Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us for this meeting of the Senate Committee. Good morning, Senators and staff. We welcome the public in person, and we are holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street building. I ask all Members of the Committee be present in room 2200 so we can establish our quorum.

It looks like we have a quorum. We have 12 bills on today's agenda, two of which are on consent. File item number six, SB534, and file item seven, SB558. Please note that this is our final regularly scheduled hearing on Senate bills. We will begin hearing Assembly bills in June.

Please expect the first hearing to be scheduled for June 18th. Finally, we will have an informational hearing scheduled in Los Angeles next Friday, May 16, on land use and housing policies to rebuild communities affected by the alley fires. I think we can proceed with quorum. Assistant, Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Now we can take up the consent calendar. Yes. A motion. Do I have a motion? Senator Choi makes a motion to adopt the consent calendar. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, the vote is 4-0. We keep the Bill on call. We will now hear from our first author. Welcome, Senator Grayson. And you will be presenting SB227. Good morning.

Good morning. Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, I would like to first start off by thanking the Committee for their work and collaboration with our office.

I am pleased to present SB227, which extends authorization of the Green Empowerment Zone, also known as GEZ, and expands the GEZ board's jurisdiction to include four additional cities and environmental justice representatives. As many of you know, the San Francisco Bay Area is the second largest oil refining hub in or on the West Coast.

In 2020, the Marathon Martinez refinery in Contra Costa was indefinitely idled, resulting in the immediate loss of 700 jobs. This abrupt closure deeply affected not only the workers and their families, but also served as a war signal to the broader community about the volatility of this industry and the potential risk to thousands more refinery jobs amid our state's shift toward clean energy.

Now, in response to that, I did author AB844 in 2021, which established the Green Empowerment Zone. For the northern waterfront area of Contra Costa County.

The GEZ builds upon state and regional partnerships to attract state incentives, whether it be tax incentives, grants, loan program, private sector investments, and all focused on fostering the region's green and clean energy economy.

Now, the GEZ Board of Directors already includes a diverse array of stakeholders, yet there is an absence, there's an absence of environmental justice organizations, which we're trying to fix with this Bill. It leaves really a critical perspective unaddressed. So the Board has the authority to also incorporate new cities.

Explicitly codifying these new cities into the Bill would give us the ability to sustain and be proactive as far as unity and participation on a regional level. SB227 also addresses those gaps by formally expanding the GEZ to include El Cerrito, Pinole, Richmond and San Pablo, and by adding environmental justice representatives to the Board.

In addition, the Bill extends the Board's authorization date to 2040. This is really, really providing long term stability and framework for sustainable regional collaboration, especially when it comes to public private partnerships and the investment that goes into it. They have to have the certainty of a longer term. And there are other reasons.

With the 2035 target to end the sale of gas powered vehicles, it does give the it is critical that the GEZ is authorized beyond that deadline, especially given the unique role that the District's refineries play in the regional economy and energy transition.

So extending the authorization to 2040 would provide the Board with the Runway that it needs to support decarbonization efforts, invest in emerging clean technologies, and maintain regulatory and financial stability for industries and workers impacted by the transition away from fossil fuels.

By incorporating these additional voices onto the board and extending the authorization, 227 strengthens the board's ability to leverage regional assets, facilitate a just transition to a lower carbon economy, and creates pathways for equitable economic growth.

I know the board in its original formation also required reports, and it took a little longer for us to stand up the board than what we were expecting because each jurisdiction has to bring it to a public meeting and vote. And it took a little while to coordinate all of those jurisdictions to come onto this board.

But we are very excited. This board is comprised of elected officials from local governments. It is comprised of county officials, as well as labor and environmental, environmental justice groups and higher education institutions as well. Very good Bill. It's working fabulously and we're expecting it to work even greater with this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Grayson, do we have anyone in support of SB227? Okay. Seeing none anyone in opposition to SB227? No hearing. None. Coming here to the Members. Questions? Comments? Senator Cabaldon?

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I really want to salute the work of the Senator on this. On this. On this legislation. But on the Zone, originally, I represent the nine cities that are currently covered in the Zone. I represent four of them. The analysis doesn't mention Palayo, but Palayo is a proud member of the Zone as well.

And it's inspired by, as Senator Grayson said, by the by, what's happened across the. Across the straits from my district. But if there was ever a time when we need the Zone is it's with the recent announcements at the Valero refinery in Benicia, which is in my district, that this.

That I'm so grateful that this infrastructure that Senator Grayson has not just been carrying legislatively, but doing all of the legwork to bring the Zone to life and then to keep perfecting it. If it weren't for this, we would be so far behind in preparing either to avert the closure or to. Or to respond and to change the direction. So I really appreciate the Senator's work on this.

Look forward to continuing the partnership and, and the recognition that this cannot succeed without the active engagement of the environmental justice community who would have been part of it, but now will be a formal part of the board and recognized in law for that, for that work. So thank you so much. At the appropriate time, I'd love to move the Bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Seyarto thank you.

I have a question. I have no problem with a couple of, you know, extending the sunset date makes a lot of sense. Making sure it's inclusive of all interests. That makes sense. Repealing the requirement to report the metrics.

Because this, it seems really important to me that if this is to be something that other regions may look at and say, ooh, that model works, we should follow it. That we need some proof that it's working.

And if we're not going to do the reporting of the metrics of how it's working and have some show of progress, how are we. How are we going to. How are we going to show them that?

Senator, you can take all the credit today for having that report reinstated back into the. It is our intention to make sure that the reporting requirements stay intact and are in there.

That I think there was just a little bit of a misunderstanding on language and we are going to make sure that reporting is a part of the. Okay. Composition of the Green Impairment Zone.

Yeah, it almost has to be. If we want to be successful, but also because, you know, there's also sometimes the reports don't come back all rosy. Yes. And they indicate a need to make adjustments.

And we have some of those indicators out there right now already, and, you know, some of it with the Valero plant closing and others. You know, one of the main goals this at the beginning of session this year was that we are going to address the affordability crisis. Yes. Well, if we don't address the.

The reasons behind the affordability or the unaffordability, we're not going to address that. And at the root, the root cause of affordability is energy policy. Energy policy related to this specifically. So anyway, we'll be supporting your Bill today.

Just want to make sure that we see that when it gets to the floor that we will see that language where it does have some reportability on the metrics. Thank you. Very good.

Okay, no more comments or questions. I too want to add to my colleagues remarks. I'm really glad to support this and glad to see this work being done.

I don't want to say in advance of a crisis because we are in somewhat of a crisis already, but this would certainly add to our ability to address that crisis in a way in which people are really involved. So I commend you and I support your Bill and we could move on. Okay. And the motion?

The Bill has been moved by Senator Cabladon. Oh, I'm sorry.

Yes. Closing remarks. I want to thank the chair and the Committee for your Collaboration. Thank the good Senator for his observation of reporting. Accountability and transfer and transparency remain high priority in my governance and how I legislate. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is do pass to the Senate Floor. Call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote is 5-0 and will remain on call. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, we'll move on to item number two, SB390. Senator Becker, welcome.

Good morning, Chair. Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 390. And thank you to the chair. Thank you to the committee and the staff to. For your work on this bill. Excuse me.

This bill addresses an unintended gap in the Mello-Roos Act that allows fully developed commercial properties with partial conservation easements to opt out of contributing to infrastructure funding.

This loophole was highlighted by a 2019 court ruling that invalidated a legally approved CFD in South San Francisco in my district, despite receiving a 2/3 super majority vote, the bill is narrowly crafted to play only to properties within the regional shoreline of San Mateo county, where many parcels are subject to BCDC.

The Bay Conservation and Development Commission Easements BCDC Easements. Developed properties benefit from local infrastructure, roads, water, sewers and should contribute to the costs under current law. Some owners enjoy these services while avoiding their fair share of funding, shifting the burden to other taxpayers.

SB 390 restores the intent of the Mello-Roos Act by ensuring that all benefiting properties participate equitably in funding improvements. South San Francisco's 101 corridor is home to the world's largest biotech cluster. Planned infrastructure upgrades are over $180 million and they're essential to support expected job growth of up to 100,000 employees total by 2040.

And without this bill, the city faces significant barriers to financing critical transportation and public service improvements. These improvements include multimodal transit, bike, pedestrian paths, bay trail access, all aligned with California's climate goals. Ironically, some conservation easements blocking CFD participation also benefit directly from these environmental upgrades. This bill does not remove conservation easements or cancel the protection.

It still requires the formation of a CFD to meet the 2/3 voter approval threshold and it ensures local control while resolving a technical obstacle to infrastructure investment. SB 390 upholds the will of local voters by preventing a minority of landowners from vetoing democratically approved community funding plans. Thank you.

And today I'm joined by Eddie Flores, the Mayor of South San Francisco.

You may proceed.

Thank you. Good morning Chairwoman Durazo and members of the Senate Local Government Committee.

My name is Eddie Flores and I am proud to serve as a Mayor of South San Francisco and also serve as President of the League of California Cities Peninsula division, representing all 20 cities in San Mateo county and all 16 cities in Santa Clara County.

And as co chair of the Cal Cities Latino Caucus, I am here today in strong support of Senate Bill 390. I want to begin by thanking Senator Becker for his leadership on this important piece of local legislation.

SB 390 is a district specific bill that provides the City of South San Francisco with the authority to advance a Community Facilities District, or CFD and close a loophole that exempts certain property owners from participating.

This loophole allows property owners with conservation easements on developed or entitled parcels to avoid contributing to infrastructure improvements even though their properties benefit directly from them. The east of Highway 101 area in South San Francisco is home to the largest and fastest growing life sciences and biotech cluster in the world.

It currently includes over 250 biotech firms with 7.5 million square feet of space under construction or approved for development. This area is also a vital industrial and warehouse hub for the San Francisco Bay Area. We project that by 2040 the number of employees in this area will triple to nearly 100,000.

The Eastern Neighborhood CFD supports the state's and the city's climate goals by encouraging commuters to the city's biotech hub to take transit and bike, walk or use other non motorized transportation to complete their commutes.

It enhances public access to the San Francisco Bay Trail by making it safer and more convenient to bike, walk or use transit options to get them from other parts of the city. To keep pace with this extraordinary growth and maintain our status as a global leader in biotech innovation, South San Francisco must modernize critical public infrastructure.

The CFD will support essential improvements multimodal transportation infrastructure, including transit, bike, and pedestrian upgrades. Enhanced public access to the Bay Trail and shoreline for nearby residential neighborhoods. Senate Bill 390 makes a narrow technical amendment to the Mello-Roos Act that applies solely to South San Francisco.

Again, the goal is to ensure all property owners who benefit from public improvements, regardless of conservation eastman status contribute fairly to the cost of those improvements. In closing, thank you for your time and consideration of this local government policy and I respectfully urge your support for SB 390.

Thank you, Mr. Flores. Anyone else in support of SB 390? See none. Anyone in opposition to SB 390? Seeing none. Okay, any questions or comments? Senator Cabaldon.

I have a question. I'm supportive of the bill. It's raised an interesting question, and the original legislation was by my predecessor three generations ago.

And I don't know if it's a question for the author or the sponsor or for the committee staff, but are we talking here then about parcels that have an easement on a portion of the parcel and the remainder of the parcel is developed? Is that what are these parcels that exist in both dimensions at the same time?

My issue is that some of the parcels can't. Can I ask my.

Yes, absolutely. That is true. So some of the parcels are separated by two, but it could be a combination of both two.

Okay, so the. So the parcels that are fully in an agricultural or a conservation easement and can't be developed, those would also be covered here.

Or is it only applied to parcels that are, you know, there's a commercial enterprise or an office building on the parcel, but the parcel also Includes an open space easement of, you know, eight feet wide to get to the, to the bay or something like that is.

Which is it both things are just the only ones with the conservation easement. Yeah, but, but that have only a conservation easement or that have a conservation easement. Okay. So. But what I'm trying to describe is the, the bill is originally motivated.

The original bill from 25 years ago was really motivated by, you know, Williamsback easements sort of things that were parcel wide. Sure. And so, you know, the case was made like you shouldn't be in a CFD because this is an undevelopable parcel. But the case that you're describing is these are developable and in many cases developed already.

So are the parcels like partly developed and part. So unlike Williamson Act, which it would be partial wide. But I'm assuming then from the BCDC that these are open space easements or some similar easement that is just a portion of the legal partial. That is it that's at stake here.

Yes, that's my understanding. Yeah.

Okay. All right. It doesn't. I'm for it either way. I think this is the right. But I'm just the issue. Especially since we're making this, we're having to declare findings that we can't make a bill, a statewide application. We can't. But I do think it's an.

This bill, this bill raises a bigger policy question about how about these kinds of parcels that may exist in other context because BCDC is obviously not the only one that does this.

And as we're particularly, we're seeing more development at the, at the interface and more and open space easements which are different from ag or other kind of conservation easements, which are often intended to provide linkages between urban and open space uses, other open space uses. So it's, it's not about, it's not about this specific proposal here.

But I do think it raises an issue for the, for the committee or for others or maybe me to look at it in the future. So appreciate, appreciate you totally unaware that this was an issue and I think you've raised a good one too. Thank you.

Any other. Yes, Senior Seyarto.

I have a question about the. When the CFD is formed, usually it's done prior to development and there's usually one or two landowners who want the CFD formed so that they can develop and then they divide up the land and everybody else's problem.

So did these people that have partial lots, did they already vote on a CFD thinking that half their lot is not subject to the CFD. In other words, are they going to have to go back and vote again on the continuation of a CFD?

Can we ask them? Yeah. No vote has been taken yet. No.

This is. So this CFD hasn't been formed yet.

Correct.

So this is ahead of that. Okay. That's what I want to make sure that we're not retroactively going back and saying we're going to change the rules now that you voted.

It's clearing up the loophole, and then it will go down.

Perfect. Thank you. Clears up my question.

Yes. Senator Laird?

Well, I thought I understood this bill coming into the hearing, and now I've gotten confused. So my question is, is if there's an underlying conservation easement, nothing overturns that conservation easement as it moves into this district. It still is exactly as it was agreed to on that property, Right?

That is my understanding, correct. Yeah.

Okay, I'll take the yes. But that is my understanding isn't good enough. Okay, then. Then that satisfies my concern. Yes.

Okay. Any closing remarks, Senator Becker?

Yeah. I thank the committee for clarifying questions and happy to, you know, as you consider other applications, you know, if this applies in other areas. Happy to be part of that discussion, but thank you for the discussion. Respectfully, ask for an I vote.

Okay, thank you. We have a motion by Senator Cabaldon and the motion is due. No, didn't you. Oh, I'm sorry. I got you. I got it confused with the previous one. Does anybody else want to make. No.

Okay.

Okay. Senator Cabaldon. Motion is due pass to the Senate Floor. Roll call, please.

[roll call]

The vote is 5 to 0. Will remain on call. Thank you, Senator Becker. Thank you, Mr. Flores. We're moving on now to item number three, SB 409. Senator Archuleta, welcome. Good morning. You may proceed, Senator Archuleta.

Thank you. Good morning. Committee Members and Chair, Senate Bill 409. Public contracts, county owned. It pertains to my home county, Los Angeles County. Once again, good morning. I thank you for allowing me this time to present my Bill 409, Senate Bill 409 today.

It's an essential piece of legislation that will empower Los Angeles County to expand or to respond swiftly and effectively to an urgent facility repairs, particularly in the aftermath of the events of the January fires and I know we've all been watching the news and listening how it's affected LA County Senate Bill 409 will increase LA County's force account limit from 50,000 to 125,000 for performing alterations or repairs on county owned facilities.

The current $50,000 threshold set in 1982 no longer reflects the reality of today's construction and repair costs. Currently, any project that exceeds the current $50,000 force account limit must be completed through a competitively bid process.

The duration of this process impedes the county from acting quickly to address critical repairs, oftentimes increasing the time and money it takes to complete the project. Contracts come with an overhead cost as well as costs associated with onboard timing, orientation, preparation of plans and additional scope of work.

An example of this is in 2019 repairs for an underground storage tank for emergency fuel at Los Angeles County Hospital. That initial quote for the repairs was 125,000, but due to the $50,000 threshold as of March of 2025 just last month, the county is still waiting for the repair to be performed through a contract at a cost of 1.3 million because of the time lapse.

Updating this limit is a common sense measure that ensures LA County can maintain crucial critical infrastructure, safeguards public safety and public services and remain responsive during the emergencies without compromising service to the residents.

This Bill is more important now than ever as it will allow the county to repair and rebuild facilities effectively that are affected by the wildfires and allowing communities to recover quickly. Additionally, I worked closely with the laborers in the unions to address their concern and we've come up with a modest measure successfully removing the opposition.

Hence the agreement reached by all parties at 125,000. And I called the union representatives myself this personally this morning and I thank them all for the reaching that compromise and removing any opposition.

So with me today I have seven Scott, Director of Capital Projects and Facilities Management for the County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services and Mark Isidro, Legislative Representative with the County Chief Executive Office here in LA County, for any technical questions you might have and with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Good morning. You will have two minutes each. Thank you very much. Welcome.

Thank you Chair and Members. My name is Stephen Scott. I am the Director of Capital Projects and Facility Management for Los Angeles County Department of Health Services.

My role involves the maintenance, repair, renovation of Los Angeles, four county hospitals, two ambulatory surgery centers and 24 health centers as the regional net Safety provider Los Angeles County Health Services cares for over 500,000 unique patients each year and employs over 23,000 staff. We're the second largest municipal health care system in the nation.

And today I'm here to urge your vote for Senate Bill 409. As previously noted by the Senator, Senate Bill 409 would raise the current the county's the current force account limit that was set at $50,000 in 1982 for alterations and repairs to the county's own facilities.

This change would position Los Angeles County to provide immediate repair work for our facilities to maintain infrastructure effectively and allow the county to expedite vital repairs and upgrades ensuring our facilities remain operational and effective. My Department employs over 275 construction trade union members.

These electricians, carpenters, masons, plumbers, steam specialists, refrigeration specialists, sheet metal and painters work every day to ensure our hospitals and clinics can provide extraordinary care. Increasing the forced account limit would more fully use the training and value of county employed labor. It is important to note that our county workers are represented by labor agreements.

Those undertake these types of projects possess intimate knowledge of our facilities, equipment and operational requirements. Moreover, county trade staff typically have established productive working relationships with county facility proprietors and operators which can enable the sharing of resources to expedite work processes.

And in communities affected by natural disasters such as the recent January fires, this appropriate force account limit increase will help us ensure the delivery of essential services to our residents. Lastly, the county has identified 80 county structures being impacted by the recent fires.

Senate Bill 409 will play a critical role in our recovery efforts and it will allow our representative trade workforce to carry out timely repair to our facilities. For these reasons, Los Angeles County respectfully requests your support. Thank you. For Senate Bill 409.

Go ahead. Good morning Chairmembers. Mark Isidro, Legislative Representative for the County of Los Angeles. I just want to thank the Senator for authoring this Bill on our behalf and also thank his staff, the Committee staff, as well as the Building Trades Coalition to really come together and striking the proposal that works for all parties involved. And I'll be on standby for any questions. Thank you.

Great. Anyone else in support of SB 409? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to SB 409, please come forward. Say none. Okay. Come to the Members. Senator Seyarto

Thank you very much. Question for the author, perhaps through the county employees. So we have the Uniform Public Construction Cost to County act, which 48 of 52 counties belong to LA does not belong to that. And this kind of that kind of addresses this issue, a little bit of raising up the cap.

But it was built for transparency. Why is LA not participating in that and instead choosing to go through the Legislature to do a fix just for them? Because it kind of sets a precedence for all the other ones.

Everyone else, I can imagine 58 counties going to want to, or however many counties there are, are going to want to come to us and do the same thing because then they don't have to comply with that act.

Yeah, I think first and foremost, the current force count limit within the uniform act of $75,000 doesn't do much for the county, which is why we're here before you today asking for $125,000. So that's the first kind of reason why we're unable at this time and why we're seeking SB409.

Right. But the second tier of that is an informal bid process between 75 and 220,000 that more than covers the 125,000. Why do they not think that is an acceptable way of dealing with this issue? Because. But there's an element of transparency. Having worked for the county watching how much things cost.

A water leak costs $50,000 to fix. Now it's just ridiculous. So for the tax paying public, I think they want the transparency to know that these things are costing money and how much money they're costing. And that second tier I think is really important.

I'm going to support this today, but I'm a little bit leery about going down this path because I think there are other ways of addressing it that require more transparency for the public. But I understand the need right now in LA County to get something on the, you know, to address it.

And the 125 is not that much more than. Madam Chair, may I comment?

Yes, go ahead.

Yeah. And that's why it was so essential to get the unions and the county to come together. And again, it's 1999 and so this is a milestone for the County of Los Angeles to be able to come together like this and talk about transparency. The unions are doing it, the county is doing it, and here we are.

This is why. But I think at the long run we will be saving money. We'll be representing our communities. And I'm LA County primarily in my community. So it's essential we go forward with this. And that's why I wanted to publicly thank the unions to working with us on this.

And I think it's a good way to start and I think it is good for labor it is good for the community and certainly for the victims of the fire and those that are waiting for see the buildings redone and so many infrastructure and what have you.

Thank you, Senator Choi.

Yeah, thank you. Senator Archuleta, I wonder, the minimum threshold for bidding from 50,000 that you are mentioning too low to $125,000. Is there any justification? $125,000. Why that number that you are proposing is optimum number?

Well, this is the number that was reached between the unions and the county. And you know as well as I do the cost of labor, the cost of material is there. It's a reality.

And they found that working with all the trades, this would be the magic number, because obviously the county was looking for another number and the unions were another. But this is where they came together. This is what the agreements are all about.

Thank you.

Is there anything that you want to add to that?

I could just add that originally, when we came with a higher number, we simply just did a calculator adjustment, a CPI adjustment, from 1982 to 2024. And so as we continued our discussions with all parties involved, we landed at 125. And so this is really just a calculator adjustment, a CPI calculator. Correct.

Okay, thank you. No more questions or comments. You're welcome to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. We have a motion. Anybody? Okay. Senator Cabaldo moves the Bill. Roll call, please.

[Roll Call]

The vote is 5-0 will remain on call. Thank you, Senator Archuleta. Thank you. Next we have item four, SP499. Senator Stern, good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair.

Welcome.

Please share. I want to present our legislation, SB 499. This comes from a place where, you know, I've grown up and live in and represent fire country. And we are also in a place where we have lack of affordable housing.

And it puts you in a tight spot when you want to meet housing demand and deal with that crisis. And at the same time, you got wildfire and climate crisis right on your doorstep. For a lot of small cities in our backyard, I think they're trying to do the right thing and meet both these demands.

And it turns out that one of the best fire defenses we've got are our strategic parklands. Parklands, in other words, that serve not just a purpose of being a nice place to hang out and be with your family. But also can be fire breaks in the middle of a crisis.

That can be buffer zones to ensure that evacuation pattern. People have time to evacuate their homes in the middle of a crisis. I saw this head on, you know, trying to get out at a narrow intersection and just two big roads, Kanan and Agoura, and you're going to build 70 units there.

It's like we're going to say yes, right? They want to say yes, and everyone wants to. To get to that place. But also, okay, then where do people go? How do they get out? And if you have the. You happen to have a oak woodland right around that. That turns out it's really good at dealing with fire.

The grasses burn in our area, but the big trees, they hold and they can block fire. And so those kind of interesting fire solutions, which are. I'll wrap up quick because I want to let our former fire chief speak more articulately on the power of parks in fighting public safety emergencies. But, yeah, I just.

I see it in my own backyard where we're saying, yes, but we're trying to do so safely. And I just want to appreciate the committee's work on this, but also the author from last year's work on advancing housing policy and reducing unnecessary fees. Senator Wiener and I have spoken, and hopefully he'll have a chance to comment.

But I appreciate the overall mission there. I think what we're trying to do here is make sure that parks aren't arbitrarily excluded from that tool of resources that local government should have to keep people safe. And so that's the purpose of the bill. And I know we have.

We are taking the amendments from the committee and really trying to focus on how these parklands are categorized in our hazard mitigation plans, and ultimately that they should belong in the public safety element of that local general plan.

So I think that's going to ensure that it's not just any old park that you're picking and that they're not. We're not offending the sort of underlying purposes of Senator Weiner's legislation from last year to sort of say you can just use parks as a proxy for.

Yeah, sort of any purpose you want and sort of wedge that under a public safety piece. We think that this.

That pushing it through this sort of the hazard mitigation process and then ultimately through the public safety elements will give it a rigor and a discipline around this so that, you know, our local governments are hitting both goals and struggling with these issues and just making it through.

So I'll turn it over to our lead witness here just to make a brief comment on the rest of that. Respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you.

Yep.

Thank you. You have two minutes each. Thank you very much and welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair, or excuse me, good morning, Chairmembers. Dane Hutchings, serving as the advocate for the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts and statewide organization representing 70 independent park districts throughout California.

Sponsors of SB 499 in partnership with Senator Stern, this bill is about providing clear, practical guidance to local agencies and developers around when impact fees can be collected for public improvements at support fire, public safety or emergency services. These projects take years to design, fund and construct, requiring ongoing upgrades and maintenance. Let me be clear.

SB 499 does not create a backdoor expansion for feed referrals related to parkland. Rather, it is to provide responsible guidance to ensure facilities and parklands that service fire buffers, evacuation areas and cooling centers are recognized for the essential public safety role they play within a consistent planning framework.

We must ensure that our emergency servicing infrastructure is in place before or at the very least in conjunction with new development. Simply crossing our fingers and hoping our communities remain safe is not an effective strategy. I want to briefly acknowledge our lead witness, Doug Nichols.

The Chair of the Conejo Recreation and Park District and retired fire marshal, was originally slated to testify but wasn't able to be here. But he did plan to share how during the Woolsey fire and the Borderline mass shooting in 2018, the district managed park and community center served as shelter sites, meal distribution hubs, and even firefighter base camps.

Unfortunately, those experiences aren't unique. In fact, our team has provided each committee member's staff with district specific examples of dual use facilities that range from fire mitigation, flooding, extreme heat, supporting emergency access, evacuation and mass care. Across California, our member agencies are already integrating emergency functions into park design, not for recreation, but to protect communities.

What we seek with SB 499 is to ensure this kind of planning can be recognized and implemented with clarity and legal consistency across California. We respectfully urge your I vote on SB 499 and thank you Senator Stern, and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Go ahead. Good morning, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to comment on SB 499. My name is Dave Winnacker and I am the recently retired fire chief of a special district. I support the proposed amendments as a useful clarification of the conditions under which mitigation fees can be collected.

As the fire code official in my jurisdiction, I was regularly approached by parties seeking my certification that a particular initiative, project or idea was a critical wildfire safety necessity. Needless to say, many of these projects fell far below the objective threshold of importance to the community's safety.

Adding clarifying language to establish the standard of inclusion in the relevant hazard mitigation plan or related general plan element for use in fire, public safety and emergency services will reduce uncertainty, arbitrary designations and inevitable disagreement.

Further, given the outsized impact of parks and recreational facilities before, during and after an emergency, anything we can do to address uncertainty around their funding is a net positive.

Specific to wildfire, these areas can serve as durable passive protection measures in the form of green belt buffers as envisioned by public resource code 4290 that protect the community from wildfire.

Unlike fuel breaks and other single purpose mitigations, due to their regular use, multi purpose community amenities are far less likely to be neglected and allowed to decay over time.

As we struggle with the great challenge of wildfire adaptation during times of competing demands on limited budgets, seeking such innovative and sustainable solutions offers a clear path forward during an emergency.

Parks and recreational areas have been widely used as staging areas for responders, community resilience up and evacuation centers, as well as holding features from which firefighters work to contain the fire's edge during recovery. These areas play a vital role for repopulation aid distribution and equipment storage.

I would further note the widespread invocation of wildfire risk by local housing opponents and the increasing frequency of damaging fires that have entered existing neighborhoods that would, from a simplistic view, appear to support those housing opponents view. Science and lost experience clearly support the role in new construction in fire adapted master planned communities.

Plan protecting existing neighborhoods by serving as non burnable buffers. When developed in conjunction with maintained parks, network effects can be achieved whereby new construction reduces the regional risk of structure loss from wildfire. As such, I encourage you to advance this clarifying amendment, please.

Yeah, okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Okay. Anyone else in support of SB 499?

Good morning.

Good morning. Madam Chair and members. Obed Franco here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members Anthony Tannehill with the California Special Districts Association also in support.

Thank you.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the cities of Belmont and Rancho Cucamonga in support. Also conveying support on behalf of the Conejo Recreation and Park District, Cordova Recreation and Park District, Fulton El Camino Recreation and Park District, Mendocino Coast Recreation and Park District, North of the River Recreation and Park District, Pleasant Hill Recreation and

Park District, Rim of the World Recreation and Park District, Rio Linda Elverta Recreation and Park District, Truckee-Donner Recreation and Park District Valley-Wide Recreation and Park District, Wasco Recreation and Park District. And all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, is there anyone in opposition? Did I recall SB 499? Yes.

Testimony against?

Yes, against.

Good morning. Senators Corey Smith on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in respectful opposition here today. We were one of the sponsors of Senate Bill 937 last year, which had a couple of very simple goals. Number one, we wanted to reduce the cost of building new housing.

And then number two, we wanted to do so and still let governments be whole at the end of the day and get the same amount of money. And we think we accomplished that with the bill.

It is generally speaking, about a 1% overall reduction in construction costs because we're eliminating the carrying costs that projects have between the pre construction period and the post construction period and those interest payments on the fees themselves. And so that's how we're actually saving money.

And at the end of the day, local governments get the same amount of dollars. And that bill had a lot of work, worked very long with this committee to try to get that to a good place. Throughout all of that safety was a top concern and should remain a top concern.

Which is why we wanted to make sure that in that bill, anything that was essential for the infrastructure and safety of a specific project was a fee that was able to get pulled out. And if there was something essential for the completion of that project, we absolutely acknowledge that that should be- that should be taken out.

As- As was discussed by the- the support testimony, oftentimes the projects that we're talking about here in these fees are things that are hopefully planned out years in advance and is something we are hoping local governments are able to accommodate for. We do know that park fees are high. There's examples in Los Angeles.

We know that apartment buildings are paying 3 or 4x per unit on park fees. Compared to single family homes. City of Mountain View previously had a park fee that was more than $100,000 per unit. They were fortunately able to reduce that. So we are seeing park fees being in our opinion, a real barrier to building new housing.

And so at the end of the day, we want to protect against cities abusing carve outs. And I apologize for the late opposition. We were talking with- with the author and sponsor a lot over the last week hoping to get to a resolution.

Unfortunately, we were not able to do that and we are scared that this is going to start unraveling what we view as a very strong pro housing bill. And so in respectful opposition here today. Thank you.

Anyone else in opposition? No, seeing none. Oh, go ahead.

Thank you. California YIMBY in opposition of SB 499.

Yes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Karim Drissi, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, sincere apologies for the lateness of our letter. We align ourselves with the previous speaker and are in respectful opposition. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none. Members, questions or comments? Senator Seyarto?

Alright. Senator Stern, thank you for your bill. It is a timely bill. Yeah, sometimes it's hard to discern what is a public safety necessity. And- And I supported that bill last year regarding the mitigation fees and things like that.

But we are faced with some extraordinary issues in especially areas that are impacted by the wild urban interface areas. And it is important for our parks to be able to keep up with not only the development that's going in, because when the development goes in, the areas around it have to already be fire safe.

And the other part that you might have mentioned it, was a lot of times these park and these wide open spaces provide safe refuge areas for people to temporarily stay while the fire blows through an area where they can survive and then move on. And that's particularly important when you have evacuation issues.

And- And so, you know, I think this does fall into the category of for safety issues and for, you know, big concerns like that, because that was- that was what we had talked about last year in that bill was, yeah, let's put them off.

But there are some things that cities are going to have to make sure they're proactive in making. Now, if you're talking about a park in the middle of town, probably not as much.

But when you're talking about parks and trying to separate areas that are highly impacted and pack full of neighborhoods that are by fires, that's what this is, I think really about. And- And so I'll be supporting your bill today and appreciate that people are finally looking at this part of- of community planning.

Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The- The author and I have been spending a lot of time, the last 40 or, I don't know, 96 hours talking about this to see if there was a- a path for an agreement that would allow me to support the bill. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

And so I will not be supporting the bill today. And I'll explain why. I will say also that I do hope that in the future I'll be able to support the bill.

And so my hope is that we will, you know, that there could be continued collaboration to try to come up with a- a solution because I understand what the author is trying to do. I respect what the author is trying to do.

And I appreciate the witness testimony, particularly pointing out that we- we tend to have this very either or conversation in this building about wildfire risk and this notion that we should never be building anything

if there's ever an area with wildfire risk, as opposed to what we know to be true, is that we- we- we map these areas not to decide where to build or where not to build, but to decide how to build.

And there are times when you- that where new development can actually reduce wildfire risk if it's done well. And so I appreciate that broad perspective. So I think on the underlying goal of this bill, I think we're all completely on the same page.

My concern is the way this bill is structured, even with the- the- the amendment that was submitted a few days ago that was converted into a committee amendment. This will, I believe, open up a potentially huge loophole in SB 937 that not all cities, but some cities will try to drive a Mack truck through.

And we will see situations where cities will classify their entire park system as being an emergency use. And that will very much undermine SB 937. I also just want to back up and express what, I'll be honest is a frustration with the process here. I authored SB 937 last year.

The goal was to try to make development more financially feasible because we know that impact fees can be quite significant depending on the city.

And there's been work by now, Senator Grayson and others over time that to try to get a handle on the wildly divergent impact fees that we see in California, which in- in San Francisco, there was a point in time where it was almost $200,000 per unit in impact fees, which is outrageous. It's come down since then.

But it- it- it can be incredibly harmful in terms of building housing that- that pencils and that is affordable. And so the idea was let's take fees and instead of paying it at the beginning, pay it at the end so the city gets it. The city can't spend-

The city can't spend that money during the pendency of development anyway because you have to keep it in escrow because if the project falls apart, the money has to be reimbursed. So the city's not even spending or they shouldn't be. It's not responsible to spend the money during the course of the project.

It should be held in escrow regardless. So we did th- introduced that bill. We worked very intensively with local government committee. The chair and I initially came in very much not on the same page.

We- We had a definitely a difference of opinion on the bill, but we both worked in very good faith and with committee staff and I'm appreciative of that. And we reached a compromise and SB 937 in this committee was scaled back significantly and we were able to come up with something that we all supported.

And then over the remainder of the year we worked with this committee and other committees with local government organizations and we made many changes to the bill to account for feedback in that we want to make it more financially feasible to build and we're not looking to, you know, screw over local government.

And I think we reach a good balance that local government would get up front. The time sensitive fees and everything else would be deferred until the end. And that was passed, signed into law. It went into effect January 1st.

There- There are laws that go into effect and then a few years later you realize there's something amiss here and we need to correct something in the bill or adjust it. Here the bill, you know, obviously was introduced like six weeks after the bill went to effect. And I'm not criticizing the author.

The author did come to me last before the end of the session last year expressing that there was an issue that he was thinking about and working on.

So I'm not in any way criticizing the author for- for bringing the bill, but it, you know, as I think the analysis correctly refers to the paint not being dry yet on the bill. And then we're back with a bill to open up what could be a big loophole.

So I say all- all of this just by context of why I'm not supporting the bill today. The way it's structured now, even with the amendment does not put much of a constraint on cities ability to put whatever parks they want into their hazard mitigation plan or ultimately into their safety element.

And there are cities that will be very by the book and will only pick and choose which parks to put in that are truly needed for emergency use. But I feel like we've all seen the movie over and over again about what will happen in other cities. So with that said, I won't be supporting the bill today.

I will continue to have dialogue with the author and with his sponsors. And my hope is that at some point in this process, I'll be able to vote yes on this bill, because I- I don't. I agree with the goal of the bill. I just don't think that's how the bill is structured right now.

Senator Laird.

I just want to say. I really appreciate this debate. And the city that I was once mayor of is on the edge of a major fire zone. And-

And we had a fire that was- took 900 homes, and it was only our fire department cutting a- a fuel break at the city limits that was protecting us from one big wind. And there are parks and open spaces all throughout that area that are, in many ways, need to be our protection in how they are managed.

And I'm not suggesting that that's directly affected by this bill. It's just that I see it as a very relevant issue. And so I will vote to move this forward because I hope these conversations continue because there's a legitimate issue here and there's legitimate concern about jumping what happened last year.

And I just hope that the otter- author has taken those polls from this debate and- and will move ahead and try to work through it.

I have yes.

Senator Cabaldon.

Yeah. Thank you. I wasn't here for last year's bill, and I- but I also appreciate the dialogue, but I hope we don't end up at it halfway in between. A lot of opinion- A lot of folks have opinions about local government, finance and infrastructure, and most of those opinions don't.

They- They fail when you actually try to implement these projects at the local level. I'll give an example. My- The city that I was mayor of four years ago, we- after Katrina, we were told we had a- we had to do-

we had to redo all of the levies around my city for flood protection, which is not mentioned in 937 at all. It's not. It's not fire. Fire is not the. We also face a lot of fires in my district, but flood protection is a massive issue. We were told that that project would be $1.5 billion.

My city, at times 50,000 people. And so how do you do a $1.5 billion project when you're at the time the poorest city in the region? And you have 50,000 people and you have no choice because you're completely surrounded by levees. We're an island during the winter surrounded by water. Well, you do everything possible.

You pass a sales tax, you do a flood impact fee, you start redesigning your levees for habitat so you can put some habitat conservation money into the levee system.

You add some trails on top of the levees so that you can use your park mitigation fees to help contribute because you're trying to get the project done, trying to convince the Army Corps of Engineers that, yes, you know, here's we just found another $12,000 to this $1.5 billion project. You're doing everything that you can.

And so this notion that like you come up with a plan 10 years in advance and it's like a pristine immaculate conception financing plan for- for- for these projects, maybe that's true in bigger cities. I don't know, I've never been the mayor of one, but, but it's definitely not true on the ground in communities like this.

And so, you know, in the- in the- in the lowest income zip codes in my city, they're the first parks and trails that they've had have been part of the flood protection project and neither would have happened without the other.

And so it is absolutely critical that- that cities that are Mountain View have the opportunity to figure out where- where they can find a nickel in the- in the couch in order to advance these- these- these projects for public safety.

And so, you know, the number one strategy in my community to defeat NIMBYS is to not create these problems, not be able to- not have people concerned that if we build a project, we're not going to be- we're not- we're going to be putting the entire city at flood risk or there won't be a school or these other things.

And some of these issues were addressed in 937.

But I just want to urge us to- to have some respect and grace for how hard it is given Prop 218 and Prop 13 and everything else the voters have done and then all the things that we've done here to make the costs go up, how hard it is to do these public safety and- and- and life safety projects.

And so I think, you know, in some sense this bill doesn't go far enough in terms of that coverage because you're also doing this, you know, on the fly.

You get- You get word that, you know, the- the- the State Department of OAS has an extra half $1.0 million that they're going to grant out because it's the end of the fiscal year and you're trying to get your application in two weeks in order to get it done.

You don't- You haven't yet amended your safety element or adopted new hazard- hazard mitigation plan. You're just trying to go because the- the lives of your- the lives of your people depend on it. And so I appreciate the tension and- and- on the housing affordability side, but I do think you're onto the right issue.

This- To me, this is about perfecting 937 as opposed to undermining it and hope that the work will continue. But I do think this is important recognition that public safety, you know requires, that- that local governments are not just trying to bank money here.

In most cases, they're trying to do their best to- to- to address these really critical public safety issues in this bill is a- is a important step to resolve that piece, but also to open up the conversation more generally, I hope.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Choi.

Thank you, Chair. Senator Stern, you described the- the parks in the cities as a buffer for wildfire. And that's the reason allowing impact fees for homes nearby. And obviously this is additional fee that the home builders will have to observe.

So, you know, we- we suffer the housing cost because of all kinds of impact fees, the license fees, permit fees that the developers will have to pay. But if and when these parks are truly buffer for the wildfire, I think it may be worthwhile.

But parks will have all kinds of trees as well, depending upon what kind of a design the park is. But if the park is like New York Central park has a lot of, you know, of woods in there that could be, you know, fuel for the fire rather than buffer. How are you going to define the park that you are describing?

Because you have to put the park into the hazard mitigation plan and eventually have to put it in the public safety element. The general planning laws require, and FEMA requires rigor that it has to actually meet a hazard mitigation requirement to be in that plan.

So the kinds of the way that park is designed and even managed will have to be done consistent with mitigating a hazard, a public safety hazard. And so it would be against those purposes to say, have pine trees, dense pine tree forest in the Santa Monica Mountains right next to the new housing development.

But turns out oak trees, especially if they're about 250ft away or more, can be good. They can stop fire. So the park managers will be required because of how we wrote the law, to- to go for those kinds of designs versus do anything you want.

And you know, some parks we know may not have trees at all, by the way. You know, some may just be a shade- shade structure and a playground. But that- if that's in just the right place.

Even that gap of land can be the thing that prevents, say, a flood from drowning people in their houses or a fire from burning them. It's- It's a lot about the land management and how to get value out of that land so that it has- so it's- so you provide safety. I mean, that- that's the. We're.

We're in the safety lane. It's safety only. So that's the hope.

So what I said that the park design will be compliant to the fire-

Hazard mitigation plan.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Did you want to say anything?

Thank you. Dr. Choi.

Maybe that was. Or maybe you can.

Either one of you.

If I may, sir. Common misconception that the trees represent fire risk automatically. It's the configuration, not just the density of fuels and trees that are properly maintained that create both canopy separation and ground to base canopy height separation ladder fuels, if you will, and do not have continuity to adjacent ground fuels that

are receptive fuel beds, then trees can be not only not part of contributing to fire spread, they're not the fuel most likely to carry the fire. From a technical term, they can also serve to inhibit ground fuel growth through shade and other things. So a mature maintained tree in the

middle of maintained parkland, highly resistive to fire, highly unlikely to significantly contribute to fire spreads here.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This has been a great discussion. I appreciate it. I agree with pretty much everything that Senator Cabaldon said about the perils of local government funding. We make it so hard local government to raise money for basic services, which is why they become reliant and sometimes too reliant on- on impact fees.

I wish we had just a more rational public financing system, but that's a whole other issue. One thing I do just want to just to clarify, SB 937 did not eliminate any impact fees, and this bill does not reinstate any impact fees. SB 937 was solely about the timing of paying.

So paying a certificate of occupancy instead of pulling the permit, but the fee itself would be identical. So this whole discussion is about timing. And what we did was we ultimately there was a class of impact fees under 937 that still get paid up front and some that get paid at the end.

So this is really just about that distinction. Just to clarify that.

Yeah, thank you. I- I- I will be supporting your bill. I think you're taking the right approach and I agree with pretty much what folks have said here, but you're raising an issue that we have to take more serious, which is, how do we help prevent and defend ourselves from these fires?

Anyway, I- I think you're taking the right approach and I appreciate that you're insisting on this conversation, that it's gone from a private conversation to let's have an open conversation about doing this. So thank you very much. Thank you to all my colleagues. And you have a motion. Oh, wait, you need to close.

I'll just say my close. We think this bill actually provides more discipline and urgent parameters to your good work last year to Senator Wiener's point earlier. And why the urgency? Very rare do I, you know, if I'm the author of a bill and someone says, oh, you missed something.

I don't think it's that something was missed in 937. I think that in fact, this will narrow the aperture of what can be sort of flagged as public safety writ large for any public facility and give it some discipline. And- And actually by pushing it through this planning process.

That's why I think it's urgent, because folks are wanting to permit housing, like next week, like right now, and they're- they're nervous that the law is saying that might- that solution set, that you're negotiating live with a developer and that you need to put into that hazard mitigation plan so you can have insurance, ultimately, for that project to pencil.

Like, you've got to get that done very quickly. And so I think this clarification is less about expanding, but more so narrowing and- and disciplining what I think was an important sort of rightly front loaded part of the financing puzzle as identified. This stuff does take time, and that's why we appreciate the debate with the committee and the.

I mean, it doesn't have an urgency clause on it, but we- we do hope it moves. And we hope that this signal and the conversation also gives some certainty to the folks out there trying to do these projects that, you know, this was all contemplated in the original legislation.

In some ways, it's just about putting that hazard mitigation and public safety planning process behind it. So with that, appreciate the time and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there a motion? Okay, thank you, Senator. Senator Seyarto moves the bill and roll call, please.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Floor. [ROLL CALL].

The vote is 6 to 1 and the bill is out. Thank you, Senator Stern. Finally we get to Senator Ashby, welcome. Sorry for the time it took to get to you.

No problem.

SB 516.

Madam Chair. I noticed while I was sitting here that the Women's Caucus owes you a debt of gratitude for representing in local government.

Oh, my god. No wonder I have such a hard time.

Well, at least for the next five minutes. I am here to support you, Madam Chair.

And I hope that the authors that follow me are also. I'll leave my caucus pin with you if you need it for moral support.

Senator Ashby. My seat is available if you want.

How this has happened. How this has happened in the first Senate with a historic number of women, I do not know. But thank you, Senator Durazo, for your commitment and colleagues. All alone. All right. I'm here to present. Is it okay if I start, Madam Chair?

Yes.

Here to present SB 516.

I think this will be decidedly easier than the Bill you just heard. I hope, anyway. This is about California's capital city, downtown revitalization. The Bill addresses a unique funding gap that the City of Sacramento faces. It creates an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District, an eifd, which many of you in local government are very, very familiar with.

Just a tool that helps expand authority not available under the current law for this particular area of Sacramento. Over 60% of downtown Sacramento is owned or leased by the state. This is kind of a unique issue. We love the state, not the greatest economic development partner in your urban core.

From a revenue of property tax standpoint, nearly six times the level of state ownership seen in any other California City. In Sacramento's urban core, which we're very proud to be the capital city. But it does create a bit of a challenge, which is what we're here to talk about today.

The city sees very little tax revenue from its urban core, but is still responsible for maintaining roads, police, fire, central public services, and helping the people who are unhoused in our downtown corridors.

Many of these state properties are aging or deteriorating, although when a big, beautiful new state building arises like this swing space, it makes a big difference in the lives of people who live in Sacramento. Many of the state properties that are aging, though, need help.

And we lack a flexible finance tool which has made it harder for Sacramento to invest in infill projects in our urban core and to continue to build sustainable urban centers, including housing downtown, which we desperately want more of, especially close to our capital.

Once created, this EIFD will be eligible to receive state funds and issue bonds to help finance long overdue projects like affordable housing, infrastructure repairs and transit upgrades, things that we have been working on for many years, including connectivity to some of our closest cities.

Though I am the Senator for Sacramento, I actually do not live in the closest proximity to the capital. My neighboring colleague Senator Cabaldon does. And many times we have tried to build some transit projects that would connect those cities and we have lacked the resources to do so. This would be a potential helper to those efforts.

SB516 will allow Sacramento to invest in the Corps in a unique way. This Bill doesn't actually allocate funds. It creates the mechanism to do so in the future. I have with me a good friend of mine today who actually flew back from D.C.

early from a signature trip called Cap to Cap that he would normally be on to be here with you to talk about downtown. This is Michael Alt. He's the Executive Director of Sacramento's Downtown Partnership, a position he has held since a very popular mayor named Joe Cerna asked him to take on Downtown.

And he has spent his life doing so. And every good thing that we have accomplished, including the Golden One center and our new convention center and many restaurants, can directly be attributed to the hard work of Michael Altz. I'm really happy to have him here to meet you all today. Good morning. Welcome.

Yep, couple of minutes.

Thank you Senator for that introduction but thank you chair Members of the Committee. My name is Michael Ault. I am the Executive Director of the Downtown Partnership actually California's first property based business improvement district since 1995.

You know, the past five years have challenged downtown to really recalibrate and diversify their uses and over reliability on challenges and core that we've had downtown. We've got a significant under supply of housing, a glaring liability for social and economic health.

And while downtowns across the state and we talk to downtowns across the state on a weekly if not daily basis, many of us see the challenges and the significant concentration of the under utilization of housing in the downtown core.

When we look at downtown Sacramento, we're uniquely impacted by the significant concentration of public sector tax exempt parcels with the State of California real estate portfolio consisting of more than 60% of the total office square footage downtown.

This dynamic has made the city and County of Sacramento more vulnerable than other comparable regions across the state to significant shortfalls in property tax revenue from what is typically the highest revenue generating section of municipalities.

A 2023 report by Sanjay Varshni and associates states that without swift and strategic investment in downtown Sacramento, the net negative impact could be over $4 billion. This figure includes an estimated $2.5 billion in decrease in downtown property values 1 $1.0 billion decrease, $1.0 billion decrease in direct consumer spending and over $500 million in business related travel expenses.

SB516 recognizes this unique impact and provides a multi jurisdictional approach towards economic resiliency by incentivizing infill housing production, development of civic amenities to help diversify capital, the capital city and its most efficiently location sites. Downtowns are inherently efficient places for infill housing development due to their central location.

The City of Sacramento has demonstrated strong commitment to lowering barriers. But the city has only achieved 42% of its goals in the last year related to housing development. Strategic tools are needed to tip the scale towards more effective infill housing production.

SB516 is a data driven strategy to bring forward multi jurisdictional participation and creative financing opportunities to strengthen our downtown neighborhood through diversification of use types, infusing a new wave of residential units and yielding additional tax revenue for all jurisdictions through the strategic concentration of housing employment. I will. Thank you.

This will serve as a scalable model for sustainable livability downtown. We respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB516. Great. Thank you very much.

Anyone else in support of SB516?

Morning Chairmembers. Ross Buckley on behalf of the City of Sacramento and strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair. Justin Fans Law on behalf of the external Communications office of Sacramento State and Cal epic which is formerly known as the California Mobility Center, a Sacramento based battery, technology innovation and workforce. All in support. Thank you. Senator.

Thank you.

Vince Marchese on behalf of Midtown Association. We're a fellow property based improvement district. We represent over 1200 property and business owners in Central City of Sacramento in support.

Good morning. Jonathan Cook, Executive Director of the Sacramento Housing Alliance and support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Scott Ford speaking on behalf of the 401 locally owned small businesses in downtown Sacramento in support of SB516. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Colin Samuel Brownstein, on behalf of the National Independent Venue Association of California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to SB516? No. No one in opposition. Okay. See None. We come to dais Members. Senator Wiener moves the Bill. Senator Cabaldon,

I was just going to Point out if this. If only this financing mechanism had existed before, the capital might still be in Vallejo or Benicia or Monterey or San Francisco. So best fo luck was to Sacramento with making. Making. I support the Bill. The Senators worked hard on this. EFDs are hard. I was the first chair of an EFD in California.

They're very difficult to make work. And so the mechanism that she's proposing here is essential to its success. And so it's a good build.

Thank you Senator Choi.

Thank you. Your Bill is to create infrastructure financing district, in other words for the purpose of revitalize the downtown area. And what I hear is that you are focusing on the housing development, especially infill developments, etc.

But maybe you can define what you're going to do what you mean exactly with the revitalization in your statement to make downtown more livable space. But to me impression of the Sacramento downtown is full of homeless people.

No mention has been made how you can help homeless people and remove have a safe and more beautiful and ideal city where capital Legislature is located. Capital is located. All kinds of money and regulations or laws can be enacted by us to help this city and this is part of it.

And I thought that the project you are talking about is kind of in the full view of the City of Sacramento. But now with this Bill state is trying to help downtown and the city government operations.

So regardless, I think from the state approach or city approach we can work but I hope you can include the human element removal and reducing or eliminating the homeless people and work as a model city, Capital City, model city with no homeless, clean and everything is ideal. Perfect.

Follow the example of Sacramento for other cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, where a lot of homeless people. But here in Sacramento, every time we get out of the Capitol building, that's what we face. Can you comment on that?

Sure. I would love for Sacramento to achieve a functional zero homeless population. I don't think anyone in Sacramento wants to quote get rid of the homeless population, but I think we would like to provide services to folks which, you know, homelessness is not just about housing, although it is also about housing. It's about mental health services.

It's about wraparound services. Will this Bill solve homelessness? I wish. No, it will not. But it is part of a solution and I'd like to believe that of the, you know, all of these legislators here together that we all put forward bills that are moving us towards that goal of being able to help everyone.

For example, 50% of the homeless population identify as former foster youth. This Senate helped me champion a Bill two years ago to provide tuition free college to all former foster youth in the State of California.

That would tell you that we're going back in the stream and addressing 50% of the homeless population before they become homeless by giving them a different opportunity to go to college. You heard one of the Testimonies here was Sac State CSU one of the most diverse campuses actually in the whole country.

But definitely in the CSU system we want to do housing for students downtown. If you help people with housing and education, and I know you know this because you're a literacy guy just like me and a person who really values education.

If you can go back in time and help people earlier in the process with both housing and educational opportunities, you can give them a different trajectory. And that is what this is about. Sacramento historically has had so much investment from government that it has been labeled a government town.

And people like Michael Alt and myself and Mayor Cabaldon worked for many, many years to diversify Sacramento's economic base. It's why we fought so hard to keep our sports team. It's why we were so elated to get a second sports team.

It's why we worked so hard on our hospital system and our medical system and our innovation system and why you heard about battery technology today, which is $1.0 billion industry in Sacramento now and why I worked really hard to recruit a Fortune 100 company.

Because Sacramento has to be more than a government town because the government doesn't pay taxes. They don't pay into our police and fire and code enforcement and our downtown partnerships in Pbids. So we have been providing services where 60% of our urban core does not contribute.

And that is what this infrastructure model will provide is a mechanism to meet that gap to then address all of those things including housing and services from the community that go to address the needs of all people. Hope that answers at least in part your question.

Thank you for your enthusiastic answer. But still I'm not so happy to hear that your answer is a negative because all the good things that you are talking about is admirable is a good and the golden one in a sports arena and the convention center and all the infrastructure will make this city and vibrant economically, bring more people into it which will create more income up for the more revenue for the city, et cetera, et cetera.

But I focused on homelessness situation and there are so many different programs and activities and the ideal things that you are talking about. But one single thing I know homeless situation is very complex and difficult.

It's a long term investment and the program we have to create from early stage of educating and drug abuse and mental health, there are so many complicated issues involved in there. I am very well aware of that. But when you answer with this financing, new financing mechanism, revitalization goal. Let's work on that.

That's what the answer I was hoping. And why can't we? If not next year, in five years or 10 years, we can make this city modern city. Because we have all the power and the resources here in this capital city. Don't you agree?

I think that this Bill would help us have those resources, yes. That is the goal.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any more questions or comments? Seeing none. Thank you, Senator Ashby. And I appreciate this new attempt. And I understand Senator, my colleague, Senator Choi's concerns and questions. But I know that you're aiming at addressing homelessness as much as anything else regarding poor people. So with that, did we have a motion yet? Senator Wiener. Senator Wiener. Senator Wiener has moved the Bill.

[Roll Call]

The vote is 6-0 and it will remain on call.

Next we will move on to item number eight, SB 549, which will be presented by Senator Perez.

Good morning Chair and Members. I'm here to present SB549 on behalf of Senator Allen. SB549 creates necessary flexibility for local governments to work together to take full Advantage of the 2nd Neighborhood Infill Finance and Transit Improvement Acts or NIFTI2 and I are voluntary tools for local governments that are committed to expediting transit improvements and incentivizing middle and low income housing near transit.

These type of infrastructure financing districts allow local governments to bond against future revenue increases in property and sales taxes. Revenues collected by these entities are designated for the construction of affordable housing, urban greening and active transportation projects.

What SB549 aims to address is that currently the boundary of a NIFTI 2 district must have the same boundary as the establishing cities and counties which has led to low adoption of these districts locally.

SB 549 provides local governments more flexibility in establishing NIFTY to districts by removing the requirement for the financing district to share the exact same boundaries with its establishing entity. This allows for better collaboration between counties and cities to localize tax increment financing to develop middle and low income housing near transit.

By granting this flexibility and better localizing property tax increment to designated projects, this will enable establishing entities to take advantage of NIF TI2 financing tools to apply towards housing, urban greening and transportation projects. We have no witnesses to speak here in support at the appropriate time. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you Senator Perez. Anyone here to speak in support of SB549? See none. Anyone in opposition to SB549? Thank you. See none. Questions? Comments Senator Cabaldon, just brief one first.

To the whoever did all the work to come up with the acronym NIFTI is is which you never used a challenge here and I'm supportive of the Bill and like we should do everything we can to try to make these unlock these tools so that they're used.

And I and I won't say the same thing when the Climate Resilience District Bill comes up as well. But they're not being. These are not. These tools are not being used. Yeah. And I hope that it's that's the contiguity requirement that is at fault here.

But I'm a bit skeptical just because of the challenge and so many studies and of course on the ground and if you look at City Council and planning Commission agendas throughout the state, you don't even really see it being considered. It really doesn't appear anywhere. It's true for climate resilience districts as well.

So part of the one parts that we are always reluctant to revisit from the initial authorizing legislation are the parts that actually make the Finance district not work, which are all the, all of our policy requirements. Right.

They are, you know, has to be this percentage of affordable housing and this percentage of transit and this percentage of GHD reductions and what have you. In the end, you're like, well, if with all those requirements, I could have just financed it regular simpler through other. Through a regular eifd, for example.

And so I really appreciate the work that both Senator Allen and on the Bill that's coming up that that's happening and we should continue to do that. But I think we also need to be really honest with ourselves about what are the, what are the things that make these financing tools better than the tools that are already out there?

And then I acknowledge, as I know everyone on this Committee is well aware, that the real issue here is that after redevelopment, the state is no longer a partner in any of these things.

That's right.

And so we just keep coming up with ways for people to spend their own money that they don't have. Then we're surprised with that they don't. And so these are, these are Yeoman's efforts or Yeomperson's efforts to like, make this, make this, make this work.

But I think ultimately, if we're going to solve these challenges, the state's going to have to figure out how to be at least a token partner in trying to in the financial success of these revitalization efforts. So appreciate the work and support the Bill.

Thank you. Any other comments, questions?

Seeing none. Would you like to close? Yeah. Appreciate Senator Cabaldon's comments. We'll be sure to share that with the author, Senator Allen, and respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

All right, ready for the motion. zero, we need a motion. Move the Bill. Senator out again. Moves the Bill. Call the vote.

The motion is due. Pass to the Senate Floor. [Roll Call]

The vote is four-two will remain on call. I know that Senator Cortese is up next, but if you don't mind, if Senator Perez will. Okay, thank you. I'll thank that. I promise. Okay, so we're Moving on to SB782.

Senator yes, and this is a Bill I am authoring. So good morning Chair and Members. I'd like to start by thanking the Chair and Committee staff for working with us on this Bill. I am accepting the clarifying Committee amendments reflected on page six of the analysis.

SB782 creates a process for cities and counties to establish a Disaster Recovery Financing District, allowing local governments to allocate tax revenue for recovery efforts and future risk mitigation. In January of this year, 14 destructive wildfires, namely the Eaton and Palisades fire, ravaged the Los Angeles metropolitan region and parts of the county.

These fires claimed at least 29 lives, forced over 200,000 residents to evacuate, burned over 57,000 acres of land land and destroyed more than 18,000 homes and structures. The devastation exposed the shortcomings of traditional financing methods. They are often too slow and cumbersome to meet the urgent needs of the communities in crisis.

I am authoring SB782 to ensure Los Angeles County can rebuild quickly and effectively. This Bill establishes a pathway for creating disaster Recovery Financing districts to rapidly mobilize resour for repairs, mitigation and resilience building through a community based approach. It will help local communities rebuild and promote equitable development in the areas most impacted by disasters.

Additionally, it ensures that revenue generated through the financing district is strictly dedicated to economic and physical recovery and workforce development programs. By targeting these investments, this legislation not only accelerates recovery but it also strengthens a community's ability to face future disasters.

This Bill is sponsored by Los Angeles County with and with me to testify and help answer technical questions is Michael Bunagel with the County of Los Angeles. At the appropriate time I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. You may proceed.

And Members of the Committee. My name is Michael Buennagel I'm a Senior Deputy County Council with the Los Angeles County Council's Office and I'm here in support of SB782. On behalf of the county, I'd like to extend our sincere thanks to Senator Perez for Authoring Senate Bill 782.

This Bill will allow for creation of Disaster Recovery Financing Districts, a much needed tool that will help local governments recover from disasters like the wildfires that devastated Altadena and Pacific Palisades earlier this year.

In addition to the tragedy of dozens of lives lost, thousands of houses and businesses destroyed, the infrastructure in these areas was another casualty of these disasters and now may hold back efforts to rebuild.

Senate Bill 782 helps fix that by allowing the County of Los Angeles and other local governments throughout the state affected by disasters to devote funding to rebuilding infrastructure and supporting economic recovery efforts that will literally pave the way for future economic recovery and climate resilience.

Similar to existing financing districts, the districts authorized by this Bill use future tax revenues to Fund public infrastructure and economic recovery projects. But this Bill expands the types of projects eligible for funding to better address the overwhelming needs of disaster recovery.

For example, low and moderate income housing projects, libraries, roads, schools and commercial structures, parks undergrounding, vulnerable utilities will all be eligible for funding assistance. Through this Bill, 782 will also enable disaster recovery financing districts to support economic recovery by financing residential, commercial reconstruction, affordable housing development measures that prevent displacement.

Certain services and programs will also be eligible for funding, such as low interest construction loans and capital access initiatives for residents and small businesses, as well as workforce development and job training programs.

Collectively, these will help the County of Los Angeles and other local governments speed up the recovery process from this tragedy and from those that may come in the future. Again, thank you, Senator, for authoring this Bill and I urge an aye vote on Senate Bill 782.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of SB782, please come forward.

John Skoglund with the on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors of Los. Angeles county in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing None. Anyone in opposition to SB 782? None here see none. Any colleagues, any Members, comments, questions? Yes, thanks.

Madam Chair, Just to follow up on the analysis on the the timing question and the analysis because I'm trying to understand where the where the where the tax increment is coming at what stage?

So the, the, because there's only money here, if there is additional tax revenue in the future, and so is that increment because we anticipate that the cess valuation will go down because of the disaster and then we're going to capture the increment between the between that depressed valuation and the new valuation once it's rebuilt, or are we anticipating that the the new value after rebuild and reconstruction is higher than the original value and that's what the increment is.

So it'll be both. It'll come from both. So the timing is really key on this. If we start the if we set the base here, freeze the valuation too early, we'll capture the valuations before the disaster occurred. If we wait too late, then recovery will already happen and we'll miss out on capturing some of the increment that occurs due to the rebuilding.

So the timing is really important to make sure that we capture A point between the peak and the trough. So that once rebuilding occurs, the increment can be used and devoted towards this district for recovery efforts.

Because if you capture at the trough, then the participating local agencies, the county or other partners, then they will have less General Fund revenue into the future than they had pretty much pre fire. Right.

Well, it's just the amount that they're willing to contribute to the eifd. So they're not forced into this. They're allowed to contribute up to the amount that they feel comfortable with. If they feel that they're not comfortable with it, then they wouldn't be contributing anything.

But it does create a big opportunity for the EFT to capture a fair amount of tax increment, assuming there's a pretty healthy rebuild and return to normal valuations.

If that increment is based on the, on the depressed valuation in the first place. I'm supportive of the concept to be sure, but the, but this, but efts and climate districts and what have you generally fly under the radar. They're not big issues.

But in this particular case, because the local government could have less ongoing General Fund than they had at the beginning, that is a, that's not a trivial local decision to be made.

So I'm just, I'm highlighting that for my, for my LA colleagues and if we, if we ever have to use this in our, in my own counties again as well, that it's, it's in a normal tax increment financing district, including a climate district. It's, you're expecting more value to be coming and therefore additional tax revenue on top of what you already had.

But in this case, if that increment is coming because the property, the assessed valuation went down, this is what the analysis is pointing out, then your long term trajectory, you're giving up that increment is, is sort of increment that you were already collecting pre disaster and so your ability to finance fire departments and parks and employee contracts and other things is diminished.

So it's not a reason not to support the Bill. But I do think you know that this question around the public review and what have you, it's more important here than it is in a typical eifg because you're talking about potentially eroding the base General Fund budget of the agency, which it would be at its choice. As you say, the state's not mandating it, but it still is an important decision for a county or city to make.

Any comments or response? Agree, I think it'll be very important. It's Incumbent on the local governments to make sure that when they go into this they have their eyes wide open, they do a sufficient financial analysis to make sure that they're going to be able to afford to have the hit to their own revenues.

But I think that these are necessary, especially in Los Angeles County, of course, and I think that most local governments will treat this as an investment that that loss is not a loss permanently, it's something that they're contributing for the larger benefit of the neighborhood in the community.

Senator Laird, just a follow up question. So is one of the issues here that the jurisdiction that might be considering this is much larger than the area of the fire so that you could absorb it if it's LA County, say, is that one of the ways this works?

I think it definitely makes it easier for Los Angeles County to engage in this because we do have a larger tax base in other jurisdictions. I can't say that it wouldn't be beneficial in other smaller areas.

I'm not arguing about beneficial because you see, I have the weird experience of when we had the earthquake 35 years ago at 5:03 that afternoon we had a fully funded redevelopment district with a year's Reserve.

At 5:05 we were bankrupt and our, our assessed valuation was below the base level of redevelopment because of the complete destruction of our downtown. And so if you are looking at us as an individual jurisdiction that was going to consider this, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And so I'm just asking if there's a jurisdiction that's larger like LA County, so you have a tax base that's spread all over the universe and if you have a fire in one place that's within the jurisdiction of LA County, then it is not the same thing about making a decision about a city that is bankrupt.

It is like everybody else sort of contributes from the other part to this district to help the place that was impacted by the fire. So I'm just trying to understand whether it is, can be subsumed in a larger thing and that's one of the reasons this would work and a government would choose to go into it and maybe the author can answer in recluse.

One of our amendments is here, did you understand?

I would just say yes. I mean, I think again, I think it does. It is much easier for a large tax based entity like County of Los Angeles to engage one of these and give up some of its tax increment in the short term. Okay.

Okay, maybe with Senator Laird there's, maybe this is a potential Answer or comment on. On your question that we are allowing through an amendment, the district to include a portion of the territories adjacent and not just the disaster areas. Okay. Okay. Okay. Anybody else? No. Would you like to close?

Yeah, absolutely. Just to, I think, address Senator Laird's comment a little bit. It definitely is a different situation. You know, LA County has over 10 million people that it represents.

And the area that was impacted, particularly in the Eaton fire area, I want to say it's like, about 9,000, and Altadena in particular. So it is a. It is a much smaller portion, but it is going to require this kind of investment and infrastructure, and this investment into infrastructure for us to go through this rebuilding process.

So definitely a very different situation than, you know, a small town being wiped out and not having any sort of other revenue streams. So I respectfully ask you all for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Perez, move the Bill. Senator Cabaldon, once again, reliable.

The motion is do pass as amended, to the Senate Floor. [Roll Call]

The vote is 70. The Bill is out. Thank you. Congratulations. We now move on. Senator Cortese, thank you very much for your patience.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Member. I'm very happy to be referred to as patient. That's not always a descriptor for me. But today, today, today I am. Thank you.

I'm very happy to be here to present SB 753, which is a bill to modernize California's outdated Shopping Cart Recovery Law and give local governments the tools they need to keep our streets, sidewalks, and waterways clear of abandoned carts.

SB 753 simply allows cities and counties to directly return abandoned carts to retailers, rather than being forced to store them for up to 30 days in costly impound lots, which is currently state law. The Bill also allows local governments to recover actual documented costs, what those of us who are familiar with local government would refer to as cost recovery.

And that cost recovery would come from retailers only when the local government steps in to retrieve and return the cart. Let me be clear.

Again, the government is already involved in this process, and I really want to emphasize that because we've been trying to work with opposition, as you can imagine, and one of the things that we hear is we should just keep government, you know, out of this whole space.

And government's been in this space since the 1990s, with two different statutes that are well documented in the Bill Analysis. We're really just trying to come in and modify that statutory scheme so that local governments don't have to tie up costly real estate, for 30 days at a time, for shopping carts, with an empowerment process.

So, again, the Bill allows local governments to pick up carts immediately, return them to retailers without current three-day notice requirements, and also gives local governments flexibility to address repeated noncompliance. The Bill makes an inefficient system more responsive and cost effective by addressing the real and growing issue of abandoned shopping carts blocking streets, sidewalks, and communities.

I do want to just put another very quick kind of a caveat out there and probably don't—I probably don't need to do that with all of the experienced legislators here.

But another area that we've been asked to think about, by the opposition, is to step up criminal sanctions on shopping cart removal, rather than, you know, try to modify this, this civil process that allows cost recovery to take place.

As, again, as all of you know, not only have we already addressed that as a state, perhaps not all of us supported the way we addressed it, but Prop 36 now says that if you remove goods that are owned by a retailer, that's not only a misdemeanor, which it has been for a long time.

Shopping carts are specifically called out under the Business and Profession Code. They're only worth, depending on what you can find, you know, in terms of refurbished and new carts, $50 to $200 at the most, especially in used condition. But once you do that three times, three misdemeanors under Prop 36, you're now potentially charged with a felony.

I don't know how much further the State of California can go, or the people of the State of California can go, to bring criminal sanctions on something like this. I actually think that's excessive in a day and age when we're trying to encourage people stay out of their cars, walk to the grocery store.

Of course, there's a temptation by everyday people to bring the shopping cart from the grocery store, since they don't have a car there, to their home, and then not bring it back. If indeed the retailers want to, to lobby the district attorneys and law enforcement to cite those folks with misdemeanors, you know, ultimately that's the consequence that it leads after three, after three occasions, or three prosecutions, to a felony.

So, this isn't a criminal Bill. We're saying that's been taken care of, that's been handled.

What we're trying to do is put the local governments in a position where they can get those shopping carts right back to those retailers, as quickly as they can. With that, I'd like to call on my support witnesses.

We have with us today, Peter Hamilton, Assistant to the City Manager in the Office of Administration, Policy, and Intergovernment, Intergovernment—Intergovernmental, thank you—Affairs at the City of San Jose, and Ashley Walker, on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District, speaking in support.

Thank you, Senator Cortese. You may proceed. Just two, and two minutes each.

Good morning, Chair Durazo and Members of the Senate Local Government Committee. My name is Peter Hamilton. I'm an Assistant to the City Manager in the City Manager's Office at the City of San Jose.

And I'm here today on behalf of the city and the Mayor's Office in support of Senate Bill 753 by Senator Cortese, which seeks to address the widespread issue of abandoned shopping carts in cities across the state. These shopping carts are a blight in our community. They can create hazards by blocking streets and sidewalks.

They often end up in our open spaces and waterways, contributing to environmental pollution and disrupting our flood control systems. San Jose's goal is to retrieve these carts and return them to their owners as efficiently as possible, but state law makes that difficult.

Under current law, cities must store abandoned carts in an impound lot, where they can sit for up to 30 days or until a retailer retrieves them. This outdated process is challenging to implement, especially for large cities like San Jose, which would need to store hundreds of abandoned carts at any given time to comply with this provision.

Operating an impound lot would be expensive. It would require dedicated staff and a site for storage. We believe there's a more efficient way to retrieve carts. SB 753 would allow cities and counties to return carts directly to retailers without the current requirement for an impound lot. This change would avoid significant unnecessary costs.

Additionally, this Bill would allow for recovery of the actual cost for providing this service. As I mentioned, the city's goal is to return carts to their owners as efficiently as possible. By eliminating the unnecessary cost of an impound lot, the city would be able to provide a cost recovery service for retailers at a reasonable price point.

In summary, this legislation would modernize an outdated system and provide cities with a more efficient tool for cleaning up our streets, waterways, and neighborhood. With that, I respectfully ask for your support for SB 753. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Ashley Walker with Nossaman, on behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water District. We are the Water Supply, Flood Protection, and Environmental Stewardship agency for the more than 2 million residents in Santa Clara County. SB 753 allows local governments to retrieve abandoned shopping carts and recover the costs of doing so.

Valley Water manages 333 miles of creeks where shopping carts often obstruct flow, pollute waterways, and increase flood risks. This Bill will provide public agencies a practical tool to protect public safety and environmental health, and we respectful urge your support and "Aye" vote on SB 753.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in support of SB 753?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Moira Topp, on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria and the City of San Diego, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Caroline Grinder, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition of SB 753, please come forward.

Well, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Louis Brown here today.

Two minutes Max.

Yes, ma'am.

On behalf of the California Grocers Association, little different to being here today versus where we were yesterday in that our representative was in the City of San Jose supporting an effort by the city to actually move forward with a local ordinance, which then accomplishes the goal that we're actually setting out for and that we've worked with hundreds of communities around the state is that these carts don't leave our properties.

We don't believe that the city should be involved in gathering carts because that's a crime. These are stolen property once they leave our property. So the state law, as it currently says, is that, yes, if the city wants to get involved with collecting carts, then they have to follow those parameters.

But just like San Jose did yesterday and hundreds of other cities have done, they can work with grocers and retailers and actually create programs to incentivize the businesses to ensure that those carts don't leave the property.

And so that's what we think is missing here, is that as we move forward in a Bill like this, it actually encourages cities to get more and more involved in the process and then actually have to address the issue after the crime has been committed, which is taking the stolen property.

We believe that working with locals and developing the ordinances and developing local programs like the City of San Jose is moving towards helps us partner in those areas. So starting in January 1st, the City of San Jose is moving forward with a local ordinance. It's still not as far or as.

As comprehensive as some other local communities that we've seen, but we do think it is a step in the right direction to actually addressing this issue. We also have a major concern with the whole issue of cost recovery, as the Committee analysis states.

We think this does take us back to decades ago when we were facing this unknown cost depending on the local community we were dealing with.

And it was that issue that really drove us to where we are today and really trying to find partnerships like we're working with the City of San Jose on to address these issues going forward. So for those reasons, we're opposed to the Bill as it is and would ask for a no vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ryan Elaine about the California Retailers Association. First want to start off by saying there was a mishap of our Cateran letterants. We're not officially on the analysis, but been in communication with the Senator staff and addressing our concerns.