Senate Standing Committee on Local Government

Senate committee on local government will it will is now beginning, come to order. Thank you for joining us. Senate welcomes the public in person, holding our hearings in the Capitol Building. Ask all members to be present, which it appears you are. We will hear AB 1156 on a referral pursuant to Senate rule 29.10 b.

We are also hearing SB 677 and SB 1423 on a referral pursuant to Senate rule 29.10 D. These bills were significantly amended so the Senate rules committee returned the bill to committee to hear those changes. We are now before we hear the presentation on the bills, we will establish quorum. Please call the roll.

Senator Gerrazzo? Aye. Choe? Here. Choi here.

Aragin? Yes. Aragin here. Ashby? Cervantes?

Here. Cervantes here. Laird? Laird here. Seagarto?

Here. Seagarto here. You have a quorum.

Okay. We established quorum. I just wanna now welcome Assembly member Wicks. I think she's I think she's late if she's not here, so we can go

So we'll go to second since she's not here. We'll go to Senator Wiener on S P 677. Beautiful. Okay. We won't go to him either.

to Okay.

We will go to see if anybody wants to do this. S P S P 1423 Yes.

Senator Stern. Welcome, Senator. Thank you. Proceed.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill is to ensure that state, regional, and local governments have more access to standardized spatial planning datasets to make a more informed planning decision. Bill directs the Governor's Office of land use and climate innovation to compel standardized, of course, a set of statewide spatial data sets and make them publicly available by July 2028.

The bill does not create any new regulatory requirements, mandate any land use decisions, restrict local development, or limit the use of more detailed local data.

Oh, okay. Yeah. We can do guys, you can keep it so short. We don't even. We don't even need it.

Yeah. But you're the best, Kim. Yeah. Let's do it.

Let's just, I'll just do it. I'll I got it. It would make more efficient and affordable access to this data for regional local agencies, and with that respect, we ask for your aye vote. I did have [inaudble] witnesses support, but in the interest of time, we'll just have them be maybe give me too testimony if that's okay. Unless you have any technical questions, then we can turn to them.

Alright. Anyone else in support of SB 1423? If you're in support, please come up. Give your name and organization.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Matthew Baker with Planning Conservation sponsor of the bill, urges aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kim Delfino on behalf of The Nature Conservancy in support.

Thank you.

Jake Schultz on behalf of the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District in support. Thank you.

Marissa Rodriguez on behalf of Climate Plan, Cal Bike, and Wildlife Conservation Network in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone in opposition to SB 1423 that wants just to speak? Go ahead. Did you want two minutes?

No? Okay.

Freddy Quintana on behalf of the California Apartment Association in opposition.

Okay. Anyone else in opposition? SB 1423.

Hi. I'm Ben Turner with Axiom Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. We're opposed to Senate Bill 1423 because sorry, I ran over here. It selects from our perspective somewhat arbitrarily a series of data sets that are not intended to be used for planning and appear to be designed to make it look less appealing to construct housing around communities.

For example, it picked the 500 year flood maps, which are backward looking, don't account for current rainfall models.

It picked FMMP, which has like, two acre parcels or cells in the dataset and a number of other datasets that are not necessarily applicable to a local planning process. So it's just more information that could be considered in the entitlement process when [inaudible] groups oppose projects. So we're opposed to the bill and we ask for your no vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to SB 1423 wanna speak?

Okay. Seeing none, we'll come to the dias. Anybody in oh.

Comments or questions for my colleagues? Anybody? Senator Laird moves the bill SB 1423. Seeing none, we'll call the roll.

Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Closing remarks.

Yeah. Thank you. Do appreciate the opposition. We did remove I just wanna note the they requested removal of hazard risk removed. Their suggestion we appreciate they still have outstanding concerns, but we think this is still a good bill.

Respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you. We will now call the roll.

The motion is that the Assembly amendments be concurred in.

[Roll call]

The bill is out, 5-0. 5-2. Sorry.

The bill is out 5-2. Alright. We're moving on to back to number 1, AB 1156 by Assembly member Wicks.

Okay. You guys are Yeah.

Yeah. I know. Okay. We'll go to the next person who wants to present. You guys don't wanna present today.

SB 677 by Senator Wiener. You may come forward.

Thank you, madam Chair. Thank you, madam Chair. I'm here to present SB 677. We amended the bill in the Assembly to help California continue to address our housing crisis. I want to thank the Chair and committee staff for working with us while we were in the Assembly, and, I appreciate the work that we were able to do together on, on the bill.

This bill does two things. First, it addresses appeals for subdivision maps and streamlined housing projects, which we have found to have been abused at times. And so in infill situations, it eliminates those appeals for with some exceptions. The second piece of the bill has to do with with Tefra approvals when there is bond financing for affordable housing projects. We, city councils right now, have to, basically approve, that funding, and it is sometimes used in ways to stop affordable housing projects.

So, to address the issue, the bill authorizes the state treasurer to enter the state into a joint power authority, agreement to issue tax exempt private activity bonds, for purpose of providing TEFRA approval. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today is Kevin Kitchingham, director of housing development and construction at Mission Housing Development Corporation, and Stephanie Strain, CEO and attorney at Sable Housing Strain and specialist in affordable housing law.

Well, welcome. And you'll each have two minutes.

Thank you, committee members. Thank you for having us here today. My name is Kevin Kitching. I'm the director of housing development and construction at Mission Housing in San Francisco. We're a fifty five year old non profit.

And, we ran into this issue with the parcel map, just recently on a 136 unit project. We're on the 3rd Floor of decking for that now, but I can tell you, at the time, very painful, costly delay over the parcel map. So we seek your aye vote here on six seven seven as it relates to the parcel map, this is a reform that will help us further our projects through streamlining and avoid frivolous delays. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Stefan Strain. I'm an affordable housing consultant and attorney in Sacramento. Over the past twenty five years, I've represented affordable housing developers throughout the state. This bill by Senator Wiener makes a targeted important fix to the Tefra process, removing a key barrier that is currently delaying or preventing the delivery of much needed affordable housing across California.

In practice, some jurisdictions have used this federally required procedure to delay or derail affordable housing projects that have already been thoroughly vetted and awarded financing by the state. We currently have a project that experienced this in Pasadena that we were able to finally prevail on the local jurisdiction, but were delayed several months in starting construction on the project.

S B 677 provides the state treasurer with authority to grant the required TEFRA approval when local jurisdictions failed to act, removing a significant procedural obstacle for many projects. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in support of SB 677? Please come forward. Give us your name.

Catherine Charles on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition a Proud Co sponsor and Support.

Good afternoon. Paul Schafer with the California Council for Affordable Housing, proud cosponsors. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Chair members of the committee. Jordan Pernod Carvajal. On behalf of California EMB, a proud cosponsor in strong support. Thank you so much.

Anyone else in support of, SB 677? Seeing none, anyone in opposition to SB 677? Please, if you're gonna take two you could sit here for two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon, madam Chair and members. My name is Kim Delfino, and I'm here on behalf of the California Native Plant Society. We are in opposition to SB 677 as to the subdivision map issue. We have, offered up an amendment.

We understand and support the goal of streamline housing, but SB 677 goes too far by eliminating third party administrative appeals of subdivision maps without adequate protections for habitat and habitat conservation lands and, natural community conservation plan lands. The change in law matters because tentative maps are where many consequential decisions are made about development. Like where do the lots go? Where do roads and infrastructure go? What remains as open space?

And the subdivision map act actually does require the denial of a subdivision, if its design or improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injures fish, wildlife, or their habitat, administrative appeals provide an efficient opportunity to catch mistakes before they become final. There can be errors about where, whether a conservation plan applies, where species surveys are required, whether a subdivision is actually consistent with an adopted NCCP or HCP. And eliminating that appeal doesn't eliminate the dispute.

It just simply pushes that into court. And despite being characterized as an infill measure, this will impact habitat.

SB 677 can impact important natural lands. It can apply to projects of any size, including projects on the outskirts of communities on park lands and adjacent to habitat and conserved lands. And just because these areas are labeled as infill, it doesn't mean that they're sacrifice zones. And we have many NCCPs and HCPs within very urbanized areas. San Diego, Orange County, Riverside, Santa Clara, Placer County, just to name the few.

We've been asking for a narrow amendment to preserve the third party appeals for projects on NCCP or HCP lands or on habitat protecting, for, sensitive, threatened or endangered species. Until SB 677 is amended, we must respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome to stay if you want. Anybody else in opposition to SB 677? Please come up.

Good afternoon again. Matthew Baker with Planning and Conservation League. Respectfully oppose unless amended. Our concerns align with that being stated here by Kim Delfino.

Thank you.

Jake Schultz on behalf of the California Habitat Conservation Planning Coalition. We are opposed unless amended. We'd like to echo the concerns of the opposition related to the NCCPs and HCPs. Thank you.

Thank you. Alex Loomer on behalf of Center for Biological Diversity and Committee for Green Foothills in opposition, aligning our comments with testimony. Thank you.

Thank you.

Marie Blue with permission, for opposition for the c in, in agreement with, Kim's testimony. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in opposition? Seeing none. We have our come to the dais. Questions, Senator Laird?

Let me ask the author. So with regard to the requested amendment, why aren't you taking it?

So we incorporated quite a few exclusions that are objective, where you know where they apply and don't apply, and we actually proposed a compromise to the opposition to around objectively mapped habitat areas, and that was rejected. And so the the vague language that they want would effectively, we think, swallow what we're trying to do here. And, again, this only bill only applies in infill areas. It's it is a it's a very focused approach. And these projects, this is not an entitlement bill.

So these projects will go through whatever entitlement route, whether it's a a CEQA route or if it's a streamlined exclusion or streamlined permitting route, which often those laws often have habitat exclusions in them, it will have already gone through that approval process with whatever the habitat rules are or exclusions are under those permits. This is about the subdivision, map act, And so this is after all of that, after the, entitlement has already been, been been granted. And we did offer a compromise and it was rejected.

Madam Chair, if it's okay, could I ask the other witness to respond to that?

Yes. Thank you. So, the amendment that was offered was to exclude projects that would be built on top of lands that are already under a conservation easement or have been acquired for conservation. The is which by the way you can't do that anyway. So that really doesn't address our issue.

Our issue was that you have NCCP and HCP plan boundaries where you've identified areas where certain, rules are now being applied. Not those lands may not necessarily they're not under there there are maps of them, but they're not under, conservation easement at that point. And there are requirements for consistency. Many jurisdictions, when they do subdivision maps, they have to look at consistency with NCCP and HCPs, and this would take away the third party appeals. And so that's why it wasn't a sufficient amendment.

And then on on my own time to comment, I just know from working on a lot of these plans that a lot of the urban infill sites contain sensitive areas. And I think the difference is is a view that that under certain provisions, you're acknowledging that, but then under other provisions, we're not.

And I think I'm grumpy in general over the fact that we're two days from the end of session, and this is the first policy hearing that this bill has gone under in the Senate in a way that we can't amend it. And and I I don't think gotten amends are really meant for doing that, where there are really sensitive issues and there and there's differences.

And with two days to go in the session, we're hearing it for the first time in a way we can't resolve any of those issues.

And so on the substance side of a problem, but on the process side of a real problem. And I may be alone, but I intend to stay off this bill.

Questions? Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Senator Laird. Seeing none, we can have closing remarks.

Thank you very much, and I appreciate that, Senator. We have many, many, late breaking bills, profoundly larger, like, exponentially larger than this bill, that we are all seeing right now, as we as we speak and for what whatever the process that's the process we have in the legislature.

We did put this bill in print back in the spring in time for full process in the Assembly, and we immediately, early on, immediately flagged it for this committee and worked with the committee and and took amendments in response to feedback, from the committee. So this is not some like like some bills that actually do materialize, less than a week before the end of session, this has been, in process for several months now. We've done our best to be very open and transparent and collaborative.

We've made quite a few amendments to the bill. And on this, I do just wanna emphasize in terms of habitat issues, this is not about entitlement. Whatever entitlement process they have to go through, whether it's CEQA or whether it's a streamlined process, which often have habitat exemptions, that will have already happened. This is after the entitlement is granted, when you have these appeals under the subdivision map app act and it addresses that. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Senator Ashby moves the bill. Move all the roll.

The motion is that the Assembly amendments be concurred in. Senators deRazzo?

Aye.

DeRazzo, aye. Choi? No. Choi, no. Aregin.

Aregin, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Cervantes?

Aye. Cervantes, aye. Lair? Laird, no. Seyarto?

No. Seyarto, no. Four three. Three. Four three.

The bill is out.

Thank you very much, colleagues. Thank you.

Next and final is AB 1156: Assembly Member Wicks. Welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Traffic jam. Thank you for hearing this legislation so quickly after amendments were made last night. I really appreciate it for you and your staff work as well. Thank you. As I said to this committee, when a prior version of the bill came before you last year, California must reckon with an uncomfortable truth. We face a significant lack of access to water across many rural communities with up to 1 million acres of farmland possibly being fallowed.

AB 1159 is a narrower, more targeted proposal than what you heard last year. It provides a voluntary, locally-driven option to communities and farmers that are wrestling with this stark reality: accelerating solar energy deployment on farms currently under the Williamson Act in critically overdrafted basins. This legislation balances our state's renewable energy and food production needs while prioritizing the repurposing of agricultural lands that don't have adequate access to groundwater.

As amended, AB 1156 reduces barriers associated with exiting the Williamson Act contracts, helping to overcome a cumbersome and lengthy cancellation process and prohibitively high cancellation fees. The bill provides two pathways to address these challenges. The first path permits solar-environmental leadership development projects in critically overdrafted basins with a streamlined exit from a Williamson Act contract or a Farmland Security Zone contract if they have entered into a qualifying community benefits agreement.

The second path extends the authority of the Secretary of Natural Resources to waive Williamson Act cancellation fees for solar projects in critically overdrafted basins or sub-basins if those projects have entered into a qualifying community benefits agreement. AB 1156 will not be the Williamson Act's undoing. It will provide private landowners and local governments in water-constrained regions of the state with a choice: enter voluntarily to adapt to a harsh economic reality. Either let land sit fallow because it's not agriculturally viable, or generate clean energy and revenue for landowners and local governments.

California's nexus between clean energy goals, water sustainability, and land scarcity presents a rare opportunity to craft a policy that achieves multiple statewide goals. AB 1156 can help fulfill the promise of a carbon-free future and mitigate the worst impacts of climate change in our communities and the economy. Here to testify in support, I have Shannon Eddy, executive director of the Large-Scale Solar Association. At the right time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Welcome. And you have two minutes.

Good afternoon. Shannon Eddy. I lead the Large-Scale Solar Association. We appreciate the work that has gone into what is we acknowledge as a fairly amended bill. This is a product of extensive negotiations with the Natural Resources Agency, the Department of Food and Ag, and also the Department of Conservation, and the result is a bill that has been narrowed and significantly tailored to just those projects that reside in groundwater basins that are in a stage of critical overdraft. You've all heard about SGMA, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act; is expected to probably fallow about a million acres south of the delta in the next 20 years by 2040.

So this bill provides an option, a voluntary option for farmers to consolidate the water that they do have onto land so they can continue growing. At the same time, they have solar as an alternate revenue source so they can keep their farms. A couple of important notes about this bill, local governments retain full authority, full discretion in approving or rejecting projects. Flat out.

The bill also retains a high level of community awareness. There is a significant community benefits component here so that the host communities will benefit through community benefits that are fairly non-constrained in addition to significant property tax revenues that are gonna be paid by these projects as well.

I think at its core, what we need to keep in mind is that if there are state policies that are mandating the kind of restrictions that SGMA is restricting, the state also needs to provide policies that have solutions, and this bill is one of those solutions to both citing clean energy in a responsible way and also restoring, really, a lifeblood to these communities and to the farmers that are gonna be losing land. So, appreciate your aye vote.

Thank you. Anyone in support of AB 1156, please come forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Keith Dunn, here on behalf of the State Council of the Building-- sorry. It's been a long day, just like the rest of you. The State Building Construction Trades Council, as well as the District Council of Iron Workers, in support. We think this is a good bill, and we hope it moves forward.

Thank you.

Kim Delfino, on behalf of the Nature Conservancy, in support.

Thank you.

Hi there. McKinley Thompson-Morley, on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association and our friends at American Clean Power California, in support.

Thank you.

Jan Smutny-Jones from the Independent Energy Producers, in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, Erin Nimula, representing IPX Power, also in support. Thank you.

Hello, Madam Chair. Kristin Olsen-Cate, on behalf of Terra-Gen, in support.

Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone in opposition to AB 1156? Please come forward. You can come up here if you want, or from there. Whatever.

Is it okay to stand here?

Sure.

Okay. So, good afternoon. My name is Chelsea Gazillo, and I'm here on behalf of American Farmland Trust in opposition of AB 1156 as drafted. California and the nation's food supply are at risk if the state fails to take a comprehensive approach to solar setting that avoids the conversion of productive agricultural land. The Williamson Act is a critical tool that helps farmers in production while curbing mounting development pressures on farmland and ranch land.

We agree that to meet our carbon neutrality goals, we must find a way to promote both solar development and farmland protection. However, this does not meet that goal. So, this bill as drafted amends the Williamson Act statute language broadly to broadly expand the eligibility of farmland and ranch land for solar development, putting millions of acres at risk.

This is because the determination of land eligible for removal is tied to SGMA, critically overdrafted basins, and sub-basin definitions, which makes approximately 2.6 million acres of irrigated crop land in the San Joaquin Valley eligible to exit Williamson Act contracts. AB 1156 also undermines smart growth principles by encouraging development on prime and important farmland and ranch land, which will drive up land prices and make both land and locally produced food increasingly unaffordable.

So we wanna work with the state to find a compromise to promote smart growth, which includes farmland protection and smart solar. We were not given a really meaningful opportunity to weigh in on this bill, and we would like that opportunity. You can see our opposition letter, but I know the local governments also oppose, and so we ask that you vote no and fight for a California that has affordable agricultural land and promotes smart energy growth. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in opposition to AB 1156? Please come forward.

Rebecca Marcus in oppose unless amended on behalf of my clients, California Climate and Agriculture Network and the California Certified Organic Farmers. Additionally, my colleagues at the Community Alliance with Family Farms, California Rangeland Trust, California Farmland Trust, and California FarmLink are also opposed. Thank you.

Thank you very much. See no one else in opposition. Colleagues? Senator Laird.

First, let me thank the author for this bill, and we did have an exhaustive public process on this when the bill was much wider, and what the author's doing is narrowing it in a way that we have talked about this in a hearing and narrowing it to try to accommodate as many people as we can. And what we have here is a whole set of conflicting goals and conflicting processes.

The Williamson Act, which actually, in a prior job, I wanted to restore, and I did bills on this when I was in the Assembly, and we could not convince the administration to restore it at the state level, and that's where the Sustainable Agriculture Lands Conservation Program came from, is a way to conserve Ag land, and in some cases in a way that you can deal with the generational transfer and some of the issues with Ag land because we can't do the Williamson's Act at the state level. We haven't <inaudible>.

And then we have SGMA, which I was involved in when it was enacted that truly will be taking thousands of acres out of planting in a way that we have to do something for those farmers to try to continue. We also have--and it wasn't mentioned--the fact that in some of these very lands, there's high contamination, and the high contamination is as much leading to people not farming in a way that there needs to be an alternative that this bill presents to deal with that.

And so, with us stepping out of the Williamson Act, with us having SGMA, with us having contamination, and us having the goal to be as close to carbon-neutral as we can by 2045, this actually meets almost every single goal in this bill to do it. And so-- and I personally would have preferred that it not have been narrowed because I think the original bill got us to where we needed to go in a much better way.

And so, I think that this is somewhat of a compromise to do it, and that's good if it brings some more people on, and I just think we should move ahead with this and give this a real chance. So I intend to support the bill, and at the appropriate time, I would be happy to move the bill.

Okay. Any other comments or questions? I will be supporting it, and I also want to make particular mention of the community benefits agreement. That's something that I've been involved with for many, many years, and we've gotten to the point where it doesn't make sense to do it for that community, but let that community develop based on their particular needs.

So this is one of the rare times, and I've seen it in a much more rural area than what we're used to in the urban areas, but it does address reaching agreement with various community organizations from that area, local agencies, tribal governments, and addressing things like workforce development, job quality, and job access. So, I think that's a really important part of the model that should continue to be developed. So with that, I'll support the group-- the bill. Oh. Closing remarks.

I just appreciate all your work, Madam Chair, and your push for the community benefits agreement aspect of the bill, and thank you for your comments as well, sir. And with that, respectfully ask for the aye vote.

Okay. Senator Laird moves the bill. Roll call.

The motion is that the measure be returned to the Senate Floor for consideration. [Roll call]. Five/one.

The bill is out five to one. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Okay. We're closing down this hearing. I know you guys are listening to me. Thank you to all the individuals who participated in public testimony today. If you were not able to testify, please submit your comments in writing to the Senate Local Government Committee. Your comments and suggestions are important to us. Thank you. We've concluded the agenda. Senate Committee on Local Government is adjourned. Thank you.