Assembly Natural Resources Committee

Would you like to present AB 40? Hi, Ms. Margaret.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm proud to present AB40, the Community First Coal Review Act, on behalf of the beautiful people of Oakland, Alameda, and Emeryville in AD18. Earlier this year, President Trump announced $700 million in funding to send coal in communities across this country. By nature of our access to the coast and Asian markets, there are several facilities across the state that could be attractive to this administration to send unfathomable amounts of coal throughout it. AB 40 requires a full CEQA environmental impact report before any new or expanded coal terminal exists exceeding 5 million short turns per year can receive a discretionary approval It requires updated review when coal type or quantity changes significantly and it requires that where there is significant air quality impacts are found, the developer must demonstrate enforceable mitigation before any approval can be issued. Today, the threat is in Oakland, but the bill is not only about Oakland. If this White House is willing to invoke emergency powers and direct federal dollars to build a coal terminal over the objections of a community in my district, nothing stops them from doing the same thing somewhere else in California tomorrow. In West Oakland, one of the most environmentally overburdened communities in the state of California, the federal government is moving to build a bulk coal export terminal using emergency wartime powers and $75 million in targeted federal funding. The state has recognized our documented cumulative pollution burden. A child born and raised in West Oakland has a life expectancy at least 15 years shorter than a child in a wealthier part of Oakland. No community should be forced to accept new pollution burdens based on outdated science. AB 40 answers this question clearly in California. If there is a new plan with new material and new coal, there should also be a new environmental impact report. This is a textbook example of why our environmental review laws are on the books. The environmental review this terminal operators rely on is over a decade old. It did not evaluate coal as today's proposed scale of 9 to 10 million short tons annually, and it predates the latest science that could inform crucial decisions about its usage. and operations. California should not be asked to accept expanded coal infrastructure based on environmental review that is outdated, incomplete, and misaligned with the current science and current project plans. With me to testify, I have Ms. Margaret Gordon from West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project and Colin O'Brien, attorney with Earth Justice. You ready?

Thank you very much. I appreciate y'all wanting to hear my story and my comments about the issue of coal. I've been here. I've been there since the beginning of the decommissioning of the former Army base. I have been in West Oakland since 1991. I have been in the forefront of emission reduction truck issues and relating to health care, health and public health issues of West Oakland by as one of the founders of the co-director of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators. I am still a resident of West Oakland, even though I have transitioned out of the organization. I'm at the University of Berkeley. I am a community scholar and a fellow. But my heart, soul, and life is still with West Oakland. Like I said, I have been part of the process of the decommissioning of the former Army-based land and to a redevelopment. But in the whole process of redeveloping the land between the port of Oakland and the city of Oakland nobody had given us the information that coal was going to be a product for the city side of the Army base for the OBOT the Oakland bulk terminal that was never given to us up front Nothing was given to us up front to say that the city of Oakland and all these trials and tribulations that they have gone through with the courts was ever explained to us and to us as residents. And we have been in the forefront, my organization has been in the forefront of talking about how do we go beyond about just surviving but thriving in a healthy community. We have produced our own documents of community participatory research over the last 30 years. Right now, my role is not as staff, but I am the chair of the board. I'm not going anywhere. I love my community. I love my residents. I'm still involved in as many things as possible, even though I have a job. I still have a job. I'll be 80 years old this year. I have not stopped working. I have 17 grandchildren and a great-granddaughter. And I want them to have the ability not to just to thrive. I want them to have the resiliency and the skills to deal with all these issues in the future, because it's not going to go away. And I'm just hoping through this EIR, y'all see our plight of constant issues and concerns that come back. We have the fugitive dust issue that's coming off the cold train. We have a process with the Port of Oklahoma, the channel for larger ships. But the state, with CARB and Bay Area Air Quality, y'all spend all this money to do a mission reduction on AB617. That is such a contradiction that this is happening when we already know that West Oakland has all these issues. One out of five children between the ages of zero or seven end up at an emergency hospital for respiratory disease. We still know that we still have people from 59 to 65 have cardiovascular disease. So there's still a problem here. And this cold terminal will add on to more accumulative impact that nobody is talking about and permitting and permitting. It shouldn't have the permission to add on to something that y'all has spent all this money. State of California has spent all this money for emission reduction. And we still have all these other fights, struggles that we have to deal with about the turning base and fugitive dust. And simultaneously have to deal with this cold terminal. I want to appreciate y'all giving me this platform to speak about from my heart, soul, and lifelong experience being part of the process to want to save lives. Thank you.

all night and next year if I do it.

Good evening, chair and committee members. My name is Colin O'Brien, and I'm a deputy managing attorney with Earthjustice. I am here to proudly support AB40. We support this bill because it will ensure that enormous, dusty, and dangerous bulk coal facilities will be subject to robust environmental review and meaningful mitigation. Reflecting industry input, this bill has been amended to make sure it only applies to the largest coal facilities, not other projects or infrastructure. A recent CARB-funded study measured air quality at the existing coal terminal in Richmond, California, and found that coal operations there emitted harmful particulate matter pollution that can cause or worsen heart and lung conditions and even lead to premature death. AB 40 responds to the Trump administration's plan to fund a high volume coal terminal in West Oakland. The plan envisions moving three coal trains through California every day, each one a mile long and comprised of 100 open cars of dusty, polluting coal. Alarmingly, the previous outdated reviews for the Oakland Terminal never addressed the possibility of handling coal. They only discussed bulk goods generically. And even then, they did not address fugitive dust emissions from the project's operations, which is a unique concern for coal facilities. And only a much smaller project was disclosed. Developers now want to handle 10 to 12 million tons of coal per year, significantly more than any existing facility in the state. Under these circumstances, common sense dictates that an updated, meaningful environmental review should be completed. AB 40 would require such a review, and we appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening. Jacob Evans with Sierra, California in support.

Marie Lu in support for CEHA and PCL, the Center of Environmental Health and the Richmond Shoreline

Good evening. Christina Scrooge with the Center for Biological Diversity in support.

Chloe Shay on behalf of California Environmental Voters in strong support.

Veronica Eady, co-sponsor and executive director of West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project in support.

do either of you have 17 grandchildren and one great-grandchild

Unfortunately, this bill flips that paradigm on its head by explicitly using CEQA to target a single project that has already gone through a robust CEQA process, obtained all the relevant approvals, and even then survived almost over a decade of litigation where at each point it was confirmed that the project followed all the state and federal requirements. Instead, this bill is really seeking to relitigate a project that has already been settled at the state and federal level. And in so doing, it sets a pretty frightening precedent that the CEQA process is never really final. A project can go through all the relevant approvals under sequest, the robust analysis, receive all the relevant approvals, and even survive judicial review. And even then, a legislator could come back and reopen the process. Ultimately, that's not the message we want to send to businesses as we're trying to attract investments. And for those reasons, we'd urge you to hold the bill. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Alfredo Medina here with Manat, Phillips & Phillips on behalf of Insight Terminal Solutions. Given the nature of this late off-the-floor Before hearing, I'll be preparing remarks from ITS CEO Vikas Tenden. AB40 sends a damaging signal that California can change the rules after developers have relied on existing approvals and invested hundreds of millions of dollars. We want to highlight three points. First, the 2012 EIR Addendum, well before the Trump Administration took office, studied and approved all bulk commodities, including coal, at volumes of up to 50 million tons annually. The EIR expressly contemplated up to three unit trains per day. Three unit trains is over 15 million tons. An analyzed PM 2.5, PM 10 impacts with mitigation measures incorporated into the approved seaport zoning. Second, when Oakland later raised health and safety concerns, both Judge Chabria, President Obama appointee, and a Ninth Circuit court found that there's no evidence that the transportation, handling, or storage of coal presented the substantial health and safety danger that they claimed. Long-running monitoring around the Oakland Army base has likewise found no demonstrated correlation between Co-Rail movements and the elevated PM 2.5 levels. Notably, the City of Oakland is absent and not supportive of AB 40. Third, this bill creates a troubling precedent. The broader Army-based development is more than 90% complete, and AB 40 is selectively targeting this terminal while excluding another bulk commodity just roughly 1,000 feet away. The message to developers is clear. Even after approvals, litigation, and substantial investment, the legislature can retroactively change the rules. For those reasons, we urge a no vote. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Bryan and members. John Kendrick from the California Chamber of Commerce. Appreciate the amendments that were taken recently, but respectfully remain opposed. Thank you. Matt Roman on behalf of California Business Property Association and Union Pacific Railroad in opposition. Thank you. Good afternoon. Elizabeth Esquivel at the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in a respectful opposition. Thank you.

What is the regulatory agency over PM 2.5? Is it not the Air Quality Management District?

Okay. Have they already approved this project?

What's the ultimate disposition of this call?

So it's trans-shipped?

What type of abatement equipment do they use?

Yeah, give us a second. We're just going to look for that data. I know there was extensive mitigation that was proposed as part of the project. Yeah, so you're actually not fueling anything with this coal, which would make me worry about sulfur compounds. But if it's PM 2.5, I'm sure that they're under dust abatement criteria that would meet the Air Quality Management District specifications. So if it's already been gone through that process, okay, thank you for that. Appreciate it. Assemblymember, may I address that?

Thank you.

So there, and I will address a bit the opposition's testimony, which I think is specious. First of all, there's no opposition letter submitted by the city of Oakland. So I want to just, as a point of order, clarify that the city of Oakland has not indicated whether or not they are supportive or not of this bill, and largely because there is an ongoing lawsuit. And if I were in the city's place, I'd be kind of bummed about this project right now. So your own analysis, this committee's own analysis, acknowledges that there was no, in the 2002 EIR report, any kind of possibility of developing bulk goods terminal considered in that EIR. And in 2012, also acknowledges that there was no consideration of, in the addendum, any discussion of developing a bulk goods terminal, but did not identify or analyze coal as a potential commodity within that. So I think that there is certainly a difference of opinion about whether or not there has been an EIR conducted for this particular use case. And it's essentially why we are moving forward, seeking to move forward with this piece of legislation to make it absolutely clear that there is a need to be able to have an EIR when there is a projected use that has not been considered for the community. This bill also explicitly provides that nothing in this legislation, again, in your analysis, just to be clear and clarify, speaks to the building use or infrastructure that is not a large volume bulk coal facility or affects the validity of a previously certified EIR made for building use or infrastructure that isn't a large volume bulk coal facility. So while I appreciate the sense of worrying about this having implications beyond this particular use case of large bulk coal facilities throughout the state of California And for particular usage we made it very clear in this legislation that there is no ability to have any kind of slippery slope implications with this legislation. And I would ask my witnesses to respond to the question raised by Assemblymember Ellis regarding the PM2 levels. Vice Chair, regarding whether the Air District has approved this project, what you heard from the opposition was categorically false. The developers have acknowledged consistently over the last decade that the project can only go forward if they secure a discretionary authorization to construct from the Air District. In fact, that point was a centerpiece of the litigation that the opposition mentioned. When Oakland passed an ordinance banning coal storage and handling, the developer said, hold on, you don't have adequate grounds to view this project as a substantial danger. And the reason you, the city, don't need to jump in is because you have not taken account of the fact that the Air District will have to exercise strict oversight. In court documents and in the judicial opinion that Judge Trabria wrote, he emphasized that the Air District would exercise strict regulatory oversight over the project and that they would have to issue an air permit. And I can quote the decision if it's helpful. But for your own reference, we know that the developers earlier this summer met with the Air District, had a pre-meeting and acknowledge that an application is still forthcoming. So what AB40 does is make sure that as a predicate to issuing that permit, which has never been subject to SQL review, or for a project that has never been subject to SQL review for the actual coal dust emissions, that meaningful environmental review and robust mitigation will be baked into the forthcoming discretionary project that the air district has to consider. Yes, you may. Also, just summarize it shortly. Sounds like Bay Area AQMD has not approved of this and there hasn't been an application received. Correct. Mr. Vice Chair. So there's no permit application, no authority to construct, none of that? No. Okay, thank you. Mr. Alanis,

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My questions will not be as technical as the vice chair's.

Thank you. And just one more for you. What was the reason for establishing additional, if we haven't got to already, on CEQA requirements beyond the existing framework that they already talked about at the federal and state level?

Thank you, Senator Member. And for the opposition, I'm going to give you guys a chance

Okay.

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

Can I add one thing?

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

If I had a magic wand, I would support having the developer be sitting at a table to exercise his rights as well as our rights to breathe. Exercise his right to have a business model to take care of his business, but simultaneously asking him how he's going to—him and his team is going to help prevent us being impacted, have disparities. a burden or impact. I haven't heard any of that from nobody to tell us what is that plan. And I think that is just as valuable for him to have the business model as well as to save our lives to have clean air Yes ma Thank you for that Madam Secretary can we establish a quorum real quick Brian Here.

Here.

Alanis here.

Connelly here.

Garcia here.

Here.

Hoover.

Macedo.

Macedo here.

Here.

Pellerin.

Pellerin here.

Schultz here.

Zipper.

Zipper here.

So moved.

Mr. Marisucci, Mr. Connolly.

Aye.

No.

No.

Connolly, aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Maritsuchi, aye.

Pellerin, aye.

Thank you.

Move the bill.

Yes, ma'am.

Members, I'm here today to present SB 344, a bill that provides a pathway for the city of San Diego's Midway Rising Redevelopment Project. The Midway Rising project is desperately needed to revitalize a centrally located but underutilized public asset. This project would span 49 acres, 25 acres being on blacktop asphalt parking lots. It replaces an aging arena with a new modern sports and entertainment venue. But more specifically, Midway Rising would deliver approximately 4,250 housing units, including 2,000 deed-restricted affordable homes, a 16,000-seat sports arena and entertainment venue, and more than 14 acres of parks and public space. This project maintains this area's role as a regional entertainment destination, but gives it a much-needed upgrade. A transit-oriented neighborhood that supports affordable housing production, active transportation, sustainability, and public access is exactly what the Midway area needs. The City of San Diego faces an acute housing shortage, and even more so an affordable housing shortage, with a medium home price exceeding $1 million. As of December of 2024 the Regional Housing Needs Assessment found that San Diego will need 108 new home units by 2029 to meet the demand of all income levels This project helps us meet our goals and needs The City of San Diego has conducted thorough environmental analysis for almost a decade related to this project. This bill is needed because all other efforts have been exhausted and we need shovels in the ground as soon as possible. It is imperative that we advance what may soon become one of the largest affordable housing projects in the western United States. But let me be clear. This bill does not provide CEQA exemption for Midway Rising Project. All requirements under CEQA have already been completed for this project, so there are no additional provisions in CEQA law to exempt this project from. Since the City Council's initial action in 2018, the City, as the CEQA lead agency, has conducted extensive environmental and local review, including a community-wide environmental impact report in 2018, a supplemental environmental impact report in 2022, and a final subsequent environmental impact report specifically for the Midway Rising project, which is scheduled to be certified by the San Diego City Council this fall. SB 344 establishes a narrow project-specific pathway for the Midway Rising Project by providing that the final subsequent environmental impact report is sufficient, adequate, and complete for CEQA compliance. Although this bill includes an urgency clause, its operative date is contingent upon certification of the final subsequent EIR at the local level. This EIR and its related environmental review have already been completed, approved by the City of San Diego Planning Commission, and is ready and publicly available. This contingency simply ensures that its protections go into effect only when it is officially certified. Additionally, SB 344 explicitly states that all mitigation methods incorporated into the EIR shall be monitored and fully enforced by the lead agency. The project's application is also required to submit an annual status report on the implementation of those mitigation measures. We cannot allow for any more delays. We need to advance this project now for San Diegans. Here with me today are the bill's sponsors, Moira Topp on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria and Keith Dunn on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council and the California State Council of Laborers. I thank you both for being here. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the California State Building and Construction Trades Council as well as the State Council of Laborers. First, I want to thank the author for her hard work and dedication and her staff in working diligently to get this bill to you today. I also would like to thank committee staff for their hard work in giving us a pathway that is hopefully acceptable to members. I want to just take a moment and reflect on the historic level of unity among organized labor around a housing bill. We have the state building trades, the carpenters, and laborers. My friend from the carpenters is going to say something in a bit here, so I'll let him speak for himself. But I just want to recognize the opportunity that we have here. This broad coalition recognizes the leadership of the mayor of San Diego Todd Gloria and the other elected officials there down in San Diego and our senator who brought this forward after years and years of discussion It a housing crisis that has been decades in the making that we can start to address This coalition of labor has come together because we need to have opportunities for the individuals who build these facilities to continue to live in the neighborhoods that they're building. Labor support is rooted in a simple principle. Major public-private developments should deliver lasting benefits for working people and the communities that they help build. SB 344 meets that goal, and we ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members. Moira Topp here on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria. To echo my colleagues, thanks to the author for bringing this bill forward and to your committee staff working diligently to get a bill that is improved and we think will do great things for the city of San Diego. The mayor believes this is a once-in-a-generation project. This truly is going to be foundational and transformational in the city of San Diego. It will bring 4,250 home units plus walkable, additional transit, additional park space, additional entertainment venues. It is truly a community within a community. It is, as the author mentioned, it's a project that's been in the works for a decade. And it's time to bring this to closure. this bill will help us move this project to fruition and to get shovels in the ground and to get people housed in San Diego. On behalf of the mayor of San Diego, I ask for your aye vote.

Mr. Chair, I'm Mr. Scott Wetsch on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers, California State Pipe Trades Council, the Western States Council of Sheetmell Workers, and the Elevator Constructors Union in support. Amy Brown on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce in support. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of San Diego Housing Commission, California EMB, Circulate Planning and Policy, and Student Housing Commission in strong support. Thank you. Danny Curtin, California Conference of Carpenters. Please support this measure.

Thank you, Senator, for your presentation. I'm trying to understand the bill. It looks like on page three, second to last paragraph, it basically appears to summarize the purpose of this bill. There is a new EIR specific for the Midway Rising Project, but this bill is not necessary for the city to certify the new EIR and approve the project. Rather, this bill is intended to shield the city and the project from litigation claiming that the new EIR does not comply with CEQA. Is that, in essence, the purpose of this bill? The purpose of this bill is to essentially state that once the city has certified the EIR, which is generally the last step to CEQA, that it is CEQA compliant. And yes, if they end up having to go through another round of litigation, it will help in the court system. It will not prevent people from being able to sue. People can sue here for anything, but it will hopefully help and not delay it another four, five, ten years. So... I'm trying to remember if I've ever voted on a bill like this, that legislation to declare that a project is fully compliant with CEQA. Is there a precedent for this? This would be a first time in the past with the Kern. Last year, 237, the ruling was that it was compliant with CEQA and any past litigation, or it was retroactive. This is actually stating that this current EIR, and it's very specific because this EIR has been out for a year, I believe, and there are no changes anticipated. And so if you read the bill, it specifically calls out this EIR and does not necessarily allow for other changes or significant changes to help them with any future litigation so that we don't have to come back next year and try to do something that may not stand up in the court.

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

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

Yes. Well, first of all, I want to thank this committee staff for working on this bill. Thank the chair. But I also really want to thank my staff. This has been something that we decided to do after I had a community conversation and really learned about the benefits and got a chance to hear from the community about Midway. And that was in August, but we've been talking about this for this entire legislative session. This is a new area for me to represent. But once I saw the potential and heard the answers to some of the questions around the EIR, I realized that this is something that definitely needs to be done. It is something that the city has been trying to do for a very long time. And I really don't want this to end up back in the courts because the courts will just continue to drag this on. and we know that the needs continue to grow. So I really want to thank my staff for all of their hard work on this, along with the chair of this committee and the committee staff. You know we debate so many topics here in Sacramento and there are things that we can agree on from across the aisle We all say that we need desperately need more affordable housing here in California Well, the Midway Rising Project will bring over 2,000 affordable units. In California, we are ranked 48th in the nation of unemployment. This project will bring over 1,000 permanent, good-paying jobs. everyone talks that we need more social services like child care health care job training this project brings all of that that was one of the things that i was surprised about they have a an mou with the ymca to have a daycare on site they have an mou with one of our health facilities to have a health clinic on site we talk about the need for more open green spaces for people to be able to go and play. This project brings all of that. We talk about the need for different types of transportation. That is what this project brings. It will be walkable, bike-friendly, transit-oriented. This project provides so many of the things that we claim that we care about, that we want to provide for our residents and our constituents. It does that and still holds up the state's environmental standards and protections. And I will once again say this is not a CEQA exemption, but it is a pathway forward once the city certifies it so that we can get shoveled in the ground. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 344.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

No.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and esteemed committee members, having heard the bill being moved and seconded, I will respect your time. And I just want to say that as I begin here, that this is a culmination. This bill, SB 328, is a culmination of decades of work, over three decades. I personally am now two decades into this project. And so SB 328 will provide an exemption within, not outside or exempting from, but it provides an exemption within the Surplus Lands Act, as well as the federal-based closure realignment disposition process by qualifying projects within the Area of Concord Reuse Project Area Plan. I would like to express a huge thank you to the chair and staff, committee staff, for their great great work on this bill 328 is a district bill that supports the implementation of a long transit development on the site of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station with housing job facilities, open space, environmental improvements. The plan anticipates no fewer than 10,000 housing units with 25 percent of those units affordable to low-income households, 6.1 million square feet of commercial building space, community facilities such as school sites, neighborhood parks, sports facilities, and approximately 2,500 acres of open space. 328 will bring this long-anticipated and much-needed project, which also has the potential to create years' worth of construction and construction-related jobs closer to reality. In 2010, a multi-year process with substantial public input, the city certified an environmental impact report under CEQA and adopted the Concord Naval Weapons Station Reuse Plan. So the city adopted in 2012 an addendum to the EIR and approved the area plan incorporating the reuse plans, policies, and goals into the city's general plan and establishing a land use plan that would transform former naval weapons storage facilities into mixed-use, transit-oriented, and sustainable community. The Navy completed National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, environmental review for the disposal and reuse based on the area plan and issued a record of decision in 2017. And although redevelopment on the Concord Naval Web Station has undergone nearly two decades of land use planning and substantial environmental review under both CEQA and NEPA, as well as a federal-based closure and realignment disposition process, implementation of the area plan will require multiple future discretionary development approvals over many years. So SB 328 will facilitate implementation of the area plan by leveraging the federal-based closure and realignment disposition process, along with extensive CEQA and NEPA review already completed for the weapons station for qualifying projects that fall within primary development parameters, 25% affordability, labor agreements. So 328 does not exempt qualifying Concord Naval Weapons Station projects from review and oversight. It simply leverages review and oversight already completed for Concord Naval Weapons Station. I do want to state that the support will come and express their support. But I want to state that some have said, well, we need to make sure it's enforceable. That's what two years of negotiations have accomplished in the past two years with HCD and the administration to make sure we have enforceable tools in place. So HCD is comfortable with the agreement that we've come to with enforceable tools to make sure this happens. And they have that. Others have expressed concern over the Navy's National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106. And I could take the time, if you wish, to go through all of the meetings that have taken place. I have pages here. I have this here to show. And a public document and a public notice that was done and published in 2016, how we have covered that and met all the requirements to make sure multiple tribes have been contacted and engaged with. So we have done our homework, three decades of work, 20 years on my part, and I beckon, beg, and ask for an aye vote.

Mr. Chairman and members, Scott Wetch on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, California Coalition of Utility Employees, California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers. My clients, and by virtue of representing them, I've been involved for over two decades with this project. I cannot think of another project anywhere in California that has been the focus of more local review, public meetings, collaboration with the entire community, literally thousands of hours of meetings. This is a unicorn project. It's going to benefit all nine Bay Area counties with the housing and the transit and everything that it's going to produce. It is truly a unicorn project, and we would urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Louis Berante on behalf of the Bay Area Council, here to support. Thanks.

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

Thank you so much. Any person here in the hearing room in opposition to this measure? Anybody just kind of not like it? We'll turn it back to committee members. Motion and second. Mr. Cora, you have a question.

Hello, Assemblymember Cora.

Right. Great question. And I do want to make you feel comfortable about that, which is why we have what's called the Surplus Land Act in place, to be able to make sure those things are enforceable. So in this particular case, the reason for the exemption within for the Surplus Land Act, SLA, is because the project has been broken up into different dispositions. And what we were trying to do is make sure that if we have an approval for the entire project, that it stays whole and that we don't initiate a whole new process all over again each time we go from one disposition to another. So in this particular case, HCD is set up to be able to review and make sure that each disposition, in this particular case, I believe there's five? Five major phases. Five major phases. each one of them will go through review with HCD to make sure that we are on track with meeting those numbers.

Yes, and there needs to be clarification on that. At the beginning of when the DDA is 30 days prior to it being brought to the city, it'll get sent to HCD for their review. So they'll be able to review the DDA that incorporates the 25% and how it's being incorporated in the project. And the DDA, once it gets executed by the city, is considered a disposition. And then HCD will also have their regular housing element. They have a ton of methods through that, every cycle and stuff to be evaluating it. It's a 40-year-long project, so there will be many a times when they'll have their ability to do what they do.

Well, you actually opened a door there. A perfect segue into being able to address that what we are dealing with here is a plan that's already been approved. It's already been reviewed under CEQA and NEPA, along with the mitigation measures and the Historic Preservation Act So if there anything that is different that is outside of the parameter that has been approved then it immediately kicks in extra reviews So we only approving what already been approved in the area plan. If we were to go, or if the developer was to go and decide we're going to completely revamp this particular area and redo it all over again, that would not fall under this bill. They would have to literally go and go through the whole process, CEQA or EIRs to create a full-on CEQA, all the reviews, NEPA all over again. So this is only for what's been approved. If something new was found or something not even extraordinary, but significantly or substantively outside of the plan that's been approved, everything goes back to the way it would be as far as all reviews being required. Including the consultation with the appropriate tribes. Yes, and more clarification, if you need. Yeah, so when they did the NEPA review, it was 10 years of consultation and reaching out to, I believe it was 10 tribes that were identified. So when the city, and that was before the city did their final EIR and certification, so within that is mitigation measures that have been identified for when. So they've identified there are some sensitive areas. they've, they're actually areas that will are currently planned to be habitat preservation as well. So we don't disrupt ideally as much. And so there's measures to deal with and consulting when, if we do come across remains or anything, then we have to go out and, you know, identify the tribe and work with them.

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

Thank you, Senator. It's the last bill we may be hearing unless we get any last-minute referrals, and it's incredibly brave of you to do something this heavy this late, Senator. I think it's probably a good idea that you're bringing it from the Senate over to the Assembly because had it been the other way around, I might have some last-minute amendments for you. Yes, sir. This bill has a do pass recommendation from me. Madam Secretary, can we call the roll? The motion is do pass. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Ellis? Aye. Ellis, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Garcia? Aye. Garcia, aye. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Hoover? Aye. Hoover, aye. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Maritzucci? Aye. Maritzucci, aye. Pellerin? Aye. Pellerin, aye. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Wicks, aye. Wicks, aye. Zipper, aye. Tepul is out. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. And then we have a motion on the I calendar by Ms Wicks and a second by Mr Alanis Madam Secretary can we call the roll The motion is that the resolution be adopted. Brian? Aye. Brian, I. Ellis. Ellis, I. Alanis. Alanis, I. Connelly. Connelly, I. Garcia. Garcia, I. Haney. Haney, I. Hoover. I. Hoover, I. Calra. I. Calra, I. Macedo. I. Mertzuchi. I. Pellerin. I. Pellerin, I. Schultz. I. Wicks. I. Wicks, I. Zabur. Zabur, I. And then we have our last bill presentation by Mr. Matt Haney on behalf of Assemblymember Schiavo.

Move the bill.

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

Thank you. I have a feeling that there might be one person against this measure. No, there's no persons in this room against this measure. There's no opposition. All right. No opposition at all. I judged. I judged. We'll now turn it back to committee members. Questions, comments, concerns. Mr. Ellis, this might be your last opportunity to ask a question.

Oh, there we go. Senator, would you like to close?

All right. Do we have a motion and a second? And a third and a fourth? Madam Secretary, can we call the roll? The motion is that the Senate amendments be concurred in. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Ellis? Aye. Ellis, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Connolly? Aye. Connolly aye Garcia Aye Garcia aye Haney Aye Haney aye Hoover Hoover I cholera cholera I Macedo Macedo I Marzucci Marzucci I Pellerin Pellerin I Schultz I Shultz I wicks wicks I zipper It has 14 votes. I'm calling the absent members. Hoover? No. Hoover, no. Cholera? Aye. Cholera, aye. Wix? Aye. Wix, aye. That bill has 10 votes. Lifting the call on SB 344 Weber Pearson. The motion is do pass. Wix? Aye. Wix, aye. That has 12 votes. It is out. This concludes the Assembly Natural Resource Committee hearing. Thank you. Thank you.