Assembly Standing Committee on Natural Resources

Welcome to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee hearing. We're gonna start as a subcommittee because we're too short. We're gonna start as a subcommittee, but if you are a member of this committee, one more and we have a quorum. I believe in you, Matt Haney, Avkara, Buffy Wicks. We're gonna start as a subcommittee.

In the meantime, we do have an item proposed for consent. It's item five, SCR 180, Viadares. We will deal with that when we have a quorum. I see Assembly member Mia Bonta is here. Would you like to present AB 40?

Hi, miss Margaret.

Hello, everyone.

Welcome back.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. I'm proud to present AB 40, the Community First Coal Review Act on behalf of the beautiful people of Oakland, Alameda, and Emeryville in 8018. Earlier this year, president Trump announced $700,000,000 in funding to send coal in communities across this country. By nature of our access to the coast and agent markets, there are several facilities across the state that could be attractive to this administration to send unfathomable amounts of coal throughout it.

A b 40 requires a full CEQA environmental impact report before any new or expanded coal terminal exists exceeding 5,000,000 short terms per year can receive a discretionary approval.

It requires updated review when coal type or quantity changes significantly, and it requires that where there are significant air quality impacts are found, the developer must demonstrate enforceable mitigation before any approval can be issued. Today, the threat is in Oakland, but the bill is not only about Oakland.

If this White House is willing to invoke emergency powers and direct federal dollars to build a coal terminal over the objections of a community in my district, nothing stops them from doing the same thing somewhere else in California tomorrow. In West Oakland, one of the most environmentally overburdened communities in the state of California, the Federal Government is moving to build a bulk coal export terminal using emergency wartime powers and $75,000,000 in targeted federal funding. The state has recognized our documented cumulative pollution burden.

A child born and raised in West Oakland has a life expectancy at least fifteen years shorter than a child in a wealthier part of Oakland. No community should be forced to accept new pollution burdens based on outdated science. AB 40 answers this question clearly in California. If there's a new plan with new material and new coal, there should also be a new environmental impact report. This is a textbook example of why our environmental review laws are on the books.

The environmental review this terminal operators rely on is over a decade old. It did not evaluate coal as today's proposed scale of nine to 10,000,000 short tons annually, and it predates the latest science that could inform crucial decisions about its usage and operations. California should not be be asked to accept expanded coal infrastructure based on environmental review that is outdated, incomplete, and misaligned with the current science and current project plans.

With me to testify, I have miss Margaret Gordon from West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project and Colin O'Brien, attorney with Earth Earth Justice.

Yes, Marco.

Uh-oh. Thank you very much. I appreciate y'all wanting to hear my story and my comments about the issue of coal. I've been here. I've been there since the beginning of the decommissioning of the former army base.

I have been in West Oakland since 1991. I have been in the forefront of emission reduction, truck issues, and relating to health care health and public health issues of West Oakland by as one of the founders of the the a co director of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators. I am still a resident of West Oakland even though I have transitioned out of the organization. I'm at the University of Berkeley.

I am a community scholar and a fellow, but my heart, soul, and life is still with West Oakland.

Like I said, I have been part of the process of the decommissioning of the former army base land and to a redevelopment. But in the whole process of redeveloping the land between the Port Of Oakland and the City Of Oakland, nobody had given us the information that coal was gonna be a product for the city side of the army base, for the OBOT, the Oakland Bulk Terminal that was never given to us upfront.

Nothing was given to us upfront to say that the city of Oakland and all these trials and tribulations that they have gone through with the courts was ever explained to us and to us as residents. And we have been in the forefront. My organization had been in the forefront of talking about how do we go be go beyond about just surviving but thriving in a healthy community?

We have put have produced our own documents of community participatory research over the last thirty years. Right now, my role is not as staff, but I am the Chair of the board. I'm not going anywhere. I love my community. I love my residents.

I'm still involved in very as many things as possible even though I have a job. I still have a job. I'll be 80 years old this year. I have not stopped working. I have 17 grandchildren and a great granddaughter.

And I want them to have the ability not to just to to thrive. I want them to have the resiliency and the skills to deal with all these issues in the future because it's not gonna go away. And I'm just hoping through this EIR, y'all see our plight of constant issues and concerns that come back. We have the fugitive dust issue that's coming off the coal trade. We have a process with the Port Of Oklahoma, the channel for larger ships.

And but the state with car and bay air quality, y'all spend all this money to do a mission reduction on AB 617. That is such a contradiction that this is happening when y'all we already know that West Oakland has all these issues. One out of five one out of five children between the ages of zero and seven end up emergency hospital an emergency hospital for respiratory disease. We still know that we still have people from 59 to 65 have cardiovascular disease.

So there's still a problem here, and this cold terminal will add onto more accumulative impact that nobody is talking about and permitting and permitting.

It shouldn't have the permission to add on to something that y'all has spent all this money. State of California has spent all this money for emission reduction, and we still have all these other fights, struggles that we have to deal about the, about the the turning base at at fugitive dust. And simultaneously have to deal with this cold terminal. I wanna appreciate y'all giving me this platform to to speak about from my heart, soul, and lifelong experience being part of the process to wanna save lives.

Thank you.

Absolutely. And for you, sir, I just wanna be very clear. It's two minutes per witness. It's less than miss Margaret, and you got 17 grandchildren and one great grandbaby. You get to talk as long as you like and we're happy to have you.

Two minutes, sir.

All night and next year if I do.

I would I'll listen I'll listen to every minute of it.

Good evening, Chair and committee members. My name is Colin O'Brien, and I'm a deputy managing attorney with Earthjustice. I am here to proudly support AB 40. We support this bill because it will ensure that enormous, dusty, and dangerous bulk coal facilities will be subject to robust environmental review and meaningful mitigation. Reflecting industry input, this bill has been amended to make sure it only applies to the largest coal facilities, not other projects or infrastructure.

A recent CARB funded study measured air quality at the existing coal terminal in Richmond, California and found that coal operations there emitted harmful particulate matter pollution that can cause or worsen heart and lung conditions and even lead to premature death. AB 40 responds to the Trump administration's plan to fund a high volume coal terminal in West Oakland. The plan envisions moving three coal trains through California every day, each one a mile long and comprised of 100 open cars of dusty polluting coal.

Alarmingly, the previous outdated reviews for the Oakland terminal never addressed the possibility of handling coal. They only discussed bulk goods generically.

And even then, they did not address fugitive dust emissions from the project's operations, which is a unique concern for coal facilities, and only a much smaller project was disclosed. Developers now want to handle 10 to 12,000,000 tons of coal per year, significantly more than any existing facility in the state. Under these circumstances, common sense dictates that an updated meaningful environmental review should be completed. AB 40 would require such review, and we appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

It was two minutes. Exactly. Well done. Any other support here in the hearing room?

Good evening, Alex.

We're on behalf of Coalition for Clean Air, Solano County Democratic Central Committee, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter of the Climate Reality Project, San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility, and San Francisco Baykeeper all in strong support. Thank you.

Good evening. Niccolo DeLuca here on behalf of the city of Berkeley in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the city of Alameda, also in support. Thank you.

Good evening. Jacob Evans with Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

Marie Lu in support for SEHA and PCL, the Center of Environmental Health and the Richmond Shoreline Alliance. Thank you. Good evening. Christina Scrantz with the Center for Biological Diversity and Support. Good evening.

Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in strong support. Thank you. Veronica Eady, cosponsor and executive direct director of West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project in support.

Thank you all so much. Is anybody here in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?

Thank you all so much. Is anybody here in the hearing room in opposition to this measure?

Do either of you have 17 grandchildren and one great grand grandchild? Working on it. Two minutes two minutes a piece then.

Alright. Is this working? Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable. The success of California's goods movement ecosystem is dependent on rules that are consistent, neutral, and workable to ultimately attract investment.

Unfortunately, this bill flips that paradigm on its head by explicitly using CEQA to target a single project that has already gone through a robust CEQA process, obtained all the relevant approvals, and even then, survived almost over a decade of litigation where at each point, the the it was confirmed that the project followed all the state and federal requirements. Instead, this bill is really seeking to relitigate a project that has already been settled at the state and federal level.

And in so doing, it sets a pretty frightening precedent that the CEQA process is never really final. A project can go through all the relevant approvals under CEQA, the robust analysis, receive all the relevant approvals, and even and even, survived, judicial review. And even then, a legislator could come back and reopen the process. Ultimately, that's not the message we want to send to businesses as we're trying to attract investments. And for that reason for those reasons, we'd urge you to hold the bill. Chair members. Alfredo Medina here with Manette Phillips and Phillips on behalf of Insight Terminal Solutions. Given the nature of this late off the floor hearing, I'll be providing prepared remarks from ITS CEO Vikas Tandon. A v 40 sends a damaging signal that California can change the rules after developers have relied on existing approvals and invested hundreds of millions of dollars. We want to highlight three points.

First, the 2012 EIR addendum, well before the Trump administration took office, studied and approved all coal commodities, including coal, at volumes of up to 50,000,000 tons annually. The EIR expressly contemplated up to three unit trains per day. Three unit trains is over 15,000,000 tons and analyzed PM 2.5, PM 10 impacts with mitigation measures incorporated into the approved seaport zoning.

Second, when Oakland later raised health and safe health and safety concerns, both Judge Chhabria, president Obama appointee, and a ninth circuit court found that there's no evidence that the transportation, handling, or storage of coal presented the substantial health and safety danger that they claimed. Long running monitoring around the open army base has likewise found no demonstrated correlation between coral movements and the elevated PM 2.5 levels.

Notive notably, the city of Oakland is absent and not supportive of AB 40. Third, this bill creates a troubling precedent. The broader army base development is more than 90% complete, and AB 40 is selectively targeting this terminal while excluding another bulk commodity just roughly a thousand feet away. The message to developers is clear. Even after approvals, litigation, and substantial investment, the legislature can retroactively change the rules. For those reasons, we urge to no vote. Thank you.

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

Good evening, Chair Brian and members. John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce. Appreciate the amendments that were taken recently, but respectfully remain opposed. Thank you.

Matt Roman on behalf of California Business Property Association and Union Pacific Railroad in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Elizabeth Esquivel of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We'll now return it back to committee members. Questions, comments, thoughts? Vice Chair Ellis.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I have a question for the opposition. What is the regulatory agency over PM 2.5? Is that the Air Quality Management District?

Yes. It is.

Okay. Have they already approved this project?

They they have. They issued once once the the the the the EIR certified, the air agencies actually go about approving the projects effectively ministerially, where they don't actually do additional review because the project has already gone through an extensive SQL process to look at all the air quality impacts.

What what's the ultimate disposition of this coal?

To be shipped abroad. You can probably see that a little bit more.

So it's trans shipped? Yes. What type of abatement equipment did they use for air abatement?

I'm just the yeah. We're give us a second. We're just gonna look for that data. I know there was extensive mitigation that was proposed as part of the project.

So you're you're actually not fueling anything with this coal, which would be a worry make me worry about sulfur sulfur compounds. But if it's P M 2.5, I'm sure that they're under under dust abatement criteria that would meet the air quality management district specifications. So if it's already been gone through that process okay. Thank you for that. Appreciate it.

Assembly member, may I address that?

Always.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So there and I will address a bit the the opposition's testimony, which I think is specious. First of all, there's no opposition letter submitted by the city of Oakland. So I wanna just, as a point of order, clarify that the city of Oakland has not indicated whether or not they are supportive of or not of this bill, and largely because, there is an ongoing lawsuit.

And if I were in the city's place, I'd be kind of bummed about this project right now. Your own analysis, this committee's own analysis acknowledges that there was no, in the 2002 EIR report, any kind of possibility of developing bulk goods terminal considered in that EIR. And in 2012, also acknowledges that there was no consideration of, in the addendum, any discussion of developing a bulk goods terminal, but, did not identify or analyze coal as a potential commodity within that.

So I think that there is, certainly a difference of opinion about whether or not there has been an EIR conducted for this particular use case and, and it's essentially why we are moving forward, seeking to move forward with this piece of legislation to make it absolutely clear that, that there is a need to be able to have an EIR when there is a projected use that has not been considered for the community.

This bill also explicitly, provides that nothing in this legislation, again, in your analysis, just to be clear and clarify, speaks to the building building use or infrastructure that is not a large volume bulk hold facility, or affects the validity of a previously certified EIR made for building use or infrastructure that isn't a large volume bulk coal facility.

So while I appreciate the, you know, the sense of, worrying about this having, implications beyond this particular use case of coal large bulk coal facilities throughout the state of California. And, and for particular usage, we made it very clear in this legislation that there's no ability to have any kind of slippery slope implications, with this legislation. And I would ask my witness just respond to the, question raised by Assembly member Ellis regarding the p m two levels.

Vice Chair, regarding whether the air district has approved this project, what you heard from the opposition was categorically false. The developers have acknowledged consistence consistently over the last decade that the project can only go forward if they secure a discretionary authorization to construct from the air district. In fact, that point was a centerpiece of the litigation that the opposition mentioned. When Oakland passed an ordinance banning coal storage and handling, the developer said, hold on.

You don't have adequate grounds to view this project as a substantial danger.

And the reason you, the city, don't need to jump in is because you have not taken account of the fact that the air district will have to exercise strict oversight. In court documents and in the judicial opinion that judge Trawberry wrote, he emphasized that the air district would exercise strict regulatory oversight over the project and that they would have to, issue an an air permit. And I can I can quote the decision if it's helpful?

But for your own reference, we know that the developers earlier this summer met with the air district, had a premeeting, and acknowledged that an application is still forthcoming.

So what AB 40 does is make sure that as a predicate to issuing that permit, which has never been subject to sequel review or for a project that's never been subject to sequel review for the actual coal dust emissions that that in meaningful environmental review and robust mitigation will be baked into the forthcoming discretionary project, that the air district has to consider.

Yes. You may. Also, just summarize it shortly. Yes. Sounds like Bay Area AQMD has not approved of this, and there hasn't been an application received Correct.

Miss vice Chair.

So there's no permit application, no authority to construct? None of that? No. Okay. Thank you.

Sean Eese, former vice Chair, Alan Eese.

Thank you, Mister Chair. My my questions will not be as technical as the vice chairs. So remember, Vonta, if you could, or any of your witnesses, explain why 06/04/2026 was selected as the retroactive implementation implementation date.

The this was based on constituent feedback that we received as well as some technical assistance. The date coincides very clearly with Trump's announcement to be able to use the Defense Production Act to make $700,000,000 worth of investments in The United States movement of investment in coal projects throughout throughout The United States.

What was the reason for establishing additional if we haven't got you already on CEQA requirements beyond the existing framework that they already talked about at the federal and state level?

I appreciate that question because it helps us clarify that this actually doesn't create a new process at all. It allows for us to be able to apply this existing sequel law to the purpose of a project to that, a category of a project that has never been considered by an EIR in the state and has and deserves analysis.

If we are in a situation where we are going to be creating large, bulk coal terminals throughout the state of California and, doing so in a way that is going to have significant environmental impacts and health impacts for our communities. I think it would be helpful for us to at least have done at least one EIR considering a project at that scale. So, I certainly appreciate the question.

I don't believe that this changes the the framework of CEQA at all.

Thank you, Senate member. And for the opposition, I wanna give you guys a chance if you guys have a response to anything that you heard from the other side.

No response.

Okay. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Seeing no other questions, Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Well, thank you, Chair. And I know, we've all had a very long day, and I appreciate, engaging in some robust conversation about this. I first wanna thank our advocates for showing up on a dime's notice to be able to participate in this hearing, particularly miss Margaret who is somebody who I deeply respect and, who has launched a whole movement in West Oakland and throughout Oakland to make sure that we have the ability to make sure our babies are able to breathe clean air.

Her 17 grandchildren and one great grandchildren amongst them. California's progress on clean air and environmental justice must not be undermined by outdated analysis or attempts to expand coal infrastructure in our state.

Full stop. Period. This is a very sensible bill triggered by, an action taken by this Federal Government that would cause us to this is to be sure that California is preserving our ability to make sure that we have the ability to breathe clean air. And with that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Can I add add one thing?

Yes, ma'am. You can.

Okay. My new job at that I attained is 70 some 79 years old. That I am training the next generation of students how to be more reverse reversely impacted from community engagement and air quality, soil, water, and all these issues. Also, supporting training to academia and consultants and regulatory staff. What does it mean to set the table for the re to be problem solving for these issues?

If if if I had a magic wand, I would support having the developer be sitting at a table to exercise his rights as well as our rights to breathe. Exercise his right to have a business model to take care of his business, but simultaneously, asking him how he's going to him and his team is going to help prevent us being impacted, have disparities, a burden or impact. I haven't heard any of that from nobody to tell us what is that plan. Yes, ma'am.

That's right.

Think that is just as valuable for him to have the business model as well as to save our lives, to have clean air.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you for that. Madam secretary, can we establish a quorum real quick?

Brian?

Here.

Brian here. Ellis?

Here.

Ellis here. Alanis? Yeah. Alanis here. Connelly?

Connelly here. Garcia? Yeah. Garcia here. Haney?

Here.

Haney here. Hoover. Cholera? Macedo? Here.

Macedo here, Mitsuchi. Here. Mitsuchi here. Pellerin?

Here.

Pellerin here. Schultz?

Yeah.

Schultz here, Wicks. Zibur.

Here. Zibur here.

Do we have a motion?

So moved. Moved.

We have a

motion and a second. Mister mayor Succi, Mister Connolly. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is that the Senate amendment speaker concurred in. Brian?

Aye.

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

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

A. Garcia, Aye. Haney? A. Haney, Aye.

Hoover? Colra? Macedo? No. Macedo, no.

Maritsuchi? Aye. Maritsuchi, Aye. Pellerin? Aye.

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

Aye. Ziburr, aye.

Miss Bonta and miss Margaret, that bill is out. And if you need an eighteenth grandchild, you just tell me when the cookout is. Okay?

And and I have a history of cook

Yes, ma'am.

Cooking. Okay?

You take care.

Thank you.

Thank you, members.

Senator Weber Pearson.

Senator Weber Pearson.

Yes, ma'am. Yeah. Whenever you're ready.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair. Members, I'm here today to present SB 344, a bill that provides a pathway for the city Of San Diego's Midway Rising redevelopment project. The Midway Rising project is desperately needed to revitalize a centrally located but underutilized public asset.

This project would span 49 acres, 25 acres being on blacktop asphalt parking lots. It replaces an aging arena with a new modern sports and entertainment venue. But more specifically, Midway Rising would deliver approximately 4,250 housing units, including 2,000 deed restricted affordable homes.

A 16,000 seat sports arena and thousand seat sports arena and entertainment venue, and more than 14 acres of parks and public space. This project maintains this area's role as a regional entertainment destination, but gives it a much needed upgrade. A transit oriented neighborhood that supports affordable housing production, active transportation, sustainability, and public access is exactly what the Midway area needs. The city of San Diego faces an acute housing shortage, and even more so, an affordable housing shortage with a median home price exceeding $1,000,000.

As of December 2024, the regional housing needs assessment found that San Diego will need a 108,000 new home units by 2029 to meet the demand of all income levels.

This project helps us meet our goals and needs. The city of San Diego has conducted thorough environmental analysis for almost a decade related to this project. This bill is needed because all other efforts have been exhausted, and we need shovels in the ground as soon as possible. It is imperative that we advance what may soon become one of the largest affordable housing products projects in the Western United States. But let me be clear.

This bill does not provide CEQA exemption for Midway Rising Project. All requirements under CEQA have already been completed for this project, so there are no additional provisions in CEQA law to exempt this project from.

Since the city council's initial action in 2018, the city, as a CEQA lead agency, has conducted extensive environmental and local review, including a community wide environmental impact report in 2018, a supplemental environmental impact report in 2022, and a final subsequent environmental impact report specifically for the Midway Rising Project, which is scheduled to be certified by the San Diego City Council this fall.

SB 344 establishes a narrow project specific pathway for the Midway Rising Project by providing that the final subsequent environmental impact report is sufficient, adequate, and complete for CEQA compliance. Although this bill includes an urgency clause, its operative date is contingent upon certification of the final subsequent EIR at the local level.

This EIR and its related environmental review have already been completed, approved by the City of San Diego Planning Commission, and is ready and publicly available. This contingency simply ensures that its protections go into effect only when it is officially certified. Additionally, SB 344 explicitly states that all mitigation methods incorporated into the EIR shall be monitored and fully enforced by the lead agency. The project's application is also required to submit an annual status report on the implementation of those mitigation measures. We cannot allow for any more delays.

We need to advance this project now for San Diegans. Here with me today are the bill sponsors, Moira Topp on behalf of San Diego mayor toward Todd Gloria, and Keith Dunn on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, and the Council California State Council of Laborers. I thank you both for being here.

Thank you, Mister Chair, members of the committee. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the California State Building Construction Trades Council as well as the State Council of Labor. First, I want to thank the author for her hard work and dedication and her staff in working diligently to get this bill to you today. Also, I'd like to thank committee staff for their hard work in giving us a pathway that is hopefully acceptable to members. Historic level of unity among organized labor around the housing bill.

We have the state building trades, the carpenters and laborers. My friend from the carpenters is gonna say something in a bit here, so I'll let him speak for himself. But I just wanna recognize the opportunity that we have here. This broad coalition recognizes the leadership of the mayor of San Diego, Todd Gloria, and the the other elected officials there down in San Diego and our Senator who's brought this forward after years and years of discussion. That has been decades in the making that we can start to address.

This coalition of laborers come together because we need to have opportunities for the individuals who build these facilities to continue to live in the neighborhoods that they're building. Simple principle. Major public private development should deliver lasting benefits for working people and the communities that they help build. SB 344 meets that goal, and we ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and members. Moira Topp here on behalf of San Diego mayor Todd Gloria. To echo, my colleagues, thanks to the author for bringing this bill forward, and to your committee staff working diligently to get a bill that is improved and and we think will will do great things for the city of San Diego. The mayor believes this is a once in gen in a generation project. This truly is gonna be foundational and transformational in the city of San Diego.

It will bring 4,250 home units plus walkable, additional transit, additional park space, additional entertainment venues. It is truly a community within a community. It is as the author mentioned, it's about a project that's been in the works for a decade, and it's time to bring this to closure. This bill will help us, move this project to fruition and to get shovels in the ground and to get people housed in San Diego. On behalf of the mayor of San Diego, ask for your aye vote.

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

Mister Chair, and members Scott Wetch, on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers, California State Pipe Trades Council, the Western States Council of Sheet Nail Workers, and the Elevator Constructors Union in support.

Amy Brown on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce in support.

Good evening, Mister Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of San Diego Housing Commission, California DMV, Circulate Planning and Policy, and Student Housing Commission and strong support. Thank you.

Danny Curtin, California Conference of Carpenters. Please support this measure. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Any persons here in opposition to this measure? Seeing none, we'll turn it to committee members. Questions, comments, concerns? Mister Muratsuchi.

Thanks, Senator, for your presentation. I'm trying to understand the bill. It looks like on page three, second to last paragraph, it basically appears to summarize the purpose of this bill. There is a new EIR specific for the Midway Rising Project, but this bill is not necessary for the city to certify the new EIR and approve the project where this bill is intended to shield the city and the project from litigation claiming that the new EIR does not comply with CEQA. Is that, in essence, the purpose of this bill?

The purpose of this bill is to essentially state that once the city has certified the EIR, which is generally the last step to CEQA, that it is CEQA compliant. And, yes, if they end up having to go through another round of litigation, it will help in the court system. It will not prevent people from being able to sue, because people can sue here for anything. But, it will hopefully help, and not delay it another four, five, ten years.

So I'm trying to remember if I've ever voted on a bill like this that a legislation to declare that a project is fully compliant with CEQA. Is there a precedent for this?

This would be a first time in the past with the Kern. ... Last year, 237. They the ruling was that it was compliant with CEQA and any past litigation or it was retroactive. This is actually stating that this current EIR, and it's very specific because this EIR has been out for a year, I believe, and there are no changes anticipated.

And so if you read the bill, it's it's specifically calls out this EIR and and does not necessarily allow for other changes or significant changes to help them with any future litigation so that we don't have to come back next year and try to do something that may not stand up in the court.

From the committee's perspective, Mr Muratsuchi, yes, there is precedent for something like this. No. There is precedent for a specific project like this. I'm also not aware of any other project in the state that meets these specific and unique conditions. The Senator has been working really hard on this, and we took a hard look as a committee team and consulting team.

She's accepted our work through author amendments with us, and we feel comfortable with it. Also, there's a first time for everything as this is your last natural research resources committee here.

I understand. And and, you know, I mean, I obviously recognize all the the upsides of the project, the housing, the jobs, the overall economic impact for the region, I'm just concerned that this process is being used for something that should be left to the courts. Thank you.

Mister Schultz.

Yeah. I I just wanna thank the author. Great bill. Really impressive coalition that's gonna be hard to see twice. Easiest decision I've made today, I'll be supporting the bill.

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

Yes. Well, first of all, I want to thank, this committee staff, for working on this bill. Thank the Chair, but I also really wanna thank my staff. This has been, something that we decided to do after I had a community conversation and really learned about the benefits and got a chance to hear from the community about Midway. And that was in August, but we've been talking about this for this entire legislative session.

This is a new area for me to represent. But once I saw the potential and heard the answers to some of the questions around the EIR, I've I realized that this is something that definitely needs to be done. It is something that the city has been trying to do for a very long time. And I really don't want this to end up back in the courts because the courts will just continue to drag this on, and we know that the needs continue to grow.

So I really wanna thank my staff for all of their hard work on this along with the Chair of this Committee and the committee staff.

You know, we debate so many topics here in Sacramento, and there are things that we can agree on from across the aisle. We all say that we need desperately need more affordable housing here in California. Well, the Midway Rising Project will bring over 2,000 affordable units. In California, we are ranked forty eighth in the nation of unemployment. This project will bring over 1,000 permanent good paying jobs.

Everyone talks that we need more social services like child care, health care, job training. This project brings all of that. That was one of the things that I was surprised about. They have a an MOU with the YMCA to have a day care on-site. They have an MOU with one of our health facilities to have a health clinic on-site.

We talk about the need for more open green spaces for people to be able to go and play. This project brings all of that. We talk about the need for different types of transportation. That is what this project brings. It will be walkable, bright bike friendly, transit oriented.

If this project provides so many of the things that we claim, that we care about, that we want to provide for our residents and our constituents. It does that and still holds up the state's environmental standards and protections. And I will once again say this is not a CEQA exemption, but it is a pathway forward once the city certifies it so that we can get shovel in the ground. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 344.

We have a motion in the second. Madam secretary, can you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

The bill's out. Okay. Mister Grayson. Chaplain chaplain Timothy Grayson. Welcome.

Whenever you're ready. Mister Chair and esteemed committee Members, having heard the bill being moved and seconded, I will respect your time. And, I I just wanna say that as I begin here that, this is a culmination. This bill, SB 328, is a culmination of decades of work over three decades. I personally am now two decades into this, into this project.

And so SB 328 will provide an exemption within, not outside or exempting from, but it it it provides an exemption within the surplus, surplus lands act, as well as the federal based closure realignment disposition process by qualifying projects within the area of Concord reuse project area plan. I would like to express a huge thank you to the Chair and staff committee staff for their great, great work on this bill.

328 is a district bill that supports the implementation of a long planned transit oriented development on the side of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station, with housing, job creation or job creating facilities, open space, environmental improvements. The plan anticipates no fewer than 10,000 housing units with 25% of those units affordable to low income households, 6,100,000 square feet of commercial, building space, community facilities such as school sites, neighborhood parks, sports facilities, and approximately 2,500 acres of open space.

03/28 will bring this long anticipated and much needed project, which also has the potential to create years worth of construction and construction related jobs closer to reality.

In 2010, a multiyear process with substantial public input, the city certified an environmental impact report under CEQA and adopted the Concord Naval Weapons Station reuse plan. So the city adopted in 2012 an addendum to the EIR and approved the area plan incorporating the reuse plans, policies, and goals into the city's general plan and establishing a land use plan that would transform former naval weapons, storage facilities into mixed use transit oriented and sustainable community.

The navy completed National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, environmental review for the disposal and reuse based on the area plan and issued a record of decision in 2017. And although redevelopment on the Concord Naval Web Station was has undergone nearly two decades of land use planning and substantial environmental review under Bosecua and NEPA, as well as a federal base closure and realignment disposition process, implementation of the area plan will require multiple future discretionary development approvals over many years.

So a SB 328 will facilitate implementation of the area plan by leveraging the federal base closure and realignment disposition process along with extensive CEQA and NEPA review already completed for the weapons station for qualifying for qualifying projects that fall within primary, development parameters, 25% affordability, labor agreements.

So three twenty eight does not exempt qualifying Concord Naval Weapons Station projects from review and oversight. It simply leverages review and oversight already completed for Concord Naval Weapons Station. I do wanna state there it's the support will, come and and express their support. But I I wanna state that, some have said, well, we need to make sure it's enforceable. That's what two years of negotiations have accomplished in the past two years with HCD and the administration to make sure we have enforceable tools in place.

So HCD is comfortable with the agreement that we've come to with enforceable tools to make sure this happens, and they have that. Others have expressed concern over, tribal, over the nation Navy's National Historic Preservation Act, section one zero six. And I could I could take the time if you wish to go through all of the meetings that have taken place. I have pages here.

I have this here to show and a public document and a public notice that was done and published in 2016, how we have covered that and met all the requirements to make sure multiple tribes have been contacted and engaged with.

So we have done our homework, three decades of work, twenty years on my part, and I beckoned, beg, and asked for an aye vote. My witnesses can self introduce, and they promise to be short.

Hello. My name is Josh Roden with Brookfield Residential. We are the developer working with the city of Concord, and I I would love to join you on all these. The passion is amazing. The collaboration with the committee staff, we really appreciate.

It's been a lot of work. And and the, I think the highlight is we've got a signed project labor agreement with the Contra Costa Billing Trades, 10,000 construction jobs, 16,000 permanent jobs. Our development portion that we'll be developing is 800 includes 880 acres of open space, parks, rec, on top of the 2,500 that East Bay Parks already has been transferred. And we will bring be bringing the infrastructure to the East Bay Park portion so that it's accessible.

Today, it's not open to the public, so we will be helping bring that to the public. You've said it all. I'm I'm good. Thank you here for

Mister Chairman and Member Scott Wetch, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, California Coalition of Utility Employees, California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, my clients, and by virtue of representing them, I've been involved for over two decades, with this project. I cannot think of another project anywhere in California that has been the focus of more local review, public meetings, collaboration with the entire community, literally thousands of hours of of meetings. This is a unicorn project.

It's gonna benefit all nine Bay Area counties with the housing and the transit and everything that it's gonna produce. It is truly a unicorn project, and we would urge an Aye vote.

Thank you.

Any persons in the hearing room in support of this measure?

Good afternoon, Mister Chair members. Louis Bronte on behalf of the Bay Area Council. Here to support. Thanks.

Steven Sandsler with Brownstein on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and Strong support.

Danny Curtin, California Conference of Carpenters, support. Thank you.

Keith Dunn here for the State Council of Laborers as well as the State Building Construction Trades Council. I'm asking for support.

Thank you so much. Any person here in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Anybody just kinda not like it? We'll turn it back to committee Members.

Second.

Motion and second. Mister Kalra, you have a question.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Hello, Senator Grayson.

Hello, Assembly Member, Kalra.

Thank you so much for all the work that you've done on this. The number of houses, the open space, PLA, all sounds fantastic. I do have a a just a couple questions. I think you and you did raise it in your comments. Just wanna follow-up a little bit on you'd mentioned the HCD is comfortable with enforcement mechanisms regarding the 25% affordable housing standard, which is good, but make us comfortable with it as well.

You know you know what I mean? Like, I can understand, like, hey. They feel but I I just wanna have a sense of confidence that that number is going to be reassured as it moves forward, what mechanisms or timelines will be done as such. You know, I I know that oftentimes these development of this scale is phased in over many, many years.

And so how do we ensure that affordable is kind of being built at at the same or at some pace along with the market rate?

Right. And a great question, by the way. And I do wanna make you feel comfortable about that, which is why we have what's called the surplus land act in place to be able to make sure those things are enforceable. So in this particular case, the reason for the exemption within for the s l SL the surplus land act, SLA, is because the project has been broken up into different dispositions.

And what we don't what what we were trying to do is make sure that if we have an approval for the entire project that it stays whole and that we don't initiate a whole new process all over again each time we go from one disposition to another.

So in this particular case, HCD is set up to be able to review and make sure that each disposition in this particular case, I believe, is five?

Five major phases.

Five major phases. Each one of them will go through review with HCD to make sure that we are on track with meeting those numbers.

Okay. So each phase would have an opportunity to review, see what progress is made, and and what that .

Yes. And there needs to be clarification on that.

So they they at the beginning at the beginning of when the DDA thirty days prior to it being brought to the city, it'll get sent to HCD for their review. So they'll be able to review the DDA that incorporates the 25% and how it's being incorporated in the project. And the DDA, once it gets executed by the city, is the considered the disposition. And then HCD will also have their regular housing element.

They have a ton of methods through that every, you know, cycle and and stuff to be evaluated.

It's a forty year long project, so there'll be many a times when they'll have their ability to do what they do.

Okay. Yeah. That that that's that's good. I know there's a general healthy skepticism sometimes from folks that, you know, like, I think all of us, including yourselves, Sandra, that understand that we need to have a far more affordable housing, especially in large scale projects. It's a great opportunity.

And so the fact that it's being phased in at every phase, there'll be an opportunity to review to see what where where the set what the status is is is comforting. And the other aspect or other question is you also did raise the tribal consultation process. And you had mentioned that, there's already been a lot of meetings, a lot of and I think it's, more so kind of going forward, even if it's not necessarily, codified in the bill itself.

But assurances are that there'll be continued consultation, especially if their remains are found, repatriation, what have you, is are those things that'll be incorporated in more formally into the process as well?

Well, you actually opened a door there. Perfect segue into being able to address that what we are dealing with here is a plan that's already been approved. It's already been reviewed under CEQA and NEPA along with along with the the

Mitigation measures.

The mitigation measures and the historic preservation act. So if there's anything that is different that is outside of the parameter that has been approved, then it it it immediately kicks in extra reviews. So we're only approving what's already been approved in the area plan. If we were to go or if the developer was to go and decide we're gonna completely revamp this particular area and redo it all over again, that would not fall under this bill.

They would have to literally go and go through the whole process e sequel or EIRs to create a full on sequel, all the reviews, NEPA all over again.

So this is only for what's been approved. If something new was found or something not even extraordinary, but significantly or substantively outside of the plan that's been approved, everything goes back to the way it would be as far as all reviews being required.

Including a consultation with the appropriate tribes.

And more clarification if you need.

Yeah. So there when when they did the they did the NEPA review, ten years of consultation and reaching out to, I believe, it was 10 tribes, that were identified. So when the city and that was before the city did their final EIR and certification. So within that is mitigation measures that have been identified for when so they've identified. There are some sensitive areas.

They've they're actually areas that will are currently planned to be habitat preservation as well, so we don't disrupt ideally as much. And so there's measures to deal with and and consulting one. If we do come across remains or anything, then we have to go out and, you know, identify the tribe and work with them.

So Okay. Alright. Thank you.

Yep.

Any other questions? Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you so much for your patience and for the opportunity to come present for you and to hopefully get this project up and going. I simply ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. It's the last bill we may be hearing unless we get any last minute referrals, and it's incredibly brave of you to do something this heavy this late, Senator. I think it's probably a good idea that you're bringing it from the Senate over to the Assembly because had it been the other way around, I might have some last minute amendments for you.

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

Yes, sir.

The motion is due pass. [Roll Call]

The bill is out

Thank you. Thank you, everyone.

And then we have a motion on the I'm having a picnic later if you want.

No grandchildren.

Show. I I love that. We have a motion on the consent calendar by miss Wicks and a second by Mister Alanis. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

Motion is that the resolution be adopted. Brian? Aye. Brian, Aye. Ellis?

Aye. Ellis, Aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, Aye.

Connelly? Aye. Connelly, Aye. Garcia?

Aye.

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

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

Macedo, aye. Maritsuchi? Aye. Maritsuchi, aye. Pellerin?

Aye.

Pellerin, aye. Schultz? Right. Schultz, aye. Wicks?

Aye.

Wicks, aye. Ziburr. Aye. Ziburr, Aye. Has 14 votes.

And then we have our last bill presentation by Mister Matt Haney

Yeah. Jaylen.

On behalf of Assembly member Shivo.

Oh. Right. Right.

I've been told he is an expert on this bill.

Oh. I've

I've just become Who's

the bill?

I I actually am not an expert, but it's pretty straightforward. Thank you, Mister Chair and members. I am presenting AB 2674 on behalf of Assemblymember Schiavo, who is at back to school night. This is the Landfill Data Transparency Act. It's a straightforward transparency measure that ensures landfill temperature and monitoring data already submitted to the California Air Resources Board is made publicly available and posted on their website.

AB 2674 does not create new monitoring requirements or impose additional reporting obligations on landfill operators. Instead, it simply requires CARB to publicly post the landfill temperature and monitoring data that it already receives. It has received bipartisan support in our opposition, and I respectfully ask for your eye vote. I don't know if I have witnesses. My mic.

Is that an expert witness or just just a in support? Alright. Come on down.

I'm not sure.

Kayla Robinson with California against waste and support. Thank you.

Absolutely. I have a feeling that there might be one person against this measure. Nope. There's no persons in this room against this

measure. No opposition.

So Alright. No opposition at all. I I judged. I judged. Well, now I'll turn it back to committee members.

Questions, comments, concerns? Mister Ellis, this might be your last opportunity to ask a question. Are you sure? Okay.

There we go. Any positive level.

Senator, would you like to close?

On behalf of Assemblymember Shivo, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Alright. We have a motion and a second and a third and a fourth. Madam secretary, can we call the roll?

The motion is that the Senate amendments be concurred in. Brian.

Aye.

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

Alanis, aye. Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Garcia?

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

Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Calra?

Aye.

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

Aye.

Maritsuchi?

Aye.

Maritsuchi, aye. Pellerin?

Aye.

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

Aye. Wicks, aye. Ziburr.

Ziburr, aye. That has 14 votes.

Oh, aye.

That bill is out. Madam secretary, can we open the roll for absent members?

Yeah. Lifting Lifting the call on AB 40 Vantaa motion is that the Senate amendments be concurred in? I'm calling the absent members. Hoover? No.

Hoover, no. Kalra?

Aye.

Cholera, aye. Wicks.

Wicks, aye. That bill has 10 votes. So lifting the call on SB 344, Weber Pearson. The motion is do pass. Wicks.

Aye.

Aye. Wicks, aye. That has 12 votes. It is out.

This concludes the Assembly Natural Resource Committee hearing.