Assembly Standing Committee on Local Government

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the assembly local government committee hearing. Testimony for this hearing will be in person. We also accept written testimony to the position letter portal on the committee's website. As we proceed with witnesses and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands that the assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing.

We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings regardless of the viewpoint they express. In order to facilitate the goal of the hearing as much as possible from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impeach the orderly conduct of the legislative proceedings. We will not accept this rapid behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence.

The rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience, public comment may be provided only at the designated time and place, and as permitted by the chair. Public comment must relate to the subject of bills or information being discussed today.

No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise in busy orderly conduct of this hearing. Please be aware that violations violations of these rules may subject you to removal and other enforcement actions. We are gonna have Assemblymember Fong here today, and Assemblymember Alaniz to the Dias, who are stepping for Assemblymember Ramos and Johnson who are absent today. When they get here, we'll welcome them. We have 13 bills on our agenda this afternoon with three items on consent.

Those items are SB 722 by Senator Wahab, SB 799 by Senator Allen, SB 1438 by Senate local government committee. We will take up to two primary witnesses in support and up to two primary witnesses in opposition for each bill. These witnesses will have three minutes each to provide their testimony. All remaining witnesses should state their name, their organization, and position on the bill only. We do not have a quorum, and we do not have any authors yet.

So we're gonna wait for a little bit. We're gonna be calling authors to come up and present a local government on the assembly side. And with that, I will just wait for authors to arrive. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Arreguin. If you're ready, we're gonna start with AB 762 one of your three bills today.

Well, thank you very much, Mister Chair and members of the local government committee. It's my pleasure to present SB 762, a bill which responds to the growing fiscal pressures facing local governments across California. Cities, counties including Santa Cruz County, Santa Barbara County, the cities of Santa Maria, Santa Rosa, Rona Park, and communities in my own district including the city of Hercules and San Pablo are included in this bill.

Cities and counties are facing growing fiscal pressures driven by rising health care and public safety costs as well as the need to maintain and modernize aging infrastructure. In addition, the recent passage of HR 1 has resulted in cuts to health and human services that have affected our county throughout California, forcing local governments to absorb up to 9.5 billion annually in new costs, limiting their ability to deliver essential services to communities.

Due to their legal mandate to administer social programs, California counties are faced with the difficult decision of diverting money from other public services or find ways to stretch general funds to cover gaps. And when we heard this bill in rev and tax, we heard from some members who are concerned about the fact that, once again, we're going to, the voters to ask for tax increase to backfill these cuts and to fund public safety and other essential services.

And I want to assure you, this is not a first resort. This is a last resort. Many jurisdictions have pursued a variety of strategies to address budget constraints, including holding vacant positions, reducing nonessential spending, and pursuing operational efficiencies.

But despite these efforts, fiscal challenges persists. So to address the fiscal needs of cities and counties, SB 762 establishes a limited process which allows local governments, to either put on the ballot or through a voter initiative, an increase in local government sales tax and refund these essential services. I wanna emphasize this is not a tax increase. Sacramento is not imposing a tax increase on these cities and counties. It rather gives voters the choice to decide whether additional revenue tools are appropriate for their communities.

And with me to testify in support of Senate bill 762 is Chris Kelley, the Mayor of the City of Hercules, and supervisor Monica Martinez representing, Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. And I know we have representatives of other cities and counties here as well. So thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Carrillo and members of the Assembly Local Government Committee. My name is Chris Kelley, and I'm the Mayor of the City of Hercules. I wanna thank Senator Arreguin for his leadership on this effort. So, SB 762 is a thoughtful balanced measure that provides limited statutory flexibility for certain cities, including Hercules, to seek voter approval for a local transaction and use tax above the current statewide cap.

Importantly, this bill does not impose a tax increase. It just allows our voters to decide for themselves if more locally controlled revenue is necessary to meet our needs. Hercules is a city of 26,000, and we are a low property tax city. Like many California cities, we are faced with real fiscal pressure driven by inflation, aging infrastructure, deferred maintenance, and rising public safety costs. Hercules has already taken corrective action.

Some years ago, we laid off 40% of our staff. We froze positions. We reduced spending and preserved operational efficiencies. But despite these belt tightening measures, our structural budget deficit remains. Without additional fiscal flexibility, cities like Hercules will be forced to make more difficult decisions, and these involve service reductions, delayed capital improvements, and diminished emergency response.

So, SB 762 offers us a reasonable solution. It allows our residents determine if additional additional locally controlled revenue is needed to preserve our public safety, maintain infrastructure, and support long term fiscal sustainability. Again, SB 762 lets communities have the ability to address our own needs through local voter approval. SB 762 provides a measured, voter driven pathway for cities to address these challenges.

For all these reasons, the city of Hercules respectfully urges your aye vote on SB 762.

Thank you, and good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. My name is Monica Martinez, and I'm currently the Chair of the Board of Supervisors in Santa Cruz County. Before being elected, I was the CEO of our county's largest health and human services nonprofit serving thousands of Santa Cruz residents, and I also have had the privilege of being a foster parent and adoptive parent for children in our community.

Like many other communities across the state, the county is struggling to maintain access to critical health care, hospital, and food assistance services in light of the significant reductions by the federal government, including HR 1. And our county has heard loud and clear that we cannot expect the state to fully backfill the losses from the federal government.

So, as a result, we have local hospitals, clinics, and supportive services that are at severe risk of potential closure. The county of Santa Cruz is the safety net for these communities, and these are communities that are traditionally disproportionately impacted by budget reductions. SB 762 offers the opportunity to continue to protect those in communities who need the most assistance. And just a few quick facts for you about the county of Santa Cruz. 83,000 people in the county are enrolled in Medi-Cal.

Nearly 43% of births in the county are covered by Medi-Cal. 31,000 residents receive CalFresh benefits each each month, and more than 20,000 households rely on food assistance. These figures illustrate the scale of services that help residents meet the needs and maintain stability in our high cost region. As a result, we would like the opportunity to ask our voters to consider options to help us to maintain these critical services for our safety net programs.

And so we respectfully request an aye vote on SB 762 on behalf of the county of Santa Cruz.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on in support, please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Carlin Shelby, on behalf of the communities of Los Altos and San Gabriel, in strong support. Thank you.

Rita Xavier, Vice Mayor, City of San Pablo, in support.

I wasn't sure if we're allowed to say a little more. I'm Christine Bowles. I'm the Mayor of Pacifica, speaking in support. We're really struggling with climate change, sea level rise, and we can't - we've been cutting our budget for years and can't cut anymore and continue to take care of our community and our infrastructure. We really request your support. Thank you so much.

Mark Stapp, Mayor, City of Santa Rosa. We're at 1990's levels in terms of our public staffing. We can't cut more. We need the revenue option.

Emily Sanborn, Mayor of the City Of Roanoke Park, neighbor to Roanoke Park to Santa Rosa, in full support of this measure. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Christine Paras, Assistant Director of Administrative Services, City of Palo Alto. We support this measure to repair deteriorated infrastructure.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kristen O'Kane, Director of Community Services, City of Palo Alto, in support.

Katy Nomura, on behalf of the town of Los Gatos in strong support, as it will help with over 230,000,000 of capital needs.

Mister Chair, members, Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. Megan Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, in support.

Good afternoon. Shane Gusman, on behalf of Teamsters California, in support.

Good afternoon. Jason Nutt, Assistant City Manager, City of Santa Rosa, in strong support.

Good afternoon. Scott Westrope, Fire Chief, City of Santa Rosa, in strong support. Thank you.

Honorable Chair, I've got a bunch of me too's. I'll go fast. Niccolo DeLuca here on behalf of the Police Officers Association of Pacifica in support. Police Officers Association of San Pablo support. Police Officers Association of Los Altos support.

And then finally, in support from the following police chiefs, Santa Rosa, San Pablo, Los Altos, Pacifica, San Gabriel, Hercules, Rohnert Park, and the town of Los Gatos support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there a primary opposition to this measure? Seeing no primary opposition; any opposition at all from the audience? Seeing none.

Committee members, questions, comments on what's in front of us? Seeing none. We're still operating as a subcommittee. Once we get there, we'll ask for a motion. Would you like to close?

Well, thank you, Mister Chair. Member, once again, local governments are being asked to do more with less. The time and cost continue to rise, and this bill does not raise taxes or bypass our voters. It simply gives local communities control to decide for themselves whether to raise needed revenue; respectfully, ask for your vote.

Thank you. We'll be supporting your bill today again once we get a quorum, and we'll proceed with the motion. Thank you very much. And you have two more bills?

I do. Yes.

Do you wanna do SB 1400?

If my witnesses for SB 1400 can...1400? No? Sorry.

Please proceed when you're ready.

Okay. Thank you once again, Mr. Chair and members. It's my pleasure to present SB 1400, which will modernize the government structure for the Alameda Health System, providing Alameda County with enhanced flexibility to improve oversight, operational efficiency, and the fiscal sustainability of local public hospitals. Following a multi-session review process conducted by an Ad Hoc Committee on the Alameda Health System's governance, the board of supervisors and community stakeholders identified gaps in the current governing authority and delegation of operational responsibilities.

The proposed statutory amendments reflected in the bill reflect the Ad Hoc Committee's determination that added flexibility will provide the board with more direct involvement in key and targeted issues that impact Alameda Health Systems, such as labor relations and personnel. The bill allows the board of supervisors with greater flexibility to ensure that supervisors and other staff can sit on the AHS system board.

Given significant impacts of these changes on those who we have elected to represent, we want to ensure that they are more directly engaged in the administration of Alameda County's public hospital system. The current statute limits government's flexibility by requiring a governing board that is appointed by but legally distinct from the board of supervisors, and since that structure was established in 1996, the healthcare policy environment has become significantly more complex, including with the passage of HR 1, which is creating significant economic challenges for not just public hospitals throughout California, but particularly the Alameda Health System.

So once again, you know, at a time when our public health system is under pressure, we need transparency; we need accountability and leadership that protects both patients and workers, ensure we can deliver quality care. This bill is about making sure that our public hospital system can continue to serve the most vulnerable residents of our county. And with me to testify in support the bill is Amy Costa, on behalf of Alameda County, and Beth Malinowski, on behalf of SEIU California.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair. Amy Costa, on behalf of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. I have a statement from Supervisor Lena Tam, who was our vice president of our board. Unfortunately, she could not be with you today. I am a strong supporter of the public healthcare system. I respectfully urge the committee to pass SB 1400. Alameda Health System is a vital lifeline for hundreds of thousands of our residents, providing high-quality care regardless of a person's income, insurance status, or ability to pay.

As the healthcare delivery continues to evolve and public hospitals face increasing financial pressures, Alameda County provides significant financial support to our hospitals and needs the flexibility to strengthen our governance model, improve operational efficiency, and ensure the long-term sustainability of this essential system. SB 1400 modernizes the Health and Safety Code to provide Alameda County with additional governance options that can enhance that oversight, accountability, and responsiveness to the county's healthcare needs.

Importantly, SB 1400 is a locally driven solution that applies only to Alameda County and preserves local control while providing the board of supervisors with greater flexibility in determining the governance structure that best suits our residents. The bill would allow for stronger collaboration with our public partners, strategic affiliations that expand access to care, and governance reforms that support the continued success of the Alameda Health System. These changes are not about altering the mission of the health system.

They are about ensuring that our public healthcare system has the tools necessary to remain financially sustainable, responsive, and capable of delivering high-quality care for future generations. We respectfully urge the committee to vote in support of SB 1400.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Beth Malinowski with SEIU California, on behalf of our three locals representing workers at AHS. The majority are from United and SEIU Local 1021. Now, our 1021 AHS workers, they've been incredibly active in Sacramento this year, up here, alongside our hospital leadership in support of public hospital funding, supporting new revenue for Medi-Cal, and talking about this bill.

In fact, they want to share their apologies for not being here today, and the reason why they're not here is because they're back in district working on topics that very much relate to why this bill is needed. So today, in fact, Local 1021 is continuing ongoing negotiations with AHS regarding layoffs that were first announced in late 2025. We believed then and still believe today that AHS's decision to move forward with substantial service reductions and layoffs was premature, and we remain hopeful that it can be avoided. AHS is a critical safety net hospital for its communities, employs over 3,500 union workers whose commitment to patient care has never changed.

Today, to continue to do right by that community, those very same workers know this bill is needed. In 2023, as noted, that Ad Hoc Committee included not only labor voices, but our partners in county administration and identified those gaps with administrative structures that still need to get addressed today and that have a direct impact on what's playing out today at that system.

As noted, SB 1400 will modernize HS governance, give that Alameda County Board of Supervisors more oversight, and we believe that the conversations that started this past winter regarding some reductions possibly could have been avoided had we had language like this in place then. And so with this, it really is a great honor to be here on behalf of our 1021 members and our other AHS members. We respectfully request your aye vote today in making sure that you can support the great delivery of care through, what was noted, a very difficult time of great change that really speaks to the vital need for greater accountability, transparency, and oversight down there. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody in the room that wants to add in support? Seeing no one, any primary opposition? No opposition at all? Committee members, comments, questions? We're still not at quorum yet. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. And now we have our next bill, 1408.

Once again, Mr. Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1408, which is a district specific bill to address the transportation needs of the County of Contra Costa. SB 1408 would authorize the Contra Costa Transportation Authority or CCTA to place a countywide sales tax measure of up to 1% on the ballot to continue funding transportation programs in Contra Costa County.

And this is really a renewal of the previous transportation expenditure plan and transportation sales tax, which has funded a variety of transportation projects in the county. And CCTA is currently receiving funding from Measure J, the previously approved half cent sales tax that was approved in 2004, which is set to expire in 2034, which is why we're seeking prior authorization to allow the county to proceed with that process.

As a result of Measure J and the county's transportation expenditure plan, major freeway and interchange improvements such as with Interstate 680 have been funded. Local street repair programs, bus and rail infrastructure, and parent transit programs that serve seniors and persons with disabilities have benefited from the revenue from that measure. Similar to Measure J, CCTA will prepare a new expenditure plan in coordination with local agencies, stakeholders, and the public to guide future transportation projects.

It's anticipated that the revenues generated from the new sales tax that this measure would authorize will continue to fund state highway construction upgrades, local road maintenance and improvements, biking and pedestrian infrastructure, public transit, and mobility expansion programs. With me to testify in support of the bill is Newell Arnerich, who's on the board of the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority.

Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Newell Arnerich, past chair and current board member of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and I proudly serve as the eight time mayor for the past 31 years in the town of Danville. Yes. I'm old. Not the oldest, but I'm old.

I'm here today in support of SB 1408 on behalf of CCTA and particularly the residents of Contra Costa County. For nearly four decades, Contra Costa County has demonstrated what a successful self help transportation county can achieve when local voters are empowered to invest in their own future.

Through voter approved transportation funding, CCTA has delivered transformative projects that improve mobility, safety, and economic vitality throughout our region. And one of the most notable examples was the delivery of the fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel, a $450 million project completed on time and under budget. CCTA performs that way for the past nearly 40 years.

That project significantly improved regional connectivity between Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. Today, we are advancing the Innovate 680 program, a nationally recognized initiative designed to improve safety, reduce congestion, optimize traffic flow, and increase quarter through output by approximately 14% without adding any general purpose lanes or any other lanes. Contra Costa voters have twice renewed their commitment to this local transportation model because they have seen real results.

They know that local decision making, accountability, and efficient project delivery create value for taxpayers and improve quality of life. SB 1408 does not take funding away from the state of California, rather it provides local residents the opportunity to decide whether to renew the existing 1 half cent transportation sales tax when Measure J expires in 2034. It simply allows voters to have a choice regarding their transportation future.

So therefore, on behalf of CCTA, I respectfully and humbly ask for your support of 1408 for empowering Contra Costa County voters to continue investing in transportation solutions that make our community safer, more connected, and more economically competitive. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for testimony. Supporters who want to add on, please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good afternoon. Steve Wallauch on behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District in support.

Jean Hurst on behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in support.

Claire Sullivan on behalf of the City of El Cerrito in support. Thank you.

Any primary opposition to this bill? Seeing no opposition. Committee Members, comments, questions on bill? Well, thank you. We're still in one more so that we can reach quorum. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator. I'll be supportive of your three bills. Once we get quorum and get motions, we'll proceed with both. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Having no more authors, we're gonna wait for Senators to come over to Local Government and present their bills. Thank you.

We have an author. Thank you, Senator Menjivar. Whenever you're ready. So, item number nine on the agenda, SB 1272 by Senator Menjivar.

...Bill came. I'm gonna share a story of how this bill came to be because of the personal experience that I went through. I moved into my home about five years ago, bought the home as is, and then I got a fee from the city of LA telling me that I had to pay $360 because they came and inspected and saw that the wall that I bought the home with was in violation of building code. I was like, well, I bought it as is.

I did not build this wall.

What happened to the previous owner? Why didn't you ask the previous owner to do this? Obviously, I got pretty upset, and they said you have to tear down this wall. This—that is about seven feet high, 30 feet long, in thirty days. Tear it down in thirty days and build it back up to building code.

Oh, if you need an extension past thirty days, we're gonna charge you an additional $400 just for an extension because you need more than thirty days to tear down a wall and build up a wall. I thought it was pretty—more than annoying, infuriating to say the least, that bureaucracy was doing this to Californians.

I reached out and talked to this the inspector, and they told me, well, we told the previous owner about this, and we knew for seven years, but we didn't get to enforce it with him, so, now, we're gonna enforce it with you. It's not my fault whatsoever.

So, I said, well, I'm a legislator. Let me write a bill about this. And that's how this bill came to be. I mean, through the legislative process, we've been able—we've taken amendments to address a balance of recognizing that, yes, jurisdictions utilize these inspection fees to fund general services, but also, it shouldn't be the sole revenue of cities and counties to function to go out and put this kind of fees on homeowners who, unbeknownst to them, when they bought a home, came with a violation.

So, this bill will allow a homeowner to submit an affidavit saying that they did not know that when they bought this home, there was a violation. And when they bought the home in the transfer paper, it did not note that there was a violation.

And I'll—and gives them a minimum of six months to fix any problems because, again, thirty days to tear down and build a whole new wall, I think, is a really short amount of time. Additionally, should a homeowner need an extension because it, it's a lot of money that they need to come up with, that there shouldn't be a fine to request an extension if by the reason why they need an extension is because they can't afford it.

Why would we have charged them to pay more if the reason is that they can't afford it? To, to take into— through the committee amendments, which I will be accepting, consideration of rural counties and so forth, we have taken amendments to specify exactly who this applies for. We're not trying to touch those with cannabis. We're not trying to touch those businesses or anything like that. It was really for single family homes with the amendments.

It's four units or less. Try to be as specific as possible, not touch anything with fire hazards. And I appreciate the committee helping us lay out all those amendments. The bottom line is it's really expensive out here in California. And if a homeowner finally is able to get the money and they buy that home, they should not be assessed a fine if once they bought the home, they didn't know that it came with the violation.

Like to turn over to my witness, Mr. Chair, in support of this bill.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Freddie Quintana with the California Apartment Association. We thank the Senator for sharing that very personal story about that—her experience. We've also seen this analysis, highlight the San Francisco Chronicle had written some cases about these incidences happening. And, you know, we think it's very reasonable to provide at least six months to fix a code violation for building plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural zoning issues that was not the responsibility of the homeowner currently occupying the property.

It's crucial to keep these costs predictable, and we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you for that. Anybody in the audience that wants to be added in support? Seeing none. Is there any—support? Primary opposition?

Good afternoon, chair and members. Faith Borges, here today testifying on behalf of the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers in respectful opposition to Senate Bill 1272. CACEO represents the men and women on the ground enforcing the laws that keep homes and communities safe, and we appreciate the author's concern for home buyers who inherit undisclosed violations. That is a real problem.

I also share the joys of homeownership of an older home and one habited by MacGyver apparently before me, so, we do share in the sympathy of this. But this bill is, we believe, in the—addressing the wrong the wrong problem with consequences that fall on tenants, neighbors, and the public.

Current law already requires that local agencies give property owners a reasonable correction period before fines are imposed, and the law has worked well for decades since it was forwarded to local governments to be able to do so. This bill would lock in state mandated minimums of six to twelve months, removing the local discretion that allows officers to calculate the timelines to actually fix these conditions on the ground.

Violations that appear minor at discovery can deteriorate. We are also having serious concerns about the sworn affidavit mechanism. We acknowledge that when there's knowledge or responsibility, if it's disputed, and it frequently is, local agencies get drawn into costly collateral proceedings before they can even address the underlying conditions. In addition, cities have no way to investigate or disprove the affidavit, meaning that the safeguard provision simply won't work.

This drains public resources and delays the very compliance our laws and ordinances were designed to encourage, while also forcing cities to file more lawsuits, use more court resources, and spend more money from already stretched thin public budgets, and otherwise—that could have otherwise—resulted in quicker and cheaper compliance through administrative enforcement.

The right fix for undisclosed violations is stronger real estate disclosure law, not an enforcement moratorium, which jeopardizes the health and safety of property owners, tenants, and the public. We would like to thank the committee and staff for a very thoughtful analysis in the amendments, which we do believe improve the bill significantly. However, it doesn't solve the problem and the significant problems that could persist, pertaining to health and safety. So, until that time, we do remain respectfully opposed.

Thank you. We're gonna pause there. We have reached quorum. Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. With that, we're gonna ask if there are any other that wants to add in opposition. Please say your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Mark Newburger, registering on behalf of California State of Counties. We're also opposed with the code enforcement officer. I'm gonna align all of our comments with those provided by Code Enforcement and also registering opposition for Rural County Representatives of California.

Thank you.

Claire Sullivan, on behalf of the city of Thousand Oaks, echoing the concerns of Code Enforcement. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of Solano County Board of Supervisors. Appreciate the amendments. We're reviewing them, but we are still currently opposed to the version that—before the committee. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Seeing no one else. Committee members, questions, comments? Assemblymember Ransom.

I do have questions, Senator. So, I guess I have questions and concerns, and, and I thank you for sharing the personal situation that you went through. I just wonder if you can share a little bit—just kind of leaning on my, my own background as a real estate broker.

There's a off—there's a requirement when you, even if you are buying a home as is, the owners are supposed to disclose what the deficiencies are, and you can still purchase it as is or ask for a credit, or, or whatever. So, had you—did you look at, like, remedying this through the, the gap in that?

Because I'm assuming that the owner failed to disclose to you that they knew about this violation. And so, my concern, having served both in real estate and in local government, is that in local, you know, put, to put this on the, the onus on the government—the cities or the counties—who had already told this person that there was a violation. And in some cases, because I, if I was reading this correctly, this also applies to, like, electrical and other violations.

I'm just wondering why we didn't, or if you thought about putting this on making, like, a, a more of a requirement on the, the seller who was clearly dishonest, as opposed to putting it on the government and the cities and counties to be, you know, have to continue to have these violations, and sometimes they can be health and safety issues over time. So, just wondering how we got to where you want this, the bill—put together the bill is together this way.

The bill excludes any health and safety issues. So, this doesn't capture any health and safety issues. So, it—there's language in the bill that says outside of the safe, the safe and health issues, outside of that. So, for example, my wall, it's a, a concrete wall.

It's not falling apart or anything like that. It's not gonna anytime fall down. It, it creates a hazard. So, it would exclude any dilapidated, if there's wiring coming out, someone can get shocked.

It would exclude any—example is electricity. Your other question, I'm, I'm having trouble to understand your question. Why I wouldn't put the onus of the—on the previous owner?

Yes, so, thank you for—so first of all, thank you for the first, thank you for the first answer, and then, I just wanna get down a little bit. So, I know that you're specifically intending to, you know, to exclude, like, health and safety, but depending on...

Not intending it. It is excluded.

Yeah. The, well, one, the reason I said your language excludes them. However, you know, when it comes to, like, violations, like, all of the—just having done this before and actually having dealt with folks who have things look one way and then you get into them and tear it apart and you're like, oh, good lord, this is, this is really hazardous. So, although we're saying that we know that's, that's not what you have written, but that doesn't always, you know, show up in that way.

And so, I'm wondering if—and so, this kind of leads to the second part of what you're asking me to clarify—is, given that is a situation, and given that we have sellers that are being dishonest and putting people in situations like yourselves, did you look at any remedies that would cut down on the bad behavior? And, you know.

Are you asking if I did, like, a private right of action for?

I'm just asking, like, did, or, or do we consider those things or, like, how we like, yeah. Basically, was this the only remedy that we thought about, or is this, like, working in concert with something else?

Well, I don't have another bill in this space, so I don't think any other member has a bill in this space. So, I'm not working in concert with anybody. But even if—let's walk down your scenario. Even if there's a private right of action, the city and the counties don't care about that. You, you, you can still go back to the city.

Hey, please don't find me. I have a right of action that I'm trying to sue the previous owner. That's—there's nothing preventing the city or the county to continue. They don't care about that.

So, even if I went down that route, I—it would still have a problem if the city said, okay. That's great. You still have to pay us now. If you figure that out with the previous owner, you're great.

You figure out with the previous owner, but we still need you to pay and fix this right now.

Right. And that's, that's the other part of the concern. This is, like, not fair to people like you. Right? Because you still have to pay.

You still had to tear down your wall. I'm sure that was not cheap to tear down a seven foot wall, and...

I still have not teared that—torn that down.

Oh, you still gotta tear it off.

I am still fighting it.

Okay, and so, and then, the seller knew that this was a thing. So, I'm just kind of going, like, how do we solve this problem, so we don't even get here to this point? And so, that's, those, those are the concerns and questions that I have, but it, it sounds like there's still room in the space to correct that, so we don't even get to this position. But thank you for answering. Those are the questions and concerns that I had.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ransom. Anybody else? So, we have a motion. Is there a second? Motion and a second.

Would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you. Now, if there's a member that be—that wants to work on ensuring that homeowners, when they sell, a 100% have to disclose. I remember the conversation like it was yesterday. I asked about an AD in addition to my house, and they said it is a 100% permitted and legal.

Great. If there's a way to further close that gap so that can happen on the back end, I'd, I'd be supportive of that of that bill. But currently, what exists right now are these kind of scenarios. And I'd like to add another story. We have another homeowner who bought a home, had an ADU in the back, and was fined a $130,000 because they did not know it was permitted.

And the county came down—so sorry. I think it was a $180,000 that they were charged, and the homeowners could not pay for it because they did not know it was unpermitted. While we should focus, like this Assemblymember Ransom said on ensuring the previous homeowners put it on there, until we fix that gap, we wanna make sure that new homeowners have an extended leeway, and it's not a forever leeway. The max is a year.

The absolute max is a year. And after that, they're gonna have to remedy, and the counties and the cities will be able to collect their, their fees, as, as requested. With that, respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator, for working with the committee on amendments, which you stated that you are gonna take on the bill. We'll be supporting the bill with those amendments. We'd have a motion by Ta, seconded by Alanis. The motion is to pass as amended to appropriations committees. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The vote is 7-0. The bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for others to add on. We have two authors now. Thank you. We're gonna go by file order.

Senator Laird, item number six is SB 1055. When you're ready, Senator.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I would like to begin by accepting the committee's amendments and thank the Chair and the staff for working with us on that. Very helpful. Senate Bill 1055 is sponsored by the Pajaro Regional Flood Management Agency, and it authorizes the usage of four additional construction procurement methods allowing the agency to deliver levee repairs and flood control improvements more efficiently. The Pajaro River actually serves as the county line between Monterey County and Santa Cruz County.

And there have been all these issues and a new district was formed in 2021. It's one of the most vital pieces of infrastructure in my district, and I do share it with the Speaker, who represents it on the Assembly side. The levee system was built in 1949 and has experienced five breaches since its construction, including the one in the atmospheric rivers in 2023, which forced 3,500 residents to evacuate as they were flooded out.

As a joint powers authority, this district is restricted from using several labor procurement methods that have been shown to reduce project costs, expedite completion, and ensure better quality control. The construction and maintenance of the river has been and remains a legislative priority of mine.

It used to be done differently by each side. And now with the district, it's done uniformly. And the Speaker and I did a bill five years ago that allowed the state to buy out the local share. And we had a fully funded project that we celebrated with Senator Padilla in October before the levee broke because we could not get there with this.

So this bill is the next step to ensure swift and efficient project delivery along the levee. It passed out of the Senate with unanimous bipartisan support. With me here for technical assistance is Jack Gualco on behalf of the Pajaro Flood Management District. At the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Mr. Chair, Members. Senator Laird has always laid out the bill in a complete detail. I just would simply add that it's enjoyed the probably the worst level of flood control protection in the state except perhaps for the City of Woodland. And with his help and the Speaker's help, we're able to move on expediting construction activities, and this bill provides the full panoply of tools that allows the agency to move expeditiously and cost effectively, much like you've approved for water entities already in prior legislation. So we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you for that. Anybody in the room that wants to add on in support, please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good afternoon. Jack Wursten from Nossaman on behalf of the County of Monterey in support.

Michaela Byrd with The Nature Conservancy in support.

Amber Rossow at the Association of California Water Agencies in support.

Thank you. Any primary opposition? Any opposition at all to the measures? Seeing none. Committee Members, questions, comments? A motion? Have a motion. A second. Would you like to close, Senator?

Just, I appreciate the witnesses. And this is just, you know, the one thing to say is when we had that celebration October before the atmospheric rivers, I made the mistake of saying on the levee, I hope to God it doesn't rain before we could get this project done. And then it did. And this will just help us expedite it against future atmospheric rivers. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you for presenting today, Senator, and for working with the committee on amendments. We appreciate that. With the amendments that will be supporting the bill, we have a motion by Pacheco, second by Wilson. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Please call the roll.

For item number six, SB 1055, the motion is do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That's 6-0. The bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for Members to add on. Congratulations. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you very much, all of you.

And we move on to item number 10, SB 1379 by Senator Sabrina Cervantes. When you're ready, Senator.

Thank you, Mister chair and committee members. I'm here to present Senate Bill 1379, which would separate the Riverside County Sheriff Coroner and establish an independent medical examiner. I would like to note that I will be taking amendments in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety that will address concerns over protecting current employees during the transition process that have been raised by the stakeholders.

These amendments assure that employees impacted by the separation of the Sheriff and Coroner's Office retain their bargaining rights, union representation, seniority, retirement status compensation, and other employment protections. SB 1379 is an attempt to fix a broken system in my home county of Riverside.

At its core, the goal of SB 1379 is simple. When an individual dies in custody in county jail, the family and the public deserves transparency and the truth in a timely matter. 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. Riverside County jails concluded, and I quote, some of the state's deadliest jails are in Riverside County, and 45 people have died in locked up lockups since 01/01/2021.

A 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 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. Raises serious 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. The results of this structure are not hypothetical. They are tangible.

This is what we know. Between 2011 and 2022, there have been 226 in deaths in custody deaths in Riverside County. During that same period, 10% of all in custody deaths in California occurred in Riverside despite only 6% of the state population residing there.

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

During that same period in Riverside County, 24% of individuals who died in custody were aged 25 to 34 despite the statewide share being 15%. Of individuals who died in custody who were 35 to 44 years of age, the share of Riverside County, is 22%. So again, just looking at the demographic disparities. These are not just numbers. Behind every statistic is an individual whose family is waiting for answers too often that never come.

Families are left navigating a system where they cannot access timely information and questions. They question the findings and the accuracy of those findings. It leaves many families 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 that have been paid by Riverside County taxpayers.

Unfortunately, the problem is not newly discovered. This epidemic of in custody deaths has been investigated by well respected press outlets, whether that's the LA Times, New York Times, CalMatters, and others.

Today, we are here in response to communities who have asked us to step in at a state level. Communities such as the Riverside Sheriff's Accountability Coalition have demanded structural change, including separating the Office of Sheriff Coroner. This is what this bill is in response to. This is a targeted practical approach that will require the separation.

This is done in other large counties such as Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Ventura, all have independent medical examiners. Three additional counties, Fresno, Sacramento, and San Mateo have separated offices of the Sheriff and Coroner. These jurisdictions demonstrate that independent medical examiner systems can improve accuracy, strengthen public trust, and facilitate medically informed decisions. With me to testify today in support of the bill is Dr. Nicholas Shapiro, an Associate Professor at UCLA.

Chair, members of the committee, and staff, it's an honor to be here. My name is Nick Shapiro. I'm an Associate Professor at UCLA, and I hold a doctorate in medical anthropology. I've been studying the medical legal death investigation system here in California for the past six years. Today, I appear in support of SB 1379.

When public outcry drove Riverside County to audit its own Sheriff Coroner in 2024, the county concluded that they should maintain their long out of date coroner system. This result appears to be by design. Our research into this audit found it to be fundamentally flawed in terms of methodology, depth, and transparency when compared to a similar study commissioned by San Joaquin County.

Between the Sheriff Coroner investigating deaths that it may have caused in its own jails and the county investigating itself via its own in house report, we see nesting dolls of the same problem, the well known corrupting power of institutions investigating themselves. SB 1379 cuts through the fray of oversight theater and supports the truism that defendants should not be their own judges.

The public health benefits of this bill extend far beyond the acute crisis in Riverside's jails. Drug overdose deaths in coroner counties are nearly four times more likely to go unclassified. Coroners misclassified nearly 1 in 5 suicides. Forensic pathologists working in coroner's offices attest to being pressured to change the cause of death at nearly five times the rate of medical examiners. So this in custody death problem is a microcosm of this larger failure of the coroner system.

For example, Mario Solis died in a Riverside jail cell in 2022 after multiple occasions where he announced that he would kill himself with a pencil. He did, and the Sheriff Coroner ruled it an accident and not a suicide. The county government has conducted perfunctory internal reviews sorry, perfunctory internal reviews, and the Sheriff Coroner has failed to investigate itself.

They've demonstrated their inability to self regulate. The state needs to step in. The evidence supports SB 1379. Thank you.

Anybody that wants to add on and support?

Seeing no one, primary opposition?

Good afternoon, Mister chair, members. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association. We're in respectful opposition at the moment. Although we are very grateful to the author for her willingness to accept potential amendments. As soon as we get those back, from the Public Safety Committee, we look forward to hopefully being able to remove our opposition.

We still have, obviously concerns. Nobody likes change. We represent the Deputy Coroners in the county, And so we're very concerned about just their whole career path, their you know, status, all that. The author is committed to work with us, and we're grateful, like I said, to her for that. So hopefully, we'll be able to get our issues addressed.

Although, you know, there are definitely gonna be other challenges but I'd like to introduce our Deputy Coroner from Riverside County, Allison Doubleday to provides additional testimony.

Good afternoon, Mister chair and members. My name is Allison Doubleday, and I am a Coroner Corporal with the Riverside County Sheriff's Office assigned to the Coroner's Bureau. And I serve as a union delegate with the Riverside Sheriff's Association. I'm here today on behalf of the deputy coroners, coroner corporals, coroner sergeants, and coroner lieutenants who serve Riverside County and may be directly impacted by SB 1379.

First, I wanna thank the author for listening to our concerns and for agreeing to incorporate amendments attended intended to protect the employees affected by this bill.

We truly appreciate your willingness to engage. Our focus today is on the employees who perform this work every day. Deputy coroners of all ranks respond to some of the most difficult and traumatic circumstances in public service. They serve families during moments of profound loss, and they do so with professionalism, compassion, and integrity.

Many of the concerns that gave rise to this discussion came from an extremely difficult period during the post COVID era when public systems across the state faced extraordinary strength. Deputy coroners are called after a death has occurred.

Their role is to conduct professional, thorough, and unbiased death investigations. They provide documentation, facts, and answers for families, courts, public agencies, and the community. It is also important to recognize that the current system already has tools in place to support transparency and independent review.

Since the time period that gave rise to many of these concerns, in custody deaths in Riverside County have declined by more than 50% and make up less than 1% of total coroner death investigations. That progress is important and should be part of the conversation as the legislature evaluates the best path forward.

We appreciate the continued dialogue and look forward to working on amendments that address the concerns raised while respecting the important role of the coroners who serve Riverside County. Thank you.

As this bill moves forward, we respectfully ask the legislature to continue focusing on the current facts, the existing review options, and the employees who perform this difficult work with professionalism and integrity.

Thank you for that. Anybody that wants to add on our opposition, please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good afternoon. Shane Lavigne on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police of which Riverside Sheriffs Association is a member and The Sheriff, San Bernardino Sheriffs Association. Thank you to Senator Cervantes for her commitment to take language we think resolves the issues and takes care of the rank and file in Riverside. We're gonna remove our opposition and go neutral. Thank you for everything.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Committee. Lt. Julio De Leon on behalf of the Riverside County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Chad Bianco in opposition.

Mister chair and members. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association. In opposition, this goes far beyond the labor considerations. There's a massive change in governance. We're opposed to the bill even with the amendment.

Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Take it back to the dais. Committee members, comments, questions? Yes, sir.

Hello, mister chair. I have a question for every coroner. How would the bill impact the county and the staff?

It will impact the county and staff. First of all, the financial burden. At a minimum, there's gonna be $3,000,000 and just an overhead operating expense, and we know that the county is already impacted financially. Additionally, all of our support staff, accounting, clerical, computer, website, media, TSB, who have experience and historical knowledge within the bureau are technically employees of the sheriff's department and can likely be rotated within the department based on need.

If the coroner's bureau separates, the bureau would lose all the support staff immediately, causing significant delays in various processes and creating errors leading to potentially more liability to the county and lawsuits.

So again, we need to retain our our staff. They're a critical part.

Thank you. Anybody else? Assemblymember [inaudible]. Well, did you have a question?

You can go ahead.

Assemblymember Pacheco.

I just wanna make a comment, Senator. Thank you for working with opposition. It seems like most of their concerns have been addressed. I know some of them will still continue to be opposed, but I wanted to commend you for working on this bill and working on opposition, and I will be supporting your bill today.

Assemblymember Ransom.

Yes. I wanted to thank the Senator for working on some of the concerns and also to highlight that this is just not unique to your county. You can do a little Google search and you'll see what happened in my county where there had to be a separation. There were concerns not only with in custody, but also with officer involved things. And sometimes it's really important just to make sure that the community feels like they can trust the setup of the situation.

And some counties have been able to do this where, you know, the County Board of Supervisors takes care of of appointing the Coroner, which is separate than the Sheriff and they've been able to figure it out. But I just wanted to say I appreciate you taking care to address some of the concerns and remove, you know, some of the opposition and amendments.

And with that, I just wanna ask the opposition in regards to so you just mentioned that there's, like, $3,000,000 in cost that it would take. I guess my question to you would be, how much are you paying in lawsuits and settlements regarding all of the different concerns and questions that are on the table?

As far as I know, my office is not paying any of those lawsuits. It comes directly out of the County or essentially the Sheriff budget.

And do you have any idea what number is coming out of the county and sheriff budget?

Not the only thing is basically what was reported here, but a lot of those numbers too are based on deaths that happened prior to a lot of the investigative processes that we have put in place. And like I said, the in custody deaths have diminished by more than 50%. And as far as the Coroner's Office, it's less than 1% of the deaths we investigate. And we average, you know, from hospice to homicide about 16,000 deaths per year.

And so those numbers are very, very small and don't justify the separation.

Thank you for your response.

Seeing no other committee member or Assembly member Alanis.

I speak of my interest on this. So I know the Senator had brought up like, 43% Latino deaths. A bunch of percentages came out. And then you were just talking about new processes. So I know this is a built to improve transparency.

And so I'm just wondering if you can explain these new transparency efforts that you guys have undertaken. I think that you just started here with my my colleague here. If you could explain that, I'm more curious.

Absolutely. I we have been implementing what we call the Coroner review process for quite some time, and I'll go a little bit deeper into that. But most recently, Assembly Bill 1108 passed and will become effective of 01/01/2027, which essentially mandates us to use an independent forensic, pathologist/medical examiner that is not employed by a sheriff coroner system.

So they are not under the oversight of any law enforcement agency. Prior to that, I believe it was in let me verify here. I believe it was in 2024. We started utilizing the, San Bernardino County Coroner's Office to do our autopsies.

Again, completely independent of our office and a neutral opinion. And I will explain our coroner review process, which is something we definitely pride ourselves on. And it's essentially a comprehensive step by step investigative process.

It preserves the integrity of the investigative process and to not jeopardize any ongoing civil or criminal investigation. There's no formal or written results that can be released to any individual media and or any agency prior to the case being certified through this coroner review process.

Now it begins with the administrative deputy coroner gathering all pertinent evidence, including but not limited to medical records, body worn camera footage, the deputy coroner's narrative report, recommended cause of death from the pathologist, toxicology reports, pathology reports, and any other documentation that are relevant to determining the cause, manner, and mode of death.

The toxicology and the pathology testing and analysis, as well as the collection of all documents and records can take up to six months to be completed and returned. This time frame is beyond the control of the sheriff's corners and subject to staffing, caseloads, and other department agencies.

Once all of this information has been attained, the summary with photographic documentation is prepared. Now the, administrative deputy coroner will then schedule a date to present, the case in the corner review to the sheriff coroner, senior sheriff's department personnel, the involved law enforcement agency, the civil grand jury, and other relevant stakeholders.

Depending on the number of cases ready for review, the coroner review will routinely be scheduled every one to three months. During the coroner review, a panel presents the case and answers questions from the attendees. The administrative deputy coroner presents the chronological facts.

Forensic pathologist and forensic toxicologists also report their findings. In some instances, and to better understand a recommended manner and mode of death, the Sheriff Coroner may request further clarification of on autopsy finding.

The coroner's bureau staff, including the chief forensic pathologist, deputy coroners, and forensic pathologists who performed the autopsy. Provide the requested clarification and recommendation guidelines from the National Association of Medical Examiners.

Thank you for that. Thank you for that. Any anything

I just wanna ask you guys involved the DA's office in this?

I'm just going back to my.

Yes.

Absolutely.

Bob's the deputy coroner. I know we involved other agencies for that transparency.

Yes. So as far as the whole process, we have got the Attorney General, so the DOJ is involved, the District Attorney's Office, all law enforcement agencies that are associated. There's an administrative investigation, and then we've got our force investigation detail depending on the type of case and our in custody death review and our central corrections investigation.

Okay. So that's an annual review you're talking about? Or like, a monthly, like

Well, as far as when it comes to the in custody, they have to provide that within 30. Our coroner review process, depending on our cases and when we can get all information, which, that includes the body worn. The toxicology results, which can take some time because it's an independent laboratory, the reports from any involved law enforcement agency. Once we get all of that together, then we will schedule that corner review anywhere from every one to three months.

I think but to the senator's point, like let's say there's an in custody that happens today.

Yes.

What agencies are involved in that? Like, right at the ways. Are we bringing in the DA's office? Are we bringing in

The DA's office is notified, then we've got the CCI, which is the Central Corrections Investigative Unit, then my office will respond for the body and in depth investigation as well.

Okay. Thank you.

Seeing nobody else with questions or comments. Would you like to close, Senator?

Certainly, Mister Chair. I like to also respond to some of the back and forth that has happened here. Yes. AB 118 focuses narrowly on requiring contracted independent medical review for in custody deaths. Well, this bill 1379 takes it a step further by mandating Riverside County to permanently separate the Sheriff Coroner Offices, establishing an independent medical examiner model and requires rapid public reporting in a centralized database for deaths and serious incidents.

This bill is stronger because it addresses the underlying structural conflict of interest rather than outsourcing only individual cases that addresses transparency measures designed to prevent deaths before they happen, not just review them afterwards.

And when it comes to the fiscal, largest fiscal issue. This is an ongoing human and legal cost of repeated in custody debts, lawsuits and settlements, settlements upward toward $100,000,000 of taxpayer dollars.

How is that justified? And the community is there is an outcry in our community for accountability where we are demanding transparency and we have not received it. This is the response coming from the local community, which is why we believe it is urgent to address this now.

An independent medical examiner and to separate this structure here will reduce liability by improving credibility, will improve accountability and identify system, systemic failures in our current system.

I certainly want to make sure that we will continue to work where we can to address some of the challenges as I committed and as you heard from some folks who have opposed who are now not opposed to it as we continue discussing these amends in the next committee.

But I certainly would appreciate the support today as we navigate this complexity. An issue that's coming from my district, I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you, Senator, for your work on this issue and for your commitment to address concerns regarding protections for employees of a separated coroner's office with future amendments. I will be supporting it today and look forward to seeing those amendments in print. We need a motion and a second with Assembly member Pacheco. We need a second. Assemblymember Stefani.

With that the motion is do passed for the Public Safety Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

For item number 10, SB 1379, the motion is do passed and re referred to Committee on Public Safety.

[roll call]

Measure set with a vote. Thank you.

Senator Hurtado, agenda item number eight, SB 1172. When you are ready.

When you're ready.

Good afternoon, Mister chair and members. I'm here to present SB 1172, which is the Local Tax Savings Act. Across California, local governments rely on tax sharing agreements as a tool to attract economic development. But when those agreements are structured without cleared guardrails, they can end up doing the opposite, diverting critical tax dollars away from the very communities they are meant to support.

That was the case in the City of Shafter, a small Central Valley community in my district that I represent, where local leaders, many, many years ago, worked in good faith to bring economic opportunities to their city.

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 for its residents.

And it means, residents who already feel like they've gotten the short end of the stick are left wondering whether the system is really working for them. And what happened in Shafter really should happen nowhere else. SB 1172 takes a balanced and responsible approach.

It does not eliminate tax sharing agreements or local control. Instead, it puts reasonable caps on consultant compensation and requires full transparency throughout the process so that decisions are made in the open with accountability. And by aligning incentives with genuine economic development, we ensure that public dollars are reinvested back into the communities that generated them.

In this era of government mistrust this bill works to restore our communities' faith in their government and empowers local governments to protect taxpayer dollars from abusive practices.

And with me, I have Chris Micheli?

Micheli. Did I Micheli. Sorry. Who's representing the City of Shafter?

Thank you, Mister chair. It's hard to say it better than our representative. The city of course, thanks the Senator for carrying this legislation. The important thing to note is this is prospective, so it doesn't impact any existing tax sharing agreements. We think it's important to place these guardrails around both the compensation level and the duration to ensure that these funds try to stay as much as possible in the local jurisdiction.

And so for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for that testimony. Anybody else that wants to add on in support? please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Good afternoon. Claire Sullivan on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks in support. Thank you.

Ben Treville, the League of California Cities in support.

Thank you. Any primary opposition to these measures? Seeing no opposition. Committee members, comments, questions? We have a motion and a second.

No comments, no questions. Would you like to close?

Thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, for presenting today Senator. I will be supporting your bill today. Motion by Mister Ta, Miss Pacheco, second. The motion is do passed to the revenue and taxation committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

For item number eight, SB 1172, the motion is do passed and re referred to the committee on revenue and taxation.

[roll call]

Measure 9-0. Thank you and congratulations.

We are waiting for Senator Grayson for three measures that he has on local government on the assembly. If you please let, Senator Grayson to come to local government on the assembly. Thank you.

Let's do a consent calendar items and add ons. I need a motion for consent calendar items to items. The motion and a second. Please call the roll.

For the consent calendar, item number one, SB 722 by, Senator Wahab. The motion is do passed and we refer to the committee on appropriations. Item number three, SB 799 by Senator Allen. The motion is do pass and re referred to the committee on housing and community development. And item number 13, SB 1438 by the Senate Committee on Local Government.

The motion is do pass. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Ta? Aye. Ta, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. Ransom? Rubio? Rubio, Aye. Stefani Ward? Aye. Ward, Aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson Wilson, Aye.

Consent calendar items are out eight zero, and there's a couple that may wanna add on later.

For item number two, SB 762, the motion is do pass. Curio?

Before we do that, we need a motion. First and second by Pacheco and Rubio. Please call the roll.

For item number two, SB 762, the motion is do pass. [Roll Call]

That measure is out six one. Need a motion for item number 11SB1400 by Arreguin. Moved by Pacheco, second by Fong. Please call the roll.

For item number eight, SB1400, the motion is do pass. [Roll Call]

The measure is zero nine zero.

For item number 12, SB 148. The motion is do passed and we refer to committee on revenue and taxation. Curio? Aye. Curio, aye. Ta? No. Ta? No. Elanis? No. Elanise, not voting. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Fong? Aye. Fong, aye. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Rubio? Aye. Rubio, aye. Stephanie? Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.

That item is out 7-1.

For item for add ons to item number two, SB 762, the motion is do pass. [Roll Call]

That item is out 7-1.

For add for add ons for item number six, SB 1055, the motion is do passed as amended and reaffirmed to the committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

That item is out eight zero.

For add ons for item number eight, SB 1172, the motion is do passed and re referred to committee on revenue with taxation. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye.

That measures out ten zero.

For add ons for item number nine, SB 1272, the motion is do passed as amended and reaffirmed to the committee on appropriations.

That item is out, 10-0.

For add ons for item number 11, s p 1,400, the motion is do passed. [Roll Call]

That item is out ten zero.

For add ons for item number 12, SB 148, the motion is do passed and reaffirm to committee on revenue and taxation.[Roll Call]

That item is out 8-1.

For add ons for the consent calendar, For item number two, SB 762, the motion is do pass. [Roll Call]

Those two items. Those two items are up, ten zero.

For add ons for item number two, SB 762, the motion is do passed. [Roll Call]

That measure's out eight one. Still waiting for Senator Grayson. He has three items left. The only items left from local government on the assembly.

And we are back on committee hearing. Senator, you have three items. Item number 4, 5, and 7. Do you wanna start with item number 4, SB 1003? It's up to you, whichever one you pick. 1003? Please.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. My sincere apologies for making you wait on me. That I am not worthy of. However, SB 1003 is a simple bill that aims to provide state support for critical infrastructure for housing developments by a local jurisdiction creating a PEIFD. They will receive additional points towards programs that help provide support for housing related infrastructure. With me to testify is Ali Sapirman, representing the Housing Action Coalition.

Good afternoon. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Ali Sapirman, and 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 as a strong supporter and sponsor of SB 1003, which creates pro housing enhanced infrastructure financing districts, a new tool to help governments finance the infrastructure that makes infill housing possible. California has made significant progress getting jurisdictions to plan for housing, but planning is not 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 1003 directly addresses this 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 towards the pro housing designation and unlocks priority access to state competitive funding for predevelopment activities. What's especially impactful about SB 1003 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 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 request your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you for that testimony. Anybody else in the room that wants to add on in support, please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Freddie Quintana, California Apartment Association, in support.

Michael Lane with SPUR in support.

Oracio Gonzalez on behalf of California Business Roundtable in support.

Nolan Gray, California YIMBY, in support.

Any primary opposition? Seeing no opposition. Committee Members, comments, questions for the Senator? We have a first and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator, for presenting your bill today. I will be supporting bill today. We have a motion by Pacheco, second by Fong, and the motion is do pass to the Housing and Community Development Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

For item number four, SB 1003, the motion is do pass and re-refer to Committee on Housing and Community Development. [Roll Call]

That measure's out, 9-1. We have item number five. We'll leave the roll open to allow others to add on. Item number five, please, SB 1014. I make a record for the record was 9-0. The previous bill.

Thank you so very much. SB 1014; SB 1014 will help provide greater certainty for housing developments by requiring local jurisdictions within thirty days of submission of a preliminary application, provide a good faith estimate and list of any on-site off-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. With me to testify is Michael Lane representing SPUR and Nolan Gray representing California YIMBY.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members of the committee. Thanks for the privilege to be able to speak today. My name is Nolan Gray. I'm the Senior Director of Legislation and Research at California YIMBY, where we're focused on making California an affordable place to live, work, and raise a family. We're a proud cosponsor of SB 1014 with Senator Grayson.

One of the biggest challenges facing housing production in California is simply uncertainty. Builders can account for known costs, but they too often find out late in the process that they'll be required to make additional infrastructure improvements such as sidewalk upgrades, sewer improvements, or street work that were never identified when the project was initially applied for. These types of requirements can add significant costs, to a project and ultimately derail projects midway through the process after significant expenses have been made.

In some cases, they can be the difference between a project moving forward or not even getting started. California has already taken important steps, including some of the work of this committee to improve transparency around development fees, but infrastructure requirements remain in the blind spot.

Current law does not require cities to identify all of these requirements upfront, and that's what SB 1014 seeks to address. The bill simply requires local governments to provide a good faith estimate of required infrastructure improvements within thirty days of receiving a completed housing application. It also ensures that new requirements generally cannot be added late in the process unless there's a legitimate public health and or safety reason to do so. SB 1014 does not take away any local control.

It doesn't limit infrastructure requirements in any way.

Cities can still require these as necessary. The bill simply asked that they disclose this early in the process. When builders know the full scope of the cost from the beginning, they can budget accurately, secure financing more easily, and get housing built faster. SB 1014 is a straightforward transparency measure that will help reduce uncertainty and remove unnecessary barriers. For this reason, we respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you.

Mister Chair and members, Michael Lane with SPUR, public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. The government code 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 14 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 a complete application for a post-entitlement permit, the city or county 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. Those that want out on support, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Fred Quintana with the California Apartment Association in support.

Bob Naylor for Fieldstead and Company; that's Howard Allinson Jr., in support.

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

Good afternoon, Mister Chair, members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Habitat for Humanity California, and the San Diego Housing Federation; strong support.

Thank you. Mister Chair members, Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and his Healthy Housing Foundation, in strong support. Thank you.

Monica Salas, on behalf of California Council for Affordable Housing, in support.

Thank you. Any primary opposition to these measures? Seeing no opposition at all. Committee members: comments, questions, emotion? Oh, there's somebody coming last week from opposition.

Sorry. I don't have a primary opposition, but I do sorry - Claire Sullivan, on behalf of a small list of cities in respectful opposition, we have the City of Carlsbad, City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Thousand Oaks. And with opposing unless amended positions, we have City of Belmont, City of Redwood City, and City of San Mateo with practical implementation concerns. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Committee members, no comments?

It's just really it's a quick technical question. So, you know, sometimes things change in the review process. Do they have to start over? Like if there's a change, do they go back in line for another thirty days?

Yeah. To my understanding, the way the bill is constructed and written, yes, it would. And I think if you want to.

There is a provision in there for an end to changes that might be brought forward that the good faith doesn't only applies to what was actually submitted as an application. And you have to take into account any projected or proposed changes that the developer might make to the project.

Okay. Thank you for your answer.

And thank you for that question.

Of course.

Seeing no one else: I thought I heard a motion motion or second motion by Catherine Stephanie. Seconded by Mike Fong. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you for presenting your bill today. I will be supporting your bill. The motion is do passed to the House and Community Development Committee. Secretary, please close call the roll.

For item number five, SB 1014, the motion is due passed and reaffirmed to Committee on Housing and Community Development. [Roll Call].

That measure is six to two, and we'll leave it open for Miss Wilson to add on later. Thank you, and congratulations. Thank you so much. The bill is out.

Thank you.

And the last item on the agenda, item number seven, SB 1169.

Thank you so very much, Mister Chair and members. I would like to begin by thanking the committee for their work on this bill and by accepting the committee's proposed amendments. SB 1169 would provide greater certainty during the housing development process by extending the validity of tentative vesting maps under subdivision map act to four years.

With the proposed amendments, the bill allows a tentative vesting map to be valid for four years and gives a local jurisdiction the discretion to extend that map for another three years. With me to testify is Louis Morante representing the Bay Area Council. To the chair.

Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair, members. My name is Louis Morante with Bay Area Council. We represent about 400 of the region's largest employers, and housing has been a critical issue for us for eighty years. This bill, by extending the length of a map life, will reduce the amount of time that local governments have to spend rereviewing applications, creating time for them to review new applications.

It'll also reduce the risk associated with lending to one of these projects, making those projects easier to pencil and more likely to happen soon.

On behalf of the Bay Area Council, I'm proud to urge your support for this bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else wants to add on, please state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill.

Freddie Quintana with the California Apartment Association in support.

Michael Lane with SPUR in support.

Ali Sapirman with Housing Action Coalition, strong support.

Raymond Contreras, on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, in support.

Nolan Gray, California YIMBY, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any primary opposition? Seeing no opposition at all. Members, questions, comments? No?

So, we have a first and a second. Would you like to close?

Respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

The last one of the day: thank you and your staff for working with the committee on the amendments, which you have accepted. With the exception of the committee amendments, I will be supporting your bill, a motion by Alanis, second by Ransom. The motion is due passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Secretary, please call the roll.

For item number seven, SB 1159, the motion is due passed as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

The bill is nine, zero. Congratulations. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members.

We are gonna wait a couple of minutes for assembly member Wilson to add on. For add ons.

For add ons for item number four, SB 103, the motion is to be passed and rerefers to the committee on housing and community development. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.

That measure is south ten zero.

For add ons for item number five, SB 1014, the motion is do passed and re refer to the committee on housing and community development. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.

That measure is south seven to two.

For add ons for item number seven, SB 1169, the motion is do passed as amend and re refer to committee the committee on appropriations. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.

That measure is out ten zero. And that concludes today's hearing. Thank you, everybody.