OKAY. LET'S GET STARTED. WE
WILL START THE SENATE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE
AS A SUB COMMITTEE. AND LET'S
ASK SENATOR SIERRA TO COME UP TO
PRESENT ITEM ONE. THIS IS SB
936. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. AND, I DID
NOT BRING ANY WITNESSES TODAY.
SO THIS SHOULD BE VERY, VERY
BRIEF AND QUICK. SO THANK YOU,
HONORABLE CHAIR. I'M HERE TO
PRESENT SB 936. AND FIRST I
WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR THEIR WORKING WITH
MY STAFF TO MAKE THE COMMITTEE
OR THE BILL A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
AND AND, AND I ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS, CAR
CRASHES ARE A TOP CAUSE OF
UNINTENTIONAL INJURY OR DEATH.
AND FOR CALIFORNIANS, THOUSANDS
OF PEOPLE LOSE THEIR LIVES OR
SUFFER LIFE CHANGING INJURIES
ANNUALLY IN AUTOMOBILE
COLLISIONS. CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC
FATALITIES SURGED 22% FROM 2019
TO 2022, WHILE SEVERE AND FATAL
TRAFFIC CRASHES HAVE RESULTED IN
$166 BILLION IN ECONOMIC AND
QUALITY OF LIFE COSTS FOR
CALIFORNIA IN 2022 ALONE. A 2022
STUDY FROM THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY
TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
FOUND DISPARITIES IN THE RISK OF
TRAVEL FOR LOW INCOME
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. RECENTLY,
A DEVASTATING CRASH INVOLVING A
DRUNK DRIVER SPEEDING AT 104
MILES AN HOUR IN A 45 MILE AN
HOUR ZONE, CLAIMED THE LIVES OF
FOUR PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY
STUDENTS ON THE PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY, ALSO KNOWN AS DEAD
MAN'S CURVE. OVER THE LAST TEN
YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN 4000
COLLISIONS ON DEAD MAN'S CURVE.
I USED TO, WHEN I WAS A
BATTALION CHIEF. I'D
OCCASIONALLY WORK IN THIS
DISTRICT. AND I'M VERY FAMILIAR
WITH THIS. THIS LOCATION.
SERIOUS ROAD IMPROVEMENT, SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN NEGLECTED
ON PCH, ALONG WITH OTHER UNSAFE
STRETCHES OF ROAD THROUGHOUT THE
STATE. CALTRANS AND REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES RECEIVE
FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS TO
BUILD, MAINTAIN, AND DEVELOP THE
HIGHWAY AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.
MY BILL REQUIRES THE OFFICE OF
PLANNING AND RESEARCH IN
COORDINATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION, TO DEVELOP
AND PUBLISH A REPORT DETAILING
THE NEEDED SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
OF THE 15 HIGHWAYS WITH THE
HIGHEST NUMBER OF COLLISIONS.
WITH THIS REPORT, THE
LEGISLATURE CAN EXAMINE MEANS OF
ADDRESSING THESE LOCATIONS AND
HOW BEST TO EXPEDITE THE SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED. SB 936 IS A
STEP FORWARD TO A PROACTIVE PLAN
TO ADDRESS OUR MOST DANGEROUS
HIGHWAYS, AND WILL GIVE THE
LEGISLATURE THE INFORMATION
NEEDED TO SAVE SOME LIVES. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. SENATOR. OKAY,
ANYONE WHO WANTS TO VOICE
SUPPORT FOR THE BILL COME UP TO
THE MIC. GOOD MORNING. CHAIR
MEMBERS. BERNICE JIMENEZ KRIEGER
WITH THE CALIFORNIA TRUCKING
ASSOCIATION. AS OUR LOGO STATES,
WE DRIVE FOR A LIVING. SAFETY IS
OUR PRIORITY. SO WE THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR HIS BILL AND WE STAND
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, ANYONE
WHO WANTS TO RAISE CONCERNS
ABOUT THE BILL, OPPOSITION I
WILL BRING TO THE COMMITTEE. LET
ME JUST START BY THANKING, FIRST
OF ALL, THANK YOU, YOU KNOW, FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP AND ON THIS
ISSUE, AND OBVIOUSLY, WE WERE
BOTH TOGETHER IN A PRETTY
POWERFUL TRANSPORTATION HEARING
LAST WEEK ON THIS TOPIC AND GOT
A CHANCE TO SPEND SOME TIME
GRAPPLING WITH THE REAL
CHALLENGES ON THE PCH AND
ELSEWHERE. SO I WANT TO I WANT
TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR
LEADERSHIP. I'M CERTAINLY I
APPRECIATE YOU ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS. I'M HAPPY TO SUPPORT
THE BILL WITH THAT, WITH THAT
UNDERSTANDING AND WOULD LOVE TO
CONTINUE TO PARTNER WITH YOU ON,
ON ROAD SAFETY ISSUES. I MEAN,
THE SITUATION IN PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY IS TRULY BEEN
DEVASTATING FOR THE COMMUNITY
THERE, AND I KNOW THERE ARE
SEVERAL OTHER PLACES AROUND THE
STATE WITH SIMILARLY DANGEROUS,
YOU KNOW, SETUP. SO I'D LOVE TO
LOVE TO WORK WITH YOU ON THAT.
GREAT. THANK YOU. WELL I'M SURE
SENATOR DALLI WILL MOVE IT WHEN
WE HAVE A QUORUM. WHEN YOU HAVE
A QUORUM, UNLESS HE HAS ANY
QUESTIONS. WE'LL GIVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE. ALL RIGHT.
WELL, I JUST RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR. AYE VOTE. IT'S A VERY
IMPORTANT, TOPIC, AND IT'S A WAY
OF US TO RECOGNIZE AND ADVANCE
THESE PROJECTS SO WE CAN, WE CAN
STOP THE MAYHEM OUT THERE. THANK
YOU. SENATOR. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL. WE'LL
GET THIS BILL THROUGH. OKAY. SO
LET'S, LET'S NOW HEAR FROM
SENATOR BREAKSPEAR, WHO'S
PRESENTING, SB 1053. HEY. GOOD
MORNING. GOOD MORNING. YOU MAY
PROCEED WHEN READY. OKAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE AND STAFF FOR YOUR
WORK. I GLADLY ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. PLASTIC
WASTE IS CHOKING OUR PLANET.
GLOBALLY, WE USE AN ESTIMATED 5
TRILLION PLASTIC BAGS A YEAR,
AND THE AVERAGE AMERICAN USES
ONE PLASTIC BAG A DAY. A PLASTIC
BAG HAS AN AVERAGE LIFESPAN OF
12 MINUTES. AND THEN IT IS
DISCARDED, OFTEN CLOGGING SEWAGE
DRAINS, CONTAMINATING OUR
DRINKING WATER, AND DEGENERATING
INTO TOXIC MICROPLASTIC OAKS
THAT FESTER IN OUR OCEANS AND
LANDFILLS FOR UP TO A THOUSAND
YEARS. THE CULTURE OF SINGLE USE
CONSUMPTION HAS RESULTED IN A
TENFOLD INCREASE IN PLASTIC
POLLUTION SINCE 1980. IF WE ONLY
ACCOUNT FOR COASTAL REGIONS
ALONE, SOME 18 BILLION POUNDS OF
PLASTIC IS PRODUCED EVERY YEAR,
WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF FIVE
GROCERY BAGS SITTING ON EVERY
FOOT OF COASTLINE AROUND THE
WORLD. THIS IS NOT A NEW
PROBLEM, AND THE LEGISLATURE
ADDRESSED IT A DECADE AGO BY
PASSING SB 270 BY THEN STATE
SENATOR ALEX PADILLA. WHEN SB
270 WAS PASSED, WE HAD 157,000
TONS OF PLASTIC BAG WASTE A
YEAR. BUT BY 2022, THAT NUMBER
HAS SKYROCKETED 47% TO 231,000
TONS. AND WHY IS THIS? IT'S
BECAUSE CUSTOMERS BEGAN USING
THESE THICKER PLASTIC BAGS THAT
WERE DEEMED TO BE REUSABLE AND
RECYCLABLE UNDER OUR EXISTING
LAW. IT WAS ESSENTIALLY A
LOOPHOLE, BUT WHAT WE'VE LEARNED
SINCE IS THAT THESE THICKER
BAGS, THEY RARELY GET REUSED AND
THEY ARE NOT RECYCLED. VERY FEW
PLACES ARE ABLE TO RECYCLE THESE
BAGS, AND SO THEY HAVE SIMPLY
CONTRIBUTED TO THE PROBLEM OF
PLASTIC BAG WASTE. WHAT SB 1053
DOES IS QUITE SIMPLE. IT NO
LONGER MAKES EXCEPTIONS FOR
PLASTIC FILM BAGS AND ALLOWS
CUSTOMERS TO PURCHASE A OR TO
PURCHASE A PAPER BAG OR BRING A
REUSABLE BAG TO THE STORE.
THERE. THERE WILL NOT BE ANY
MORE PLASTIC FILM BAGS THAT ARE
AVAILABLE AT WHEN PEOPLE BUY
THEIR GROCERIES AT THE GROCERY
STORE. THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR
CUSTOMERS OR STORES. IT IS A
PRACTICE THAT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED
BY TRADER JOE'S FOR QUITE SOME
TIME, AND IT HAS THE SUPPORT OF
THE GROCERS ASSOCIATION. AND TO
ENSURE THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A NEW
EFFORT A DECADE FROM NOW,
ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM OF NEW
DISPOSABLE BAGS THAT ARE EVEN
THICKER, THAT ARE EVEN THICKER
PLASTIC. MY BILL STRENGTHENS THE
STANDARDS FOR WHAT IS A REUSABLE
BAG BY ONE REQUIRING THAT THEY
ARE EITHER CLOTH, A WOVEN
TEXTILE OR WASHABLE TEXTILE THAT
THEY THEY ARE. THEY REQUIRE
STRAPS THAT ARE SEWN WITH A
THREAD. THEY INCREASE THE
MINIMUM USE STANDARDS FROM 125
USES TO 300 USES. WE WILL ALSO
BE REQUIRING A DISCLOSURE ON HOW
MUCH PLASTIC THESE BAGS A BAG
WOULD CONTAIN, IN ORDER TO
INFORM CUSTOMERS OF THEIR
PLASTIC CONSUMPTION. OPPONENT OF
MY BILL CLAIM THAT THICKER
PLASTIC BAGS CURRENTLY PROVIDED
ARE RECYCLABLE IN CALIFORNIA,
BUT THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE.
ACCORDING TO CALRECYCLE, THE
POLYETHYLENE FILM USED TO MAKE
THESE BAGS ARE NOT RECYCLABLE IN
CALIFORNIA. THAT IS A STATEMENT
FROM CALRECYCLE. AND NOW
OPPONENTS WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO
DEMONSTRATE RECYCLABILITY
THROUGH SB 54, WHICH IS ABSURD
AS THEY HAVE HAD MANY YEARS A
DECADE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY
CAN RECYCLE THEIR PRODUCT. BUT
THEY ARE NOT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE
TO DOING THAT. SIMPLY PUT, MY
INTENTION WITH THIS BILL IS TO
CREATE A SUSTAINABLE AND
THRIVING ENVIRONMENT THAT IS NOT
LITTERED WITH PLASTIC WASTE. OUR
PLAN IS STRAIGHTFORWARD STORES
CAN PROVIDE 100% RECYCLED PAPER
BAGS, OR THEY CAN LET CONSUMERS
PURCHASE OR BRING THEIR OWN
REUSABLE BAG. SO THOSE WILL BE
TWO OPTIONS. THIS IS, FRANKLY,
OVERDUE, AND I AM THRILLED TO BE
CHAMPIONING THIS EFFORT FOR OUR
STATE ON THE SENATE SIDE. THANK
YOU. AND I WOULD LIKE TO
INTRODUCE MY WITNESSES WHO ARE
HERE IN SUPPORT. I HAVE LOUIE
BROWN ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA GROCERS ASSOCIATION,
AND MARK MURRAY ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE.
GREAT. ALL RIGHT, WHOEVER WANTS
TO START FIRST. MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
LOUIE BROWN, HERE TODAY ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA GROCERS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL, WE WERE AT THE TABLE AND
NEGOTIATED SB 270 WITH THEN
STATE SENATOR ALEX PADILLA. WE
SAW THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT
BILL AND ACTUALLY, WHEN WE
STARTED IMPLEMENTING THAT BILL,
IT WORKED. WE ACTUALLY SAW A
SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN THE USE
OF THE REUSABLE PLASTIC BAGS
THAT WERE DEFINED IN SB 270. AND
THEN COVID HAPPENED AND WITH
COVID, WE TOLD WE TOLD CUSTOMERS
NOT TO BRING REUSABLE BAGS BACK
TO THE STORE, AND THEY
TRANSITIONED TO PRIMARILY THE
REUSABLE PLASTIC BAGS THAT WERE
DEFINED IN SB 270. WE'VE NOW
LEARNED OVER A DECADE THAT,
ACCORDING TO CALRECYCLE, THOSE
BAGS ARE IN FACT NOT RECYCLABLE.
AND SO IN ORDER TO LIVE UP TO
THE COMMITMENT THAT WE MADE IN
SB 270, AND REALLY TO COME BACK
AND LOOK AT A BILL, REVIEW IT,
REVISE IT, IMPROVE IT, WE'RE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1053. NOW,
WE DO UNDERSTAND, AND I DO THINK
THAT THERE IS WORK THAT NEEDS TO
CONTINUE ON THIS BILL. AND WE'VE
HAD OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE
AUTHOR AND SPONSORS ON THE ISSUE
OF THE RECYCLABLE PAPER BAG,
CURRENTLY, THE LAW REQUIRES THAT
IT BE 40% RECYCLED CONTENT. THE
BILL SAYS 100. WE NEED TO HAVE
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT THE
RIGHT LEVEL OF RECYCLED CONTENT
FOR PAPER BAGS IS, SO THAT WE IN
THE GROCERY INDUSTRY CAN HAVE A
RELIABLE SUPPLY OF THESE BAGS TO
PROVIDE OUR CUSTOMERS. AND SO WE
COMMIT AND HAVE MADE THE GESTURE
WITH THE AUTHOR. BOTH OFFERS OF
THE BILL THAT WE NEED TO, IN
EARNEST, GET DOWN TO AND FIND
WHAT THAT RIGHT LEVEL OF
RECYCLED CONTENT AND PAPER BAGS
IS SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD
WITH THIS POLICY. WITH THAT, I
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU.
MARK. MR. CHAIR MEMBERS MARK
MURRAY WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL
GROUP CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE
, AND MR. BROWN AND I WERE JUST
TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT
IS POSSIBLE THAT WE WERE THE
ONLY TWO PEOPLE IN THE ROOM THAT
WERE HERE A DECADE AGO ON THIS
ISSUE, AND WE ARE NOW UNITED IN
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE DIDN'T GET
IT 100% RIGHT. TEN YEARS AGO,
BUT THE POLICY DID WORK. IT DID
WORK IN TERMS OF TRANSITIONING
PEOPLE FROM, RELYING ON THOSE
FLIMSY SINGLE USE PLASTIC BAGS.
WE ELIMINATED THOSE BAGS, WE
ELIMINATED THE LITTER THAT WAS
ASSOCIATED, UNIQUELY ASSOCIATED
WITH THOSE FLIMSY PLASTIC BAGS.
AND IN THE INITIAL YEARS OF THE
POLICY, WE SAW CONSUMERS, 40% OF
CONSUMERS BRINGING THEIR OWN
BAGS TO THE GROCERY STORES. IN
OTHER INSTANCES, RELYING ON
RECYCLED, RECYCLABLE OR RECYCLED
CONTENT, PAPER BAGS. AND AS MR.
BROWN NOTED, THEN COVID HAPPENED
, MULTIPLE TRANSITIONS OCCURRED.
BUT THEN WE SAW THE EMERGENCE OF
THESE VERY LOW COST, THICKER
PLASTIC BAGS THAT DID HAVE AN
EXEMPTION UNDER THAT ORIGINAL
LAW. NOW YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR
FROM THE MANUFACTURERS OF THOSE
COMPANIES THAT MAKE THOSE BAGS,
AND THEY'RE GOING TO CLAIM THAT
THEY CONTINUE TO BE RECYCLABLE.
BUT RECYCLABLE WAS THE LOW BAR.
WHAT WE ALL KNOW IS THAT THOSE
BAGS ARE NOT BEING REUSED.
THEY'RE NOT BEING ACCEPTED AS A
REUSABLE BAG BY CONSUMERS. AND
THAT WAS THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS
POLICY. I'M ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENT
THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, IF
WE GIVE THEM ANOTHER TEN YEARS,
THEY'RE GOING TO FIGURE OUT A
WAY TO RECYCLE THOSE PLASTIC
FILM BAGS. BUT THEY'VE ALREADY
HAD TEN YEARS. SO NO MORE DO
OVERS FOR THAT INDUSTRY, RIGHT
NOW, THE UPDATES IN THE
DEFINITION OF REUSABLE BAGS THAT
THE SENATOR DESCRIBED ARE
DESIGNED TO MAKE THESE BAGS AN
ACTUAL REUSABLE BAG EXPERIENCE
FOR THE CONSUMER TO PROVIDE THE
CONSUMER WITH THE TYPE OF BAG
THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BRING BACK
OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, SO
WE THINK WE'VE WE'VE IMPROVED ON
THIS POLICY IMMENSELY, JUST ONE
OTHER FACT THAT I WANT TO NOTE
THAT WHEN THE PLASTIC BAG
INDUSTRY PUT THIS, DID A
REFERENDUM ON THIS POLICY AND
PUT THIS POLICY BEFORE VOTERS,
THE VOTERS THAT PASSED THAT
MEASURE WERE VOTING ON A POLICY
THAT DIDN'T HAVE THE THICKER
PLASTIC BAGS. AND IN FACT, IN
THE COUNTIES THAT ALREADY HAD A
BAG BAN IN PLACE BECAUSE OF A
LOCAL ORDINANCE, 60% OF THE
VOTERS PASSED THAT MEASURE. SO
THE PUBLIC SUPPORTS THIS POLICY.
THEY SUPPORT PRECISELY THE
POLICY THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY,
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE
EXPERIENCING IN 2016. THANK YOU.
THANKS OKAY. LET'S HEAR FROM
FOLKS WHO ALSO WANT TO VOICE
THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. AT
THE MIC. YOU JUST STATE YOUR
NAME AND AFFILIATION. MR. CHAIR,
JUST MALONE FOR HEAL THE BAY AND
ALSO THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU. HI.
KRISTEN GORI ON BEHALF OF BREAST
CANCER PREVENTION PARTNERS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. CHRISTINA
HILDEBRAND AND ON BEHALF OF
VOICE FOR CHOICE ADVOCACY AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MEGAN
SHUMWAY FROM SACRAMENTO 350 IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING. GENESIS
GONZALEZ, ON BEHALF OF
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ELENI
KOUNALAKIS IN SUPPORT, THANK YOU
. GOOD MORNING, LINDSAY
GULLAHORN WITH CAPITAL ADVOCACY
ON BEHALF OF THE RESOURCE
RECOVERY COALITION OF CALIFORNIA
IN SUPPORT. YEAH, I'VE BEEN
MEANING TO REACH OUT TO. GOOD
MORNING. REBECCA MARCUS, ON
BEHALF OF CALPIRG AND OUR
COLLEAGUES AT CLEAN WATER ACTION
AND SUPPORT. CHRIS SCROGGIN WITH
THE PRAYING COMPANY ON BEHALF OF
REPUBLIC SERVICES AND SUPPORT.
PRISCILLA, KUDOS HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA PRODUCT
STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL, WESTERN
PLACER WASTE MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITY AND SOLID WASTE
ASSOCIATION OF NORTH AMERICA
LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, MAYA
LAGUERRE, ON BEHALF OF THE
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK GOOD MORNING,
ALISON WALUSZEWSKI WITH THE FIVE
GYRES INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, JANET
COX FOR CLIMATE ACTION.
CALIFORNIA THE GLENDALE
ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION IN THE
SANTA CRUZ CLIMATE ACTION
NETWORK. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHARLES MILLER, ON
BEHALF OF CLIMATE REALITY
PROJECT LOS ANGELES CLIMATE
REALITY PROJECT SAN FERNANDO
VALLEY AND THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION OF CLIMATE REALITY
PROJECT, ALL IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. MIKE TOPOLSKY, PRESIDENT OF
PROCORE PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL
AND IMPORTER OF ALL BAGS
AGNOSTIC IN SUPPORT BECAUSE I'M
GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF MONEY ON
THIS AND, JUST FEEL BAD. THAT
SOLID WASTE WILL GO UP TENFOLD.
CYNTHIA SHALIT, ON BEHALF OF
INDIVISIBLE CALIFORNIA STATE
STRONG IN SUPPORT. CHRISTINA
SCARINGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
AND SUPPORT. THANKS KATIE
MCCAMMON 350 SACRAMENTO. SUPPORT
GOOD MORNING, CHRIS ROSE, ON
BEHALF OF KROGER, WHICH OPERATES
AS RALPHS IN THE AUTHOR AND THE
CHAIRS DISTRICTS IN SUPPORT.
THEIR LITTLE ON BEHALF OF NRDC
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY.
SEEING NO MORE, LET'S ASK THE
OPPOSITION FOLKS TO COME UP.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. HELLO.
I KNOW, I KNOW, ALL RIGHT. WE
LOVE THE SCARF AND YOU MAY
PROCEED. YEAH, PLEASE. YEAH.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR ELLEN. AND
DISTINGUISHED COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS CLEMENT STOCKRIDER
AND I'M CEO OF PRESIDIO US. AND
WE ARE BASED HERE IN CALIFORNIA.
MY COMPANY IS PART OF AN
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICE AND RECYCLING PROVIDER
BACKED BY ONE OF THE LARGEST
GROCERS IN THE WORLD. THAT MEANS
WE UNDERSTAND GROCERY SALE
COLLECTION, ERP SYSTEMS, SORTING
AND RECYCLING TO REUSE AND CAN
HELP DEVELOP SOLUTIONS TO MANY
OF TODAY'S PLASTIC RECYCLING
ISSUES. AS WE MEET HERE TODAY,
WE ALL HAVE ONE COMMON GOAL TO
PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT, AS
WHILE I AM CERTAIN THAT THE
PROPONENTS OF SB 1053 HAVE THE
BEST OF INTENTIONS, THIS
LEGISLATION AS WRITTEN WILL NOT
MEET THE COMMON GOAL, BUT WILL
ACTUALLY DAMAGE CALIFORNIA'S
ENVIRONMENT. SB 1053 WILL FORCE
OUR COMMUNITY STORES TO PROMOTE
TWO ENVIRONMENTALLY HARMFUL
ALTERNATIVES. FIRST, EITHER
IMPORTED HEAVY WOVEN OR
NON-WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE BAGS,
WHICH ARE ALSO PLASTIC BAGS
IMPOSSIBLE TO RECYCLE AND WILL
FILL OUR LANDFILLS. OR SECOND,
100% RECYCLED PAPER BAGS THAT
REQUIRE TREMENDOUS AMOUNTS OF
ENERGY AND WATER TO PRODUCE AND
RECYCLE. WE BELIEVE THERE IS A
BETTER SOLUTION, THE BETTER
APPROACH IS TO AMEND SB 1053 SO
THAT THE 40% POST-CONSUMER RESIN
IN REUSABLE PLASTIC FILM BAGS
ARE INTEGRATED INTO THE EXTENDED
PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY. SB 54
LEGISLATION PASSED IN 22
CONTINUING THE USE OF REUSABLE
40% POST-CONSUMER RESIN FILM
BAGS IS SIMPLE AND
NON-DISRUPTIVE SOLUTION THAT
WILL ALLOW CALIFORNIANS TO USE
AND RECYCLE THEM WITH OTHER
PLASTICS. WITHOUT THESE BAGS,
THE COLLECTION BINS WILL VANISH.
GIVEN THE LACK OF VOLUME. IN
CLOSING, WE LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THIS COMMITTEE TO
PUT IN PLACE THE MOST EFFECTIVE
AND LASTING PROGRAM THAT WILL
REDUCE, REUSE AND RECYCLE
PLASTIC WASTE ACROSS THE STATE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR, YES
SIR. THANK YOU, CHAIR. AND
ESTEEMED MEMBERS OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE, THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
ADDRESS YOU TODAY REGARDING
SENATE BILL 1053. MY NAME IS
PHIL ROSINSKI, AND I SERVE AS
THE INTERIM DIRECTOR OF THE
AMERICAN RECYCLABLE PLASTIC BAG
ALLIANCE. THE RPA REPRESENTS
MANUFACTURERS AND RECYCLERS OF
FILM PLASTIC RETAIL BAGS,
INCLUDING MEMBERS WITH
OPERATIONS IN CALIFORNIA. I'M
HERE ON THEIR BEHALF TO EXPRESS
OUR OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED
LEGISLATION. THE RPA SHARES THE
GOALS OF 1053 PROTECTING AND
IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT. BUT
LET ME BE CLEAR THIS BILL WILL
NOT REDUCE PLASTIC. IT WILL
MERELY SHIFT CALIFORNIANS TO
OTHER PLASTIC BAGS THAT RESULT
IN SIGNIFICANTLY MORE PLASTIC
CONSUMPTION. AFTER A
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR BILL WAS
PASSED, NEW JERSEY, CONNECTICUT,
DELAWARE AND SEVERAL OTHER
STATES. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT
HAPPENED. AND THE BAN ON
TRADITIONAL PLASTIC BAGS
RESULTED IN STATES ADOPTING
NON-WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE BAGS AS
A NEW OPTION, WHICH LED TO A
300% INCREASE IN PLASTIC
CONSUMPTION IN A 500% RISE IN
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
MOREOVER, STUDIES HAVE SHOWN
THAT ON AVERAGE, THESE NON-WOVEN
POLYPROPYLENE BAGS ARE ONLY USED
2 TO 3 TIMES BEFORE BEING
DISCARDED. THEY'RE SIMPLY NOT
USED THE NUMBER OF TIMES NEEDED
TO MAKE THEM ENVIRONMENTALLY
BENEFICIAL. ALL CURRENT LAW
REQUIRES TODAY'S PLASTIC FILM
BAGS IN CALIFORNIA CONTAIN 40%
CERTIFIED POST-CONSUMER RECYCLED
CONTENT, ACCORDING TO CALRECYCLE
DATA CITED TODAY. THESE BAGS
DIVERT 183 MILLION POUNDS OF
PLASTIC FROM LANDFILLS EVERY
YEAR TO SUPPORT THEIR
MANUFACTURING. IN CONTRAST,
NON-WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE BAGS
RARELY CONTAIN ANY RECYCLED
CONTENT AND ARE NOT RECYCLED IN
CALIFORNIA, IF SB 1053 PASSES
THE THICK, RECYCLABLE PLASTIC
REUSABLE BAGS CURRENTLY MANDATED
BY THE STATE WOULD CEASE TO
EXIST. PASSING THE BILL WOULD
LIKELY TRIGGER AN INCREASED
PLASTIC USE AND LIMITING THE USE
OF 183 MILLION POUNDS OF
RECYCLED CONTENT, EXACERBATE
CARBON FOOTPRINTS, MOVE JOBS OUT
OF CALIFORNIA, AND RAISE THE
COSTS ON WORKING FAMILIES. I
CAN'T EMPHASIZE ENOUGH THIS BILL
IS STRUCTURED NOT TO REDUCE
PLASTIC, BUT TO SUBSTITUTE
PLASTIC. WE URGE YOU TO VOTE
AGAINST IT, AND WE INVITE
COLLABORATION TO CREATE A MORE
EFFECTIVE SOLUTION. WE THANK YOU
FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU SIR.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, OTHER
FOLKS WHO WANT TO EXPRESS
CONCERNS ABOUT THE BILL OR
OPPOSITION, IF YOU COULD JUST
COME TO THE MIC AND EXPRESS YOUR
TELL US YOUR NAME AND
AFFILIATION. DYLAN FINLEY, ON
BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
PLASTIC RECYCLERS, THE RECYCLING
PARTNERSHIP IN WESTERN PLASTICS
ASSOCIATION, OPPOSED, UNLESS
AMENDED. RYAN, ELAINE, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA RETAILERS
ASSOCIATION, STILL NO OFFICIAL
POSITION HAVE CONCERNS. BUT
WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE. THANK YOU. BRIAN NILES,
CROWN POLY, A CALIFORNIA COMPANY
, OPPOSED. HELLO. TREY JOHNSON
FROM ÁP. ALSO OPPOSED. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN. ALBERTO
TORRICO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED
FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS,
WESTERN STATES COUNCIL OPPOSED
UNLESS AMENDED. GOOD MORNING,
AARON HALL WITH THE AMERICAN
FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION
OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED. THANK
YOU. CAROL PATTERSON WITH THE
FOOD SERVICE PACKAGING
INSTITUTE, OPPOSED. LAUREN
AGUILAR, ON BEHALF OF THE
FLEXIBLE PACKAGING ASSOCIATION,
OPPOSED, UNLESS AMENDED. CHRIS
QUIGLEY, PLASTICS INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION, OPPOSED. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL
BRING THE ITEM BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR DISCUSSION. I'D
LIKE TO FIRST START BY, ASKING
THE AUTHOR TO MAYBE RESPOND TO
SOME OF THE OPPOSITION CONCERNS
ABOUT ABOUT, YES, I'M HAPPY
PLASTIC USE. AND YOU KNOW,
WHETHER WHETHER THIS MIGHT
TRIGGER MORE PLASTIC. YES. THANK
YOU. WELL, SO LET'S JUST, LEVEL
SET HERE. THERE'S NO OBLIGATION
THAT GROCERY STORES TRY TO FIND
NEW LOOPHOLES. SO THE IDEA THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO FIND A
THICKER PLASTIC THAT CAN SOMEHOW
SLIP THROUGH THIS REGULATION,
AND THEN CONSUMERS WILL USE
THAT, AND IT WILL LEAD TO MORE
PLASTIC IN LANDFILLS. YOU KNOW
WHAT THIS BILL SAYS IS THAT
GROCERY STORES, AND PLACES THAT
SELL FOOD ARE CAN CAN SELL FOR
$0.10 A PAPER BAG. AND WE'RE
STILL HAPPY TO WORK ON THE
DEFINITION OF WHAT PERCENTAGE IS
RECYCLABLE IN PAPER. SO A PAPER
BAG OR A REUSABLE BAG THAT IS
CLOTH THAT IS MEANT TO BE REUSED
300 TIMES. SO, YOU KNOW, THE
REASON THAT WE'RE IN THIS
POSITION IN THE FIRST PLACE IS
THAT, CONSTITUENTS IN
CALIFORNIA, VOTERS IN CALIFORNIA
VOTED TO BAN PLASTIC BAGS, AND
THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING
THAT. BUT THEN BECAUSE OF THIS
LOOPHOLE THAT THAT WAS BASICALLY
ALLOWED THE ALLOWANCE OF
EXPLOITING THE NOTION THAT A
THICKER PLASTIC BAG COUNTED AS
REUSABLE AND RECYCLABLE WHEN IN
FACT IT'S NOT REUSED AND IT'S
NOT RECYCLED. AND TEN YEARS HAS
SHOWN US THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
CLOSE THAT LOOPHOLE. SO, I MEAN,
MY HOPE WOULD BE THAT THERE
WOULD BE OPERATING IN GOOD FAITH
TO SAY, HEY, WHY DON'T WE AS
GROCERY STORES, WHY DON'T WE
JUST STOCK PAPER BAGS AND THEN
ACTUALLY HAVE CLOTH REUSABLE
BAGS? THAT AND WILL MESSAGE AS
WE WERE SUPPOSED, AS THE LAW
SAYS, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE
MESSAGING AND EDUCATION ABOUT.
PLEASE BRING YOUR REUSABLE BAG.
IT IS SANITARY. IT IS BETTER FOR
THE ENVIRONMENT. WE'RE HAPPY TO
HELP YOU PACK IT. YOU KNOW ALL
THE REALITY OF WHAT DOES IT MEAN
TO TRY TO USE LESS OF A SINGLE
USE APPROACH AND MORE OF A
REUSABLE, APPROACH. AND SO, YOU
KNOW, I WOULD SAY SOME OF THE
REFLECTIONS ON WHAT OTHER STATES
ARE DOING IN NEW JERSEY. THEY
HAVE BANNED THE PAPER BAGS, TOO.
AND THEY DON'T CHARGE ANY MONEY
FOR THEM. SO IN CALIFORNIA, WE
ARE SAYING PAPER BAGS ARE
ACCEPTABLE TO FOR GROCERY STORES
TO PROVIDE CUSTOMERS TO CARRY
THEIR GROCERIES. AND THERE'S A
COST ASSOCIATED WITH IT. SO I
WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT THAT
DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE FOREGOING
. IN CONCLUSION. AND WE'RE
TRYING TO MAKE THE DEFINITION OF
A REUSABLE BAG CLEAR ENOUGH THAT
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE FILLED WITH
MORE PLASTIC. IT'S GOING TO BE
ACTUALLY CLOTH AND REUSABLE, AND
PEOPLE WILL REUSE IT. OKAY.
THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS
THOUGHTS COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. SO VICE CHAIR OH GOD,
WHERE TO START? SO FIRST OF ALL,
I WAS HERE TEN YEARS AGO WHEN WE
DID WHATEVER IT WAS, SB 271, I
THINK IT WAS. AND I VOTED
AGAINST THAT BILL AND I'LL WAS
IT 271? NO, TWO 7270, AND WHY
DID I VOTE AGAINST THE BILL? NOT
BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD
RECYCLE. I THINK WE SHOULD
RECYCLE BAGS. TOTALLY. AND I
COME FROM AN AREA WHERE WE HAVE
A LOT OF TREES, AND I LIKE PAPER
BAGS BECAUSE TREES MAKE PAPER
BAGS. THAT HELPS THE INDUSTRY IN
MY DISTRICT. BUT I WANT TO JUST
CALL SOME THINGS OUT HERE THAT
REALLY HAVE HAPPENED IN THE LAST
TEN YEARS AND WHY I'M FRUSTRATED
WITH, OUR, OUR LACK OF ACTUALLY
DOING THE RIGHT THING. WHAT IS
THE RIGHT THING? NUMBER ONE, THE
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY CAME OUT
AND SUPPORTED SB 270, AND SO DID
THE GROCERS AND WHY THEY WERE AT
OPPOSITIONS TO START WITH,
BECAUSE THE GROCERS HAVE A
LICENSE TO MAKE A LOT OF MONEY.
THEY GET TO CHARGE $0.10 FOR A
BAG. THEY BUY FOR A PENNY OR
HALF A CENT OR A PENNY AND A
HALF. SO THAT'S PROFITS. THEY
WERE NOT SUPPORTIVE UNTIL THEY
COULD MAKE THE MONEY. THE
ENVIROS CAME ON AND SAID, YEAH,
JUST CHARGE MORE MONEY AND
THAT'LL THAT'LL DIVERT PEOPLE
FROM USING THE BAGS. AND SO
EVERYBODY WAS HAPPY. BUT WE DID.
WHAT DID WE DO? NOTHING FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY
OF THE MONEY GOING TOWARDS
RECYCLING OR CLEANING UP THE
BAGS. THAT'S WHERE WE WERE. SO
NOW HERE WE ARE TEN YEARS LATER.
I HAPPEN TO USE THE PLASTIC
BAGS. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT I'M
BUYING. WHEN I BUY THOSE BAGS.
IF I'M PUTTING MEAT IN THEIR
CHICKEN, I DON'T WANT TO REUSE
MY BAG BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO
GET MY FAMILY SICK LATER AND I
ALSO SHUT UP SHOP AT TRADER
JOE'S WHO HAS, WHICH I VOTED FOR
IN EGGMAN BILL THAT HAS A
COMPOSTABLE RECYCLABLE BAG WHICH
I CAN PUT MY CHICKEN IN, AND
WHEN I THROW IT AWAY, IT GOES
AWAY. SO WE HAVE SOME OPTIONS
OUT THERE THAT WE DON'T USE, AND
WE END UP WITH THESE PIECES OF
LEGISLATION THAT QUITE FRANKLY,
ARE JUST PICKING WINNERS AND
LOSERS AND NOT REALLY FIXING THE
TOTAL PROBLEM. I USE THE HEAVIER
PLASTIC BAGS IN MY BATHROOM.
THAT'S WHERE I PUT IN MY LITTLE
CAN AND IT GETS PULLED UP. I TIE
IT OFF AND THROW IT IN THIS
WASTE. THAT'S PROBABLY WHY IT'S
NOT GETTING RECYCLED. SO I HAVE
A QUESTION. FIRST OF THE OF THE
GROCERS. WHAT ARE YOU ARE YOU
GETTING THE BAGS BACK? YOU'RE
SUPPOSED TO TAKE THOSE BAGS
BACK. AND WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH
THE RECYCLED CONTENT THAT YOU
SAID YOU WERE WE WERE DOING
PRIOR TO COVID, AND CAN YOU, CAN
YOU MAYBE GET IN THE WEEDS A
LITTLE BIT MORE ON THAT THROUGH
THE CHAIR, MISTER CHAIRMAN,
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, LOUIS
BROWN, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA GROCERS ASSOCIATION,
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT IN STATE
LAW AS OF RIGHT NOW THAT WE
ACTUALLY TAKE THE BAGS BACK.
SENATOR, WE DO HAVE ABOUT 40% OF
OUR INDUSTRY. THE BEST WE CAN
TELL. THAT DOES TAKE THOSE BAGS
BACK. NOW IT'S UP IN THE AIR AND
OUR MEMBERS WILL TELL YOU ON ALL
SIDES WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN
ACTUALLY FIND SOMEONE THAT WILL
ACTUALLY COME AND TAKE THOSE
BAGS BACK. SOME PUT IT WITH THE
OTHER FILM THAT THEY COLLECT,
AND WE DO RECYCLE A LOT OF FILM
PLASTIC THROUGH THE BACK OF OUR
STORES. BUT NOT ALL RECLAIMERS,
NOT ALL RECYCLERS ARE AVAILABLE
TO TAKE THAT. SO IT IS ALL
ACROSS THE BOARD, BUT THERE IS
NO REQUIREMENT FOR US TO TAKE
THOSE BAGS BACK, WE ARE SEEING
SIGNIFICANT LITIGATION OVER THIS
ISSUE, ON OUR MEMBERS AND WHEN
WE ASK CALRECYCLE TO TAKE A
POSITION TO HELP IN THOSE
LAWSUITS, THEY WILL NOT DO SO.
THEY DO NOT CLAIM THAT THESE
BAGS ARE RECYCLABLE, WHICH
LEAVES US IN THE UNTENABLE
POSITION OF HAVING TO COME AND
WORK ON ISSUES LIKE THIS. IT'S
LITIGATION ENVIRONMENT. IT'S
OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE DRIVING TO
US. AND THE ONE ONE OTHER POINT,
WE'RE NOT MAKING MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS ON THIS ISSUE, SENATOR.
WE ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO
UTILIZE THOSE FUNDS TO COVER THE
COST OF THE BAGS, PROVIDE
EDUCATION, AND ALSO PROVIDE
OTHER OPTIONS. IN THE LAST TEN
YEARS, THE PRICE OF THESE BAGS
HAVE GONE WAY UP. IF WE MOVE
TOWARDS ONLY PAPER, WE'RE
LOOKING AT BAGS THAT, DEPENDING
ON THE SIZE OF THE STORE AND
WHETHER OR NOT YOU PUT PRINT AND
ADVERTISEMENT, WHETHER OR NOT
YOU PUT HANDLES, PAPER BAGS THAT
ARE ANYWHERE FROM 11 TO $0.15 A
PIECE. THIS IS NOT A PROFIT
GENERATOR FOR STORES. IT MAY
HAVE BEEN BACK IN 2014 WHEN WE
STARTED THIS AND WE HAD THE
TRANSITION. IT IS NO LONGER.
WELL, I THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM CAL
RECYCLE THAT COULD TELL US WHY
WE'RE NOT RECYCLING THESE BAGS?
WHERE I MEAN, THE END OF THE
DAY, IF WE'RE SUPPOSED TO TRY TO
MARKET FOR IT. I MEAN, THAT'S A
BIG PROBLEM. I MEAN, THERE'S
AROUND THE WORLD, THERE'S IT'S
VERY HARD TO PROPERLY I KNOW
THERE'S SOME THERE'S A COUPLE
PROGRAMS OUT THERE, BUT IT'S
PRETTY PALTRY. BUT I SEE YOU
SHAKING YOUR HEAD IF YOU GOT
ALTERNATIVE INFORMATION FOR US.
I'M HAPPY TO HAPPY TO HAVE YOU
ANSWER, MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, I CAN INVITE YOU TO
COME UP TO OROVILLE, WHICH IS
APPARENTLY IN CALIFORNIA. WE
HAVE A SITE WHERE WE ARE
PRODUCING BAGS, BUT WE ALSO
RECYCLING ON SITES. SO WE HAVE A
RECYCLING FACILITY, A SMALL ONE
WHERE WE RECYCLE OUR RESIN AND
THEN USE IT TO PRODUCE BAGS
AGAIN. BUT WHAT'S YOUR ANSWER AS
TO WHY? SO WHY SUCH A MINUSCULE
PERCENTAGE OF THE PLASTIC BAGS
IN THE STATE ARE GETTING
RECYCLED AS YOU CAN HEAR, I'M
NOT AMERICAN, I'M EUROPEAN, AND
I'LL GIVE YOU A SIMPLE EXAMPLE.
IF I'M LOOKING TO MY HOUSEHOLD
IN AUSTRIA AND IN ITALY AND
COMPARE IT NOW TO THE US, I HAVE
IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE I HAVE
THREE PINS, AND IN APPROXIMATELY
I HAVE ANOTHER FIVE PINS. I'M
SEPARATING CLASS, I'M SEPARATING
PAPER, I'M SEPARATING ORGANICS,
I'M SEPARATING. AND I PUT
TOGETHER ALL THE FLEXIBLE
PACKAGING. I DON'T DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN THIS ONE AND THE OTHER.
I HAVE ALUMINUM AND THEN IT'S
FOR ME, IF I'M IN AUSTRIA AND
THE REST THERE IS NOTHING
BECAUSE WHAT I'M DOING AND MY
CHILD IS DOING IT IN THE MORNING
, WE ARE SEPARATING THE WASTE.
WE HAVE A BAG WITH THE ORGANIC
WASTE. WE ARE PUTTING THE
ORGANIC IN THE ORGANIC BIN,
TAKING THEN THE BAG AND THROWING
IT INTO FLEXIBLE PACKAGING. WE
HAVE THE FLEXIBLE PACKAGING AND
I HAVE ALSO A PLASTIC BAG HERE.
PUT EVERYTHING IN AND THEN
PUTTING INTO THE FLEXIBLE
PACKAGING, I HAVE MY PAPER, I
PUT IT IN A BAG MULTI SINGLE
STREAMING VERSUS MULTI STREAM
AND IT WORKS. YEAH. AND WHAT
PERCENTAGE OF YOUR PRODUCTS ARE
ACTUALLY GETTING RECYCLED. SO IF
OUR PRODUCTS I ONLY CAN TELL YOU
WHAT WE PUT IN FOR THOSE SHOPPER
BAGS OUT OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED
FOR GROCERS 40. AND AS SAID WE
ARE ALSO RECYCLING ON SITE AND
YOU'RE A PLASTIC BAG
MANUFACTURER. WE ARE WE ARE
RECYCLER AND PLASTIC BAG
MANUFACTURER IN OROVILLE. AND
YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT 40% OF
YOUR PLASTIC BAGS ARE GETTING
RECYCLED? I'M TELLING THAT 40%
OF THE CONTENT OF THE PLASTIC
BAGS IS RECYCLED. I MEAN, THAT'S
GOT TO BE 70 TIMES HIGHER THAN
ANY OTHER COMPANY AND STILL
BELOW 50. BUT BUT THAT'S GREAT.
I MEAN, I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT.
THAT'S HAPPENING, ONE OF THE
PROBLEMS WE HAVE IN THIS, IN
THIS SPACE IS JUST THERE'S BEEN
SO LITTLE PROGRESS ON, ON THIS
TOPIC, AND WE DO HEAR ABOUT ONE
OFF GREAT EXAMPLES. BUT WHAT I
WOULD REALLY KINDLY ASK YOU, IF
WE COULD PUT THE PLASTIC BAGS TO
ALL THE FLEXIBLE PACKAGING AND
ENCOURAGE THE CONSUMERS TO PUT
THEM IN THEIR BINS, AS I'M DOING
IT IN EUROPE? IT'S NOT ROCKET
SCIENCE. I CAN INVITE YOU TO
COME OVER TO AUSTRIA TO GERMANY,
TO ITALY, WHEREVER YOU WANT TO
GO. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THOSE
THINGS ARE COLLECTED. AND I
THINK THAT'S THE BIG LEG, IF I
COMPARE IT NOW TO CALIFORNIA, TO
OTHERS, IS TO COLLECTION OF THE
WASTE. OKAY, I KNOW BOTH OF YOU
ON ASK. I KNOW BRIAN WILL HAVE
SOME MORE QUESTIONS, BUT I'D
LOVE TO HEAR, SENATOR, IF I
COULD. SO NOT ONLY AM I THE
INTERIM DIRECTOR FOR ARPA, I
WORK FOR NOVOLEX. WE ARE A
PLASTIC RETAIL BAG MANUFACTURER
AND RECYCLER HERE IN THE UNITED
STATES. WE AS AN ARPA
ASSOCIATION DID RESEARCH BACK IN
DECEMBER BECAUSE WE'VE ALWAYS
STRUGGLED TO GET THESE BAGS
BACK. WE HAVE VERY FEW OF THEM
COME BACK AND VERY FEW OF THEM
WILL EVER COME BACK. WHAT WE'VE
LEARNED AND WHAT YOUR DATA IS
SHOWING YOU FROM CALRECYCLE IS
WE'VE SURVEYED CONSUMERS.
CONSUMERS ARE BUYING THESE BAGS.
THEY'RE TELLING US, CONSUMERS
TOLD US DURING ALL THIS HIGH
INFLATION WHEN GROCERIES WERE
GOING UP, THE LOWER YOUR INCOME,
THE MORE LIKELY YOU ARE TO BUY
THESE BAGS. I CAN'T STRESS THAT
ENOUGH. AND THERE'S A REASON FOR
IT. THE LAW REQUIRES THEM TO BE
2.25 MILS THICK. THE AVERAGE,
THE AVERAGE GARBAGE BAG IS 0.75.
THE LAW ALSO REQUIRES THEM TO
HOLD FOUR GALLONS. TYPICAL
KITCHEN GARBAGE BAGS ARE EIGHT
AND 12 GALLONS. THEY COST $0.25
AND $0.35. TWO OF THESE COSTS
20. YOU SAVE $0.05 ON TRASH
BAGS. THREE OF THEM COST $0.30.
YOU SAVE $0.05 ON YOUR TRASH
BAGS. PEOPLE ARE TELLING US
BECAUSE THEY'RE SO ROBUST
COMPARED TO A TRASH BAG. THEY'RE
USING THEM AS TRASH BAGS, AND
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE GOING TO
LANDFILL. IT'S NOT THAT PEOPLE
DON'T WANT TO RECYCLE THEM.
THERE'S MANY, NOT MANY LEFT.
CONSUMERS TOLD US IN A SURVEY IN
DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR IN
CALIFORNIA, OVER 60% OF WHAT
THEY'RE BUYING ARE BEING REUSED,
LIKELY HIGHER. THE WAY THE
QUESTION WAS ASKED, WE COULDN'T
GET FIDELITY ON IT. SO OVER 60%
OF THE BAGS ARE BEING PURCHASED
AND REUSED AS TRASH BAGS, WHICH
IS WHY WE'RE SEEING THEM IN THE
LANDFILL. SO THE COMPANY I WORK
FOR NOVOLEX, WE HAVE THREE
PARTNERS IN CALIFORNIA, AND WE
BRING BALES BACK FOR RECYCLING.
WE THESE ARE NOT BAG RECYCLING
PROGRAMS. THEY'RE FILM RECYCLING
PROGRAMS. WE COLLECT ALL KINDS
OF CONSUMER FILM, BACK OF THE
HOUSE STUFF FROM GROCERY STORES.
THE BAGS ARE MADE BY, YOU KNOW,
WITH 40% RECYCLED CONTENT BY LAW
IN CALIFORNIA. THAT'S SOMETHING
MAYBE WE COULD LOOK AT AN
ALTERNATIVE FOR THIS LAW TO
INCREASE THAT, BECAUSE WHETHER
IT'S A BAG OR OTHER FILM, IT'S
PLASTIC PULLED OUT OF THE
LANDFILL. SB 270 HAS BEEN A
MASSIVE SUCCESS. THERE HAVE BEEN
MULTIPLE RECYCLERS THAT HAVE
BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE US 183
MILLION POUNDS, A GOOD SIZE
RECYCLER, MAYBE JUST 25 MILLION
POUNDS A YEAR. YOU'RE TALKING 7
OR 8 COMPANIES THAT GO OUT OF
BUSINESS. AND THIS ALL GREW OUT
OF THIS. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR EVERYTHING THAT'S NOT
RECYCLABLE. YEAH, YEAH. MARK,
DID YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS TOO?
YEAH. MR. CHAIRMAN MEMBERS,
AGREEMENT WITH THESE LAST
COMMENTS. BUT I THINK IT
UNDERSCORES WHY THESE BAGS ARE
NOT A REUSABLE BAG. THEY'RE NOT
BEING USED BY THE CONSUMER AS A
REUSABLE BAG. ARE YOU SAYING
THAT PEOPLE ARE USING THEM AS
TRASH BAGS? THEY ARE THAT THAT
IS THAT'S NOT SOURCE. REDUCING
THE AMOUNT OF PLASTIC THAT WE'RE
GENERATING. THE OBJECTIVE OF
THIS POLICY WAS TO SOURCE,
REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PLASTIC
THAT WE'RE GENERATING. THIS,
THIS, THESE THICKER, REUSABLE
BAGS ARE NOT MEETING THAT TEST.
PEOPLE ARE NOT REUSING THEM AS A
GROCERY BAG. AS A RESULT, WE'RE
GENERATING MORE AND MORE OF
THESE BAGS. FRANKLY, WE'RE
GENERATING MORE OF THESE BAGS
THAN WE WOULD THAN ANY CONSUMER
WOULD NEED. AS TRASH BAGS FOR
THEIR BATHROOMS OR THEIR
KITCHENS. IT'S AN IMMENSE AMOUNT
OF THESE BAGS, MORE THAT COULD
BE USED AS TRASH BAGS. BOTH.
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
RECYCLED CONTENT REQUIREMENT,
NOT RECYCLABILITY OF THESE BAGS.
POST-CONSUMER RECYCLABILITY OF
THESE BAGS, THE MATERIAL THAT
THEY'RE USING IN MAKING THOSE
BAGS HERE IN CALIFORNIA AND IN
EUROPE, AND MR. RADZINSKY'S
FACILITY ARE NOT THE PLASTIC
BAGS THAT CONSUMERS ARE
GENERATING. THEY'RE THE PLASTIC
FILM FROM THE BACK OF THE
GROCERY STORE. THEY'RE NOT
RECYCLING POST-CONSUMER FILM.
THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN
RECYCLING PLASTIC FILM IN
CALIFORNIA. AND IT'S THEIR OWN
FAULT BECAUSE THEY ARE THE
RECLAIMERS. THEY ARE THE
PURCHASERS OF THE FILM FROM THE
GROCERY STORES, AND THEY'RE
PAYING THE GROCERY STORES FOR
THAT CLEAN, PRISTINE PLASTIC
FILM FROM THE BACK OF THE
GROCERY STORES, THE SHRINK WRAP.
THEY'RE NOT PAYING THE GROCERY
STORES WHEN THEY LOAD IN THE
SAME POST-CONSUMER MATERIAL. SO
THEY'VE HAD A PRODUCER
RESPONSIBILITY CHANCE TO
DEMONSTRATE POST-CONSUMER
PLASTIC FILM RECYCLING IN
CALIFORNIA, AND THEY FAILED. AND
WHAT'S YOUR SENSE OF THE SUCCESS
OF THE POST-CONSUMER RECYCLED
PLASTIC RECYCLING IN EUROPE?
THAT WAS JUST ALLUDED TO? I'M
I'M NOT I'M NOT SEEING
POST-CONSUMER FILM RECYCLING
SUCCESS IN EUROPE. I AM SEEING
COLLECTION PROGRAMS FOR
POST-CONSUMER FILM, BUT I'M NOT
SEEING IN RECYCLING MECHANICAL
RECYCLING AS WE DEFINE RECYCLING
IN CALIFORNIA AS BEING A SUCCESS
IN EUROPE, EUROPE HAS BEEN MORE
WELCOMING OF, OTHER TYPES OF,
TECHNOLOGIES THAT CONSUME
PLASTIC AND TURN IT INTO ENERGY
OR OTHER PRODUCTS. WE ARE NOT
SUPPORTING THOSE TECHNOLOGIES
HERE IN CALIFORNIA. OKAY. I'M
SORRY. I SORRY FOR HIJACKING,
BUT BUT BUT BUT YOU ASKED A GOOD
QUESTION. THIS IS THIS IS
EXACTLY. WELL, I MEAN, I'M
FRUSTRATED. I WANT TO RECYCLE
AND I DO. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT I'M
BUYING. AND I LIKE PAPER
NORMALLY. SO WHAT I TRY TO USE,
BUT IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES I USE
THE HEAVIER BAGS AND I THEN I
REUSE THEM. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT
HE'S SAYING. I USE THEM FOR
GARBAGE AND THEN I IT SAVES ME
MONEY ON MY GARBAGE PURCHASE OF
THE BIG BAGS, AND I JUST THROW
IT IN WITH WHATEVER'S IN IT GOES
INTO MY REGULAR GARBAGE BIN, SO
I WANT TO ASK THE SENATOR, THEN
SO WOULD YOUR. WOULD YOU BE
AMENDING YOUR BILL TO DO AWAY
WITH ALL POLY POLYESTER BAGS?
THAT'S THE. YEAH, MAKE SURE YOU
SAY IT RIGHT. SO WE SO IF YOU'RE
TRYING TO GET THAT OUT OF THE
WAY STREAM WE SHOULD TAKE IT OUT
THEN. RIGHT YEAH. I MEAN IT'S
STRENGTHENING THE DEFINITION OF
WHAT IS A REUSABLE BAG BECAUSE
RIGHT NOW THIS IS HOW THESE
THICKER PLASTIC BAGS ARE ENDING
UP THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. IS
THEY'RE QUALIFYING AS REUSABLE,
BUT THEY'RE NOT BEING REUSED AND
THEY'RE NOT RECYCLABLE. WELL,
THEY'RE NOT BEING REUSED FOR
WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO REUSE IT
FOR. YOU WANT THEM TO REUSE IT
AS A GROCERY BAG, BUT THEY'RE
USING IT FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
THAT'S WHAT I DO. I DON'T TAKE
IT BACK TO THE GROCERY STORE AND
REUSE THE BAG I BOUGHT AT THE
GROCERY STORE, BUT I DO RECYCLE
IT, SO THE ALTERNATIVE IS, WHAT
MAKES YOU THINK THAT THE
CONSUMER OR THE PERSON THAT'S IN
THE IS GOING TO REUSE THIS ONE
300 TIMES? WHAT MAKES YOU HAVE
CONFIDENCE THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY
GOING TO HAPPEN? THE POINT OF
THE BILL IS TO SAY, LET'S
ACTUALLY CREATE A REUSABLE BAG.
I MEAN, I THINK ALL OF US HAVE
PROBABLY PURCHASED THOSE AT SOME
POINT OR BEEN GIVEN THEM AS FREE
GIVEAWAYS AND HAVE THEM IN THE
BACK OF YOUR CAR SOMETIMES,
WHICH YOU MAY OR MAY NOT USE.
BUT. SO WHAT IS THAT? WHAT IS
THAT FEEL? WHAT IS IT THAT IT IS
MADE OF? HOW, HOW HOW LONG DOES
IT LAST EXACTLY. SO THAT'S WHY
CLOTH OR WOVEN TEXTILE WASHABLE
MEETS THE FABRIC WEIGHT OF
80G/M², NOT MADE FROM PLASTIC
FILM. YOU KNOW ALL OF THESE
DEFINITIONS OF LIKE WHAT IS A
REUSABLE BAG SO THAT WE DON'T
END UP WITH THE SAME, EVEN
THICKER PLASTIC BAG.
AND JUST ON, I HAVE A COUPLE OF
RESPONSES TO SOME OF THE THINGS
THAT HAVE SAID, IF YOU DON'T
MIND SHARING, PLEASE. SO ONE OF
THEM IS THAT I JUST WANT TO BE
CLEAR THAT THIS BILL DOES NOT
ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE PLASTIC
BAGS YOU PUT YOUR MEAT OR YOUR
PRODUCE IN. SO ANYTHING THAT'S
HAPPENING IN THE MARKET WHERE
YOU ARE WANTING TO MAKE SURE
THAT THERE'S PROPER HYGIENE,
THAT THOSE BAGS ARE STILL
ALLOWED, THIS BILL DOESN'T
ADDRESS THAT. AND TO THE POINT
OF THIS IS BEING REUSED OR
RECYCLED IN THESE OTHER WAYS BY
USING IT IN YOUR TRASH CANS AND
THINGS. OF COURSE, THERE IS SOME
PERCENTAGE WHERE THAT IS
HAPPENING, AND THERE ARE PEOPLE
WHO ARE PICKING UP PET WASTE AS
WELL WITH THESE BAGS. BUT DO YOU
NEED A LARGE GROCERY BAG TO PICK
UP A YOU KNOW, THIS AMOUNT OF
PET WASTE? SO THERE ARE SOME
AMOUNT OF THAT THAT'S HAPPENING.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE REALITY
OF WASTE HAULERS ARE HIRING
PEOPLE TO STAND NEXT TO CONVEYOR
BELTS AND PICK OUT PLASTIC BAGS,
AND BECAUSE THEY GUM UP THE
RECYCLING THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO
DO, OF THE THINGS THAT ARE
ACTUALLY RECYCLABLE, ALL PLASTIC
BAGS ARE BLOWING AROUND IN
LANDFILLS. AND LANDFILLS WILL
HAVE WILL HAVE FENCES ERECTED,
NOT TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT OR OR
OTHER THINGS FROM GETTING IN,
BUT TO KEEP THE PLASTIC BAGS
FROM BLOWING EVERYWHERE. AND
YOU'LL SEE THEM ALL BLOWN UP
AGAINST THE SIDES OF THESE
LANDFILLS. PLASTIC BAGS ARE A
SCOURGE, SO THE FACT THAT SOME
PEOPLE ARE REUSING THEM, IN SOME
CASES, I DO IT TO MY BATHROOM
TRASH RIGHT NOW HAS ONE OF THOSE
BAGS IN IT. BUT BUT THAT DOESN'T
MEAN THAT THAT'S THE SYSTEM THAT
WE WANT BECAUSE THAT HAPPENS TO
SOME DEGREE. I MEAN, THIS
PROGRAM IS NOT DESIGNED THE IDEA
THAT THIS IS HOW WE'RE
SUBSIDIZING LOWER INCOME PEOPLE
TO BE ABLE TO BUY CHEAPER
GROCERY BAGS OR, WASTE BAGS LIKE
THAT. JUST TO ME, IT JUST SEEMS
LIKE IT'S SUCH A STRETCH TO
JUSTIFY WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY
DOING WITH THAT EXPLANATION. YOU
KNOW, WE GET BAGS AT THE GROCERY
STORE. WE CAN EITHER DO LIKE
TRADER JOE'S, WHERE THEY ONLY
OFFER PAPER, YOU CAN DO, LIKE
COSTCO, WHERE THEY OFFER THESE
BIG, YOU KNOW, CONTAINERS THAT
ARE CARDBOARD, ESSENTIALLY, AND
YOU CAN TAKE YOUR STUFF HOME
THAT WAY OR AT SUPERMARKETS IF
YOU START TO DO A SURVEY OF WHAT
ARE SUPERMARKETS DOING, THEY ARE
USUALLY OFFERING YOU ONE OR THE
OTHER, PLASTIC OR PAPER. AND
THIS BILL IS SIMPLY SAYING,
LET'S JUST HAVE PAPER. AND YOU
CAN ALSO BUY A REUSABLE BAG IF
YOU WANT, YOU KNOW, GROCERY
STORE SELLING THEM. THEY COULD
SELL THEM FOR MORE THAN $0.10 IF
THEY WANT TO. THE REUSABLE BAGS,
I THINK LARGELY THEY ARE MORE
THAN THAT. I KNOW THE ONE I
BOUGHT AT THE CO-OP HERE, A
COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO IN
SACRAMENTO WAS $7, THE REUSABLE
ONE, AND I'M HAPPY TO HAVE THAT.
AND IT'S A GREAT BAG THAT I'M
REUSING. BUT GROCERY STORES ARE
SELLING EVERYTHING IN THEIR
MARKET FOR A PROFIT, LIKE
THEY'RE SELLING THINGS. THAT IS
WHAT THEY DO. SO THE FACT THAT
THEY WOULD SELL A BAG FOR MORE
MONEY, THAT YOU WOULD REUSE FAR
MORE THAN 300 TIMES, TO ME,
THAT'S OKAY. YOU KNOW, I DON'T I
DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
AND I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS
THAT GROCERS ARE ON BOARD WITH
THIS IS THAT THEY SEE THAT
CONSUMERS HAVE HAD IT WITH THIS,
THAT THEY PASSED A LAW TEN YEARS
AGO. THEY WANTED TO REDUCE
PLASTIC. THE GROCERY STORES
DON'T NEED IT. IT DOESN'T
ACTUALLY ADD ANYTHING OF VALUE
TO WHAT THEY'RE DOING. SO, YOU
KNOW, LET'S SIMPLIFY. LET'S DO
WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE
ENVIRONMENT. LET'S PROTECT OUR
COMMUNITIES. LET'S MOVE OVER TO
HAVING REUSABLE BAGS THAT ARE
TRULY REUSABLE, THAT ARE CLOTH
LIKE THIS ONE HERE THAT OUR
MEMBER HAS WITH HER OR LET'S
HAVE PAPER BAGS. OKAY, ANY
FURTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH. ALL
RIGHT. I'M SENSING SO LET'S
ESTABLISH A QUORUM. FIRST OF
ALL, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'VE GOT
FOUR MEMBERS HERE NOW. OKAY,
SENATORS. ALAN HERE. ALAN HERE.
DOLLY HERE. DOLLY HERE. GONZALEZ
ARCHULETA. ARCHULETA, HERE.
MENGIBAR, HERE. MENGIBAR. HERE.
NGUYEN. SKINNER AND AS YOU MAY
HAVE NOTICED, WE WELCOME OUR OUR
FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE, BOB
ARCHULETA, WHO IS REPLACING
SENATOR HURTADO TODAY ON THE ON
AT THE COMMITTEE. SO YES,
EXACTLY. YOU'RE. THAT'S RIGHT,
THAT'S RIGHT. SO WE VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE WELCOME TO WELCOME TO
Â C¯. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE
ROBUST DISCUSSION. I KNOW THIS
BILL HAS A LONG AND WINDING ROAD
AHEAD, BUT, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY,
A GOOD DISCUSSION. REALLY GOOD
DISCUSSION. THIS IS AN AREA OF
GREAT COMPLEXITY, AS MANY OF US
KNOW, AND YET I CERTAINLY
APPLAUD THE AUTHOR'S EFFORTS IN
TRYING TO ADDRESS THE CORE,
WASTE CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH
THIS ISSUE. AND IT'S REALLY
GOING TO SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY.
SO, SENATOR MENGIBAR, I THINK
HAS MOVED THE BILL, AND WE WILL,
GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CLOSE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE. ALL RIGHT, SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL SB 1053.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AS
AMENDED. AND RE REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATORS ALLEN Ã ALLEN. AYE.
DALLY NØ. DALLY NÓ GONZALEZ.
ARCHULETA Ã ARCHULETA. AYE.
MENGIBAR. MENGIBAR AYE. NGUYEN.
SKINNER ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S,
WE'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR, FOR
OTHERS TO ADD ON. WHY DON'T WE
LET YOU NOW GO TO ITEM FOR 1167?
OKAY. THANK YOU, SO THIS IS A
BILL ON A SIMILAR TOPIC, I
APPRECIATE HELLO. WELCOME, SO,
AS WAS HIGHLIGHTED DURING MY
PREVIOUS BILL PRESENTATION,
SINGLE USE CONSUMPTION IS
ATTRIBUTED TO A GROWING PROBLEM
OF WASTE THAT IS HARMING OUR
PLANET. WHEN WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT ADDRESSING WASTE, WE
FREQUENTLY HEAR REDUCE, REUSE,
RECYCLE, AND IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT THAT WE REMEMBER THE
FIRST TWO WORDS OF THAT REDUCE
AND REUSE INSTEAD OF IMMEDIATELY
JUMPING TO THE RECYCLE. BECAUSE
REDUCE AND REUSE ARE REALLY
IMPORTANT PARTS OF HOW OF HOW
WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO OUR
GOALS. SO WHEN WE'RE WHEN DINING
INSIDE OF A RESTAURANT, INSIDE
OF A RESTAURANT, THERE IS NO
REASON TO BE PROVIDED WITH
SINGLE USE CUPS THAT END UP IN
LANDFILLS. SO THIS IS
UNNECESSARY AND IT CONTRIBUTES
TO THE POLLUTION THAT IS
SUFFOCATING OUR PLANET. ALTHOUGH
CUPS ARE OFTEN MARKETED AS BEING
RECYCLABLE, MANY OF THE PAPER
ONES ARE ACTUALLY LINED WITH
PLASTIC AND OTHERS ARE JUST
PLASTIC, AND THEY ARE VERY
DIFFICULT TO RECYCLE. THIS
LEGISLATION WOULD REDUCE 110,000
TO 225,000. DISPOSABLE WHERE AND
PREVENT 1300 TO 2200 POUNDS OF
SINGLE USE TRASH FROM ENTERING
THE WASTE STREAM. SOME OPPONENTS
MAY CLAIM THAT THIS LAW IS
COSTLY OR DIFFICULT FOR
BUSINESSES TO FOLLOW, BUT THAT
IS ACTUALLY NOT TRUE. CASE
STUDIES SHOW THAT TRANSITIONING
TO REUSABLE, FOODWARE AND
BEVERAGE WEAR CAN SAVE A SMALL
BUSINESS BETWEEN 3000 AND
$22,000 EACH YEAR. SO NOT ONLY
WOULD BE SWITCHING TO REUSABLE
CUPS BE FINANCIALLY SENSIBLE,
BUT STUDIES SHOW THAT IT'S MORE
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE THAN
RECYCLING DISPOSABLE CUPS AND
WILL RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT
REDUCTION IN CARBON EMISSIONS,
SIMPLY REQUIRING LARGER CHAIN
RESTAURANTS WITH 20 OR MORE
LOCATIONS TO PROVIDE A REUSABLE
CUP FOR THOSE WHO DINE IN IS NOT
A TALL ORDER YET. THE IMPACT
WILL BE SIGNIFICANT, AND I'LL
SAY THAT STARBUCKS IS ALREADY
DOING THIS. SO IF YOU ARE HAVING
A COFFEE INSIDE OF STARBUCKS,
THEY ARE GIVING YOU A REUSABLE
CUP AND NOT GIVING IT TO YOU IN
A SINGLE USE CUP. SEVERAL CITIES
HAVE PASSED OR INTRODUCED
ORDINANCES THAT ADDRESS THIS
VERY PROBLEM, AND WE ARE HOPING
TO REPLICATE THIS HERE WITH THE
FOCUS ON THE FIRST OF THE TWO
CITIES. REDUCE AND REUSE. WITH
THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE
MY TWO WITNESSES IN SUPPORT.
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER DAN
KALB. THANK YOU FOR COMING. DAN
AND ALISON WALICZKY, DIRECTOR OF
POLICY AND PROGRAMS FOR FIVE
GYRES INSTITUTE. THANK YOU FOR
COMING. CHAIR. IS IT OKAY IF
THEY BEGIN, PLEASE? THANK YOU,
SENATORS CHAIR ALLEN AND
ESTEEMED MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ALISON,
AND I'M WITH THE FIVE GYRES
INSTITUTE, A SCIENCE BASED GROUP
IN SANTA MONICA THAT'S BEEN AT
THE FOREFRONT OF PLASTIC
POLLUTION FOR OVER 15 YEARS. I
ALSO SERVE AS THE CO-CHAIR OF
REUSABLE LÀ, A COALITION OF 30
GROUPS THAT CHAMPION REUSE FOR
ON SITE DINING IN LOS ANGELES,
ALONG WITH OUR FELLOW BILL
CO-SPONSOR, HEAL THE BAY, SB 54
HAS USHERED IN A POWERFUL NEW
ERA OF WASTE REDUCTION, AND SB
1167 BUILDS UPON THE FOUNDATION
LAID BY SB 54. BY TARGETING A
SPECIFIC AND PERVASIVE SOURCE OF
PLASTIC POLLUTION, SINGLE USE
CUPS IN CHAIN RESTAURANTS
ALREADY OVER 20 JURISDICTIONS
ACROSS CALIFORNIA HAVE
IMPLEMENTED REUSE FOR DINING,
WHILE SB 54 WILL ENSURE THAT
FOOD SERVICE WEAR, INCLUDING
CUPS, WILL BE TRULY RECYCLABLE
OR COMPOSTABLE, WE MUST CHANGE
BOTH CONSUMER AND RESTAURANT
BEHAVIOR TO REUSE FOR ON SITE
DINING TO PREVENT THIS TYPE OF
WASTE AT ITS SOURCE. EVERY YEAR,
BUSINESSES AND CITY GOVERNMENT
SPEND $6 BILLION ON WASTE
MANAGEMENT COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
DISPOSABLE FOOD WEAR, PACKAGING
AT FIVE GYRES. WE RECENTLY
PUBLISHED AN UPDATED GLOBAL
ESTIMATE THAT THERE ARE 170
TRILLION PIECES OF PLASTIC
AFLOAT IN THE WORLD'S OCEAN AND
LOCALLY IN LÀ HEAL THE BAY TRASH
CLEANUP VOLUNTEERS HAVE
COLLECTED 140,000 DISPOSABLE
PLASTIC CUPS AND LIDS IN THE
REGION SINCE 2001. SB 1167 WOULD
NOT ONLY ADDRESS SINGLE USE CUPS
IN THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT THIS
BILL IS ALSO AN INCREDIBLE
MEASURE TO SAFEGUARD THE PUBLIC
HEALTH OF 40 MILLION RESIDENTS
IN OUR STATE. DISPOSABLE HOT
CUPS OFTEN INCLUDE A MIX OF
POLYMERS THAT INCLUDE PROCESSING
AIDS, HEAT STABILIZERS, AND
OTHER TOXIC ADDITIVES. THEY ARE
LINED WITH THIN LAYERS OF
PLASTIC THAT CAN LEACH CHEMICALS
LIKE POLYETHYLENE AND POLYLACTIC
ACID, OR SHED MICROPLASTICS INTO
THE BEVERAGE. IF A CUSTOMER WERE
TO CONSUME THREE CUPS OF A HOT
BEVERAGE IN ONE OF THESE, THEY
WOULD BE EXPOSED TO 75,000
MICROPLASTIC PARTICLES. REUSABLE
CUPS WOULD PREVENT THIS TYPE OF
EXPOSURE. SB 1167 PRESENTS A
PRACTICAL SOLUTION TO THIS
PRESSING ISSUE. THANK YOU AGAIN
TO THE COMMITTEE FOR YOUR
ONGOING LEADERSHIP IN COMBATING
PLASTIC POLLUTION IN THIS STATE.
I URGE YOU, CHAIR ALLEN, AND
ESTEEMED MEMBERS OF THIS
COMMITTEE, TO PLEASE VOTE AYE ON
1167. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YES,
DAN, NICE TO SEE YOU. THANK YOU,
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR ALAN.
HONORABLE SENATORS, MY NAME IS
DAN KALB. I'M A MEMBER OF THE
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL. I'M BEFORE
YOU TODAY TO EXPRESS MY FULL
SUPPORT FOR SB 1167, A CRUCIAL
STEP TOWARDS ADDRESSING THE
URGENT, RELATED ISSUES OF
PLASTIC POLLUTION AND CLIMATE
CHANGE. AS AUTHOR OF OAKLAND'S
OAKLAND'S NEW REUSABLE FOODWARE
POLICY AND A MEMBER OF THE STOP
WASTE BOARD IN ALAMEDA COUNTY, I
WORKED IN COALITION TO CREATE A
CORNERSTONE OF AN AMBITIOUS
EFFORT TO MOVE AWAY FROM AN
UNSUSTAINABLE DISPOSABLE
ECONOMY. SIMILARLY AT A LARGER
SCALE, OF COURSE, THE CHAIR'S
LEADERSHIP ON SB 54 MARKED A
PROFOUND SHIFT TOWARDS A MORE
CIRCULAR ECONOMY AND AN EVEN
GREATER SHIFT AWAY FROM CERTAIN
DISPOSABLES. THAT THIS BILL
EMBODIES IS A LOGICAL NEXT STEP
TO FURTHER REDUCING PLASTIC
POLLUTION AND LITTER IN OUR
COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT EVERY
COMMUNITY IN OUR STATE. AS YOU
KNOW, THE DISPOSABLE CULTURE
PERPETUATED BY SINGLE USE
FOODWARE, INCLUDING PLASTIC
CUPS, HAS LED TO A STAGGERING
PLASTIC POLLUTION CRISIS WITH
MILLIONS OF METRIC TONS OF
PLASTIC ENTERING OUR OCEANS EACH
YEAR ACROSS MUCH OF THE STATE.
THIS A SIGNIFICANT EXCUSE ME
ACROSS MUCH OF THE STATE,
DISPOSABLE FOODWARE ACCOUNTS FOR
A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE
LITTER THAT POLLUTES OUR STREETS
AND WATERWAYS. THIS NOT ONLY
HARMS WILDLIFE, BUT ALSO POSES
HEALTH RISKS TO HUMANS. AS
MICROPLASTICS CONTAMINATE OUR
WATER SOURCES AND THE FOOD
CHAIN. TRANSITIONING TO
REUSABLES AS THIS BILL HELPS
MAKE HAPPEN, BENEFITS THE
ENVIRONMENT. AND ULTIMATELY,
ACCORDING TO DATA FROM RETHINK
DISPOSABLE SIGNIFICANTLY
PROVIDES A SIGNIFICANT
OPPORTUNITY FOR FINANCIAL
SAVINGS FOR MANY FOOD SERVICE
BUSINESSES, PASSING 1167 WOULD
REDUCE LITTER AND CARBON
EMISSIONS, HELPING THE STATE
ACHIEVE ITS ADOPTED ZERO WASTE
GOALS AND CREATE A MORE
SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR
GENERATIONS TO COME. I
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR AYE VOTE
ON SB 1167 TO FURTHER COMBAT
PLASTIC POLLUTION AND OUR
CONTRIBUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
TOGETHER, WE CAN MAKE A REAL
DIFFERENCE IN THE HEALTH OF OUR
COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME AND FOR YOUR GOOD WORK.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO YOU BOTH
, ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO WEIGH
IN IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL? GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS
ELIZABETH ESPINOSA HERE TODAY IN
SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF THE SANTA
BARBARA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. HI. KRISTEN GORI, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA COMPOST
COALITION IN SUPPORT. MICHAL
LEGARE, ON BEHALF OF THE
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION AND HEAL
THE BAY AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, KAREN LANG, ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO AND SUPPORT. PACIFIC.
KUDOS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP
COUNCIL IN SUPPORT. CHARLES
MILLER, ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES CLIMATE REALITY PROJECT
AND THE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY
CLIMATE REALITY PROJECT, IN
SUPPORT. MEGAN SHUMWAY, ON
BEHALF OF THIRD ACT AND
SACRAMENTO 350. IN SUPPORT.
SINCE CYNTHIA SHALIT ON BEHALF
OF INDIVISIBLE CALIFORNIA STATE
STRONG CHRISTINA SCARINGE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CENTER FOR
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND SUPPORT
, KRISTA ARENAS ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIANS AGAINST WASTE
CO-SPONSORS OF THIS MEASURE IN
SUPPORT. FOR CLIMATE ACTION
CALIFORNIA. THE GLENDALE
ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION, THE
CALIFORNIA COALITION OF CLIMATE
REALITY PROJECT, AND SANTA CLARA
CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. CHRISTINA
HILDEBRAND, ON BEHALF OF VOICE
FOR CHOICE ADVOCACY AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
STEPHANIE BARGER, DIRECTOR, TRUE
ZERO WASTE PROGRAM WITH THE US
GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL AND FULL
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
OKAY, OPPOSITION WITNESSES,
MAYBE YOU GUYS CAN MOVE OVER TO
THE CHAIRS OVER HERE. YEAH THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS DON KOEPKE WITH
MCHUGH KOEPKE PADRON ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS
AND TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION, IN
REGRETFUL OPPOSITION TO SENATE
BILL 1167, AS MANY OF YOU MAY BE
AWARE, CMTS MEMBERSHIP IS VERY
DIVERSE, REPRESENTING ALL OF THE
MATERIAL TYPES IN THE PACKAGING
SPACE, INCLUDING FIBER, PLASTIC,
METAL AS WELL AS GLASS, AS WELL
AS THE MANUFACTURERS, PRODUCERS
THAT UTILIZE THOSE MATERIALS IN
SINGLE USE PACKAGING. SINGLE USE
FOOD SERVICE WARE THAT PUTS CMTA
AND ITS MEMBERS IN A VERY UNIQUE
POSITION. IN 2022 OF WORKING
WITH THIS COMMITTEE AND A
VARIETY OF STAKEHOLDERS TO COME
TO A LANDMARK AGREEMENT UNDER
SENATE BILL 54. THAT BILL,
NOTABLY NOT ONLY COVERED SINGLE
USE PACKAGING, IT ALSO COVERS,
AS YOU'LL RECALL, SINGLE USE
FOOD SERVICE WARE AND PLASTICS
WITHIN THAT AS WELL. CMTA CAME
TO THAT NEGOTIATING TABLE IN
GOOD FAITH TO NEGOTIATE THAT
AGREEMENT. AND AS PART OF THAT
AGREEMENT, THERE WAS A CLEAR
AGREEMENT THAT WE WOULD NOT SEEK
TO BAN MATERIALS IN SINGLE USE
FOOD SERVICE WARE, BUT RATHER
PUT TOGETHER A PROCESS THAT
WOULD ENABLE THOSE MATERIALS TO
PROVE THAT THEY ARE NOT ONLY
JUST CAPABLE OF BEING RECYCLED,
BUT ACTUALLY RECYCLED AND OR
COMPOSTABLE. ADDITIONALLY, THAT
LAW LANDMARK LAW ALSO PROVIDED
SOME KEY ELEMENTS WHEN IT COMES
TO SOURCE REDUCTION, NOT ONLY
JUST FOR PLASTIC, SINGLE USE
PACKAGING, BUT PLASTIC SINGLE
USE FOOD SERVICE WEAR AS WELL.
SO IN THAT REGARD, THOSE SOURCE
REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS CGRTS DO
PROVIDE FOR LIMITING OVER TIME
PLASTIC SINGLE USE FOOD SERVICE
WEAR, INCLUDING CUPS BEVERAGE
VESSELS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF
THIS BILL THAT MAY CONTAIN OR BE
MADE OF PLASTIC. ULTIMATELY, WE
FEEL CMTA AND ITS MEMBERS DO
HAVE GREAT CONCERNS ABOUT SENATE
BILL 1167. AS WE HAVE SHARED
WITH THE AUTHOR, GIVEN THAT WE
DID COME TO THE TABLE
NEGOTIATING SB 54 IN GOOD FAITH
AND BELIEVE THAT IT IS A ROBUST
FRAMEWORK TO ADDRESS THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THIS BILL, WE WOULD
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE
COMMITTEE TO VOTE NO ON THIS
BILL IN DEFERENCE TO THAT
LANDMARK AGREEMENT THAT IS ONLY
JUST GETTING UNDERWAY WITH THE
REGULATIONS CURRENTLY IN THE
FORMAL RULEMAKING PROCESS. SO
FOR THOSE REASONS, WE MUST
REMAIN RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED TO
SB 1167. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
YES, SIR. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. CHAIR. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS PAT JOYCE, KP PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO SB 1167, THE CRA
HAS BEEN A PRODUCTIVE PARTNER IN
THIS BUILDING TO REDUCE, EXCUSE
ME, A PRODUCTIVE PARTNER IN THIS
BUILDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY FOR MANY YEARS AND IS
PROUD OF THE PROGRESS THE
STATEWIDE RESTAURANT COMMITTEE
HAS MADE. FOR INSTANCE, THE CRA
HELPED CREATE A STATEWIDE MODEL
TO REDUCE WASTE, ENSURING SINGLE
USE FOOD SERVICE ACCESSORIES ARE
, UPON REQUEST AND VOLUNTARY AND
NOT AUTOMATIC. THE CRA WORKED
PRODUCTIVELY AGAIN ON LARGER
EFFORTS, LED BY SENATOR ALLEN,
TO ESTABLISH REGULATORY
FRAMEWORKS TO EVALUATE EXACTLY
WHAT FOOD PACKAGING CAN AND
CAN'T BE USED THROUGHOUT THE
STATE, INCLUDING SINGLE USE
VESSELS TARGETED BY SB 1167. AND
MR. CHAIR, YOUR SB 1335 CREATED
A ROBUST REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
FOR CALRECYCLE TO DETERMINE WHAT
IS ACCEPTABLE FOR FOOD, WHERE
USE FOR RESTAURANTS OPERATING ON
STATE PROPERTIES, INCLUDING
STATE OFFICE BUILDINGS, PARKS
AND BEACHES, AND OF COURSE, THE
LANDMARK SB 54 HISTORICAL
ACCOMPLISHMENT WHERE THE INK
ISN'T EVEN DRY YET, AND THE
STATE ENTITY CHARGED WITH
IMPLEMENTING THIS NEW LAW JUST
EXTENDED THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD FOR GREATER ENGAGEMENT.
AND IF I CAN JUST MENTION ONE
IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGE WITH SB
1167, RESTAURANTS GENERALLY DO
NOT OWN THE BUILDING THEY
OCCUPY, AND AS SUCH CAN'T
INDEPENDENTLY MAKE CONSTRUCTION
RELATED CHANGES TO THEIR
PHYSICAL FOOTPRINT. FOR
INSTANCE, INSTALLING A
DISHWASHER, ADDITIONAL STORAGE
WOULD BE A CHALLENGE, AND AN
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. UNDER
SB 1167, A RESTAURANT GUEST
WOULD USE A REUSABLE DRINKING
VESSEL FOR ON SITE DRINKING, BUT
IF THEY WANT TO LEAVE, THEY
MIGHT GRAB A SINGLE USE CUP AND
FILL IT UP AND GO TO THE CAR SO
THEY'RE STILL GOING TO BE USING
IT, SB 1167 WOULD RESULT IN
RESTAURANTS USING MORE WATER AND
ENERGY WITH THE ADDITIONAL
DISHWASHING THAT WOULD BE
NECESSARY, AND THOSE FACTORS
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. WHILE
RESTAURANTS TARGETED BY 1167 ARE
GENERALLY UNDER LARGER BRAND
NAMES, THE REALITY IS THAT MANY
OF THOSE ARE INDIVIDUAL
NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANTS
OPERATORS, THE SAME ONES
CURRENTLY STRUGGLING TO DEAL
WITH THE RECENT INCREASE IN
LABOR COST, SUCH AS THE
OVERNIGHT $4 MINIMUM WAGE
INCREASE THAT JUST TOOK EFFECT
ON APRIL 1ST. FOR THESE REASONS
AND OTHER REASONS, WE STRONGLY
OPPOSE SB 1167 AND RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE TODAY.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU,
FOLKS, YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN IN
OPPOSITION ON. MR. CHAIR, ARMAND
FELICIANO, ON BEHALF OF THE
AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL, IN
OPPOSITION, THANK YOU. PAUL
GLADFELTER. EXCUSE ME, PAUL
GLADFELTER, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF FAMILY
OWNED BUSINESS, WE ARE OPPOSED
TO THIS BILL, STRONGLY OPPOSE
THE BILL. WE'D LIKE SB 54 TO
WORK, AND THAT'S OUR OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. AARON
HALL WITH THE AMERICAN FOREST
AND PAPER ASSOCIATION ALSO IN
OPPOSITION, AMELIA ZAMANI WITH
THE CALIFORNIA TRAVEL
ASSOCIATION AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING,
MATTHEW CAGLE WITH THE
INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISE
ASSOCIATION, OPPOSED. CAROL
PATTERSON WITH THE FOOD SERVICE
PACKAGING INSTITUTE ALSO IN
OPPOSITION. LAUREN AGUILAR ON
BEHALF OF AMERICAN, WHICH IS THE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR PACKAGING
IN THE ENVIRONMENT, ALSO IN
OPPOSITION. CHRIS QUIGLEY,
PLASTICS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION. MIKE TOPOLSKY WITH
FRONTLINE SAFETY OPPOSITION,
PUBLIC HEALTH TO PROTECT THE
WORKERS. WHAT? GOOD MORNING,
MISTER CHAIR BRADY VAN, ENGLAND,
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
IN OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING,
JONATHAN CHOI WITH DART
CONTAINER CORPORATION,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE. OKAY, WE'LL
BRING THE ITEM BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. LET ME LET ME I'LL
JUST START OUT WITH SOME
COMMENTS. AND I FIRST OF ALL,
WANT TO THANK, THE AUTHOR VERY
MUCH FOR HER COMMITMENT TO
ADDRESSING PLASTIC POLLUTION. WE
JUST SAW THAT IN THE LAST BILL.
THIS BILL CERTAINLY, I ALSO JUST
WANT TO POINT OUT THAT SENATOR
BLAKE SPEAR HAS BEEN, A REAL
CHAMPION ON INTERNAL PRACTICES
WITHIN OUR OUR CAPITAL ON THIS
ON THIS TOPIC. AND SO I'M JUST,
YOU KNOW, REALLY GLAD TO HAVE A,
YOU SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE
WE HAVE NEW MEMBERS COME IN IN
THAT CARE SO MUCH ABOUT THIS.
THIS IS OF COURSE, AN ISSUE
THAT'S BEEN REALLY NEAR AND DEAR
TO MY HEART, AS HAS BEEN
MENTIONED, SB 54 WAS THE PRODUCT
OF REALLY MANY YEARS OF
CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS AND
NEGOTIATIONS WITH BOTH
ENVIRONMENTAL AND INDUSTRY
STAKEHOLDERS, PLUS OUR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS, WHO OF COURSE WERE
THERE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING
AND ITS PASSAGE SIGNALS A REALLY
STRONG COMMITMENT ON THE PART OF
THE STATE TO, YOU KNOW, TO
SOLUTIONS THAT ADDRESS OUR
GROWING, OUR GROWING PLASTIC
POLLUTION CRISIS THAT WE'VE BEEN
DISCUSSING TODAY. A COUPLE OF
THINGS TO NOTE. IN ADDITION TO
SETTING REALLY AMBITIOUS TARGETS
FOR REQUIRING ALL COVERED
MATERIALS TO BE RECYCLABLE, YOU
KNOW, OR COMPOSTABLE BY 2032 AND
REQUIRING PRODUCERS TO REDUCE
THE AMOUNT OF PLASTIC COMING
ONTO THE MARKET BY 25. THIS BIG
SOURCE REDUCTION REQUIREMENT
THAT NO ONE ELSE IN THE WORLD
HAS. THE BILLS ALSO CREATED THIS
IMPORTANT POLLUTION MITIGATION
FUND THAT'S, GOING TO BE
GENERATING HALF $1 BILLION PER
YEAR FOR TEN YEARS. AND THAT'S
CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE'RE
PROUD OF. YOU KNOW, A KEY GOAL
WITH THE BILL ALWAYS WAS TO
CREATE A HOLISTIC FRAMEWORK FOR
TACKLING PACKAGING AND FOOD
WASTE POLLUTION, INSTEAD OF ONE
OFF MEASURES, AND, YOU KNOW, OF
COURSE, BEING COMPREHENSIVE LED
TO A, YOU KNOW, THAT REALLY
REQUIRED A ROBUST NEGOTIATION
AND ENGAGEMENT. AND I KNOW THAT
THE FOLKS WHO JOINED US IN THAT
EFFORT CAME TO THE TABLE, AS I
DID, IN GOOD FAITH. SO, AND
THANKS TO THE ONGOING COMMITMENT
FROM A LOT OF THE FOLKS IN THE
ROOM ON BOTH SIDES AND SO MANY
OTHERS, CALRECYCLE IS NOW IN A
ROBUST PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTING
SB 54 AND SETTING US ON A PATH
TOWARD THE GOALS THAT WE, THAT
WE HAD WITH THAT BILL. SO I
REMAIN REALLY COMMITTED TO WHAT
WE ACCOMPLISHED. AND I THINK
THAT WE I REALLY SINCERELY
BELIEVE THAT WE CREATED A TRULY
TRANSFORMATIVE PROGRAM THROUGH
THE, THE MONTHS AND IF NOT,
WELL, YET MONTHS OF PAINSTAKING
NEGOTIATIONS. SO THAT, YOU KNOW,
THE AUTHOR KNOWS THIS. I THINK,
YOU KNOW, FOLKS FROM THE, THE
SUPPORT SIDE KNOW THAT THIS JUST
PUTS ME IN A REALLY
UNCOMFORTABLE POSITION BECAUSE I
THINK, YOU KNOW, IN A NON 54
WORLD, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE BE
BE VOTING FOR SOMETHING LIKE
THIS. BUT I JUST GIVEN MY ROLE
IN 54, I JUST DON'T FEEL
COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THE BILL.
I'M GOING TO BE LAYING OFF
TODAY. AND THOUGH I CERTAINLY
ENCOURAGE MEMBERS TO EVALUATE
THIS QUESTION FOR THEMSELVES, I
WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR. YOU
KNOW, THE WORK HERE IS CERTAINLY
NOT DONE. AND ESPECIALLY AROUND
AREAS SUCH AS SOURCE REDUCTION
AND TRANSITIONING TO REUSABLE
AND REFILLABLE ALTERNATIVES. AND
WE'VE GOT ALL THESE GREAT
GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE
CO-SPONSORS OF THIS BILL. THE
REUSABLE LÀ COALITION, THEY'RE
DOING A LOT OF GREAT WORK AS I
KNOW DAN'S DOING IN OAKLAND TO
PUSH LOCALLY FOR REUSE POLICIES,
AND THEY SEE DINE IN AS THE MOST
LOGICAL NEXT STEP. AND THAT
MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME, AND
I THINK THIS IS, I AGREE, THIS
IS LOW HANGING FRUIT, FOR
INDUSTRIES TO ACHIEVE THEIR
MANDATES UNDER SB 54. AND I, YOU
KNOW, I SINCERELY BELIEVE AND,
HOPE THAT THESE GROUPS WILL
CATALYZE THIS TRANSITION. AND I
CERTAINLY SEE THIS AS A KIND OF
FIRST AREA FOR WORK WITH 54,
REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH
THIS BILL. SO I JUST WANTED TO
MAKE SURE FOLKS UNDERSTOOD WHERE
I WAS COMING FROM. I KNOW THE
AUTHOR KNOWS ALL THIS, BUT I'M
VERY INTERESTED IN HEARING I'M
SORRY, CHAIR WOULD YOU MIND IF
WE JUST RESPOND TO THE SB 54
PART BEFORE EVERYONE ELSE MAKES
THEIR COMMENTS? WOULD THAT BE
OKAY? SURE, AND I WANTED TO
INVITE ALLISON TO AS WELL,
BECAUSE HER ORGANIZATION HELPED
NEGOTIATE SB 54. SB 54 IS
CLEARLY TRANSFORMATION
FOUNDATIONAL. WE'RE SO GRATEFUL
THAT YOU AND ALL THE PARTNERS
CAME TOGETHER TO MAKE THAT
HAPPEN. I SEE THAT THIS BILL, SB
1167 BILLS, BUILDS UPON THAT
FOUNDATION OF SB 54. I JUST WANT
TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS.
SO CHAIN RESTAURANTS ARE BY
DEFINITION NOT PRODUCERS UNDER
SB 54. SO THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED
TO BE TO USE REUSABLE PRODUCTS.
SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT
WILL BE COMING IF WE WAIT A FEW
YEARS. THE DISPOSABLE CUP
PRODUCERS COULD MEET THE SOURCE
REQUIREMENTS IN SB 54 IN VARIOUS
WAYS, SUCH AS MAKING THEIR CUPS
THINNER OR LIGHTER. SO I SEE
THIS BILL AS SHARING THE SAME
ULTIMATE GOALS OF REDUCING
PLASTIC WASTE AND FOCUSING ON
THAT ON THIS VERY SPECIFIC,
CHAIN RESTAURANTS THAT HAVE OVER
20 BRANCHES DINING IN FOR CUPS
ONLY. SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS
AIMING TO BE THIS VERY SPECIFIC
THING. AND I'D LIKE TO INVITE
ALLISON TO ALSO ADDRESS THE SB
54 PART. YEAH, BUT OKAY. WELL,
FIRST OF ALL, IT IS COVERED
MATERIAL UNDER THE BILL, YOU
KNOW, THE, THE WE HAD KIND OF
POINT HOUSE SOURCE REDUCTION
THAT COULD THAT WAS, THAT WAS
PART OF OUR WHOLE, SOURCE
REDUCTION ASPECT OF THE BILL.
AND IT WAS REALLY THOROUGHLY
NEGOTIATED. SO I, I'M. I, YOU
KNOW, THIS IS A LITTLE UNUSUAL
HOW WE'RE DOING THIS, BUT I'M
HAPPY TO HEAR YOUR RESPONSE. AND
I DO WANT TO HEAR FROM THE
MEMBERS, BUT I IF. THAT'S NOT MY
UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE THE BILL
WHERE 54 LANDED. BUT YOU
CERTAINLY WERE INVOLVED AND I'D
LOVE TO HEAR YOUR PERSPECTIVE.
THANK YOU, SENATOR ALLEN. AND
SENATOR BLAKE SPEER. FIRST, I
WOULD JUST LIKE TO UNDERSCORE
THAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT BRINGING
REUSE AND A THRIVING CULTURE OF
REUSE AND REFILL ACROSS THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SO THAT
THAT UNDERSCORES THE
INTENTIONALITY BEHIND THIS BILL.
AND AS YOU YOURSELF SAID,
SENATOR ALLEN AND SENATOR BLAKE
SPEER, THIS IS THE LOWEST
HANGING FRUIT WHEN IT COMES TO
REUSE. JUST HAVING FOLKS SIMPLY
USE REUSABLE CUPS WHEN THEY ARE
DINING IN, SO WE REALLY WANT TO
UNDERSCORE THAT KEY POINT AND
THAT ULTIMATELY WE ALSO DON'T
VIEW THIS BILL AS A BAN ON,
SINGLE USE DISPOSABLE CUPS. BUT
WE'RE CREATING AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR BOTH CUSTOMERS AND
RESTAURANTS TO BUILD A CULTURAL
CHANGE INTO USING REUSABLES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
AND LET'S, LET'S OPEN. BUT BUT
YOU KNOW, THE WE WERE REALLY,
THE ISSUE THAT THE SENATOR
BRINGS UP IS A IS A VALID ONE.
IT WAS WHY WE WERE ALWAYS
CONCERNED TO BRING EVERYBODY
ALONG THE CHAIN INTO THE INTO
RESPONSIBILITY UNDER 54. SO THIS
WASN'T SO. YES, THE PRODUCERS
ARE PERHAPS THE MOST
RESPONSIBLE, BUT WE, FOLKS AT
THE, AT THE RETAIL, AND, AND THE
RESTAURANT LEVEL WERE BROUGHT IN
TOO. AND IT'S PART OF WHY THERE
WAS A LOT OF CONSTERNATION
INITIALLY. SO ANYHOW, LET ME GO
TO, TO THE VICE CHAIR. AND I
KNOW EVERYONE HAS COMMENTS AND
THOUGHTS. WELL, FIRST, AS
SOMEBODY WHO WORKED YEARS ON 54
AND ACTUALLY BIPARTISAN SUPPORT
FOR 54, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO
GIVE IT AN OPPORTUNITY TO LIKE,
GET THROUGH THE PROCESS. NUMBER
ONE. NUMBER TWO, YOU KNOW, WE
JUST HAMMERED RESTAURANTS WITH
THE $20 AN HOUR MINIMUM WAGE.
AND WE'RE GOING TO ADD NOW
DISHWASHING AND, YOU KNOW, ALL
THIS EXTRA WORK FOR THEM AND
QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK WHAT THE
OPPOSITION TALKED ABOUT, WITH IT
BEING, YOU KNOW, THEY RENT A
BILL, THEY HAVE TO RETROFIT.
THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT SET UP
TO DO THAT. THEY BASICALLY, YOU
KNOW, I THINK ABOUT IN AND OUT
OR ONE OF THOSE PLACES THAT YOU
GO THROUGH, YOU CAN DINE IN OR
YOU CAN GET IT TO GO, SO I THINK
THAT'S A BURDEN THAT IS TYPICAL
OF CALIFORNIA, THAT WE'RE GOING
TO JUST GO FOR IT NO MATTER
WHAT. WE'RE GOING TO SAVE THE
ENVIRONMENT. DOESN'T MATTER
WHAT, YOU KNOW, OUR BUSINESS
MODEL, AND THAT'S WE JUST KEEP
GOING. WE HAVE A PROCESS. PLACE
NUMBER TWO, IT'S BILL IS GOING
TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN 2025.
THAT'S VERY SHORT FROM NOW TO
GET TO GET IT DONE. AND ON
NUMBER THREE, IT'S GOING TO
ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO GO
OUT AND, YOU KNOW, BE THE POLICE
AND FINED THEM UP TO $300, I
THINK IT WAS 300 A YEAR, AND
THAT MONEY GOES TO THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. SO NOW YOU'VE GOT A
POSITION WHERE YOU GOT THE
BUSINESS THAT'S TRYING TO DO
WHAT'S RIGHT, AND YOU GOT LOCAL
GOVERNMENT OUT THERE FINING
THEM, AND THE MONEY DOESN'T GO
TO HELP THE ENVIRONMENT. IT JUST
GOES TO THEIR COFFERS. I MEAN, I
CAN'T SUPPORT THIS BILL AT ALL.
IT'S TOO MUCH, TOO FAST. AND I
JUST THINK IT SETS THE WRONG
PRECEDENCE. YOU'RE NOT WELCOME
IN CALIFORNIA. YOU CAN'T RUN
YOUR BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA.
WE'RE GOING TO TELL YOU HOW TO
DO EVERYTHING. AND AT THE SAME
TIME, WHEN WE DID A BIPARTISAN
APPROACH TO, SB 54, LET IT TAKE
A BREAK, TAKE A BREAK AND JUST
LET THEM GET THROUGH THE PROCESS
FOR A WHILE UNTIL WE START JUST
REGULATION. WE ARE LOSING
THOUSANDS OF BUSINESSES OUT OF
CALIFORNIA BECAUSE WE JUST
OVERREGULATE AND THEY'RE GOING
TO OTHER PLACES AND THEY'RE
SHIPPING THEIR PRODUCTS IN HERE.
IT'S HAPPENING TO MY BUSINESS.
AND I THINK, I THINK IRONIC, WE
HAD TO SEND 150 CHP OFFICERS TO
OAKLAND, AND THIS IS THE TOP
PRIORITY. IS, IS THIS WHETHER
YOU WASH A CUP OR NOT? IT'S
CRAZY. SO I'M VOTING NO. I MEAN,
FOR THE AUTHOR IT WAS IT'S A
VERY MODEST FINE, VERY, YOU
KNOW, BUT BUT BUT YEAH $300 A
YEAR. BUT BUT BUT IT CERTAINLY
YOUR ISSUES ABOUT THE PROCESS I
SHARE. SENATOR MENGIBAR THANK
YOU. I WANT TO, YOU KNOW,
REITERATE WHAT THE CHAIR SAID IN
THE BEGINNING, THE REASON WHY WE
HAVE REUSABLE CUPS RIGHT BEHIND
US. WE NO LONGER HAVE PLASTIC
WATER BOTTLES IS BECAUSE THE
SENATOR IN HER YEAR AND A HALF
HAS DRASTICALLY CHANGED HOW WE
APPROACH RECYCLING HERE. FOR THE
SENATE. SO SHE IS A LEADER IN
THIS SPACE 100. AND I'M NOT HERE
TO DISAGREE THAT THIS ISN'T AN
IMPORTANT TOPIC. IT IS 100. AND
IN THE PREVIOUS BILL THAT YOU
BROUGHT UP, IT'S ANOTHER, IT'S
ANOTHER MOVE TOWARDS ENSURING
THAT WE'RE PROTECTING OUR, OUR
PLANET AND WE'RE REDUCING SINGLE
USE PLASTIC. AND I DID SUPPORT
THAT BILL, AND HAPPY TO DO THAT.
BUT THIS BILL I MAY NOT I DON'T
AGREE WITH THE VICE CHAIR
REGARDING THE REGULATIONS. I
THINK WE DO NEED SOME
REGULATIONS. HOWEVER, THERE IS
CURRENTLY A SYSTEM WITH SB 54 TO
ADDRESS THOSE REGULATIONS. AND I
THINK JUST LAST MONTH, IN MARCH,
THERE WAS THE DEPARTMENT
RELEASED DRAFT REGULATIONS FOR
SB 54. SO WE ARE JUST ONE MONTH
INTO THE SOME DRAFT REGULATIONS
FOR HOW SB 54 IS GOING TO WORK,
I'M EXCITED FOR THAT TO COME TO
FRUITION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE
WE'RE REDUCING BY 25. AND I
THINK IT WAS AN APPROACH TO
REMOVE THE WHACK A MOLE.
APPROACH THAT OFTENTIMES WE HEAR
HERE, WE HEAR HERE IN EC RELATED
TO PFAS AND SO MANY OTHER THINGS
WHERE WE'RE WITH SB 54, IT WAS
AN UMBRELLA APPROACH, DIFFERENT
STAKEHOLDERS COMING TOGETHER.
THE SENATOR AND I, SENATOR KNOWS
THAT I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS BILL
BECAUSE I DO THINK IT WILL
HINDER OR IMPEDE WITH THE, A
WORK THAT IS GOING TO BE DONE
WITH SB 54. I'M ALL FOR BRINGING
DOWN REGULATIONS AND ENSURING
EVERYONE'S AT THE TABLE, BUT WE
DID THAT ALREADY WITH SB 54. I
WANT TO SEE HOW IT WORKS AND THE
SENATOR. YOU WILL STILL BE HERE
IN YEARS TO COME. IF SB 54 DOES
NOT PRODUCE THE FRUIT THAT WE
WANT IT TO PRODUCE, AND WE'LL
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME
BACK AND DO CLEANUP BILL FOR SB
54. BUT I THINK IT IS TOO
PREMATURE THIS TIME AROUND.
THANK YOU. OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS? OKAY, YEAH.
APPRECIATE VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE
THE DISCUSSION. AND BY THE WAY,
I MEAN, I AGREE THAT THE WHACK A
MOLE WE'RE TRYING TO GO TO MORE
COMPREHENSIVE. RIGHT? YOU
MENTIONED PFAS AND WE JUST
PASSED THE SKINNER BILL OUT ON
THAT ISSUE, WHICH I THINK WE'RE
ALL HOPING WILL WILL GET SOME
LEGS AND, YOU KNOW, THE
CHALLENGE HERE, THERE'S THIS
CONCEPTUAL IDEA BEHIND EPR,
WHICH IS, SOMETHING THAT WE JUST
SPENT HOURS AND HOURS
NEGOTIATING DURING THESE
CONVERSATIONS. HOW DO WE
APPROACH SOURCE REDUCTION AND,
YOU KNOW, SHOULD WE DICTATE TO
PRODUCERS WHAT SHOULD BE
REUSABLE OR SHOULD WE LET THEM
DO IT ON THEIR OWN? AND, YOU
KNOW, THEY WANTED DISCRETION.
AND SO IN RETURN, WE PUT IN
PLACE REALLY STRICT TARGETS,
INCLUDING REUSE AND REFILL
TARGETS, I CERTAINLY HOPE AND
BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS
WILL BE AN AREA WHERE THE
PRODUCERS WHERE THE WHERE THE
RESTAURANTS AND THE PRODUCERS
WILL. I THINK ULTIMATELY THEY'LL
GET BEHIND SOMETHING SIMILAR TO
WHAT YOU PROPOSED HERE. BUT THE
SYSTEM THAT WE SET UP, OF
COURSE, YOU KNOW, LETS THEM
DRIVE THAT IN RETURN FOR THESE
REALLY STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY
MEASURES. AND ANYWAY, THAT'S
WHERE THAT'S WHERE I AM. I THINK
EVERYBODY KNOWS IT. BUT, I
REALLY DO. I SINCERELY
APPRECIATE THE SENATOR'S
LEADERSHIP IN THIS AREA. AND I
KNOW WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING
REALLY CLOSELY TOGETHER,
ENSURING THAT THERE'S THAT WE
CONTINUE TO REALLY PUSH ON THIS,
ON THIS, ON THIS PLASTIC
POLLUTION ISSUE. THAT'S SO IT'S
SO IMPORTANT. AND WITH THAT, I'D
LOVE TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CLOSE. YES THANK YOU. SO I JUST
WANT TO SAY THAT I VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE SB 54 AND THE
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
FRAMEWORK. I THINK I'VE SAID
THIS IN OTHER COMMITTEES AND I
HAVE OTHER BILLS THIS YEAR ON
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
FOR MARINE FLARES AND. YEAH, AND
THE REALITY THAT THE
EXTERNALITIES OF MANAGING WASTE
ARE THERE. AND THE QUESTION IS
WHO IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR IT, AND ARE WE GOING TO
ALLOW IT TO POLLUTE OUR
ENVIRONMENT AND TO SUCH A DEGREE
BEFORE WE BEFORE WE ACT? AND I
SO I'M REALLY EAGER FOR SB 54 TO
KICK IN. YOU KNOW, THE EXTENDED
TIME FRAME THAT WE NOW HAVE FOR
MORE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MEANS
IT'S, YOU KNOW, FURTHER DELAYED
BEFORE WE SEE SOME THINGS THAT
ARE MAYBE MORE SPECIFIC. BUT BUT
I THINK THE REALITY IS THAT WE
ARE INCREASINGLY A SINGLE USE,
HIGH CONSUMPTION SOCIETY. AND WE
ARE NOT CHANGING THAT IN OUR
PRACTICES. AND YOU SEE THAT WITH
THE THINGS LIKE THE PLASTIC BAG
USE, YOU SEE IT WITH CHAIN
RESTAURANTS THAT USED TO SERVE
THEIR USED TO HAVE DINE IN THAT
WAS ACTUALLY ON A PLATE AND THEY
HAVE TRANSITIONED TO 100% TRASH
LANDFILLING. SO YOU'LL GET A
MEAL, A HAMBURGER, HOT DOG OR
NOT HOT DOG, BUT FRENCH FRIES,
SALADS AND IT'S ALL ON PLATES
WITH FORKS AND NAPKINS AND
LITTLE CONTAINERS OF PEPPER AND
SALT AND LITTLE THINGS OF
KETCHUP AND EVERYTHING JUST GOES
STRAIGHT FROM BEING EATEN. AND
SEVEN MINUTES LATER IT'S ALL
GOING TO THE LANDFILL. AND, YOU
KNOW, WE HAD THAT HERE AT OUR,
AT THE, AT THE STATE CAPITOL,
HERE AT THE LEGISLATURE WHERE WE
DON'T WE WEREN'T PROVIDING
PITCHERS OF WATER. WE'RE
PROVIDING PLASTIC WATER BOTTLES
HERE AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE IN
CALIFORNIA. THAT'S SUPPOSED TO
BE AN ENVIRONMENTAL LEADER. AND
I JUST TO ME, THIS BILL IS
REALLY ROOTED IN THE IDEA THAT
THAT I SEE THAT DYSTOPIAN FUTURE
WHERE WHERE INDIVIDUAL
HOUSEHOLDS ARE MAKING THE
DECISION THAT RESTAURANTS ARE
MAKING, WHERE INSTEAD OF DOING
DISHES AND SPENDING TIME TO WASH
AND EAT THINGS ON REAL PLATES,
THEY'RE PUTTING EVERYTHING INTO
THE LANDFILL, BECAUSE WE'VE MADE
IT SO CHEAP, AND IT'S EASIER AND
IT'S CONVENIENT. AND WHY WOULD
WE WASH DISHES AT HOME WHEN WE
COULD PUT EVERYTHING OUT INTO
THE WASTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO
DEAL WITH IT SOME OTHER TIME? SO
I KNOW WHEN I SERVED AS THE
MAYOR AND THE CITY OF ENCINITAS,
WE BANNED STYROFOAM IN
RESTAURANTS AND WE HAD SOME
INITIAL FEEDBACK FROM
RESTAURANTS WHEN IT WAS PROPOSED
THAT SAID, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO
SERVE OUR BAGELS AND THEY'RE
GOING TO BE SO MESSY WITH SAUCE
AND CHEESE AND EVERYTHING, AND
CONSUMERS WON'T LIKE THAT. WE
HAVE TO USE STYROFOAM. AND WHEN
WE DID IT ANYWAY, THEY ADAPTED.
AND EVERY NÓ RESTAURANTS WENT
OUT OF BUSINESS, EVERY
RESTAURANT IS SERVING IT IN
CARDBOARD NOW INSTEAD OF
STYROFOAM. AND WE DON'T. AND
STYROFOAM IS THAT UNIQUE
CONTAMINANT LIKE PLASTIC BAGS.
LIKE A LOT OF THESE THINGS THAT
LAST FOR A THOUSAND YEARS, THAT
WE DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON. SO TO
ME, WHEN YOU GO INTO RESTAURANTS
THAT ARE SERVING DINE IN AND YOU
SEE PLACES LIKE STARBUCKS THAT
ARE SERVING DINE IN WITH ALL
SORTS OF BEVERAGES, AND THEY ARE
ABLE TO HAVE A BUSINESS MODEL
THAT SERVES IT IN A REUSABLE
CUP. TO ME, THIS WAS WAS
NARROWLY TAILORED ENOUGH AND
IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT I, YOU
KNOW, WANTED TO BRING THE BILL
AND I RECOGNIZE THE REALITY OF
NOT WANTING TO DO WHACK A MOLE.
AND I ALSO COMPLETELY AGREE WITH
THAT. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT WE
NEED TO MOVE FASTER. WE NEED TO
NOT WAIT FOR A 25% REDUCTION AND
ALLOW THE SINGLE USE CUP TO BE
25% LESS THICK AND SAY, WE'RE
DOING WELL BECAUSE IN REALITY,
WE WON'T BE DOING WELL. WE'LL
STILL BE CONTINUING TO ADD TO
OUR WASTE STREAM WITHOUT
ACTUALLY MEANINGFULLY CHANGING
THAT. I HAVE HIGH HOPES THAT SB
54 WON'T END UP THAT WAY, AND
THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR WATCHING IT, BUT
IN THE MEANTIME, I THINK WE HAVE
TO ADDRESS THE SINGLE USE
CONSUMPTION REALITY THAT WE ARE
ALL PERPETUATING. TOLERATING AND
ALLOWING TO HAPPEN IN OUR
INDIVIDUAL CHOICES HERE WITH
WHAT WE OFFER AND ALSO WITH THE
RESTAURANTS AND THE WAY
BUSINESSES, BUSINESS IS, ARE
OPERATE IN THIS STATE. WE YOU
KNOW, WE HAD AN EXAMPLE OF
TESTIMONY FROM SOMEONE FROM
EUROPE WHO WAS TALKING ABOUT THE
WAY THEY MANAGE THEIR WASTE
DIFFERENTLY. AND THERE ARE MANY
DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO IT THAT
COULD DO IT BETTER. SO TO ME,
THIS IS AN AREA THAT WE CONTINUE
TO NEED TO WORK ON, I RECOGNIZE
THAT THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE THING
THAT MOVES FORWARD WITH THE
COMMITTEE, BUT IF IT IS
SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE WILLING
TO CONSIDER AS A SMALL STEP
TOWARD US NOT BEING SO RELIANT
ON SINGLE USE CONSUMPTION, I
WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
I VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SENATOR. REALLY, REALLY
APPRECIATE THAT. AND, YEAH,
WE'RE YOU KNOW, I THINK I THINK
AS 54 BECOMES MORE KIND OF KICKS
IN, WE WILL START TO, TO, TO, TO
CHANGE SOME OF THE CULTURE, BUT
WE ALL ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BIRD
DOG THAT VERY, VERY CLOSELY,
ANYWAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I
DON'T KNOW IF. WELL, I HAVE TO
ASK FOR A MOTION, I SUPPOSE, I
WILL MOVE THE BILL. OKAY,
SENATOR SKINNER MOVES THE BILL,
SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
SB 1167, THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
AND RE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS. SENATOR ALAN
DAWLEY. NO. DAWLEY, NO. GONZALEZ
ARCHULETA. MENGIBAR NGUYEN.
SKINNER. SKINNER AYE. OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SENATOR.
WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THAT ON. ON
CALL FOR OTHER MEMBERS THAT ON.
OKAY. LET'S GO, I HAVE ONE. OH,
THAT'S RIGHT, YOU'RE GOING TO
PRESENT SENATOR ATKINS BILL.
OKAY, SO SENATOR BLAKE IS GOING
TO PRESENT ITEM NINE, SB 1342,
WHICH IS SENATOR ATKINS. BILL ON
SAN DIEGO SECRET PROJECTS. THIS
IS ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC. YES LET
ME KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY. YEAH.
PLEASE PROCEED. OKAY, THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES, THIS IS SB
1342, AND I'M PRESENTING IT ON
BEHALF OF SENATE PRESIDENT PRO
TEM EMERITUS. ATKINS AS THIS
BILL WOULD AUTHORIZE. BUT NOT
REQUIRE CEQA STREAMLINING FOR
TWO KEY ENERGY AND CLEAN WATER
PROJECTS IN THE SAN DIEGO
REGION. THIS IS THE SAME CEQA
STREAMLINING THE LEGISLATURE AND
GOVERNOR APPROVED LAST SUMMER.
AND SB ONE FOR NINE FOR OTHER
ENERGY, WATER AND MICROCHIP
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. THAT
STREAMLINING WAS SUPPORTED BY
MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS AND
OTHERS TO BE CLEAR, PROJECTS
SUBJECT TO STREAMLINING RECEIVE
TWO KEY BENEFITS IN EXCHANGE FOR
MEETING HIGHER ENVIRONMENTAL AND
LABOR STANDARDS. FIRST, THE
PROJECT APPLICANT CAN PREPARE
THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FOR
THE PROJECT CONCURRENTLY WITH
THE LAND USE ENTITLEMENT,
THEREBY SHAVING MONTHS OR YEARS
OFF THE PREPARATION OF THE
RECORD. AND SECOND, TO THE
EXTENT THE PROJECT IS CHALLENGED
IN COURT, THE COURTS MUST
RESOLVE ALL CEQA RELATED CLAIMS
WITHIN 270 DAYS WHERE FEASIBLE.
AGAIN, THIS SHAVES MONTHS, IF
NOT YEARS, OFF THE PROCESS.
NOTHING IN CEQA STREAMLINING
WEAKENS ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
OR THE RIGHTS OF PARTIES TO
CHALLENGE PROJECTS. IT SIMPLY
SPEEDS UP KEY PROCESSES TO SHAVE
MONTHS OR YEARS OFF OF FINAL
APPROVAL. THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
INDICATED THAT CURRENT LAW MAY
ALREADY STREAMLINE CEQA FOR THE
SAN VICENTE PUMP STORAGE
PROJECT. THIS IS NOT ENTIRELY
CLEAR UNDER THE LAW, AND IF IT
IS, THERE IS NO HARM IN FURTHER
CLARIFYING AND PROVIDING MORE
CERTAINTY. THE AUTHOR IS WILLING
TO TAKE CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS
THAT THIS BILL DOES NOT MANDATE
CEQA. REVIEW OF THE SOUTH BAY
FACILITY SB 1342 IS SIMPLY AN
INSURANCE POLICY. IN THE EVENT
CEQA DOES APPLY. THERE ARE OTHER
STATUTES ON THE BOOKS PASSED BY
THE LEGISLATURE FOR A FOOTBALL
STADIUM IN THE CITY OF INDUSTRY
AND OTHER PROJECTS THAT WERE
NEVER BUILT. IF THE PROJECTS
REFERENCED IN SB 1342 DO NOT USE
THE SEQUEL, STREAMLINING, THERE
IS NO HARM. THE STATUTE WOULD
SIMPLY STAY ON THE BOOKS AND NOT
BE USED, JUST AS OTHER ELECTIVE
STATUTES ARE. SB 1342 IS
SPONSORED BY THE SAN DIEGO WATER
AUTHORITY. IT IS SUPPORTED BY
THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
TRADES, CARPENTERS, IRONWORKERS,
OPERATING ENGINEERS, TEAMSTERS,
SAN DIEGO CHAMBER, AND OTHERS.
AND WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO
INTRODUCE TWO KEY WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT. BOB GARO ON BEHALF OF
THE SAN DIEGO WATER AUTHORITY,
JEREMY SMITH, WITH THE STATE
BUILDING TRADES AND KIP LIPPER
OF SENATE PRO TEM, THE SENATE
PRO TEM IS SENATE PRO TEM.
EMERITUS OFFICE IS HERE FOR
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. AND JUST I
DO WANT TO CLARIFY, I THE
COMMITTEE IS NOT ASKING FOR
AMENDS. IT'S A DO PASS
RECOMMENDATION THÀNH. OKAY.
THANK YOU. YEAH, BUT WE'D LOVE
TO HEAR FROM YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU, SENATOR ALAN AND
MEMBERS, I FIRST, I REPRESENT
THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
AUTHORITY. WE'RE THE SPONSORS OF
THE BILL FOR SENATOR ATKINS. I
FIRST WANT TO THANK BRANT COOK,
THE COMMITTEE CONSULTANT, FOR
HER WORK ON ON THIS ANALYSIS AND
, AND THE CONVERSATIONS THAT
WE'VE HAD ALONG THE WAY. I ALSO
WANT TO THANK SENATOR BLAKE
SPEER FOR, FOR PINCH HITTING FOR
SENATOR ATKINS TODAY, THE SAN
VICENTE PUMPED HYDRO FACILITY IS
A PROJECT THAT SENATOR ATKINS
HAS BEEN COMMITTED TO FOR A
NUMBER OF YEARS. SHE'S PASSED A
COUPLE OF BILLS, HELPING TO,
MOVE THE PROJECT ALONG AND
ACQUIRED STATE BUDGET MONEY INTO
DIFFERENT CYCLES TO HELP FUND,
DESIGN AND REVIEW THE SOUTH BAY,
WATER TREATMENT FACILITY LOCATED
IN THE CITY OF SAN ISIDRO, MANY
OF YOU MAY HAVE SEEN PRESS. I
DON'T THINK A DAY GOES BY THAT
WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THE THAT THE
PRESS DOESN'T REPORT ON THE
POLLUTION. THAT'S THAT'S
ENGULFED THE SOUTH BAY OF SAN
DIEGO. AND, AND SO THOSE ARE TWO
PROJECTS THAT THE REGION DIRELY
NEEDS TO, TO HAVE BUILT, SAN
VICENTE WILL PROVIDE POWER TO
100,000 CUSTOMERS IN THE REGION
AND RELIEVE THE GRID, AND THE
SOUTH BAY WATER TREATMENT
FACILITY. WHILE WE DON'T AT THIS
POINT KNOW IF WE NEED, A SECRET
PROCESS THAT THAT IS UNDER
DEBATE, WE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE
THEM THE ADDED TOOL IN THE EVENT
THAT AT AT ONE POINT WE NEED THE
PROCESS NEEDS TO BE STREAMLINED.
SO WITH THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE
COMMITTEE MAY HAVE AND ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. NEXT,
KEY WITNESS. THANK YOU. MADAM
CHAIR. JEREMY SMITH HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE STATE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL,
ALSO HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE
SAN DIEGO BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, WE
ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROJECT,
THESE PROJECTS AND SUPPORTIVE OF
THE BILL TODAY TO ADD THEM TO
THE ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP
PROGRAM THAT, IS ALSO KNOWN AS
KNOWN AS THE AB 900 PROCESS, ONE
OF THE, MAIN REASONS WE ARE
SUPPORTIVE TODAY IS THAT THERE'S
A PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT WITH
THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER
AUTHORITY, AND INSIDE THAT
PROJECT, LABOR AGREEMENT, ON TOP
OF THE LAYING OUT THE WAGES AND
BENEFITS, WORK HOURS AND WORK
PROCESSES, ARE SEVERAL ACTUALLY
11 TARGETED HIRE PROVISIONS. 60%
OF THE WORKERS ON THIS PROJECT
THAT, NEED TO COME FROM THE
WATER AUTHORITIES JURISDICTION.
AND 15% OF THE WORKERS ON THE
PROJECT NEED TO MEET ONE OF 11
DIFFERENT TARGETED HIRE
PROVISIONS, OF THOSE 11 HERE,
JUST A HANDFUL THAT A WORKER IS
A VETERAN, WORKERS WHO MAY HAVE
NO HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA OR GED, A
WORKER WHO HAS HOMELESS OR HAS
BEEN HOMELESS IN THE LAST YEAR,
A FORMER FOSTER YOUTH, A
CUSTODIAL SINGLE PARENT,
FORMERLY INCARCERATED OR A
GRADUATE OF A MULTI CRAFT CORE
PRE-APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM
THAT'S JUST A HANDFUL OF THE 11
THAT NEED TO BE MET ON THIS
PROJECT AT A 60% THRESHOLD, A
15% THRESHOLD, AS I SAID, 60% OF
THE WORKERS NEED TO COME FROM
THE WATER AUTHORITIES AREA. THIS
IS ONE EXAMPLE OF WHAT A PROJECT
LABOR AGREEMENT CAN MEAN. AND
WHEN WE FIND PARTNERS LIKE THE
WATER AUTHORITY TO, CREATE THESE
AGREEMENTS, IT'S GOOD FOR THE
COMMUNITY, GOOD FOR THE WORKERS,
AND GOOD FOR THE PROJECT
MANAGER. SO WE'RE HAPPY TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY AND URGE
YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. NOW WE CAN HEAR
FROM ANY. ME TOO. SO ANYBODY
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
? YOU WANT TO COME TO THE MIC
AND GIVE YOUR NAME, AFFILIATION
AND THAT YOU SUPPORT. MADAM
CHAIR CARLOS GUTIERREZ, ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL
OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES IN
SUPPORT, GREAT THANKS. MADAM
CHAIR, DON WILCOX, WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CONFERENCE OF
CARPENTERS IN SUPPORT. ALL
RIGHT. ANY OTHER ME TWOS? ALL
RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL? OKAY.
SEEING NONE, LET'S BRING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE. ANY COMMENTS BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS? WE HAVE A
MOTION. SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR I VOTE. EXCELLENT THERE'S
NO AMENDMENT. SO THE MOTION IS,
DO PASS TO APPROVE. OKAY ROLL
CALL. SB 1342, THE MOTION IS DUE
. PASS AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATOR ALAN DAWLEY GONZALEZ.
ARCHULETA. ARCHULETA. AYE.
MENGIBAR MENGIBAR. AYE. NGUYEN.
SKINNER AYE. SKINNER. AYE. THANK
YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ALL
THROUGH HERE. PORTANTINO OKAY,
GREAT. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR
PORTANTINO, WE'LL HEAR FROM YOU.
THIS IS ITEM NUMBER FIVE. SB
1147. I CAN SEE HIM THAT HE'S
BEEN IN AND OUT. OKAY, BUT WE
GOT HIM. OKAY THAT'S NOT ME. OH,
GOODNESS. GOOD MORNING, MADAM
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, TODAY I
PRESENT SB 1147, WHICH BUILDS
UPON THE WORK FROM A PREVIOUS
BILL IN 2018 THAT DIRECTED THE
STATE WATER BOARD TO ADOPT
DEFINITION AND MICRODUM
DEFINITIONS OF MICROPLASTICS AND
DEVELOP A STANDARD AND METHOD TO
TEST FOR MICRO MICRO PLASTICS IN
OUR DRINKING WATER. AS YOU ALL
KNOW, WE'VE BEEN SEEING MORE AND
MORE DATA AND STUDIES COMING OUT
ON THE PREVALENCE OF MICRO
MICROPLASTICS IN OUR IN RAIN,
DRINKING WATER, SOIL, AIR,
PRETTY MUCH EVERYWHERE, WE DO
KNOW, HOWEVER, THAT WHEN
INGESTED BY MARINE LIFE SUCH AS
BIRDS, FISH, MAMMALS,
MICROPLASTICS HAVE BEEN TOXIC
AND THE MECHANICAL EFFECTS
LEADING TO ISSUES INCLUDING
REDUCED FOOD INTAKE,
SUFFOCATION, ALL KINDS OF
THINGS. SO, RESEARCH FROM
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY AND RUTGERS
ALSO FOUND THAT 240,000
DETECTABLE PLASTIC FABRIC
FABRICS, FRAGMENTS, ARE TYPICAL,
IN A BOTTLE OF WATER. SO IT'S
IMPERATIVE THAT WE PRIORITIZE
MORE RESEARCH AND ANALYZE THE
PREVALENCE OF MICROPLASTICS AND
TRY TO COME UP WITH A STRATEGY
TO DEAL WITH THEM. AND SO THAT'S
WHAT THIS BILL SEEKS TO DO, IS
TO BUILD UPON THE, INFORMATION
THAT WE HAVE FROM IDENTIFYING
THE PREVALENCE OF MICROPLASTICS
AND TRY TO CREATE SOME SORT OF
STRATEGY TO DEAL WITH THEM. AND
SO I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE WHEN APPROPRIATE.
THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY Kò, I
DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY
WITNESSES. WE HAVE ANY
WITNESSES, THEN? METOO'S. NO, WE
HAVE SOME METOO'S. WE HAVE
METOO'S. BUT I DON'T THINK WE
HAVE ANY PRIMARY WITNESSES.
OKAY, SO, THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE
IN SUPPORT JUST COME TO THE MIC,
INDICATE YOUR SUPPORT, CHRISTINA
HILDEBRAND, ON BEHALF OF A VOICE
FOR CHOICE ADVOCACY. THANK YOU.
CHRIS ARENA'S IN SUPPORT OF THIS
MEASURE OF FOR CALIFORNIANS
AGAINST WASTE. MEGAN SHUMWAY,
RETIRED PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE IN
SUPPORT. REBECCA MARCUS,
REPRESENTING THE UNION OF
CONCERNED SCIENTISTS AND SUPPORT
. KATY MCCALLUM AND SACRAMENTO
RESIDENT IN SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHERS IN SUPPORT? OKAY,
THEN, THOSE OF YOU IN
OPPOSITION, DO WE HAVE A
REGISTERED OPPOSITION TO GIVE
THEM TIME OR. NO, NO. ALL RIGHT.
SO THIS IS ALSO IN EFFECT A ME
TOO VERSUS APOLOGIES. BUT THERE
WAS NO AND WE'LL BE BRIEF, MADAM
CHAIR, NOT IN OPPOSITION, JUST
NOTED SOME CONCERNS. WE'VE
STARTED HAVING CONVERSATIONS
WITH SENATOR PORTANTINO AND HIS
STAFF, ELOY GARCIA FOR THE
INTERNATIONAL BOTTLED WATER
ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING THE
STATE'S BOTTLERS. WE HAVE A NEW
RESPONSIBILITY ON BOTTLERS
IMPOSED ON THE BILL. WHILE FROM
OUR PERSPECTIVE, THERE ARE STILL
A LOT OF OPEN ISSUES ABOUT
RESEARCH ON THE HUMAN HEALTH
EFFECTS FROM MICROPLASTICS, ON
TESTING PROTOCOLS, ON TESTING
CAPABILITY AS IT RELATES TO
PUBLIC WATER SOURCES. SO WE WANT
TO WORK WITH THE SENATOR ON
ALIGNING THE DATES, ALIGNING
SOME OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES. SO
TAP WATER AND BOTTLED WATER ARE
TREATED EQUALLY. BUT WE DO
APPRECIATE THE LAST SET OF
AMENDMENTS, REMOVING SOME OF THE
DATES, UNDERSTANDING THAT
THERE'S STILL A LOT OF WORK TO
BE DONE. SO WE APPRECIATE THE
SENATOR'S EFFORTS AND LOOK
FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO WORK
WITH YOU. OKAY DENNIS ALBIANI
WITH AMERICAN BEVERAGE
ASSOCIATION. WE SHARE THE SAME
CONCERNS AS INTERNATIONAL
BOTTLED WATER ASSOCIATION. SOME
OF THE DATES, THE TESTING SHOULD
BE EQUIVALENT FOR BOTH WATER
SOURCES AND SOME OF THOSE AREAS.
AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. ANY OTHER OPPOSITION?
OKAY. SEEING NONE. LET'S BRING
IT BACK TO COMMITTEE, I HAVE A
COMMENT, SENATOR PORTANTINO, I
APPRECIATE YOUR BRINGING THIS
BILL. I THINK THAT, THE KIND OF
TRAGIC CIRCUMSTANCE WE'RE IN NOW
, I KIND OF REMEMBER BACK FROM
WHEN I WAS YOUNGER, ALL THE ADS
ABOUT BETTER LIVING THROUGH
CHEMISTRY. AND THEN, OF COURSE,
THE GRADUATE ABOUT, YOU KNOW,
THE FUTURE IS PLASTICS. THAT,
AND THIS ISN'T ONLY RELATE TO
PLASTICS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE
MICROPLASTICS. WELL, IT DOES IN
TERMS OF MICRO. BUT THERE THEY
ARE ALSO. SO, YOU KNOW, THE
STUFFED ANIMALS WE GIVE OUR
CHILDREN, THE, FLEECES AND SUCH
THAT WE WEAR, I MEAN, NOW, SUCH
THINGS AS THESE, BOTH MICRO
FIBERS AND MICROPLASTICS ARE SO
UBIQUITOUS THAT I'M AFRAID THAT
THERE THERE COULD BE BEYOND
SERIOUS HEALTH CONSEQUENCES
BEFORE WE'VE AT THE POINT WHERE
WE CAN'T REALLY PULL BACK. AND,
AND I THINK WE'RE STARTING TO
SEE THAT NOW WITH PFAS AND OTHER
MATERIALS, AND OF COURSE, OUR
GREEN CHEMISTRY PROGRAM HAS NOT
BEEN ABLE TO KEEP UP WITH THESE
THINGS. SO I, THIS IS IMPORTANT,
AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING
IT. AND I WISH THAT WE COULD WE
AND THE US EPA COULD ACT MORE
AGGRESSIVELY TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC FROM THESE DANGERS, BUT I
WILL SEE IF ANY, SINCE I'M BEING
CHAIR RIGHT NOW AND SEE IF
ANYBODY ELSE WILL EITHER BRING A
MOTION AND THEN I WILL HAVE THE
SENATOR CLOSE. OKAY. GREAT. WE
HAVE A MOTION FROM SENATOR
ARCHULETA AND SENATOR
PORTANTINO. YOU CAN CLOSE, THE
CHAIR MAY WERE OF THE SAME
GENERATION. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU
REMEMBER, BUT WHEN I WAS IN
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, WE ACTUALLY
HAD AN ASSEMBLY VÆ WHERE TWO
PEOPLE CAME AND PRESENTED ON HOW
PLASTICS AND POLYMERS WERE GOING
TO CHANGE OUR LIFE FOR THE
BETTER. AND IT WAS THIS ENTIRE
DOG AND PONY SHOW ON THE WONDERS
OF PLASTICS AND POLYMERS. AND IT
WAS LITERALLY AN OFFICIAL
ASSEMBLY WHERE THEY BROUGHT THE
ENTIRE SCHOOL TO LISTEN TO THIS
PRESENTATION. BACK IN THE, IN
THE 70S. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY
CAME TO YOUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,
BUT THEY CAME TO MY ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL IN NEW JERSEY TO PRESENT
THAT. AND HERE WE ARE, YOU KNOW,
SEVERAL DECADES LATER, TRYING TO
DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF
THAT PREVALENCE THAT YOU
ELOQUENTLY OUTLINED. SO
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
. ALL RIGHT. SO, THIS IS ALSO Dð
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS TO RULES.
OKAY. DO PASS TO RULES. SO WE
WILL DO A AND THAT MOTION IS
SENATOR ARCHULETA WILL DO A ROLL
CALL. ORIGINALLY IT WAS ONLY SB
1147. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS AND
RE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON
RULES. SENATORS ALLEN DOOLEY,
GONZALEZ, ARCHULETA ARCHULETA I
MENGIBAR MENGIBAR I NGUYEN
SKINNER I SKINNER I. WONDER IF
THERE'S NO OTHER AUTHORS. SO
LAIRD LAIRD IS HERE. YES. SO WE
WILL NOW GO TO ITEM SIX SB 1188.
SENATOR LAIRD OUT OF MY I, I
KNOW IT'S REALLY SO BOTH THE
POLLS AND THE THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. MADAM ACTING CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, IT'S MY PLEASURE TO
PRESENT SENATE BILL 1188, WHICH
WOULD REQUIRE THE WATER BOARD TO
DEVELOP AND ADOPT MINIMUM
STANDARDS RELATED TO TECHNICAL,
MANAGERIAL AND FINANCIAL
CAPACITY OF SMALL WATER SYSTEMS.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT THE WORK
OF THE COMMITTEE, ON THIS AND AS
WE ALL KNOW, THERE WAS MANY AS
1.6 MILLION CALIFORNIANS WITHOUT
ACCESS TO CLEAN DRINKING WATER
AT THE PRESENT TIME, THERE'S
900,000 CALIFORNIANS IN 369
FAILING WATER SYSTEMS WITH
ANOTHER 619 WATER SYSTEMS AT
RISK WITH ANOTHER MILLION SIX
PEOPLE, OUR STRUGGLE IS TO
FIGURE OUT HOW TO GUARANTEE SAFE
DRINKING WATER TO ALL THOSE
PEOPLE. LAST YEAR I DID A BILL
SENATE BILL 1188, THAT ADDRESSED
THE PROBLEM THAT A LOT OF TIMES
A DISADVANTAGED SYSTEM IS NEXT
TO A SYSTEM THAT IS BETTER OFF
AND CAN HAVE THAT SMALLER,
DISADVANTAGED SYSTEM. AND NEXT
TO IT. BUT THE STATE LAW ONLY
ALLOWED THE SMALLER SYSTEM TO
GET THE GRANT, NOT THE BIGGER
SYSTEM, WHICH SOMETIMES IS THE
ONE TO NEED IT TO TAKE THE
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY IN THAT
BILL PASSED AND WAS SIGNED BY
THE GOVERNOR LAST YEAR. IN MY
OWN DISTRICT, I HAVE A NUMBER OF
SITUATIONS, BUT THERE'S ONE IN
PARTICULAR, THE BIG BASIN WATER
SYSTEM, WHICH WAS, IN PART IN
THE FIRE ZONE, AND THE CSU FIRE
AND THAT WATER COMPANY, WHICH IS
A PRIVATE WATER COMPANY, IS A
POSTER CHILD FOR WHY THIS BILL
IS NECESSARY. THEY DID NOT KNOW
WHERE THEIR SERVICE TERRITORY
WAS, WHO THEIR CUSTOMERS WERE,
OR EVEN HOW TO CONTACT OR BILL
THEIR CUSTOMERS. AND THEN, DUE
TO THE SETBACKS, THEY WENT BELLY
UP. IT IS COST ALMOST $900,000
OF PUBLIC MONEY, ALMOST ALL OF
IT FROM THE STATE, BUT A LITTLE
FROM THE COUNTY TO PROP UP THAT
SYSTEM SO HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE
DON'T LOSE THEIR SOURCE OF CLEAN
DRINKING WATER. AND SO THIS BILL
WOULD SET UP STANDARDS OF REALLY
ADMINISTRATIVE CAPABILITY FOR
THE SMALLER SYSTEMS. SO WE HAVE
THAT DISCUSSION BEFORE THEY GO
BELLY UP, NOT AFTER WHEN WE HAVE
TO PAY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OR
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AS MY STAFF
HAS ENGAGED WITH THE OPPOSITION
ON THIS BILL. AND WE WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK IF THIS BILL
MOVES FORWARD, I EXPECT THAT WE
WOULD TAKE AN AMENDMENT WHICH
WOULD SYNCHRONIZE THIS BILL WITH
THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY DEFINITION,
WHICH APPLIES TO A DISTRICTS
THAT SERVE LESS THAN 10,000
PEOPLE OR, LESS THAN 3300 WATER
CONNECTIONS. THERE WERE TWO
OTHER SUGGESTIONS THAT WERE MADE
ABOUT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND A
TECHNICAL ONE IN THE STAFF
ANALYSIS CGRTS. AND WE WILL, IF
THE BILL MOVES FORWARD, WORK TO
ADDRESS BOTH OF THOSE IN THE
NEXT COMMITTEE. AND SO, I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. AND HERE WITH ME IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL IS ABRAHAM
MENDOZA FROM THE COMMUNITY WATER
CENTER. THANK YOU, SENATOR
LAIRD, FOR THE INTRODUCTION. AND
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MADAM
ACTING CHAIR, MY NAME IS ABRAHAM
MENDOZA WITH THE COMMUNITY WATER
CENTER TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT OF
SB 1188. CWC IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE NONPROFIT, AND WE
ADVOCATE FOR SAFE, CLEAN AND
AFFORDABLE DRINKING WATER FOR
ALL CALIFORNIANS. OUR OFFICES
ARE LOCATED IN VISALIA,
CALIFORNIA, WATSONVILLE AND
SACRAMENTO, WHERE OUR TEAM WORKS
DIRECTLY WITH RURAL, LOW INCOME
POPULATIONS TO PROVIDE RESOURCES
AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR
COMMUNITIES THAT LACK ACCESS TO
SAFE DRINKING WATER. UNDER
EXISTING LAW, THE STATE DOESN'T
HAVE THE STANDARDS FOR
TECHNICAL, MANAGERIAL, AND
FINANCIAL OPERATIONS OF A WATER
SYSTEM, DESPITE THE WATER BOARD
STATING THAT TMF CAPACITY
LIMITATIONS ARE A KEY DRIVER
TOWARDS A WATER SYSTEM'S
INABILITY TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE
WITH SAFE DRINKING WATER
STANDARDS, EXAMPLES OF TMF
DEFICIENCIES CAN LACK CAN BE
LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE
DESIGNATED SERVICE AREA, AS THE
SENATOR MENTIONED, AND CUSTOMER
BASE AN INSUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF
CASH RESERVES, AND MORE. AND FOR
EXAMPLE, OUR TEAM IS PROVIDED
ASSISTANCE TO MULTIPLE SMALL
WATER SYSTEMS IN OUR SERVICE
TERRITORY WITH IDENTIFYING WATER
AND SEWER LINES THAT HAD BEEN
IMPROPERLY OR NEVER RECORDED AT
ALL. WE'VE WORKED DIRECTLY WITH
COMMUNITY RESIDENTS TO ENSURE
THAT THEIR BILL STATEMENTS WERE
ACCURATE, AND THAT PAYMENTS WERE
BEING CREDITED PROPERLY BY THEIR
WATER SYSTEMS, AND JUST LAST
YEAR, OUR TEAM ALSO WORKED
TIRELESSLY TO ENSURE THAT SMALL
WATER SYSTEMS HAD THE TECHNICAL
AND MANAGERIAL CAPACITY TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF AND APPLY FOR
EXPIRING DEBT RELIEF FUNDING ON
BEHALF OF THEIR CUSTOMERS. SB
1188 ESTABLISHES TMF STANDARDS
AND REQUIRES SMALL WATER SYSTEMS
TO MEET THESE STANDARDS WITHIN
TWO YEARS, THEREBY ENABLING THE
STATE TO BE MORE PROACTIVE IN
IDENTIFYING AND PREVENTING
PUBLIC HEALTH CRISES THAT
JEOPARDIZE OUR HUMAN RIGHTS OF
WATER. ON BEHALF OF THE
COMMUNITY WATER CENTER AND THE
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY MEMBERS
THAT WE SERVE, WE URGE THE
COMMITTEES I VOTE. OKAY. THANK
YOU. LET'S HEAR FROM ANYONE ELSE
WHO WANTS TO WEIGH IN IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL. SEEING NONE.
OPPOSITION YOU COME UP HERE AND
JOIN US. IT'S NOT LEAD
TESTIMONY. IT'S LIKE A ME TOO.
SO, DANIELLE BASSETT WITH THE
CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES
ASSOCIATION, WE HAVE OPPOSED,
UNLESS AMENDED, POSITION. BUT
SENATOR ALREADY TALKED ABOUT TWO
OF OUR ISSUES TODAY AND WE'RE
CONFIDENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
ABLE TO WORK OUT OUR ISSUES. SO
THANK YOU, SENATOR. AND THANK
STAFF AND THE COMMITTEE FOR ALL
YOUR WORK. OKAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. YES CHELSEA
HAYNES WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES. DITTO
CMA'S COMMENTS AND JUST LOOK
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU TO,
I THINK, MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT
MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE CLEAN
WATER DRINKING ACT. OKAY. THANK
YOU. GREAT, LET'S BRING IT TO
THE COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS? THOUGHTS MOTIONS.
OKAY. MOVED BY, SENATOR
ARCHULETA, I YOU'RE HAVING
CONVERSATIONS, I SUPPOSE, WITH
THE. YES THE FOLKS WHO CAME UP.
OKAY. AND AS A CLOSE, I WOULD
JUST SAY WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THEM. I THINK THERE'S
PLACES TO GO. I MENTIONED THEM
IN MY COMMENTS AND THIS IS A
GOOD BILL. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN IPHONE. OKAY? OKAY. ALL
RIGHT. SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL SB 1188. THE MOTION IS
DUE. PASS AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
SENATORS ALLEN I, ALLEN I, DOLLY
GONZALEZ ARCHULETA I ARCHULETA I
MENGIBAR MENGIBAR I NGUYEN
SKINNER I SKINNER I OKAY, GREAT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'LL HOLD THE ROLL OF HIM. ALL
RIGHT, SENATOR WIENER'S NEXT. I
SEE HIS STAFF HERE, BUT NOT HIM,
LET'S GO TO SENATOR MENGIBAR,
MAYBE TO PRESENT, SB 1497.
THAT'S ITEM 12. A MODEST BILL,
LITTLE, LITTLE THING. OKAY. YOU
CAN PROCEED WHEN READY. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
FELLOW COMMITTEE MEMBERS, FIRST,
REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK THE
COMMITTEE DID WITH MY TEAM ON
THIS BILL. APPRECIATE THE
ANALYSIS. I WILL BE ACCEPTING
THE AMENDMENTS. AS WE'VE HEARD
THE PHRASE, YOU BREAK IT, YOU
BUY IT. THAT IS EXACTLY THE
APPROACH. SB 1497 IS LOOKING TO
TAKE. THE TOP POLLUTERS ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR BREAKING SO MUCH
OF OUR ENVIRONMENT, SO NOW THEY
HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. SB 1497
REQUIRES POLLUTERS TO CONTRIBUTE
TO CLEAN UP THE DAMAGES THEIR
EMISSIONS HAVE CAUSED. WITHOUT
DOUBT IT. CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS
HAVE BEEN, WILL BE AND CONTINUE
TO BE LEFT TO FOOT THE BILL FOR
THE CLIMATE HARMS THESE
POLLUTERS CAUSE. THOSE
RESPONSIBLE SHOULD PAY TO CLEAN
IT UP FOR EXAMPLE, JUST TWO
YEARS, TWO FISCAL YEARS AGO, WE
ALLOCATED $9.3 BILLION BUDGET
CHAIR MEREDITH, YOU PROBABLY
REMEMBER THIS $9.3 BILLION TO
RESPOND TO CLIMATE CRISIS HERE
IN CALIFORNIA AND THE LÀ IN LA
COUNTY, WHERE, MR. CHAIR, YOU
AND I REPRESENT, IT'S BEEN
ESTIMATED THAT WE HAVE TO SET
ASIDE $12.5 BILLION DOLLARS OVER
A 15 YEAR SPAN TO ADDRESS THE
DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE EMISSIONS
OF OUR TOP POLLUTERS. NOW WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT A TINY FRACTION OF
ENTITIES. AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR
, AND I KNOW THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENT ALSO MADE CLEAR THAT
THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO UTILITY
COMPANIES. WE KNOW WHAT DATA
SHOWS US THAT WORLDWIDE, THERE'S
APPROXIMATELY SIX TÊ NINE
COMPANIES THAT WOULD FALL UNDER
THE THRESHOLDS OF THE POLLUTERS
THAT I'M LOOKING TO ADDRESS.
THAT'S A TINY FRACTION OF THE
REST OF THE COMPANIES. WE'RE
LOOKING TO ADDRESS POLLUTERS IN
CALIFORNIA THAT ARE EMITTING 1
BILLION METRIC TONS OF CO TWO
EMISSIONS. AND JUST SO YOU CAN
VISUALIZE THIS, THIS IS IF YOU
HAD A CAR THAT WAS 25 MILES PER
GALLON, DROVE AROUND THE
CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE EARTH, 113
MILLION TIMES, THAT IS HOW MUCH
1 BILLION METRIC TONS OF
EMISSIONS LOOKS LIKE. THIS ISN'T
A SMALL EMISSION CAUSING DAMAGE
TO OUR OUR OUR OUR STATE. NOW
I'M HAPPY TO SEE THAT CONGRESS,
OTHER STATES LIKE NEW YORK,
MASSACHUSETTS HAVE ALSO JUST
THIS YEAR IMPLEMENTED OR
INTRODUCED A SIMILAR BILL.
CALIFORNIA COLLEAGUES, WE ARE AT
THE CUSP OF BEING THE FIRST
STATE TO BE ABLE TO PUSH THIS
FORWARD. I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR
THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS
NOT GOING TO CUT JOBS. IT IS NOT
GOING TO BRING DOWN A COST DOWN
TO CONSUMERS. IT IS NOT A PIECE
OF REGULATION. NOWHERE IN THIS
BILL IS IT MANDATING ENTITIES TO
CHANGE WHAT THEY'RE DOING. WE
HAVE A LOT OF WORK. WE'VE DONE
INFRASTRUCTURE LEGISLATION THAT
WE'VE PASSED THAT ADDRESSES HOW
WE CAN HOW CAN HOW WE CAN REDUCE
EMISSIONS IN THE FUTURE. WHAT
I'M LOOKING TO DO IS A COUPLE OF
THINGS. 1497 WILL FIRST REQUIRE
THE FIRST EVER COMPREHENSIVE
STATEWIDE COST STUDY THAT WILL
BE LED BY EPA. IT WILL QUANTIFY
THE CLIMATE DAMAGE, DAMAGE
CAUSED TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. CAL EPA WOULD THEN
DEFINE THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
AS THOSE WHO DID BUSINESS IN THE
STATE AND EMITTED, LIKE I
MENTIONED, 1 BILLION METRIC TONS
OF CO2 WITHIN A 20 YEAR PERIOD
FROM 2000 TO 2020 VIA THE
EXTRACTION, PRODUCTION AND SALE
OF FOSSIL FUELS. AGAIN LOOKING
AT ONLY A TINY FRACTION OF
COMPANIES WILL ASSESS AN INITIAL
FEE ON THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
TO PAY FOR THE COST STUDY AND
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF THIS
PROGRAM. WE'RE DEALING WITH A
MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT IN
THIS IN THIS FISCAL, THIS BUDGET
YEAR, THIS IS A CREATIVE WAY TO
BRING REVENUE TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, TO NOT HAVE TO
FURTHER PUT THIS COST ON
TAXPAYERS AND AS WE'RE LOOKING
FOR, AS LEO MENTIONED, THE
UPCOMING YEARS OF DEFICIT WILL
CONTINUE TO BRING BENEFITS. NOW,
HOW DO WE KNOW THAT WE HOW DO WE
KNOW WHO TO ASSESS THE INITIAL
FEE ON FOR THE RESPONSIBLE
PARTIES? I MENTIONED THERE'S
CURRENT PUBLIC DATA RIGHT NOW
THAT SHOWS THERE'S APPROXIMATELY
69, ENTITIES. WORLD WIDE WE CAN
LOOK AT. AND THIS IS
SELF-REPORTED DATA THAT
COMPANIES ALREADY DO. AND THEY
REPORT TO THE SEC AND IS
AVAILABLE FOR ANYONE TO LOOK AT
NEXT, WE'RE GOING TO DIRECT EPA
TO OVERSEE THE PROGRAM. THEY'RE
GOING TO ASSESS AND COLLECT THE
FEES, LIKE I MENTIONED, FROM THE
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES WITHIN THE
20 YEAR PERIOD, AND THEN
CONSIDER AND ALLOCATE
EXPENDITURES FROM THE RESULTING
FUND TO ADDRESS CLIMATE DAMAGE
AND TO PROJECTS IMPLEMENTING
STATE CLIMATE POLICY. I'M
LOOKING TO ENSURE THAT MY
COLLEAGUES FOR THE NEXT DECADE,
AS WE CREATE THIS FUND, TO TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY AND ALLOCATE
WHERE THIS FUNDING IS GOING TO
GO FOR OUR COMMUNITIES, TO
ENSURE THAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING
TO OFFSET SOME OF THOSE DAMAGES
CAUSED BY EMISSIONS IN
COMMUNITIES LIKE MINE IN THE SAN
FERNANDO VALLEY AND THE CITY OF
BURBANK. WE KNOW NOW THAT THERE
IS A LEGALLY BONDED METHODOLOGY
FROM THE GLOBAL SOCIAL COST OF
CARBON THAT HAS A CALCULATION OF
$190 PER BILLION TON OF WHAT
WE'RE LOOKING TO CHARGE. THIS
ISN'T SET IN MY BILL. I'M JUST
GIVING YOU AN EXAMPLE OF HOW WE
CAN CALCULATE WHAT TO CHARGE
THESE ENTITIES. SO I'LL CONCLUDE
HERE. THIS BILL DOES NOT REDUCE
EMISSIONS. THERE ARE OTHER
INITIATIVES THAT ARE ON THE
TABLE THAT IS LOOKING TO DO
THAT. I'M NOT PROPOSING A TAX.
THIS IS A ONE TIME FEE THAT IS
RETROACTIVE OF IT WON'T BRING
DOWN ANY REGULATIONS ON THESE
ENTITIES. AND LIKE I MENTIONED
WITH THE AMENDMENTS, IT
CLARIFIES THAT THIS DOES NOT
INCLUDE UTILITY COMPANIES. IT
WON'T PASS DOWN TO CONSUMERS
BECAUSE WE IN THE LEGISLATURE
JUST LAST YEAR PASSED SB 1-2.
THAT PREVENTS PRICE GOUGING. SO
WITH THIS IN PLACE AND SB ONE
TWO, IT WON'T BRING DOWN THE
COST TO CONSUMERS. ADDITIONALLY,
BECAUSE THIS IS A TINY FRACTION
OF COMPANIES WE'RE LOOKING TO
HAVE PAY INTO THE FUND, YOU
COULD HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, ONE
ENTITY ON ONE STREET THAT PAYS
INTO THE FINE, ANOTHER ENTITY ON
THE OTHER SIDE THAT DOESN'T PAY.
AND IF THEY'RE NOT PAYING,
THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP THEIR
PRICES THE SAME COMPETITION
COMPETITIVE COMPETITION WON'T
ALLOW FOR THIS COMPANY TO RAISE
MORE BECAUSE THEY'LL LOSE EVEN
MORE CUSTOMERS. NOW I'M NOT A
SCIENTIST. I'M HERE TO REPRESENT
THE HUNDREDS OF COMMUNITIES THAT
ARE AT THE FOREFRONT OF SEEING
THESE DAMAGES. BUT I WANT TO
TURN, MR. CHAIR NOW TO THE
EXPERTS ON THIS TOPIC THAT HAVE
WORKED SO MUCH ON THIS. MY TWO
WITNESSES RIGHT HERE. HELLO,
WITNESSES RIGHT HERE ARE. GOOD
MORNING. I'M KASSIE SIEGEL. I'M
ATTORNEY AND DIRECTOR OF THE
CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL
DIVERSITY'S CLIMATE LAW
INSTITUTE, AND FOR OUR OVER
200,000 MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS
IN CALIFORNIA. WE ARE PROUD
SPONSOR OF SB 1497. THIS BILL IS
URGENTLY NEEDED. IT'S FAIR. IT'S
PRACTICAL TO IMPLEMENT, AND IT
IS WELL SUPPORTED
SCIENTIFICALLY, ECONOMICALLY AND
LEGALLY. THE POLLUTERS PAY
PRINCIPLE IS AT THE HEART OF OUR
LEGAL SYSTEM, AND THIS BILL IS
MODELED ON EXISTING FEDERAL AND
STATE LAW LAWS LIKE THE FEDERAL
CERCLA, THE FEDERAL SUPERFUND
LAW, WHICH REQUIRES POLLUTERS TO
HELP PAY TO CLEAN UP LEGACY
POLLUTION AND COURTS HAVE
REPEATEDLY UPHELD THE SUPERFUND
LAW AND HAVE HELD THAT
GOVERNMENTS CAN IMPOSE LIABILITY
K¾T FOR SUCH COSTS ON THOSE
COMPANIES THAT CREATED AND
PROFITED FROM POLLUTION. ANOTHER
ANALOGOUS BILL IS CALIFORNIA'S
CHILDHOOD LED POISONING
PREVENTION ACT OF 1991. IT
LIKEWISE ASSESSED A FEE ON
COMPANIES FOR CAUSING HARMFUL
POLLUTION IN THAT CASE, LEAD
CONTAINING PRODUCTS. THE FEE
WENT INTO A FUND THAT HELPS
VICTIMS OF LEAD POISONING TO
THIS DAY, AND SB 1497 SIMILARLY
ASSESSES A FEE ON A SMALL NUMBER
OF THE WORLD'S LARGEST
COMPANIES. WE'VE PROVIDED TO YOU
WRITTEN TESTIMONY FROM
SCIENTISTS FROM ECONOMIES CGRTS
FROM FIVE OF THE COUNTRY'S
LEADING ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
SCHOLARS WHO HAVE OPINE IN FAVOR
OF THE BILL BECAUSE IT IS WELL
SUPPORTED. CONSIDER IT WITH
EXISTING PRECEDENT AND WILL
WITHSTAND INDUSTRY ATTACK
WITHOUT THIS BILL, THE STATE
WILL CONTINUE TO STRUGGLE TO PAY
FOR THE MOUNTING CLIMATE
DEVASTATION THAT IS AFFECTING
ALL OF US, AND THAT'S CAUSED BY
FOSSIL FUELS. IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY
FAIR FOR SOME OF THE WORLD'S
LARGEST CORPORATIONS TO PAY FOR
THE DAMAGE THAT HAS BEEN CAUSED
BY THEIR PRODUCTS, AND THEY HAVE
THE CAPABILITY TO DO SO. EXXON,
DURING THE COVERED PERIOD FROM
2000 TO 2020, MADE HALF $1
TRILLION IN PROFITS. CHAU
CHEVRON 250 BILLION, AND SHELL
309 BILLION. THE CENTER
RESPECTFULLY ASKS FOR YOUR I
VOTE, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR
QUESTIONS. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS ARADHNA TRIPATI. I'M A
CLIMATE SCIENTIST AND A
PROFESSOR AT THE INSTITUTE OF
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY
AT UCLA AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC SCIENCES
THERE. I'M ALSO DIRECTOR OF UCLA
CENTER FOR DIVERSE LEADERSHIP IN
SCIENCE. THAT'S FOCUSED ON GREEN
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, WHERE WE
WORK WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS,
COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS AND
FOUR YEAR UNIVERSITY STUDENTS.
I'M A COAUTHOR OF THE FIFTH
NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT FOR
THE UNITED STATES, WHICH
EMPHASIZED THE CONSENSUS ON THE
PERVASIVE AND UNEQUAL DAMAGES
FROM CLIMATE CHANGE, AND MY
EXPERTISE CONTRIBUTED
SPECIFICALLY TO THE CLIMATE
TRENDS AND WILDFIRES SECTION.
I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE,
ENGINEERING AND MEDICINE BOARD
OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES AND
CLIMATE. NOW, MY KEY MESSAGE
TODAY IS THAT THERE IS A STRONG
SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION OF THE
BILL. WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT
CALIFORNIA CAN ATTRIBUTE THE
COSTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE THAT
HAPPEN HERE TO PARTICULAR FOSSIL
FUEL POLLUTERS, AS DIRECTED BY
THE BILL. WE KNOW THAT FOSSIL
FUELS ARE DRIVING THE CLIMATE
CRISIS. FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS
ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ABOUT 90% OF
HUMAN CAUSED CO TWO EMISSIONS,
AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF TOTAL
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. THE US
RIGHT NOW IS AT A TIME WHERE WE
HAVE $1 BILLION MORE DISASTER
EVERY THREE WEEKS BECAUSE OF
THESE FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS, AND
YET WE CAN TRACE THESE EMISSIONS
BACK TO A RELATIVELY SMALL
NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL POLLUTERS.
AS THE SENATOR MENTIONED, AND
INTERRUPT, BECAUSE WE GIVE THE
WE HAVE A LIMITED TIME. SO YOU
NEED TO WRAP UP. OKAY. THANK YOU
. NOW WITH THAT CLIMATE
ATTRIBUTION SCIENCE IS A
CONSENSUS SCIENCE THAT'S BEEN
USED IN HUNDREDS OF STUDIES. AND
WE CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS LIKE HOW
MUCH DID EMISSIONS INCREASE?
CLIMATE HAZARDS LIKE WILDFIRE
AREA BURNED. WHAT ARE THE COSTS
RESULTING FROM THOSE EMISSIONS?
THE COST ESTIMATES TEND TO BE
UNDER-INCLUSIVE AND THAT MAKES
THEM REALLY CONSERVATIVE. THANK
YOU. AND SO IN SHORT, USING PEER
REVIEWED APPROACHES BASED ON
ATTRIBUTION SCIENCE, EPA CAN
CONDUCT A CLIMATE COST STUDY AND
ASSESS A PROPORTIONAL FEE TO
RESPONSIBLE EMITTERS AS DIRECTED
BY THE BILL. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. LET'S SEE IF THERE'S ANY
OTHERS IN SUPPORT IN THE BILL.
PLEASE COME TO THE MIC. GOOD
MORNING, MELISSA ROMERO. WITH
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS
IN STRONG SUPPORT, I WAS ALSO
ASKED TO PASS ALONG THE SUPPORT
OF THE CLIMATE CENTER. THANKS
GOOD MORNING. I WAS ASKED TO
NOTE THE STRONG SUPPORT FROM
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE NETWORK, NEXT GEN SCOPE
AZUL 350, BAY AREA HUMAN IMPACT
PARTNERS, CENTER FOR CLIMATE
CHANGE AND HEALTH, BAY AREA
SYSTEM CHANGE, NOT CLIMATE
CHANGE, AND SIERRA CLUB
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. REBECCA
MARCUS, REPRESENTING CALPIRG,
THE UNION OF CONCERNED
SCIENTISTS AND ENVIRONMENT,
CALIFORNIA. AND I WAS ALSO ASKED
TO PASS ALONG SUPPORT FOR MY
COLLEAGUES AT CONSUMER WATCHDOG.
ALL IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. KATIE
MCCAMMON 350 SACRAMENTO. IN
SUPPORT. MEGAN SHUMWAY, THIRD
ACT AND SACRAMENTO AREA
CONGREGATIONS TOGETHER CLIMATE
JUSTICE COMMITTEE IN SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING, RICK MELMASON WITH
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE ALLIANCE AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. SAVANNA
JORGENSEN WITH THE LUTHERAN
OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY,
CALIFORNIA. AND STRONG SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING. KARUNA JAGGAR,
LONGTIME RESIDENT OF BERKELEY,
CALIFORNIA, IN STRONG SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING, THEO LARKIN,
OAKLAND RESIDENT IN STRONG
SUPPORT. TINA GALLAGHER FOR 350
SACRAMENTO AND STRONG SUPPORT.
JASON FEIFEL I WAS ASKED TO PASS
ALONG SUPPORT OF THE CLIMATE
REALITY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA
COALITION. THANKS. R.L. MILLER,
CLIMATE HAWKS VOTE WILDFIRE
SURVIVOR STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. VIÆT SHANKARA IS A STUDENT
CONCERNED STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE
AS WELL AS CLIMATE CITIZENS
LOBBY IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
DARRELL LITTLE WITH NRDC IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ELLEN
KESSLER WITH OIL AND GAS ACTION
NETWORK IN STRONG SUPPORT.
ABRAHAM MENDOZA, ONCE AGAIN ON
BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY WATER
CENTER IN SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING,
MICHAEL CLAIBORNE WITH
LEADERSHIP. COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE
AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. JANET COX IN SUPPORT
FOR ELDER'S CLIMATE ACTION.
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA CHAPTERS. THE
GLENDALE ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION
AND CLIMATE ACTION CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU. RENA TEO, SAN
FRANCISCO RESIDENT IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. PJ EUGENIO,
SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENT AND
SUPPORT. CYNTHIA SHALIT ON
BEHALF OF INDIVISIBLE CALIFORNIA
STATE STRONG AND ITS 60 CHAPTERS
ACROSS THE STATE. ANGELICA
CABANA, DIRECTOR OF SAM KHN AND
SUPPORT. TERESITA NAVA, SAN
FRANCISCO RESIDENT I STRONGLY
SUPPORT. RAMONA BONIFACIO ARE
SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENTS IN
SUPPORT? HELLO, MY NAME IS
THERESA DELYLAH AND A RESIDENT
OF SOUTH MARKET, SAN FRANCISCO.
STRONGLY SUPPORT. MONNING
SALEEM, A SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENT
IN SUPPORT. RAYMOND CASTILLO, A
SACRAMENTO RESIDENT IN SUPPORT
SACRAMENTO. CATALINA FLORES,
REPRESENTING THE STATEWIDE LULAC
LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN CITIZENS.
LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS. I WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND
AND THAT I AM 76 YEARS OLD. WHEN
I MOVED IN TO SACRAMENTO, WHEN I
WAS SORRY TO SHUT ME UP, YOU AND
DÍAS ESTAMOS EN APOYO DE ESTAR
LEGISLACIÓN NECESITAMOS C¯ ESTA
PERSONA ES UNA HEROINA AND
CAMBIAR LO ESTA CAMBIANDO EN LA
CLIMA MUCHISIMAS. GRACIAS. I
SUPPORT 1497. THANK YOU. I HAVE
TO BE IN THE POSITION OF. HI, MY
NAME IS MARTY BUCKLEY DELYLAH
AND I'M A RESIDENT OF SAN
FRANCISCO AND I STRONGLY
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. I NEVER LIKE
TO SHUT ANYONE UP. I JUST NEED
TO KEEP CONSISTENCY WITH OUR,
PROCEDURES, WE NOW NEED TO HEAR
FROM OPPOSITION. UNLESS THERE'S
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT, YOU
MIGHT NEED A OKAY OPPOSITION.
PLEASE, JUST. YOU CAN STAY JUST
AND ONLY THE REGISTERED
OPPOSITION AT THE TABLE. ONLY
THE REGISTERED. OTHERS ARE ME
TO. OKAY. GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING. DEVON. ENGLAND.
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
AND HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
1497. FIRST, I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR THE
CLARIFICATIONS, THE WAY THE BILL
WAS WRITTEN PRIOR TO, THE
COMMITTEE ANALYSIS, IT HAD A
VERY BROAD, SWEEPING
IMPLICATIONS THAT WERE DEEPLY,
DEEPLY CONCERNING. THE BILL
STILL IS DEEPLY CONCERNING,
FIRST AND FOREMOST, YOU KNOW, WE
AT CAL CHAMBER, YOU KNOW, WE SEE
THIS UNWINDING A LOT OF THE
PROVISIONS THAT WERE
INCORPORATED AS PART OF AB 398,
THAT INCLUDED SOME CLEAR
CONSIDERATION FOR COST
CONTAINMENT PROVISIONS, A LOT OF
THOSE PARTIES THAT WOULD BE
SUBJECT TO THIS ARE OBLIGATED
PARTIES WHO ARE PAYING ALREADY
AS EMITTERS, AS PART OF GRF. IF
THE LEGISLATURE AND THE AUTHOR
WANTS TO CONTEMPLATE, YOU KNOW,
THIS RESEARCH AS PART OF
SOMETHING WITH THE GRF FUNDS,
THEN THAT'S THE LEGISLATURE'S
PREROGATIVE. THAT IS UP TO THE
LEGISLATURE TO CHOOSE IF THEY
SEEK TO DO DO THAT. YOU KNOW
THAT THAT'S THEIR CHOICE. WE,
HOWEVER, WE DO THINK THAT THIS
IS A TAX PROP 26 MADE VERY CLEAR
THAT THERE IS A SIMPLE TEST OF
FIVE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS THAT
COULD BE ASKED THAT, YOU KNOW,
WOULD PRESENT THIS AS A TAX. THE
FIRST, IS THIS A CHARGE IMPOSED
FOR A SPECIFIC BENEFIT CONFERRED
OR PRIVILEGED? GRANTED THAT IS
NOT GRANTED TO THOSE NOT
CHARGED? THAT'S NOT THE CASE
HERE, IS THIS A CHARGE IMPOSED
FOR A SPECIFIC GOVERNMENT
SERVICE OR PRODUCT? NO, THAT'S
NOT THE CASE HERE. IS THIS A
CHARGE FOR REASONABLE REGULATORY
COSTS? NO, THAT'S NOT THE CASE
HERE EITHER. IN FACT, THE BILL
MAKES CLEAR IN THE LANGUAGE
ITSELF, IT'S FOR DAMAGES, NOT A
REGULATORY COST IS FAR EXCEED
REGULATION. IS THIS A CHARGE
IMPOSED FOR ENTRANCE TO USE OR
STATE PROPERTY? NO. AND IS THIS
A FINE PENALTY OR CHARGE IMPOSED
BY THE JUDICIARY OR STATE FOR A
VIOLATION OF STATE LAW? NO. IN
FACT, MANY OF THESE SAME
OPERATORS WERE OPERATING WHAT
THEY CONCEIVED, WHAT THEY HAD
PERCEIVED TO BE SAFE OPERATIONS
AS PART OF THEIR, YOU KNOW,
THEIR OPERATING PRACTICES, SO,
YOU KNOW, LOOK, CAL CHAMBER HAS
SUPPORTED TAXES IN THE PAST.
THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT. THIS IS
NOT THE RIGHT ONE, NOT THE RIGHT
CAUSE, AND, YOU KNOW, WE ARE
ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THIS
MEASURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
LET'S SEE IF THERE'S ANY. ME,
TOO, OPPOSITION AT THE MIC.
THANK YOU. SENATOR ALICE
KESSLER, ON BEHALF OF THE
WESTERN STATES PETROLEUM
ASSOCIATION, WE'D LIKE TO
ASSOCIATE OURSELVES WITH THE
CHAMBER'S COMMENTS AND THANK
SENATOR MENGIBAR FOR MEETING
WITH US. BUT REGRETFULLY, WE ARE
OPPOSED. GOOD MORNING. MEMBERS.
ROB SPIEGEL, CALIFORNIA
MANUFACTURERS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASSOCIATION IN STRONG OPPOSITION
TO DALLAS KESSLER, STAR WORK AND
GOOD MORNING MEMBERS. JACKIE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA FUELS
AND CONVENIENCE ALLIANCE,
RESPECTFULLY OPPOSED. PETER
BLOCKER OF THE CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION, IN
OPPOSITION. MONNING. IF YOU READ
MY PRESENTATION, THEN NO, YOU DO
NOT. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU.
COMMITTEE, I AM IN OPPOSITION OF
THIS BILL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, JEREMY
SMITH HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
STATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
TRADES COUNCIL, IN OPPOSITION TO
THE GENTLEMAN PERFORMING WITH
THE BOILERMAKERS UNION. I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS ON
THE RECORD. I WAS GOING TO ASK
YOU TO PLEASE MAKE HIS
AFFILIATION, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. ALL
RIGHT. WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. I'LL GIVE THE CHAIR
THE GAVEL. THANK YOU. THEY LET
ME PRESENT WITH LOCAL
GOVERNMENT. SO WE'RE ALL SET NOW
. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. SO LET'S OPEN UP TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS,
DISCUSSION, AND WE'LL START WITH
SENATOR SKINNER, I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING FORWARD
THIS BILL. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO
BE ADDED AS A COAUTHOR, YOU
KNOW, I APPRECIATE THAT OUR,
FOSSIL FUEL, INDUSTRIES AND
RELATED WOULD OPPOSE. I GET IT,
HOWEVER, I AND NOT TO THIS IS
WELL KNOWN, SO I'M NOT BRINGING
ANYTHING UP THAT ANYBODY DOESN'T
KNOW, BUT MAYBE WE AS A SOCIETY
AND THE UNITED STATES AS A
WHOLE, AND MAYBE EVEN
INTERNATIONALLY, THIS CRISIS
WOULD HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED MORE
SERIOUSLY. AND WE WOULD BE IN I
DOUBT WE WOULD HAVE AVERTED THE,
THE ANY CLIMATE CHANGE. BUT
MAYBE WE WOULD HAVE MADE A LOT
MORE PROGRESS AS OF TODAY, HAD
WE NOT EXPERIENCED DECADES. AND
WE'RE TALKING DECADES. AND THIS
IS BY PUBLIC RECORD OF FOSSIL
FUEL INDUSTRIES, FOSSIL FUEL
INTERESTS, BASICALLY PUTTING OUT
FALSE INFORMATION WHEN THEY KNEW
WHEN THEY KNEW THE SCIENCE. SO
THIS IS WELL DOCUMENTED PUBLIC
RECORD. AND SO IT WAS MUCH
HARDER TO COME TOGETHER AS A
SOCIETY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE.
AND WE'RE PRETTY LATE IN THE
GAME. SO I THINK BILLS LIKE THIS
ARE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT GIVEN
HOW LATE WE ARE IN THE GAME, AS
MUCH AS YES, IT AND ANYTHING WE
TAKE ON, THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO
BE, TRADE OFFS. BUT THE ABILITY
TO TRY TO LESSEN THE MOST
EXTREME DAMAGE OF THIS CRISIS AT
THIS POINT IS ESSENTIAL. SO I
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR FOR TAKING
THIS BILL ON. IT'S A BIG ONE.
AND, I DON'T REALLY HAVE A
QUESTION THAT YOU CAN ADDRESS.
WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE, BUT I
WOULD, WOULD LIKE TO BE A
COAUTHOR. AND WHEN IT'S
APPROPRIATE, I WILL MOVE THE
BILL. THANK YOU. SENATOR THANK
YOU. YEAH. SENATOR GONZALEZ. I,
TOO, WOULD LIKE JUST TO SAY
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR FOR
TAKING THIS ON. IT'S CERTAINLY
NOT AN EASY, FEAT TO DO, YOU
KNOW, GIVEN THE STAKEHOLDERS
INVOLVED, BUT I REALLY, WOULD
LIKE TO SAY THERE'S A REASON WHY
CITIES, ESPECIALLY LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES ACROSS THE GLOBE,
ARE ACTIVELY, LITIGATING THIS
ISSUE BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THERE
ARE DAMAGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE
AS TO, YOU KNOW, SENATOR
SKINNER'S POINT, NOT JUST TO
PUBLIC HEALTH, BUT ALSO TO MANY
OF THE CITIES IN TERMS OF
INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEGRADATION
OF LANDSCAPES AND BIODIVERSITY,
ETC. SO, REGARDLESS OF HOW
DIFFICULT THIS MIGHT BE, THIS IS
THE RIGHT THING TO DO. AND FOR
THAT, OF COURSE, I WOULD BE
HAPPY TO SUPPORT AND HELP YOU
ALONG THE WAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU SO MUCH, SENATOR. THANK YOU.
OKAY, I JUST BEEN MOVED, WE'LL
GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE
, THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR.
WE KNOW THAT SCIENTISTS RIGHT
NOW CAN QUANTIFY THE
CONTRIBUTION OF FOSSIL FUEL
EMISSIONS TO PARTICULAR CLIMATE
HAZARDS IN EXTREMES IN
CALIFORNIA NOW AND INTO THE
FUTURE. WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO
ESTIMATE THE DAMAGES THAT
CALIFORNIA HAS ENDURED FROM
THOSE FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS
DRIVEN CLIMATE HAZARDS. SOME
REPORTS RIGHT NOW ARE COUNTING
CEO PROFITS OR EARNINGS OF
CERTAIN OF THESE ENTITIES ARE
UPWARDS OF $17,000 AN HOUR. AN
HOUR. THESE AREN'T ENTITIES THAT
WE SHOULD HAVE ANY PITY OR ENVY
OR ANY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY
WON'T BE ABLE TO PAY INTO THIS
FUND. IT WILL BE PENNIES IN
COMPARISON TO WHAT THEY MAKE
ANNUALLY IN TERMS OF PROFITS.
AND THEY'RE PROFITING ON THE
BACKS OF COMMUNITIES, AND
THEY'RE PROFITING FROM THE
DAMAGES FROM THEIR EMISSIONS. AS
ONE OF THE OPPOSITIONS THAT WE
HEARD IN ME TOO ARE FROM THE
TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION. AND IN
FACT, I WOULD ASK THAT THAT
RIGHT NOW, IF WE DON'T LET THIS
BILL CONTINUE, IT'S GOING TO BE
ON THE BACKS OF TAXPAYERS RIGHT
NOW, TAXPAYERS ARE THE ONES ARE
HAVING TO PAY FOR THIS RIGHT
NOW. WE'RE ASKING TO RELIEVE
TAXPAYERS FROM THIS FINANCIAL
BURDEN AND PUT IT ON
CORPORATIONS WHO CAN ACTUALLY
AFFORD THIS, BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE
LOOKING AT OUR BUDGET AND WE'RE
LOOKING TO SEE WHAT WE'RE GOING
TO CUT, WHETHER IT'S CHILD CARE
OR OR FOSTER CARE, FOSTER CARE
SERVICES, WE SHOULD LOOK TO CUT
HOW WE SUBSIDIZE THESE ENTITIES
AND HOW WE TAKE ON THE FINANCIAL
BURDEN AND IT SHOULD BE PLACED
ON THEM. SO I'M ASKING
COLLEAGUES FOR US TO BE
INSTRUMENTAL IN THIS SHIFT IN
THE UNITED STATES, TO HAVE
CALIFORNIA BE IN THE FOREFRONT
TO ENSURE THAT POLLUTERS PAY
THEIR FAIR AND REASONABLE FEE,
ONE TIME FEE, NOT AN ONGOING
TAX, TO ENSURE THAT WE RECTIFY
SOME OF THE DAMAGES THEIR
EMISSIONS HAVE CAUSED WITH THAT,
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU, SECRETARY,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. SB 1497,
THE MOTION IS DUE PASS AND WE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
JUDICIARY. SENATORS ALLEN I,
ALLEN I, DOLLY GONZALEZ,
GONZALEZ I ARCHULETA. ARCHULETA
I MENGIBAR MENGIBAR I NGUYEN NØ
NGUYEN NØ SKINNER SKINNER I
OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'LL LEAVE
THAT OPEN FOR SENATOR DALTON.
ALL RIGHT. I SEE SENATOR WIENER
IS HERE TO PRESENT ITEM SEVEN.
THAT'S SB 1227.
GREAT. ONE MOMENT. OKAY. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR, FOR SETTING THIS
MATTER. THANK YOU, COLLEAGUES,
FOR HEARING IT, IS THIS FUN? ON
IS IT OKAY? THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR, FOR HEARING
THIS, THIS BILL, SB 1227. AND I
DO JUST WANT TO EXPRESS TO THE
CHAIR AND TO HIS STAFF MY
GRATITUDE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT
EFFORT THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS
PUT INTO WORKING WITH US ON THIS
BILL. AND I'M EXTREMELY
APPRECIATIVE FOR THAT
ENGAGEMENT. AND I'LL BE
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS, AND, WITH THE CAVEAT
THAT, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, THERE
ARE SEVERAL, AMENDMENTS THAT
WE'VE AGREED TO CONTINUE TO HAVE
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IN TERMS OF
POTENTIAL REFINEMENT OF THOSE,
AND SPECIFICALLY THAT WE'VE
AGREED THAT WE'LL CONTINUE TO,
ENGAGE ON THE LEAD STANDARD TO
DETERMINE IF THERE ARE DIFFERENT
TYPES OF STANDARDS THAT SHOULD
APPLY TO DIFFERENT KINDS OF
PROJECTS, AND THAT ONCE WE HAVE
THAT CONVERSATION, ALSO LOOPING
IN, THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
PROVISION ON NO, NO NET INCREASE
OF GHG EMISSIONS. SO THAT WILL
BE ONE CONVERSATION. WE'VE
AGREED THAT THE HISTORIC, THAT
THE DEMOLITION RESTRICTIONS WILL
BE FOR BUILDINGS AT LEAST 100
YEARS OLD. HOWEVER, FOR BUILDING
76 TO 100 YEARS OLD, THERE WILL
BE ADDITIONAL HISTORIC
PROTECTIONS THAT WE WILL WORK
OUT IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING
HISTORIC PROTECTIONS THAT ARE IN
THE CURRENT BILL. IN PRINT, IN
ADDITION, FOR THE PROVISION
ABOUT BEING 15% LOWER THAN VMT
AND THE REGION OR CITY, THAT WE
I THINK WE AGREED THAT WE'RE
GOING TO TIGHTEN UP DEFINITIONS
JUST SO IT'S VERY CLEAR WHAT IS
BEING COMPARED TO WHAT, BECAUSE
IT'S A LITTLE VAGUE NOW AND THEN
AS WE DISCUSSED, WE'RE VERY
APPRECIATIVE OF THE COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATION TO PLACE,
JUDICIAL STREAMLINING INTO
JUDICIAL CEQA, STREAMLINING INTO
THE BILL. AND WE WILL, MAKE A
DECISION ABOUT WHETHER WE THINK
THAT THAT SHOULD BE IN THE BILL
OR NOT, SO, AGAIN, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH TO THE CHAIR AND TO
HIS STAFF, SO WITH ALL OF THAT
SAID, SB 1227 DOES TWO THINGS.
IT CREATES A TEMPORARY CEQA
EXEMPTION FOR PARTS OF SAN
FRANCISCO AND THE DOWNTOWN OAN
AREA. AND IT ALSO TEMPORARILY
EXPANDS IN THAT AREA. THE
WELFARE TAX EXEMPTION FOR
WORKFORCE HOUSING AND MODERATE
INCOME HOUSING. COLLEAGUES AS I
THINK YOU ALL KNOW, BECAUSE
UNLESS YOU'RE, UNLESS YOU'VE
BURIED YOURSELF IN A HOLE
SOMEWHERE, YOU HAVE SEEN THE
UNENDING NEGATIVE PRESS COVERAGE
ABOUT SAN FRANCISCO IN THE LAST
FEW YEARS. AND ALTHOUGH OUR CITY
IS INCREDIBLY VIBRANT AND
WONDERFUL, AS ALWAYS, NO OFFENSE
, BUT THE BEST CITY ON THE
PLANET IN MANY WAYS, OUR
DOWNTOWN AREA IS ABSOLUTELY
STRUGGLING IN A VERY, VERY
SIGNIFICANT WAY. AND I
APPRECIATE THE ANALYSIS SORT OF
POINTING OUT WHERE SAN
FRANCISCO'S DOWNTOWN STANDS
COMPARED TO MANY OTHER
DOWNTOWNS, THE PANDEMIC TOOK A
HUGE TOLL TO OUR DOWNTOWN AREA,
TO THE FINANCIAL DISTRICT, TO
EASTERN SOUTH OF MARKET, TO
UNION SQUARE, TO CIVIC CENTER,
AND SURROUNDING AREAS IS, JUST
SIGNIFICANT HIGH VACANCY RATES
THAT WILL PROBABLY CONTINUE TO
GO UP IN THE COMING YEARS, AS,
CURRENTLY 34% OF, OFFICE VACANCY
RATE DOWNTOWN, THAT NUMBER WILL
PROBABLY GO UP AS LEASES COME
EXPIRE IN THE FUTURE, A MORE
THAN A 25% DECREASE IN SALES TAX
REVENUE DOWNTOWN. AND THAT
INCLUDES UNION SQUARE, AND A 50%
DECREASE JUST IN TERMS OF FOOT
TRAFFIC DOWNTOWN, COMPARED TO
BEFORE THE PANDEMIC, DOWNTOWN
SAN FRANCISCO, PARTICULARLY THE
FINANCIAL DISTRICT, AND PARTS OF
EASTERN SOMA HAVE BEEN
HISTORICALLY VERY, VERY FOCUSED
ON OFFICE. AND IN RETROSPECT,
YOU PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE A
DOWNTOWN THAT IS SO DOMINATED BY
OFFICE. AND WE SAW WHAT HAPPENED
IN LOWER MANHATTAN WHEN THEY
TRANSITIONED. YEARS AGO FROM
DOMINANCE OF OFFICE TO A MIXED
USE AREA WITH EDUCATION AND
HOUSING AND RETAIL AND
ENTERTAINMENT AND SO FORTH. AND
LOWER MANHATTAN IS NOW, UNLIKE
DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO, IS NOW
ABSOLUTELY THRIVING. AND SO WE
KNOW THAT WE NEED TO MAKE
THOUGHTFUL, WELL THOUGHT OUT
CHANGE IN DOWNTOWN SAN
FRANCISCO. IT'S GOING TO COME
BACK AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE'RE BEING THOUGHTFUL IN
BRINGING IT BACK. AND SO THIS
BILL, I DON'T PRETEND THAT IT'S
A SILVER BULLET. NOTHING IS A
SILVER BULLET. THIS WILL BE ONE
ADDITIONAL TOOL SO THAT AS SAN
FRANCISCO MOVES FORWARD, WE CAN
DO SO AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS
POSSIBLE. SO THE BILL DOES TWO
THINGS. IT CREATES A TEMPORARY
SEQUA EXEMPTION, FOR DOWNTOWN. I
WANT TO BE CLEAR. THIS IS NOT
WHAT WE CALL MINISTERIAL
APPROVAL, FULL LOCAL CONTROL
REMAINS IN EFFECT OVER ZONING,
OVER WHETHER OR NOT TO ISSUE
THIS PERMIT OR THAT PERMIT. THE
CITY WILL RETAIN FULL LOCAL
CONTROL, AND THE CITY WILL HAVE
THE OPTION OF INVOKING SEQUA
EXEMPTION. AND THEN IN ADDITION,
WE KNOW WE HAVE OTHER BILLS AND
OTHER LAWS THAT ALLOW FOR
CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL TO, TO
RESIDENTIAL. WE ALSO WANT TO
ENCOURAGE, REAL A REAL MIX OF,
OF INCOMES. AND SO WE'RE
PROPOSING TO TEMPORARILY EXPAND
THE WELFARE TAX EXEMPTION TO
WORKFORCE SLASH MODERATE INCOME
HOUSING. SO AGAIN, MR. CHAIR,
THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR EFFORT
. AND WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. AND I DO
JUST WANT TO SAY ONE MORE THING,
AND WE'VE HAD A LOT OF
DISCUSSION, ABOUT THIS, SAN
FRANCISCO, IN TERMS OF ITS
BUILDING STANDARDS, AND SO
FORTH, HAS INCREDIBLY HIGH
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS, HIGHER
THAN WHAT THE STATE REQUIRES,
AND IN ADDITION, IN THIS AREA,
THIS IS NOT AN AREA WHERE THE
ZONING IN ANY WAY ALLOWS YOU
KNOW, A CHEMICAL PLANT OR ANY
LIKE, SORT OF POLLUTING USES.
AND I AND THE COMMITTEE HAS
PROPOSED AND WE'VE ACCEPTED
BAKING THAT INTO THE BILL AS A
GUARDRAIL. AND I DO APPRECIATE
THAT AS WELL. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. YES SO JUST TO
AND WE AND WE'VE, YOU KNOW,
BASICALLY ADDED LEED PLATINUM AS
A AS AN ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA. I
KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A FEW
TYPES OF CASES WHERE WE CAN HAVE
FURTHER DISCUSSION, BUT I DID
WANT TO JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU
CERTAINLY LISTED OUT A SOME
AREAS WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE
SOME CONTINUAL DISCUSSION. BUT I
DO WANT TO JUST CLARIFY THAT YOU
ARE ACCEPTING THE I'M ACCEPTING
THE AMENDMENTS AS OUTLINED IN
THE ANALYSIS. GREAT, AND I
UNDERSTAND THAT WILL BE TO HAVE
FURTHER CONVERSATIONS IN A FEW
AREAS. ABSOLUTELY. MR. CHAIRMAN.
GREAT. ALL RIGHT, OKAY. WITH ME
TO TESTIFY IS JACOB BINTLIFF,
MANAGER OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY
INITIATIVES FOR THE SAN
FRANCISCO OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT. AND
SUJATA SRIVASTAVA, TAVA
SRIVASTAVA I'M SORRY. I ALWAYS
MISPRONOUNCE YOUR NAME, CHIEF
POLICY OFFICER AT SPUR. I HATE
MISPRONOUNCING NAMES BECAUSE
EVERYONE MISPRONOUNCES MINE. SO
YOU MAY PROCEED. THANK YOU.
CHAIR ALLEN. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, JACOB BINTLIFF WITH
THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT IN SAN
FRANCISCO. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF
MAYOR LONDON BREED, WHO'S THE
SPONSOR OF THE BILL. AS THE
SENATOR LAID OUT, DOWNTOWN SAN
FRANCISCO HAS BEEN GREATLY
IMPACTED BY THE PANDEMIC, AND WE
DO HAVE HISTORIC RATES OF OFFICE
VACANCY. WE HAVE RETAIL
VACANCIES BETWEEN 25 AND 40,
DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU ARE. IN
RESPONSE TO THOSE CHALLENGES,
MAYOR BREED HAS LAID OUT A
ROADMAP TO SAN FRANCISCO'S
FUTURE, A SERIES OF MORE THAN 50
INITIATIVES AIMED AT MAKING
DOWNTOWN A THRIVING MIXED USE
ENVIRONMENT WITH ACTIVITIES AT
ALL HOURS OF DAY AND NIGHT, NOT
JUST A PLACE TO GO TO WORK. 9 TO
5. OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF
OR SO, THE CITY HAS MADE A LOT
OF PROGRESS ON THAT FRONT. THAT
INCLUDES THINGS LIKE ZONING
REFORMS AND LOCAL TAX INCENTIVES
TO SUPPORT OFFICE TO HOUSING
CONVERSIONS, LOCAL TAX RELIEF
FOR HOSPITALITY, RETAIL,
RESTAURANTS AND OTHER
BUSINESSES, A TAX CREDIT FOR NEW
OFFICE TENANTS MOVING INTO THE
DOWNTOWN AREA, SIGNIFICANT
INVESTMENTS IN PUBLIC SAFETY AND
CLEANING DOWNTOWN. OVER $20
MILLION IN GRANTS TO SMALL
BUSINESSES, INCLUDING PROGRAMS
FOR POP UPS AND FILLING VACANT
STOREFRONTS. INVESTMENTS IN OUR
DOWNTOWN PARKS AND PLAZAS, AND
FUNDING FOR OUTDOOR EVENTS AND
CONCERTS, RESTORED BUS LINES AND
NEW PROTECTED BIKE LANES
DOWNTOWN AND ROBUST LOCAL
STREAMLINING LEGISLATION FOR
SMALL BUSINESSES AND HOUSING. SO
WE'VE BEEN HARD AT WORK AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL, AND THIS BILL IS
INTENDED TO BRING ADDITIONAL
TOOLS TO THE TABLE THAT ONLY THE
STATE CAN PROVIDE, NAMELY, WITH
RESPECT TO THIS COMMITTEE. THE
TARGETED SEQUA EXEMPTION FOR
COMMERCIAL ENTERTAINMENT AND
MIXED USE PROJECTS RANGING FROM
STOREFRONT TENANT IMPROVEMENTS
TO NEW CONSTRUCTION. FOR THIS
PERIOD OF TEN YEARS, THE
PROPOSED REVITALIZATION ZONE WAS
ACTUALLY CAREFULLY CRAFTED,
CRAFTED TO CORRESPOND TO THE
CITY'S LOCAL ZONING, INCLUDING
THE PRIMARY MIXED USE COMMERCIAL
ZONING DISTRICT THAT WE HAVE
ALONG MARKET STREET. THAT
INCLUDES CIVIC CENTER, UNION
SQUARE FINANCIAL DISTRICT, THE
MIXED USE EAST CUT AND TRANSBAY
TRANSIT CENTER AREA, AND THE
AREA SOUTH OF MARKET BETWEEN
SECOND AND SIXTH STREETS THAT
ENCOMPASSES THE CENTRAL SOMA
PLAN, AN AREA THAT HAD AN AREA
PLAN ADOPTED IN 2018 TO ALLOW
FOR 8000 NEW UNITS OF HOUSING
AND SOME 8 MILLION ADDITIONAL
SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE,
SENATORS, NO ONE IS SAYING THAT
SEQUA IS THE CAUSE OF OUR
CURRENT CHALLENGES DOWNTOWN, BUT
UNFORTUNATELY, WE ARE VERY
FAMILIAR IN SAN FRANCISCO WITH
SEQUA BEING USED AS A TOOL TO
BLOCK OR DELAY PROJECTS FOR A
WIDE VARIETY OF ISSUES THAT ARE
NOT STRICTLY RELATED TO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. THE
AIM OF THIS TARGETED EXEMPTION
IS TO PROVIDE GREATER CERTAINTY
AND SPEED THE APPROVAL PROCESS
FOR NEW INVESTMENTS AND
DEVELOPMENTS IN DOWNTOWN OAN
THAT WE DESPERATELY NEED, AND
THAT WE'RE ACTIVELY WORKING TO
ATTRACT ACADEMIC CAMPUSES,
STUDENT HOUSING, ENTERTAINMENT
AND SPORTS VENUES, LAB AND LIFE
SCIENCE SPACES, AND NEW AND
INNOVATIVE OFFICE AND RETAIL
CONCEPTS. THE BILL INCLUDES
IMPORTANT GUARDRAILS FROM OTHER
RECENT SEQUA LEGISLATION,
INCLUDING THAT IT CANNOT BE USED
TO DEMOLISH HISTORIC RESOURCE OR
RENTAL HOUSING OR CONSTRUCTION
IN AREAS WITH HAZARDOUS SOILS OR
FLOOD ZONES. THE BILL WOULD ALSO
REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL
ZONING, WHICH, AS THE SENATOR
MENTIONED, DOES NOT ALLOW FOR
HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES IN THIS
AREA, THE BILL WOULD HELP US
STIMULATE NEW INVESTMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN, ONE OF THE
MOST SUSTAINABLE, COMPACT,
TRANSIT RICH URBAN ENVIRONMENTS
IN THE WORLD, SAN FRANCISCO IS A
KEYSTONE OF CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMY
AND IDENTITY. AND TODAY, WE'RE
HERE ASKING YOU TO JOIN US IN
STEERING THIS GREAT CALIFORNIA
CITY TOWARD ITS NEXT SUCCESSFUL
CHAPTER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AS, SENATOR WIENER SAID, I'M THE
CHIEF POLICY OFFICER FOR SPUR
SPURS, A NONPROFIT THINK TANK
AND LEADING CIVIC INSTITUTION IN
THE BAY AREA THAT PROMOTES
SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE
PLANNING POLICIES, OUR OFFICES
ARE ACTUALLY LOCATED IN DOWNTOWN
SAN FRANCISCO, WELL WITHIN THE
ZONE THAT'S PROPOSED IN THIS
BILL, WE AND MANY OF OUR CIVIC
AND COMMUNITY PARTNERS HAVE
RECOGNIZED THE PIVOTAL, PIVOTAL
ROLE THAT DOWNTOWN RECOVERY
PLAYS IN THE PROSPERITY OF THE
ENTIRE BAY AREA AND EVEN THE
STATE, AS THE SENATOR MENTIONED,
ABOUT 36% OF OFFICE SPACE
DOWNTOWN IS VACANT. THIS IS IN
CASE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT
MEANS. IT'S ABOUT 40
TRANSAMERICA TOWER BUILDINGS,
THIS IS A SHOCKING NUMBER IN AN
AREA THAT STILL REMAINS A GLOBAL
CENTER OF OPPORTUNITY AND
INNOVATION. WE HAVE ESTIMATED
THAT IT WOULD TAKE ABOUT 40
YEARS TO FILL UP THE OBSOLETE
CLASS B, CLASS C VACANT OFFICE
BUILDINGS WITH OFFICE USERS. IF
WE DON'T TAKE ACTION TO REALLY
THINK ABOUT THE REINVENTION OF
THOSE BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN, AS
JACOB MENTIONED, SAN FRANCISCO
IS ALREADY TAKING A LOT OF
ACTION TO ADDRESS THE CRISIS
DOWNTOWN. THE MAYOR'S LAUNCHED A
DOWNTOWN RECOVERY ROADMAP THAT'S
LED TO A LOT OF NEW CHANGES FOR
BUSINESSES FLEXIBLE ZONING,
STREAMLINING MEASURES FOR OFFICE
TO RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS. AND
IN MARCH, VOTERS PASSED A
MEASURE THAT EXEMPTS THOSE TYPES
OF CONVERSION PROJECTS FROM REAL
ESTATE TRANSFER TAX. BUT DESPITE
THESE LOCAL EFFORTS, THERE'S
STILL A LOT THAT NEEDS TO BE
DONE TO INCENTIVIZE DENSE, MIXED
USE PROJECTS, PARTICULARLY IN
CENTRAL SOMA AND THE TRANSBAY
AREAS, WHICH ARE TRANSIT
ORIENTED AREAS. JUST ASK YOU TO
WRAP IT UP, SO I JUST WANT TO
ALSO HIGHLIGHT THE ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFITS OF REDEVELOPING
DOWNTOWN. WE KNOW THAT BUILDING
INFILL HOUSING WOULD BE FAR AND
AWAY THE MOST POTENT CLIMATE
MITIGATION ACTION TOOL THAT WE
COULD BE DOING BECAUSE OF THE
LOW VMT THAT DOWNTOWN AREA HAS.
IT'S ABOUT IT'S ACTUALLY THE
THIRD RANKED PLACE FOR WHERE
PEOPLE WHO LIVE DOWNTOWN WALK TO
WORK. SO WE'RE DOING REALLY WELL
ON VMT REDUCTIONS IN THIS AREA.
WE ALSO AVERT A LOT OF
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY
REUSING AND REPURPOSING,
ADAPTIVE REUSE PROJECTS, AND
ESPECIALLY IN THE HIGH RISE
CONCRETE BUILDINGS THAT HAVE
THAT EMBODIED CARBON, IT'S THE
MOST TRANSIT ACCESSIBLE LOCATION
IN THE ENTIRE WEST COAST. SO
REDEVELOPING DOWNTOWN AND
ALLOWING FOR MORE TOOLS TO DO SO
MEANS MOVING PEOPLE OUT OF CARS
ONTO TRAINS, BUSSES, BIKE LANES,
AND SO AS WE SUPPORT SENATOR
WIENER'S EFFORTS, DILIGENT
EFFORTS TO REVITALIZE DOWNTOWN,
ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT THAT
WILL LEAD TO A MORE RESILIENT,
ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY
DISTRICT AND REGION, IT'S AN
IMPORTANT PART OF THE SOLUTIONS
THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE
CRISIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY. OTHER FOLKS WHO WANT TO
WEIGH IN SUPPORT FOR THE BILL,
KAREN LANG, ON BEHALF OF MAYOR
LONDON BREED IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. SALAS
AND MADINET W STRATEGIES HERE ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN
SUPPORT. AND I'VE BEEN ASKED TO
GIVE A COURTESY. ME TOO, FOR THE
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS PROPERTY
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT AS WELL.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING CHAIR
MEMBERS NOR CAL CARPENTERS UNION
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, RYAN,
ELAINE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MY NAME
IS GIOVANNI OTTOLINI. I'M A
PROUD MEMBER OF NORCAL
CARPENTERS UNION, AND I STRONGLY
SUPPORT THIS BILL. HI, I'M DEREK
KUNZI. I'M PARTNER CARPENTERS
UNION, AND I'M IN SUPPORT TO. MY
NAME IS ROB MARTIN. NORCAL
CARPENTERS UNION. I SUPPORT THIS
BILL. ALEX TORRES ON BEHALF OF
THE HOUSING ACTION COALITION IN
SUPPORT. MORNING. MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS. LOUIS MERANTE, ON
BEHALF OF THE BAY AREA COUNCIL
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, KAREN STOUT ON
BEHALF OF SPUR AND YIMBY ACTION
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING JASON. BRIAN, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA DOWNTOWN
ASSOCIATION. WE'RE IN SUPPORT AS
WELL. THANK YOU. MATTHEW
BEESTON, NORCAL CARPENTERS UNION
IN SUPPORT. MARCEL MOORE WITH
NORCAL CARPENTERS UNION I'M IN
SUPPORT. BRIAN DOMINIC NORCAL
CARPENTERS I'M IN SUPPORT. MY
NAME IS LISA TRAMONTE. I'M ONE
OF THE NORCAL CARPENTERS AND I'M
IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. JOSEPH
PEREZ AND I'M WITH THE NORTH
CARPENTERS UNION, AND I SUPPORT
THIS BILL. ARMANDO MURILLO,
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CARPENTERS.
AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL.
BUENOS DIAS. NAZARIO MORENO.
ESTOY AQUI EN SINDICATO DE
CARPENTERS IN NORTH CALIFORNIA.
APOYO EL PROYECTO DE LA LEY. MY
NAME IS CHAD NORTH KOREA,
CALIFORNIA. I SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, THERE YOU
GO. ALL RIGHT, OPPOSITION FOLKS,
YOU WANT TO COME UP AND RAISE
CONCERNS ABOUT THE BILL? YOU CAN
COME JOIN US HERE AT THE DAIS.
OKAY. HEAR ME. GOOD MORNING
CHAIR. GOOD MORNING SENATORS,
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE
AUTHOR, WITH WHOM WE AGREE WITH
ON MANY ISSUES, UNFORTUNATELY,
THIS IS NOT ONE. I'M VERY. WE
ARE VERY INTERESTED. MATTHEW
BAKER WITH PLANNING
CONSERVATION. WE ARE VERY
INTERESTED IN SEEING THE DETAILS
OF HOW THE AMENDMENTS WILL
SHAPE, BUT I DON'T THINK AND
WHILE THEY MAY BE IMPROVEMENTS,
IN OUR VIEW, I DON'T THINK IT
WILL CHANGE OUR RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO THE TO THE
PROPOSAL IN CONCEPT, THOUGH WE
SYMPATHIZE GREATLY WITH THE
INTENT DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO IS
STRUGGLING JUST LIKE MANY
DOWNTOWNS ACROSS CALIFORNIA AND
ACROSS THE COUNTRY. AND WE AS
INFILL ADVOCATES, CARE VERY,
VERY MUCH ABOUT FINDING THE
SOLUTIONS AND THE FORMULAS TO
MAKING OUR DOWNTOWNS THRIVING
PLACES TO LIVE AND WORK AND
PLAY, WE THINK WE SHOULD BE
THINKING VERY DELIBERATELY ABOUT
WORK AND WORKSPACE, WHAT THAT IS
POST-COVID AND WHAT COMMERCE AND
COMMERCIAL SPACE IS POST-COVID.
AND WITH THE EVER GROWING ONLINE
COMMERCE THAT IS HAPPENING IN
OUR COUNTRY, AND HOW OUR
DOWNTOWNS SHOULD ADAPT TO THOSE
CHANGES, BUT WE DO NOT THINK
THAT A BLANKET CEQA EXEMPTION
ACROSS THE WHOLE GEOGRAPHIC AREA
REALLY PROVIDES SPECIFIC ANSWERS
TO THOSE VERY DIFFICULT
QUESTIONS, WE DON'T SEE HOW AN
EXEMPTION THAT IS NOT TIED TO
ANY KIND OF SPECIFIC PROJECT
GOALS OR PROJECT TYPES OR OR
PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ARE
REALLY GOING TO ENSURE WITH ANY
KIND OF CERTAINTY THAT WE'RE
GOING TO GET THE KIND OF
DEVELOPMENT THAT, ENSUES, THAT
THE CITY REALLY WANTS OR NEEDS,
YOU KNOW, BEYOND ALL THE OTHER
INFILL EXEMPTION ZONES THAT ARE
AVAILABLE THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE
THE HOUSING AND MIXED USE THAT
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE DON'T
SEE HOW AN EXEMPTION THIS BROAD
THAT BYPASSES, PUBLIC REVIEW AND
COMMUNITY PROCESS, IS GOING TO
ENSURE THAT THE NEW DOWNTOWN IS
REALLY GOING TO MEET COMMUNITY
IDENTIFIED NEED AND, AND MEET
STATE AND CLIMATE AND EQUITY
REQUIREMENTS AND, AND TO DO SO
WITHOUT ANY KIND OF UNINTENDED
HARM, IN GENERAL, WE JUST DON'T
SEE HOW THIS PROPOSAL, HOW A
SEQUEL EXEMPTION REALLY OFFERS
ANSWERS FOR THE PROBLEM THAT
WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE HERE, WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU. MA'AM. YES, MA'AM.
GOOD MORNING, ANGELICA CABANA,
DIRECTOR OF SAM KHN. WE ARE ONE
OF THE MANY ORGANIZATIONS THAT
OPPOSES SB 1227 UNLESS AMENDED.
SINCE 2000, TAMBIÉN HAS ENGAGED
IN WORK CLOSELY WITH CITY
DEPARTMENTS TO ADDRESS
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND TRAFFIC
IMPACTS, THE HOUSING ELEMENT,
AND MANY MORE. WE ARE
PRO-DEVELOPMENT AS LONG AS IT
CENTERS AROUND PEOPLE AND
EQUITY. SB 1227 PROPOSES TO
REMOVE ALL SEQUA PROTECTION FROM
DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO, WHERE
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE LIVE AND
WORK, INCLUDING FAMILIES, YOUTH
AND SENIORS. THIS WILL CREATE AN
UNEQUAL SAN FRANCISCO WHERE CEQA
PROTECTIONS WOULD REMAIN IN
AFFLUENT AREAS, LEAVING LOW
INCOME DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS
VULNERABLE TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. SEQUA
DOES NOT STOP PROJECTS OVER
58,000 UNITS HOUSING UNITS HAVE
CLEARED THE AIR PROCESS IN SAN
FRANCISCO, BUT REMAINS UNBUILT.
THE NUMBERS SUGGEST THE PANDEMIC
AND OTHER FACTORS ARE THE CAUSE
OF OUR DOWNTOWN PROBLEMS, NOT
SEQUA OTHER MAJOR CALIFORNIA
CITIES SUBJECT TO SEQUA
REGULATIONS. LIKE LIKE SAN JOSE
AND LA, RECOVERED FROM QUICKLY
FROM THE PANDEMIC. WE SHOULD
LOOK INTO THOSE SANFORD SB 1227
AREA MAP INCLUDES THE FILIPINO
CULTURAL HERITAGE DISTRICT,
WHICH IS ONE OF THE 14 STATE
DESIGNATED CULTURAL DISTRICT IN
CALIFORNIA. THIS THIS DISTRICT
ADVANCED SOCIOECONOMIC AND
ETHNIC DIVERSITY AND TACKLE
ISSUES OF DISPLACEMENT. THE
STATE SHOULD BE WORKING IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH CULTURAL
DISTRICTS AND THEIR COMMUNITIES,
NOT RESENTING THEIR CEQA
PROTECTION. ALSO, THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
INCLUDING LEGISLATIVE BODY THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, HAS NOT
TAKEN AN OFFICIAL POSITION ON SB
1227. WITH THAT, WE PROPOSE
AMENDMENTS WE FEEL ARE NECESSARY
TO ENSURE THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS ARE NOT IGNORED AND THE
BILL DOES NOT STRIP AWAY THE
PUBLIC PROCESS. WE ASK THE
AUTHOR AND THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING SUNSET
DATE OF JANUARY 1ST, 2029, LEST
THE MAP ZONE TO JUST MARKET
STREET, SINCE IT'S SUPPOSED TO
BE FOCUSED ON DOWNTOWN FINANCIAL
DISTRICT REVITALIZATION,
CONSTRAINED THE BILL ONLY TO
EXPEDITE JUDICIAL REVIEW PER THE
ORIGINAL COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION AND ADD ANALYSIS,
MITIGATION OF DIRECT AND
INDIRECT DISPLACEMENT, HOUSING
AND SMALL BUSINESS AS CRITERIA.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. I KNOW,
ANY TWEENERS ON THIS TOPIC WHO
WANT TO EXPRESS THEIR. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. MR. CHAIR, JEREMY
SMITH HERE, ON BEHALF OF THE
STATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
TRADES COUNCIL, WE LOOK FORWARD
TO SEEING THE BILL AS AMENDED,
OUT OF THE COMMITTEE, A LOT OF
AMENDMENTS SPOKEN ABOUT TODAY,
WE DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE
UNDERLYING, POLICY HERE ABOUT
DOING THIS, HOW THIS COULD GO
STATEWIDE. NEXT, WE HAVE
PROVIDED SOME AMENDMENTS TO THE
SENATOR'S STAFF AND THE SENATOR,
THAT PLACATE SOME OF OUR
CONCERNS. AND WE SUGGEST MAYBE A
JUDICIAL STREAMLINING PROCESS.
WE DO TALK ABOUT A LEED
CERTIFICATION, AS YOU MENTIONED
EARLIER, AS WELL. AND WE FINAGLE
WITH THE SKILLED AND TRAINED
WORKFORCE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL.
SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING
THIS BILL AS IT MOVES FORWARD,
WE ARE WIENER. WE HAVE GRAVE
CONCERNS. I APPRECIATE GIVING ME
10 OR 15 SECONDS HERE. OH OF
COURSE, YEAH. THANK YOU. AND TO
CLARIFY, I MEAN, WE THIS IS
BASICALLY IMPOSING A LEED
PLATINUM STANDARD ON THE
PROJECTS, THERE'S GOING TO BE A
FEW CASES WHERE THAT MAY NOT BE
THE RIGHT APPLICATION, BUT, AND
THEN AS WE HAD IT, IF YOU MEET
LEED GOLD, THEN YOU GET,
STREAMLINING. SO THAT'S, THAT'S
THE, THAT'S THE TOP LINE. THERE
ARE A FEW MORE DETAILS, BUT
THAT'S THE TOP LINE, OTHER FOLKS
WHO WANT TO RAISE CONCERNS OR
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. OKAY. SO
LET'S BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR DISCUSSION,
COMMENTS, THOUGHTS? OH, YEAH.
YEAH, COME ON UP. COME ON UP IF
YOU WANT TO. YEAH, YEAH, PLEASE
COME ON UP. EXPRESS YOUR
OPPOSITION, WE ASK FOLKS TO,
STATE THEIR NAME AND AFFILIATION
. SORRY FOR NOT COMING UP
SOONER. IT WASN'T CLEAR THAT,
YOU KNOW. NO PROBLEM. YEAH, I
KNOW IT'S YOUR FIRST TIME HERE.
ON BEHALF OF PEOPLE ORGANIZING
TO DEMAND ENVIRONMENTAL AND
ECONOMIC RIGHTS IN SAN
FRANCISCO, ALSO KNOWN AS
BOULDER, IN OPPOSITION AND I WAS
ALSO ASKED TO GIVE A ME TOO FOR
CENTER ON RACE AND POVERTY. AND
THE ENVIRONMENT. CRP ALSO IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PETER
EUGENIO, REPRESENTING RACE AND
EQUITY IN ALL PLANNING COALITION
, WHICH MAKES UP OVER 40
ORGANIZATIONS IN SAN FRANCISCO
AND WE STRONGLY OPPOSE. THANK
YOU. RAMON BONIFACIO I'M
REPRESENTING COMMUNITIES FOR
BETTER ENVIRONMENT AND OUR
RESIDENTS ON THE BILL'S MAP
AREA, AND WE STRONGLY OPPOSE.
THANK YOU. I'M TERESITA NAVA,
I'M TERESITA NAVARRO
REPRESENTING SOMA PILIPINAS, THE
FILIPINO CULTURAL HERITAGE
DISTRICT IN SAN FRANCISCO. AND I
HAVE STRONGLY OPPOSE ABOUT THIS
BILL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO ON
BEHALF OF UNITED STATES MISSION,
WHICH HOUSES GAVE IN THE LATINO
CULTURAL DISTRICT AND AMERICAN
INDIAN CULTURAL DISTRICT IN
STRONG OPPOSITION? THANK YOU.
RAYMOND CASTILLO I'M WITH SAN
FRANCISCO ANTI-DISPLACEMENT
COALITION. WE'RE BUILT UP ABOUT
40 ORGANIZATIONS. WE SIGNED ON
TO SOME KANSEN LETTER. WE
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. HI. MY NAME IS TERESA
DOUGLAS. I'M ON BEHALF OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO
TENANTS UNION. WE STRONGLY
OPPOSE, BUT I'M ALSO A RESIDENT
ALSO OF SOUTH MARKET. AND THIS
BILL ACTUALLY CONCERNS ME
BECAUSE WE'RE AFRAID, YOU KNOW,
GOING THROUGH THE WORD
REVITALIZATION IS VERY DECEIVING
TO ME. OKAY? WE'RE AFRAID. I'M
AFRAID THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE
OUT OF A HOUSE. I LIVE IN A
BUILDING WHICH IS OVER 100 YEARS
OLD. PLEASE HELP US IF YOU TRULY
BELIEVE IN SEQUA, PLEASE PROTECT
IT. THANK YOU AND TO CLARIFY,
BUILDINGS OVER 100 YEARS OLD ARE
ARE OUT OF THE BILL, AND THE
DEMOLITION OF, RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY. RIGHT. AND. NO. THAT'S
RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. NO, THAT'S
ABSOLUTELY TRUE. NO DEMOLITION
OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. BUT
YES, DARYL, ON BEHALF OF NRDC
AND RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION, THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. HI, MARTY
BUCKLEY. DOUGLAS. I'M WITH
COMMUNITIES UNITED FOR HEALTH
AND JUSTICE. SO WE STRONGLY,
STRONGLY OPPOSE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, OKAY. THANK YOU FOR
ALL THE COMMENTS. I VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE THIS WAS, OF COURSE,
WAS A VERY DIFFICULT BILL FOR US
TO GET OUR HEADS AROUND, WE
REALLY WORKED HARD TO GET IT
VERY LIMITED. I KNOW THE BILL IS
GOING TO HAVE A LONG AND WINDING
ROAD THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE, I
AM, I AM VERY SENSITIVE TO THE
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE CULTURAL
DISTRICT FOLKS. I ACTUALLY HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY. YOU KNOW, SOME
FOLKS KNOW THAT I WAS I'VE BEEN
CHAIR OF THE ARTS COMMISSION
COMMITTEE, TOO, AND WE HAVE
CHAMPIONED THE STATEWIDE
CULTURAL DISTRICT PROGRAM. WE
GOT THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY
TOUR THE FILIPINO CULTURE AND
HERITAGE DISTRICT JUST LAST
YEAR. AND, REALLY GREAT
EXPERIENCE. AND SO ONE OF THE
MANY THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT, PARTICULARLY WITH
REGARDS TO THE, THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS SPECIFYING THE
EXEMPTION NOT CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL
HARM TO HISTORIC STRUCTURES THAT
WE THAT WE ENSURE THAT, THAT,
THAT THAT THE HERITAGE DISTRICTS
ARE PROTECTED AND THE HERITAGE
STRUCTURES ARE PROTECTED. AND
THAT'S A CONVERSATION THAT WE
REALLY WELCOME PEOPLE'S INPUT
INTO, SO THAT'S ONE OF MANY
ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED,
BUT I WANT TO JUST STATE THIS
COMMITTEE'S PARTICULAR
SENSITIVITY TO THAT, AMONG MANY
OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WERE
RAISED. SO WITH THAT, HAPPY TO
HEAR QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION.
SENATOR VENTURA. YEAH SENATOR,
WHY I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THIS IS
IN THE SILVER BULLET OR THE
MAGIC BULLET. I FORGOT WHAT YOU
MEANT. WHY DO WE BELIEVE THAT
SEQUA IS SO I JUST RAN OVER
HERE. WHY DO WE BELIEVE SEQUA IS
AT THE CORE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING
TO DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO? YEAH,
I WANT TO BE SUPER CLEAR,
BECAUSE THIS THIS KEEPS OUR,
STATEMENT KEEPS COMING UP. WE'RE
NOT. AT NO POINT HAVE I EVER
SAID OR SUGGESTED THAT SEQUA
CAUSED SAN FRANCISCO DOWNTOWN TO
GO FROM WHERE IT WAS IN 2019 TO
WHERE IT WAS TODAY. THAT WAS THE
PANDEMIC. WORK FROM HOME. YOU
KNOW, ALL OF THE FORCES THAT WE
KNOW HAVE, HAVE, HAVE HAD, REAL
IMPACTS, BUT WHATEVER CAUSED IT,
WHETHER IT WAS THE PANDEMIC OR
IF, YOU KNOW, IT HAD BEEN, YOU
KNOW, SOME OTHER HUGE TREND, BUT
WHATEVER CAUSED IT, WE ARE WHERE
WE ARE, AND WE'RE IN A SITUATION
WHERE WE HAVE A SKY HIGH VACANCY
RATE, WHERE WE'VE SEEN JUST THE
WHERE DOWNTOWN IS AT, JUST
MASSIVE RISK. AND SO THE CITY
WANTS IS VERY INTERESTED IN
REIMAGINING WHAT COULD WHAT
DOWNTOWN COULD BE TO HAVE MORE
HOUSING, TO HAVE MORE
ENTERTAINMENT, TO HAVE PERHAPS
MORE, YOU KNOW, RESEARCH,
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE
PURPOSE OF THIS BILL IS TO ALLOW
THAT TO HAPPEN, IN A MORE
EXPEDITIOUS WAY, BECAUSE WE
DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME AND
THERE'S A HUGE RISK DOWNTOWN. SO
WE'RE NOT SAYING IT CAUSED IT,
AND WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THIS
IS BY ITSELF GOING TO SOLVE
EVERYTHING, BUT IT'S GOING TO
GIVE THE CITY A TOOL TO BE ABLE
TO HELP SOLVE THE PROBLEM. AND
IT WILL NOT TAKE AWAY LOCAL
PLANNING, THIS DOES NOT
ELIMINATE PUBLIC PROCESS. SAN
FRANCISCO IS REALLY, GOOD AT
PUBLIC PROCESS, SOMETIMES, YOU
KNOW, CAN GO WELL BEYOND WHAT'S
REQUIRED, AND SO, SAN FRANCISCO
WILL ULTIMATELY MAKE LOCAL
DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT SHOULD OR
SHOULDN'T CHANGE. AND WE'RE
TRYING TO HELP FACILITATE THOSE
LOCAL DECISIONS SO THAT THAT'S
WOULD YOU SAY THEN THERE'S STILL
GOING TO BE OPPORTUNITY FOR
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT THEN. YES,
ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. I THOUGHT THAT
WAS ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERNS OF
THE OPPOSITION THAT IT WAS
REMOVING PUBLIC, WELL, PUBLIC
COMMENT OR REVIEW. I THINK THAT,
VIA VIA SEQUA IF THERE'S AN
EXEMPTION. BUT IN SAN FRANCISCO,
YOU KNOW, PERMITS STILL OFTEN GO
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THEY
CAN PERMITS CAN BE APPEALED TO
THE BOARD OF PERMIT. APPEALED,
THE CITY DOES EXTENSIVE OUTREACH
LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, MR. BINTLIFF
MENTIONED THE CENTRAL SOMA PLAN,
WHICH IS PART OF THIS ZONE, THE
CENTRAL PART OF SOMA, WHICH HAS
BEEN REZONED PURSUANT TO AN AREA
PLAN THAT WENT THROUGH
INCREDIBLE PUBLIC PROCESS FOR
YEARS. SO THIS IS NOT ELIMINATE
ALL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. IT'S
ABOUT WHAT THE SEQUA PIECE OF
IT. THERE ARE STILL OTHER PIECES
OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. YOU
KNOW, I THINK I WAS IN LAST
WEEK'S COMMITTEE THAT I SAID THE
COMMENT THAT I'VE NEVER BEEN A
FAN, THAT WE'VE, SKIRTED CEQA,
STREAMLINED, EXEMPT FOR VENUES
AND SO FORTH, AND THEN THE
IMPACTS THAT I SEE THAT AT
LEAST, FOR EXAMPLE, SOFI STADIUM
IN LA HAS CAUSED IN THE
SURROUNDING AREAS BECAUSE WE
STREAMLINED CENTERS LIKE THAT,
BECAUSE, OH, LOOK, IT'S FUN AND
GREAT, AND I'D BE MORE IN FAVOR
OF DOING THAT FOR HOUSING. THIS
IS GOING TO CREATE YOU MENTIONED
ARENAS. YOU SAID STUDENT
HOUSING, BUT MAYBE NOT STUDENT
HOUSING. I DON'T SEE HOW THIS
OUTWEIGHS, I DON'T SEE HOW
SKIRTING CEQA RIGHT NOW
OUTWEIGHS, THE NEED TO PROVIDE
PROTECTION ON WHAT SECRET IS
SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN. AND
ADDITIONALLY, YOU KNOW, IN THE
ANALYSIS WHY I ASKED TO WHY AND
I, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE
AND WHY YOU BELIEVE THIS IS THIS
WOULD HELP BECAUSE SO OTHER SO
MANY OTHER CITIES STILL HAVE
THIS IN PLACE. AND WHAT I DON'T
WANT SENATORS FOR THEN NEXT YEAR
, CITY OF SONOMA, CITY OF SAN
DIEGO SAYS WE WANT AN EXEMPTION
AS WELL. YES, SIR. YEAH. AND I,
I APPRECIATE THAT. AND THAT WAS
ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WHEN I
PROFUSELY THANK THE CHAIR AND
HIS STAFF AT THE BEGINNING, IS
THAT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF OUR
CONVERSATION WAS ABOUT THE FACT
THAT SAN FRANCISCO HAS
INCREDIBLY HIGH, ENVIRONMENTAL
STANDARDS AROUND ITS ZONING AND,
AND, AND ITS CONSTRUCTION
PROCESS AND WHAT AND WHAT AND
SUSTAINABILITY OF BUILDINGS. AND
SO THAT WAS THEN BAKED INTO THE
BILL SPECIFICALLY VÆ, YOU KNOW,
TO MAKE THAT CLEAR, IN ADDITION
TO THIS AREA BEING, VERY
SUSTAINABLE, AS YOU HEARD, LIKE
LOW VMT TRANSIT, ACCESSIBLE IS
EXACTLY WHERE YOU WANT PEOPLE TO
LIVE, WORK, ENJOY THEMSELVES AND
SO FORTH. SO THAT'S WHY, YOU
KNOW, THAT'S WHY WE THINK IT'S
APPROPRIATE FOR THIS. AND YOU
MENTIONED LOCAL LOCAL CONTROL
AND EVERYTHING. BUT EVEN THE
ANALYSIS NOTE IS THAT IT DOESN'T
PROVIDE THE SAME HOLISTIC REVIEW
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND
MITIGATION STRATEGIES FOUND IN
AN EIR. SO THEY'RE IMPORTANT
ROLE, BUT THEY'RE NOT AS ROBUST.
AND IN IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THEY
WILL OR WILL NOT REQUIRE PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT. IT WILL STILL BE UP
TO THEM. AND THEY MAY NOT
ESSENTIALLY REQUIRE PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT. SENATOR, I STILL
HAVE I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS,
AND I KNOW YOU AND THE CHAIR
WENT BACK AND FORTH ON THE
AMENDMENTS. I'M NOT CLEAR.
STILL, IF IT'S ALL THE
AMENDMENTS IN BOLD IN THE
ANALYSIS, IT'S IF IT'S A PORTION
OF IT. BUT EVEN WITH THAT, I
STILL WORRY THAT THIS THIS IN
PARTICULAR BECAUSE WE'RE GOING
TO HEAR OTHER BILLS TO, FOR CEQA
EXEMPTIONS FOR LIKE DOT RELATED
OR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RELATED ENTITIES AND STUFF LIKE
THAT. I DON'T THINK THIS AGAIN,
OUTWEIGHS THE RISK OF WHAT COULD
HAPPEN. YEAH, I APPRECIATE THOSE
COMMENTS. SENATOR DAWLEY, SO
THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR. SENATOR,
WORKED ON A LOT OF BILLS FOR
YOUR AREA OVER THE YEARS, AND
SOMETIMES WE WE'VE BEEN ON ON
THE SAME SIDE AND SOMETIMES NOT.
SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT,
YOU KNOW, MY FRIENDS IN THE
LABOR AND, AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE,
I'VE VOTED FOR MANY OF THESE
CEQA EXEMPTIONS. BUT I JUST WANT
TO SAY THIS IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY, COMMITTEE. AND I LOVE
THIS COMMITTEE. AND I ACTUALLY
AM GOING TO SAY SOMETHING THAT
MOST PEOPLE WOULDN'T. I LIKE
CEQA, I THINK CEQA WAS DESIGNED
FOR REALLY GOOD PURPOSES IN
CALIFORNIA, WAS WAY AHEAD OF THE
CURVE. NOW, DO I LIKE CEQA WHEN
IT WAS DESIGNED? YES. DO I LIKE
TO SEE WHERE IT'S AT TODAY? NO.
CEQA WAS USED FOR ALL KINDS OF
OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESS ON
BUSINESS, LABOR, PLA. I MEAN,
IT'S AMAZING HOW THE ENVIRONMENT
GETS THROWN AWAY WHEN YOU GET A
LABOR AGREEMENT OR ONE COMPANY
HAS THEIR GRAVEL PIT AND THEY
ARE SUING ANOTHER ONE ON SECRET
BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT
COMPETITION. NEXT DOOR. SO I
KNOW THE FRUSTRATIONS OF CEQA. I
KNOW THE REASON THAT THE LAW'S
PASSED, THE LAW WAS PASSED TO
SAY, IF YOU CANNOT MITIGATE,
THEN YOU CAN'T MITIGATE IT. IF
YOU CAN MITIGATE IT, YOU MOVE
ON. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S
NOT WE'RE AT TODAY BECAUSE
ATTORNEYS AND MANY PEOPLE USE IT
AS A TOOL. SO I SYMPATHIZE WITH
THE FACT OF WHERE YOU'RE STUCK
AT IN YOUR COMMUNITY. BUT I ALSO
WILL SAY THIS, THAT THIS IS
DIFFERENT THAN A ONE OFF ARENA
OR A SOFI STADIUM. THIS IS
TALKING ABOUT A GEOGRAPHIC AREA,
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA THAT IS LIKE
IT'S NOT JUST ONE BUILDING. IT'S
NOT JUST A STADIUM. THIS IS
COULD POSSIBLY CHANGE A
COMMUNITY. AND I HAVE SOMEBODY
WHO IS FROM THE NORTH STATE AND
HAS HAD, YOU KNOW, FROM THE SAN
FRANCISCO IS UNIQUE IN ITSELF.
IT HAS A CITY COUNTY GOVERNMENT
WHICH JUST DOESN'T EXIST
ANYWHERE IN CALIFORNIA EXCEPT
FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY AND
CITY. AND QUITE FRANKLY, A LOT
OF THEIR POLICIES DRIBBLE OUT TO
OUR AREAS THAT I DON'T LIKE. AND
I DON'T LIKE THOSE POLICIES, BUT
THEY DRIBBLE OUT BECAUSE THEY'RE
IT'S A POWERHOUSE. IT'S A
WORLDWIDE PLACE. I, I LOVED IT,
USED TO LOVE TO GO THERE. I
DON'T GO THERE ANYMORE. I'VE NOT
BEEN THERE IN 12 YEARS. I THINK
I DON'T PLAN ON GOING BECAUSE IT
DON'T FEEL SAFE. BUT THAT'S
ANOTHER STORY. BUT AT THE END OF
THE DAY, WE HAVE A CITY THAT'S
FAILING AND WE HAVE A TAX BASE
THAT'S NOT COMING IN AND IT'S IN
DISREPAIR. AND THERE'S AND
THERE'S A HUGE A LOT OF HUGE
PROBLEMS AND NOT ONLY JUST FOR
THAT CITY BUT FOR OUT
CALIFORNIA. SO I'M I'M NOT GOING
TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT YOUR BILL
TODAY BECAUSE I THINK IT'S TOO
BROAD, NUMBER ONE. AND I THINK
WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION ABOUT CEQA, FOR ALL
OF CALIFORNIA, BECAUSE FOR THE
THINGS I STATED EARLIER, THE
FACT THAT IT'S USED AS A TOOL TO
STOP OR MITIGATE OR GET A GET A
PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT OR
WHATEVER, OR IN THIS CASE, IT'S
LEAD. I'M BEATING MY CHAIR UP
BECAUSE I RESPECT HIM FOR HIS
ENVIRONMENTAL COURAGE. BUT I'M
LIKE, HEY, HOW CAN YOU CAN
SUPPORT THIS? AND HE'S LIKE,
WELL, IT'S LEED CERTIFIED. WELL,
I'M BEATING UP ON HIM. SO I'M
SAYING HE'S TAKING THE HEAT
TODAY FROM NOT ONLY BOTH SIDES
OF THE AISLE, BUT AT THE END OF
THE DAY, I THINK THIS IS
OVERREACHING. IT'S TOO FAR. I
THINK SOME OF THE THINGS THAT
THE COMMUNITY BROUGHT UP DO I
ALWAYS AGREE WITH THEM? NO. BUT
I CAN'T SUPPORT IT, WE NEED TO
TAKE A LOOK AT SEQUA, THROUGHOUT
THE STATE BECAUSE CALIFORNIA I
JUST WANT TO CLOSE WITH THIS. WE
ARE LOSING BUSINESSES AND WE ARE
LOSING OUR ECONOMIC GROWTH.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE THE FOURTH
LARGEST ECONOMY VERY LONG. IN
FACT, I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY
ONCE WE TALLY IT UP, WE'RE GOING
TO BE WAY LESS THAN THAT. PEOPLE
ARE LEAVING CALIFORNIA,
INCLUDING MYSELF. I'M LOOKING AT
PLACES OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA I
CAN'T AFFORD TO RUN A BUSINESS
FOR 93 YEARS HERE. IT'S MY
MARGINS ARE THIN AND PEOPLE ARE
SHIPPING PRODUCT IN HERE. IT'S
HAPPENING WITH RETAIL SPACE,
IT'S HAPPENING WITH SMALL
BUSINESSES AND WE JUST KEEP
PILING ON. AND SO FOR THOSE
REASONS, I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS
BILL. UNFORTUNATELY EVEN THOUGH
I KNOW THE SENATOR IS WORKING
HARD TO TRY TO SAVE HIS
COMMUNITY, BUT WE NEED TO DO
SOMETHING STATEWIDE TO
REVITALIZE. IF IT CAN'T BE
MITIGATED, THEN IT CAN'T BE
MITIGATED. BUT IF IT CAN, WE
SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO DO GROWTH,
NOT USE SEQUA FOR A TOOL TO, YOU
KNOW, LEVERAGE. AND THAT'S
WHAT'S HAPPENING. AND
UNFORTUNATELY NOBODY WANTS TO
TACKLE THE BIG PROBLEM. OKAY,
THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR, I
SHARE MANY OF THE CONCERNS,
QUITE FRANKLY, THAT HAVE BEEN
RAISED. NOT NOT EVERY SINGLE ONE
OF THEM, BUT, BUT BUT BUT MANY
OF THEM. AND, YOU KNOW, I WILL
SAY, YOU KNOW, LEED PLATINUM IS
A VERY HIGH STANDARD. AND IT'S
PART OF WHY I'M NOT PARTICULARLY
ANXIOUS TO GIVE ANY FURTHER ON
THAT ISSUE, YOU KNOW, IT REALLY
DOES SET A VERY HIGH
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD WITH
REGARDS TO HIGH, YOU KNOW,
ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY,
GREEN BUILDING DESIGN,
SUSTAINABLE USE OF MATERIALS,
ALL THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. BUT,
YOU KNOW, ALL THE ISSUES THAT
HAVE BEEN RAISED ARE ENTIRELY
VALID. AND IT'S PART OF WHAT'S
MADE THIS BILL SO DIFFICULT ON
OUR SIDE. BUT I'M CERTAINLY I AM
WILLING TO GIVE YOU THE COURTESY
TO, TO, YOU KNOW, TO CONTINUE TO
MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. I HAVE NO
IDEA WHERE THE VOTES ARE GOING
TO BE TODAY ON THIS, BUT, YOU
KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A
MOTION IF SOMEONE'S WILLING TO
DO IT. OTHERWISE, WE CAN WAIT
FOR THE FULL COMMITTEE TO COME
TOGETHER, BUT, YOU KNOW, I'LL
HAVE TO GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
CLOSE, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND
I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS TODAY.
A COUPLE THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, I
THINK WE CAN ALL NOT MAYBE NOT
ALL. I THINK MANY OF US AGREE.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE A LOT OF US
ARE, HAVE BEEN VOCAL THAT THAT
SEQUA DOES NEED TO BE MODERNIZED
, AND, AND WE MAY HAVE DIFFERENT
RATIONALES. I PERSONALLY THINK
SEQUA SHOULD BE MORE FOCUSED ON
CLIMATE ACTION WHEN SOMETIMES
IT'S NOT. IT WAS USED SEQUA WAS
USED WITHIN THIS VERY ZONE TO
KILL A 500 UNIT HOUSING PROJECT
ON A PARKING LOT A BLOCK FROM A
BART STATION USING, THAT WAS 20%
AFFORDABLE. IT WAS USED IN THIS
VERY ZONE. SOME OF THE GROUPS
THAT ARE OPPOSING THIS BILL
TODAY ALSO WERE OPPOSING THAT
PROJECT AND HELPED KILL. I NEED
TO CALL THAT OUT. AND SO WE ARE
AND I, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SQL
BE MODERNIZED RETOOLED. SO IT'S
FOCUSED ON WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO
BE FOCUSED ON. THAT HAS NOT
HAPPENED. THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED.
THERE HAVE BEEN VARIOUS EFFORTS,
GOVERNORS THAT HAVE SUPPORTED
IT. IT HAS NOT HAPPENED. AND SO
THE QUESTION IS, UNTIL THAT
HAPPENS, ARE WE GOING TO SAY
THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET, FOR
EXAMPLE, DOWNTOWN SAN FRANCISCO
HAVE THIS? IT'S JUST A TEMPORARY
TOOL TO ALLOW RECOVERY TO GIVE
OUR DOWNTOWN A HOPE. THAT'S WHAT
WE'RE WE'RE DOING. AND I DON'T
WANT TO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK
WE SHOULD BE SAYING UNTIL WE FIX
THE WHOLE THING, WE CAN'T
PROVIDE THAT TEMPORARY TOOL FOR
THIS STRUGGLING AREA, I THINK
THAT THIS THIS IS A FOCUSED I
DON'T A FOCUSED EFFORT. WE'VE
COME UP WITH GOOD, YOU KNOW,
AMENDMENTS WITH THE CHAIR THAT
MAKE IT EVEN MORE, FOCUSED. AND
COLLEAGUES I ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
. IF I, I HAVEN'T HEARD A MOTION
YET, WE'LL CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW,
WE CAN ENTERTAIN WHEN WE HAVE
THE FULL COMMITTEE, UNLESS I'LL
MAKE THE MOTION. OKAY. OKAY.
GREAT ALL RIGHT, SO SENATOR
ARCHULETA HAS, MOVED THE BILL,
DO PASS, AS AMENDED TO, REV AND
TAX, SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. SB 1227, THE MOTION IS Dð
PASS AS AMENDED. AND RE REFERRED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND
TAXATION. SENATOR ALLEN I. ALLEN
I. DOLLY. NO. DOLLY. NO.
GONZALEZ ARCHULETA. ARCHULETA I
MENGIBAR. MENGIBAR. NO. NGUYEN
SKINNER. OKAY, WE'LL HOLD THE
ROLL OPEN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. LET'S GO NEXT TO
SENATOR DURAZZO, WHO I SEE
BEHIND THE COLUMN HIDING,
SENATOR OSLO IS HERE TO PRESENT
SB 1255, ITEM EIGHT, IN YOUR
ANALYZES. I JUST MISSED YOU, MR.
CHAIR. YOU WERE? YES. YEAH,
YEAH, YEAH. OKAY. NICE TO SEE
YOU. MAY PROCEED. ONE. READY?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SB 1255
WILL REQUIRE THE STATE WATER
BOARD UP, UPDATE ITS ANNUAL
NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR WATER
SYSTEMS UNDER THE SAFER PROGRAM
TO INCLUDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE
NEED TO MAKE WATER RATES
AFFORDABLE FOR SMALL WATER
SYSTEMS WITH UNDER 3000 SERVICE
CONNECTIONS. ALTHOUGH ENSURING
ACCESS TO CLEAN AND AFFORDABLE
WATER HAS BEEN A FOCAL POINT OF
SEVERAL LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES,
CALIFORNIA IS AT THE EPICENTER
OF WATER AFFORDABILITY AND
ACCESS CRISIS, ESPECIALLY FOR
GUESS WHO COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
THE STATE BOARD REPORTED THAT
WATER RATES ROSE 45% BETWEEN
2007 AND 2015. THOSE RATE
INCREASES HAVE LED MORE THAN A
MILLION AND A HALF HOUSEHOLDS,
HAVING AN AVERAGE $500 WATER AND
OR SEWAGE UTILITY DEBT. FURTHER
EXACERBATING THE PROBLEM HAS
BEEN HOW EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THIS
ACCESS GAP HAVE BEEN DELAYED IN
THIS 20 2022 WATER SUPPLY
STRATEGY, GOVERNOR NEWSOM CALLED
ON THE WATER UTILITY SECTOR TO
ADDRESS THE COST BURDENS ON LOW
INCOME MEMBERS. THIS BILL IS
TAKING THE GOVERNOR'S LEAD ON
DETERMINING HOW WE CAN MAKE
WATER RATES AFFORDABLE FOR
WORKING CLASS COMMUNITIES BEING
PRICED OUT OF A LIFE, VITAL LIFE
RESOURCE. THIS BILL WILL DIRECT
THE STATE BOARD TO REGULARLY
ASSESS THE COST OF ENSURING THAT
WATER IS AFFORDABLE FOR SMALL
WATER SYSTEMS UNDER 3000
CONNECTIONS, AND IT WILL ALLOW
THE STATE BOARD TO UNDERSTAND
THE COST TO SUPPORT
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES AND
ACHIEVE WATER AFFORDABILITY.
WITH ME, I HAVE MICHAEL
CLAIBORNE DIRECTING ATTORNEY FOR
LEADERSHIP COUNCIL, AS WELL AS
ABRAHAM MENDOZA, POLICY MANAGER
FOR COMMUNITY WATER CENTER, TO
TESTIFY IN, SUPPORT AND HELP
ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
OKAY. YOU MAY PROCEED. GOOD
AFTERNOON TO THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS MICHAEL
CLAYBOURN. I'M A DIRECTING
ATTORNEY AT LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
FOR JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
CALIFORNIA DECLARED ACCESS TO
SAFE AND AFFORDABLE DRINKING
WATER HUMAN RIGHT IN 2012. BUT
THE REALITY IN COMMUNITIES I
WORK ALONGSIDE IS DIFFERENT. IN
EL PORVENIR, FOR EXAMPLE, A
SMALL MAJORITY LATINO COMMUNITY
ON THE WEST SIDE OF FRESNO
COUNTY, THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD
INCOME IS $42,000. AT THE SAME
TIME, THE MONTHLY CHARGE FOR
DRINKING WATER IS IN EXCESS OF
$300. THAT'S ALMOST 10% OF
MEDIAN GROSS INCOME IN THE
COMMUNITY, AND THAT'S FOR
DRINKING WATER ALONE. ABSENT
ONGOING STATE FUNDING, WHICH
BRINGS THE WATER RATE DOWN TO
$112 A MONTH, THE AMOUNT WOULD
BE WILDLY UNAFFORDABLE,
ESPECIALLY WITH A $60 SEWER
CHARGE ON TOP OF THAT WATER
BILL. EL PORVENIR REMAINS ONE OF
THE ONLY COMMUNITIES RECEIVING
ONGOING STATE FUNDING TO MAKE
WATER MORE AFFORDABLE IN THE
STATE. AND UNLIKE OTHER
ESSENTIAL UTILITIES LIKE THE
CARE PROGRAM FOR ELECTRICITY,
INDIVIDUAL LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
RARELY HAVE ACCESS TO ANY SOCIAL
SAFETY NET AT ALL. TO AID WITH
UNAFFORDABLE WATER BILLS. WHEN A
FAMILY CANNOT AFFORD WATER,
THEIR WATER BILL, THEY'RE AT
RISK OF HAVING THEIR WATER SHUT
OFF AND ARE OFTEN FORCED TO MAKE
TRADE OFFS BETWEEN PAYING FOR
WATER OR OTHER ESSENTIAL
SERVICES LIKE MEDICINE, FOOD AND
HOUSING. WE THANK SENATOR DURAZO
FOR HER WORK IN ADVANCING WATER
AFFORDABILITY FOR WATER SYSTEMS
WITH FEWER THAN 3000
CONNECTIONS, WHILE ACCESS TO
SAFE AND AFFORDABLE DRINKING
WATER IS A UNAFFORDABLE WATER,
AS A STATEWIDE PROBLEM, THE
SOLUTION SET FOR SMALL WATER
SYSTEMS IS UNIQUE. FURTHER
ANALYSIS REGARDING THE AVAILABLE
SOLUTIONS AND THE COST OF THOSE
SOLUTIONS IS NEEDED. WE URGE AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. YES, SIR.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS
ABRAHAM MENDOZA, ON BEHALF OF
THE COMMUNITY WATER CENTER,
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA BASIN
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ORG THAT
WORKS DIRECTLY WITH RURAL AND
FARMWORKER COMMUNITIES TO
ADVOCATE FOR AND DEVELOP
TARGETED, LOCALLY FOCUSED
SOLUTIONS TO THE STATEWIDE
DRINKING WATER CRISIS,
UNFORTUNATELY, AS A LOT OF THE
MEMBERS HAVE ALREADY SAID ON THE
DAIS, LACK OF AFFORDABILITY IS
NOT A NEW CONCEPT FOR MOST
CALIFORNIANS, AS THE SENATOR
MENTIONED FROM 2007 TO 2015, THE
STATE WATER BOARD REPORTED THAT
WATER RATES ROSE OVER 45%
STATEWIDE. AND IN THE FOLLOWING
YEARS, MORE THAN 1.6 MILLION
CALIFORNIANS HAD AN AVERAGE PAST
DUE WATER AND SEWER DEBT OF
ANYWHERE FROM 500 TO $1000.
WATER DEBT AND AFFORDABILITY HAS
ONLY BEEN COMPOUNDED BY THE
COVID 19 PANDEMIC, WITH BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS IN DIRECT AID BEING
PROVIDED TO PAST DUE HOUSEHOLDS
THROUGH ONE TIME TEMPORARY
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS LIKE LOOP
AND SWAP. NOW, WHILE THESE
TEMPORARY PROGRAMS ARE NECESSARY
LIFELINES FOR LOW INCOME
FAMILIES TO CATCH UP ON THEIR
BILLS, THE LACK OF A PERMANENT
STATEWIDE PROGRAM MEANS THAT
MILLIONS OF CALIFORNIANS, AS
MICHAEL MENTIONED, ARE STILL
LEFT CHOOSING BETWEEN PAYING
HIGH WATER BILLS OR PROVIDING
FOOD AND OTHER ESSENTIAL
SERVICES FOR THEIR FAMILIES. I'D
LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU TWO
QUOTES FROM SOME OF THE
COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT WE WORK
WITH DIRECTLY, THE FIRST COMES
FROM JOSE HERNANDEZ, A FARM
WORKER FROM THE SAN GERARDO
COOPERATIVE IN MONTEREY COUNTY,
AND HE LET US KNOW. HE SAID, IN
MY CAR, I KEEP FIVE GALLON
BOTTLES THAT I HAVE TO REFILL ON
MY OWN EVERY TWO WEEKS, BUT IT
IS EXPENSIVE AND I HAVE TO USE
THAT WATER TO MAKE MY COFFEE AND
ALSO WASH MY DISHES. AND THE
OTHER QUOTE COMES FROM BERTA
DIAZ, A FARM WORKER FROM EAST
OROSI INTO LARRY COUNTY, AND SHE
TOLD US, OUR CHILDREN WILL TELL
US, MOM, THE BOTTLED WATER IS
RUNNING OUT. WHAT ARE WE GOING
TO DO? SB 1255 HELPS BECAUSE IT
WILL DIRECT THE STATE WATER
BOARD TO REGULARLY ASSESS THE
COST OF ENSURING THAT WATER IS
AFFORDABLE FOR SMALL WATER
SYSTEMS UNDER 3000 SERVICE
CONNECTIONS, AND HELP PAVE THE
WAY FOR A PERMANENT, LOW INCOME
RATEPAYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM IN
THE FUTURE. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME AND WE URGE AN AYE VOTE.
GREAT ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO,
FOLKS WHO WANT TO ADD IN
SUPPORT. MELISSA HELLO, MELISSA
ROMERO WITH CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTERS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
SAVANNA JORGENSEN WITH THE
LUTHERAN OFFICE OF PUBLIC
POLICY, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT.
GREAT. THANK YOU. DARRYL LITTLE
WITH NRDC IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO TO
OPPOSITION. ANYONE? I DON'T
KNOW, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY
REGISTERED OPPOSITION. ANYONE.
OKAY, WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS.
THOUGHTS COMMENTS, MOVED BY
SENATOR NÚMERO. COMMENTS BY.
WELL, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THIS
IS REALLY I HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH
OF THESE COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
THAT ARE UNDER A LOT OF THEM,
WAY UNDER 3000, AND DODD HAD A
BILL. WE LOOKED AT, I THINK IT
WAS LAST YEAR ON WHY THE COST IS
SO HIGH AND WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT
IT? SO YOU HAVE PROP 218, WHICH
YOU CAN'T RAISE THE RATE UNTIL
YOU GET A OKAY. BY THE BY THE
PEOPLE AND THE PEOPLE SAY NO TO
IT. SO YOU'RE STUCK IN A BOX
WHERE YOU CAN'T RAISE THE RATE.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE
LEGISLATURE CONTINUES ALONG WITH
THE WATER BOARD AND SOCIAL
JUSTICE PEOPLE AND EVERYBODY
PASSING LAWS ON QUALITY, WATER
QUALITY AND ALL THE THINGS THAT
THESE, THAT THESE, SPECIAL
DISTRICTS HAVE TO DO. AND THEY
HAVE NO MEANS TO BE ABLE TO, GET
THE TECHNICAL HELP. AND WE'RE
NOT GIVING THEM MANY GRANTS FROM
THE STATE. BUT AT THE END OF THE
DAY, THE WATER RATE GOES UP AND
THE WATER RATES ARE HIGH, AND
THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. BUT
AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE ENERGY SIDE
OF IT, IF SOMEBODY IS GOING TO
GET A COMPENSATION, IF WE'RE
GOING TO PAY THEIR WATER RATE,
SOMEBODY ELSE HAS TO PAY,
THERE'S NO WAY YOU EITHER GIVE
IT TO. IN THIS BUILDING, THE
WEALTHY NEED TO PAY OR PEOPLE
THAT HAVE A HIGHER INCOME NEED
TO PAY. AND SO WE'RE BASICALLY
JUST DIVERTING THE COST. AND SO
FOR ME, I KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM
IS. THE PROBLEM IS WE CONTINUE
TO REGULATE, THESE WATER
AGENCIES TO DO ALL THESE THINGS,
AND THEY HAVE NO MEANS TO DO IT.
AND, AND THEY SOMEBODY HAS TO
PAY. AT THE SAME TIME, THE
RATEPAYERS HAVE TO PAY. AND
THAT'S WHAT'S DRIVING UP THE
RATE. AND IN SOME OF THESE
COMMUNITIES WHERE I KNOW THE
SENATORS FOCUSED ON PORTERVILLE
AND CENTRAL VALLEY, I MEAN,
WHERE THEY HAVE NO MEANS TO GET
THEIR THE ABILITY TO FIX THE
SYSTEM. NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO,
THERE'S NOT A SYSTEM. NEXT DOOR
THAT THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, GRAFT
INTO AND THEY'RE STUCK. AND SO
ADDING COST SHIFTING IS NOT
GOING TO BE THE ANSWER. SOMEBODY
ELSE PAYING THE BILL IS STILL
SOMEBODY ELSE PAYING THE BILL.
AND WE SAW THAT IN THE ENERGY
SIDE. ACTUALLY, THE POOR PEOPLE
ARE PAYING FOR THE RICH PEOPLE
ON THE ENERGY SIDE. SO I'M I
WANT TO SAY THIS, IT'S NOT GOING
TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. WE NEED TO
REALLY FIGURE OUT WHAT THE WE'RE
DOING HERE AS FAR AS REGULATORY
SIDE AND ALLOW THEM TO, YOU
KNOW, GIVE, GIVE WATER SERVICES
WITHOUT. I'LL GIVE YOU I'LL JUST
GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF THEY HAVE
TO BUY THESE WATER COMPANIES
HAVE TO BUY. MY FATHER IN LAW
RUNS ONE. THAT'S HOW I KNOW SO
MUCH ABOUT IT. AND HE'S
FRUSTRATED HE CAN'T GET GRANTS.
HE HAS TO SUPPLY CLEAN WATER. AT
THE SAME TIME, HE HAD TO BUY
SOME EQUIPMENT. THE EQUIPMENT HE
HAD TO BUY HAS TO BE
ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY FOR
CALIFORNIA. AND THE COST IS
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS. AND THEY HAD ONE THAT
WASN'T ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY,
WAS DOING THE JOB. SO THE MONEY
WAS SPENT FOR THE VEHICLE THAT
THEY NEEDED AND IT WASN'T TO
DROP THE RATE. AND SO THEY HAVE
TO PAY THE RATE. SO YOU GOT TO
STOP FORCING THEM TO BUY NEW
EQUIPMENT, ENVIRONMENTALLY
FRIENDLY EQUIPMENT, SO THAT THEY
CAN ACTUALLY PROVIDE WATER,
WHICH IS THEIR JOB. SO I'M GOING
TO LAY OFF THE BILL. I CAN'T
SUPPORT IT. IT'S JUST GOING TO
DO NOTHING BUT TELL US WHAT WE
ALREADY KNOW. PEOPLE OR PEOPLE
CAN AFFORD IT. BUT THE REASON WE
NEED WHAT WE NEED TO BE STUDYING
IS WHY NOT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
A WAY TO TAX SOMEBODY ELSE OR
MAKE THEM PAY FOR IT AND GIVE
THEM A BREAK, FIGURE OUT WHY.
THE REASON IS WE HAVE A LOT OF
LAWS THAT ARE PASSED AND IT
DRIVES THE COST UP. IT'S THE
SAME THING IS HAPPENING TO
BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS WELL.
DOES ANYONE WANT TO RESPOND TO
THOSE COMMENTS FROM THE
WITNESSES OF THE. OR MAYBE YOU
CAN DO IT IN YOUR. YEAH. YES,
SIR, SO I THINK I AGREE WITH A
LOT OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE
SENATOR THAT THERE'S THIS KIND
OF, CHOICE BETWEEN HOW
ENVIRONMENTALLY ENVIRONMENTALLY
FRIENDLY AND PROTECTIVE WE WANT
TO BE AND THE IMPACTS ON WATER
AFFORDABILITY. SO WE AGREE WITH
THAT. WE JUST THINK IT'S IN MANY
CASES, A FALSE CHOICE. WE CAN
HAVE WATER THAT'S SAFE TO DRINK.
IT'S AFFORDABLE, AND KIND OF
MEETS ALL THE STRINGENT
REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'RE PLACING
ON IT TO PROTECT HEALTH, BUT AT
THE SAME TIME IS ACCESSIBLE AND
AFFORDABLE. THAT WON'T HAPPEN,
THOUGH, WITHOUT FURTHER ANALYSIS
AND STUDY AND KIND OF BEING
THOUGHTFUL ABOUT HOW WE ADDRESS
THESE ISSUES, HEXAVALENT
CHROMIUM IS A I THINK, PERFECT
EXAMPLE, WHICH I'M SURE THE
SENATOR IS THINKING ABOUT GIVEN
RECENT EVENTS, SO WE AGREE, WE
THINK THIS BILL AIDS IN IT,
THOUGH, AND ALLOWS THE STATE
WATER BOARD TO LOOK AT SOLUTIONS
GEARED TOWARDS SMALL WATER
SYSTEMS THAT COULD BE
CONSOLIDATION. I LIKE THE
SENATOR MENTIONED, IT COULD BE
SUBSIDIZING THE WATER SYSTEM AS
A WHOLE, OR IT COULD BE LOW
INCOME RATE ASSISTANCE FOR
HOUSEHOLDS, THAT IT REALLY
VARIES BY WATER SYSTEM. AND THE
BILL IS GEARED AT KIND OF
ADDRESSING THAT ISSUE BASED ON
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. I THOUGHT
QUESTION SO WHO IS THIS? DOES
THIS, DOES THIS BILL DIRECT THEM
TO ACTUALLY FIGURE OUT A
SOLUTION OR THIS JUST DOES A
STUDY TO SAY HOW MUCH THE WHAT
THE PROBLEM IS, DOES IT? I DON'T
SEE THE SOLUTIONS IN HERE. THE
INTENT IS BOTH TO LOOK AT
SOLUTION SETS AND THEN IDENTIFY
THE COST OF THOSE SOLUTIONS. SO
THOSE ARE THE THREE MAIN ONES
WE'RE THINKING OF. BUT I DON'T
THINK WE MEAN TO RESTRICT IT TO
THOSE THREE CONSOLIDATION LOW
INCOME RATE ASSISTANCE AND
SYSTEM LEVEL SUBSIDIES. MANY OF
THE ONES THAT HAVE 3000 HOOKUPS
OR LESS ARE THERE IS NO THEY'RE
20 MILES FROM THE NEXT COMMUNITY
OR TEN. IT DOESN'T WORK. YOU
CAN'T CONSOLIDATE. NOW IF YOU'RE
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES. YES, YOU
CAN CONSOLIDATE, BUT IT'S THERE
IS NO OTHER OPTION OTHER THAN
COST SHIFTING FROM. AND THAT
DOESN'T THAT DOESN'T FIX THE
PROBLEM. AT THE END OF THE DAY.
SO THANK YOU, IF I MAY, EL
PORVENIR IS ONE OF THOSE THAT
CANNOT CONSOLIDATE IN THE SAME
BOAT. IT'S A IT'S A VERY
CHALLENGING PROBLEM. AND JUST
ADDING IN HERE AS WELL. ABRAHAM
MENDOZA ONCE AGAIN FOR THE
COMMUNITY WATER CENTER
DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW,
THE FRUSTRATION I UNDERSTAND AS
WELL, LOOKING AT THE TYPES OF
SYSTEMS THAT EXIST WITHIN YOUR
DISTRICT. BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO
RECOGNIZE THAT. I MEAN, ONCE
AGAIN, IT'S NOT A ONE SIZE FITS
ALL SOLUTION, AND HAVING THE
INFORMATION ON HAND AND
UNDERSTANDING WHAT THESE
SOLUTIONS ARE IS IMPORTANT TO
FINDING THE SOURCE OF THE
PROBLEM IS, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW,
SOME SYSTEMS ARE 20 MILES AWAY.
THAT'S TRUE. BUT ALSO TO THE
COMMUNITIES THAT WE WORK IN ARE
SEPARATED FROM ABOUT A MILE AND
A HALF, AND THEY'RE STRUGGLING
TO GO THROUGH WITH A
CONSOLIDATION PROCESS. AND
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT DIRECTLY
IMPACTS THE WATER AFFORDABILITY
OF ONE COMMUNITY AND NOT THE
OTHER. AND SO FOR EVERY SYSTEM
AND EVERY COMMUNITY THAT'S 20
MILES APART OR DOESN'T HAVE A
WAY, THERE ARE ALSO OTHERS WHERE
THERE COULD BE A SOLUTION THAT
COULD BE IDENTIFIED. AND THIS
BILL SEEKING TO UNDERSTAND THAT
AND STUDY THAT HELPS PAVE THE
WAY FOR US TO ADDRESS THOSE
SOLUTIONS. OKAY WELL, I DON'T
WANT TO BELABOR IT, BUT I KNOW,
I KNOW, WE'VE SEEN BILLS IN HERE
THAT THAT DO JUST MANDATE
STRAIGHT UP MANDATE. AND WHEN
YOU MANDATE AND THERE'S AND
THERE'S I SAY THIS QUITE A BIT
LATELY THE PERFECT AND HAS TO BE
PERFECT IN THE WAY OF THE GOOD.
THE GOOD WOULD BE CAN WE SUPPLY
GOOD CLEAN DRINKING WATER AT
AFFORDABLE RATE. BUT WE HAVE ALL
THESE OTHER LAWS THAT ARE PASSED
WHAT KIND OF VEHICLE THEY HAVE
TO HAVE. I JUST WENT THROUGH
THAT AND THERE HAS TO BE SOME
COMMON SENSE HERE. WHICH WHICH
ONE DO YOU WANT? DO YOU WANT TO
HAVE THE PERFECT VEHICLE THAT
THE COMMUNITY NEEDS, OR DO YOU
WANT TO HAVE THE RIGHT YOU WANT
YOUR WATER AT A CHEAPER RATE.
AND THOSE THOSE ARE THE
DECISIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE.
AND NOT ALWAYS CAN YOU ACHIEVE
BOTH. YOU CAN'T HAVE THE PERFECT
AIR QUALITY VEHICLE AT THE SAME
TIME. HAVING THE RIGHT KIND OF
WATER. SO THOSE ARE THE
DECISIONS THAT THESE MANAGERS
ARE FACED WITH EVERY DAY. SO I
AGREE, IF IT'S A MILE AND A
HALF, LET'S PUT THE PIPE BETWEEN
THE COMMUNITIES, FIGURE OUT HOW
TO DO IT. BUT WHEN THEY'RE 20
MILES AWAY AND THEY AND THEN
SOME OF THEM ARE IN DEBT AND
THEY YOU WANT THE NEXT COMMUNITY
TO PICK UP THE DEBT, THEY DON'T
WANT TO PICK UP THE DEBT BECAUSE
THERE WAS THERE'S ISSUES THERE.
SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I'M
FACED WITH IN MY DISTRICT. AND
ANOTHER STUDY ISN'T GOING TO FIX
THE PROBLEM. WHAT WE NEED TO DO
IS SAY WE NEED TO GIVE THEM SOME
LEEWAY AND SAY, CAN YOU GIVE
CLEAN, AFFORDABLE DRINKING WATER
AND SOME OF THESE OTHER
REGULATIONS THAT ARE MANDATED ON
THEM? WE SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN
PHASE THOSE IN OVER TIME, RIGHT?
BUT WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH YOU ON THIS, SENATOR.
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. AND IF
YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO SOME OF
THESE ISSUES IN YOUR CLOSE THANK
YOU. AND SENATOR MENGIBAR HAS
MOVED THE BILL. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. AND I APPRECIATE
THE FRUSTRATION. IMAGINE THE
FRUSTRATION BEING THE PERSON WHO
CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE CLEAN
WATER FOR THEIR FAMILY. I MEAN,
THAT'S EVEN MORE FRUSTRATION
BECAUSE THEN THEY'RE FACING
THEIR LIFE, THEIR LIVELIHOOD, SO
WE DON'T WANT TO JUST EVERYONE
TO BE FRUSTRATED, RIGHT, AND I
AM NOT THE KIND OF PERSON THAT
BELIEVES A STUDY OR AN
ASSESSMENT IS THE WAY TO SOLVE
IT. WE NEED TO GET INTO MORE
SPECIFIC. AND THAT'S WHY I
AGREED TO, LEAD ON THIS BILL IS
WE NEED TO HAVE MUCH MORE,
CONSOLIDATED INFORMATION SO THEN
WE CAN MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS
POSSIBLE. WITH THAT, I URGE I
VOTE. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU
SO MUCH, LET'S MOVE BY. SENATOR
MENGIBAR. LET'S CALL A ROLL. SB
1255. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS, AND
WE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. SENATORS ALLEN
I, ALLEN I, DALI GONZALEZ
ARCHULETA, ARCHULETA I MENGIBAR
MENGIBAR I NGUYEN SKINNER. OKAY,
WE WILL LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR
OTHER FOLKS TO, TO ADD ON. THANK
YOU SO MUCH, SENATOR. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. OKAY WHERE DID BECKER
GO, AND THEN I KNOW SENATOR
NEWMAN'S ALSO GOT A BILL. WE
WANT TO GET HIM TO PRESENT. ALL
RIGHT? YEAH, LET'S LET'S FIRST
OF ALL, ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR
THE CONSENT CALENDAR MOVE BY
SENATOR DALI. LET'S CALL THE
ROLL THERE, SENATORS ALLEN. AYE
AYE. DALLY A DALLY I GONZALEZ.
ARCHULETA A ARCHULETA. AYE.
MENGIBAR MENGIBAR. AYE. NGUYEN.
SKINNER OKAY, LET'S ALSO GO
THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT VOTES
AND PLEASE, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN
GET SENATORS NEWMAN AND BECKER
BACK HERE, AND BECKER WAS JUST
IN THE FRONT. WE MISSED HIM. SO
OKAY, LET'S LIFT THE CALL ON
ITEM ONE. SEYARTO. OKAY ITEM
ONE, SB 936. I'LL MOVE IT. OH.
I'M SORRY. YEAH, OKAY. WE NEED A
MOTION, I APOLOGIZE. OKAY, MOVE
BY SENATOR DALI, LET'S LET'S
VOTE ON THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU,
FILE ITEM ONE, SB 936. THE
MOTION IS Dð. PASS AS AMENDED,
AND RE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON TRANSPORTATION. SENATORS
ALLEN I, ALLEN I, DALI, DALI I
GONZALEZ, ARCHULETA I ARCHULETA
I MENGIBAR MENGIBAR I NGUYEN AND
SKINNER. OKAY, WE'LL LEAVE THOSE
OPEN FOR THE OTHER MEMBERS TO
COME BACK. LET'S GO TO SB 1053.
BLAKE SPEAR. OKAY SB FILE ITEM
THREE SB 1053. THE MOTION IS Dð
PASS AS AMENDED, AND RE REFERRED
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR. VOTING
AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING NO.
GONZALEZ NGUYEN SKINNER. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, SB 1167 BLAKE SPEAR.
FILE ITEM FOR SB 1167. KNOW
WHAT? THEY'RE NOT HERE. SO LET'S
LET'S OKAY. LET'S GO TO
PORTANTINO. 1147 FILE ITEM FIVE
SB 1147. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS
AND RE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON RULES. SENATORS ALLEN I,
ALLEN I DALI NOT VOTING.
GONZALEZ NGUYEN. OKAY, LET'S DO
LAIRD, SB 1188 FILE ITEM SIX SB
1188. MOTION IS DUE. PASS AND RE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR VOTING AYE.
SENATOR DALI NO. DALI NO.
GONZALEZ. NGUYEN OKAY, LET'S GO
TO. NOPE. OKAY. WIENER WE DON'T
NEED OKAY. SO YEAH, DALI NEEDS
TO ADD ON SB 1255 DURAZZO. OKAY.
FILE ITEM EIGHT, SB 1255. MOTION
IS DUE PASSED AND RE REFERRED TO
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. YOU LAID
OFF. THEN OF COURSE WE JUST DID
THAT. SO LET'S DO ATKINS, SB
1342 OKAY. SORRY. FILE ITEM.
THAT'S FINE. FILE ITEM NINE SB
1342, THE MOTION IS Dð PASS AND
RE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS. SENATORS ALLEN
I, ALLEN I DALI I DALI I
GONZALEZ NGUYEN OKAY. NEWMAN
WERE WAITING FOR I. YES. YES.
NO. WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE.
DON'T WORRY, BECKER. WE'RE
WAITING FOR TWO. HE WAS HERE. HE
LEFT, I DON'T KNOW, IS HE
COMING? YEAH. OKAY MENGIBAR.
YES, SB 1497. OKAY FILE ITEM 12,
SB 1497. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASSED AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY CHAIR
VOTING. AYE. DOLLY. NO DOLLY.
NO. OKAY. WE CAN CLOSE THE ROLL
ON THAT, SO THAT IS 5 TO 2, WE
WILL CLOSE THE ROLL ON THAT.
BECKER CLAIMS THAT HE'S GOING TO
BE HERE IN TWO MINUTES. THAT'S
EXCITING, LET'S DO 1167. WE
DIDN'T VOTE ON THAT. LET'S DO.
1167 BLAKESPEAR WILL LIFT THE
CALL ON THAT. OH, NO. OKAY.
THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY AND WE'RE
WAITING ALSO FOR GONZALEZ AND
NGUYEN. OKAY, OKAY. I'M LATE.
NO, I VOTED NO ON THAT. HE VOTED
NO. OH OKAY
.
I CAUGHT THIS RAGAMUFFIN IN THE
HALLS. OKAY, SO LET'S GO NEXT
TO, ITEM 11, THIS IS SENATOR
BECKER'S SB 1395. THANK YOU,
CHAIR I MEMBERS, I AM PLEASED
VERY PLEASED TO PRESENT 1395.
AND I FIRST LIKE TO START BY
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS ON PAGE EIGHT OF THE
BILL AND THANK THE COMMITTEE
STAFF AND BRENNAN, FOR ALL OF
THE WORK. THIS BILL, WE BELIEVE,
WILL SAVE LIVES BY BRIDGING THE
GAP BETWEEN BEING UNSHELTERED
AND FINDING PERMANENT HOUSING.
WE ALL KNOW THAT CALIFORNIA HAS
THE LARGEST HOMELESS POPULATION
IN THE COUNTRY. WHAT PEOPLE
OFTEN DON'T KNOW IS THAT 67% OF
OUR HOMELESS POPULATION IS
UNSHELTERED. JUST FOR
PERSPECTIVE, NATIONALLY, THAT'S
20. IN NEW YORK, IT'S 5, FOR
EXAMPLE, WE'RE AT 67, WHERE I
STAYED THE CAPITAL EVERY NIGHT I
WALKED PAST A PEOPLE SLEEPING IN
DOORWAYS, PEOPLE SUFFERING ON
SIDEWALKS. WE KNOW THAT THERE'S
HIGH RATES OF, ABUSE AND, AND
VIOLENCE IN THESE SHELTERS. AND
THERE WAS A BIG STUDY JUST CAME
OUT IN THE JOURNAL OF HEALTH
AFFAIRS IN THE PAST TEN YEARS.
THERE'S BEEN A 238% INCREASE IN
MORTALITY RATES FOR HOMELESS
COMMUNITIES DUE TO EXPOSURE AND
LACK OF ACCESS TO CARE. SO THIS
IS UNACCEPTABLE. AND WE NEED A
STATEWIDE SOLUTION. THIS REALLY
CALIFORNIA PROBLEM. WE NEED A
CALIFORNIA SOLUTION. AND THAT'S
WHY I'M PROUD TO PRESENT THIS
BILL, THE INTERIM HOUSING ACT,
WHICH WILL FILL A MISSING RUNG
ON THE LADDER FROM UNSHELTERED
HOMELESSNESS TO PERMANENT
HOUSING. IT WILL EMPOWER LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS WHO WANT TO INVEST
IN INTERIM HOUSING AND PUT A
ROOF OVER THEIR HEADS OF OUR
UNHOUSED NEIGHBORS QUICKLY,
SAFELY AND AT SCALE. I'LL JUST
MENTION MY FRIEND LARA KANSEN
FROM SANTA BARBARA YESTERDAY.
THEY JUST PUT UP EIGHT AND 13
WEEKS, 80 UNITS OF INTERIM
HOUSING, 12 ADDITIONAL WET
UNITS, LAUNDRY, OTHER THINGS AND
OTHER THINGS, ALL IN 13 WEEKS.
SO OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT
WANT TO EMBRACE THIS MODEL. SO
WHAT THIS DOES IT THREE THINGS
REALLY ACTUALLY FOUR CUTS RED
TAPE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,
EMPOWERS THEM TO BUILD INTERIM
HOUSING BY EXPEDITING APPROVALS,
SIMPLIFIES THE PROCESS FOR
STREAMLINING ZONING, THUS
REDUCING CONSTRUCTION TIME AND
COSTS. Ã BUILDS ON CURRENT LAW,
SHELTER CRISIS, AND LOW BARRIER
NAVIGATION CENTERS BY EXPANDING
AND EXTENDING THESE TO
STREAMLINE PROJECTS BEYOND 2026,
AND THEN MAKES FUNDING AVAILABLE
FOR INTERIM SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
WITH THAT, I'LL LEAVE IT AT
THAT. I HAVE TWO GREAT WITNESSES
HERE, ADRIAN COLBERT FROM THE
BAY AREA COUNCIL AND ALEX
TORRES, ON BEHALF OF DIGNITY
MOVES. GREAT. WE PROCEED. GREAT.
THANK YOU. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, MY
NAME IS ADRIAN COVERT, SENIOR
VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC POLICY
WITH THE BAY AREA COUNCIL.
TODAY, CALIFORNIA PROVIDES FEWER
THAN FOUR SHELTER BEDS FOR EVERY
TEN HOMELESS RESIDENTS. THIS IS
THE SECOND LOWEST RATIO OF BEDS
TO HOMELESS RESIDENTS IN THE
UNITED STATES, AND FAR BELOW THE
NATIONAL AVERAGE OF ABOUT TO 8
TO 10. THAT THE SENATOR
MENTIONED. THE CHRONIC SHORTAGE
OF SHELTER OPTIONS DIRECTLY
CONTRIBUTES TO 67% OF
CALIFORNIA'S HOMELESS POPULATION
. SLEEPING OUTDOORS AND BECOMING
THE LEAST SHELTERED HOMELESS
POPULATION IN THE UNITED STATES.
AND THE LONGER A HOMELESS
RESIDENT IS WAREHOUSED BENEATH
OUR OVERPASSES OR ON OUR
SIDEWALKS OR ALONG OUR RIVER
BEDS, THE MORE TRAUMA THEY
ENDURE AND THE MORE LIKELY THEY
ARE TO DEVELOP SUBSTANCE USE OR
PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS. THE
PROLIFERATION OF UNSHELTERED
HOMELESSNESS NEEDLESSLY COSTS
THOUSANDS OF LIVES EACH YEAR TO
THE ELEMENTS, TO ACCIDENTS AND
TO CRIMINAL VIOLENCE.
UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS ALSO
HAS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS, WITH REFUSE AND HUMAN
WASTE HARMING LOCAL WATERSHEDS.
THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, FOR
EXAMPLE, HAS BEEN ORDERED BY THE
STATE WATER BOARD TO REDUCE
TRASH AND BIO WASTE IN LOCAL
CREEKS TO COMPLY WITH THE
FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT, WHICH
WILL REQUIRE RELOCATING
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE FROM
EXISTING ENCAMPMENTS INTO
DIGNIFIED HOUSING. SB 1395 WILL
HELP ADDRESS THIS CRISIS BY
EMPOWERING CITIES WITH MORE
TOOLS AND LESS RED TAPE TO
QUICKLY BUILD HIGH QUALITY,
SCALABLE, NON-CONGREGATE INTERIM
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING SOLUTIONS
THAT ARE NEEDED TO BRING PEOPLE
INDOORS WITH DIGNITY. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES,
SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS ALEX
TORRES, HERE WITH BROWNSTEIN ON
BEHALF OF DIGNITY MOVES, A
NONPROFIT THAT IS FOCUSED ON
ENDING UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS.
WE ARE PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF THE
MEASURE ALONGSIDE OUR FRIENDS AT
THE BAY AREA COUNCIL, SPUR AND
MAYOR MATT MEHAN OF SAN JOSE.
ONE EXPRESS, A BIG THANK YOU FOR
SENATOR BECKER AND HIS TEAM FOR
MOVING THIS IMPORTANT INITIATIVE
FORWARD. YOU MAY RECALL A
SIMILAR BILL MOVED LAST YEAR,
AND IT'S TAKEN A LOT OF TIME, A
LOT OF ENGAGEMENT WITH
STAKEHOLDERS AND A LOT OF EFFORT
TO MAKE SURE THE BILL IS IN ITS
CURRENT FORM IN FRONT OF YOU
TODAY, INTERIM HOUSING HAS
RECENTLY EMERGED AS A NEW AND
PROMISING TOOL IN THE TOOLKIT
FOR ADDRESSING HOMELESSNESS. IN
THE PAST, THERE WAS SHELTER AND
PERMANENT HOUSING. YET PERMANENT
HOUSING COSTS A LOT, AND THERE'S
LIMITED OPTIONS FOR SHELTER
AVAILABLE, LIMITED RESOURCES FOR
SHELTER AVAILABLE, AND THE NET
RESULT IS PEOPLE LANGUISHING ON
OUR STREETS, OFTEN FOR YEARS.
MUNICIPALITIES HAVE RECENTLY
DISCOVERED THE ENORMOUS BENEFITS
OF INTERIM HOUSING. RESIDENTS
ARE WILLING TO COME, SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES ARE MORE EFFECTIVE, AND
THE PUBLIC SPACES ARE RECLAIMED,
RECLAIMED QUICKLY AND COST
EFFECTIVELY. THE MESSAGE IS THE
MESSAGE FROM A POLICY SCHEME IN
TERMS OF GUIDANCE ON SHELTERS,
THE RESOURCES FOR SHELTERS, THE
FUNDING IS CONFUSING AND THE LAW
THAT MOST PROJECTS RELY ON ARE
ALSO SCHEDULED TO EXPIRE. THE
INTERIM HOUSING ACT IS A PIVOTAL
MOMENT IN THE STRUGGLE TO END
UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS, AND BY
FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGING INTERIM
HOUSING AS A VALID TOOL IN STATE
PROGRAM AND BY EXTENDING THE
LAWS THAT IT RELIES ON
MUNICIPALITIES WILL FEEL
EMPOWERED TO DEPLOY THIS NEW
TOOL WITH CONFIDENCE.
UNSHELTERED IS ONLY ONE
COMPONENT OF A COMPLEX WEB OF
ISSUES SURROUNDING HOMELESSNESS,
YET IT IS THE MOST VISIBLE AND
THE MOST INHUMANE. BUT IT IS
SOLVABLE, AND IT CAN INDEED
POSSIBLE TO GET PEOPLE INDOORS
WHERE THEY ARE SAFE AND CAN
BEGIN WORKING ON EXITS OUT OF
HOMELESSNESS, RETURNING TO
STABILITY, RETURNING THEM TO
SELF-SUFFICIENCY WHILE
RECLAIMING OUR PUBLIC SPACES AND
THE DIGNITY OF OUR COMMUNITIES.
LOCALLY, MAYORS LIKE MAYOR MATT
MEHAN ARE ACTIVELY DEPLOYING
THIS MODEL, AND IT'S WORKING
WHEN UNSHELTERED HOMELESSNESS
ROSE IN CALIFORNIA BY AN
ALARMING 10.3% LAST YEAR, IN
THAT SAME PERIOD, IT DECLINED IN
SAN JOSE BY 10.7. AND THAT 21%
SWING IS, I THINK, QUITE
IMPRESSIVE, OVER 70% OF THE
PARTICIPANTS HAVE REMAINED
STABLY HOUSED. THIS IS A MODEL
THAT WORKS, CAN GIVE US ALL HOPE
AND I STRONGLY URGE YOUR I VOTE
TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
OTHER FOLKS WHO WANT TO WEIGH IN
SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. JUST, NAME
AND AFFILIATION, PLEASE. AMELIA
ZAMANI WITH THE CALIFORNIA
TRAVEL ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR. AND
ON BEHALF OF THE MAYOR OF SAN
FRANCISCO, LONDON BREED AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. STEPHANIE, ON BEHALF
OF MAYOR MATT MEHAN AND SUPPORT,
THANK YOU. AFTERNOON. MARK
NEWBURGER, CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES IN
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, KAREN
STOUT ON BEHALF OF THE SAN DIEGO
HOUSING COMMISSION, SANTA CLARA
VALLEY WATER DISTRICT AND YIMBY
ACTION IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. CATHERINE
CHARLES, ON BEHALF OF HOUSING
ACTION COALITION AND HOUSING
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. OPPOSITION FOLKS
WANT TO RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT THE
BILL. I WANT TO COME TO THE MIC.
OKAY. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. THOUGHTS? QUESTIONS
MOTIONS MOVED BY SENATOR
ARCHULETA, LET'S GIVE YOU
OPPORTUNITY TO CLOSE. BUT WITH
THAT, APPRECIATE THE WITNESSES
COMING AND EVERYONE WHO WHO
CHIMED IN. WE DO BELIEVE THIS IS
A REALLY IMPORTANT MEASURE.
PROBABLY MY HIGHEST PRIORITY.
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SO MUCH, SECRETARY. PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL FILE. ITEM 11 SB 1395.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS AS AMENDED
AND RE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON APPROPRIATIONS. SENATORS
ALLEN. ALLEN. AYE. DALLY. DALLY
AYE. GONZALEZ. ARCHULETA.
ARCHULETA AYE. MENGIBAR.
MENGIBAR. AYE. NGUYEN SKINNER.
SKINNER. AYE. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
WE'LL HOLD THAT OPEN FOR A
COUPLE MORE MEMBERS ADD ON.
LET'S HAVE YOU, SENATOR NEWMAN,
COME UP TO PRESENT SB 1387,
FRESH OFF OF THE. HOW'S THE
HOW'S THE HOW'S EDUCATION
COMMITTEE DOING, YOU'LL BE
PLEASED TO HEAR WE FIXED EVERY
ISSUE RELATED TO EDUCATION IN
CALIFORNIA. FANTASTIC. OKAY. OUR
WORK IS DONE. WELL, NOW WE'RE ON
TO, HYBRID AND ZERO EMISSION
TRUCK AND BUS VOUCHER INCENTIVE
ISSUES. YES, INDEED WE ARE, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I HOPE I'M
YOUR LAST. AM I YOUR LAST? WE
ARE. YES, YOU ARE. ALL RIGHT. I
WILL MAKE IT QUICK AND MAYBE
LEAST I DON'T KNOW. NO, NO, NO,
WE'LL MAKE IT QUICK AND
COLLEGIAL, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SB 1387,
WHICH WOULD UPDATE THE HYBRID
AND ZERO EMISSION TRUCK AND BUS
VOUCHER INCENTIVE PROJECT, ALSO
KNOWN AS HèA, TO INCLUDE MEDIUM
DUTY PICKUP TRUCKS AND
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS WHO
DEPEND UPON THOSE VEHICLES FOR
THEIR LIVELIHOODS. BEFORE I
BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR WORK ON THIS BILL AND
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS TO CLARIFY AND
STRENGTHEN THE ELIGIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS FOR INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS. THESE CHANGES WILL
HELP TO ENSURE THAT VOUCHERS GO
TO THE CALIFORNIANS WHO NEED
THEM THE MOST, AND NOT TO
DRIVERS WHO MIGHT CHOOSE TO
TRUCK FOR REASONS OTHER THAN ITS
UTILITY AS A WORK VEHICLE. AS
YOU'RE ALL BY NOW MORE THAN WELL
AWARE, CALIFORNIA HAS FULLY
COMMITTED TO THE AMBITIOUS AND
AGGRESSIVE GOAL OF MOVING BEYOND
GASOLINE POWERED VEHICLES.
UNFORTUNATELY, THOUGH, FOR MANY
LOW INCOME AND WORKING CLASS
CALIFORNIANS, ZERO EMISSION
VEHICLES REMAIN FRUSTRATINGLY
UNAFFORDABLE. THIS IS ESPECIALLY
THE CASE FOR THE ROUGHLY 2
MILLION CALIFORNIANS WHOSE
LIVELIHOODS DEPEND UPON THE USE
OF A CAPABLE AND RELIABLE TRUCK.
AVAILABLE DATA INDICATES THAT
MEDIUM DUTY PICKUP TRUCKS, SUCH
AS THE FORD F-250 AND THE DODGE
RAM 2500, ACCOUNT FOR MORE THAN
HALF OF THE TRUCK MARKET
NATIONALLY, WITH 4.1 MILLION
REGISTERED ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
AND YET, DESPITE THIS OBVIOUS
DEMAND, THERE ARE STILL NO
MEDIUM DUTY ZERO EMISSION PICKUP
TRUCKS AVAILABLE ON THE MARKET
TODAY. FURTHER, OF ALL THE
STATE'S ZERO EMISSION INCENTIVE
PROGRAMS, NONE CURRENTLY
PROVIDES GRANTS OR OTHER
INCENTIVES TOWARD THE PURCHASE
OF A MEDIUM DUTY WORK TRUCK FOR
THE FARMERS, LABORERS,
LANDSCAPERS, AND INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS WHO USE THESE
VEHICLES IN THE COURSE OF THEIR
DUTIES. THE STATE'S ACCELERATED
ZERO EMISSION TRANSITION IS NOT
JUST ANOTHER ROUTINE BUSINESS
EXPENSE THAT THEY CAN ADAPT TO.
THE MASSIVE COST OF THESE
VEHICLES COULD REPRESENT THE
LINE BETWEEN PUTTING FOOD ON THE
TABLE AND GOING OUT OF BUSINESS.
SB 1387 WOULD PROVIDE THESE
DRIVERS WITH MUCH NEEDED
INCENTIVES BY UPDATING THE
STATE'S LEADING MEDIUM AND HEAVY
DUTY ZEV PROGRAM TO INCLUDE BOTH
CLASS TWO B AND CLASS THREE
MEDIUM DUTY PICKUP TRUCKS AND
EXTEND ELIGIBILITY FOR
PARTICIPATION TO INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS WHO USE THEIR
VEHICLES FOR BOTH COMMERCIAL AND
PERSONAL PURPOSES. IN DOING SO,
SB 1387 WOULD FOR THE FIRST TIME
EXTEND GRANTS TO INDIVIDUALLY
OWNED MEDIUM DUTY PICKUP TRUCKS,
WHICH ACCOUNT FOR 75% OF ALL
MEDIUM DUTY REGISTRATIONS AS
DISTINCT FROM MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS
PURCHASED BY FLEETS. FURTHER, BY
UPDATING H50 TO INCLUDE A
MEANINGFUL SHARE OF OUR ON ROAD
TRUCK POPULATION, SB 1387 WILL
SEND A POWERFUL MARKET SIGNAL TO
AUTO MANUFACTURERS THAT
CALIFORNIA IS FULLY AND
THOUGHTFULLY COMMITTED TO
DECARBONIZING ITS MEDIUM DUTY
TRANSPORTATION SECTOR, EITHER
THROUGH BATTERY ELECTRIC OR FUEL
CELL ELECTRIC TECHNOLOGY. FOR
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS WHOSE
BOTTOM LINES ARE DIRECTLY
IMPACTED BY TIME LOST TO
CHARGING OR THE LACK OF
AVAILABLE CHARGING
INFRASTRUCTURE AT JOB SITES OR
ELSEWHERE, THEIR NEEDS REPRESENT
A USE CASE THAT WILL PROVE
DIFFICULT TO ELECTRIFY. HYDROGEN
FUEL CELL ELECTRIC VEHICLES, OR
FCEVS, ON THE OTHER HAND, OFFER
SUBSTANTIAL PROMISE IN
ACCOMMODATING ENERGY INTENSIVE
AND HARD TO DECARBONIZE USE
CASES SUCH AS FREIGHT HANDLING
AND TOWING. BY VIRTUE OF THEIR
RAPID REFUELING NEEDS. THESE
CONSIDERATIONS ARE ESPECIALLY
RELEVANT TO CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE FLEETS. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE FROM THE LOOK ON YOUR FACE.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HEAR
FROM YOUR WITNESSES. I DON'T
BELIEVE THE BILL HAS ANY
OPPOSITION, YES. OH, HI. I'M
LISA MCKEE, AND I'M THE ZEV
PROGRAMS AND AFFAIRS MANAGER FOR
TOM'S TRUCK CENTER. WE'RE MEDIUM
HEAVY DUTY COMMERCIAL LOCATED IN
THE GREATER LOS ANGELES AND
ORANGE COUNTY AREA. AND WE'VE
BEEN HIGHLY ACTIVE IN THE H FIT
PROGRAM, LAST YEAR WE SUBMITTED
OVER 268 TRUCK VOUCHERS, A TOTAL
OF $75 MILLION OF REBATE DOLLARS
IN 2023. WE HIGHLY SUPPORT
SENATOR NEWMAN'S BILL.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, LIKE
SMALL BUSINESSES, ARE FACED WITH
UNAFFORDABLE PROCUREMENT OF
SUVS, INCLUDING THE PICKUP
TRUCKS, WHICH ARE REGIONALLY
PRIMARILY FOCUSED. FOR EXAMPLE,
LANDSCAPERS AND ONLINE
E-COMMERCE DELIVERY VEHICLES.
PLUMBERS AND ELECTRICIANS OFTEN
USE THEIR TRUCKS FOR OVER 50% OF
THE MILES FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES,
AMEND H TO INCLUDE PICKUP
TRUCKS, H FIT DOES NOT ALLOW
PERSONAL USE. INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS DESERVE TO
PARTICIPATE. DRIVE ACHIEVE THE
SAME SET OF BENEFITS AS OTHER
COMMERCIAL FLEETS. INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS ARE NOT AN EXCEPTION
. H FIT SHOULD AMEND TO SUPPORT
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND
PICKUP TRUCKS TO SUPPORT OUR
CLIMATE POLICIES. AMEND AND
REMOVE THE FOLLOWING FIT QUOTE.
IF USED FOR COMMERCIAL AND NOT
PERSONAL USE. END QUOTE.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS ARE PART
OF THE SOLUTION. FURTHER, I
OFTEN SEE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
TRACTOR DRIVERS FACING
CHALLENGES IN H AS INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS ARE LARGELY PARKING
THEIR TRUCKS UNDER MONTH TO
MONTH QUARTERLY OR ANNUAL
AGREEMENTS UNDER WHICH H FITS
REVIEW REQUIRES THREE YEARS
MINIMUM. THIS IS FLAWED. THIS
MODIFICATION IS CRITICAL TO
TRUCK DRIVERS AND INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTORS. ACF THE ADVANCED
CLEAN FLEET RULE INCLUDES
VEHICLES OVER 8,500 POUNDS AND
SOMETIMES THE PARCEL DELIVERIES,
WHICH WOULD BE SLIGHTLY UNDER
THAT SECTION 179 ALLOWS A TAX
DEDUCTION IF USED FOR BUSINESS
PURPOSES. 50% OF THE TIME. OKAY,
IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND WRAPPING IT
UP, YEAH, I WILL. THE FEDERAL
INVASION INFLATION REDUCTION ACT
AND THE CLEAN VEHICLE REBATE
PROGRAM IS A BENEFIT ON THE
HOOD, AND IT IMMEDIATELY REDUCES
THE INVESTMENT UPFRONT COSTS,
WHICH THE IRA AND THE CVRP DOES
NOT. SB 138 SEVEN ALLOWS MORE
AFFORDABLE SUB PURCHASES BY
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS, BUT IT
CAN AFFORD THESE INVESTMENTS.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
DAMON CONKLIN WITH LEAGUE
CALIFORNIA CITIES WITH BREVITY
AND MINE. I'LL KEEP MY REMARKS
SHORT, REPRESENTING THE CITIES
WHO ARE CAUGHT UP WITH THE,
ADVANCED CLEAN FLEET REGULATION
COMPLIANCE. INCLUDING DRAINAGE
AND PRIORITY FLEETS. CITIES,
INCLUDING COUNTIES AND SPECIAL
DISTRICTS, ARE NOT ONLY RE
TRANSFORMING THEIR FLEETS, BUT
ALSO HAVING TO INVEST
SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE
INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THESE
VEHICLES. CLASS TWO B REPRESENTS
KIND OF THE PLURALITY OF THEIR
FLEETS. AND SO, EVERY ARROW IN
THE QUIVER IS USEFUL TO HELP
OFFSET THE, THE HIGHER AND
DISPROPORTIONATE COSTS OF ZERO
EMISSION VEHICLES TO INTERNAL
COMBUSTIBLE ENGINES. SO WITH
THAT WE SUPPORT THIS BILL AND
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR HIS
LEADERSHIP IN THIS SPACE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. OTHER
FOLKS WHO WANT TO EXPRESS
SUPPORT, TERESA COOK, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN
COALITION, CALIFORNIA HYDROGEN
BUSINESS COUNCIL. IT'S A GOOD
BILL. WE APPRECIATE YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CAMERON DIMITRI WITH
CAPITAL ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF
FIRST STUDENT NATIONAL EXPRESS,
I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATIONS
WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE TO MAKE
SURE THAT, OUR COMPANIES ARE
ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN COVERING
SOME OF THE SCHOOL BUS FLEET
NEEDS IN CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. MARK
NEUBERGER WITH THE CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES.
WE'RE IN SUPPORT ALONG WITH THE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES.
GREAT ALL RIGHT. OPPOSITION. I
DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY
REGISTERED OPPOSITION. LET'S
BRING BACK TO THE COMMITTEE FOR
QUESTIONS. MOVE BY SENATOR
DASCHLE, SENATOR, YOU MAY CLOSE.
YEAH, I APPRECIATE THE COLLEGIAL
CONSIDERATION HERE, MR. CHAIR, I
LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING YOU COME
BEFORE MY COMMITTEE, WHERE I
WILL GIVE YOU ALL THE
CONSIDERATION AND RESPECT THAT
YOU HAVE EARNED. SO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR INDULGENCE HERE. AND
AGAIN, I DO THINK I WILL SAY,
ALL KIDDING ASIDE, IT'S
IMPORTANT TO GET THIS ON THE
RECORD. YOU KNOW, THE ADVANCED
CLEAN FLEET, AMBITION, IS REALLY
CHALLENGING, PARTICULARLY IF WE
DON'T INCLUDE RURAL, WORKERS AND
OTHERS WHERE THERE ARE, YOU
KNOW, USE CASES WHERE IT'S GOING
TO BE VERY HARD TO DECARBONIZE.
THIS IS AN EFFORT TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE ALIGN THAT EFFORT WITH
THE MARKET AND IN SO DOING,
ASSIST WITH THE ACHIEVEMENT OF
CALIFORNIA'S GOALS. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. MOVE BY SENATOR
DOLE. SECRETARY, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL SB 1387. THE MOTION IS DUE
PASS AND WE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION.
SENATORS ALLEN I, ALLEN I, DOLLY
, DOLLY I GONZALEZ ARCHULETA I
ARCHULETA I MENGIBAR MENGIBAR I
NGUYEN SKINNER OKAY SKINNER I
SKINNER I ALL RIGHT, I THINK IT
IS ED STILL HAPPENING, BUT IT'S
OKAY. SO GONZALEZ SAYS SHE'S
OVER THERE DOING SOMETHING. OKAY
CONSENT FOR. SKINNER. ALL RIGHT,
LET'S LIFT CALLS. LET'S DO LET'S
START WITH, SALADO. THE SB 936.
OKAY SB 935, ITEM ONE, SB 936.
THE MOTION IS DO PASS AS AMENDED
AND RE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE
ON TRANSPORTATION CHAIRS. VOTING
AYE. VICE CHAIR. VOTING AYE.
GONZALEZ NGUYEN. OAN. NGUYEN.
AYE. SKINNER AYE. SKINNER. AYE.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO, CONSENT
CALENDAR. IS EVERYONE ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR? YES ALL RIGHT.
WE'LL DO THE CONSENT CALENDAR,
GONZALEZ NGUYEN. CONSENT
CALENDAR. I SKINNER. THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY,
LET'S GO TO, SENATOR BLAKE
SPEARS, 1053, FILE ITEM THREE,
SB 1053. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS
AS AMENDED, AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
CHAIR. VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR
VOTING NO. GONZALEZ NGUYEN. NO.
NGUYEN. NO. SKINNER SKINNER.
AYE. ALL RIGHT. SENATOR BLAKE
SPEARS 1167. FILE ITEM FOUR SB
1167. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
AND RE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS, CHAIR. DOLLY.
VICE CHAIR IS VOTING NO.
GONZALEZ. ARCHULETA NGUYEN. NO.
NGUYEN. NO. OKAY. THAT IS WE'RE
STILL GOING TO WAIT FOR
GONZALEZ. LET'S. 1147 SB 1147
PORTANTINO FILE ITEM FIVE SB
1147. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS AND
RE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
RULES CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE
CHAIR DOLLY GONZALEZ NGUYEN.
OKAY, OKAY, LET'S GO TO ITEM
SIX. LAIRD 1188. FILE ITEM SIX,
SB 1188. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS
AND RE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR VOTING AYE.
VICE CHAIR. VOTING NO. GONZALEZ.
NGUYEN. NO. NGUYEN NO. OKAY.
WE'LL GO TO SENATOR WIENER'S SB
1227 FILE ITEM SEVEN SB 1227,
THE MOTION IS Dð PASS AS AMENDED
AND RE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
REVENUE AND TAXATION. CHAIR
VOTING. AYE. VICE CHAIR. VOTING
NO. GONZALEZ NGUYEN SKINNER,
THIS IS, ITEM SEVEN. YEAH 1227.
SKINNER. AYE. OKAY LET'S GO TO
ITEM EIGHT. SB 1255 TERRAZZO.
OKAY. FILE ITEM EIGHT SB 1255.
THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED AND RE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR VOTING AYE.
GONZALEZ NGUYEN SKINNER. HI
OKAY. NGUYEN. NØ. NGUYEN. NO
OKAY, SB 1342. ATKINS. OKAY.
FILE ITEM NINE SB 1342. THE
MOTION IS TO PASS AND RE REFER
TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR VOTING AYE.
VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE. GONZALEZ
NGUYEN NGUYEN. AYE. ALL RIGHT.
SENATOR NEWMAN'S, SB 1387 FILE
ITEM TEN, SB 1387. THE MOTION IS
Dð PASS AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. GONZALEZ NGUYEN. Ã.
NGUYEN. AYE OKAY, SENATOR
BECKER, SB 1395, FILE ITEM 11,
SB 1395. THE MOTION IS DO PASS
AS AMENDED AND RE REFERRED TO
THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. GONZALEZ NGUYEN
NGUYEN. AYE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
WE'RE GOING TO RECESS BECAUSE
APPARENTLY SENATOR GONZALEZ IS
IN A BIT OF A HAIRY BILL, AND
WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK
AND LIFT THE CALL FOR HER, BUT
EVERYONE ELSE HAS ALREADY VOTED
RIGHT IN 13 AND 14 WERE CONSENT,
RIGHT? 13 AND 14 WERE CONSENT.
THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. OKAY. GREAT.
OKAY THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING.
YEAH. SO OKAY. YEAH.
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO
RECONVENE THE SENATE
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE.
YES I THINK SO. I THINK HE DID.
AND YOU NEED TO GO ON, MIKE. ARE
YOU TALKING OVER THERE? OKAY
YEAH, WE'RE RECONVENING THE
SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
COMMITTEE, SO LET'S START GOING
THROUGH THE VOTES. WE'RE LIFTING
THE CALLS. ITEM ONE SEYARTO SB
936. THE MOTION IS DO PASS AS
AMENDED AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
CHAIR VOTING. AYE. VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ
AYE. THAT'S OUT. SEVEN. OH.
THAT'S OUT SEVEN. OH, WE'LL
CLOSE THE ROLL ON THAT ITEM. ALL
RIGHT. WE'LL GO NEXT TO THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. OKAY. GONZALEZ
I OKAY OKAY. THE CONSENT
CALENDAR IS CLOSED SEVEN ZERO.
LET'S NOW GO TO SENATOR BLAKE
SPEARS SB 1053 FILE ITEM THREE,
SB 1053. THE MOTION IS Dð PASS
AS AMENDED AND RE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR.
VOTING NO. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ.
AYE ALL RIGHT. THAT'S OUT 5 TO
2. WE'RE NEXT GOING TO SB 1167
BLAKE SPEAR FILE ITEM FOR SB
1167. THE MOTION IS DUE. PASS
AND RE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR FOR NOT
VOTING. VICE CHAIR NØ GONZALEZ.
AYE. GONZALEZ. AYE OKAY. WE'LL
CLOSE THE ROLL AND THAT THAT
FAILS. THAT'S 2 TO 2 VOTE WITH
THREE THREE ABSTENTIONS. ALL
RIGHT. NEXT ONE. SB 1147
PORTANTINO FILE ITEM FIVE, SB
1147 MOTION IS Dð. PASS AND RE
REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES
CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR NOT
VOTING GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ. AYE
THAT'S 5 TO 2. WILL. OH, SORRY.
5 TO 0 WITH TWO ABSTENTIONS.
WE'LL CLOSE THE ROLL ON THAT,
SENATOR LAIRD, SB 1188, FILE
ITEM SIX, SB 1188. MOTION IS
DUE. PASS AND RE REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
CHAIR. VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR
VOTING NO. GONZALEZ GONZALEZ.
AYE. I GOING TO CLOSE THE ROLL
ON THAT 5 TO 2. DO YOU WANT ME
TO HAVE ITEM SEVEN GO LAST. IS
THAT OR DO YOU WANT TO. YEAH.
LET'S DO THAT OKAY. LET'S GO TO
ITEM EIGHT. THAT'S SB 1255
DARAZO MOTION IS DUE. PASS AND
WE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR VOTING AYE.
VICE CHAIR NOT VOTING. GONZALEZ
GONZALEZ. AYE. THAT'S 5 TO 1
WITH ONE ABSTENTION. WE'LL CLOSE
THE ROLL THERE, SENATOR ASKINS,
SENATOR ATKINS, SB 1342, FILE
ITEM NINE, SB 1342, MOTION IS
DUE PASS AND WE REFER TO THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. GONZALEZ SALAS AYE.
707 IS ZERO. LET'S GO TO SENATOR
NEWMAN'S SB 1387 FILE ITEM TEN
SB 1387 MOTION IS DUE PASS, AND
WE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION IN CHAIR VOTING
AYE. VICE CHAIR VOTING AYE.
GONZALEZ GONZALEZ. AYE. THAT'S
DONE. 7 TO 0. LET'S GO TO
SENATOR BECKER'S 1395 FILE ITEM
11 SB 1395 MOTION IS DUE. PASS
AS AMENDED AND RE REFERRED TO
THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS.
CHAIR VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR
VOTING AYE. GONZALEZ. GONZALEZ
AYE. SEVEN. THAT'S SEVEN IS
ZERO. OKAY. MENGIBAR IS ALREADY
DONE. OH, WAIT. YEAH, YEAH,
YOU'RE ALL SET. EXCEPT FOR THAT
ONE ITEM. OKAY, OKAY. READY?
OKAY, WE'RE ITEM SEVEN. THIS IS,
SB 1227, MOTION IS Dð PASS AS
AMENDED. AND RE REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND
TAXATION. CHAIR. VOTING AYE.
VICE CHAIR. VOTING NO. GONZALES
OKAY. THREE. TWO. SO FAILS. 3 TO
2. WE COULD GRANT
RECONSIDERATION. I MEAN, I THINK
IT'S DOUBLE REFERRED ME. OKAY.
IT IS DOUBLE REFERRED. YEAH
THANK YOU. 1227 ARE YOU COMING
RIGHT BACK OR. NO FAILED
PASSAGE. SIR, ARE YOU GOING TO
ANNOUNCE. THAT BILL IS DONE
.
1227. WIENER FILE ITEM SEVEN. SB
1227. THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED
AS AMENDED. AND RE REFERRED TO
THE COMMITTEE ON REVENUE AND
TAXATION. CHAIR. VOTING AYE.
VICE CHAIR. VOTING NO. GONZALEZ
NGUYEN NGUYEN. AYE. ALL RIGHT.
WELL, THERE YOU GO G. OKAY,
THAT'S 4 TO 2. THERE'S ONE
PERSON LAYING OFF. OKAY ALL
RIGHT. WELL, LET'S THAT'S,
THAT'S IT, THAT'S IT. RIGHT ALL
RIGHT, WE'RE ADJOURNED