Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

Good morning. The Senate committee on local government will begin in sixty seconds. The Senate committee and local government, will come to order. Good morning. Thank you to everyone, for joining us at this meeting.

The Senate welcomes the public in person, and we are holding our committee hearings in the 0 Street Building. I ask all members of the committee to be present in Room 2200 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. We have 17 bills on today's agenda, seven of which are on consent. File item six, SB 1169. File item seven, SB 1086.

File item 10, SB 1126. File items 14 to 17, s p fourteen thirty nine, s p fourteen forty, s p fourteen forty one, and s p fourteen forty two by the Committee on Local Government. We do not have enough members here for a quorum, but we will hear the oh oh, as a subcommittee. Subcommittee. Yes.

Okay. We will start as a subcommittee. We don't have Senator Wiener. Okay. We'll start with item number two, which is SB 1003. Senator Grayson, welcome. Good morning. He's gonna be nonstop saying this.

Okay. I was gonna request a stool, so I can join you.

That's why you made them on consent. Okay. Go ahead, Senator Grayson. Welcome.

Good morning, madam chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity before you. I would like to begin by thanking the committee for their tremendous work on this particular bill and and, working with us and partnering with the office. During my time in the state assembly, I had the opportunity to embark on a statewide housing tour. The tour brought together cities, counties, developers, affordable housing advocates, and many others to share the challenges and opportunities they faced trying to get housing built across the state.

A common challenge that our tour heard were challenges related to housing infrastructure, which is why I bring today thiS Bill before you, SB 1003. We heard time and time again that infill and affordable housing may fail to pencil out due to the cost of updating infrastructure that is needed to revitalize underutilized or vacant spaces in our cities. As a result, the supply of much needed housing is further constrained across the state.

It is difficult to expand new housing opportunities in the state without building out the necessary infrastructure to support growth. While the state has created several tools that provide funding for housing construction, programs that directly support infill infrastructure are not as plentiful.

Under the current structure, funding may be passed from state government to developers just to have the same money be passed back to the local governments. This could create inefficiencies that drive up cost and create adversarial relationship between the local governments and developers who may sometimes impose additional requirements further increasing cost and delays. SB 1003 aims to provide state support for crucial infrastructure by establishing the infrastructure partnership financing program. The infrastructure partners partnership financing program would help directly support infrastructure improvements related to housing.

Through the program, local jurisdictions would be able to work with housing developers to identify info infrastructure needs and jointly apply to the to the program.

Applicants would need to demonstrate how their project would reduce development cost and how those savings would be passed on to future residents. By providing state support for infrastructure, this program would allow more housing developments to pencil out and could result in cost savings and better efficiency for these developments. And I will have, through the chair, our support witness, test, self introduce.

Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Ali Sapirman. I'm the advocacy and policy manager for the Housing Action Coalition. The Housing Action Coalition is a statewide pro housing nonprofit that advocates for more homes at all levels of affordability. Our members include developers, architects, attorneys, and labor partners who build housing across California.

I'm speaking today in strong support of SB 1003, which creates pro housing enhanced infrastructure financing districts, a new tool to help local governments finance the infrastructure that makes infill housing possible. California has made significant progress getting jurisdictions to plan for housing. But planning isn't building. One of the most persistent reasons infill projects stall or never break ground at all is the cost of infrastructure. Site prep, utility connections, access improvements these costs routinely make otherwise feasible projects impossible to finance.

SB 1,003 directly addresses that gap by creating an incentive structure that rewards jurisdictions for aligning their infrastructure investment with their housing goals. Establishing a PEIFD earns jurisdictions enhanced credit toward the pro housing designation and unlocks priority access to state competitive funding for pre development activities. What's especially impactful of SB1003 is the joint application mechanism. Local governments and developers identify infill infrastructure needs together and are required to demonstrate how cost savings will be passed on to future residents. That's real accountability built into the program design.

For for our members, the people doing the work of building housing, predevelopment support like this is often the difference between a project that moves forward and one that doesn't. I respectfully ask your aye vote today. Thank you.

Oh, never mind. Okay. He's walking back in. Pause pause for a second to establish quorum.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you very much. We'll now continue with, anyone else in support? Anyone else wishing to speak in support of SB 1003?

Good morning, everyone. Darby Kernan on behalf of LeadingAge California. We represent nonprofit, senior affordable housing and, care programs, and we're in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Nope. Okay. Seeing none. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in opposition to SB 1003? No one? That's it? Okay. Then we'll come to the dias. Questions? Comments?

Question.

Yes, Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. So this is another great idea, but it depends on state funding. And every year, we tell all the nonprofits that we don't have the money. And so how do how are we supposed to be comfortable that they are going to that the state will actually fund this and not just pile it on with the immense amount of other potential opportunities that we're giving for our our housing issues.

And also when we're looking at our housing in in general for local governments, yes, the infrastructure issue is a huge issue.

And and financing for that infrastructure, funding for that infrastructure, to me, needs to be upfront and simple so that our local governments can keep up with it, but not incur more and more debt related to the state's push to to create higher densities in areas where, especially in communities I represent, that weren't prepared for it. Their master plans that were done long ago, did not prepare their infrastructure for the amount of, high density housing that's going in.

We are creating a lot of that type of housing, and yet the housing that's actually in demand is not being there's no incentives for those. And therefore, we are losing and when you're done with your 700 square foot apartment and you're ready to establish the family and and and move up to the next level, there is no next level. And we're we're losing all of those folks to other states.

So I am about to fly out to visit my daughter in about three hours, because of that. So, how are we to be assured that the state is actually going to fund this? Or is it just gonna be another program sitting on the shelf?

So thank you very much for your, comments at the beginning. I wish you'd keep going because that was awesome testimony for this bill. I understand. And so thank you very much.

I also share your sentiment as you will board a plane that, the impetus for me and working with housing bills and, my focus, while being here in the legislature is, is the fact that I don't wanna have to get on an airplane to go visit my grandchildren because my children couldn't afford to live where they were raised.

So having said all of that, having gone on a twenty two night, twenty two night, statewide tour visiting all the jurisdictions from north to south that I possibly could, We heard from the developers. We heard from local governments, and we also heard the argument that was needed for the infrastructure.

So instead of and and this is the opportunity now with this bill that the that the state government could have could seize the moment instead of taking money and sending it into the winds to land into the hands of developers only to be scooped back up by government, through fees and and, and, extra projects. We are now going to turn it into a win win win proposition. The developer would win because the the infrastructure financing would not be on the back of the developer.

The city is going to win because they'll be able to seize or the the resources to be able to fund infrastructure through their through their avenue, and then the state wins because of the funding that they would provide. There are multiple ways that the state could take existing funding and refocus it, reposition it, and put it in the hands of the right people to be able to get the job done more efficiently and more effectively.

So if you're looking for government to work more efficiently and more effectively, this is a bill you would definitely want to support.

And the funding that comes from the state, is there a a repaying mechanism? Is there a leftover payment at the end to pay for that that fine fine

So it depends on how and I can I can turn to a testament, but it depends on how that is negotiated and worked out between HCD and the program?

I have little confidence in HCD right now.

And Oh. Thank you. Thank you.

Senator Arreguin.

Well, thank you very much, Senator. I know this bill's a priority of yours this year, and I'm very happy to support it today. If there is an emotion, I'm happy to move the bill at the appropriate time. And as somebody who also served in local government, you know that the state has increasingly put mandates on local governments to have to plan for and rezone their communities to build more homes.

And there are lots of penalties, but we don't provide a lot of incentives for cities that are doing the right thing.

So I really think that's the idea behind this bill. I really wanna thank you for working with our housing committee and local Gov staff on the language. I think, you know, obviously, we need to identify the funding to implement this. I'm very committed to working with you to help make that happen.

But this is just making sure that if you are implementing these EIFDs, and you're taking steps to be a pro housing jurisdiction, that we can provide the money to build the supportive infrastructure because, you know, you can't you can't plan for, you know, large amount of development if we don't have the supportive in connecting infrastructure. And so, thank you very much for bringing this bill forward.

Thank you.

Great. Anybody else? Comments, questions? Hearing that, we have a motion by Senator Arreguin. And Opposition.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah.

I did. Didn't I call Yes. Yeah. I called in opposition witnesses. Okay.

We're set to go. I'm sorry. Closing.

For the sake of time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

[Roll Call]

3-1 on call. Okay. They'll remain on call.

Yeah. We need a motion for consent calendar. I move. Senator Ashby makes a motion.

[Roll Call]

Okay. The bill remain on call. Thank you very much, colleagues. We move on now to, SB 1014. Senator Grayson?

Thank you, madam chair and members presenting SB 1014. I would like to begin by thanking the committee for their work on this bill and by accepting the committee's proposed amendments. As many of you already know, California has a massive and growing housing production and affordability crisis. Driving this affordability issue is the exponential rising cost of building new housing.

Development fees and other construction requirements can make up a significant portion of building cost and are much bigger or much higher in California compared to the rest of the nation.

Despite the state's significant legislative reforms intended to improve fee transparency, builders continue to struggle to anticipate certain development cost, such as those for on-site and off-site improvements. Builders may find out about an on-site or an off-site improvement late in the process, adding unforeseen development cost and making projects less likely to pencil out.

SB 1014 will help provide greater certainty for housing developments by requiring local jurisdictions within thirty days of submission of a preliminary application to provide a good faith estimate and list of any off-site or on-site improvements. The bill would also prevent a local jurisdiction from requiring any additional on-site or off-site improvements that are not disclosed within thirty days of submitting a building permit application.

So I will with me today, we have Janice Jensen, CEO of Habitat for Humanity East Bay Silicon Valley, and Michael Lane representing SPUR. Through the chair.

Thank you. Go ahead. Good morning. You have two minutes each, please.

Good morning. Good morning. Chair Durazo and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Janice Jensen. I'm the CEO of Habitat for Humanity East Bay Silicon Valley.

And our Habitat affiliate serves Contra Costa, Alameda, and Santa Clara Counties where we make home ownership affordable for families with limited incomes in one of the state's least affordable regions. We are grateful to Senator Grayson for his leadership in addressing significant home billing challenges, that Habitat faces and we're proud to support SB 1014 as a meaningful solution. One of Habitat's biggest costs are development fees. At the 10 home development we are now building in Hayward, we're paying $76,000 per unit in fees.

For the 42 homes that we're building in Walnut Creek right now, the fees account for $65,000 per unit which is over $2,700,000 in total for that development.

When those fees arise unexpectedly late in a project planning timeline, they add fixed costs and cost us time delays in building. In Hayward, we were hit with unexpected costs when we had to redesign our utilities plan late in the game. In Walnut Creek, our irrigation plan had to be redone. We've been required to, build additional sidewalks, toward the end of a project in Martinez and then we had to add another 200 meters of sewer line after plan approvals in Bay Point.

Those are just a few examples.

The uncertainty is far more expensive than just the price tag of the unplanned fees. The unexpected fees cause a domino effect of additional costs like plan redesigns, resubmittals, additional expense inspections and more. They start a cascade of timing delays which add tens of thousands of dollars in an unanticipated carrying costs.

And for a non profit home builder, Habitat keeps our sales prices affordable for our limited income buyers which means we can't simply raise the prices in order to absorb these costs that come out of our pocket. Meanwhile, future homeowners who are often contending with unaffordable rents, substandard living conditions or other threat of displacement are left waiting that much longer for their lives to begin in a stable, affordable home.

SB 1014 presents a simple, smart solution that gives home builders like Habitat for Humanity the transparency and security we need to build the affordable homes that Californians so critically lack. I urge an aye vote on SB 1014. Thank you.

Madam chair and members, Michael Lang with ... of Public Policy Think Tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. First, I too would like to thank the committee and local government representatives for working with us on this transparency and good government legislation.

Government code section 65583A refers to site improvements as a potential or actual governmental constraint that must be analyzed as part of the housing element process as these requirements can add millions of dollars to the cost of a housing development and jeopardize feasibility and financing.

Using the framework for development impact fee disclosure and transparency developed in AB 1820, Chiavo, that was passed by the legislature and signed into law in 2024, SB 1014 would, one, allow a development proponent to request a preliminary estimate of required improvements within thirty days of project submittal and two, require that within thirty days of receipt of an application for a post entitlement permit, the city must provide an itemized list of all on-site and off-site improvements required for that permit.

Given the significant cost these improvements can add to a development, SB 1014 will facilitate housing development by increasing transparency and information sharing and reducing the potential for late hits that is last minute and costly surprises we respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you very much. We'd like to have anybody who's here in support of SB 1014. Please come up and just provide us with your name, organization, and where you stand on the bill. All those in favor?

Rashad Johnson on behalf of California NB in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs. On behalf of Habitat for Humanity California, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Circulate Planning and Policy, and Casita Coalition. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Good morning. Darby Kernan on behalf of LeadingAge California in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of SB 1014? Seeing none, anyone here in opposition to SB 1014? Alright. The primary witness.

Good morning to the committee and chair. My name is Claire Sullivan and I'm here on behalf of the City of San Mateo in respectful opposition to the bill. The City has concerns that the preliminary application by its very nature lacks the information necessary to provide accurate cost estimates for necessary improvements, especially under the fluctuating market conditions. The city respectfully requests that the bill be amended to base these estimates based on the actual building permit application rather than the preliminary application.

We do thank the author for the recent amendments and look forward to working with you, to find a workable path forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition?

Good morning. Tracy Ryan with Royal County Representatives of California. Also, on behalf of the League of California Cities, the American Planning Association, and the California State Association of Counties, we do not we are not opposed. We do not have a formal position. However, I did wanna take time to thank the author and committee staff for working, to help address our concerns.

We appreciate the amendments proposed in the analysis. We do have some remaining concerns, and we look forward to working on those as the bill moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? No. Okay. Seeing none, we'll move it to the dias.

Any comments or questions?

No?

Okay. Okay. Senator Ashby moves the bill. Senator Sejardo?

I get tired of making it and then everybody else jumps in. So the concept of your build is something I think cities and developers have been struggling with for a long, long time. I remember way, way, way back when I was on city council, we had the one bite at the apple thing that the city developed in order to address just this problem which was, hey, we give them what we need upfront, and once they get into the process, we can't change it.

The problem we ran into was other agencies. And, so what is the flexibility to deal with these other agencies?

Because when you're talking about when you talk about water districts, and, you know, even school districts and everybody else who wants to jump in and get their slice of the financial pie or to fix whatever it is that they need to fix. How do we deal with that? Because that's out of the city's control and yet we're trying to require the city to do this thirty-day thing. My other question was why the thirty days?

What what's the magic number of thirty days that makes that all possible?

Well, I think we are open to talking about the number of days for sure. Thirty does doesn't make it magic or possible. I also think that we have been very appreciative of opposition's voice to help make this and refine this better. This is not a closed door, safe, protected policy. We do have circumstances that a local jurisdiction can require improvements after a specified period.

Some of those would be anything to mitigate a specific adverse impact upon public health or safety. If a post entitlement permit is subject to CEQA or a developer changes the construction permitted under the post entitlement permit, so we are adding flexibility.

And hopefully, Senator, hopefully, your confidence in me is more than an HCD, and you give me the opportunity to continue to work and put those flexibilities in there.

That is a big hill to climb right now.

Ouch.

Anyway and that's actually one of my concerns is, you know, some of our state agencies come in, and the communication link between cities and state agencies to just get an answer is a lot longer than thirty days, or sometimes it's six months.

I understand. This is not a state agency issue, though.

I know, but somehow they always make it one.

Especially when you're dealing with affordable housing.

Yes.

And if I may do the chair

I see him I see him raising his hand. He wants to

Okay. So just just wanted to add, we did say thirty business days was not calendar days to make sure that. There is ample time for staff. And then we do because oftentimes there's not communication between special districts and city or county, and so the developer does have to go independently to a special district to get that information. In some cases though, the city does have coordination.

They're able to do that. So it just depends on a particular situation which which agency you'd have to go to to get additional information on the fees.

Okay. Thank you.

Comments. It to me, it's a question of timing of knowing that you're going to, what's expected of you and what is expected and when it's expected of you, when you get the notice of it. So that's pretty basic. Thank you. Yeah.

Okay. No other questions or comments? You may close.

Thank you. And for the sake of time, I respectfully ask for a no vote.

Thank you very much. Call a vote.

The motion is do passed to the committee on housing. Senator Serrazzo? Aye. Serrazzo, aye. Choi?

No.

Choi, no. Aveguin? Aye. Ashby, aye Cervantes?

Aye. Cervantes, Aye, Laird. Sciaruto? No. Sciaruto, no.

The vote is four two. We remain on call. Okay. We move on, Senator Grayson, to SB 1036. You may proceed.

Thank you, Madam chair. I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for their work on this bill and accepting the committee's proposed amendments. SB 1036 is a simple bill that would provide clarity under the mitigation fee act by requiring that all jurisdictions provide credit for any use previously on the site when a project is redeveloping a site with similar prior uses.

So the mitigation fee act governs how local jurisdictions impose impact fees and to charge an impact fee, there must be a reasonable relationship between the fees used and the project on which it is being imposed. When a project contained or changes the existing use of site, many jurisdictions can provide a credit to help reduce fees for to account for a prior use.

However, this is not always the case. SB 1036 will create a uniform policy that clarifies that impact fees should only be paid on the new impact that a development causes. This will help reduce the cost of duplicative fees and lower overall development cost. And with me today, through the chair, to testify is Michael Lane representing Spur.

Good morning. Again, you have two minutes. Thank you very much.

Chair members, Michael Lane with SPUR, a public policy in the San Francisco Bay Area. I'd like to thank the committee and local government representatives for working with us on this bill to properly apply the Mitigation Fee Act to redevelopment or adaptive reuse projects on existing sites with previous uses. It's really important to be able to redevelop these types of sites to provide additional economic activity and generate revenues for local jurisdictions.

SB 1036 does this by requiring local jurisdictions to give credit towards fees for previous previous uses on a site being redeveloped. This ensures the project is only charged fees related to the new impacts and need for service or facilities created by the new development, which is precisely intent and the meaning of the mitigation fee act we respectfully request aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of SB 1036? Please come forward.

Bob Naylor for Field Stud and Company in support.

Good morning. Raymond Contreras on behalf of Lighthouse sorry. With Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California, Abundant Housing Los Angeles and Spur. Thank you.

Brian Leahy, AARP volunteer on behalf of our 3,200,000 members in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Nathan Skadsen on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in support.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else in support? Seeing none, move to those in opposition to SB 1036. Seeing none.

Okay. Wonderful. Make motions. Okay, we have a motion.

The motion is do passed as amended to the Senate floor. Senator Durazo?

Aye.

Durazo, aye. Choi?

Aye.

Choi, aye. Arreguin? Ashby?

Aye.

Ashby, aye. Cervantes?

Aye.

Cervantes, aye. Laird? Seyarto?

Seyarto, aye.

Aye.

Alright. That bill is five- zero on call. This is the Grayson show. Okay. Senator Grayson, you will you can proceed on SB 1145, please.

Thank you, Madam chair and members. Thank you for your gracious patience, today. If it wasn't me, it'd be someone else, though. So, thank you, madam chair and committee members. I am pleased to present SB 1145, which will provide specified streamlining procedures under the California Environmental Quality Act we know as CEQA and the federal base closure and realignment disposition process for qualifying projects within the area of the Concord Reuse Project Area Plan.

Before I begin, I would like to accept the committee amendments and express my thanks to the chair and the committee for their help on this incredibly important district bill. SB 1145 is a district bill that will support the implementation of a long planned decades, and I say decades in the work, transit oriented development on the side of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station with housing, job creating facilities, open space, and environmental improvements.

The Concord reuse project area plan anticipates no fewer than 10,000 housing units with 25% of the units affordable to lower income households, up to 6,100,000 square feet of commercial building space, community facilities such as school sites, neighborhood parks, and sports facilities, as well as approximately 2,500 acres of open space. SB 1145 will help bring this long anticipated and much needed project, which also has the potential to create years worth of construction and construction related jobs closer to reality.

Now I think it's important to provide a little bit of context for this bill.

In 2005, the United States Navy identified approximately 4,972 acres of the former inland area of the Concord Naval Weapons Station as surplus to the needs of the Federal Government in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. To put the size of this project into perspective, the capital park here in Sacramento is 40 acres in size. The project will be the size of over 100 capital parks. The city of Concord is the local reuse authority for the base closure process.

The LRA has executed legally binding agreements approved by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide four sites totaling 16 acres for permanently supportive housing and 10 acres for local food bank expansion within the former CNWS Concord Naval Weapons Station.

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

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

Without procedural streamlining, the risk of serial sequel lit litigation and administrative record delays will create uncertainty that undermines the timely delivery of housing, jobs, infrastructure, and planned environmental and economic benefits of the City of Concord and the East Bay Region.

SB 1145 will facilitate implementation of the area plan by leveraging the federal base closure and realignment disposition process along with extensive CEQA and NEPA review already completed for the Concord Naval Weapons Station for qualifying projects that, among other things maintain 25% affordability and have labor agreements that fall within the primary development parameters already analyzed in those documents. SB 1145 does not exempt qualifying CNWS projects from review and oversight. It leverages review and oversight already completed for the Concord Naval Weapons Station.

The bill is supported by the City of Concord as well as Contra Costa County along with Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council, the District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California, and Vicinity, and the Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 104. With that, we have some testimony today through the chair.

I'll have that, witness self introduce.

Good morning. You have two minutes, please.

Good morning. Thank you, Senator Grayson. That was, very good. So Chairs, Members, thank you for the opportunity to speak on SB 1145. I'm Josh Roden here on behalf of the Concord Naval Weapons Redevelopment or CNWS, a project that is already fully within its Concord city limits and expressly included in the city's general plan.

Environmental review under CEQA was completed as part of the area plan's inclusion in that general plan, providing a strong and thorough planning foundation. CNWS is a 10,000 construction job and 16,000 permanent job creating project, consistent with priorities of BRAC properties. It includes a project labor agreement with building trades and carpenters, ensuring quality jobs with strong workforce standards.

Beyond employment, the project delivers substantial community benefits, including 880 acres of parks and open space within the redevelopment area on top of the 2,500 acres dedicated to East Bay Regional Parks District. $2,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and public amenities.

Critically, the 25% of the 12,272 planned homes in the area plan are affordable, and 16 acres are dedicated to permanent supportive housing, directly advancing California's housing and equity goals, housing over 30,000 new residents. SB 1145 provides the CEQA and surplus lands act certainty needed to move forward with a project that has already undergone extensive public planning while preserving environmental protections and community commitments. For this for these reasons, we urge you support SB 1145. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We're now gonna move on to others who are in support of SB 1145. Please come forward. Give your name and organization and where you stand.

Good morning. Michelle Rubalcava on behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in support of SB 1145.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam chair, Committee members. Robert Cooks, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, madam chair, members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs. On behalf of Habitat for Humanity California, SPUR, Circulate Planning and Policy, and Abundant Housing Los Angeles. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning.

Erica Valentine, UA Local 393, representing 3,100 members. Plumbers, Pipefitters, Steamfitters in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jason Lester, Local one hundred and fifty nine, Plumbers and Steamfitters representing over 500 members. Standard support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Fred Leeming, UA Local 343 in support.

Thank you.

Danny Barrett, UA Local 343 in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and committee members. Rachel Shoemake with IBEW Local 302 in Contra Costa County here representing over 1,300 electrical workers in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam chair and Committee members. Eric Mussynski, business manager of UA Local 393, plumbers, pipefitters, and HVAC service techs in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Derek Cole, IBEW Local 302, and we are in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam chair, Committee members. Tim Sbranti, Contra Costa Building Construction Trades Council representing 20 affiliates, 35,000 members here in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Aureliano Ochoa with the Heat and Frost Insulators Local 16, and we're in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jason Lindsey, Ironworkers Local 378 in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. David Calderon, Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 3, Northern California in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Senators. Matt Cremins on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers and Operating Engineers Local 3 in strong support.

Thank you.

Madam chair, members, Mike Monaghan on behalf of State Building Trades. I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the senators' perseverance in pursuing this project. We're in strong support.

Thank you.

Eddie Alvarez, LAOC Building Trades. Support my sisters and brothers in the North. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam chair, Committee members. Chuck Leonard, Plumbers and Steamfitters, Local 342, representing over 4,000 members in Contra Costa County. We are in full support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to SB 1145, please come forward. Good morning.

You have, two minutes each.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is J.T. Harechmak, Policy Director from the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. I wanna start by thanking, the committee staff who've worked on this measure a lot with us.

I also wanna thank the author for his continued perseverance on this project and, the conversations that we have had on this. We are encouraged by the process here, but we still remain here, with concerns, which I will go over. On behalf of a coalition that includes the East Bay housing organizations where this project is based, the Public Interest Law Project and San Diego Housing Federation were respectfully opposed unless amended.

This bill gives the Concord Naval Weapons Station a blanket exclusion from the Surplus Land Act, which removes both the accountability tracking and the penalties for non compliance. It's a carve out that no other major exemption gets without accountability for these outcomes.

Since 2021, the Surplus Land Act has helped create over 37,000 homes statewide including 23,000 deed restricted affordable homes. But changing the SLA's enforcement backstop for these sites undermines one of our most effective tools at a time when a 180,000 Californians are experiencing homelessness on any given night.

The legislature has consistently held that any exemption from the SLA must include a minimum number of affordable units with penalties for non compliance, an AB 129 for Chula Vista, AB 1734 for Los Angeles, AB 2319 for qualifying bases, but SB 1145 breaks from that principle and gives Concord special status. So we've asked the committee to require a minimum number of affordable units be built and require that the affordable provisions be backstopped with requirements for compliance.

We support the CEQA exemption that they are asking for in this bill, and we believe that there is a path forward to work on this.

We are eager to work with them on a solution and to build a lot of successful housing here. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Brian Aguasta on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project, also in the oppose unless amended position. We too want to join our friends in labor in supporting this bill and in supporting this important project so that it can deliver both good paying jobs and affordable housing, but do so in a way that ensures that we have an enforceable obligation once this measure leaves the legislature to ensure we deliver those units and those jobs.

But also, to ensure that we do not create a precedent that will undermine the important work of the SLA.

And it remains our concern that as my colleague just noted, unlike other bills, including those that are listed in the analysis that have exemptions, this one sits outside the SLA as opposed to being one within the SLA that then brings with it all the enforceable obligations of the SLA and provides an important check to make sure, again, that once we leave this legislature, this multi phase project continues to honor the commitments that have been made in this body.

And so we're just beginning conversations with the author, who we consider a good friend. We've had assurances that we are on the same path, but we remain strongly concerned that we must have a project that is within the exempt surplus provisions of the SLA that ensure that we have those affordability provisions- excuse me, enforceability provisions.

And if for some reason, this is the first project that this legislature, or first exemption that this legislature has approved that needs to sit outside the SLA, that we ensure that we have that enforceability. And we look forward to having that conversation with the legislature and hopefully with you and your staff as this bill continues to move. So for those reasons, we remain opposed, but look forward to continuing conversations.

Thank you.

Anyone else in opposition to SB 1145? You step up? No? Nobody? Okay.

Questions and comments from

Thank you, Madam chair. Senator, thank you for your many years of work to try to move this project forward. I mean, this is a multi decade process. And I appreciate you bringing this forward to provide some flexibility to make sure that this project can move forward and actually meet the affordability and project labor agreement requirements that the developer and the city have have imposed on this project, which are significant.

And I just wanna call attention to the amendments and thank the chair and the committee for the work on the amendments, which do require the affordable housing and labor standards and add HCD oversight to ensure that they're meeting the affordability standards.

And I think that's an important change, which I hope gets closer to addressing some of the concerns that you've expressed because we want to make sure that we get that affordable housing as we're getting this very transformative project for Concord. So I really appreciate the author working to find kind of an reporting and accountability mechanism, but to ensure that there's sufficient flexibility, so that this project move forward and happy to move the bill at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Senator Seyarto?

Thank you very much. I'll be supporting your bill today. I think what this whole issue I mean, you have all these people that have to come in here. You have a project that makes perfectly good sense in every respect, and yet we have to have legislation to be able to get around, some of the the inflexibility of the surplus land use act to do something that is common sense for an administrator of an agency.

You have stumbled upon the angst- my angst about ACD and the Surplus Land Use Act.

Currently, it's being used to put like a shove a square peg in a round hole. And we have to go to legislation for somebody to fix that. And and a lot of times that legislation is based on picking and choosing projects. That inflexibility needs to be addressed so that we don't have to do this circus every time this issue comes up with public land and really good projects.

Currently, in one of my cities, the Surplus Land Use Act is being used to try to force apartments on a civic center, in the middle of a civic center.

And HCD's response is, well, we you know, that's the law. That needs to change. So I appreciate the work that you have had to put into this.

I think the fact that you have this has taken so many years, like my colleague has said down there, to do something and get to this point that they probably had already planned many many years ago, points to the fact that there are some things that we need to address and fix so that, we still accomplish some of the goals that were envisioned, when they developed the Surplus Land Use Act.

But at the same time, we instill some common sense into the project or into the process, because that process, when we're talking about affordability, that at the end of the day, that's what suffers.

That's one of those things that nobody thinks about that drives the unaffordability process for California. So, thanks for your perseverance on it and allowing me to get my frustrations out about this the Surplus Land Use Act and its detrimental effect, that we can't seem to do anything about. And, it's really frustrating for communities. It's and frustrating for people that represent them. Thanks.

Anybody else? Comments or questions? Well I'm you know, wanna kudos and thank you for being so persistent as someone said. And for working on these issues and for your commitment to the issues. Affordable housing is something that's very important that comes through the SLA, and also things like labor provisions, labor standards.

So, I'm very grateful that those are included. And from what I hear, my friends on the housing side also feel like we're moving in the right direction to address the concern that this won't be changed in the future. Right? Because it's one thing to give a commitment now, and I trust in you. You're good friends and I really enjoy and respect working with you.

But something could happen in the future. And then, what happens to that 25% affordable housing that we're so excited about? So, that's what I think we're all working on, we're all concerned about, and I feel very good that we're gonna get there. I keep going in the right direction. Okay?

With that, call the vote. Oh, closing room.

Madam chair, I must and I don't know if I can articulate adequately my gratefulness to you and to committee staff, for the incredible work that you've been able to help, guide and, give us the suggestions that we need and the amendments that are so vitally important. Thank you to this committee and any opportunity I have to provide, Senator Seyarto therapy. I'll be more than happy to come back and talk about HCD some more. Alright. Thank you.

Aye.

With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Vote. Thank you. Call the vote.

The motion is do passed to the Committee on Environmental Quality. Senator Durazo?

Durazo, aye. Choi?

Aye.

Choi, aye. Arreguin?

Aye.

Arreguin, aye. Ashby?

Aye.

Ashby, aye. Cervantes?

Aye.

Cervantes? aye. Laird? Seyarto?

Aye.

Seyarto, aye. 6-0.

And we're moving on to item seven. No. That's consent. Oh, that's the first one.

Sorry. Senator Wiener, please. Welcome. Good morning. Windows.

Now you're in the window business.

It's the beauty of being in legislature while working on all these different important issues.

Okay. Senator Wiener, you're presenting on SB 908. You may proceed.

Yes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members. I'm here to present SB 908 to ensure that people can choose what windows to have in their homes and can choose to weatherize those windows and reduce their energy bills without micromanagement by cities or HOAs. I accept the committee's amendments and I very much appreciate the chair and committee staff working with us. And so thank you for that.

So this bill is overdue. It streamlines the permit process for energy code compliant windows for residential window replacements and restrict cities and HOA's ability to add costly additional requirements beyond those that are needed for energy efficiency standards.

We have seen over and over again residents whether it's someone with a home or perhaps a landlord for an apartment building that wants to replace the windows with weatherized windows to lower costs, and to make sure that, homes can be, appropriately cooled or heated, and they are told, no, you can't do it because it doesn't meet whatever design standard. And if you wanna do it, you have to fabricate basically fake historic windows that are dramatically more expensive.

While I am someone who I've supported historic preservation in San Francisco, we always, in my view, need to do it in a balanced way that also acknowledges that people live in these homes, and, the cost of living is through the roof and people should have the power to lower their energy bills.

So I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And with me today, testified, Sam Moss, executive director of Mission Housing Development Corporation.

Yes. Go ahead.

Can you hear me now? Is that better?

Yes. And you have two minutes.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Senator Wiener, madam chair, and counsel. I appreciate the opportunity to come here today.

I'm Sam Moss. I'm the executive director of Mission Housing Development Corporation. We are the oldest nonprofit affordable housing developer in San Francisco. Been around for about 55 years. We have over 2,000 units and about 4,000 tenants in San Francisco, and I am also asking for an aye vote today.

I think a lot of people don't realize how old a lot of nonprofit affordable housing developers' building stock is. We write newspaper articles about new construction and the groundbreakings, but the majority of what we have are decades and decades old. Mission Housing recently rehabbed the five oldest formerly public housing buildings in San Francisco. Two of them were over a 100 years old, two buildings.

And as Senator Wiener alluded, we had to fabricate historical windows in those buildings instead of just buying energy efficient, cost effective, great new windows.

The planning department in San Francisco cannot tell you why they think this, but they think that we shouldn't be allowed to have vinyl windows facing the street. That's not a written law. That's just discretionary opinion. And I know that this kind of bill can seem simultaneously like a no brainer and also important, but it's when when you at the state lead and and say enough, let's be efficient, let's be efficient with our money and our time. It really matters at the local level.

It empowers affordable housing developers to say, that's great. You, planner, think that we should fabricate, you know, new windows that look like they're a 150 years old. But what if instead we save 15 to 20% and we spend that money on resident services, social safety net? The money that we spend to not have energy efficient or vinyl windows comes directly out of things like money for food pantry and help with job creation, mental and physical health services.

And so as I've said, I'm asking for an aye vote and I appreciate you letting me be here today to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your appreciate all your work as a non profit developer. Affordable housing. Yes. All others who are in support of SB 908.

Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. We represent for profit and non profit as well as single family owners who are facing this in home or association. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Ali Sapirman, on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, in strong support.

Madison Vander Klay, on behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition Action Fund, in strong support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of SB 908? Seeing none. All those who oppose SB 908? Anybody in here in opposition?

No? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the daias? The bill has been moved by Senator Ashby.

Senator Wiener, you no. You have question? Okay. Senator Choi.

I wonder if your bill is restricted to the San Francisco area or entire state?

No. For existing buildings, it's the entire state. Under the committee amendment for new construction, it's San Francisco. But this generally comes up with window replacements and that's the entire state.

Window replacement for existing homes will be mandated by the state law by this bill?

So no. It it doesn't require homeowners to do anything. This empowers homeowners. If a homeowner chooses to change its their his or her windows to be more energy efficient, this will empower them to do that so that a city or HOA can't tell them no, you're not allowed to do that. You have to keep paying high bills.

So this gives more ability to homeowners to make those choices for themselves.

Isn't this more of a local jurisdiction based upon their environment and that community needs appearance? They should know better than one blanket regulation all over the state.

I mean, that's certainly one perspective. And we normally design standards. Cities have typically broad latitude to enact design standards, but there are situations where state law if you have a design standard that makes it impossible, for example, to build housing, then that can be overridden by state law and it sometimes is. So typically, cities have broad latitude and design standards unless it's undermining a state policy. And here, people's energy bills are too high.

I believe that Republicans and Democrats both tend to agree on that. And there this is a way that people can choose to lower their energy costs and they should be allowed to do so. And that's, we believe should be a matter of statewide policy.

If I'm a renter, will I have an option to replace my window to save my energy bills?

Or does it have to be the owner the operator has to do it to the entire building?

That would be the typically, the owner of the building would decide as they do with various aspects of the building. And a a landlord may decide that they wanna weatherize their windows to lower costs If the renter is if it some renters pay their own electric bill, some don't. If they pay their own electric bill, it would lower their it would lower their bill, but that would be a choice of the owner of the building.

Seems like this is micromanaging? Everything that we do locally that can be done from the state. This is always my struggle when I review certain policies like this in this committee.

You. I appreciate that. I actually think it's micromanagement when a city tells a homeowner that you're not allowed to weatherize your window. That to me is micromanagement, but I understand what you're saying.

Any other questions or comments? Okay. I see none. Senator Wiener you wanna?

We can start to ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you very much. Alright. We'll call the vote.

The motion is do passed to the committee on housing. [Roll Call]

The bill is on call.

Okay. Senator Hurtado, welcome. Good morning.

Welcome. Good morning, madam chair, members. Good morning.

Senator Hurtado, you're here to present SB 1172. You may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning to, members of the committee. I'm here to present SB 1172, the Local Tax Savings Act. And I would like to start off by thanking the chair and committee staff for working closely with my office and the bill sponsors. Due to timing, I will be accepting amendments outlined in the committee analysis during the next policy committee. SB 1172 is about saving taxpayer money at the local level.

It's about fairness, it's about accountability and protecting the communities that can least afford to lose. Across California, local governments rely on tax sharing agreements as a tool to attract economic development. But when those agreements are structured without clear guardrails, they can end up doing the opposite, diverting critical tax dollars away from the very communities they are meant to support. In the city of Shafter, a small Central Valley community in my district, local leaders worked in good faith to bring in economic opportunity.

But instead of seeing the full benefit of that growth, significant portions of their local tax revenue were redirected through consultant agreements that lack transparency and reasonable limits.

For a community like Shafter, where every dollar matters, that means fewer resources for public safety, infrastructure, and basic services. It means residents who already feel like they've gotten the short end of the stick are left with, are left wondering whether the system is really, you know, working for them. What happened in Shafter should not happen anywhere else. SB 1172 takes a balanced and reasonable approach. It does not eliminate tax sharing agreements or local control.

Instead, it puts in place reasonable caps on consultant compensation and requires full transparency so that decisions are made in the open and with accountability. By aligning incentives with genuine economic development, we ensure that public dollars are actually reinvested back into the communities that generate them as they're intended to do.

With this bill, we are making sure that small and rural communities and really communities across California have confidence that their government is safeguarding their taxpayer dollars and not being cheated in any kind of way by allowing them to be quietly siphoned away. SB 1172 ensures that economic development works for our communities and not against them. And with me with me today, I have Chris McCallie who is representing the city of Shafter.

Thank you very much. And you may proceed. You have two minutes.

Yes. Thank you, madam chair. As the Senator noted, Chris Micheli here on behalf of the city of Shafter, the proud sponsor of SB 1172. And we thank our Senator for carrying the legislation. And as she indicated, your staff in particular, working with us to refine this measure.

And of course, the author has accepted those committee proposed amendments. As the Senator indicated, this bill is prospective in nature, so it doesn't affect any existing or preexisting sales tax sharing agreements, which does have some benefit in terms of the agreements themselves. But here, the emphasis is on placing so called guardrails, particularly on the amount and the duration of these consultant agreements so that ultimately those dollars are used and benefited by the local jurisdictions such as the city of Shafter and others.

So we respectfully ask you for your aye vote. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you very much. Anyone else here in support of SB 1172?

Good morning. Ben Triffo with League of California Cities in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Support, City of Perris.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition SB 1172?

Seeing none. Questions or comments from the daias? Nope. Can we have a motion then?

Motion. Wait. Wait. Yeah. Motion.

Senator Cervantes. Senator Hurtado, you may wrap up.

Thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We have a motion.

The motion is do passed to the committee on revenue and taxation. [Rollcall]

That bill is [4-0] on call, remains on call. We now move on to Senator Cervantes who is here, to present SB 1379. You may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee members for allowing me to present SB 1379 today, which would separate the Riverside County Sheriff Coroner in separate offices and establish an independent medical examiner. I wanna begin by accepting the committee's proposed amendments on page four of the committee analysis and thank your staff for all their work. SB 1379 is an attempt to fix a broken system in my home county of Riverside. At its core, the goal of this bill is simple.

When an individual dies in custody, in custody jail, the family and the public deserves transparency and the truth in a timely manner.

This bill is limited and targeted in scope and seeks to address a specific and serious situation happening in Riverside County. In 2024, a CalMatters investigation into deaths of individuals in custody in Riverside County jails concluded, and I quote, Some of the state's deadliest jails are in Riverside County, and forty five people have died in lockups since 01/01/2021.

In 2025 article in the New York Times said that the number of deaths in Riverside County jails from 2020 to 2023, and I quote, made the county system the second deadliest jail in the nation during that period. This bill is about restoring public trust, protecting the rights of families of the deceased, and ensuring that every death is investigated with independence, transparency, and medical expertise. In some cases, deaths involving trauma or neglect have been classified as natural or undetermined, raising concerns about investigative integrity.

Right now in Riverside County, the same department that may be responsible for the death of a person in custody is also responsible for investigating and determining the cause of death. This is why this is what we know. Between 2020 between 2011 and 2022, there has been 226 in-depth in Riverside County. During that same period, 10% of all in custody deaths in California occurred in Riverside, despite only 6% of the state's population residing there.

We also see concerning demographic disparities, including from 2005 to 2024, 43% of the deaths were among Latinos, which is higher than the statewide share of 32%.

In addition, we see disproportionate numbers of deaths among young adults. During that same period in Riverside County, 24% of individuals who died in custody were of the age of 24 to 34, despite the statewide share being 15% of individuals who died in custody were age 35 to 44, the share in Riverside County was 22%, which is higher than the statewide share of 17%.

These are not just numbers, but behind every statistic is a family waiting for answers that are often never answered, they never come. Families are left navigating a system where they cannot access timely information and question the accuracy of findings.

That leaves them with no option but to seek justice through the courts. This has led to nearly $100,000,000 in settlements due to in custody deaths and have been that have been paid by Riverside County taxpayers over the last decade. This is reflective not just a financial cost to taxpayers, but a system failure in the county. As mentioned, the problem of Riverside County is not newly discovered.

The epidemic of in custody deaths has been investigated by press outlets like CALMatters, the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times.

I'm aware that the county has published its own report regarding this issue. However, having the county investigate and audit its own system that governs in custody deaths, it's a bit like having the fox guard the hen house.

This is why a report by academics, including Professor Nicholas Chapara at UCLA said, and I quote, Riverside County's decision to conduct the audit internally may have undermined the quality and integrity of the audit if the county's evaluators were less inclined to identify shortcomings of their Sheriff Coroner Office, as doing so may reflect poorly on the office and the county or raise internal conflict, end quote. Community organizations, including Riverside Sheriffs Accountability Coalition, have demanded structural change, including separating the office of Sheriff and Coroner.

SB 1379 responds directly to that call.

This bill takes a targeted practical approach that will require Riverside County to separate the sheriff and the coroner office, establish an independent medical examiner, and implement timely reporting requirements for in custody deaths, and improve reporting for transparency purposes. This is a proven model that has been used throughout our state. Major California counties like Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Ventura have independent medical examiners. Three additional counties, Inyo, Sacramento, San Mateo, have separate offices of Sheriff and Coroner.

These jurisdictions demonstrate that independent medical examiner systems can improve accuracy, strengthen public trust, and facilitate medically informed decisions.

The current system in Riverside County is not only unjust but also costly. We cannot stand idle by and allow the status quo in our county to remain in place. This bill ensures that when someone dies in custody in Riverside County, their death is not investigated by the same broken system that held the lives in their hands in the first place. We owe the families the truth. We owe our communities accountability and transparency, and we owe taxpayers a system that they can trust.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1379.

Thank you, Senator. Anyone here in support of SB 1379?

George Parampathu on behalf of ACLU California Action in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members. Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in support.

Thank you very much. No one else? Seeing no one else, anyone here in opposition to SB 1379? Good morning. Welcome.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association in opposition to the bill. The current sheriff coroner model utilized by choice by a vast majority of California counties, 48 of the 58 enjoys the benefit of operational and budgetary efficiency. Separating these offices will remove investigative efficiencies and drastically increase county costs unnecessarily by requiring the county to stand up a separate coroner office. From a governance perspective, the bill is heavy handed and disregards local control.

Existing law already very clearly permits counties to pursue multiple models of county office consolidation and separation. In other words, counties have this authority and they know how to use it. Just a few years ago, San Joaquin County faced this exact question and they created their own office of the independent medical examiner.

In fact, in late 2023, and I hope I'm not stealing any thunder, from my colleague here, but the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, as the author noted, directed its executive office to evaluate separating the coroner's bureau from the sheriff's department.

Having done that, the executive office communicated the following to the board, and I quote, as a result of an extensive evaluation, the executive office has reached the conclusion the negative impacts of separating the coroner's bureau and a republic administrator from the sheriff's department significantly outweigh the perceived benefit and would not be in the best interest in the community.

So who wants this? The board of supervisors not listed in support. In fact, there's no entities listed in support in the analysis. We just heard from two groups. There have been legislative attempts to separate sheriff and coroner offices, and they've been routinely defeated and or vetoed.

There's plenty of oversight and ways to deal with perceived conflict that don't require the legislature to impose its will on a county that has asked and answered this question. This is a solution in search of a problem and is a decision best left to the sound discretion of local officials who have budget authority and relevant local experience. So for these reasons, we're respectfully opposed to SB 1379. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and committee. My name is Julio De Leon. I'm a lieutenant with the Riverside County Sheriff's Office and here in opposition. Riverside County already studied this exact issue through the formal executive office report adopted by the board of supervisors as mentioned previously. The conclusion was clear.

Separation would be more costly, less efficient, and not in the best interest of our community. The bill overrides that local decision making process. Five elected supervisors and a county wide elected sheriff have already evaluated and rejected this particular structure that's being proposed today. SB 1379 substitutes that with a state mandate on a single county. This is not a statewide policy.

It is a targeted legislation That raises serious concerns about precedent and local control. If Sacramento can restructure one county's operation, it can do the same to others. The legislature already addressed this, the stated concerns raised by the author through AB 1108 that was passed last year. Counties are actively implementing those requirements right now, and SB 1379 layers on additional mandates before that policy has even been fully implemented or evaluated.

We have done extensive research and extensive outreach on specifically this issue AB 1108 and we are developing policy right now to address those concerns over perceived conflict of interest.

The county's findings are not theoretical separation increased cost due to duplicate duplication of services. It creates more bureaucracy and less efficiency, and it disrupts integrated operations including the public administrator function that we operate as well. These decisions should be operational and local in nature. They require flexibility based on county size, infrastructure, and resources. One size fits all does not fit in this circumstance, and one county this one county approach obviously doesn't approach this either.

With those, we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to SB 1379? Please come forward. Seeing none. Okay.

Questions or comments from the dais? Senator Laird.

Thank you.

First, I appreciate you bringing the bill forward to focus on this issue. And I think it's difficult in some ways in that I actually agree with the argument that there should not be a precedent. I do not want people to automatically assume in the other 40 odd counties that we were going to consider doing this. But I think the in custody death level that has existed in Riverside County really mitigates for this.

And when it's like oh it's more cost efficient and yet there have been a $100,000,000 of taxpayer funds spent on settlements is not a cheaper thing.

Uh-uh that is really much more expensive. And it as somebody that worked on and off for a county for 25 years I really appreciate the efficiency of the coroner being part of the Sheriff's department. But I think this is an exceptional circumstance and it warrants the passage bill. And at the appropriate time, I will be willing to move it if we must have a quorum because I voted already.

Yes. You did.

Senator Choi?

Senator, I understand your point clearly, but this notion of a state specifically picking up one county for the justifications that you have illustrated that in custody death rate is so high. To me, the death rate being high is a separate matter from the sheriff and the coroner to be separated because coroner's job is to my understanding, is to identify the cause of the death after the death.

So no matter how many, you know, two different people, the coroner the sheriff himself would not conduct the body examination to determine the death of the cause. Obviously, there's a medical examiner who is expert identifying the death cause of the death. So here, the five member county supervisors, they have reviewed it and they chosen to stay as is.

So I would rather focus on improving and finding out why they are in custody. That's already so high in Riverside and improving custody services and preventing such a high rate, exceptionally higher rate of death rate in custody in Riverside, that should be focused. But this is assuming that the separation of duties or independent body coroner will improve, will reduce the situation, the high rate of death.

There's no guarantee as long as the current practice of the jail service, custody service is not proper and inmates are treated the same as is. So and I understand that the Riverside County supervisors have decided not to separate the department.

That is the other factor of the cost as this sheriff's department representative have identified their objection or reasons. So I wonder why this is specific. If the separation is such a good thing to implement, that should be universal entire 58 counties rather than targeting one specific county. So cost factor, local control and uncertainty of improvement of the so reducing the death rate of the inmates in the county jail separation. No guarantee as long as there's no change in the custody services by sheriff's department.

So having separating two individuals with a different title, one is a sheriff, one is a coroner, I don't think there's a guarantee this death rate will go down. How can you justify that?

I'm sorry. I just need to interrupt for just one second. I need to go vote to leave. So Senator Choi will take over. This is for labor?

Pardon me? Yeah.

Are you closing down?

I have to present. I need to present.

I'm gonna have to talk for it.

Yeah, please. Okay. But I do think that there are some very valid points. We don't want this decision being made in all for all to, you know, 40-50 counties. We don't want that decision being made here.

I think it is something that warrants a different approach than what has been done. So, anyway

And then my I may close. I could answer and respond to some of that, Madam Chair.

Yes, please.

So I want to, directly respond to some of the things that were mentioned today, whether that is by the opposition or members of the committee. I don't know who believes that $100,000,000 in settlement is cost effective first and foremost. And the California DOJ opened an ongoing civil rights investigation into the increase in deaths in custody. So that is ongoing, just to address that issue, Doctor Choi.

Also, the department has assumed no responsibility for these deaths. And we do have a County Board, supervisors that make up five members of which try to do something at the local level. And all of us here are aware of the influence that the county sheriffs can have on county politics. And I think it's fair to characterize what happened in Riverside County as a county sheriff is using every tool in his disposal, politically or otherwise, to escape accountability for what has happened under his watch.

Californians deserve a fair, unbiased and transparent process. And this is what we're offering today is to address the gross negligence, to bring transparency to the taxpayers of Riverside County who have longed asked for this. And I respectfully ask for the committee support in moving this bill forward.

Okay. I would move the them.

Oh, okay. Motion has been made and then I consider that was your closing statement. Okay. The motion has been made. Any other member before we vote on?

Okay. Then the clerk will please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the Committee on Public Safety. Senator Durazo? Choi?

No.

Choi, no. Arreguin?

Aye.

Arreguin, aye. Ashby?

Aye.

Ashby, aye. Cervantes?

Aye.

Laird, aye. Seyarto?

Cervantes, aye. Laird?

Aye.

Four one. On-call.

Okay. We'll leave it open for absent members. So the next one is which one? Item 11. Final item 11, Senator Ashby, if you're ready.

Colleagues. Good chair. Okay. I'm here to present SB 1283, which is sponsored by the Electric Vehicle Charging Association. I'd like to start by committing to take the committee amendments, which will, I think, actually be added in judiciary because of timing.

Right? But thank you to the chair and the excellent committee staff on local government for working with me on this important measure. Very grateful. California has led the nation we know this in advancing clean transportation, including streamlining approvals for electric vehicle charging stations.

However, there's an ambiguity in existing law that has prevented local governments from being able to streamline the approval of EV charging stations that have essential additions to them like canopies and on-site energy storage systems, which is critical in certain areas of our state.

As a result, the deployment of chargers is not keeping pace with the growing demand which is creating an infrastructure gap which we all know is one of the biggest hindrances to the state reaching its climate and transportation goals, infrastructure that is. So SB 1283 expands an existing requirement for ministerial approval of EV charging stations to include these essential additions like canopies and on-site energy storage systems and requires local governments to update their EV charging station ordinances by the 2027.

The bill will help accelerate EV infrastructure across the state and particularly in places where we need that storage system in order to provide the charging stations. This will make, our transportation goals happen faster. We'll have easier, clearer, and more consistent approvals.

I will respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me, I have Reid Addis from the Electric Vehicle Charging Association as my key witness.

Okay. Witness, go ahead if you're ready.

They got it for you.

Here we go. Okay. Thank you, Chair and Members Reed Addis on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association in strong support here today. The state has put in a thoughtful and comprehensive set of policies to help, incentivize zero emission vehicles, make them affordable, make them, ubiquitous across the state of California. You've done that through setting policies that, promote, the number of chargers on the ground.

You've done that by putting out incentive programs, and as the Senator mentioned, you've also put out programs to help us with local government permitting. But we still have a long ways to go. And when some of these policies were adopted almost ten years ago, we just didn't know what kind of technologies we we're going to be installing at the time.

So we think this is a practical fix to modernize sophistication, to to meet, if you will, the technology sophistication that we're not just installing boxes on the ground. We're installing these chargers that actually do include solar panels, energy storage units with them, and the old policy didn't necessarily capture that.

So SB 1283 provides a practical fix. It clarifies and streamline permitting applies not just to charger itself, but to supporting infrastructure needed to make the project viable. Importantly, this bill does not weaken local authority on health and safety. Local governments still review projects to ensure they meet all applicable safety standards. What this bill does do is it ensures that once those standards are met, projects move forward in a predictable and timely manner.

SB 1283 helps deliver that. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other major witness as of one person? If not, other members in support, come forward and state your name and organization in the support statement.

Good morning. Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of Tesla in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Megan Murray on behalf of Electrify America in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair members. Chris Scroggin with Capital Advocacy on behalf of ChargePoint in support.

Any opposition, major witness?

Okay. You have two minutes.

Good morning. Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities. We are respectfully in opposition of 1283, first acknowledging the amendments that the author has taken. I can appreciate the analysis that committee consultants have made. We, however, have main, concerns with core issues, which at the state level, policies like 1283 are often framed in the abstract streamlining, deployment, removing barriers, but cities operate in specifics, staff level, utility coordination, panel upgrades, safety risks, and this bill kind of widens that gap.

SB 1283 continues to require ministerial approval for infrastructure like canopies and complex on-site battery energy storage systems that demand engineering judgment and sites specific review.

The state fire marshal just adopted a suite of fire safety codes for battery energy storage systems, and is still trying to grapple with the significant safety risks and equipment overheating and thermal runaway and all the other issues that are associated with it. By forcing these into a checklist driven process with rigid timelines, this bill limits the ability of local governments to ensure safe design and appropriate conditions for approval.

In addition, SB 1283 expands legal and financial liabilities while allowing construction to proceed without a permit. It's important to be clear who benefits. The structure, this framework primarily benefits the applicants in the charging industry by reducing review time, limiting local discretion, and shifting risk away from developers.

That risk does not disappear. It's transferred directly to cities without the tools to management. In effect, this bill, SB 1283, reduces cost and uncertainty for private app applicants while increasing cost, legal exposure, and operational risk for local governments. For those reasons, we respectfully oppose.

Okay. Any other individuals opposing?

Good morning. Tracy Ryan with the County Representatives of California. Also, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, we'd like to align our comments with Cal Cities in opposition. Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay. If not, I will ask my-one more coming.

Very sorry. I missed it on the on the TV, but Obed Franco on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition in support of the bill. My apologies.

No problem. Okay. Members, questions and then wait. Go ahead.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. A few comments on this. And first, I appreciate you bringing the Bill. And when we had the 15 bill package and 12 senators on a climate working group in 2022, this was one of the items.

And the real issue is with regard to the opportunity to charge in certain places in the state there are charging deserts. And they're charging deserts in many cases in multifamily locations in disadvantaged communities in a way that really impedes our ability to have the electric vehicle transition. And there were real attempts at the time and even a bill in the package to try to expedite just for the purposes of multifamily and we couldn't get it all the way. I think this addresses that.

With regard to the comments that were just made by Cal Cities, we're now experiencing and I had you used expression thermal runaway.

I had a thermal runaway fire in my district that gained amazing headlines everywhere in the universe and it was a cause for real concern. But what happened out of that is is that technology was the original technology that doesn't exist that we would not approve now if it were presented and 75% of the battery storage that is industrial size battery storage now

in the state has shifted to being containerized outdoors, cement slabs, a different lithium mix and yet that fire has poisoned the well across the state for permitting because people associate anything that might be in front of them with what happened there even though the technology is different. And it means that out of that situation a lot of these facilities will not be approved.

And so there needs to be a way and and even though it's very controversial and it's very controversial in my senate district, The AB 205 from whatever year that was 2023 that allows for permitting to advance to the state for the larger ones has in many ways local officials are relieved by it because they might understand what is fair in this, but the political pressure is very difficult and it advances to the state for that to happen. And so this bill is really needed.

The one thing is that I do share some of the concerns about what some of the penalties might be or what happens. But the next stop is in judiciary and that is the logical place to address that. And so I'm hoping providing it gets out of here today and I will support it that there will be continued to be those conversations because I know that with regard to local control, there needs to not be excessive penalties on this just to get people to do the right thing.

And so I think that conversation will still continue to judiciary but our statement today is whether or not we think this is a need that must be met, and I think it is. So at the appropriate time, I will be willing to move the bill. Thank you for the opportunity to make comments.

Okay. Do you would would you like to make any response to the statement?

I'll put it all in my close.

Okay. Any other? Okay. Yeah.

I will support this one even though originally I had some concerns in that EV is something we've been promoting and by 2035, no gasoline vehicles will be allowed to be sold. So that means we have practically one option, that's electrical vehicles operated by electricity and infrastructure for charging stations. So that's essential, especially I'm concerned about the rural areas where not sufficient charges are available. Then it'll be scarier. When I first time tested, that was my concern.

Where can I find the charging station? Just like gas stations everywhere, then you don't have to worry about it. So by providing the enough charging stations, I think that's an essential effort. And then I hope this will enhance that opportunities. But my concern is that as far as local opposition concerns, the liability will be placed upon the local governments.

But in the initial statement, even though this is once the standard is met, then it shall move forward and additional approval process will be done by the local governments. But I don't know whether that was a different kind of authority that you are talking about and Senator Ashby is talking about. So if you can clarify or redefine your question why you feel you are afraid that your liability will be placed upon the local government?

Thank you for the question. Yeah. I think the version of the bill that we're reading now has legal liabilities to allow a project to proceed if deemed, administratively approved without a permit. And if an applicant feels the timelines are stringent or not being recognized, they can now sue that local municipality. And in addition to this new private right of action, can collect attorney fees and expert fees associated with that.

That that invites litigation. That invites legal exposure and additional cost to the taxpayers.

Okay. Can you respond to that?

Sure. So I think we're conflating two issues here. One is what are the building inspectors and local government's components. And so in local government, which is what we're here discussing today, this committee has done an excellent job of talking to the building inspectors, as has my team, as has, our sponsor.

And we believe that the bill does not create any safety hazard from a building and construction standpoint because as you have rightfully pointed out, Senator Choi and as Senator Laird stated, it really gives the cities the same approval standard.

If if a project is deemed hazardous or they pick a spot that doesn't seem safe, the local government still has the opportunity to say that's not a safe or that's a hazard and not move forward with with the construction of these sites. So that piece is is not changing because of this bill. However, here's the conflation. I think what I'm really hearing is a concern about, how a case can be brought and what the judicial component and litigation piece of this is.

This committee and I talked about that, and I think we all agree as Senator Laird has stated, that is a judiciary committee issue, which many of us in here sit on.

And I'll be happy to talk about it. I'm very open to talking about how we set up the component of making sure that this piece of the bill does, move forward. That being said, we can talk about how litigation proceeds when we get to judiciary. It would it it's an important component of the bill, but it'll happen in the next committee.

I think the other thing I would say about this is it's really important to note that while you're hearing from the cities and counties today, they're gonna be the primary beneficiaries of this bill because there are places, as you have so correctly stated, in this state that we can't build unless we add this piece.

So the folks that particularly rural areas, areas where we need to collect, where we need to have that solar awning, that's who's gonna benefit from this. So I do reject a little bit here who the primary beneficiaries are. The primary beneficiaries are people in the state of California who have electric vehicles and wanna have a surety that they can charge throughout the state of California. That's who benefits from this bill.

And Senator Laird could not be more spot on that this piece was left out previously because technology wasn't there, but it is now. So it's appropriate to come back and put this piece in.

Oh, okay. To make a local governments happy, do you have no rebuttal to that answer?

it won't make them happy.

I appreciate that. And I think the the real barrier that's being identified here is not local government permitting review. It's private investment. If there are EV owners and they're concerned about range anxiety and where to charge, it's not because local municipalities are not permitting quick enough. It's because there's a lack of investment in that space.

There may not be a return on investment that the industry feels is appropriate to invest and put in chargers there. So that would be my pushback.

Well, let me just respond to that. I mean, many of us have come from local government. I spent twelve years sitting on Sacramento City Council. There's nothing in this that says that the governments have to pay for these. All we're doing is making it easier for those who do want to invest there.

So that's sort of a circular faulty argument. People invest where they believe they can and I served in local government long enough to know that you find me a developer who doesn't think that our process isn't streamlined enough and I will sell you a unicorn.

Great. Mister chair.

Yeah. Sure.

Is it free for me to make a comment?

Go ahead.

Mike. Just a brief addition because of what came up in the discussion. I failed to note the bill I did last year that reflects on this because out of the battery storage fire we now have in law fire department participation at every point in the process in the design permitting and operation. We now have lithium safety standards in the building code so local governments don't have to struggle over that. That's in there to do.

And there were other things about not building in combustible buildings and other things, but it was precisely because, interestingly, the Moss Landing plant that had the thermal runaway was totally locally approved. That was not a state approval, and yet the state did not give the locals tools in safety standards or fire involvement or other things to be able to take that off the table so they would feel some comfort level in doing it. And that is a backdrop to this bill and what it is.

Thanks for letting me add that.

Okay. Thank you, Senator. I have a additional question to the author. That is regarding the canopy and battery storage units. Your bill is requiring them in there?

Doesn't require them, just allows them if it's necessary as part of the essential construction of a charging station based on the area.

Why electric charger system uses regular current rather than relying upon the battery. Why are we talking about the battery storage just in case the main power line goes off?

Yeah. Because not all areas are the same, but the witness could probably explain to you a little bit better.

Yeah. Thank you, Reed Addis on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association. I think you mentioned, Senator, in some of your comments that there are parts of the state of California where you're more rural. Some of these systems, while they also operate in a urban setting perfectly appropriately, in the rural communities, sometimes the grid doesn't quite suffice to allow the type of units to be installed.

Both a combination of a solar canopy with an on-site, energy storage allows you to retain as much energy on there and allows you to charge as many vehicles as possible. So as the Senator mentioned, this is not a mandate, but a lot of our technologies are including this, and we think it's useful and increases reliability across this.

The storage unit is for the areas where there's no electricity grid.

Yeah. And and in many in many cases, it'll store the actual solar power into that unit there on-site when it's not being used.

I wonder if the battery power runs out, do you take it to recharge it to the place of where it can be charged?

I'm not an expert on all the technologies, but I think for the most part, it will it usually is that technology is not the way you're not taking the battery away and charging it. You're actually using the solar power charge.

So if there's no electricity agreed to recharge for the times. I thought that that would be a backup unit, but it sounds like that should be this main supply power source.

I think it could be either one, Senator Choi. It depends on the location. The point is if you're in the heart of Sacramento, you don't need that. You can plug into our grid. We have SMUD, which I love to brag about on a routine basis and as many committees as possible.

So why not local gov? In SMUD, you're not gonna have a problem. Very unlikely that you're gonna have a power outage. But if you're, you know, up in the North, you're traveling to see Senator Dolly and you're in Bieber, gonna be a little bit less, reliable grid. And there may be and by the way, also the place you don't wanna break down is gonna be a really long time before somebody can get to you.

So in areas like that where we're able to capture solar energy, store it on-site, and use that to, you know, get vehicles farther across the state, it's very helpful technology. This isn't mandatory, but it will allow that technology in areas where currently we don't have a strong enough grid system to support it.

Oh, okay. Sounds so-

It might also be used as a backup somewhere. There might be a place that's so busy that they wanna have a backup or where they find that there's a cost efficiency to to doing a backup. All of those things are possible, but the real beneficiaries are people who don't have a strong enough grid that we could use solar to capture for one site for one purpose for the cars.

Now you answered the question. This is the power source will be primarily in that case from solar source.

With that, I think my question is all cleared. And anyone who would like to the motion has been already made, right?

Hold on. I'm sorry?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Oh, closing. Yeah. Okay.

The motion is, do passed to the committee on judiciary.[Roll call]

[4-0] On call

Okay. I see Senator Reyes for SB 1414. If you are ready, we are ready.

Okay.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members for this opportunity to present SB 1414. This bill would create an independent redistricting commission for San Bernardino County, ensuring that lines are drawn through a transparent process and not for those and not by those with a direct stake in the outcome. In 2008, the people of California overwhelmingly supported the creation of a statewide citizens redistricting commission with the approval of Proposition 11.

Independent redistricting commissions provide citizens with an opportunity to draw lines independent of those who would otherwise benefit. Without the independent commission, county supervisors could potentially draw boundaries that prioritize their re-election instead of guaranteeing fair and equitable representation for their constituents.