SENATE-TV NATURAL RESOURCES AND
WATER COMMITTEE WILL COME TO
ORDER. IF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
COULD COME TO ROOM 2100 SO WE
CAN ESTABLISH A QUORUM, THAT
WOULD BE GREAT. WE HAVE 13 BILLS
ON TODAY'S AGENDA. FIVE ARE
PROPOSED FOR CONSENT, AND
GENERALLY, WE'LL HEAR THEM IN
FILE ORDER. ALTHOUGH I THINK
SENATOR BLAKE SPEAR WILL BEGIN
THIS. WE'LL START IN A
SUBCOMMITTEE SINCE WE HAVE ONLY
TWO MEMBERS HERE. THE FILE
BILLS, FIVE BILLS ON PROPOSED
CONSENT ARE FILE ITEMS. NUMBER
FOUR, SB 1139, ASHBY FILE ITEM
NUMBER FIVE, SB 1156 BY HURTADO,
FILE ITEM NUMBER SIX SB 1176 BY
NEELO FILE ITEM NUMBER TEN SB
1324 BY SENATOR LIMÓN AND FILE
ITEM NUMBER 13, SB 1520 BY THE
COMMITTEE, SO WITH THAT, WE'LL
BEGIN AS A SUBCOMMITTEE AND
ESTABLISH QUORUM WHEN WE HAVE
THE REQUISITE VOTES, WE'LL HEAR
FROM OUR FIRST AUTHOR, SENATOR
BLAKE SPEER. WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. AND ARE YOU PRESENTING
FIRST, SB 1077, I AM. ACTUALLY,
I'M SORRY, I'M NOT. I'M OR YES,
I AM. SB 1077. YES. THANKS.
READY TO BEGIN? OKAY. YOU MAY
PROCEED WHEN READY. OKAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES, AS YOU KNOW,
CALIFORNIA IS IN A HOUSING
CRISIS OF UNPRECEDENTED
MAGNITUDE. SINCE 2010,
HOMELESSNESS HAS SKYROCKETED 50.
AND LAST YEAR, 180,000
CALIFORNIANS DID NOT LIVE INSIDE
OF A HOME. HCD ESTIMATES THAT
THE STATE NEEDS TO BE BUILDING
CLOSE TO 200,000 UNITS A YEAR
FOR THE NEXT DECADE TO CLOSE OUR
HOUSING SHORTAGE, BUT ON
AVERAGE, OVER THE LAST FIVE
YEARS, WE HAVE ONLY BUILT ABOUT
100,000 UNITS A YEAR. THE SILVER
LINING IS THAT OUR HOUSING
PRODUCTION IS INCREASING, AND
THAT IS IN PART THANKS TO THE
MYRIAD OF HOUSING LAWS THAT THE
LEGISLATURE HAS PASSED TO ALLOW
PROPERTY OWNERS TO ADD MORE
HOUSING UNITS TO THEIR
PROPERTIES. ONE OF THE MOST
NOTABLE SUCCESSES HAS BEEN THE
STATE'S LOOSENING OF THE
RESTRICTIONS AROUND ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS, OR ADUS. SIMPLY
PUT, THE STATE HAS MADE IT
EASIER FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO
ADD ADUS AND ADUS TO THEIR
HOMES. THESE HOUSING UNITS
PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR
HOMEOWNERS AND THEIR HOUSEHOLDS
TO LIVE IN THE PROPERTY, TO RENT
IT, TO PROVIDE IT TO A NEEDY
FAMILY MEMBER, AND TO HAVE THAT
USE CHANGE OVER TIME AS FAMILIES
CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE OUTSIDE OF
THE COASTAL ZONE. STATE LAW
MAKES THE PROCESS FOR ADDING
THESE TYPES OF UNITS REMARKABLY
SIMPLE. THESE HOMEOWNERS ARE
ABLE TO GO TO THEIR
JURISDICTIONS PLANNING OFFICE
AND FILE AN APPLICATION FOR A
PERMIT THEMSELVES. STATE LAW HAS
LIMITED HOW MANY BARRIERS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS CAN ERECT IN FRONT
OF HOMEOWNERS ATTEMPTING TO
BUILD ADUS OUTSIDE OF THE
COASTAL ZONE, RESIDENTS LARGELY
DON'T NEED TO HIRE A LAWYER.
THEY DON'T NEED TO HIRE A HIGHLY
SOPHISTICATED DEVELOPMENT EXPERT
AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE
UNCERTAINTY OF AN UNKNOWN TIME
HORIZON. THEY GENERALLY CAN DO
THESE THINGS THEMSELVES. ON THE
OTHER HAND, INSIDE THE COASTAL
ZONE, WHERE HOMEOWNERS ALSO HAVE
TO GO THROUGH THE COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR CDP
PROCESS, IT'S NOT THAT EASY.
WHILE STATE LAW DOES SET SOME
CONSTRAINTS ON THE CDP
PERMITTING PROCESS FOR ADUS IN
MOST COASTAL ZONE JURISDICTIONS,
HOMEOWNERS END UP HAVING TO PAY
MORE MONEY TO HIRE HIGHLY
TRAINED DEVELOPMENT EXPERTS AND
LAWYERS TO NAVIGATE THE COASTAL
COMMISSION PROCESS. THESE
BARRIERS CAN REDUCE THE NUMBER
OF ADUS BEING BUILT IN THE
COASTAL ZONE AND IN SOME
CIRCUMSTANCES, MAKE THEM COST
PROHIBITIVE FOR ALL BUT THE
WEALTHIEST AND MOST DETERMINED
HOMEOWNERS. FOR ADU PROJECTS AND
PROPERTIES CLOSE TO SENSITIVE
NATURAL RESOURCES, SUCH AS
COASTAL BLUFFS OR WETLANDS. OF
COURSE, THIS DESERVES TO HAVE
GREATER SCRUTINY, BUT THERE ARE
LARGE SWATHS OF THE COASTAL ZONE
, LIKE IN DENSELY POPULATED
AREAS THAT ARE EAST OF THE FIRST
PUBLIC ROAD FROM THE COAST AND
WHERE THE PROPERTY IS NOT NEAR
SENSITIVE HABITATS AT ALL, AND
ADDING AN ADU HERE IN THE
BACKYARD HAS NEGLIGIBLE
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK. AND ARGUABLY
THE LONGER, MORE INTENSE
REGULATORY REVIEW PROCESS IS NOT
WARRANTED. MY GOAL WITH SB 1077
IS TO SIMPLIFY THE PERMITTING
PROCESS FOR ADU PROJECTS IN
AREAS OF THE COASTAL ZONE WITH
LOW ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
UNFORTUNATELY, AFTER SEVERAL
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COASTAL
COMMISSION, WHICH I VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE, THEIR WILLINGNESS TO
MEET WITH ME AND MY STAFF AND
DISCUSS THINGS THEY REMAINED
OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED
STREAMLINING THAT I HAD IN MY
BILL, AND THEREFORE, I HAVE
AGREED TO REORIENT MY BILL'S
APPROACH AND SUBMIT TO THE
COMMITTEE'S SUGGESTIONS ON THIS
BILL. THE BILL WILL NOW REQUIRE
THE COMMISSION SIMPLY TO PROVIDE
BETTER GUIDANCE FOR LOCALS ON
HOW TO HARMONIZE THEIR LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAMS WITH STATE ADU
LAW. NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO
INTRODUCE MY WITNESSES. WE HAVE
MOIRA TOP, WHO IS HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, AND
JORDAN GRIMES, WHO IS THE
RESILIENCE MANAGER AT THE
GREENBELT ALLIANCE, TO SAY A FEW
WORDS. THANK YOU. YOU HAVE TWO
WITNESSES. THEY EACH HAVE TWO
MINUTES EACH, AND I'LL BE
KEEPING TIME. AND YOU CAN BEGIN
WHENEVER YOU ARE READY. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
JORDAN GRIMES HERE ON BEHALF OF
GREENBELT ALLIANCE, WE ARE AN
ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION
SERVING THE NINE COUNTY BAY
AREA, AND HAVE, FOR THE LAST 66
YEARS, WORKED TO ADVANCE THE
PROTECTION OF OPEN SPACE,
CLIMATE RESILIENT CLIMATE
RESILIENCE AND CRITICALLY
SUSTAINABLE LAND USE POLICY. WE
SPEAK TODAY IN STRONG SUPPORT OF
SB 1077. STATE DATA HAS REVEALED
A STARK REALITY. MUNICIPALITIES
WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE HAVE
SIGNIFICANTLY LAGGED BEHIND
THEIR INLAND COUNTERPARTS IN
PRODUCING NEW HOMES ACROSS ALL
INCOME LEVELS DURING THE FIFTH
RINA CYCLE, AS WELL. THESE
JURISDICTIONS ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY WHITE AND
AFFLUENT, EXACERBATING HOUSING
INEQUITIES IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THIS NOT ONLY
PERPETUATES SOCIOECONOMIC
DISPARITIES, BUT ALSO IMPEDES
ACCESS TO THE COAST. A
FUNDAMENTAL TENET OF THE COASTAL
ACT. BARRIERS TO INFILL HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL ZONE
INADVERTENTLY SUPERCHARGE
ENVIRONMENTALLY HARMFUL SPRAWL
IN AREAS SUSCEPTIBLE TO CLIMATE
HAZARDS LIKE WILDFIRES,
FLOODING, AND POLLUTION. WHILE
THERE ARE INDEED AREAS ALONG THE
COAST WHERE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD
BE PROHIBITED, INFILL PARCELS
PRESENT VIABLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
SUSTAINABLE GROWTH. SB 1077
BUILDS UPON THE SUCCESS OF
PREVIOUS BILLS EXEMPTING ADUS
FROM BUREAUCRATIC RESTRICTIONS
ELSEWHERE IN THE STATE, WHICH
HAVE PROVEN TO BE
EXTRAORDINARILY EFFECTIVE TOOLS
TO PRODUCE EXACTLY THE KIND OF
SUSTAINABLE HOUSING GROWTH WE
NEED. GREENBELT ALLIANCE HOLDS
IMMENSE RESPECT AND ADMIRATION
FOR THE COASTAL COMMISSION AND
ITS UNWAVERING DEDICATION TO
PRESERVING OUR COASTAL RESOURCES
. BUT WE WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT
ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL
PROTECTION THAT THE COMMISSION
HAVE BEEN SUCH VALIANT STEWARDS
OF ARE NOT AT ODDS WITH THE
OBJECTIVES OF 1077. ON THE
CONTRARY, ENABLING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ADUS IN THE
COASTAL ZONE PROMOTES SMART,
COMPACT DEVELOPMENT THAT
MINIMIZES HABITAT DISRUPTION AND
REDUCES RELIANCE ON CARS,
ALIGNING WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, 1077
IS A MODEST MEASURE WITH
SIGNIFICANT AND IMPACTFUL
POTENTIAL, ADDRESSING NOT ONLY
EXTREME HOUSING SHORTAGES AND
SOARING PRICES, BUT ALSO
FOSTERING MORE INCLUSIVE AND
RESILIENT COASTAL COMMUNITIES. I
VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS. MOIRA TOP HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO.
SAN DIEGO HAS BEEN A LEADER IN
PROMOTING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
THEY'VE PROVIDED A NUMBER OF
REFORMS IN RECENT YEARS TO
REALLY PROMOTE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT AT ALL LEVELS AND
MYRIAD WAYS, INCLUDING USING
ADUS AND ADUS AS AN IMPORTANT
TOOL TO PROMOTE CERTAIN NOT IT'S
NOT IT'S NOT THE PANACEA FOR
EVERYTHING, BUT IT IS AN
IMPORTANT TOOL THAT SAN DIEGO
HAS FOUND USEFUL. AND OF COURSE,
SAN DIEGO DOES LIE WITHIN THE
COASTAL ZONE, A VERY TINY MAP.
SORRY. WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
PORTION OF OUR CITY WITHIN THE
COASTAL OVERLAY ZONE, AND IN
FACT, SOME, SOME STREETS ARE
BIFURCATED BY THE BY THE COASTAL
ZONE SO THAT ONE PORTION OF THE
STREET IS WITHIN THE ZONE, AND
ANOTHER PORTION OF THE STREET IS
OUTSIDE OF THE ZONE. AND SO THAT
PROVIDES A PARTICULARLY
COMPLICATED, CONSTRUE FOR
RESIDENTS AND FOR THE CITY TO
DEAL WITH, AS THE SENATOR
MENTIONED, THERE IS A VERY
COMPLICATED PROCESS TO GO
THROUGH TO, TO EXERCISE A RIGHT
FOR AN EDU OR AN ADU WITHIN A
COASTAL ZONE TO GET A CDP, WE
JUST IN 2023, THE CITY
AUTHORIZED ALMOST 1500 ADUS AND
ONLY 146 OF THOSE WERE WITHIN
THE COASTAL ZONE. SO I THINK
THAT IS VERY CLEAR, CLEARLY
DEMONSTRATING THE FACT THAT
THERE IS A VERY DIFFERENT, AND,
AND, AND HAMPERING PROCESS
THAT'S OCCURRING IN THE, IN THE
COASTAL ZONE WITH RESPECT TO
ADUS. SO WE DO SEE 1077 AS AN
IMPORTANT FIRST STEP. IT'S A
GOOD FIRST STEP TO ENSURE THAT
THERE IS SOME REVIEW AND SOME
GUIDANCE PROVIDED TO LOCAL
COMMUNITIES WHO WANT TO PROMOTE
ADUS AS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR THEIR
RESIDENTS. AND WE THINK THIS IS
AN IMPORTANT, IMPORTANT MEASURE
TO PASS TODAY. SO WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT HERE,
WISHING TO PLEASE LIMIT YOUR
COMMENTS TO YOUR NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION ON THE
MEASURE. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. JONATHAN CLAY, ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF ENCINITAS AND
SUPPORT. AND WE'LL ALSO BE
REVIEWING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
MEMBERS. BRADY GIRTON, ON BEHALF
OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES, WE DO NOT HAVE A
POSITION ON THE CURRENT LANGUAGE
FOR SB 1077. GIVEN THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AND US REPRESENTING
61 CITIES IN THE COASTAL ZONE,
WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE
AS THE BILL MOVES THROUGH THE
PROCESS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
CATHERINE CHARLES, ON BEHALF OF
HOUSING COALITION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. RAFA
SONNENFELD ON BEHALF OF YIMBY
ACTION EAST BAY AND MOUNTAIN
VIEW YIMBY NORTHERN NEIGHBORS
PENINSULA FOR EVERYONE SAN
FRANCISCO YIMBY, SANTA CRUZ,
YIMBY, SANTA ROSA, YIMBY, SAN
LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, YIMBY URBAN
ENVIRONMENTALIST, GROW THE
RICHMOND VENTURA COUNTY EBR
STREETS FOR PEOPLE SOUTH SIDE
FORWARD HOW TO ADU PEOPLE FOR
HOUSING ORANGE COUNTY PROGRESS
NÓI VALLEY, SOUTH BAY YIMBY AND
NAPA SOLANO FOR EVERYONE IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
YOU DIDN'T MAKE ANY UP IN THERE,
DID YOU? SEAMUS GARRITY WITH
LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS. I'M
HERE ON BEHALF OF SPUR HABITAT
FOR HUMANITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN
DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION, EDEN
HOUSING AND FIELDSTEAD. THANK
YOU. LAUREN DE VALENCIA, JUST
HERE FOR ONE TODAY, THE AMERICAN
PLANNING ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT, DO WE HAVE
ANY LEAD WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION, JUST ONE OR DO YOU
HAVE TWO? OKAY. SO YOU EACH HAVE
TWO MINUTES EACH. THANKS YOU CAN
BEGIN WHEN READY. GOOD MORNING,
MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS. SEAN
DRAKE, LEGISLATIVE MANAGER FOR
THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL
COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION HAS
BEEN OPPOSED TO SB 1077 ON THE
BASIS THAT A COASTAL ACT
EXEMPTION FOR ADUS IS
UNNECESSARY, AND THAT THERE ARE
ALTERNATIVE WAYS THAT THIS BILL
COULD PROMOTE ADUS IN THE
COASTAL ZONE, WHILE ALSO
MAINTAINING THE COASTAL
PROTECTION POLICIES OF THE
COASTAL ACT. THE PROPOSED
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS DO JUST
THAT BY REQUIRING THE COMMISSION
TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ON HOW TO QUICKLY
AND EASILY INCORPORATE POLICIES
TO FACILITATE ADU DEVELOPMENT
INTO THEIR LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAMS. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN
IN DOZENS OF COASTAL
JURISDICTIONS THAT LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAMS ARE AN EFFECTIVE TOOL
FOR PROMOTING ADUS. CONSISTENT
WITH CALIFORNIA'S OTHER COASTAL
POLICY PRIORITIES. WHEN THEY ARE
AMENDED TO INCLUDE ADU
PROVISIONS AND IN FACT, BASED ON
DATA PROVIDED TO US BY THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE IN THEIR
DISTRICT, YOU CAN GET A PERMIT
FOR AN ADU FASTER IN THE COASTAL
ZONE THAN YOU CAN INLAND. WITH
THE AMENDMENTS TAKEN TODAY, THE
COMMISSION REMOVES ITS
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. WE DO
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR AND HER
STAFF FOR THEIR COLLABORATION IN
REACHING THIS POINT AND WE LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK
WITH THEM AS THE BILL MOVES
FORWARD. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
THAT WAS WELL UNDER TWO MINUTES.
GOOD JOB. GOOD MORNING. I'M
LAURA CALIFORNIA POLICY MANAGER
FOR THE SURFRIDER FOUNDATION.
I'M HERE REPRESENTING SURFRIDER
AND MANY OTHER NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS WHO COLLECTIVELY
REPRESENT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
OF MEMBERS WHO CARE ABOUT OUR
COASTLINE AND PROTECTING ACCESS
TO IT. I HAVE THE PLEASURE OF
HAVING PREVIOUSLY LIVED IN A
COUPLE DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS
IN THE SENATOR'S DISTRICT WHILE
WORKING FOR SURFRIDER SAN DIEGO
CHAPTER, AND SURFRIDER HAS
REALLY APPRECIATED THAT. THE
SENATOR HAS BEEN A STRONG LEADER
FOR THE COAST AND FOR HOUSING IN
DISTRICT AND HERE AT THE STATE
LEVEL. WE'RE ALSO REALLY GLAD
THAT THE AUTHOR HAS ACCEPTED
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, AND WE
SUPPORT THE AMENDED BILL BASED
ON SUGGESTED COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. ADUS THAT ARE
COMPLIANT WITH THE COASTAL ACT
CAN ABSOLUTELY BE USED FOR
DENSIFICATION AND SMART HOUSING
REFORM IN THE COASTAL ZONE. THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT, HOWEVER,
REINFORCES THE IDEA THAT IT IS
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT SHOULD BE
UPDATING THEIR LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAMS FOR MODERN TIMES AND
FOR SEA LEVEL RISE, RATHER THAN
SEEKING EXEMPTIONS FROM THE
COASTAL ACT. OUR REASON FOR
OPPOSING EARLIER VERSIONS OF THE
BILL WAS THAT IT PREVIOUSLY
EXEMPTED CERTAIN ADUS FROM THE
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
PROCESS, WHICH WAS RIPE FOR
BEING ABUSED BY WEALTHY COASTAL
HOMEOWNERS WHO COULD THEN
POTENTIALLY EXPAND THEIR
DEVELOPMENT FOOTPRINTS AT THE
EXPENSE OF COASTAL ACCESS OR
SENSITIVE COASTAL RESOURCES. WE
TRUST THIS WAS NOT THE INTENTION
OF THE BILL, BUT SURFRIDER SEES
THESE KIND OF COASTAL ACT
LOOPHOLES GET TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF
ALL THE TIME, AND WE ARE VERY
SCRUTINIZING IN THESE BILLS,
WHICH ARE SEEKING EXEMPTIONS FOR
DEVELOPMENT FROM COASTAL ACT
REVIEW. AGAIN, WE'RE THANKFUL
FOR THE LEADERSHIP AND THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, AND WE'LL
MOVE TO NEUTRAL WITH THOSE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, DO WE SEE DO WE HAVE
ANY OPPOSITION WITNESSES WHO
WANT TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS ON
THE BILL, AGAIN, PLEASE LIMIT
YOUR COMMENTS TO YOUR NAME,
AFFILIATION AND POSITION ON THE
MEASURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. CHAIR. MY NAME IS DAN
JACOBSON WITH THE ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA AND WITH THE
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS BEING
TAKEN, WE REMOVE OUR OPPOSITION
AND MOVE TO NEUTRAL. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. SUSAN
JORDAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF
THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL
PROTECTION AMENDMENT, AND WITH
THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS, WE MOVE
FROM OPPOSITION TO NEUTRAL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
MORNING, CODY PHILLIPS WITH
CALIFORNIA COAST KEEPER
ALLIANCE, ALSO HERE ON BEHALF OF
ORANGE COUNTY, COASTKEEPER AND
SAN DIEGO, COASTKEEPER AND WITH
THE AMENDMENTS, WE'RE MOVING TO
NEUTRAL. SO THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS CHRISTOPHER
MAWAD AND I'M HERE WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COMMITTEE.
AND WE ARE MOVING TO NEUTRAL
PENDING THE AMENDMENTS. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. EMILY GARCIA
WITH NRDC, WITH THE AMENDMENTS,
WE MOVE TO NEUTRAL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, LINDA
KROP, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
CENTER. WITH THE AMENDMENTS, WE
MOVE TO NEUTRAL. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, JACOB EVANS WITH SIERRA
CLUB, CALIFORNIA. WE APPRECIATE
THE AMENDMENTS AND ARE
WITHDRAWING OUR OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HI. SCOTT
WEBB, DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY WITH
THE RESOURCE INSTITUTE. WITH THE
AMENDMENTS, WE MOVE TO NEUTRAL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SEEING NO
OTHER WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION,
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS?
QUESTIONS, SENATOR GROVE, THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR, I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR YOUR BOLD
COMMITMENT TO ALLOW, HOUSING AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILT INTO
YOUR COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY
ADUS, WITH PEOPLE THAT RETIRE IN
THAT AREA AND MAYBE WANT TO PUT
THEIR KIDS OR MOVE TO THE ADU
AND LET THEIR KIDS HAVE THE BIG
HOUSE. I KNOW WE HAVE A
COLLEAGUE IN OUR SENATE THAT IS
DOING THE SAME THING, I REALLY
DO. I APPRECIATE THE LANGUAGE. I
AM DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU WERE
FORCED TO TAKE THESE AMENDMENTS.
AND BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT,
IT WATERED DOWN THE BILL SO MUCH
THAT THE LOCAL, LOCAL GOVERNMENT
WON'T HAVE THE CONTROL TO ISSUE
THESE PERMITS AND BE ABLE TO GET
SOMETHING DONE. THEY STILL ARE
UNDER THAT HEAVY HAND OF THE
COASTAL COMMISSION, WHICH I
BELIEVE IT'S TOTAL. YOU KNOW,
GOAL IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE
IS NO HOUSING BUILT. AND I DON'T
AGREE WITH THE COMMENT THAT WAS
MADE THAT YOU CAN GET AN ADU
PERMANENT BEFORE. I'D LIKE TO
SEE THAT DOCUMENTATION, BECAUSE
THE RESEARCH WE'VE DONE ON IT IS
THAT THIS IS A BACK AND FORTH
AND BACK AND FORTH THAT
CONTINUES TO GO ON, AND IT
RESTRICTS AN INDIVIDUAL FROM
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS THAT
SHOULD BE ABLE TO EXPAND WHAT
THEY WANT ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY.
IF IT IS AN ADU AND THE COST OF
THOSE ADUS ARE CONTINUALLY GOING
UP, WHICH ARE ALMOST
UNAFFORDABLE UNLESS YOU ARE A
WEALTHY HOMEOWNER IN THE COAST
AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT YOU AT
LEAST ARE STARTING THE
CONVERSATION. I BELIEVE THERE
ARE 6 OR 7 BILLS THAT DEAL WITH
THIS MONSTER THAT HAS BEEN
CREATED WITH THE COASTAL
COMMISSION. I BELIEVE IT HAS A
PURPOSE, BUT I THINK IT HAS WELL
EXCEEDED ITS PURPOSE AND GONE
INLAND TO RESTRICT US FROM
HOUSING WHERE WE NEED HOUSING,
AND SPECIFICALLY IN YOUR OWN
BACKYARD. IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADD
A MOTHER IN LAW'S QUARTERS OR,
YOU KNOW, A CHILDREN'S COLLEGE
QUARTERS WHILE THEY GO TO
COLLEGE BUT WANT THEIR OWN
INDEPENDENCE AND, SO I APPLAUD
YOU FOR THAT. I'M GOING TO
SUPPORT THE BILL. I WISH YOU
WOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN AMENDMENTS,
BUT AT LEAST THE CONVERSATION IS
STARTING. EVEN THOUGH THE BILL
IS SEVERELY WATERED DOWN. YOUR
TURN, SENATOR LAIRD. I
APPRECIATE BEING RECOGNIZED BY
SENATOR GROVE, FIRST, AS
SOMEBODY THAT THAT BUILT AN ADU
THE YEAR BEFORE LAST, I'M GLAD
MY SPOUSE ISN'T HERE, BECAUSE
THE COMMENT ABOUT HOW MUCH
EASIER IT IS WOULD BE SOMETHING
THAT HE WOULD HAVE RUN TO THE
PODIUM AND DISPUTED IT IN A
VEHEMENT FASHION. SO I'M NOT
EVEN TELLING HIM ABOUT THIS
HEARING. SO I'M SAVING US A LOT
OF TIME, SECONDLY, THERE'S A LOT
OF NARRATIVE ABOUT THIS THAT I
DON'T THINK IS ACCURATE. AND I
THINK THE ANALYSIS DRILLED DOWN
IN A CLEAR WAY AND TALKED ABOUT
COMPARISON OF APPLES TO APPLES
AND NOT APPLES TO ORANGES. AND I
THINK THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS.
AND IT IS. AND THIS IS TRUE WITH
OTHER BILLS, WHEN WE START TO
LEGISLATIVELY MAKE EXEMPTIONS,
WHETHER IT'S IN TERRITORY OR IN
PROCESS, WE START TO WEAKEN THE
LEVEL OF COASTAL PROTECTION. AND
OUR OBLIGATION IS TO MAKE IT
WORK BETTER IF IT NEEDS TO WORK
BETTER. AND I THINK THAT'S
THAT'S WHERE I APPLAUD THE, THE
AUTHOR'S INTENT. AND I THINK I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
TAKING THE AMENDMENTS, BECAUSE I
THINK IT HELPS FOCUS THAT
DISCUSSION IN A VERY GOOD WAY.
AND I THINK IT IT'S IT REALLY
SENDS THE MESSAGE THAT WE WANT
TO PRESSURE FOR RESULTS. BUT AT
THE SAME TIME, WE WANT TO
RESPECT WHAT THE VOTERS ADOPTED
WITH THE COASTAL ACT TO NOT DO
EXEMPTIONS FOR MANY DIFFERENT
PROCESSES OR MANY DIFFERENT
LOCATIONS. AND SO I JUST
APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DID. AND
WHENEVER WE HAVE A QUORUM, I
WILL BE HAPPY TO MOVE THE BILL.
THANK YOU, SENATOR LAIRD. AND I
WILL JUST ADD A FEW COMMENTS OF
MY OWN. FIRST, I'VE NEVER HEARD
THE COASTAL COMMISSION REFERRED
TO AS A MONSTER, BUT I
APPRECIATE THE VERNACULAR HERE.
YES. ALL RIGHT, AND I JUST WANT
TO CONFIRM, SENATOR, THAT YOU
ARE TAKING THE AMENDMENTS. I AM
OKAY, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
LOOK, THESE ARE TWO ISSUES THAT
ARE NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART.
WE DO HAVE A HOUSING CRISIS.
THAT'S THE NUMBER ONE REASON WE
HAVE HOMELESSNESS IN THE STATE.
IT'S THE NUMBER ONE REASON
PEOPLE ARE LEAVING THE STATE,
AND WE KNOW WE HEAR ABOUT IT
FROM ALL QUARTERS. AT THE SAME
TIME. WE ALSO HAVE A CLIMATE
CRISIS THAT I KNOW YOU CARE
DEEPLY ABOUT. AND, FINDING THE
RIGHT BALANCE HERE, I THINK, IS
IMPORTANT, AND SO THE
AMENDMENTS, I THINK, CLARIFY AND
EXPEDIATE THE PROCESSES BY WHICH
THE COASTAL COMMISSION CAN TRY
TO WORK WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO TRY
TO ALLOW FOR ADU ADOPTION, BUT
FINDING THAT RIGHT BALANCE OF
PROTECTING OUR NATURAL RESOURCES
, PARTICULARLY AROUND THE
COASTLINE, IS, I THINK, AN
IMPORTANT ONE. SO THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT OUTCOME. AND I WANT TO
JUST THANK YOU FOR YOUR
THOUGHTFULNESS IN TAKING THIS
AND JUST ALSO WILL CLARIFY, YOU
WERE NOT FORCED TO TAKE ANY
AMENDMENTS, JUST YOU AGREED TO
TAKE THEM. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
APPRECIATE THAT, WITH THAT THANK
YOU. AND I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON
TO YOUR NEXT BILL, UNLESS YOU
WANT TO CLOSE. I DO WANT TO
CLOSE. THANK YOU, SO I
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS FROM THE
SENATORS WHO ARE HERE AND ALSO
FROM THE TESTIMONY. AND THERE
ARE JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS I
WANT TO SAY. SO THE FIRST IS I'M
ABSOLUTELY FORCED TO TAKE THESE
AMENDMENTS AND I'M DOING IT
WILLINGLY, BUT I DID NOT WANT TO
. AND I THINK THE REASON I'M
DOING IT IS BECAUSE I THINK IT
IS IMPORTANT WE CONTINUE THE
CONVERSATION, WHICH IS WHAT
SENATOR GROVES SAID ABOUT HOW IS
IT THAT WE CAN BETTER ALIGN THE
COASTAL COMMISSION'S, RESPONSES
TO ALL HOUSING TYPES, BUT
PARTICULARLY ADUS IN THE COASTAL
ZONE? SO OVER THE LAST SEVERAL
YEARS, IN THE REST OF THE STATE,
WE HAVE WE HAVE A NUMBER OF LAWS
THAT HAVE REALLY DEALT WITH HOW
DO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS PERMIT ADUS
? HOW DO SPECIAL DISTRICTS
PERMIT HOUSING? SO TO ELIMINATE
THE BARRIERS THAT WE SEE. AND SO
WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO WITH THE
ORIGINAL VERSION WAS TO APPLY
WITH A SCALPEL THAT THOSE SAME
LAWS AND EXEMPTING THE AREAS
THAT WERE ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE OR WITHIN THE FIRST
ROAD OF THE COAST, THE VARIOUS
DIFFERENT STANDARDS, AND EVEN
ALLOWING THE COASTAL COMMISSION
TO WEIGH IN ON SOME AREAS THAT
THEY THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE MORE
IMPACT. THE REALITY OF THE
COASTAL ZONE IS THAT MANY
SECTIONS OF IT ARE JUST LIKE THE
INLAND SECTIONS. THEY'RE DENSER.
THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY VERY CLOSE
TO THE COAST, AND THEY HAVE WHEN
YOU HAVE IT IN THE SAME CITY AS
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, SAID, YOU
REALLY SEE THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN WHAT'S HAPPENING ON ONE
SIDE OF A STREET AND WHAT'S
HAPPENING ON THE OTHER SIDE,
BASED ON WHETHER IT'S IN THE
COASTAL ZONE OR NOT. SO, AND THE
AND THE LAST POINT I WANT TO
MAKE IS THAT, I READ IN A
COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
ABOUT A SUGGESTION THAT THAT
HOUSING THAT'S PROVIDED BY ADUS,
IF IT'S NOT FOR ON THE MARKET,
IF IT'S NOT PUT ON THE MARKET,
IT'S SOMEHOW LESSER HOUSING.
THERE WAS THAT THAT, UNDERLYING
ASSUMPTION. AND I JUST WANT TO
CLARIFY THAT IF SOMEBODY IS
BUILDS AN ADU AND THEY HAVE
THEIR ADULT DAUGHTER WHO GETS
DIVORCED, MOVED BACK IN, THEY
HAVE THEIR GRANDCHILD, THEY HAVE
THEIR MOTHER IN LAW, THEY HAVE
THEMSELVES LIVE IN IT, AND THEY
RENT OUT THE OTHER UNIT,
WHATEVER. THE VAST MAJORITY OF
THINGS ARE THAT PEOPLE ARE
DECIDING TO DO WITH THEIR OWN
PROPERTY. THAT'S PROVIDING
HOUSING IS HOUSING. SO I DON'T
SEE THAT PUTTING IT OUT ONTO THE
MARKET IS SOMEHOW OF BETTER AND
MORE VALUE THAN PROVIDING
HOUSING FOR THOSE OTHER PEOPLE
WHO ALL NEED TO LIVE SOMEWHERE,
BECAUSE IF THAT DAUGHTER IN LAW
IS LIVING IN THAT ADU, THEN
SHE'S NOT RENTING AN APARTMENT
IN SOME OTHER PLACE THAT'S FREE
FOR SOMEBODY ELSE. SO ALLOWING
FOR HOUSING OF ALL TYPES AND THE
SOCIAL SAFETY NET OF THE FAMILY
TO PROVIDE FOR ITSELF, I THINK
IS A PUBLIC GOOD. SO MAKING IT
EASIER FOR ADUS TO BE BUILT IN
THE COASTAL ZONE IS THE GOAL OF
THIS BILL. IT'S STILL MOVING
FORWARD AND NEEDS MORE
SPECIFICITY BECAUSE IT BASICALLY
IS ASKING THE COASTAL COMMISSION
TO PROVIDE BETTER GUIDANCE ON
HARMONIZING LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAMS. SO WHAT EXACTLY IS
BETTER GUIDANCE AND WHAT? AND
NOT ALL CITIES HAVE LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAMS. SO THERE'S
STILL MORE WORK TO DO IN THE
NEXT COMMITTEE TO MAKE THAT MORE
SPECIFIC. BUT IT'S STILL MOVING
FORWARD. AND THERE'S A FOCUS
FROM THE COASTAL COMMISSION ON
MAKING IT EASIER FOR ADUS TO BE
BUILT. AND I THINK THAT IT'S
STILL BETTER TO DO THAN NOT DO.
BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY ALL
THOSE WORDS IN CONCLUSION, AND I
APPRECIATE ALL THE MANY BACK AND
FORTH AND ALL THE FEEDBACK I'VE
HAD ON THIS BILL. SO WITH THAT,
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU SENATOR. WE'LL
HOLD THAT BILL UNTIL WE HAVE A
QUORUM, WITH THAT, IF YOU WANT
TO MOVE ON TO YOUR NEXT BILL, SB
1092, YOU CAN PROCEED WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. OKAY, GREAT. THANK
YOU. SO I WON'T REPEAT THE
PROBLEMS WITH HOMELESSNESS AND
HOUSING THAT WE HAVE IN THIS
STATE. AND I'LL JUST JUMP RIGHT
IN. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND
COLLEAGUES, THIS IS SB 1092. SO
ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS THAT
WE HAVE WITH QUICKLY BUILDING
HOUSING IN CALIFORNIA IS A
CONFLICT BETWEEN DIFFERENT
EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES. FOR
EXAMPLE, HCD, WHICH HAS
REQUIREMENTS FOR CITIES TO ZONE
FOR AND BUILD HOUSING AND THEN
THE COASTAL COMMISSION THAT HAS
OTHER REGULATORY HURDLES THAT
CAN MAKE ACTUALLY BUILDING THE
HOUSING DIFFICULT TO ACCOMPLISH.
SO WHAT WE SEE IS A LACK OF
CONSISTENCY BETWEEN OUR STATED
HOUSING GOALS AND OUR REGULATORY
APPROACH, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT
COMES TO THE COASTAL ZONE. AND I
KNOW THIS FROM HAVING BEEN A
COASTAL MAYOR IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA AND HAVING IT OUT OF
COMPLIANCE. HOUSING ELEMENT THAT
WE WERE URGENTLY TRYING TO
REMEDY HOUSING PROJECTS IN THE
COASTAL ZONE HAVE TO PASS
SUCCESSFULLY THROUGH A CITY
PROCESS AND THEN GO THROUGH THE
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR
CDP PROCESS. OFTENTIMES, HOUSING
PROJECTS ARE CONTROVERSIAL AND
RESIDENTS APPEAL THEM TO THE
COASTAL COMMISSION AFTER THE
PROJECT RECEIVES CITY APPROVAL.
THIS CDP APPEAL PROCESS FOR MUCH
NEEDED MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
PROJECTS IS WHAT MY BILL IS
AIMING TO ADDRESS, BECAUSE
COASTAL COMMISSION APPEALS HAVE
NO REQUIRED TIMELINE FOR
RESOLUTION, AND THE COMMISSION
CAN REQUEST AN UNLIMITED NUMBER
OF ADDITIONAL STUDIES BE
CREATED. THERE IS AN UNCERTAINTY
AROUND DOING THESE TYPES OF
PROJECTS IN THE COASTAL ZONE
THAT HAS A CHILLING EFFECT ON
WHETHER PROJECTS ARE EVEN
PROPOSED IN THE COASTAL ZONE
SIMPLY STATED, BUILDERS REPORT
THAT THEY DO NOT PURSUE PROJECTS
IN THE COASTAL ZONE BECAUSE OF
THIS. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A
PROBLEM GIVEN THAT THE CITIES IN
THE COASTAL ZONE NEED TO MEET
THEIR RINA REQUIREMENT, AND WHEN
COASTAL CITIES DON'T DO THEIR
PART, INLAND CITIES END UP
SHOULDERING MORE OF THE HOUSING
CONSTRUCTION. WITH SB 1092, I
HOPE TO ESTABLISH A TIMELINE FOR
THE CDP APPEALS PROCESS FOR HIGH
DENSITY HOUSING PROJECTS, BUT
THE COASTAL COMMISSION EXPRESSED
CONCERNS REGARDING THE ADVERSE
PRECEDENT THIS WOULD HAVE SET.
THEREFORE, I AGREE TO AMEND THIS
BILL TO INSTEAD REQUIRE THE
COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE THE
PROBLEM AND SUGGEST POTENTIAL
REMEDIES. THE LAST POINT I WANT
TO MAKE IS THAT THE CDP APPEALS
PROCESS AND ITS IMPACT OF
DISCOURAGING HOUSING PROJECTS,
CREATES MAJOR CHALLENGES FOR
COASTAL LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. HCD
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE REQUIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
TO BUILD THEIR FAIR SHARE OF
HOUSING IN WAYS THAT
AFFIRMATIVELY REVERSE
SEGREGATION. SINCE MANY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS
AVOID BUILDING IN THE COASTAL
ZONE, THE CDP APPEALS PROCESS
MAKES IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO MEET THE
STATE HOUSING MANDATES, SO THIS
LACK OF CONSISTENCY BETWEEN HCD
AND THE COASTAL COMMISSION,
WHICH ARE TWO PARTS OF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH, IS A REAL
PROBLEM THAT WE NEED TO FIX. SO
WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE
A WITNESS TODAY WHO WILL SPEAK
IN MORE DEPTH TO THIS PROBLEM.
HER NAME IS ERIN AUTRY
MONTGOMERY, AND SHE IS AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FINANCE
EXPERT THAT WORKS FOR THE
CHELSEA CORPORATION, WHICH IS AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPER IN
MY DISTRICT. THANK YOU. YOU JUST
HAVE ONE WITNESS, SENATOR, I DO,
ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE UP TO FOUR
MINUTES. I'M JUST GOING TO TAKE
MY TWO. I'M GOOD. I'M PREPARED.
YOU'RE GOOD. GOOD MORNING. MY
NAME IS ERIN AUTRY MONTGOMERY,
AND I'M HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF
SB 1092. I HAVE WORKED IN THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FINANCE FIELD
FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS, AND I SERVE
AS A SENIOR FINANCE EXECUTIVE AT
CHELSEA INVESTMENT CORPORATION.
CHELSEA IS BASED IN CARLSBAD AND
SAN DIEGO COUNTY. WE'VE BUILT
OVER 100 PROJECTS TOTALING
15,000 HOMES FOR 40,000 PEOPLE
AT A TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST OVER
$3 BILLION. SO WE KNOW WHAT
WE'RE DOING. AND AS YOU ALL
KNOW, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
HAS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS
IN EVERY COUNTY, ESPECIALLY IN
OUR COASTAL COMMUNITIES.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS DIFFICULT
TO BUILD FOR A COUPLE OF
REASONS. FIRST, WE HAVE TO
COMPETE WITH THE MARKET RATE
DEVELOPERS FOR THE LIMITED
SUPPLY OF LAND THAT'S SUITABLE.
SECOND, OUR DEVELOPMENTS
RESTRICT RENTS AND THEREFORE
ALWAYS HAVE A FUNDING GAP.
FINDING THIS FINANCING TO FILL
THE FUNDING GAP IS HIGHLY
COMPETITIVE IN NATURE. TAKES
YEARS AND MULTIPLE SOURCES. IN
ORDER TO APPLY FOR THESE
MULTIPLE SOURCES, INCLUDING THE
LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT,
THE PROJECTS MUST BE FULLY
ENTITLED WITH NO FURTHER
DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS.
THEREFORE, THE EVALUATION OF
POTENTIAL SITES IS A COMPLEX
PROCESS THAT PRIMARILY WEIGHS
THE RISK OF SPENDING HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON
ENTITLEMENTS FOR A PROJECT THAT
DOES NOT RECEIVE THE GAP
FINANCING NECESSARY TO BUILD THE
DEVELOPMENT. I'M HERE TO TESTIFY
THAT CHELSEA INVESTMENT DOES NOT
PURSUE PROJECTS THAT WOULD
REQUIRE REQUIRE A COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, DUE TO THE
UNCERTAINTY OF THE ENTITLEMENT
PROCESS. IN ORDER TO EFFICIENTLY
BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
CHELSEA MUST DEDICATE RESOURCES
TO PROJECTS THAT HAVE CERTAINTY
IN THE ENTITLEMENT PROCESS.
UNCERTAINTY AND ENTITLEMENT
TYPICALLY LEADS TO A LONGER
TIMELINE TO SECURE THEM, WHICH
INCREASES THE DEVELOPMENT COST,
WHICH LEADS TO AN INCREASED
NUMBER OF SOURCES. WE MUST SEEK
IN ORDER TO FILL THE FUNDING
GAP. EACH GAP FUNDING SOURCE
ADDED, INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF
TIME UNTIL THE PROJECT BREAKS
GROUND. SB 1092, AS IT'S
CURRENTLY PLANNED, IS A MUCH
NEEDED STUDY BILL THAT WILL
HOPEFULLY LEAD TO REFORMS TO
LIMIT UNCERTAINTY IN THE
ENTITLEMENT PROCESS FOR PROJECTS
IN THE COASTAL COMMUNITIES. WITH
MORE CERTAINTY, AFFORDABLE
HOUSING CAN BE PLANNED, FINANCED
AND BUILT TO CREATE GREATER
EQUITABLE ACCESS TO OUR COAST
AND THE HIGH OPPORTUNITY
NEIGHBORHOODS. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU, DO WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT, PLEASE JUST GIVE YOUR
NAME, AFFILIATION AND POSITION
ON THE ON THE BILL. CATHERINE
CHARLES, ON BEHALF OF HOUSING
ACTION COALITION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN AND CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS, MOIRA, ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF SAN DIEGO IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, JORDAN,
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE FOR
CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. HELLO. SEAMUS
GERARDI WITH LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC
AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN
DIEGO HOUSING COMMISSION AND
EDEN HOUSING. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, RAFA SONNENFELD ON
BEHALF OF NBA ACTION EAST BAY
YIMBY. MOUNTAIN VIEW, YIMBY.
NORTHERN NEIGHBORS PENINSULA FOR
EVERYONE SAN FRANCISCO YIMBY.
SANTA CRUZ, YIMBY. SANTA ROSA,
YIMBY SAN LUIS OBISPO, YIMBY
URBAN ENVIRONMENTALISTS GROW THE
RICHMOND. VENTURA, VENTURA
COUNTY AND B STREETS FOR PEOPLE
SOUTH SIDE FORWARD. HOW TO ADU
PEOPLE FOR HOUSING ORANGE COUNTY
, PROGRESS. INOUYE VALLEY, SOUTH
BAY YIMBY AND NAPA. SOLANO FOR
EVERYONE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. LUIS MORANTE, ON BEHALF
OF THE BAY AREA COUNCIL AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. SEEING NO OTHER WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT, DO WE HAVE ANY
WITNESSES HERE IN OPPOSITION?
ALL RIGHT. TWO WITNESSES. YOU
EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES. GOOD
MORNING AGAIN, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, SEAN DRAKE FOR THE
COASTAL COMMISSION. WE
APPRECIATE THE AUTHORS RECENT
AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL. THE
COMMISSION HAS REMOVED ITS
ORIGINAL OPPOSITION BASED ON
THOSE AMENDMENTS. WE'RE LOOKING
FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK
WITH THE AUTHORS OFFICE TO
REFINE THE DETAILS OF THE STUDY
REQUIRED BY THE BILL, AND WE
APPRECIATE THE POTENTIAL FOR THE
STUDY TO ALLOW FOR AN INFORMED
UNDERSTANDING OF THE COASTAL ACT
APPEALS PROCESS THAT IS DRIVEN
BY DATA. I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHORS OFFICE. WE LOOK FORWARD
TO WORKING TOGETHER. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. HI, LAURA WALSH,
CALIFORNIA POLICY MANAGER FOR
THE SURFRIDER FOUNDATION, AGAIN
REPRESENTING MANY OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS WHO COLLECTIVELY
REPRESENT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS
OF MEMBERS WHO CARE ABOUT
PROTECTING OUR COASTS AND ACCESS
TO IT. WE ALSO ORIGINALLY
OPPOSED THE BILL BECAUSE WE
THOUGHT IT LACKED DATA
JUSTIFICATION GIVEN, IN
PARTICULAR THE LACK OF DENIAL OF
MULTIFAMILY APPEALS FROM THE
COASTAL COMMISSION OVER THE LAST
FEW YEARS. WE SUPPORT THE
CURRENT IDEA TO INVESTIGATE
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING APPEALS AND
THEIR IMPACT ON HOUSING
AVAILABILITY IN THE COASTAL
ZONE, BECAUSE DATA ANALYSIS AND
TRANSPARENCY IS KEY IN THIS
CONVERSATION, PARTICULARLY GIVEN
THE COMPLEXITY AND SERIOUSNESS
OF THE PROBLEM AND THE
SERIOUSNESS OF APPROACHING THE
COASTAL ACT WITH EXEMPTION BASED
REFORM. BUT WE'RE LOOKING
FORWARD TO WORKING MORE WITH THE
AUTHOR ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? AGAIN,
LIMIT YOUR TESTIMONY, YOUR NAME,
AFFILIATION, POSITION ON THE
MEASURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. CHAIRMAN. OPPOSITION. SORRY
MY NAME IS DAN JACOBSON WITH AN
ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA AND WITH
THE AMENDMENTS REMOVING OUR
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. SUSAN JORDAN, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA
COASTAL PROTECTION NETWORK, AND
WITH THE AMENDMENTS, WE DROP OUR
OPPOSITION AND WILL BE KEEPING
AN EYE ON THE BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. EMILY GARCIA WITH
NRDC DROPPING OUR OPPOSITION
WITH THE AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU.
MORNING. JACOB EVANS WITH SIERRA
CLUB, CALIFORNIA. ALSO DROPPING
OUR OPPOSITION DUE TO
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. CODY PHILLIPS WITH
CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE,
ORANGE COUNTY COASTKEEPER AND
SAN DIEGO, COASTKEEPER, DROPPING
OUR OPPOSITION BECAUSE OF THE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
. GOOD MORNING TO ALL. REMOVING
OUR OPPOSITION WITH AMENDMENTS.
THANK YOU. CHRISTOPHER MARWOOD,
LEGISLATIVE FELLOW WITH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION COMMITTEE,
AND WE'RE REMOVING OUR
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. LINDA
CROPP, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
CENTER, WITH THE AMENDMENTS,
REMOVING OUR OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. HI, SCOTT WEBB
WITH THE RESOURCE INSTITUTE.
WE'RE DROPPING, OPPOSITION WITH
THE AMENDMENTS. THANKS. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION, WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS, SENATOR GROVE? THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AGAIN. THANK YOU
FOR YOUR COURAGE TO BRING FORTH
A BILL THAT WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE
TO HAVE RENTAL PROPERTIES AND
HOUSING TO BE ABLE TO PLACE
PEOPLE IN HOUSING, AGAIN, I'M
SORRY THAT YOU'RE TAKING THE
AMENDMENTS BECAUSE I THINK IT
CIRCUMVENTS WHAT YOU'RE REALLY
TRYING TO DO AND PROVIDE HOUSING
IN YOUR AREA AND ALONG THE
COAST. AGAIN, THE COASTAL
COMMISSION HAS A PURPOSE. IT'S
TO PROTECT THE COAST, BUT IT
SHOULDN'T BE INLAND WHERE WE'RE
TRYING TO BUILD HOUSING, TO DO A
STUDY JUST LIKE YOUR LAST BILL.
I WISH THERE WAS A WAY WE COULD
KEEP THEM ACCOUNTABLE AND GET A
DATA ANALYSIS TO SHOW WHEN THEY
ISSUED PERMITS FOR ADUS AND HOW
LONG IT TOOK BEFORE YOUR BILL
AND WHERE IT IS NOW WITH THIS
ONE. I STILL THINK THEY HAVE THE
HEAVY HAND OF CONTROLLING WHAT
DATA IS RELEASED AND WHAT'S
THERE. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE
INPUT ON THAT. YOU CAN TELL BY
THE POWER OF THE ROOM WITH, YOU
KNOW, MAKING YOU TAKE THOSE
AMENDMENTS IS SIGNIFICANT. I
WISH YOU THE BEST. AND, AGAIN, I
SUPPORTED YOUR BILL WITHOUT THE
AMENDMENTS. AT LEAST WE TOOK A
BABY STEP FORWARD SUPPORTING
YOUR BILL AGAIN TODAY. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT, I'LL JUST
BRIEFLY SAY AGAIN, I THINK THE
BALANCE IS IMPORTANT HERE. AND,
YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF
RHETORIC AROUND THE COASTAL
COMMISSION THAT I'VE HEARD
TODAY, BUT I JUST WANT TO
EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF
THEIR MISSION. IT WAS SOMETHING
THAT SENATOR LAIRD REFERRED TO
IS THE VOTERS APPROVED IT AND,
YOU KNOW, FINDING THAT RIGHT
BALANCE OF DEVELOPMENT, I'M SURE
THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM
WHO WOULD LIKE TO SEE
UNRESTRAINED DEVELOPMENT IN THE
COASTAL AREAS, BUT I THINK
FINDING THAT RIGHT BALANCE IS
APPROPRIATE. I THINK A STUDY
BILL HERE IS APPROPRIATE. SO I
APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE
AMENDMENTS. AND WITH THAT, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? YES. THANK
YOU. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS
FROM SENATOR GROVE. THIS IS THE
SECOND BILL THAT'S BEEN
SUBSTANTIALLY NEUTERED, AND I
THINK IT'S BETTER TO MOVE
FORWARD THAN IT IS TO LET IT
DIE. SO HAVING THE COASTAL
COMMISSION INVESTIGATE TIMELINE
UNCERTAINTY WITH HOME THAT THE
HOME BUILDERS EXPERIENCE IN THE
CDP APPEALS PROCESS IS BETTER
THAN NOT INVESTIGATING THAT. SO
WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE THAT BE
SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WORK ON. I
HAVE A SHEET HERE OF JUST THE
APPEAL TIME LINES OF SPECIFIC
PROJECTS, AND I'LL JUST MENTION
THE ONE IN MY DISTRICT THAT IS
QUITE RECENT. SO IN THE CITY OF
DEL MAR, WHICH IS A CITY THAT
HAS 4000 PEOPLE, IT'S VERY SMALL
AND IT HAS VERY FEW HOUSING
PROJECTS. THIS MULTIFAMILY
PROJECT IS FOR 50 DWELLING
UNITS, INCLUDING TEN AFFORDABLE
UNITS AND IT WAS APPROVED BY THE
CITY. APPEAL WAS FILED TO THE
COASTAL COMMISSION AND IT IT
TOOK A YEAR AND A HALF FOR THE
COASTAL COMMISSION TO COME BACK
WITH NO SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE FOUND.
SO I THINK THE REALITY OF WHAT
MY WITNESS WAS SAYING FROM
CHELSEA ABOUT NOT NOT BEING
WILLING TO TAKE ON THE
UNCERTAINTY. HOW LONG DO WE HAVE
TO CARRY THIS CARRYING COST OF
THIS PROJECT AND NOT BE ABLE TO
KNOW IF WE'LL BE ABLE TO BUILD
OR NOT? I THINK THAT THAT IS A
SUBSTANTIAL AND REAL PROBLEM
THAT NEEDS US TO FIX IT. SO THE
COASTAL COMMISSION, LIKE ALL
OTHER AGENCIES IN THE STATE,
SHOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW TIMELINES.
THEY CAN BE REASONABLE. THERE
CAN BE A WHOLE ANALYSIS OF WHAT
IT SHOULD BE, BUT THERE SHOULD
BE CLEAR TIMELINES FOR PROJECTS
IN THE COASTAL ZONE, SO THAT
DEVELOPERS CAN AND, AND
INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS CAN HAVE
BETTER CERTAINTY THAT WILL
PRODUCE MORE HOUSING. SO WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE. WE'LL TAKE A
BRIEF PAUSE THEN, AND ESTABLISH
QUORUM SINCE WE NOW HAVE IT.
ASSISTANT, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SENATORS. MIN HERE. MIN HERE.
SALADO. ALLEN. ALLEN. HERE
DALLEY. EGGMAN. HERE. EGGMAN.
HERE GROVE. GROVE. HERE.
HURTADO. LAIRD HERE. LAIRD.
HERE. LIMÓN. PADILLA. STERN
STERN. HERE. SO WE A QUORUM HAS
BEEN ESTABLISHED. WITH THAT, WE
CAN VOTE ON THIS BILL. IF ANYONE
MOVES IT. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A
MOTION FROM SENATOR LAIRD. THE
MOTION IS Dð PASSED TO HOUSING
COMMITTEE, ASSISTANT, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. SENATORS. MINT.
AYE MIN AYE. SATO ALLEN. ALLEN.
AYE. DALI. EGGMAN EGGMAN. AYE.
GROVE. GROVE. AYE HURTADO.
LAIRD. AYE. LAIRD. AYE LIMÓN.
PADILLA. STERN A STERN. AYE
THANK YOU. THE VOTE COUNT IS SIX
ZERO. WE'LL LEAVE THAT ON CALL,
MR. CHAIR. BLAKESPEAR. I WOULD
MOVE THE FIRST BILL THAT SENATOR
BLAKE SPEAR PRESENTED. ALL
RIGHT, WE'LL MOVE THAT. WELL,
LET'S LET SENATOR WEINER PRESENT
FIRST, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE THAT
BILL AFTER THAT. I'M SORRY.
WHAT? AND WE'LL DO CONSENT AFTER
THAT, TOO. BUT LET'S SINCE
SENATOR WEINER HAS BEEN WAITING
PATIENTLY, LET'S HAVE HIM
PRESENT HIS BILL. SENATOR WEINER
PRESENTING SB 951. YOU CAN
PROCEED WHENEVER YOU'RE READY,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
COLLEAGUES, AND I'M GLAD THAT
ALL OF THESE, COASTAL HOUSING
BILLS ARE IN THE COMMITTEE
TODAY. I JUST WANT TO SORT OF I
WANT TO SAY, FOR THE RECORD,
THAT I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN
INCONSISTENCY WITH BUILDING
HOUSING IN THE COASTAL ZONE AND
CLIMATE ACTION AND, AND WITH AND
PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES.
AND IF WE'RE NOT BUILDING
HOUSING IN THE COASTAL ZONE, IN
THE URBANIZED AREAS LIKE SAN
FRANCISCO OR SANTA CRUZ OR SAN
DIEGO, IF WE'RE NOT BUILDING IT
THERE, THEN WE'RE BUILDING IT
INLAND AND PEOPLE ARE DRIVING
MORE, AND IT'S INCREASING CARBON
EMISSIONS AND FUELING CLIMATE
CHANGE, WHICH THEN CAUSES MORE
SEA LEVEL RISE, WHICH THEN
DESTROYS COASTAL NATURAL
RESOURCES. AND SO I THINK IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT TO VIEW ALL OF
THIS IN CONTEXT AND TO MOVE PAST
THE ERA OF VIEWING HOUSING AS
SOMEHOW BEING A THREAT TO
NATURAL RESOURCES, AS IT IS NO
SUCH THING. AND SO THAT I THINK
FOR THE PAST BILLS AND ALSO FOR
OUR BILL, AND I JUST WANTED TO
SORT OF LAY THAT OUT AS CONTEXT.
SO I'M HERE TODAY TO PRESENT SB
951, AND I WANT TO REALLY THANK
THE COASTAL COMMISSION FOR
WORKING WITH US ON THIS BILL. WE
HAD SOME CHALLENGES IN IN SAN
FRANCISCO AND OVER THE LAST
NUMBER OF MONTHS SINCE WE
INTRODUCED THE BILL, THE COASTAL
COMMISSION, SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND MY
OFFICE, WE WORKED VERY, VERY
COLLABORATIVELY AND VERY HARD TO
CHART A PATH FORWARD. AND I FEEL
VERY GOOD ABOUT WHERE THE
COMMISSION AND SAN FRANCISCO ARE
RIGHT NOW. AND SO AS A RESULT OF
THAT PROCESS, I MADE AN
AMENDMENT ON MY OWN TO REMOVE
THE BOUNDARY REDRAWING FROM THE
BILL BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS NO
LONGER NECESSARY. SO I WANT TO
AGAIN THANK THE COMMISSION FOR
WORKING COLLABORATIVELY AND VERY
HARD WITH US. THE BILL NOW DOES
TWO THINGS. FIRST, IT ALIGNS
THE, THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
AMENDMENT PROCESS WITH THE
REQUIRED ZONING PROCESS THAT'S
REQUIRED AFTER A HOUSING ELEMENT
IS APPROVED. OF COURSE, A CITY
ONCE IT HAS AN APPROVED HOUSING
ELEMENT, HAS A CERTAIN SET
PERIOD OF TIME, USUALLY EITHER
ONE YEAR OR THREE YEARS, TO
ENGAGE IN A REZONING TO CONFORM
TO THAT HOUSING ELEMENT. AND
THERE ARE PENALTIES IF A CITY
FAILS TO DO THAT. OF COURSE,
WHEN A CITY DOES THAT REZONING,
IT NEEDS TO MAKE AN LCP
AMENDMENT AND NEEDS COASTAL
COMMISSION SIGN OFF. AND WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT A CITY IS NOT
PLACED BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD
PLACE WHERE THE THEY'RE REQUIRED
TO REZONE WITHIN A CERTAIN
AMOUNT OF TIME. BUT THE LCP
AMENDMENT TAKES LONGER TO
APPROVE. SO THE BILL ALIGNS
THOSE TIMETABLES. THE SECOND
THING THE BILL DOES IS IT, I
THINK, RESOLVES WHAT I VIEW AS
SORT OF A QUIRK IN THE LAW, AND
THAT HAS TO DO WITH WHEN A LOCAL
A LOCAL, THE LOCAL ZONING ALLOWS
FOR MORE THAN ONE USE ON A
PARCEL. THERE'S A PRIMARY USE
AND SAY PRIMARY USE IS
RESIDENTIAL, BUT WITH A
CONDITIONAL USE, YOU CAN DO
COMMERCIAL A SECONDARY USE THE
WAY THE LAW IS NOW FOR COASTAL
COUNTIES. THEY IF THEY IF THE
CITY ALLOWS THE SECONDARY USE
YOU CAN APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION
FOR A CITY YOU CAN'T. AND THE
RATIONALE AND THE COASTAL
COMMISSION EDUCATED ME ON THE
HISTORY HERE IS THAT THE COASTAL
COUNTY AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS
TEND TEND TO BE MORE LIKELY TO
BE RURAL AND HAVE MORE
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS,
AND CITIES TEND TO BE MORE
URBANIZED. SAN FRANCISCO,
BECAUSE IT IS A CITY AND THE
COUNTY WAS CLASSIFIED AS A
COUNTY. AND SAN FRANCISCO IS
MANY THINGS. BUT RURAL IS NOT
ONE OF THEM. AND SO WE ARE
CLARIFYING IN THE LAW THAT IF
YOU ARE A CITY AND A COUNTY, YOU
QUALIFY UNDER THE COASTAL ACT AS
A CITY. AND SO AGAIN, I
APPRECIATE THE COASTAL
COMMISSION FOR WORKING
CONSTRUCTIVELY WITH US TO FIND A
SOLUTION TO THAT ISSUE. SO THOSE
ARE THE TWO PIECES OF THE BILL I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. AND WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY IS CATHERINE CHARLES ON
BEHALF OF THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION, YOU JUST HAVE ONE
WITNESS, SENATOR. SENATOR, ONE
WITNESS. YES. YOU HAVE UP TO
FOUR MINUTES. I PROMISE I WON'T
TAKE THAT LONG, GOOD MORNING,
MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS CATHERINE CHARLES. I'M HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION IN SUPPORT OF SB 951.
I'D LIKE TO START BY THANKING
THE COMMISSION FOR THEIR WORK IN
MOVING THE BILL FORWARD, AS
AMENDED. SB 951 INTRODUCES TWO
COMMON SENSE REFORMS THAT THE
SENATOR MENTIONED. FIRST,
EXISTING LAW ALLOWS PROJECTS
WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE AND
COASTAL COUNTIES TO BE APPEALED
TO THE COMMISSION. IF A PROJECT
DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE MAIN
PERMITTED USE. THIS HAS ALLOWED
THE COMMISSION TO HAVE A HAND IN
CONSERVING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN
LANDS ACROSS THE COAST. HOWEVER
THIS PROVISION IS INTENDED TO
APPLY TO RURAL COUNTIES, NOT
URBAN SAN FRANCISCO, WHICH IS
BOTH A CITY AND A COUNTY. SB 951
REFINES ITS APPEAL, MAINTAINING
ITS APPLICATION IN RURAL
CALIFORNIA WHILE TREATING SAN
FRANCISCO LIKE THE CITY IT IS.
SECOND, WHEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ARE REQUIRED TO UPZONE BY HCD,
THEY'RE TYPICALLY GIVEN 1 TO 3
YEARS TO COMPLY. THESE REQUIRED
ACTIONS, HOWEVER, OFTEN RESULT
IN UPDATES TO LCP, WHICH REQUIRE
COASTAL COMMISSION REVIEW, WHICH
TAKES TIME. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
OFTEN END UP STUCK BETWEEN TWO
STATE AGENCIES WORKING ON TWO
DIFFERENT SCHEDULES. SB 951
ALLIANCES PROCESSES, GIVING 1 TO
3 YEARS TO BOTH THE REQUIRED
UPZONING AND ITS ASSOCIATED LCP
UPDATE. THIS BILL SIMPLY
PROVIDES CLARITY FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS WHILE MAINTAINING
COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION TO
HELP CALIFORNIA ACHIEVE ITS
GOALS. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DO
WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES HERE IN
SUPPORT, ME TWO TESTIMONY STATE
YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION, POSITION
ON THE MEASURE. SEAMUS KENNEDY
FROM LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS
ON BEHALF OF SPUR. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE.
JORDAN CARVAJAL, LEGISLATIVE
ADVOCATE FOR CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR. LUIS
MORANTE, ON BEHALF OF THE BAY
AREA COUNCIL AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
RAFA SONNENFELD, ON BEHALF OF
IMB ACTION, EAST BAY, YIMBY.
MOUNTAIN VIEW, YIMBY. NORTHERN
NEIGHBORS PENINSULA FOR EVERYONE
, SAN FRANCISCO YIMBY, SANTA
CRUZ EMB SANTA ROSA MP SAN LUIS
POTOSI, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY,
EMB URBAN ENVIRONMENTALIST, GROW
THE RICHMOND, VENTURA COUNTY EMB
STREETS FOR PEOPLE SOUTH SIDE
FORWARD, HOW TO ADU PEOPLE FOR
HOUSING, ORANGE COUNTY,
PROGRESS, NÓI VALLEY, SOUTH BAY,
YIMBY AND NAPA SOLANO FOR
EVERYONE. SORRY I MISSED THAT.
COULD YOU SAY THAT? NEVER MIND.
ALL RIGHT, DO WE HAVE ANY
OPPOSITION WITNESSES HERE TODAY?
TWO WITNESSES. SO YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES EACH AND PROCEED WHEN
READY. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, SEAN DRAKE
WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION.
WITH THE RECENT TWO SETS OF
AMENDMENTS TO SB 951, THE
COMMISSION HAS REMOVED ITS
OPPOSITION FROM THE BILL. WE
CERTAINLY APPRECIATE AND AGREE
WITH THE SENATOR'S SENTIMENT
THAT COASTAL PROTECTION AND
HOUSING PRODUCTION ARE NOT
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, AND AS IS
EVIDENCED BY THE MENTIONED
COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE
COMMISSION AND THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, WE WANT
TO EMPHASIZE THAT LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAMS ARE THE MOST EFFECTIVE
TOOL FOR MARRYING COASTAL
POLICIES AND HOUSING POLICIES AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL. WE WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR AND HIS STAFF
FOR THEIR COLLABORATION IN
REACHING LANGUAGE THAT ADDRESSED
THE COMMISSION'S CONCERNS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. GOOD MORNING AGAIN,
COMMITTEE CHAIR MEMBERS BRADY
GUERTIN, ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA CITIES, WE
RESPECTFULLY HAVE AND OPPOSE,
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION ON THE
BILL. CAL CITIES AND
REPRESENTING THE 61 CITIES IN
THE COASTAL ZONE. WE BELIEVE
THAT REQUIRING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
TO UPDATE THEIR LCP AND HOUSING
ELEMENTS AT THE SAME TIME WON'T
SOLVE THE ULTIMATE CHALLENGE OF
INCREASING MORE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND MEETING HOUSING
GOALS IN THE COASTAL ZONE. AS WE
KNOW, LCP IS AN OECD TAKES A LOT
OF TIME AND COSTS A LOT OF MONEY
TO OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. WE ARE
CONCERNED THAT THIS IS DOUBLING
DOWN ON PLANNING, AND OUR
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE TO
SHIFT THE BURDEN OF DOUBLING
DOWN ON LOCAL PLANNING IN THE
LCP AND HOUSING ELEMENT, AND
RATHER PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO IDENTIFY
WHERE THERE ARE CHALLENGES IN
LOCAL COASTAL PLANNING AND IN
MEETING HOUSING GOALS. WE ARE
COMMITTED TO CONTINUING TO WORK
WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE, MOVING
FORWARD, AND LOOK FORWARD TO
THOSE FUTURE CONVERSATIONS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE
ANY WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION?
OTHER WITNESSES? ME TO
TESTIMONY? OH, I'M SORRY, I
THINK WE HAVE TWO WITNESSES. SO
IF YOU COULD JUST LIMIT YOUR
TESTIMONY AT THIS POINT TO YOUR
NAME, AFFILIATION, AND POSITION
ON THE MEASURE, SURE. LARA.
WALSH, SURFRIDER AND 40 OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL ORGS. AND WE'VE
MOVED TO LISTEN OUT. IF YOU
WANTED, BUT NEVER MIND. SO THANK
YOU. I DIDN'T HEAR THE POSITION,
IT WAS NEUTRAL. OKAY THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS, I
RESPECTFULLY THE COASTAL
COMMISSION. THEY'RE NOT IN
OPPOSITION WHEN THEY TESTIFIED
AS THE LEAD OPPOSITION WITNESS,
BUT IN ANY EVENT, I'M PAUL YODER
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND COUNTY
OF SAN FRANCISCO TODAY, ON
FEBRUARY 6TH, THE BOARD, IN A
SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OF THE BOARD,
VOTED TO OPPOSE, UNLESS AMENDED,
SB 951. LAST NIGHT, THE CHAIR OF
THE BOARD REAFFIRMED THAT THAT
IS STILL THEIR POSITION UNLESS
THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR THE
CITY IS REMOVED FROM THE BILL.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IT GOOD
MORNING, JACOB EVANS WITH SIERRA
CLUB CALIFORNIA. WE APPRECIATE
THE AMENDMENTS AND ARE MOVING
OUR POSITION. THANK YOU. NEW TO
NEUTRAL. THANK YOU. SUSAN JORDAN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL PROTECTION
NETWORK, WITH THE AMENDMENTS AND
THE COLLABORATION, WE ARE
REMOVING OUR OPPOSITION AND
GOING TO NEUTRAL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. LINDA
KROP, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
CENTER WITH THE AMENDMENTS
MOVING TO NEUTRAL. THANK YOU,
EMILY GARCIA WITH NRDC MOVING TO
NEUTRAL WITH MEN. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. SCOTT WEBB WITH THE
RESOURCE INSTITUTE MOVING TO
NEUTRAL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIRMAN. MY NAME IS DAN
JACOBSON. ENVIRONMENT
CALIFORNIA. MOVING TO NEUTRAL.
THANK YOU. CHRISTOPHER MARWOOD,
LEGISLATIVE FELLOW WITH EAC. AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR AMENDMENTS.
AND WE'RE MOVING TO NEUTRAL.
THANK YOU. WITH AMENDMENTS WE
MOVE TO NEUTRAL. THANK YOU JODY
PHILLIPS WITH CALIFORNIA COAST
KEEPER ALLIANCE ORANGE COUNTY
COASTKEEPER. AND SAN DIEGO COAST
KEEPER WITH THE AMENDMENTS
MOVING TO NEUTRAL. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. AND SEEING NO OTHER
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION OR IN
NEUTRAL, LET'S BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE,
SENATOR GROVE, AGAIN, I, I
APPLAUD ALL THE AUTHORS,
ESPECIALLY ON MY COLLEAGUES ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE THAT
ARE BRINGING THESE BILLS FORWARD
BECAUSE THERE REALLY IS A
PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE
ADDRESSED. AND TO HAVE THE
COURAGE TO DO THAT IN THE FACE
OF ALL THE OPPOSITION IS TRULY
COURAGEOUS, I KNOW THAT, YOU AND
I, SENATOR, HAD TALKED ABOUT THE
BILL ABOUT INLAND HOUSING IN SAN
FRANCISCO AND THE COMMENTS THAT
YOU MADE ABOUT THE CITY AND THE
COUNTY, YOU KNOW, FACING
DIFFERENT REGULATORY PROCESSES
FOR APPEAL, I GET IT. I DO WITH
THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU HAVE
TAKEN, YOU SAID ON YOUR OWN,
WHICH IS, ADMIRABLE AS WELL. AND
NOW YOU HAVE THE CITY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, WHICH YOU REPRESENT,
IS NOW OPPOSED TO IT. HOW ARE
YOU GOING TO CONTINUE TO HELP,
TO RECTIFY THAT PROBLEM, YOU
DON'T SEE A PROBLEM THERE AT ALL
? NO. OKAY. NO, FIRST OF ALL, I
WAS ELECTED BY ALL THE SAME
PEOPLE THAT ELECTED THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS. YES WITH MANY MORE
VOTES, AND, YOU KNOW,
RESPECTFULLY TO THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, WE NOW HAVE A BILL
THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION HAS
WITHDRAWN ITS OPPOSITION AND A
MASSIVE ENVIRONMENTALIST
COALITION HAS WITHDRAWN ITS
OPPOSITION. BUT THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS IS REITERATING ITS
OPPOSITION AND THAT SPEAKS
VOLUMES ABOUT THE DEEP HOUSING
CRISIS THAT WE HAVE IN SAN
FRANCISCO AND WHY WE HAVE IT SO
NØ. THIS IS A VERY TIGHTLY
CRAFTED AND GOOD BILL NOW, AND
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IS
ENTITLED TO ITS OPINION. I
RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE, OKAY,
THAT MAKES SENSE. I WASN'T
TRYING TO MAKE AN ELECTION OR A
CAMPAIGN THING OUT OF IT. I WAS
JUST LIKE IT WAS. I JUST SAID,
ADMIRABLE, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU
HAVE BROUGHT THIS ATTENTION,
JUST LIKE SENATOR BREAKSPEAR HAS
BROUGHT THE ATTENTION OF THE
PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE WITH
BUILDING HOUSING, AND WE DO AND
WE DON'T HAVE A COASTAL
COMMISSION IN THE CENTRAL
VALLEY. I THANK GOD FOR THAT.
BUT WE DO HAVE STILL THE SAME
PROBLEMS THAT YOU FACE. LIKE
IT'S HARD TO GET A PERMIT. IT
COSTS $12,000 TO EVEN START THE
PROCESS. IT'S ALL OF THESE
THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH
WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO AGAIN,
BECAUSE YOU'RE IN A DIFFERENT
AREA THAN WE ARE WHERE WE HAVE
LAND MASS, YOU GUYS ARE MORE
TIGHTLY, YOU KNOW, SURROUNDED BY
HOUSING OR, YOU KNOW, BUILDINGS
AND STUFF AND MORE, YOU KNOW,
URBAN AREA. BUT I JUST I THANK
YOU ALL FOR JUST BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD BECAUSE WE DO NEED
HOUSING AND WE NEED HOUSING IN
SAN FRANCISCO. WE NEED THE
CENTRAL VALLEY, AND WE NEED IT
NOT TO OBSTRUCT THE COAST IN ANY
WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. IT'S A
PUBLIC COAST, AND I GET THE
COASTAL COMMISSION'S ISSUE ON
THAT. BUT I THINK THAT, AGAIN,
RESTATING THAT I FEEL LIKE THEY
REALLY ARE OVERSTEPPING THEIR
BOUNDARIES IN ORDER TO RESTRICT
HOUSING BEING DEVELOPED. AND I
THANK YOU FOR CHAMPIONING A BILL
LIKE THIS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS,
SENATOR LAIRD, ACTUALLY, THANK
YOU FOR BEING BRIEF ABOUT THE
STATE OF SAN FRANCISCO CITY
POLITICS. I THINK THAT COULD
HAVE TAKEN THE REST OF THE
HEARING AND MAYBE WE WILL HAVE A
CONVERSATION AT A SIDEBAR AND
INFORM AS TO EVERYTHING THAT'S
GOING ON THE ONE THING I WANTED
TO SAY IS, I REALLY APPRECIATE
THE, THE DISCUSSION AND THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE TAKEN. AND
YOUR COMMENT THAT THAT YOU DID
IT AND, AND AFTER THOSE LENGTHY
DISCUSSIONS, BECAUSE I THINK YOU
FOCUSED ON WHAT SOME OF THE REAL
ISSUES WERE, THE BEING, YOU
KNOW, THE CONSIDERATION OF A
CITY RATHER THAN, THAN A COUNTY.
AND OTHER THINGS THAT THAT ARE
REALLY PROCESSED THAT I THINK
THIS BILL HAS DONE. THE ONE
STATEMENT I WANTED TO MAKE IS
THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THE BILL
THAT SET THE PRECEDENT OF US
LEGISLATING WHAT THE COASTAL
ZONE WAS, WAS THE THING THAT,
MADE ME MORE NERVOUS THAN
ANYTHING ELSE IN THE BILL. AND
THE MINUTE IT WAS INTRODUCED,
ANYBODY I HEARD FROM PEOPLE IN
MY OWN DISTRICT LIKE, OH, WE HAD
TO PROVIDE COASTAL ACCESS. WE
DON'T LIKE HAVING DONE THAT.
COULD WE BE ADDED TO THE WIENER
BILL? AND SO IF WE START
LEGISLATING WHAT GOES IN THE
COASTAL ZONE, THEN THE COASTAL
ZONE ITSELF WILL HAVE NO MEANING
. AND SO THE FACT THAT YOU
BECAUSE ANYTIME ANYBODY WANTS A
PROJECT, THEY WOULD JUST SAY,
COULD YOU GO TO THE LEGISLATURE
AND EXEMPT THIS FROM THE COASTAL
ZONE. AND SO THAT WAS THE ONE
THING THAT WAS MOST TROUBLING,
THAT I WOULD HAVE STRONGLY
OPPOSED IF IT HAD MOVED WITH IT
IN. BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE WE ARE.
WE'RE WHERE WE ARE WHERE YOU HAD
GENUINE DISCUSSIONS AND YOU
WORKED IT OUT. AND I HOPE THAT
THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF A
LONGER TERME DISCUSSION ON AND A
LONGER TERME RELATIONSHIP WHERE
BECAUSE THIS ONE WORKED OUT THAT
THAT THAT WILL BE THE FIRST STOP
IS TRYING TO HAVE THOSE
DISCUSSIONS AND SEE IF THERE'S
WAYS TO WORK THROUGH IT. SO I
SALUTE YOU FOR, FOR DOING THAT.
AND, AND MR. CHAIR, I WOULD MOVE
THE BILL AS AMENDED. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM THE COMMITTEE? OKAY, I'M
SUPPORTING THIS BILL TODAY. AND
I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
TAKING THE AMENDMENTS.
OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE SOME ISSUES
IN SAN FRANCISCO THAT, YOU KNOW,
ARE PROBLEMATIC. AND, I
APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU
AMENDED THIS BILL MULTIPLE TIMES
TO TRY TO NARROW THE IMPACT
FOLLOWING PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS
WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION,
WITH MY STAFF AND OTHERS. AND I
WOULD JUST ECHO THE COMMENTS OF
SENATOR LAIRD. I THINK THE FIRST
BILL THAT WAS INTRODUCED WAS
VERY SWEEPING IN SCOPE, AND I
THINK IN THE VIEWS OF A LOT OF
US WOULD HAVE SET DANGEROUS
PRECEDENTS UNDERMINING THE
COASTAL ACT, BUT, YOU KNOW, AND
I THINK WE JUST NEED TO BE
CAUTIOUS ABOUT WHOLESALE CHANGES
THAT WE'RE SEEKING TO MAKE
BECAUSE THERE ARE BALANCING
INTERESTS HERE. BUT WITH THAT,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND I REALLY
APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION. AND
YES, THE CURRENT BILL IS REALLY
ABOUT ALIGNING HOUSING ELEMENT
AND LCP TIMETABLES AND
CLARIFYING THAT IF YOU ARE BOTH
A CITY AND A COUNTY, YOU'RE
TREATED AS A CITY UNDER THE
COASTAL ACT, WHICH IS NOT ANY
KIND OF EXEMPTION FOR ANYONE. IT
IS SIMPLY A CLARIFICATION FOR AN
URBANIZED VERSUS A NON-URBANIZED
AREA. I ALSO WANT TO SAY I'VE
HAD A FEW DISAGREE MOMENTS WITH
THE COASTAL COMMISSION IN THE
LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. I DO JUST
WANT TO SAY PUBLICLY THAT I
ACTUALLY, IN TERMS OF THE WORK
THAT THE COASTAL COMMISSION DOES
TO PROTECT NATURAL RESOURCES, I
AM A SUPPORTER OF THE
COMMISSION. I THINK THE
COMMISSION DOES NATION LEADING,
INNOVATIVE WORK TO PROTECT AND
SHORE UP OUR NATURAL RESOURCES
TO PLAN FOR SEA LEVEL RISE. AND
SO I REALLY ADMIRE THE
COMMISSION'S WORK ON THAT. I
THINK WHERE WE HAVE A DISCRETE,
SOMETIMES DISAGREEMENT. AND YOU
SAW THAT WITH SENATOR BLAKE
SPEERS BILLS BEFORE, IS THAT THE
COASTAL ZONE, OF COURSE, IS NOT
LIMITED TO NATURAL RESOURCES. IT
IS ALSO SOME SOMETIMES VERY
INTENSELY URBANIZED AREAS. AND
DOWNTOWN OAN TYPE AREAS. AND
THAT'S WHERE I THINK THE HEALTHY
TENSION THAT'S HAPPENING NOW.
IT'S TENSION, BUT IT'S HEALTHY
TENSION BECAUSE WE KNOW WE HAVE
A HOUSING CRISIS AND IT'S AND
IT'S I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO
HAVE THAT HARD CONVERSATION
ABOUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE ARE THAT WE HAVE
HOUSING EVERYWHERE. WE NEED IT,
PARTICULARLY NEAR TRANSIT AND
JOBS. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO
ENSURE THAT WORKING CLASS PEOPLE
WHO WORK IN THE COASTAL ZONE
HAVE AT LEAST A SHOT OF BEING
ABLE TO LIVE THERE? AND THAT'S
AN IMPORTANT CONVERSATION THAT I
KNOW WILL BE ONGOING, AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO IT. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. OKAY. WITH THAT, WE WILL
GO AHEAD AND TAKE OUR VOTE
ASSISTANT, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
OH, I'M SORRY, WE NEED A MOTION
FIRST, DON'T WE? OH, I'M SORRY,
SENATOR LAYER MOVES THE BILL.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED THE
HOUSING COMMITTEE ASSISTANT,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. SENATORS.
MIN A MIN. AYE SATO. ALAN. ALAN.
AYE. DALY DALLY. AYE. EGGMAN.
EGGMAN. AYE GROVE. GROVE. AYE.
HURTADO. LAIRD AYE. LAIRD. AYE.
LEMON PADILLA. STERN. STERN AYE.
FOR 56770. THE VOTE. THE VOTE
RIGHT NOW IS SEVEN ZERO. WE'LL
LEAVE THAT BILL ON CALL WITH
THAT. I WANT TO GO BACK TO.
THANK YOU, SENATOR WIENER. I
MOVE ITEM NUMBER TWO. YOU DID
ALREADY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION
FIRST ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR?
SO MOVED. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A
MOTION FROM SENATOR STERN ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR, WHICH IS FIVE
ITEMS. FILE ITEM NUMBER FOUR, SB
1139, FILE ITEM NUMBER FOUR, SB
1156, FILE ITEM NUMBER SIX, SB
1176 FILE. ITEM NUMBER TEN, SB
1324, AND FILE ITEM NUMBER 13,
SB 13 1520. ASSISTANT, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. SENATORS MIN A
MIN. AYE SATO. ALAN. ALAN. AYE.
DALLY DALLY. AYE. EGGMAN.
EGGMAN. AYE. GROVE GROVE. AYE.
HURTADO. LAIRD LAIRD. AYE.
LIMON. PADILLA STERN. STERN. AYE
. SEVEN ZERO. THE VOTE COUNT ON
THAT RIGHT NOW IS SEVEN ZERO.
LEAVE THAT ON CALL AND THEN
WE'LL GO BACK TO FILE ITEM
NUMBER TWO, SB 1077 BY SENATOR
BLAKE SPEAR. WE HAVE A MOTION
FROM SENATOR LAIRD. DO PASS AS
AMENDED, TO HOUSING ASSISTANCE.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. SENATOR
MIN A MIN. AYE. SATO ALAN. ALAN.
NUMBER TWO. YES, ALAN. AYE.
DALLI. DALLI AYE. EGGMAN.
EGGMAN. AYE. GROVE HURTADO.
LAIRD. AYE LAIRD. AYE. LIMÓN.
PADILLA. STERN STERN. AYE. AYE.
6 TO 0. DO YOU WANT TO MOVE THE
CONSENT CALENDAR? WE JUST DID
IT. YOU JUST VOTED ON IT A
MINUTE AGO. OKAY ALL RIGHT.
YEAH. THANK YOU. MR. SORRY ALL
RIGHT. HE'S RUNNING OUT. SO
BASICALLY, WE'RE JUST WAITING
FOR THERE'S ONLY TWO AUTHORS
LEFT. LIMÓN AND ALAN, IN CASE
ALAN WANTS TO PRESENT HIS BILL.
I'LL PRESENT. I'LL PRESENT. THAT
MAKES MORE SENSE. LET ME HAND IT
TO YOU, CHAIR. OKAY ONE MORE.
NOW WE'LL BE HEARING SENATOR
ALAN'S SB 1234, FILE ITEM 12.
OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. HOPEFULLY I'LL.
ABSOLVE MYSELF OF AT LEAST A
HALF A DEMERIT RIGHT NOW, OKAY,
SO THIS IS A SPECIALLY NUMBERED
BILL. SB 1234, IT SEEKS TO
SENSE. SO WE'VE BEEN TALKING
QUITE A BIT ABOUT THE COASTAL
COMMISSION AND SOME OF THE
CHALLENGES THERE, THIS BILL
SEEKS TO SENSIBLY STREAMLINE THE
PROCESS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO
FINALIZE AMENDMENTS TO THEIR
LPS. THE LOCAL COASTAL PLANS
PROGRESS PROGRAMS, SO, AS YOU
ALL KNOW, CITIES AND COUNTIES
THAT REPRESENT COASTAL LANDS
HAVE TO THEY'RE REQUIRED UNDER
THE COASTAL ACT TO COORDINATE
WITH THE COASTAL COMMISSION TO
PROTECT COASTAL RESOURCES AND
GUARANTEE PUBLIC ACCESS AND
ENSURE THAT ALL DEVELOPMENT IS
DONE SUSTAINABLY. WE, OUR
COMMISSION, THE COASTAL
COMMISSION, ACHIEVES THIS
OVERSIGHT ROLE BY CERTIFYING
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM, WHICH IS A COLLECTION
OF APPROVED PLANNING DOCUMENTS
THAT LAY OUT THE FRAMEWORK FOR
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT AND
COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION,
ALONG WITH THE NECESSARY
IMPLEMENTATION ORDINANCES. SO,
PRIOR TO THE CERTIFICATION OF
ALL THE COMPONENTS OF THE LCP,
ANY DECISIONS BY THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT THAT IMPACTS THE
COASTAL ZONE HAS TO GO. THEY
HAVE TO GO TO THE COASTAL
COMMISSION FOR REVIEW. HAVING A
COMPLETE AND CERTIFIED LCP
ALLOWS A COASTAL JURISDICTION TO
EFFICIENTLY APPROVE PERMITS AND
MOVE FORWARD WITH PROJECTS
WITHIN THE TERMS OF THEIR PLAN,
WITHOUT NEEDING TO CONSULT THE
COASTAL COMMISSION. EVERY TIME.
NOW, JUST AS THE COASTAL
COMMISSION INITIALLY REVIEWS AN
LCP TO ENSURE THAT IT MEETS THE
STANDARDS OF THE COASTAL ACT,
ANY PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO AN
EXISTING LCP MUST ALSO BE
SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW. IF THE
COMMISSION THEN IDENTIFIES ANY
ISSUES OR DISCREPANCIES, THEY
CAN THEN CONDITIONALLY CERTIFY
THE AMENDMENT WITH CLARIFYING
MODIFICATIONS THAT, IF ACCEPTED
BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WILL
DEEM THE AMENDMENT CERTIFIED.
THE MODIFICATIONS RECOMMENDED BY
THE COASTAL COMMISSION ARE
USUALLY MINOR, TECHNICAL OR
CLARIFYING. MODIFY ONES THAT
DON'T SUBSTANTIVELY CHANGE THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS COMPARED
TO WHEN IT WAS LAST HEARD AND
PASSED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
SO THIS BILL WILL ALLOW THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO EMPOWER
THEIR PLANNING DIRECTOR TO
ACCEPT THESE MINOR CHANGES
MINISTERIALLY IF THEY SO CHOOSE,
THEREBY AVOIDING THE TIME AND
RESOURCE COSTS OF A DUPLICATIVE
HEARING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL AND
THEN SENDING IT BACK. THIS IS A
PERMISSIVE APPROACH THAT GRANTS
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS SOME MORE
FLEXIBILITY TO BE EFFICIENT, AND
INCENTIVIZES COMPLETION OF THE
LCP PROCESS BY SMOOTHING ONE OF
THE FEW REMAINING, REALLY
ONEROUS REDUNDANCIES THAT THAT
ARE FACED POST CERTIFICATION IN
THIS PROCESS. AND I JUST WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR WORK ON THIS BILL. I WANT
TO RECOGNIZE, AS NOTED IN THE
ANALYSIS, THAT WE'RE STILL
WORKING TO REFINE SOME OF THE
LANGUAGE TO ADDRESS CONCERNS
ABOUT, SCOPE OF CHANGE THAT THAT
MAY BE ACCEPTED. MINISTERIALLY
BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT CAME OUT OF AN INCIDENT
INVOLVING THE COASTAL COMMISSION
, AND I REALLY DO HOPE THAT THIS
WILL HELP TO AT LEAST SMOOTH
SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT
EXISTS WITH THE ACCEPTANCE OF
PROJECTS THAT EVERYBODY AGREES
OUGHT TO MOVE FORWARD, AND IT'S
GOING TO HELP COASTAL CITIES AND
COUNTIES. AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. OKAY. WE'LL SEE.
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. DO WE HAVE
ANY LEAD WITNESSES SEEING? NONE,
ANY GENERAL WITNESSES WISH TO
TESTIFY? SEEING NONE. LOOKING
FOR ANY OPPOSITION TESTIFY.
SEEING NONE. I WILL BRING IT
BACK TO THE DAIS. COMMENTS,
QUESTIONS THERE. LAIRD. I WOULD
MOVE THE BILL. MOTION FROM
SENATOR LAIRD. THE MOTION IS TO
PASS. TO PASS THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, SEEING NO OTHER
FURTHER COMMENTS. QUESTIONS?
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? NO. I
APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS
AND YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO DO. AND I ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU FOR
KEEPING IT NARROW AND FOCUSED
AND APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE DOING
HERE. WITH THAT, LET'S, CALL THE
ROLL. SENATORS MINH SALADO, ALAN
ALLEN. AYE. DALLY. DALLY. AYE.
EGGMAN. EGGMAN. AYE. GROVE.
GROVE. AYE. HURTADO LAIRD.
LAIRD. AYE. LEMON LEMON. AYE.
PADILLA. STERN AYE. STERN. AYE
FIVE. SIX. SEVEN. OKAY. THAT'S.
SEVEN ZERO. WE'LL LEAVE THAT
MEASURE ON CALL, NOW WE'RE GOING
TO HEAR FROM SENATOR LEMON, WHO
HAS, I BELIEVE, FOUR ITEMS
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE, FIVE ITEMS
BEFORE, BUT ONE IS ON CONSENT,
SO IF YOU WISH TO FILE ITEM
ORDER, OR I GUESS WE CAN LEAVE
TO YOUR DISCRETION IF YOU WANT
TO, CHAIR, CAN YOU REMIND ME
WHAT THE FILE ITEM. OKAY. SO,
1101. WE'LL START THERE.
PERFECT. OKAY THANK YOU. CHAIR
AND SENATORS, THIS BILL WILL
HELP CALIFORNIA REACH OUR GOALS
IN USING BENEFICIAL FIRE. IT HAS
THREE MAIN COMPONENTS WHICH WILL
HELP CALIFORNIA ACTIVELY USE
FIRE IN AREAS WHERE IT'S
ECOLOGICALLY APPROPRIATE. ONE,
IT WILL STREAMLINE THE
CONTRACTING AND PROCUREMENT
PROCESS FOR BENEFICIAL FIRE
THROUGH CAL FIRE TWO, IT WILL
EXPAND PRE FIRE PLANNING,
REQUIRING THE IDENTIFICATION OF
IMPORTANT CULTURAL AND
ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES. AND THREE
IT WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL POST
FIRE MAPPING TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS OF
WILDFIRE TO HERE TO SUPPORT OUR
BILL IS PAUL MASON FROM THE
PACIFIC FOREST TRUST AND
CATHERINE FREEMAN FROM THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES. OKAY. TWO MINUTES
EACH. GREAT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. CHAIR. STERN MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, PAUL MASON, VICE
PRESIDENT WITH PACIFIC FOREST
TRUST. FIRST, I WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE FOR REALLY
THOROUGH ANALYSIS AND BACKGROUND
AND REALLY LAID OUT THE CONTEXT
FOR WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE
TODAY WITH FIRE IN CALIFORNIA,
WHICH IS REALLY FUNDAMENTALLY
THAT CALIFORNIA IS A FIRE
ADAPTED LANDSCAPE. THIS AREA
EVOLVED WITH FIRE. WE'RE GOING
TO HAVE FIRE. THERE'S REALLY NO
OTHER ALTERNATIVE THERE. THERE
ARE PARTS OF CALIFORNIA WHERE WE
ALREADY HAVE FIRE TOO
FREQUENTLY, LIKE IN SOME OF THE
SOUTH COAST, BUT IN MOST OF
CALIFORNIA WE HAVE A FIRE
DEFICIT. AND WE FRANKLY NEED TO
SEE MORE FIRE THAN THAN WE'RE
SEEING RIGHT NOW. WHAT WE HAVE
INADVERTENTLY DONE BY GOING SO
HEAVILY TOWARDS SUPPRESSION FOR
THE LAST NUMBER OF DECADES IS
ACTIVELY CHOSEN. THE WORST FIRE
OUTCOMES, BECAUSE THE ONLY FIRES
THAT GET REALLY LARGE ARE THE
ONES BURNING UNDER EXTREME
WEATHER CONDITIONS. BUT WE CAN
CHOOSE CHOOSE THE TIMING OF
FIRES AND THE CONDITIONS WHEN
WE'RE GOING TO GET THE BEST
OUTCOMES AND THE LEAST ADVERSE
HEALTH IMPACTS. AND THAT'S WHAT
THIS BILL REALLY DOES. AND THIS
BILL IS AN OUTGROWTH OF SOME
WORK GOING OVER, GOING ON OVER
THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WITH A
BROAD GROUP OF STAKEHOLDERS
RANGING FROM THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES TO
THE LUNG ASSOCIATION AND VARIOUS
OTHER PARTIES. AND IT REALLY
CHARTS A PATH LIKE SENATOR LEMON
WAS JUST SAYING, WHERE WE PLAN
BETTER IN ADVANCE OF FIRE, WE
REALLY SCALE UP HOW QUICKLY CAL
FIRE CAN COME TO THE TABLE. AND,
REALLY HELP IMPLEMENT PRESCRIBED
FIRE AT A GREATER SCALE. SO WE
START GETTING FIRE BACK ON THE
LANDSCAPE, AND THEN WE START
LOOKING AT THE OUTCOMES OF FIRES
WITH MORE NUANCE. SO RATHER THAN
JUST TALKING ABOUT A MILLION
ACRES BURN THIS YEAR WITH THE
IMPLICATION THAT IT WAS ALL BAD,
THAT, WE START THINKING THAT OR
START UNDERSTANDING THAT A LOT
OF THAT FIRE IS HAVING GOOD
ECOLOGICAL OUTCOMES. AND WE CAN
UNDERSTAND THAT FIRE NUANCE IN
ORDER TO PLAN BETTER FOR THE
COMING YEAR. SO THE BREADTH OF
SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL HAS BEEN
REALLY GRATIFYING FROM LARGE
LANDOWNERS LIKE THE FORESTRY
ASSOCIATION AND THE CATTLEMEN,
THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION
AND OTHER PUBLIC HEALTH
INTERESTS WHO RECOGNIZE THAT THE
WAY WE HAVE APPROACHED FIRE TO
DATE RECENTLY HAS JUST GOTTEN US
INTO A REALLY UNTENABLE POSITION
WITH REALLY EXTREME IMPACTS FROM
SMOKE, AND THAT WE JUST HAVE TO
ACCEPT THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
SOME SMOKE, BUT WE CAN CONTROL
THE TIMING. SO THIS SORT OF PATH
TO GETTING TO MORE GOOD FIRE ON
THE LANDSCAPE IN WAYS THAT
MINIMIZE THE HEALTH IMPACTS AND
MAXIMIZE THE SAFETY. IT REALLY
GIVES ME HOPE FOR THE PATH
FORWARD. AND I ENCOURAGE YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. SECONDLY,
WITNESS. HI, I'M CATHERINE
FREEMAN ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES, AND WE REPRESENT 58
CALIFORNIA COUNTIES. WE WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR CARRYING
THIS BILL. IT'S IMPORTANT TO US,
COUNTIES ARE ON THE FRONT LINE
OF WILDFIRE DISASTERS. WE NEED
EVERY TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX TO
PROTECT OUR COMMUNITIES. WE
DON'T GENERALLY OWN THE LAND,
BUT WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR
COMMUNITIES. AND AS YOU'VE HEARD
TODAY, WE CANNOT LOSE ANY MORE
HOUSING. SB 1101 PROVIDES
NECESSARY STREAMLINING,
PROACTIVE PLANNING, AND IT
IMPROVES THE STATE TO LOCAL
RELATIONSHIP IN A WAY THAT I
THINK IS GOING TO REALLY IMPROVE
OUR WELFARE OUTCOMES. COUNTY
SUPPORT SB 1101 AND I'LL BE
BRIEF. WE URGE YOUR SUPPORT
TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU, GENERAL WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT, NAME AND AFFILIATION.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN.
CHRIS MICHELI, ON BEHALF OF
HUMBOLDT REDWOOD COMPANY AND
MENDOCINO REDWOOD COMPANY IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, STACY HEATON,
RURAL COUNTY REPRESENTATIVES OF
CALIFORNIA REPRESENTING 40 RURAL
COUNTIES STATEWIDE IN SUPPORT.
THANKS STEVE WALLACH ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA TAHOE ALLIANCE
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. ALEX LOOMER, ON BEHALF
OF THE SIERRA FOREST LEGACY
SIERRA FUND, SIERRA INSTITUTE,
AUDUBON CALIFORNIA DEFENDERS OF
WILDLIFE, CALIFORNIA NATIVE
PLANT SOCIETY, AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, JOSH
AUGER, ON BEHALF OF THE SANTA
BARBARA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS IN SUPPORT. OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SEEING NO
OTHER WITNESSES IN SUPPORT,
WE'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY
WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION, ANY
WISHES TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION.
SB 1101 SEEING NONE. WE'LL BRING
IT BACK TO THE DÍAS QUESTIONS.
SENATOR LARRY, THIS IS A VERY
GOOD POLICY, AND THIS IS THE
RIGHT DIRECTION. AND WE SHOULD
BE DOING THIS. AND I THINK THE
ONLY QUESTION OF THE BILL IS THE
FUNDING OF IT. AND THANK GOD
THAT'S WHY IT'S REFERRED TO
ANOTHER COMMITTEE. AND IT'S NOT
OUR JURISDICTION. THÀNH. AND SO
BASED ON THAT GOOD POLICY AND
APPRECIATE THE TESTIMONY AND
SUPPORT, I WOULD MOVE THE BILL.
I'LL ACKNOWLEDGE THE QUIET
EFFORT AND EMOTION HERE, BUT
WE'LL ACKNOWLEDGE THE ON THE
RECORD MOTION HERE. SENATOR
LAIRD, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YES,
SENATOR GROVE, THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. I JUST AGAIN ECHO MY
COLLEAGUES COMMENTS ABOUT THE
GOOD POLICY. IT IS GOOD POLICY.
AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO
SAY THAT ON THE RECORD BECAUSE I
DON'T SAY THAT VERY MUCH ABOUT
YOUR BILL'S. THANKS YOU'RE
PROBABLY NOT GOING TO SAY THAT
ABOUT THE NEXT ONES. SHE'S
GETTING READY FOR THE NEXT ONE.
IT IS. IT'S GOOD POLICY. AND I
SPECIFICALLY IN YOUR BILL THAT
STREAMLINES THE CONTRACT STAFF,
BECAUSE THESE BURNS HAVE TO BE
DONE AT A CERTAIN TIME AT A
CERTAIN, YOU KNOW, TIME IN THE
YEAR. AND IT HAS TO HAPPEN
REALLY FAST IN ORDER TO HAVE ALL
THESE, SUBCONTRACTS GO OUT TO
COMPETITIVE BID, WAITING 30 DAYS
FOR THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT AND
THEN 90 DAYS FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
AND THE REVIEW THEN THAT WE'VE
MISSED THAT PRESCRIBED BURN
PLACE. SO ADDRESSING JUST THAT,
I THINK YOU REALLY WILL BE, I
DON'T WANT TO CALL YOU A
CHAMPION. I'M NOT THERE YET, BUT
SOMEBODY WHO IS WHO IS. VERY
WELL, PLACING A CIRCUMSTANCES ON
A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT WILL
ALLOW US TO ADDRESS AND MITIGATE
WILDFIRES THAT ARE UNCONTROLLED
VERSUS CONTROLLED. AND SO I DID
WANT TO SAY THANK YOU AND SAY
SOMETHING NICE ABOUT A BILL THAT
I NEVER RARELY I DON'T GET TO
COMMENT VERY MUCH ON YOUR BILLS
OTHER THAN IT'S NEGATIVE. BUT I
WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU KNEW I
SUPPORTED THIS BILL. WELL, THANK
YOU. I THINK. SENATOR DALI,
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I JUST
LIKE TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I
WORKED IN THIS SPACE A LOT OVER
THE YEARS, AND, I JUST WANT TO
SAY TO THE PROPONENTS, IT'S
REALLY NICE TO SEE ENVIRONMENTAL
GROUPS AND COUNTIES AND, YOU
KNOW, PEOPLE. THERE WAS A TIME.
WHEN WE DIDN'T WANT TO CUT A
TREE DOWN. WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO
ANYTHING IN THE FOREST AND JUST
LEAVE IT ALONE. AND IT'S ALIVE.
IT'S GROWING. YOU CAN'T JUST
LEAVE IT ALONE, AND WE
INTERRUPTED NATURE. I WAS GREAT
TO HEAR PAUL'S TESTIMONY ABOUT
HOW WE'VE PUT OUT. WE'VE STOPPED
FIRE, WHICH NATURALLY THINNED
OUR FORESTS. SO, GOOD JOB ON THE
BILL. OBVIOUSLY BE SUPPORTING
IT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE
THAT COMMENT THAT IT'S REALLY
NICE TO SEE PEOPLE COME TOGETHER
AND ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUES
THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED OUT
THERE. WE HAVE MILLIONS OF ACRES
THAT NEED TO BE TREATED, AND
FIRE IS A TOOL TO DO THAT. BUT
IT'S JUST THE TIMING THAT TO GET
IT DONE. SO THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. YES, SENATOR EGGMAN, JUST
SO I CAN, I CAN JUMP ON THE
BANDWAGON, BUT JUST TO CONCUR
WITH MY COLLEAGUE FROM BIEBER
AND WE'VE BEEN ON SERVED ON
NATURAL RESOURCES, I THINK, FOR
THE LAST 12 YEARS. SO WE'RE
WE'RE WRAPPING UP AND HAVE
REALLY SEEN, I THINK, IN SOME
KEY POLICY AREAS. THIS BEING ONE
OF THEM, I THINK HOUSING BEING
ANOTHER AND MAYBE MENTAL HEALTH,
THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY TURNED
CORNERS IN A VERY SIGNIFICANT
WAY, DURING THE LAST DECADE. AND
SO I THINK THAT JUST BEARS
RECOGNIZING THAT. I THINK WE ARE
SWINGING BACK TO THE MIDDLE
WHERE WE NEED TO BE TO BE
EFFECTIVE POLICY MAKERS. SO I
THANK YOU FOR THIS. THANK YOU.
AND MEMBERS, I WILL RECOGNIZE
THAT IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE
CHAIR, THAT, IT IS AN EVOLUTION.
I MEAN, THIS TOPIC IS AN
EVOLUTION. I'VE BEEN HERE EIGHT
YEARS AND THIS IS NOT WHERE THIS
CONVERSATION HAPPENED. AND SO
JUST THE LIST OF WHO IS COMING
ON BOARD TO SUPPORT THIS REALLY
SPEAKS TO THE PROGRESS AND THE
CHANGES THAT HAVE MADE, BUT ALSO
THE REALLY DEEP AND SEVERE
IMPACTS THAT OUR COMMUNITIES
HAVE FELT ON THIS ISSUE, AND
NEEDING TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE
HAVE TO COME TOGETHER. SO I WANT
TO RECOGNIZE MANY OF YOU,
ESPECIALLY MY COLLEAGUE FROM
BIEBER, THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT
OF WORK DONE IN THIS PARTICULAR
SPACE. THIS IS NOT ALONE. SO
THIS IS BUILDING UPON PREVIOUS
WORK. AND THE COMMITTEE DID A
GREAT JOB TOO. THANK YOU.
COMMITTEE I'VE JUST HANDED IT. I
HAVE NO MORE POWER TO ALLOW YOU
TO. YOURS ALSO, EVERYONE'S DONE
DEBATING. I CLOSED. WE HAVE A
MOTION. IS THAT YOUR CLOSE?
YEAH. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION?
YEAH. MOTION IS THERE. OKAY.
MOTION IS. I'M SORRY. DO PASS AS
Dð PASS TO, GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS, ASSISTANT, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. SENATOR MINH. I
MEAN, I SEE NO ALLEN. ALLEN, I
DALI, DALI I EGGMAN, EGGMAN I.
GROVE. GROVE I HURTADO. LAIRD.
LAIRD I LOWMAN I LIMÓN I
PADILLA. STERN. A STERN I. THE
COUNT IS EIGHT ZERO. WE'LL LEAVE
THAT BILL OPEN ON CALL. AND WITH
THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO YOUR NEXT
BILL. SENATOR LIMÓN, SB 1135,
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY TO PROCEED
. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, FIRST, I'D LIKE TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR.
THE COMMITTEE STAFF FOR THEIR
WORK ON THIS BILL. AND I WOULD
LIKE TO ACCEPT THE SUGGESTED
AMENDMENTS. I'D ALSO LIKE TO
COMMIT TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
THE COMMITTEE AND STAFF ON THIS
BILL. COMPOST APPLICATION ON
AGRICULTURE AND RANGELANDS IS A
BENEFICIAL PRACTICE AS IT
REPAIRS SOIL HEALTH, CONSERVES
WATER, INCREASES CARBON
SEQUESTRATION IN SOIL AND
REDUCES OVERALL CARBON IN THE
ATMOSPHERE. THE 2022 CARB AB 32
SCOPING PLAN FURTHER IDENTIFIED
COMPOST AS A STRATEGY TO REDUCE
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, AIDING
IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE
CHANGE. THE CHALLENGE IS THAT
COMPOST IS EXPENSIVE TO PRODUCE,
TRANSPORT AND APPLY TO LAND. SB
1135 ESTABLISHES A TAX CREDIT
FOR CALIFORNIA FARMERS, RANCHERS
AND LANDOWNERS WHO EMPLOY
FARMING AND RANCHING PRACTICES
THAT MAXIMIZE CARBON
SEQUESTRATION THROUGH THE
UTILIZATION OF COMPOST ON
NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS. THIS
BILL CONTINUOUSLY APPROPRIATES
1% OF THE GRF FUNDS TO A NEW
FUND, THE CALIFORNIA COMPOST TAX
CREDIT FUND, NOT TO EXCEED 120
MILLION ANNUALLY FOR TEN YEARS
TO FULLY PAY FOR THE TAX CREDIT
I HAVE WITH ME TODAY, JENNIFER
GALEHOUSE, ON BEHALF OF THE
PEOPLE, FOOD AND LAND FOUNDATION
AND MICHAEL MILLER FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF WINE
GRAPE GROWERS TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS MICHAEL MILLER WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF WINE
GRAPE GROWERS. I WANT TO THANK
THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR ANALYSIS
AND DETAILS OF REVIEW OF THE
BILL. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR HER LEADERSHIP ON THE
ISSUE. FOR THE CALIFORNIA WINE
GRAPE GROWERS WERE A CO-SPONSOR
OF THIS BILL BECAUSE WE HAVE A
HUGE INVESTMENT IN
SUSTAINABILITY. WE HAVE THE WE
ARE PARTNERED WITH THE WINE
INSTITUTE IN THE CALIFORNIA
SUSTAINABLE WINEGROWING
ALLIANCE, AND WE ENCOURAGE
GROWERS ALL OVER CALIFORNIA TO
ENGAGE IN SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES.
A LARGE PART OF THAT IS
INCLUDING HEALTHY SOILS WORK,
COMPOSTING, THAT KIND OF THING
IN THE VINEYARDS. WHAT WE'RE
FINDING TODAY IS THAT MANY OF
OUR GROWERS ARE FACING A LOT OF
ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY. YOU'VE
LOOKED AT POTENTIALLY ARTICLES
IN THE LA TIMES MEDIA ACCOUNTS
ALL OVER THE STATE. AND FRANKLY,
AROUND THE WORLD HAVE REPORTED
ON THE GLUT OF THE MARKETPLACE
OF GRAPES RIGHT NOW AND THE
INSTABILITY IN THE WINE INDUSTRY
. SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS
GROWERS WHO ARE BASICALLY BASED
BASICALLY SITUATION WHERE THEY
CAN'T SELL THEIR GRAPES AND
THEY'RE TRYING TO GET THROUGH
THE YEAR, THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE
ENDS MEET AND WE'RE ASKING THEM
TO INVEST IN THINGS LIKE
COMPOSTING. WE GO WITH A
STRAIGHT FACE, SAY TO THEM, THIS
IS GOOD FOR YOUR VINEYARD. IT'S
GOOD FOR THE CLIMATE, IT'S GOOD
FOR CARBON SEQUESTRATION. IT'S A
WIN WIN WIN FOR EVERYBODY. BUT
IF THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT IN THE
SHORT TERMS, THERE'S NOT MUCH
THAT THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT. WITH
THE LONG TUM INVESTMENT. SO WE
LOOK AROUND THE WORLD TO AT WHAT
OTHER COUNTRIES ARE DOING
RELATIVE TO HELPING THE INDUSTRY
WEATHER THIS STORM. FRANCE WROTE
A CHECK FOR $250 MILLION TO
WINEMAKERS IN FRANCE TO DUMP
WINE TO HELP STABILIZE THE
MARKET THERE IN, CANADA, THEY'RE
INVESTING A FEW HUNDRED MILLION
IN CLIMATE CHANGE IN VINEYARDS
IN THAT EFFORT AS WELL. WE'RE
NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING OTHER
THAN A TAX CREDIT HERE. VERY
FOCUSED ON HELPING GROWERS TO
WEATHER THE STORM AND TO MAKE
THE INVESTMENT IN CLIMATE CHANGE
PRACTICES THAT BENEFIT NOT ONLY
JUST THE VINEYARD, BUT IT
BENEFITS THE STATE, THE COUNTRY,
THE ENTIRE WORLD. CLIMATE CHANGE
IS EVERYONE'S PROBLEM, AND IT'S
SOMETHING THAT WE'RE HAPPY TO
WORK TO HELP FIGHT. AND WE THINK
THAT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO
INVEST THROUGH THIS KIND OF A
TAX CREDIT PRACTICES THAT WILL
HELP GET IT DONE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT HELLO, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, NICOLAS MAZZOTTI, ON
BEHALF OF PEOPLE, FOOD AND LAND
FOUNDATION, AN ORGANIZATION THAT
PROMOTES THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL
COMMUNITIES, AS WELL AS THE
DEVELOPMENT OF SMALL AND
COMMUNITY FARMS, I WOULD LIKE TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR INTRODUCING
THIS IMPORTANT MEASURE, WHICH
WILL NOT ONLY HELP IMPROVE THE
SOIL FOR FARMERS AND RANCHERS,
BUT ALSO IMPACT THE HEALTH AND
FOOD OR IMPACT THE HEALTH,
HEALTH OF FOOD AND CLIMATE, I
WILL BE GIVING WRITTEN TESTIMONY
FROM, DOCTOR WENDY SILVER, A
DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF
ECOSYSTEM ECOLOGY AND
BIOCHEMISTRY AT UC BERKELEY, WHO
UNFORTUNATELY COULD NOT MAKE IT
HERE TODAY, PROFESSOR SILVER IS
THE LEAD SCIENTIST OF THE MORAN
CARBON PROJECT, WHICH IS
DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR
LAND BASED CLIMATE CHANGE
MITIGATION, PARTICULARLY BY
COMPOSTING, HIGH EMISSION
ORGANIC WASTE FOR SOIL
AMENDMENTS TO SEQUESTER
ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE,
RECOGNIZING TIME CONSTRAINTS,
I'LL SKIP THE PART ABOUT THE
MECHANICS OF COMPOSTING AND GO
DIRECTLY INTO THE SPECIFICS OF
THE BILL, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT
OUT FROM DOCTOR SILVER'S
TESTIMONY THAT RESEARCH IN
CALIFORNIA AND ELSEWHERE HAS
SHOWN THAT COMPOST AMENDMENTS TO
SOILS CAN INCREASE CROP AND
FORAGE YIELDS AS THE ADDITIONAL
PLANT GROWTH STORAGE VIA
ENHANCED SOIL ORGANIC CARBON
MATTER CONTENT, THIS INCREASED
ORGANIC MATTER AND ASSOCIATED
SOIL CARBON IS A MEANS TO HELP
SLOW CLIMATE CHANGE. IT ALSO
OFTEN INCREASES SOIL WATER
RETENTION, WHICH MAY PROTECT
AGAINST DROUGHT AND FLOODS,
COMPOST AND THE SOIL ORGANIC
MATTER PRODUCES CONTRIBUTE TO
SOIL STABILITY AND THUS MAY
LIMIT EROSION DURING LARGE STORM
AND SNOWMELT EVENTS, THERE ARE
DECADES OF RESEARCH ON THE SOIL
HEALTH BENEFITS OF COMPOST, BUT
ONLY RECENTLY HAVE RESEARCHERS
BEGUN TO REALIZE THE CLIMATE
CHANGE MITIGATION BENEFITS,
RECENT PUBLISHED RESEARCH FROM
CALIFORNIA HAS SHOWN THAT
COMPOSTING AND SOIL APPLICATION
RESULTS IN NET CARBON DIOXIDE
REMOVAL FROM THE ATMOSPHERE,
WHILE LOWERING METHANE EMISSIONS
. AND IF YOU COULD PLEASE WRAP
UP. YEAH, WITH THAT, I'M HERE TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU
ALL MAY HAVE. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
APPRECIATE IT, DO WE HAVE ANY
WITNESSES WHO WANT TO REGISTER
THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE BILL,
PLEASE LIMIT YOUR TESTIMONY TO
YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION, POSITION
ON THE MEASURE. GOOD MORNING,
MELISSA WARNER. ON BEHALF OF THE
FAMILY WINEMAKERS OF CALIFORNIA
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
PRISCILLA, KUDOS HERE ON BEHALF
OF STOP WASTE AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. NOEL KRAMER'S
WITH WINE INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, JOSH, ON BEHALF OF
THE SANTA BARBARA COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, PRESTON YOUNG
FROM THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, SEEING NO ONE, ARE
YOU IN SUPPORT? OKAY.
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE IN
SUPPORT. CHRIS ARENAS. HELLO
AGAIN, NICHOLAS MAZZOTTI, ON
BEHALF OF COMPOST COALITION IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. THANK YOU.
SEEING NO OTHER WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL, DO WE HAVE
ANY OPPOSITION WITNESSES AT ALL?
OKAY. NO OPPOSITION. ALL RIGHT,
WELL, THEN WE'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE DAIS, SENATOR EGGMAN,
THANK YOU. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO
SAY I REALLY LIKE THIS BILL. I
THINK IT'S A WIN WIN WIN. WE'RE
INCREASING OUR, INFRASTRUCTURE
FOR COMPOSTING. GOING BACK TO
THE FARMERS, GOOD FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT, I WILL MOVE THE
BILL. BUT IF YOU COULD JUST TALK
A LITTLE BIT ABOUT BECAUSE YOU
YOU TEND TO SUPPORT MORE STRICT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS THAN I
DO, THE TRANSFER OF THE GRF
FUNDS TO HERE. HOW DO YOU
JUSTIFY THAT? I THINK IT'S A
GREAT IDEA, BUT HOW DO YOU
JUSTIFY THAT TO OTHERS? SO LOOK,
I THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT WE NEED. I THINK THAT THIS
IS SOMETHING, IF WE, I THINK
THAT, AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE
BUDGET PROCESS, WE SEE THAT IF
GRF IS OPEN FOR ALL, THEN IT'S
CHALLENGING BECAUSE IT'S USED
FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT. BUT
REALLY, REALLY GOOD THINGS. AND
I THINK WE'RE ALSO SEEING JUST
WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE BUDGET
CONVERSATIONS. SO THE IDEA IS
THAT THIS WOULD BE DEDICATED.
THIS 1% WOULD BE VERY DEDICATED
FOR THIS, AND IT WOULD BE
SOMETHING THAT WOULD GO, YOU
KNOW, WE HAVE A LOT OF FOLKS
HERE, YOU KNOW, FROM THE WINE
AND GRAPE GROWERS WHO ARE IN
SUPPORT, BUT IT WOULD GO TOWARDS
FARMERS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN
DOING THIS. I THINK YOU SEE AN
EAGERNESS AND ENTHUSIASM FROM
ONE, YOU KNOW, OF OUR CROPS. BUT
THERE ARE OTHERS. AND THE OTHER
REASON IS REALLY THINKING ABOUT
A TAX CREDIT AS OPPOSED TO A
GRANT. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING
AND BELIEF, AND I THINK
EXPERIENCE THAT A TAX CREDIT
GETS APPLIED MUCH FASTER THAN A
GRANT PROCESS, BECAUSE A LOT OF
FOLKS IN AGS DON'T HAVE GRANT
WRITERS. AND SO THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT WE FEEL WOULD BE
VERY DIRECT. IT WOULD HAVE A
CLEAR, FAST WAY TO GETTING
IMPLEMENTED AS OPPOSED TO
OTHERS. SO IT IS HARD EVEN FOR
THOSE OF US LIKE MYSELF, THAT
REALLY PROTECTED EARTH TO DO
THIS. BUT I THINK IT'S NEEDED.
AND I THINK WHAT SOLD ME WAS THE
ABILITY TO GET IT APPLIED MUCH
FASTER. RIGHT? AND THE HEALTHY
SOILS PROGRAMS ALWAYS
OVERPRESCRIBED, RIGHT. SO IT'S
PEOPLE WANT IT. LET'S GIVE IT.
LET'S LET THEM DO IT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SENATOR STERN. I THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. I APPRECIATE THE
LEGISLATION AND THE, AGAIN,
UNLIKELY COALITION HERE. IT'S A
NICE MERGER OF INTERESTS THAT
AREN'T ALWAYS ON THE SAME PAGE.
MY MAIN QUESTION IS THAT THE,
THE TAX CREDIT LASTS FOR TEN
YEARS, I BELIEVE. AND THE CAP
AND TRADE PROGRAM IS ONLY
AUTHORIZED THROUGH 2030. I DON'T
WANT TO. YEAH. WE JUST YOUR
COMMENT ON THAT I GUESS MORE
BROADLY AND MAYBE MY, MY, MY
COMMENTS LESS AT YOU AND JUST
MORE SORT OF TO STAKEHOLDERS IN
GENERAL, WHICH IS THAT WE'RE
WE'RE GOING TO BE FACING A
CROSSROADS ON HOW, WHETHER, WHEN
TO REAUTHORIZE THIS CAP AND
TRADE PROGRAM. SO WE'RE COUNTING
ON MONEY. THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY
AUTHORIZED TO EVEN BE THERE.
WE'RE IN 2024, SO WE GET SIX
YEARS OF THIS. SO THERE'S
ANOTHER FOUR YEARS IN THIS TAX
CREDIT THAT WILL NEED THE
CERTAINTY IN ORDER TO BANK ON.
IF YOU'RE A, YOU KNOW, OWN A
VINEYARD OR WANT TO DO THIS KIND
OF LONG TERME FINANCING. SO I
ACTUALLY THINK THAT CERTAINTY
WOULD BE A GOOD THING, PROVIDED
THAT WE'VE GOT THE RIGHT
COALITION AND THE RIGHT,
COMPROMISES MET IN THAT, IN THAT
BIGGER DEAL. SO I JUST, I GUESS
I'M FLAGGING THAT FOR THE FUTURE
AND SAYING THAT THIS IS A REALLY
GOOD PIECE OF ALL THAT AND
BELONGS AT THE TABLE. AND I HOPE
EVERYONE THERE IS ALSO AT THE
TABLE FOR THE BIGGER
CONVERSATION, TOO. AND WE WILL
CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN WE GET
THERE. THANK YOU. SENATOR.
SENATOR LAIRD, I WOULD ASSOCIATE
MYSELF WITH THE COMMENTS OF
SENATOR EGGMAN AND JUST ADD THAT
THAT I HAVE A BILL THAT WOULD DO
A PROGRAMMATIC EIR FOR
JURISDICTIONS FOR ORGANIC
COMPOST TO TRY TO EXPEDITE THAT
PROCESS. AND I THINK ALL THESE
THINGS WORK HAND IN HAND
TOGETHER, BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING
TO MAKE THIS WORK AND REMOVE THE
OBSTACLES. SO I SALUTE YOU FOR
DOING THAT. AND I LOOK FORWARD
TO SUPPORTING THE BILL. THANK
YOU. SENATOR ALLEN. YEAH, I JUST
WANTED TO GET A SENSE OF KIND
OF, YOU KNOW, BUILDING ON SOME
OF THE COMMENTS MADE BY SENATOR
STERN. I MEAN, YOU KNOW WHAT ARE
THE DO YOU HAVE A IS THERE A
VISION FOR LONG TERME OVERSIGHT
OVER THIS PROGRAM? AND, YOU
KNOW, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE BECAUSE
I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS IN TERMS
OF TAX BENEFIT RATHER THAN A
GRANT PROGRAM LIKE, LIKE HEALTHY
SOILS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH IS SO
OVERSUBSCRIBED. YOU KNOW, WHAT
WAS THE THINKING BEHIND DOING
TAKING THIS APPROACH VERSUS A
GRANT PROGRAM? SO SO THE
THINKING WAS REALLY ABOUT
GETTING IT APPLIED MUCH FASTER.
GRANT PROGRAMS, IF YOU LOOK AT
FOLKS IN AG ARE IT'S NOT OFTEN
THAT FOLKS HAVE GRANT WRITERS.
AND SO THEY CANNOT SEEK GRANT
PROGRAMS IN THE SAME CAPACITY
THAT THEY CAN APPLY A TAX
CREDIT. AND THEN IS THERE A PLAN
, I GUESS I'M SURE THAT'S TRUE.
YEAH, 120. SO IF THE APPLICANTS
GO BEYOND 120 MILLION, WHAT WHAT
THEN HAPPENS UNDER THE BILL IF
THE APPLICANTS GO OVER 120
MILLION, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO
DEFER TO THE MORE TAXPAYERS, I
GUESS. YEAH, I THINK THE TAX
CREDIT ENDS, BUT I DON'T Þ WOULD
YOU LIKE YOUR WITNESS TO ANSWER
THE QUESTION FIRST COME, FIRST
SERVE? SO I THINK THE QUESTION
IS WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS IS OVER
120 MILLION? IF THE TAX IF THE
TAX CREDIT? I THINK THE QUESTION
IS IF THE TAX YOU WANT TO ASK
THE QUESTION, SENATOR. YEAH. IF
IT'S OVERSUBSCRIBED EFFECTIVELY.
WELL IT IS CAPPED AT THE
LEGISLATURA AT AT 120 MILLION.
SO IT BECOMES KIND OF A FIRST
COME FIRST SERVE TYPE MODEL. OR
IS IT PRO-RATA. IT WOULD BE
PRIORITY. IT WOULD BE SET UP
THROUGH CDF REVIEW OF WHAT ARE
THE BEST EXPENSES. AND THEY'LL
APPROVE THE PROGRAMS AS THEY AS
THEY'RE PRESENTED TO THEM. SO
THAT WAY YOU'LL HAVE SOME BIT OF
GETTING THE BIGGEST BANG FOR THE
BUCK, IF YOU WILL. YEAH THANK
YOU. DOES THAT WOULD IT BE GREAT
IF IT WAS OVERPRESCRIBED SAY ONE
TIME? IT WOULD BE GREAT IF IT
WERE OVER. YEAH YEAH. SENATOR
ALLEN, ARE YOU. WELL, I MEAN,
HEALTHY SOILS HAS BEEN TOTALLY.
SENATOR ELEANOR, ARE YOU DO YOU
HAVE MORE QUESTIONS OR. NO. IT'S
OKAY. OKAY. SORRY OKAY. THANK
YOU, SENATOR ALLEN. ANYONE ELSE?
OKAY THANK YOU, SENATOR LIMON,
FOR WORKING WITH COMMITTEE STAFF
ON THIS BILL. AND, I JUST WANT
TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH THE
COMMENTS MADE BEFORE. I MEAN,
THIS IS A WIN WIN WIN. WE'RE
ENCOUNTERING SIGNIFICANT
CHALLENGES IN MEETING OUR
ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION GOALS.
AT THE SAME TIME, OF COURSE, AS
WAS ALLUDED TO, THIS IS NOT AN
UNLIMITED SET OF RESOURCES. SO
IT IS A BIT OF A ZERO SUM GAME.
WHEN WE TAKE MONEY FROM THE GRF,
THE GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION
FUND, AND APPLY IT TO
COMPOSTING, THAT TAKES AWAY
MONEY FOR OTHER WAYS TO REDUCE
CARBON EMISSIONS. SO I DO HAVE
SOME RESERVATIONS ABOUT AN
ONGOING APPROPRIATION THÀNH, AS
I THINK MY COMMITTEE STAFF
EXPRESSED, BUT I'M SUPPORTING
THE BILL TODAY BECAUSE I THINK
IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THIS
CONVERSATION TO BEGIN THE
PRIORITIZATION OF SOMETHING THAT
I THINK HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BOTH
REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS AND
PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC
BENEFITS FOR THE STATE. SO I
APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE
AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING TO MOVE
THE INCOME TAX CREDIT PROGRAM TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND
AGRICULTURE, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY
THE AGENCY WITH THE APPROPRIATE
EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE TO
ADMINISTER THIS TYPE OF PROGRAM.
I THINK IT WAS ALSO IMPORTANT TO
AMEND THE BILL TO NOT GIVE ANY
DEPARTMENT AUTHORITY TO
ESSENTIALLY APPROPRIATE FUNDING
TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS, AS THE
CURRENT VERSION OF THE BILL
PROPOSES. INSTEAD, THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS NAIL DOWN THE FUNDING
STRUCTURE BY SPECIFYING EXACTLY
WHICH PROGRAMS WOULD GET
FUNDING. I THINK WE LEAVE OPEN
THE QUESTION OF HOW MUCH FUNDING
SHOULD BE APPROPRIATED FOR THE
BILL'S PURPOSES TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, BUT
WITH THAT, THANK YOU. AND WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. ASSISTANT, WE
HAVE A MOTION FROM SENATOR
EGGMAN. DO PASSES AMENDED TO
BUDGET AND TAXATION, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL. AND THIS IS FOR SB
1135. SENATORS MINH. AYE MINH
AYE. KADO ALLEN. ALAN. AYE.
DALLY. DALLY AYE. EGGMAN EGGMAN.
AYE. GROVE. HURTADO LAIRD.
LAIRD. AYE. LIMÓN. AYE LEMON.
AYE. PADILLA. STERN. STERN AYE.
VOTE. COUNT ON THAT IS SEVEN
ZERO. WILL LEAVE IT ON CALL,
CENTER LOAN. YOU HAVE TWO MORE
BILLS LEFT. YOU WANT TO GO IN
ORDER, YES. IT'S 1304 NEXT,
1304. FILE ITEM NUMBER NINE. YES
YOU CAN PROCEED WHEN READY. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. FIRST, I'D
LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS
BILL. AND I ACCEPT AND I ACCEPT
THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS. ONCE
OIL REACHES THE SURFACE IN SOME
OIL PRODUCTION WELLS, WATERS
CONTAINING TOXIC POLLUTANTS USED
IN THE PROCESS ARE INJECTED BACK
ON THE GROUND AND MAY
CONTAMINATE AQUIFERS USED FOR
DRINKING AND AGRICULTURE OR
OTHER BENEFICIAL PURPOSE.
THROUGH THE CURRENT AQUIFER
EXEMPTION APPROVAL PROCESS, CAL
JAM AND STATE WATER RESOURCES
CONTROL BOARD STAFF SUBMIT
PROPOSED EXEMPTIONS TO THE US
EPA. SB 1304 ESTABLISHES A
REQUIREMENT FOR STATE APPROVAL
OF AN AQUIFER EXEMPTION BY
REQUIRING THE STATE, THE WATER
RESOURCES BOARD, TO CONDUCT AN
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, INCLUDING
HOLDING AT LEAST ONE DECISION
MAKING PUBLIC HEARING, ALLOWING
THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK ON THE PROPOSAL FROM CAL
JAM, THE WATER RESOURCES BOARD
IS THEN REQUIRED TO MAKE
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO SEQUA AND
CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE
AQUIFER EXEMPTION LAW, BEFORE
APPROVING AN EXEMPTION TO BE
SUBMITTED IN THE TO THE US. EPA
THIS BILL ALSO REQUIRES THAT A
PROPOSED AQUIFER EXEMPTION BE
OUTSIDE AN AREA IDENTIFIED BY
CALENVIROSCREEN AS AT RISK FOR
DRINKING WATER OR GROUNDWATER
THREATS, AIDING IN PROTECTING OF
OUR FRONTLINE, VULNERABLE
COMMUNITIES. REQUIRING A HIGHER
LEVEL OF STATE REVIEW, INCLUDING
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
PURSUANT TO SEQUA ALONG WITH
DETERMINATION BY THE STATE WATER
BOARD FOLLOWING A PUBLIC HEARING
FOR PROPOSED AQUIFER EXEMPTION
ENSURES THE PUBLIC HAS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON HOW
THEIR POTENTIAL DRINKING WATER
IS AFFECTED BY OIL AND GAS
PRODUCTION. WITH ME TODAY I HAVE
LINDA CROPP REPRESENTING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER,
SIERRA CLUB, CALIFORNIA, AND
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ACTION
NETWORK TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL. SO YOU HAVE TWO
WITNESSES HAVE ONE ONE WITNESS,
ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE UP TO FOUR
MINUTES IF YOU'D LIKE. THANK YOU
. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
LINDA CROP. I'M CHIEF COUNSEL OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER
, SPEAKING TODAY ON BEHALF OF
SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA, THE
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER IN
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, ACTION
NETWORK, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK
SENATOR LIMÓN FOR INTRODUCING
THIS IMPORTANT BILL AND URGE THE
COMMITTEE TO VOTE IN SUPPORT OUR
ORGANIZATIONS HAVE DIRECT
EXPERIENCE WITH PROPOSED AQUIFER
EXEMPTIONS THROUGH OUR WORK
RELATED TO THE PROPOSED CAT
CANYON AQUIFER EXEMPTION, WE
HAVE LEARNED THAT THE EXISTING
PROCESS IS INADEQUATE TO PROTECT
PUBLIC HEALTH FROM THREATS OF
VITAL DRINKING AND AGRICULTURAL
WATER SUPPLIES. FIRST, THE
PROCESS DOES NOT ALLOW FOR
ADEQUATE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION,
INCLUDING FOR COMMUNITIES THAT
RELY ON AQUIFERS THAT MAY BECOME
CONTAMINATED BY UNDERGROUND
INJECTIONS. SECOND, THE PROCESS
DOES NOT INCLUDE A THOROUGH
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
BEFORE SAU, THE STATE SUBMITS A
PROPOSAL TO EPA, AND THIRD, THE
PROCESS DOES NOT CONSIDER RISKS
TO COMMUNITIES THAT ALREADY HAVE
DRINKING OR GROUNDWATER
POLLUTION. SB 1304 WILL REMEDY
THESE CONCERNS BY ONE REQUIRING
A FORMAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS
BEFORE THE STATE WATER RESOURCES
CONTROL BOARD, THE AGENCY
RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING SAFE
DRINKING WATER, AND TWO
PROTECTING VULNERABLE AND
IMPACTED COMMUNITIES THAT
ALREADY FACE THREATS TO THEIR
DRINKING WATER. CAT CANYON
PROVIDES A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF WHY
THIS LEGISLATION IS NEEDED. CAL
CHEN PROPOSED AN AQUIFER
EXEMPTION EXPANSION THAT WOULD
ALLOW 700 NEW OIL WELLS AND THE
INJECTION OF WASTEWATER BELOW AN
AQUIFER THAT PROVIDES DRINKING
WATER FOR 150,000 PEOPLE AND FOR
MANY OF THESE PEOPLE, THIS IS
THEIR SOLE SOURCE OF DRINKING
WATER. WHEN WE RAISED CONCERNS
ABOUT POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION,
WE WERE TOLD THAT THERE WAS NO
THREAT. HOWEVER, WE OBTAINED
WELL DATA FROM THE UNITED STATES
GEOLOGIC SURVEY THAT CONFIRMED
LEAKS THAT COULD IMPACT WATER
QUALITY IN THE AREA. IN
ADDITION, FAULTS MAY SERVE AS
CONDUITS FOR VERTICAL MIGRATION
OF INJECTED FLUIDS INTO DRINKING
WATER AQUIFERS. THE STATE'S
RECENT CONDUIT ANALYSIS CONFIRMS
THIS THREAT. OF THE 488 WELLS
ANALYZED, 291 ALMOST 300 OF THE
WELLS OVER 60% OF THE WELLS WERE
IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIAL
POTENTIAL CONDUITS THAT CAN
IMPACT DRINKING WATER, AND THAT
DOESN'T EVEN INCLUDE THE
ABANDONED WELLS WHERE THERE'S NO
KNOWN OWNER. NONE OF THIS
INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO
ENVIRONMENTAL OR PUBLIC REVIEW.
SB 1304 WILL PROVIDE A ROBUST
PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS. IT WILL
PROTECT WATER SOURCES THAT ARE
CRITICAL TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES
THAT HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE. ONCE
AN AQUIFER BECOMES CONTAMINATED,
IT IS TOO LATE. IN ITS
OPPOSITION, WISPA ASSERTS THAT
SB 1304 IS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE
SEQUA REVIEW ALREADY OCCURS FOR
INJECTION PROJECTS. HOWEVER,
WISPA HAS ALSO ARGUED THAT
INJECTION WELLS ARE EXEMPT FROM
CEQA REVIEW, AND IN ANY EVENT,
THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY AQUIFER
EXEMPTIONS ARE MUCH BROADER THAN
LOOKING AT A WELL BY WELL BASIS.
FOR EXAMPLE, CAT CANYON 700
WELLS. SO IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT
THAT THE AQUIFER EXEMPTION BE
EVALUATED ON A BROADER SEQUA
SCALE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONSIDERATION. WE URGE YOU TO
SUPPORT 1304 AND I AM AVAILABLE
TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES
IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL, PLEASE
LIMIT YOUR TESTIMONY TO YOUR
NAME, AFFILIATION, AND POSITION
ON THE MEASURE. YOU'RE IN
SUPPORT, RIGHT? OKAY, COOL, CODY
PHILLIPS WITH CALIFORNIA
COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. FANTASTIC. SEEING NO
OTHER SUPPORT WITNESSES. LET'S
MOVE TO THE OPPOSITION, DO WE
HAVE JUST ONE OPPOSITION WITNESS
TODAY OR WE HAVE TWO? OKAY. YOU
EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES, MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS, THANK YOU. PAUL
DYER, REPRESENTING WESTERN
STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION. I
ALSO WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR DRAFTING A VERY
COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS ON ON AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE. WE DO BELIEVE
THIS BILL ADDS UNNECESSARY AND
DUPLICATIVE CRITERION THAT MUST
BE MET FOR AN AQUIFER EXEMPTION
PROPOSAL AND REQUIRES THAT THE
STATE WATER BOARD TO TAKE
ADDITIONAL STEPS FOR AQUIFER
EXEMPTION TO BE APPROVED, WITH
THIS BILL, DOES EXPAND ON THE
SEQUEL REVIEW OF AN AQUIFER
EXEMPTION APPLICATION THAT WOULD
NOT OTHERWISE TRIGGER SUCH A
REVIEW. AN AQUIFER EXEMPTION
APPLICATION IS NOT A PHYSICAL
CHANGE. IT IS MORE ANALOGOUS TO
A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. SEEK
REVIEW FOR THE CLASS TWO
INJECTION PROJECTS AND
ASSOCIATED WELLS IS ALREADY
APPLIED AS WARRANTED BY BY CAL
JAM. AS ONE OF THE PROPONENTS
JUST MENTIONED. SEQUA THE
BASICALLY THE BILL WE BELIEVE
THERE IS ADEQUATE PROTECTION,
WITH THE WATER BOARD, CAL JAM
AND THE STATE, THERE WERE
PROBLEMS 15 TO 20 YEARS AGO WHEN
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DID AN
AUDIT OF CAL JAM. AND THE
OUTCOME OF THAT AUDIT WAS TO RE
REVIEW ALL OF THE AQUIFER
EXEMPTIONS. CAL JAM WAS VERY
DELIBERATE IN ITS PROCESS.
ESTABLISHED AN MOA WITH THE
STATE WATER BOARD. STATE WATER
BOARD PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE IN
WHETHER THAT'S APPROVED OR NOT,
WE BELIEVE THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF
AN OVERREACH, WE BELIEVE THE
EXISTING PROCESS WORKS, WE
BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL WOULD
EFFECTIVELY STOP, AQUIFER
EXEMPTIONS FROM GOING FORWARD,
USING EXISTING, EXISTING CEQA
PROCESSES. FOR THOSE REASONS, WE
OPPOSE THE BILL. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. GO AHEAD, MR. CHAIRMAN,
MEMBERS. THEO PIMCO'S REPRESENT
THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT
PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION, NOT MUCH
TO ADD HERE OTHER THAN TO GIVE
MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT,
THE TYPE OF OIL FIELDS THAT
WE'RE TYPICALLY TALKING ABOUT
WHERE THESE AQUIFER EXEMPTIONS
EXISTS, WHERE WE PULL OIL OUT,
WE'RE PULLING OUT NINE PARTS
WATER, ONE PART OIL, THEN THAT
THAT DIRTY WATER IS ESSENTIALLY
INJECTED INTO THE GROUND FROM
WHICH IT CAME. SO WE I'M A
LITTLE BIT CONFUSED BY SOME OF
THE SUPPORT TESTIMONY. MAYBE
THAT'S BECAUSE WE JUST DON'T
KNOW EVERY INDIVIDUAL INSTANCE.
BUT THERE IS NOT DRINKING WATER
HERE, RIGHT? THIS IS TYPICALLY
VERY, VERY DIRTY STUFF. YOU
DON'T DON'T GO CAMPING HERE. YOU
DON'T GO HIKING HERE. THESE ARE
PLACES OVER 95% ARE DEEP. AND I
SAY THIS RESPECTFULLY WITHIN THE
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES OF SENATOR
GROVE, SO JUST WANTED TO GIVE
THAT A LITTLE CONTEXT. AND FOR
THOSE REASONS, WE'RE OPPOSED.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL? ALL
RIGHT. SEEING NONE, WE'LL BRING
IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? SENATOR STERN? YEAH,
I JUST WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THIS ALONG. AND,
YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN SINCE I WAS
CHAIR AND EVEN BEFORE THEN,
SINCE SENATOR PAVLEY WAS CHAIR
OF THIS COMMITTEE, WE'VE BEEN
DEALING WITH THESE, I MEAN, THAT
WAS WHAT BROUGHT DAUGAARD DOWN
AND FORCED US TO I MEAN, ONE OF
MANY THINGS, BUT ONE OF, HUGE
GAPS IN OVERSIGHT, A LACK OF
TRANSPARENCY AND A SORT OF, LEFT
BEHIND COMMUNITIES THAT ARE
STILL STUCK WITH THESE
EXEMPTIONS, LIKE YOURS, I'M VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF THE BILL. I'M A
LITTLE CONFUSED AT THE TESTIMONY
BECAUSE I THOUGHT THE WAY I READ
THIS IS THAT IT ESSENTIALLY
CODIFIES THE SETTLEMENT THAT
WE'RE ALREADY UNDER, THAT THE
WATER BOARD ALREADY HAS, A
DIRECT ROLE, BUT THAT IT'S NONE
OF IT'S DONE BY LAW, THAT IT'S
DONE SORT OF PURSUANT TO COURT
ORDER OR THROUGH THE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT. THAT WAS
ACKNOWLEDGED. BUT I DON'T SEE
HOW THIS WOULD REALLY ADD EXTRA
BURDEN. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WOULD
ADD PUBLIC PROCESS TO WHAT'S A
LITTLE BIT OPAQUE RIGHT NOW. AND
SO, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S
AFFECTING PEOPLE'S DRINKING
WATER, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD
THING. SO I'M HAPPY TO MOVE THE
BILL AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. I
APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. SENATOR DALI, THANK
YOU. QUESTION TO THE AUTHOR. SO
I SIT ON SUB TWO WITH SENATOR
ALLEN AND STERN USED TO SIT ON
IT, BUT WE WE'VE FUNDED UP CAL
CHEN. THEY HAVEN'T FILLED THEIR
POSITION. SO I'M CONFUSED ON AND
ALSO IN THE TESTIMONY POTENTIAL
YOUR WITNESS SAID 60% WAS
POTENTIAL. SO HOW MANY ARE
ACTUALLY FAILING FAILING. LIKE
DO WE HAVE A NUMBER OF WELLS
THAT ARE FAILED UNDER THE
PROCESS THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE
TO US NOW, NOT POTENTIAL BECAUSE
EVERYTHING POTENTIALLY COULD BE
A PROBLEM? MAYBE AT SOME POINT,
BUT ACTUALLY FAILED WELLS THAT
WE KNOW OF. SO I'M GOING TO HAVE
OUR WITNESS COME FORWARD. I'M
GOING TO HAVE HER COME FORWARD.
BUT I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR OF
THOSE THAT WERE TESTED, OVER 60%
HAD THE PROBLEM. AND SO THIS IS
SO THEY WERE NOT ALL TESTED.
JUST TO BE CLEAR. SO THE DATA
THAT OUR WITNESS GAVE WAS ABOUT
TAKING DATA FROM THE US
GEOLOGICAL, YOU KNOW, ENTITY AND
TESTING THOSE. SO JUST TO BE
CLEAR, NOT EVERYONE IN
CALIFORNIA WAS TESTED. THANK
YOU. LINDA CROPP ENVIRONMENTAL
DEFENSE CENTER. SO THERE'S BEEN
TWO DIFFERENT STUDIES CONDUCTED.
ONE WAS BASED ON THE USGS WELL
DATA, WHICH TOOK A SAMPLE.
AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
CAT CANYON AS AN EXAMPLE, MAY I
ASK, WERE THOSE WELLS THAT WERE
ABANDONED WELLS, OR ARE THOSE
WELLS THAT WERE IN PRODUCTION, I
DO HAVE THE REPORT THAT I CAN
SUBMIT TO THE COMMITTEE, I
BELIEVE THAT THESE WERE,
PRODUCTION WELLS THEY LOOKED AT.
BUT I'LL SUBMIT THE REPORT. IT
CAN SPEAK FOR ITSELF. THEY WERE
BASED ON THE TEMPERATURE AND
PRESSURE LOG DATA THAT SHOWED
THAT THERE ARE LEAKS. SO IT'S
NOT A POTENTIAL THERE ARE LEAKS.
AND THE LOCATION OF SOME OF
THOSE LEAKS WAS IN AN AREA THAT
COULD LIKELY IMPACT DRINKING
WATER. THE SECOND STUDY BASED ON
THIS, WAS CONDUCTED BY CAL JAM.
AND THEN REVIEWED BY THE STATE
WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
AND CAL JAM LOOKED AT AS MANY OF
THE WELLS IN THE CAT CANYON
PROPOSED AQUIFER EXEMPTION AREA
THAT THEY HAD KNOWN OWNERS. AND
THAT'S WHERE THEY CAME UP WITH
THE 488, AND THEY IDENTIFIED
POTENTIAL CONDUITS. SO THIS IS
WHERE THERE ARE LEAKS OR
PATHWAYS. AND THE QUESTION IS,
CAN IT GET TO THE DRINKING WATER
AQUIFER? STATE WATER BOARD
REVIEWED THAT, FOUND MORE THAT
CAL JAM HAD MISSED IT, WE'RE
ASKING OUR EXPERTS TO REVIEW
THAT AS WELL. BUT AS A STATE
WATER BOARD POINTED OUT IN ITS
ANALYSIS, THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE
ABANDONED WELLS WHERE THEY DON'T
HAVE DATA FROM OWNERS. SO IT'S
NOT EVEN ALL OF THEM. AND THOSE
COULD POTENTIALLY, PROPOSE
THREATS. AND THE REASON THAT'S
IMPORTANT THAT DISTINCTION IS
BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A KNOWN
OWNER NOW, THE OWNERS OF THOSE
291 WELLS HAVE TO SUBMIT
REMEDIAL PLANS. SO THE STATE
AGENCIES DO THINK THERE'S A
THREAT. THEY HAVE TO COME IN AND
SHOW HOW THEY'RE GOING TO
REMEDIATE THOSE PATHWAYS, THOSE
LEAKS, FOR THE ONES THAT THEY
DON'T HAVE OWNERS, THERE IS NO
REMEDIAL PLAN. SO THERE
CONTINUES TO BE A THREAT. WELL,
THERE IS CAL CHEN IS SUPPOSED TO
BE OUT DECOMMISSIONING THOSE AND
SHUTTING THEM DOWN. WE FUNDED
THAT THROUGH OUR SUB TWO, AND WE
HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET THE
ACTUAL PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY GO DO
IT HAS BEEN THE PROBLEM. THEN
THERE'S A THE COMPANIES HAVE
FUNDED THE PROGRAM. AND SO
THAT'S ONE OF MY AND THAT'S A
DIFFERENT SUBJECT. BUT IT'S
FRUSTRATING TO KNOW THAT THE,
THE ACTUAL OIL PRODUCTION AND
REFINERY FOLKS HAVE FUNDED THE
PROCESS. BUT CALGAN HASN'T BEEN
ABLE TO GET IT DONE. AND WE'VE
BEEN DOGGING THEM FOR AT LEAST I
HAVE FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS. I
SIT ON SUB TWO, TRYING TO GET
THE PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY GO DO
THEIR JOB, WHICH WHICH HAS BEEN
FUNDED BY THE, THE, THE OIL
REFINERIES AND PRODUCTION PEOPLE
IN CALIFORNIA. SO I KNOW THAT'S
A SEPARATE ISSUE, BUT IT'S STILL
THE GROUNDWATER WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT. AND I WOULD I WAS THE
ONLY REPUBLICAN THAT VOTED FOR
SB FOUR. I THINK IT WAS A PAVLEY
BILL BECAUSE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT
THE GROUNDWATER. BUT I'M ALSO
WANT THERE'S A PROCESS HERE THAT
THAT'S WHERE I'M TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT IS THE PROCESS. I
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
PROTECT THE GROUNDWATER. BUT AT
THE SAME TIME, I STILL WANT TO
BE ABLE TO GO USE. I WANT TO
KNOW WHERE THE ACTUAL PROBLEM IS
BECAUSE THIS BILL LOOKS
REDUNDANT TO ME. WE I THINK WE
HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE THAT
ALLOWS US TO FIGURE IT OUT. AND
THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT. WHAT THIS BILL, HOW WHAT'S
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE
HAVE NOW AND WHERE WE'RE GOING.
SO JUST TO BE CLEAR. SO THE
PROCESS THAT'S IN PLACE OMITS, A
PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, INPUT. AND
THIS IS WHAT WE'RE ADDING TO IT,
GIVEN THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THERE
IS ENOUGH OF AN ISSUE AND JUST
TO BE CLEAR, CAT CANYON IS IN
THE DISTRICT I REPRESENT, WHICH
IS WHY IT'S BEING REFERRED TO
CONTINUOUSLY, SO THAT'S WHAT IT
DOES. THE PROCESS THAT EXISTS
DOES NOT HAVE THIS PUBLIC INPUT
PIECE THAT WE ARE PUTTING BACK
INTO IT THROUGH THIS BILL. THIS
IS A STATEWIDE LAW. SO IS IT IS
IT NOT JUST BE DONE DOING IN
YOUR AREA, OR IS IT NOT BEING
DONE THROUGHOUT THE STATE? IT'S
STATEWIDE. OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO
SEE THAT REPORT, IF YOU COULD
SUBMIT THAT TO THE US. I'D LIKE
TO GO THROUGH IT. THANK YOU.
SENATOR. YES. GOOD SENATOR
GROVE, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. I THANK MY COLLEAGUE FROM
BIEBER'S COMMENTS. I DO BELIEVE
IT'S REDUNDANT SPECIFICALLY WHEN
IT COMES TO MY DISTRICT. YOU
HAVE, THE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE
THE EAST KERN OIL FIELDS,
THOUSANDS OF WELLS ON THE SAME
AQUIFER. SOME ARE DIFFERENT THAT
ARE EXEMPTED ALREADY. YOU WOULD
REQUIRE THEM TO GO THROUGH A
PROCESS. AND IF YOU READ REPORT
AFTER REPORT AFTER REPORT AFTER
REPORT, WHETHER IT COMES FROM
THE STATE WATER RESOURCES
CONTROL BOARD OR IT COMES FROM
ALL THE OTHER HURDLES THAT WE'VE
HAD TO JUMP THROUGH TO BE THE
FACTORY FLOOR FOR THE OIL
INDUSTRY IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, 70. I'M NOT TALKING
ABOUT A LITTLE WELL DECORATED
LIKE A PALM TREE IN YOUR
DISTRICT OR SOME PLACE LIKE
THAT. I'M TALKING ABOUT A FIELD
AS MUCH AS ALMOND GROVES IS A
FIELD OF OIL, A FIELD OF OIL
WELLS OR PUMPING UNITS OR
PRODUCTION UNITS. AND TO GO
THROUGH THAT PROCESS WHEN WE
KNOW, LIKE I SAID, AFTER REPORT
AFTER REPORT, THAT THE DATA SAYS
THAT THERE IS NO BENEFICIAL USE
FOR THIS WATER BECAUSE IT'S THE
SAME WATER, THE SAME DIRTY
WATER. NOW, BECAUSE THE OIL. BUT
THEY EXTRACT ALL OF THIS, THIS,
IT'S LIKE 1 IN 10, RIGHT? SO FOR
EVERY BARREL OR EVERY GALLON OF
OIL THAT YOU GET OUT OF THE
GROUND, YOU HAVE NINE GALLONS OF
WATER. THAT WATER COMES OUT OF
THE GROUND AND WE PUT IT BACK IN
THE SAME GROUND WHICH IT CAME
FROM. SO THAT'S WHY IT MAKES NO
SENSE TO ME THAT WE HAVE ALL OF
THESE, I DON'T WANT TO SAY
RESTRICTIONS AND ALL THIS STUFF
THAT TAKES PLACE. IT'S BECAUSE
WE EXTRACT IT FROM THE GROUND.
IT'S COMING FROM THE GROUND, AND
THEN WE PUT IT BACK IN THE
GROUND AFTER WE EXTRACT THE OIL
THAT WE ALL USE EVERY SINGLE
DAY, 1.8 MILLION BARRELS OF OIL,
EVERY SINGLE DAY THE STATE USES.
AND I JUST GOT A REPORT THAT WE
BOUGHT 660 MILLION BARRELS FROM
IRAQ, IRAQ. THEY HANG GAY
PEOPLE, LGBTQ PEOPLE, AND THEY
STILL DO OPEN AIR FLAMING. SO
WE'LL THAT CAUSES CANCER, WHICH
WE ABANDONED DECADES AGO. SO I
DON'T GET WHY WE CONTINUE TO
RESTRICT THE PRODUCTION HERE
WHERE WE DO IT UNDER THE MOST
SAFE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES
EVER. AND THEN WE IMPORT THE OIL
THAT WE NEED FROM COUNTRIES THAT
HAVE NO VOICE WHEN IT COMES TO
WOMEN OR LGBTQ COMMUNITIES, WHEN
THERE'S A VOICE IN THIS BUILDING
FOR WOMEN IN THAT POPULATION AND
THAT WE THEY, WE HAVE NO CONTROL
OVER THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSES
THAT THEY HAVE. AND WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THIS, THIS EXEMPTION FOR
THE AQUIFER THAT YOU'RE LOOKING
AT OR ELIMINATING, THAT IT
ACTUALLY DOUBLES DOWN ON AN
AQUIFER, SEVERAL AQUIFERS IN MY
DISTRICT THAT ALREADY HAVE GONE
THROUGH THE SECRET PROCESS
ALREADY HAVE AN AQUIFER
EXEMPTION, ALREADY ARE OPERATING
UNDER THE STRICTEST
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY EVER. AND
THEN YOU WENT TO THEM TO RE GO
THROUGH IT TO SHUT DOWN THAT
THOSE IT BASICALLY SHUTS DOWN
FACILITIES UNTIL THEY CAN
PRODUCE THESE CLASS TWO CERTAIN
WELLS THAT ARE DEFINED UNDER
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW. AND
THEY'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE
MOST STRINGENT PROCESS EVER
AGAIN. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE
ONE. WELL, NEXT TO YOUR SCHOOL
DISTRICT OR DECORATED LIKE A
PALM TREE DOWN IN ORANGE COUNTY.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FACTORY
FLOOR AND EVERY PIECE OF
LEGISLATION THAT YOU INTRODUCE
FOR YOUR COMMUNITY OVER ON THE
COAST, IT MAKES ME WISH THE OIL
INDUSTRY NEVER EVEN DRILLED ON
THE COAST BECAUSE IT AFFECTS THE
CENTRAL VALLEY, WHERE WE PRODUCE
THE MAJORITY OF THE OIL THAT IS
USED BY YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND
EVERYBODY'S CONSTITUENTS ON THIS
DAIS. AND IT AFFECTS MY DISTRICT
WITH A HUGE NEGATIVE IMPACT WHEN
IT COMES TO EMPLOYMENT, ECONOMIC
SECURITY AND ALL THE STUFF THAT
WE DO TO PRODUCE THE ENERGY THAT
YOU GUYS USE EVERY SINGLE DAY,
IT JUST THROWS ONE MORE HURDLE
INTO OUR ABILITY. ONCE IT'S
ALREADY, IT'S ALREADY DONE. AND
SO I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE BILL.
THANK YOU, SENATOR GROVE.
SENATOR DARLING, THANK YOU FOR
YOUR REPORT. BUT I JUST QUICKLY
I WANT TO ASK IS THE WORD
POTENTIAL IS I THINK,
SIGNIFICANT IN THIS CONVERSATION
BECAUSE BUT HAS THERE BEEN ONE
HAS THERE BEEN AN INSTANCE WHERE
WE ACTUALLY HAVE HAD
CONTAMINATION BY THE OIL
INDUSTRY TO GROUNDWATER, TO
WATER SOURCE FOR COMMUNITIES? I
DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
OAN, THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION
FOR THE AGENCIES INVOLVED. BUT I
GUESS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO
EMPHASIZE IS SIMILAR TO WHAT
CEQA IS ALL ABOUT. WE WANT TO
HAVE THIS ANALYSIS AND
INFORMATION AND PUBLIC INPUT
BEFORE DECISIONS ARE MADE. IF
THERE IS AN AQUIFER EXEMPTION
THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED, IT
WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THIS
LEGISLATION. IF THERE IS A
PENDING AQUIFER EXEMPTION, WE
WANT THE ANALYSIS TO BE DONE. WE
WANT THE PUBLIC TO HAVE IT. YOU
KNOW, THE INFORMATION I'M GIVING
YOU HAS NOT COME THROUGH A
PUBLIC PROCESS. THAT'S JUST
BECAUSE I WORK FOR A LAW FIRM
AND WE DID PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
REQUESTS. SO IF THERE'S A
PROPOSED AQUIFER EXEMPTION AND
IT GOES THROUGH THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND THERE'S
NO IMPACT EXPECTED, THEN THE
PROPOSAL CAN BE APPROVED. BUT WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT
ANALYSIS IS DONE BEFORE THERE'S
A PROBLEM. BECAUSE ONCE THERE'S
A PROBLEM, IT'S TOO LATE. AND IT
LOOKS LIKE THE OPPOSITION
WITNESS MAY WANT TO SAY A FEW
WORDS. WOULD YOU LIKE THAT?
YEAH. I'M YEAH, THAT'D BE GREAT.
GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
PAUL DIRO REPRESENTING WESTERN
STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION.
I'M UNAWARE OF ANY AQUIFER
EXEMPTION THAT HAS RESULTED IN
DRINKING WATER, GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION. IF THAT HAS
OCCURRED OR HAD OCCURRED, THAT
WELL WOULD BE SHUT DOWN. THE
COUPLE OF THINGS, ONE OF WHICH
IS AQUIFER EXEMPTIONS.
OFTENTIMES WE WILL DRILL THROUGH
AN AQUIFER THAT THAT IS
POTENTIALLY DRINKING WATER. WE
HAVE EXISTING MECHANICAL
STANDARDS TO DRILL THROUGH THOSE
AQUIFERS. THE AQUIFER EXEMPTION
IS DOWN AT THE BOTTOM WHERE WE
WHERE WE LIFT UP HYDROCARBONS,
WATER, NATURAL GAS, SEPARATE OUT
AND THEN RE-INJECT WHAT WE
BROUGHT UP BACK DOWN INTO THE
RESERVOIR. OTHER THAN THAT,
OTHER THAN THAT, THERE THERE IS
THAT'S THAT'S THE PROCESS. I'M
SORRY TO BELABOR THIS. I JUST I
WANT TO SET THE RECORD A LITTLE
STRAIGHTER THAN, THAN THAT
BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN
INSTANCES I MEAN, THIS IS WHY WE
HAVE ENTIRE EPA PROCESS AND
OVERLAY FROM THE STATE NOW AND
THE SETTLEMENT I'M GOING TO CITE
A 2019 WATER BOARD STUDY THAT
LOOKED AT THE ELEVATED LEVELS OF
ARSENIC, BARIUM AND BORON IN
WATER SUPPLY WELLS IN KERN
COUNTY, SO THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE,
AND I WOULD JUST I KNOW THERE
ARE MANY OTHERS. THERE ARE,
SEVERAL, ADJUDICATED GROUNDWATER
MONITORING PLANS FROM OTHER
AREAS THAT WERE FROM UNREGULATED
FRACKING AFTER WE STEPPED IN,
2015 REPORT ON CCSD ALSO HAS
INFORMATION ON THAT. SO JUST FOR
THE RECORD, I WASN'T DONE YET.
MY GOOD SENATOR, SENATOR DALLI,
MY MISTAKE. SENATOR DELLA, YOU
CAN PROCEED. I JUST WANT TO SAY
I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING
THE BILL TODAY. I'M GOING TO DIG
IN. I, I GOT A LOT OF BLOWBACK
FOR SUPPORTING PAVLEY SB FOUR
BECAUSE I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT
DRINKING WATER AND GROUNDWATER.
THAT IS PALATABLE. I'M NOT SO
MUCH CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WE
TAKE OUT OF CONTAMINATED WATER
WAY DEEP, LOWER THAN OUR
AQUIFERS AND PUTTING IT BACK IN
THERE FOR EXTRACTING A RESOURCE
WE NEED. SO, BUT BUT THERE IS A
LOT OF AREA HERE, AND I AM NOT
AWARE BECAUSE I SIT ON THE
COMMITTEES WHERE WE TALK ABOUT
CAL CHEN, AND I'M REALLY
FRUSTRATED WITH THAT WHOLE
PROCESS. AND I KNOW THAT WE NEED
TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT GETTING
THEM OUT THERE AND ACTUALLY
DOING THE ABANDONED WELLS, I
THINK, ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN
THE WELLS THAT SOMEBODY IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR. SO I JUST WANT
THE RECORD TO BE STRAIGHT TO MY
KNOWLEDGE. NO, NO, NO. DRINKING
WATER BY OIL PRODUCTION HAS BEEN
IMPAIRED IN CALIFORNIA TO MY
KNOWLEDGE. IF SOMEBODY IF IT HAS
NOW THE ARSENIC AND THE BORON,
WHICH NATURALLY OCCURS IN SOME
OF THESE DRINKING WATER SOURCES.
SO WE'RE SPLITTING HAIRS HERE.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY,
SOMEBODY IS BEING BLAMED FOR
SOMETHING THEY'RE NOT DOING. AND
IF THERE IF THERE IS A PROBLEM,
I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS
THAT. AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE
BEEN TRYING TO DO AT KALGAN,
WHICH WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO
GET DONE. SO I THANK YOU FOR
THIS REPORT. I WILL READ IT AND
I'LL GET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY AT
THIS BILL COMING SOON. BUT
SENATOR DALLI, BUT THE DETAILS
MATTER ON WHAT WE'RE GOING TO
DO. I THINK YOU'RE IN THE
RECORD, SENATOR GROVE, JUST FOR
THE RECORD, TO ADDRESS THE
COMMENT THAT MY COLLEAGUE MADE
FROM, I BELIEVE, MALIBU SIMI
VALLEY, SENATOR STERN MADE A
COMMENT JUST NOW THAT SAYS THERE
IS EVIDENCE. THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE THAT ARSENIC WAS THAT
ALL OF THAT WAS ATTRIBUTED TO
THE OIL INDUSTRY OR NONE OF IT.
NONE OF IT WAS. AND SO TO MAKE A
COMMENT THAT SAYS THE OIL
INDUSTRY ATTRIBUTED, ARSENIC AND
ALL THESE OTHER THINGS TO THE
WATER IN KERN IS COMPLETELY
FALSE AND AN OUTRIGHT LIE,
AGAIN, DEFENDING AN INDUSTRY
THAT PROVIDES SECOND CHANCES
JOBS AND YOU GUYS JUST TRAMPLE
ON IT. AND IT'S SOMETHING YOU
USE EVERY SINGLE DAY. AND I
AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE IN
BIEBER SOMEWHAT. I DON'T BELIEVE
IT'S CAL JIM THAT'S HAVING THAT
PROBLEM. I'M NOT TRYING TO
DEFEND CAL JIM. I'M JUST SAYING
THAT, THERE THEY ARE CHARGED AND
IT WAS FUNDED BY INDUSTRY TO BE
ABLE TO ADDRESS THE ABORTION AND
ABANDONED WELLS AND, BUT THE
RESTRICTIONS THAT THIS BODY THAT
PASSES TO, REGULATE THE CAL JIM
AND THE WAY THEY DO THINGS TAKES
CHAU IT WITNESS FOR A PURPOSE.
SO IT USED TO BE ABLE TO GO OUT
AND DO AN ORPHAN ABANDONED.
WELL, YOU WOULD DO THE PLUS SITE
PLANNED. YOU WOULD PLUG IT, YOU
WOULD FILL IT WITH CEMENT, YOU'D
TOP IT OFF AND THEN YOU WOULD
GET A PERMIT THAT SAID IT WAS
DONE CORRECTLY. WHEN SHE
SUBMITTED ALL THE INFORMATION.
NOW PEOPLE GO OUT, THEY DIG A
HOLE, THEN THEY WAIT FIVE DAYS
FOR CAL JIM TO SHOW UP IN ORDER
TO CHAU WITNESS THE HOLE THAT
WAS DUG. THEN CAL JIM DRIVES
HOME BECAUSE THEY DON'T WORK
OVERTIME OR SPEND THE NIGHT, AND
THEY COME BACK TO SACRAMENTO AND
THEN THEY FILL IT WITH CEMENT.
THEN CAL JIM COMES BACK OUT FIVE
DAYS LATER WHILE THE CREW IS
SITTING AT HOME AND SAYS, OH
YEAH, THEY FILLED IT WITH
CEMENT. I MEAN, IT'S JUST ABSURD
TO THINK THAT WE HAVE TO GO
THROUGH THAT PROCESS, BUT THAT
IS NOT AT CAL JIM'S, YOU KNOW,
ACTION. IT'S THE ACTION THAT WAS
PASSED BY THIS BODY. BUT GOING
BACK TO YOUR THIS AND ADDRESSING
THE COMMENTS THAT MY COLLEAGUE
MADE, THERE IS NOT ONE, NOT ONE
EXAMPLE THAT YOU CAN POINT TO IN
THAT REPORT OR FROM ANYBODY'S,
EVEN THE OWN COMMITTEE
CONSULTANT NOT TO THROW HER
UNDER THE BUS. BUT THERE'S NOT
ONE TIME THAT YOU CAN SAY THAT
THIS, THAT, THAT THE OIL
COMPANIES IN THIS STATE HAVE
VIOLATED OR, CONTAMINATED
DRINKING WATER. IT'S JUST NOT
TRUE. AND TO SAY THAT IS JUST AN
OUTRIGHT LIE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS
? THANK YOU SIR. OKAY. YES. I
WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE. THERE'S A
LOT SAID. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH
OF IT WAS A QUESTION, BUT I WANT
TO BE CLEAR THAT THE BILL
REQUIRES OUR STATE WATER
RESOURCES BOARD TO MAKE A
DETERMINATION. AQUIFER EXEMPTION
IN PUBLIC AND REQUIRE SEQUA.
THAT IS WHAT WE'RE ADDING TO
THIS. AND I THINK THAT IT'S
COMING TO YOU BECAUSE WE BELIEVE
THAT THE POTENTIAL IN LEAKS IS
SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO
CONTAMINATE DRINKING WATER,
WHICH WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH OF IN
THIS STATE, PARTICULARLY IN
CERTAIN COMMUNITIES, THAT WE
BELIEVE THAT WE'RE BRINGING THIS
TO YOU BECAUSE THAT IS NEEDED.
AND THAT IS AN EXTRA PROTECTION.
SO I ALSO WANT TO JUST SAY
SOMETHING ABOUT HOW HOW WE VIEW
THE LENS. THE COMMENT WAS MADE
MULTIPLE TIMES THAT, YOU KNOW,
IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS WE DON'T
UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE. WE'RE NOT
TALKING ABOUT ONE. WELL, CAT
CANYON IS NOT ONE. WELL, IT'S
700. AND WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT
WE ALL HAVE A DIFFERENT LENS
BASED ON WHERE WE LIVE, THAT
LENS DOES NOT ACTUALLY DETERMINE
THE FULL SCOPE OF THE ISSUE. AND
I THINK ACTUALLY IS YOU KNOW, A
DEMONSTRATION THAT THERE'S A
LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT
OIL PRODUCTION, EXTRACTION AND
TRANSPORT LOOKS LIKE IN
DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE STATE. SO
I, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN TO THE
CENTRAL VALLEY MULTIPLE TIMES TO
SEE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE OIL
PRODUCTION, AND CERTAINLY I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT
FOLKS ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT
THE WORK THAT WE BRING AND THE
FACT THAT WE BELIEVE THAT
DRINKING WATER IS REALLY
IMPORTANT AND THAT AND WE DON'T
WANT IT CONTAMINATED, THAT WHERE
WE LIVE AND WHY, WHERE WE BRING
THE PERSPECTIVE WE BRING IS NOT
USED AS AN ISSUE TO TRY TO
DETERMINE THAT WE DON'T
UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE IN A
PARTICULAR WAY. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION ON THIS? WE HAVE A MOTION
FROM SENATOR STERN, THE MOTION
IS TO PASS AS AMENDED, TO
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
ASSISTANT, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
AND THIS IS FOR SB 1304. SENATOR
MEN. I MEAN, I SEE NO ALLEN.
ALLEN I DALLI DALLI NO. EGGMAN.
EGGMAN I GROVE. GROVE. NO.
HURTADO. LAIRD LAIRD I LEMON I
LEMON I PADILLA. STERN. STERN I
23456, THE COUNT ON THAT BILL IS
SIX TWO, WE'LL PUT IT ON CALL,
AND YOU ARE LAST ON DECK. THE
LAST ONE. ALL RIGHT, SB 1433,
YOU CAN, PROCEED WHEN READY. AND
ALSO JUST WANT TO MAKE A NOTE TO
THE MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT HERE.
THIS IS OUR LAST BILL. SO IF YOU
COULD PLEASE SHOW UP SO WE CAN
VOTE ON THIS. THAT'D BE GREAT.
THANK YOU. AND I WANT TO THANK
AGAIN THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR
WORK ON THIS BILL. THE
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION HAS
PROJECTED THAT WE WILL NEED
52,000MW OF ENERGY STORAGE
CAPACITY BY 2045 TO MEET
ELECTRICITY DEMANDS. TO REACH
THIS GOAL, WE NEED WE WILL NEED
A VARIETY OF TYPES OF ENERGY
STORAGE, LARGE AND SMALL, ACROSS
THE STATE. THE STATE HAS NEARLY
39,000 IDLE WELLS. THIS BILL
WOULD CREATE A PILOT PROGRAM,
PARTICULARLY TO STUDY THE USE OF
GRAVITY WELLS AND HOW THIS
TECHNOLOGY MAY BE ABLE TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF IDLE WELLS TO
CREATE MORE ENERGY STORAGE. IT
WILL ALLOW THE PERMITTING OF
GRAVITY WELLS WITH APPROPRIATE
TESTING AND REPORTING AFTERWARDS
TO DETERMINE THE IMPACTS OF THIS
NEW TECHNOLOGY. I HAVE WITH ME
TODAY, KEMP GREGORY FROM
CO-FOUNDER AND CEO OF RENEWAL
ENERGY, TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL. GREAT. HAPPY TO BE
HERE, THANK YOU, SENATOR LEMON,
LIKE YOU SAID, GOOD MORNING. MY
NAME IS KIM GREGORY. I'M THE
CO-FOUNDER AND CEO OF RENEWAL
ENERGY, THREE YEARS AGO, I MOVED
MY FAMILY HERE FROM TEXAS,
BECAUSE CALIFORNIA IS THE MOST
INNOVATIVE AND FORWARD THINKING
STATE IN THE COUNTRY WHEN IT
COMES TO ADDRESSING CLIMATE
CHANGE. AND I'M HERE IN TODAY TO
SUPPORT SB 1433. THIS BILL COULD
FACILITATE A NEW TECHNOLOGY
CAPABLE OF HELPING THE STATE
WITH TWO INTRACTABLE AND LOCAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. FIRST,
CALIFORNIA'S AMBITIOUS RENEWABLE
ENERGY GOALS NECESSITATE A
DRAMATIC INCREASE IN ENERGY
STORAGE AND SECOND, AT THE SAME
TIME, THE STATE HAS ONE OF THE
HIGHEST NUMBERS OF IDLE WELLS IN
THE COUNTRY THAT 39,000, ALL OF
WHICH NEED TO BE REMEDIATED IN
ORDER TO PREVENT ADDITIONAL
NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENT. WHEN YOU INCREASE
THAT NUMBER BY THE COUNT OF
ORPHAN WELLS, IT GOES TO 44,000
WELLS, UNFORTUNATELY, WITHOUT
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO THE
CURRENT IDLE WELL MANAGEMENT
CODE. TODAY'S WELLS, TODAY'S
IDLE WELLS COULD BECOME
TOMORROW'S ORPHAN WELLS, WHICH
IS A SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE
SCENARIO. AND FOR THE SAKE OF
SEMANTICS, IDLE AND ABANDONED.
SAME THING, SO THIS BILL
PROVIDES A 2 IN 1 SOLUTION, BY
REPURPOSING IDLE WELLS INTO
GRAVITY BASED ENERGY STORAGE
SYSTEMS OR GRAVITY WELLS.
SENATE-TV LIMON CALLED THEM,
SEALING OFF THE HYDROCARBON
RESERVOIR AND CLEANING UP WELLS
IN THE PROCESS. IN SHORT, FEWER
IDLE AND ORPHAN WELLS, MORE
ENERGY STORAGE. WHEN WE
TRANSFORM AN IDLE WELL TO AN
ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM, IT DOES
SO WITH UNPARALLELED
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS. EVERY
WELL WE CONVERT WILL FEATURE OUR
BEST IN CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING, PROVIDING THE
TRANSPARENCY SOUGHT BY MANY
CONSTITUENTS WITH CONTINUOUS
METHANE SENSORS AND MECHANICAL
INTEGRITY MONITORING, OUR
TECHNOLOGY IS ABLE TO DETECT
SYSTEM ISSUES THAT MIGHT IMPACT
AIR OR WATER IN REAL TIME AND
LONG BEFORE SCHEDULED PRESSURE
TEST BY REPURPOSING OIL AND GAS
INFRASTRUCTURE CALIFORNIA IS
BUILDING UPON THE PROGRESS OF
THE LAST CENTURY TO CREATE THE
CLEAN ENERGY STORAGE OF THE
FUTURE, AND WE CAN DO THIS USING
THE SAME HARD HAT WEARING
WORKFORCE THAT THE OIL AND GAS
INDUSTRY THAT MAINTAIN THE OIL
AND GAS INDUSTRY TODAY, INVITING
THEM INTO THE CLEAN ENERGY
TRANSITION WITH ZERO RETRAINING.
THE PILOT PROGRAM ESTABLISHED IN
SB 1433, GIVES COMPANIES LIKE
RENEWAL A CLEAR REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK IN WHICH TO OPERATE.
WITHOUT IT, THE REGULATORY
BARRIERS TO INNOVATE ARE SIMPLY
TOO DIFFICULT TO OVERCOME. THIS
PILOT PROGRAM ALSO ALLOWS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVE THE
TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALLY, GET
FEEDBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS AND
THE PROCESS, AND ESTABLISH
PROPER CHANNELS FOR REPORTING
OPERATIONS. IT'S WORTH NOTING
THAT OUR FIRST LARGE SCALE
COMMERCIAL DEVICE INSTALLED ON A
SINGLE WELL IS IN SENATOR GROVES
DISTRICT, AS IS ALSO WHERE I
LIVE. I LIVE IN BAKERSFIELD, IN
SUMMARY, LET'S DELIVER THE
FUTURE CALIFORNIANS DESERVE MORE
JOBS, MORE RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND
ONE MORE POWERFUL SOLUTION TO
PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT. WE
APPRECIATE SENATOR LEMMON'S
WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH US ON
THIS CONCEPT, AND FOR HER LONG
STANDING LEADERSHIP ON THE IDLE
WELL ISSUE, ON BEHALF OF
RENEWAL, I ASK THE COMMITTEE TO
SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION SO THAT
CALIFORNIA CAN CONTINUE TO LEAD
THE NATION ON ENERGY STORAGE,
INNOVATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE
MITIGATION. I'M GOING TO TAKE A
SEAT RIGHT HERE JUST IN CASE
THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU
SO MUCH, OTHERS IN SUPPORT.
SORRY. LEAD WITNESS OR. YEAH,
PLEASE JUST SUPPORT. HELLO.
EMILY GARCIA WITH NRDC AND ON ON
ON BEHALF OF CRP AS WELL IN
SUPPORT. GREAT. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. ANY OTHERS IN SUPPORT,
SEEING NONE, WE'LL TURN TO
OPPOSITION. TWO MINUTES. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS, PAUL DIRO, REPRESENTING
THE WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM
ASSOCIATION. WE DON'T HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH A GRAVITY WELL
ENERGY STORAGE PROGRAM OR THE
REGULATORY STRUCTURE CREATED BY
THIS BILL. HOWEVER, THERE ARE
TWO PROVISIONS THAT WE BELIEVE
ARE UNRELATED, TO THE
ESTABLISHING THE REGULATORY
STRUCTURE FOR A GRAVITY WELL
ENERGY STORAGE PROGRAM SECTION
3,106.1 AND SECTION 30 200.5,
WHICH WOULD EFFECTIVELY LIMIT
WHAT WE CAN DO WITH IDA WELLS.
OFTENTIMES WE WILL WE WILL, USE
IDA WELLS FOR OTHER PURPOSES,
EVEN WATER WELLS. WE WILL USE
THE IDA WELL FOR WATER WELLS,
AIR COMPRESSION WELLS AND OTHER
USES. WE BELIEVE THESE TWO
PROVISIONS SPECIFICALLY LIMIT US
FROM DOING THAT, AND IT'S
UNNECESSARY FOR THE INCLUSION OF
IN THE BILL AND UNRELATED TO THE
CONTENT OF THE REGULATORY
STRUCTURE CREATED BY THE BILL.
WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE ABOUT THIS, AND
HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE SOME
RECONCILIATION. BUT TODAY WE
HAVE AN OPPOSED A STRONG OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED, ON THE BILL
ITSELF. WE NEED THESE TWO FIXES,
FOR US TO REMOVE OUR OPPOSITION.
THEY'RE VERY LIMITING. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY
OTHER OPPOSITION WITNESSES IN
THE ROOM? I'M SEEING NONE. I
WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. DO WE HAVE ANY
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? SENATOR GROVE, THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE
BILL ON GRAVITY BASED ENERGY
STORAGE, THE PILOT PROGRAM.
THAT'S A GREAT PIECE OF
LEGISLATION. YOU LOOK AT IT. I
DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT AT
ALL. IT'S ONLY GOING TO OPERATE
DURING THE DAYTIME BECAUSE OF
SOLAR AND WHEN THE SUN GOES
DOWN. BUT IT'S A WAY TO
EFFECTIVELY USE SOME OF THESE
IDLE AND OF ORPHAN, ORPHAN
WELLS. I THINK THAT IS GOOD
POLICY. I SHARE THE SAME
CONCERNS AS THE OPPOSITION UNDER
31.06. IT SAYS THE SUPERVISOR,
WHICH IS CAL JIM, SHALL NOT
AUTHORIZE OR ALLOW THE USE OF A
WELL OR HYDROCARBON RESERVOIR
FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN
EXPLICITLY PROVIDED IN THIS
SUBDIVISION. SO THAT ELIMINATES
TURNING ORPHAN WELLS INTO WATER
WELLS. IT ELIMINATES CARBON
CAPTURE, IT ELIMINATES ENERGY
STORAGE AND ALL THESE THINGS
THAT WE ARE TRYING TO INNOVATE
AND WORK WITH. LORELEI OVIATT,
ONE OF THE GREATEST PLANNING
DIRECTORS IN THE ENTIRE NATION,
PROBABLY, BUT IT ELIMINATES
EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
DO CONVERT THESE WELLS INTO
SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE. BECAUSE,
AGAIN, UNDER 3,200.5, IT SAYS,
EXCEPT PROVIDED IN THIS
DIVISION, THE OWNER OPERATOR OF
THE WELL SHALL NOT OPERATE OR
ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A WELL
FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE THAN THE
PRODUCTION OF OIL AND GAS AND
DIRECTLY RELATED ACTIVITIES THAT
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT
GREENWELL IS DOING THAT IS
TOTALLY SEPARATE FROM ANY
GRAVITY BASED ENERGY STORAGE
PILOT PROGRAM. SO ALTHOUGH THE
GRAVITY BASED STORAGE ENERGY
PILOT PROGRAM IS GOOD
LEGISLATION, THROWING THESE TWO
PROVISIONS IN THERE TO STOP ANY
OTHER OPERATIONAL USE OF THOSE
WELLS IS AND IT'S NOT EVEN
CONNECTED TO ENERGY BASED
STORAGE. I HAVE A HUGE CONCERN
WITH SO STATING MY CONCERN. IS
IT YOUR INTENT WITH THIS
LEGISLATION TO INSTRUCT CAL JIM,
AGAIN UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF
THIS LEGISLATURE, TO NOT ALLOW
ANY HYDROCARBON RESERVOIR
WHATSOEVER FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE
EXCEPT FOR WHAT GREENWELL IS
DOING IN THE STATE. WHAT IS
CURRENTLY IN THERE IS WHAT IS
CURRENTLY IN DEFINITION. AND
WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE
OPPOSITION BECAUSE WE TOOK WHAT
WAS IN CURRENT DEFINITION. SO
THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING. THAT'S
NOT IN CURRENT DEFINITION. YES
IT IS. IT IS, SORRY, MY
CONSULTANT JUST WHISPERED THAT
IT IS IN CURRENT, SO WE TOOK
CURRENT DEFINITION. WE ARE NOT
ADDING ANYTHING NEW. WE TOOK
CURRENT DEFINITION AND WE PUT
CURRENT DEFINITION IN THIS BILL.
AND WE ARE WILLING TO CONTINUE
THE CONVERSATION WITH OPPOSITION
BECAUSE THIS IS THE CURRENT
DEFINITION. GIVEN THAT IT'S THE
WE DIDN'T ADD IT OR CHANGED IT.
OKAY. SO I SEE WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING. IT'S THE CURRENT. IT'S
LIKE SPLITTING HAIRS. IT'S THE
CURRENT DEFINITION ON
UNDERGROUND STORAGE. BUT YOU'RE
SAYING YOU INPUTTED THIS CURRENT
DEFINITION INTO THE BILL. INTO
THE BILL WHICH WHICH IT WAS. BUT
THEN YOU'RE SAYING ON THE NEXT,
ON THE NEXT SENTENCE THAT IT'S
ONLY GOING TO BE USED FOR
GRAVITY BASED ENERGY STORAGE,
LIKE GREEN, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT
THE BILL IS ABOUT? I MEAN, SO WE
DIDN'T WE WEREN'T WE WEREN'T ON
A THIS BILL WAS NOT DESIGNED TO
GIVE AUTHORIZE OTHER THINGS. SO
WE JUST TOOK EXISTING LAW AND
BUILT OFF EXISTING LAW FOR
PURPOSES OF THIS PARTICULAR
PILOT PROGRAM. AND SO I THINK
THERE HAS TO BE ADDITIONAL
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT OTHER
ASPECTS OF EXISTING LAW THAT THE
OPPOSITION NEEDS TO LOOK AT. BUT
JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE REASON
THAT IT IS WRITTEN IN THE WAY IT
IS, IS ONE THAT WE EXTRACTED AND
WE'RE BUILDING OFF EXISTING LAW,
AND WE ONLY INTENDED THIS TO BE
FOR THIS. I CANNOT SPEAK TO
OTHER PURPOSES BECAUSE WE JUST
TOOK EXISTING LAW. BUT WHAT YOU
DID WHEN YOU TOOK EXISTING LAW
AND YOU SAID THAT EXISTING LAW,
THE SUPERVISOR AGAIN, CAL JAM
SHALL NOT AUTHORIZE OR ALLOW ANY
OTHER USE OF WELL OF HIGH
HYDROCARBON RESERVOIR FOR ANY
OTHER PURPOSE EXCEPT GRAVITY
BASED ENERGY STORAGE. WELL PILOT
PROGRAM, SO THAT'S WHERE THE
THAT'S WHERE THE RUB LIES. DO I
THINK THAT THE GRAVITY BASED
ENERGY PROGRAM IS GREAT? I DO, I
THINK IT'S A WAY THAT WE CAN USE
AND TURN SOMETHING THAT'S NOT
GOOD IN THE STATE, LIKE AN
ORPHAN IDLE OR ABANDONED WELL,
OR A WELL, THAT'S NOT BEING USED
INTO SOMETHING GOOD. BUT TO SAY
THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE THE ONLY
THING THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE IT
FOR IS NOT RIGHT. THE LAW
CURRENTLY SAYS IT'S THE ONLY
THING. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO
ISN'T YOUR LAW. WE TOOK EXISTING
LAW AND WE'RE HAPPY TO CONTINUE
THE CONVERSATION WORKING WITH
OPPOSITION. AND IF I MIGHT JUST
INTERJECT, IN TALKING WITH
STAFF, I MEAN, I THINK THE
INTENT IS NOT TO DO YOUR
INTERPRETATION. SO IF THAT IS
AND THE STAFF HAS WORKED CLOSELY
ON THIS AND I'M ASSURED THAT,
RIGHT NOW, CAL GEM DOES HAVE
SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITY. BUT IF IT
IS NOT THE CASE, I WOULD JUST I
WAS GOING TO SAY THIS IN MY
CLOTHES, BUT THIS IS, CLEARLY A
WORK IN PROGRESS, AND IT'S
PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE
ADDITIONAL REFINEMENTS AS IT
MOVES FORWARD, AND WE WILL
RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REHEAR THE
BILL IF IT DOES CHANGE
SIGNIFICANTLY. BUT THAT IF THAT
CONCERN AS EXPRESSED BY YOU AND
WHISPER, IS ONE THAT THAT IS
MANIFEST AS AND NOT IN OUR STAFF
IS INCORRECT, I THINK WE'LL HAVE
TO, CONSIDER CONTINUE AMENDING
AND CONSIDERING THAT ISSUE. I
APPRECIATE THE CHAIR'S COMMENTS,
BECAUSE THE WAY LIKE I SAID, YOU
I REALIZE THAT YOU'VE USED
EXISTING LAW, RIGHT? BUT
EXISTING LAW DOESN'T EXIST IN
LAW. USE TWO PARAGRAPHS OF
EXISTING LAW. AND THEN YOU
INSERTED GRAVITY BASED ENERGY
STORAGE AND THE WAY IT READS IN
THE LEGISLATION IS, IS THAT THE
ONLY THING THAT'S GOING TO BE
USED FOR. AND, SO I, I
APPRECIATE STAFF'S COMMENTS. I
APPRECIATE THE CHAIR'S COMMENTS
THAT YOU'LL ADDRESS THIS AND
HOPEFULLY THAT IF THIS GETS TO
THE GOVERNOR'S DESK THE WAY IT
IS, THAT CAL JIM WILL NOT
DETERMINE IT OR SEE IT AS WELL,
WE'RE JUST FOLLOWING LEGISLATION
THAT SAYS YOU CAN ONLY USE THESE
WELLS FOR GREEN GRAVITY BASED
ENERGY STORAGE, AND THAT'S IT,
BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THE BILL
READS RIGHT NOW. SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, SENATOR GROVE. ANY
OTHER COMMENTS, SENATOR STERN
OKAY, YEAH. JUST TO ADD SOME
FURTHER CORRECTION OR
CLARIFICATION OF THE RECORD, I
THINK WE'RE CONFLATING WELL,
TYPES HERE, AND I'D BE CURIOUS
TO EVEN FOLLOW UP WITH INDUSTRY
HERE. BUT THE CLASS TWO WELLS
ARE THE OIL AND GAS. OIL AND GAS
WELLS UNDER UIC THAT WERE
TOUCHING HERE. IF YOU WANT TO
CONVERT THAT WELL TO CAPTURE
CARBON OR SEQUESTER CARBON, YOU
HAVE TO GO GET A SEPARATE PERMIT
FROM EPA UNDER CLASS SIX. SO
THIS IS NOT RESTRICT AN OIL AND
GAS COMPANY FROM PURSUING A
CLASS SIX PERMIT. IT DOES,
HOWEVER, PREVENT AN OIL AND GAS
COMPANY FROM GETTING AROUND THAT
EPA PERMITTING PROCESS. AND
WEDGING THAT INTO A CLASS TWO
PROCESS. SO WHAT I DON'T WANT TO
SEE FROM THIS COMMITTEE IS SOME
BACKDOOR WAY TO UNDERCUT THE
EXISTING EPA PERMITTING PROCESS.
SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, THAT
REFINEMENTS SHOULD ONLY BE
PURSUED HERE IF NECESSARY, I'M
NOT WILLING TO GO OFF THE CUFF,
WITH MY GOOD COLLEAGUE. HERE'S,
QUICK READING OF THE STATUTE,
WHICH IS NOT ACTUALLY ACCURATE.
SO JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT CLASS TWO, OIL AND
GAS WELLS, NOT CLASS SIX WELLS
BEING RESTRICTED. AND I THINK
THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR IN THE BILL.
I WOULD MOVE THE BILL ALSO AT
THE APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU.
ANY COMMENTS? OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE? OKAY.
YEAH AND I JUST WANT TO
EMPHASIZE IN MY CLOSING OR MY
COMMENTS HERE THAT THIS IS
CLEARLY A WORK IN PROGRESS. IT'S
AN AMBITIOUS BILL. IT HAS THE
POTENTIAL, AS THE ANALYSIS
NOTES, TO BE A WIN WIN WIN. BUT
THERE'S A LOT OF DETAILS TO WORK
OUT. SO I APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR.
WORKING CLOSELY WITH STAFF, AND
I KNOW AND HOPE YOU'LL CONTINUE
WORKING WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO
ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT WERE RAISED AS IT MOVES
FORWARD, WITH THAT, WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM
SENATOR STERN, DO PASS TO
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
ASSISTANT, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
THIS IS FOR SB 1433. SENATOR
MANN I MEAN, I SALADO ALLEN.
ALLEN I DALLEY. EGGMAN EGGMAN I
GROVE. NOT VOTING. HURTADO
HURTADO I LAIRD. LAIRD I LEMON
LEMON LEMON LEMON I PADILLA I
PADILLA I STERN A STERN I 5678
OKAY, THAT'S 888, THE VOTE COUNT
ON THAT IS EIGHT ZERO, AND THE
VOTE, THE BILL IS OUT, AND WE
WILL NOW, OPEN UP THE ROLL ON
BILLS THAT, ARE ON CALL. SO
WE'LL START WITH THE CONSENT
CALENDAR, ASSISTANT, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL FOR THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. SENATOR SARDO. AYE.
SENATOR SARDO. AYE. HURTADO
HURTADO. AYE. LEMON LIMÓN. AYE.
PADILLA. PADILLA. AYE THE VOTE
ON THAT IS 11 ZERO. THE CONSENT
CALENDAR IS APPROVED, WE'LL MOVE
ON TO FILE ITEM NUMBER ONE, SB
951 ASSISTANT, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL SB 951. THE MOTION IS DUE.
PASS TO HOUSING AND THE CURRENT
VOTE IS SEVEN ZERO WITH CHAIR
VOTING AYE. SENATOR CELADO
SALADO. AYE. HURTADO HURTADO.
AYE. LIMÓN FOR SENATOR NINE FIVE
OKAY. SENATOR PADILLA. PADILLA.
AYE TEN ZERO SB 951 PASSES TEN
ZERO, BILL IS OUT, NEXT, WE'LL
MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO. SB
1077 BY SENATOR BLAKE SPEAR. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED.
THE HOUSING ASSISTANT, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. CURRENT VOTE IS
SIX ZERO, WITH CHAIR VOTING AYE.
SENATOR SARDO. SARDO. AYE GROVE.
HURTADO. HURTADO. AYE. LIMÓN
LEMON. AYE. PADILLA. PADILLA AYE
. GROVE. AYE OKAY. ZERO OUT.
THAT BILL IS. THAT BILL IS OUT.
11 ZERO, WE'LL MOVE ON TO FILE
ITEM NUMBER THREE, SB 1092 BY
SENATOR BLAKE SPEAR. THE MOTION
IS DUE PASSED. THE HOUSING
ASSISTANT, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
CURRENT VOTE IS SIX ZERO WITH
CHAIR VOTING. AYE. SENATOR SARDO
SAY AYE. DALY. HURTADO. HURTADO.
AYE LIMÓN. LEMON. AYE. PADILLA.
PADILLA AYE. OUT. OR DO I HAVE
TO GIVE IT A CALL? TEN ZERO, IS
THAT OKAY? IF WE PUT THE BILL
OUT? SENATOR DALY'S NOT HERE, I
DON'T THINK. OKAY, THAT BILL IS
OUT TEN ZERO, WE'LL MOVE ON TO
FILE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, SB 1101
BY SENATOR LEMON. THE MOTION IS
DUE PASSED. A GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATION, ASSISTANT, PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. CURRENT VOTE IS
EIGHT ZERO WITH CHAIR VOTING AYE
. SENATOR SARDO. SARDO, I
HURTADO. HURTADO AYE. PADILLA
PADILLA. AYE THAT BILL IS OUT 11
ZERO, WE'LL MOVE ON TO FILE ITEM
NUMBER EIGHT. VÌ. SENATOR LIMÓN,
THE MOTION IS TO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO REVENUE AND TAXATION
ASSISTANT. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
CURRENT VOTE IS SEVEN ZERO, WITH
CHAIR VOTING AYE. SENATOR
SERRADO CIARDO VÚI GROVE. SORRY,
I DIDN'T HEAR YOU. GROVE AYE.
HURTADO. HURTADO. AYE PADILLA.
PADILLA. AYE THAT BILL IS OUT 11
ZERO. OKAY. OUR NEXT BILL IS SB
FILE ITEM NUMBER NINE, SB 1304,
THE MOTION IS TO PASS AS AMENDED
TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ASSISTANT. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
CURRENT VOTE IS SIX TWO WITH
CHAIR VOTING AYE. SENATOR KARDO
CIARDO NÓ HURTADO. PADILLA.
PADILLA. AYE. THAT BILL IS OUT
SEVEN THREE. AND FINALLY, WE'LL
GO TO SB, FILE ITEM NUMBER 12,
SB 1234 BY SENATOR ALLEN. THE
MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ASSISTANT. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. CURRENT VOTE IS
SEVEN ZERO. SENATOR MINH. AYE
MINH. AYE. CERRADO. CERRADO.
AYE. HURTADO HURTADO. AYE.
PADILLA. PADILLA AYE. 11 ZERO.
OUT. THAT BILL IS OUT. 11 ZERO.
AND, WITH THAT, WE ARE
CONCLUDING. THANK YOU, EVERYONE,
FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND
COOPERATION. WE'VE CONCLUDED THE
AGENDA. THE SENATE NATURAL
RESOURCES AND WATER COMMITTEE IS
ADJOURNED. YOU DON'T HAVE TO
COME BACK. HERE'S YOUR PEN.