory requirements for fuel reduction projects. Since then, over 400 wildfire projects have been approved statewide with projects being in as little as thirty days being approved in thirty days.

While this proclamation has been highly effective at accelerating critical prevention work, it has since expired on May 1.

If we want to continue reducing the risk of the next disastrous wildfire, it is essential that we maintain certainty for these necessary fuels reduction projects. AB 2410 will create targeted exemptions for fuel reduction projects done in very high fire hazard severity zones and higher fire threat districts from the requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act for three years.

By removing these barriers, AB 2,410 will accelerate critical wildfire prevention work, reduce cost and delays for local and state agencies, and better better protect our vulnerable communities from catastrophic wildfires. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this measure, and testifying with me today is John Kennedy with Rural County representatives of California.

Welcome. You have two minutes.

Good morning. John Kennedy on behalf of RCRC and our 40 member counties. We contain the vast majority of the state's forested landscape and have substantial portions of state's high fire risk areas. Wildfire risk reduction is of paramount importance for our communities and the wildland urban interface as a way to reduce fire intensity, reduce response costs and risks, and mitigate emissions from wildflowers. And avoid smoke, excuse me.

We support AB 2410 because it creates a narrow, sequel exemption for installation and importantly maintenance of fuel breaks, fuel reduction, roadside fuel reduction, forest, and a handful of other types of projects that also creates some relief, and expediting these projects through the California coastal. For these reasons, we think this bill will help expedite a lot of these wildfire fuel reduction projects, and more importantly, reduce the risk and exposure from litigation delays that that, lead agencies may face.

We think AB 2410 complements and plugs gaps in existing law in CEQA, both categorical and statutory, including in last year's SB 131. And for these reasons, we're happy to support twenty four ten today. Thank you.

Sorry about the jackhammering of the wall right next to us.

Just make sure and yell into the microphone, so everyone at home can hear you. Okay.

I wonder where that was. My my phone is something else. Thank you.

Anybody else in the room wishing to express support?

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

Madam Chair, members, Cesar Diaz on behalf of PG and E in support.

Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities in support as well as on behalf of the California Farm Bureau in support. Thank you.

Jeff Neal, number of Saint Orange County Fire Authority in support of this bill. Thank you.

Okay. Thanks very much. Anybody in opposition to this bill, please come forward. Welcome. Make sure and speak up.

Good afternoon, madam Chair and members. Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California here on behalf of over half a million members in California in opposition to AB 2410. But we appreciate the committee and the author of the amendments taken today. Sierra California remains opposed due to the timeline and scope of the CEQA and coal select exemptions included in the bill. It's vital that California maintain its leadership in ensuring a wildfire resilient natural and built environments.

However, the CEQA and coastal like assumptions provided under this bill are not compatible with these goals, but allow actions with broad impacts on the environment and coastal resources to be carried out without the environmental review that prevents ecological and public health harms. Applications for projects seeking to be exempted from CEQA and the COASLAC. The CEQA and COASLAC exemptions in the bill remain incredibly broad.

Exemptions would apply to removal of any hazardous dead or dying trees without regard for the number of trees, their size, their species, or any other factor. This exemption can be applied without consideration for the ecosystem benefits that older, larger, decaying trees have for forest health.

The scope of these qualifying projects would reduce ecosystems abilities to regenerate after severe natural disasters and increase the risk of floods and fires. Such broad removals would come at a high environmental and public safety cost. Governor Newsom's emergency proclamation allowed for these projects to qualify for CEQA and coastal act exemptions and then remain in effect until May of this year. Explaining the scope and timeline of the governor's limited proclamation moves away from the governor's intention and is unnecessary.

The legislature has also provided many sequence options for fuel reduction programs including those in s d one thirty one which passed just last year.

Further something, fuel reduction projects about having an opportunity to examine the impacts of newly legislated sequence options could lead to unintended consequences for environment and for the public health. We urge a no vote. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition, please come forward now. Not seeing anybody, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any comments from committee?

Okay. We'll turn it back to the author to close.

Thank you very much. I would like to address the governor's proclamation was extremely successful, and this does narrow down to his point. It does narrow narrow down to vegetation in a non active species. The vegetation of 12 inches or less in diameter. The vegetation is a common species.

So it's very it's it's very narrow, but it's also goes to if if you look right now, we're having all sorts of wildfires in in the state of California presently, and a lot of us due to not being able to control our our our our our our burn. So we need controlled burns. We need we need these sorts of programs. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. When we get to that, we will, make sure and vote when we have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you to both of you test for testifying.

And next, we have Assembly member Pappen.

Hello. Good morning, madam Chair. I will keep my voice up. I'll not be silenced by a jackhammer. Well, actually, it's kind of appropriate that we have this kind of machinery in the background as I present this bill.

So I'm here to present AB 2234 that deals with geothermal exploratory projects to modernize the definition of geothermal exploratory projects, to include new advanced technologies that they're using for geothermal.

I am a big geothermal fan because it provides for us what they call, I'm sure you all know, baseline energy, in that it can generate twenty-four seven with rain, without rain, shine, wind, or sun, or anything else.

Recent advancements in geothermal technologies like closed loop and enhanced geothermal technologies like closed loop and enhanced geothermal systems or EGS are now unlocking California's energy potential like never before. To develop a geothermal energy project, there are two phases.

You've got the exploratory phase and then the actual project. So, this bill focuses on the exploratory phase, and that's exactly as it sounds, the development of a geothermal project. Developers drill a small number of exploratory wells, to collect data on subsurface conditions to inform the viability of the project location.

This bill will modernize the definition of geothermal exploratory wells by including equipment and infrastructure necessary for the EGS development, and building flexibility for EGS enhanced geothermal systems into the current half mile restriction.

Recent amendments will allow for an EGS exploratory project to occur within the half mile of an existing commercial operation, with the written consent of the other owner or operator.

With these two small changes to the definition of geothermal exploratory projects, we're going to signal to developers that California is ready for geothermal exploration. With me to testify today, I was so caught up in my geothermal fandom, is Kate Brandenburg on behalf of Sonoma Clean Power.

Thank you. Good morning and again, my name is Kate Brandenburg on behalf of Sonoma Clean Power. We're the sponsors of the bill, and as Assemblywoman Pavin stated, AB 2234 modernizes the definition of geothermal exploration and will help California pave the way for a new renaissance of geothermal development.

AB 2234 takes us from the 60's when the geysers were originally built, to today and beyond. I kind of feel like Toy Story's out, so and beyond, with enhanced geothermal techniques. If California is going to meet its, climate goals, we need to look to the future.

With clean energy, we're maintaining a system of reliability and affordability for rate payers. So, with that, we hope that you support AB 2234. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support?

Good morning. Michaela Byrd on behalf of The Nature Conservancy in support. Thank you.

Okay. Great. Any opposition in the room wishing to come forward, please do. Welcome, you each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, madam Chair and members. Sarah Boot on behalf of the Northern California Power Agency. Respectfully oppose unless amended to AB 2234.

NCPA is a public joint powers agency, representing 16 publicly owned utilities and public entities that provide electricity to more than 700,000 Californians. For more than forty years, NCPA has been on the cutting edge of geothermal energy, investing in and operating geothermal resources at the geysers, the world's largest geothermal field.

NCPA supports geothermal exploration and streamlining geothermal development, we do not oppose the bills expansion of the definition of geothermal exploratory drilling. Our concern is that AB 2234 creates an exception to the existing half mile buffer that protect protects commercial geothermal resources and operations.

Studies conducted at the geysers have demonstrated that drilling within a half mile buffer can affect reservoir pressure, temperature, steam production, and other characteristics that existing geothermal facilities depend upon. In some cases, those impacts could be impossible to reverse.

If the legislature intends to create an exception to the half mile buffer, it should include safeguards to protect the existing geothermal resources, the public investments in them, and California rate players from exploratory drilling. Drilling without that proper due diligence could reduce overall production.

NCPA seeks reasonable guardrails that would require the developer to demonstrate the project will not harm existing geothermal resources or operations, to obtain consent from both affected owners and operators, and to assume responsibility for any resulting risks.

Finally, although the new projects will be subject to CEQA, this does not necessarily establish the specific resource protection standards or financial accountability provisions. NCPA believes should accompany a statutory exception to the half mile buffer.

With that, we want to thank the author for working to expand geothermal energy in California and for working with us to resolve our concerns with this bill. We look forward to continuing those discussions, and we're confident we can reach resolution on them.

With me today for discussion is, Erin Sanford, NCPA's manager of legislative affairs and external relations. Thank you so much.

Welcome. You have two minutes.

Thank you. We'll just answer questions if that's okay.

Okay. Great. Anybody else in the room wishing to express opposition?

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Derek Dofie, back of the California Municipal Utilities Association. We took an oppose position on the previous version of the bill, echoing NCPA's concerns. We need to review the new amendments but also look forward to working with the author to resolve any remaining concerns. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Delilah Clay on behalf of Calpine. Really appreciate the author and sponsor for working with us. We're going neutral now in light of the amendments. Thank you.

Okay. Well, thank you very much. We'll bring it back to the committee now. Any comments from committee members?

I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I have an all-hands-on deck approach when it comes to energy in this state, which we're needed to address affordability, as well as if we're going to actually achieve any of our climate goals, it's important that we have a diversified portfolio when it comes to energy.

Would love to be a co-author on this. Would also love though that, if you can continue to work with the opposition, this is a new emerging technology. It's important to the state, but it is, I think, important to consider some of the additional consequences and would hope that you would continue to work with the opposition.

Okay. Thank you. Yes. I want to thank the author for working on this. I know it's a passion project of yours, and it is really important to continue to advance geothermal in California.

California leads The United States in geothermal energy production with over 50 power plants that generate nearly 72% of the entire nation's geothermal power capacity, which is good to recognize when we are a leader. California also has a huge potential to rely on even more geothermal energy moving forward with new technologies such as advanced geothermal energy.

So, I want to thank you for this bill and also for continuing to work with the opposition to strike that balance of leaving room for further geothermal innovation but also protecting the existing geothermal operators that are already in California. So, we want to be able to do both, of course. So, with that, we'll turn it back to you to close.

Oh, thank you so much, madam Chair. I think the amends go a long way because they do require the consent of the neighboring wells that are already operating within a half mile. So we have certainly tried to strike the balance. We'll continue discussions.

If we need owner and operator consent, we can certainly take a look at that. So respectfully request an aye vote, and here for geothermal.

Okay. Good. Well, thank you very much. We'll be able to establish a quorum and vote right now. So with that, committee consultant, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

So, we'll move forward with taking the votes on all items, but we do encourage members of this committee to come because we have a quorum and we need you to vote. Then also, we have one remaining author. It is Assemblymember Solace.

So please come immediately to EQ. Okay. So we'll start at the top. We have AB 163 from Assemblymember Schultz, and do we have a motion on this?

No. Okay. Senator Gonzalez moves, and the motion is do passed to agriculture committee with amendments to be taken in next committee. With amendments to be taken in next committee.

[ROLL CALL]

That's two, two. We'll keep that on call, next we have AB 1732, from assembly member Alvarez.

[ROLL CALL]

That's four zero. We'll keep that on call. Since we do have an author, I think, unless anybody needs to leave immediately, we should honor his time and take him. Okay. So, we'll invite Assemblymember Solache with item number seven, AB 2349. You're welcome to present when ready.

Good morning, madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm here to present AB 2349, which established regional air quality incident response program. AB 2349, would establish a statewide network to air quality incident response centers through partnerships between local air districts and the state.

This program would serve in California's emergency preparedness by improving rapid response capabilities and coordination among agencies during the air quality emergencies. Unfortunately, California has seen these emergencies become more frequent and complex.

The Garden Grove chemical leak and the El Eden lock pallet size fires were major examples of how these incidents can, endanger public health. In my region, which I get to share with, Senator Lina Gonzales, there have been many several recent incidents like Boyle Heights, warehouse fire that we have caused ongoing concerns about community well-being.

California must ensure that our emergency response infrastructure includes the ability to immediately respond and monitor air quality threats.

As these incidents demonstrate, air quality emergencies can occur in little warning and in many different forms. As a former South Coast AQMD board member, I've seen firsthand how critically timely and accurate air monitoring is for protecting communities during emergencies.

AB 2349 would establish a coordinated risk system that can quickly assess impacts and communicate the risks to first responders, local governments, public health officials, and affected communities. This approach ensures that communities have access to reliable air quality information when they need it most.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 2349 with me to testify in support of the bill is my former colleague on the AQMD, Wayne Nasri, executive director of South Coast AQMD. Thank you.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning, madam Chair. Members of the committee, my name is Wayne Nastry.

I'm the executive officer of the South Coast AQMD. We strongly support AB 2349 as a bill sponsor and thank Assemblymember Solace for his leadership in advancing this important measure. In his remarks, the Assembly member outlined why California must strengthen its statewide air response capabilities.

As a former regional administrator for USEP nine, I can tell you in my current role at South Coast AQMD, that timely data access to that timely data is critically important, not just for the responders and the people that are providing the information, but also for the communities. It's part of why AB 2349 will strengthen our air incident response system in three key ways.

First, it'll establish a regional network of air quality incident response centers operated by local air districts who are on the ground in conjunction with CARB, and these centers will really enable the rapid deployment of monitoring equipment where it is most needed

By sharing these resources across the region, the program will be able to improve its efficiency, expand its capacity, and really strengthen the emergency response statewide. Second, the bill invests in training and preparedness.

This is probably one of the most critical aspects in terms of providing the wherewithal and the resources to have that training so that we're actually in an emergency incidence.

Everybody knows who each other is, how we coordinate, how the information flows. Effective coordination and operational readiness for emergency requires this type of approach. Third, AB 2349 enhances the monitoring and technical staffing capability as well.

By strengthening the air incident response through a statewide partnership with local air districts and CARB, we can maximize resources and expand that expertise. We respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I've also brought with me Doctor Jason Lowe. He's our deputy executive officer in charge of monitoring and analysis. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. You have two minutes as well if you'd like. No?

You just have any technical questions.

Oh, okay. Okay. Great. Anybody else in the room wishing to express support? Please come forward, state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning. John Scoglin with the County of Los Angeles in support.

Okay. Great. Any opposition witnesses in the room? Anybody wishing to express opposition? Okay.

Not seeing anyone in the sparse crowd out there. Get a little smile. This is our last bill. So thank you to the author. We can't protect California against hazards in the air they breathe without monitoring what's there.

Coordinate that monitoring. So thank you for bringing it forward, and thank you for taking the time to come up to Sacramento to to talk to us today. Not seeing any other Oh, okay. Great. Yes. Senator Gonzales.

Thank you, madam Chair. I want to thank you, of course, my colleague in Southeast Los Angeles, and director Nastry, thank you as well and to the doctor too.

We're currently dealing with the lineage logistics, issue, as you know, Boyle Heights, but obviously air quality issues in Southeast Los Angeles, the San Gabriel Valley in South Los Angeles. So, I want to thank you for being on the call with us.

Just this is so timely. I appreciate you lining out the three, issues. How do you think it would have been maybe different, if this would bill would have been implemented before the Lineage Logistics fire, occurred? How do you think it we maybe have would have been more prepared or more efficient in this respect?

That's a great question. Yeah. The challenge oftentimes is that you're bringing in so many different agencies. It's not just the initial responding fire agency. It's oftentimes, mutual aid agencies.

So, for instance, what started with LA City Fire soon expanded to LA County, Long Beach, Oxnard, all of these other supporting agencies that come together, and they all bring in their own PIOs.

You have the information flow, and then you have the supporting agencies like South Coast AQMD, the health care agencies, public works, all of those that do collect information and provide that information in terms of data flow is critical.

What we find oftentimes is that the systems that we have aren't necessarily compatible with the systems that we're, being combined with in an incident command.

So, we're having to overcome very quickly those challenges. So where I see the greatest opportunity is really improving the operational efficiency, which then I think takes a lot of load off of the personnel and staff that are working there.

I can tell you from a South Coast AQMD perspective, you know, we have teams of people that are working on air modeling for the plume, for instance, movement. We're looking at, the monitors that are being utilized for the various, constituents, but perhaps doctor Lo would like to explain some of those challenges as well.

He was one of the recent incident commanders on the GKN Garden Grove facility. He hasn't had much sleep in the last thirty days, but I think he also can provide some valuable experience.

Thank you for the question, Senator. So, in all these experiences and what had Wayne had mentioned, I mean, a lot of the key gap that this bill is filling is that pre coordination. Right? Under having that understanding of how important air monitoring data is and is expected from both, the community as well as public health officials.

This air monitoring data answers a lot of questions, whether it can be for operational safety, whether it can help, provide information for operational logistics and ultimately, in the community, it provides information that helps decide, you know, whether or not they're safe. That is the number one question that is always asked.

So being able to provide that information with confidence, with transparency, and quickly are vital aspects in the incident response.

In every incident response I've been to, those are all different requests out of that, and to have that coordinated ahead of time, helps with the operational efficiency, as Wayne had mentioned, to be able to get that information to all the decision makers and the public that much faster.

Thank you very much for the answers. I would love to be added as a coauthor and Assembly member. I think given our, communities that have been impacted, you know, not directly but, you know, indirectly, they're still dealing with much, smoke in their garages and, you know, asking for air purifiers just this week from our supervisor.

I think it also is sometimes in very simplistic terms, just updating our contact list to make sure we know exactly who to contact at the not just with the larger cities, but with the smaller cities, which is super important.

And having maybe after this hopefully gets signed, having ongoing communication with these cities on what this law means and how they can be involved if an emergency occurs for that pre coordination, not after the fact but, you know, before, any other emergency occurs.

So thank you very much, and I'll move it at the appropriate time.

Okay. Thank you. We'll turn it back to you to close then.

Thank you, madam Chair. I just can't emphasize, the importance of protecting community. You know, I visited Northern California to, Senator Deli's district, and just knowing that the fires that they deal with are communities who are seeing the fire, the impacts today of these, environment, you know, issues to our quality.

This is, the right direction to protect community, and I just ask for an aye vote in the spirit of protecting our community all the time.

Okay. Well, thanks very much. I think we have a motion from Senator Gonzales. So, let's go ahead and vote, and the motion is do pass to appropriations.

[ROLL CALL]

That's 5-0. We'll keep that on call. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Okay. So I think we're, back to item number three, AB 1744. Right? Yes.

So I would entertain a motion on that bill. The Vice Chair moves.

The motion is due passed to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay. That's 6, 0. We'll keep that on call. Next, we have item number four, AB 2152. The Vice Chair moves.

The motion is due passed to judiciary committee. [Roll Call] 6,0

That's 6,0. We'll keep that on call. The next bill is AB 2231. The Vice Chair moves.

The motion is due passed to judiciary committee. [Roll Call]

That's 6, 0. We'll keep that on call. The next one is item number eight. Correct? AB 2410. And we need a motion on that one. Okay. The Vice Chair moves. Thank you.

The motion is due passed to natural resources and water with amendments to be taken in the next committee.

That's 6,0. We'll keep that on call. The next item is the consent calendar. The Vice Chair moves. There's one bill on consent.

It's AB 2477.

[Roll Call]

6, 0. On call. The next item is AB 2635. The Vice Chair moves.

The motion is do passed to local government with amendments to be taken in the next committee. [Roll Call]

Okay. 6, 0. And I think for those of you who've been here the whole time, you're done. And we'll go back through for those who still need to vote on some things. So let's just start at the top and see if the people here need to vote on it.

I think oh, item number one. Okay. We're starting with file item number one, AB 1603.

Motion is due passed to agriculture with amendments to be taken in the next committee. Current vote is two to two with Chair voting Aye and vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call]

It's 32. We'll keep that on call. Number 2. Okay. Next, we have item number two, AB 1732.

The motion is due passed to housing committee.

Current vote 4, 0 with Chair and Vice Chair voting Aye. [Roll Call]

6, 0. Keep that on call. The next item is Number six. Is number six, AB 2234 from Assembly member Papan. The motion is do passed to Natural Resources and Water Committee.

Current vote, 4, 0 with Chair and vice Chair voting Aye. [Roll Call]

5, 0. We'll keep that on call. What's next? Just seven for her time. Okay.

And then we have item number seven, AB 2349.

The motion is due passed to appropriations. Current vote, 5, 0 with Chair and Vice Chair voting Aye. [Roll Call]

That's 6, 0. We'll keep that on call.

To that. Yeah. Okay.

We're go coming back, calling this back into session. This is the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, and we are going to run through the role starting at the beginning. So number one, AB 163. Please call the absent Member.

The motion is due passed agriculture with amendments to be taken in the next committee. Current vote, 3, 2, with Chair voting Aye and Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call]

Four two. That bill is out. Next, we have AB 1732. The motion is due passed to housing committee.

Current vote, 6, 0. [Roll Call]

7, 0. That bill is out. Next, we have AB 1744. The motion is due passed to appropriations.

From vote 6, 0. [Roll Call]

The vote is 7, 0. That bill is out. Next, we have AB 2152. Motion is due passed to Judiciary committee.

Current vote, 6, 0. [Roll Call]

It's 7, 0. That bill is out. Next, we have AB 2231. The motion is due passed to Judiciary committee.

Current vote, 6, 0. [Roll Call]

It's 7, 0. That bill is out. Next, we have AB 2234. The motion is due passed to Natural Resources and Water Committee.

[Roll Call]

6, 0. That bill is out. Next, we have AB 2349. The motion is due passed to appropriations.

Current vote, 6,0. [Roll Call]

That's 7, 0, and it's out. Next, we have AB 2410. The motion is due passed to natural resources and water with amendments to be taken in the next committee.

Current vote, 6,0. [Roll Call]

Okay. That's 6, 0, and that bill is out. Next, we have AB 2477, and that's actually our consent item.

Current vote, 6,0. [Roll Call]

It's 7, 0. And the consent calendar is out. And our last bill is AB 2635. The motion is due passed to local government with amendments to be taken in the next committee.

Current vote, 6, 0.[Roll Call]

Okay. The vote is 7, 0. That vote is out, and we are adjourned. Thank you.