Senate Local Government Committee
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Local Government Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 10
Morning, Chair and Committee members. My name is Ali Zaperman. 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.
Speaker 3
I'm speaking today in strong support of SB1003, which creates Pro Housing Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts, a new tool to help local governments finance the infrastructure that makes infill housing possible. California has made significant progress getting jurisdictions to plan for housing. But planning isn't building. One of the most persistent reasons infill projects stall or never break ground at all is the cost of infrastructure. Site prep, utility connections, access improvements these costs routinely make otherwise feasible projects impossible to finance.
SB1003 directly addresses that gap by creating an incentive structure that rewards jurisdictions for aligning their infrastructure investment with their housing goals. Establishing a PEIFD earns jurisdictions enhanced credit towards the pro housing designation and unlocks priority access to state competitive funding for predevelopment activities. What's especially impactful of SB1003 is the joint application mechanism. Local governments and developers identify infill infrastructure needs together and are required to demonstrate how cost savings will be passed on to future residents. That's real accountability built into the program design.
For for our members the people doing the work of building housing predevelopment support like this is often the difference between a project that moves forward and one that doesn't I respectfully ask your I vote today. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Oh never mind. He's walking back in Pause pause for a second to establish quorum.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you very much. We'll now continue with anyone else in support? Anyone else wishing to speak in support of SB1003?
Speaker 3
Good morning, everyone. Darby Kernan on behalf of Leading Age California. We represent nonprofit senior affordable housing and care programs, and we're in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? No? Okay, seeing none, is there anyone here who wishes to speak in opposition to SB1003? No one?
That's it? Okay, then we'll come to the dais. Questions, comments? Question. Yes, Senator Sayardo.
Speaker 30
it depends on state funding. And every year we tell all the nonprofits that we don't have the money and so how do how are we supposed to be comfortable that they are going to that the state will actually fund this and not just pile it on with the immense amount of other potential opportunities that we're giving for our housing issues. And also when we're looking at our housing in general for local governments, yes, the infrastructure issue is a huge issue And financing for that infrastructure, funding for that infrastructure to me needs to be upfront and simple so that our local governments can keep up with it but not incur more and more debt related to the state's push to create higher densities in areas where especially in communities I represent that weren't prepared for it. Their master plans that were done long ago did not prepare their infrastructure for the amount of high density housing that's going in. We are creating a lot of that type of housing and yet the housing that's actually in demand is not being there's no incentives for those and therefore we are losing and when you're done with your 700 square foot apartment and you're ready to establish the family and move up to the next level there is no next level and we're losing all of those folks to other states.
Speaker 8
So I am about to fly out to visit my daughter in about three hours because of that. So how are we to be assured that the state is actually going to fund this Or is it just going to be another program sitting on the shelf?
Speaker 2
So thank you very much for your comments at the beginning. I wish you'd keep going because that was awesome testimony for this bill.
Speaker 2
And so thank you very much. I also share your sentiment as you will board a plane that, the impetus for me and working with housing bills and, my focus, while being here in the legislature is, is the fact that I don't want to have to get on an airplane to go visit my grandchildren because my children couldn't afford to live where they were raised. So having said all of that, having gone on a twenty two night, twenty two night statewide tour visiting all jurisdictions from north to south that I possibly could, We heard from the developers, we heard from local governments, and we also heard the argument that was needed for the infrastructure. So instead of, and this is the opportunity now with this bill that the state government could have, could seize the moment instead of taking money and sending it into the winds to land into the hands of developers only to be scooped back up by government through fees and extra projects. We are now going to turn it into a win win win proposition.
The developer would win because the infrastructure financing would not be on the back of the developer. The city is going to win because they'll be able to seize or the resources to be able to fund infrastructure through their through their avenue and then the state wins because of the funding that they would provide. There are multiple ways that the state could take existing funding and refocus it reposition it and put it in the hands of the right people to be able to get the job done more efficiently and more effectively. So if you're looking for government to work more efficiently and more effectively, this is a bill you would definitely want to support.
Speaker 8
And the funding that comes from the state, is there a repaying mechanism? Is there a leftover payment at the end to pay for that, that fund?
Speaker 2
So it depends on how, and I can, can turn to a testimony, but it depends on how that is negotiated and worked out between HCD and the program.
Speaker 7
Senator Abbeh. Well, thank you very much, Senator. I know this bill is a priority of yours this year, and I'm very happy to support it today. If there isn't a motion, I'm happy to move the bill at the appropriate time. And as somebody who also served in local government, you know that the state has increasingly put mandates on local governments to have to plan for and rezone their communities to build more homes.
And there are lots of penalties, but we don't provide a lot of incentives for cities that are doing the right thing. And so I really think that's the idea behind this bill. I really want to thank you for working with our housing committee and local gov staff on the language. I think, you know, obviously we need to identify the funding to implement this, and I'm very committed to working with you to help make that happen. But this is just making sure that if you are implementing these EIFDs and you're taking steps to be a per housing jurisdiction, that we can provide the money to build the supportive infrastructure because, you know, you can't plan for, you know, large amount of development if we don't have the support of in connecting infrastructure.
And so thank you very much for bringing this bill forward.
Speaker 1
Anybody else? Comments, questions? Hearing none, we have a motion by Senator Aragheen. And Opposition. I'm sorry.
Oh, yeah, I did. Didn't I call? Yes. Yeah, I called in opposition witnesses. Okay, we're set to go.
Speaker 4
Dorrazzo, aye. Choi? Aye. Aye. Aye.
Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Cervantes? Laird?
Cierto?
Speaker 1
31 on call. Okay, bill remain on call. Consent. Consent. This is consent.
Oh, we're gonna do the consent. Yeah, we need a motion for consent calendar. Senator Ashby.
Speaker 22
The motion is to adopt the consent calendar, which consists of file item six s b eleven sixty nine, file item seven ten, s b ten eighty six, file item 10, s b eleven twenty six, file item 14, s b fourteen thirty nine, file item 15, s b fourteen forty, file item 16, s b fourteen forty one, and file item 17, s b fourteen forty two. Senator Dirazzo? Aye. Dirazzo, aye. Choi?
Speaker 2
Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Presenting SB ten fourteen, I would like to begin by thanking the committee for their work on this bill and by accepting the committee's proposed amendments. As many of you already know, California has a massive and growing housing production and affordability crisis. Driving this affordability issue is the exponential rising cost of building new housing. Development fees and other construction requirements can make up a significant portion of building costs and are much bigger or much higher in California compared to the rest of the nation.
Despite the state's significant legislative reforms intended to improve fee transparency, builders continue to struggle to anticipate certain development costs, such as those for on-site and off-site improvements. Builders may find out about an on-site or an off-site improvement late in the process, adding unforeseen development costs and making projects less likely to pencil out. SB ten fourteen will help provide greater certainty for housing developments by requiring local jurisdictions within thirty days of submission of a preliminary application to provide a good faith estimate and list of any off-site or on-site improvements. The bill would also prevent a local jurisdiction from requiring any additional on-site or off-site improvements that are not disclosed within thirty days of submitting a building permit application. So I will with me today we have Janice Jensen, CEO of Habitat for Humanity East Bay Silicon Valley, and Michael Lane representing SPUR through the
Speaker 12
D'Arrazzo and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Janice Jensen. I'm the CEO of Habitat for Humanity East Bay Silicon Valley, and our Habitat affiliate serves Contra Costa, Alameda, and Santa Clara Counties, where we make homeownership affordable for families with limited incomes in one of the state's least affordable regions. We are grateful to Senator Grayson for his leadership significant home building challenges, that Habitat faces, and we're proud to support SB ten fourteen as a meaningful solution. One of Habitat's biggest costs are development fees.
At the 10 home development we are now building in Hayward, we're paying $76,000 per unit in fees. For the 42 homes that we're building in Walnut Creek right now, the fees account for $65,000 per unit, which is over $2,700,000 in total for that development. When those fees rise unexpectedly late in a project planning timeline, they add fixed costs and cost us time delays in building. In Hayward, we were hit with unexpected costs when we had to redesign our utilities plan late in the game. In Walnut Creek, our irrigation plan had to be redone.
We've been required to, build additional sidewalks, toward the end of a project in Martinez, and then we had to add another 200 meters of sewer line after plan approvals in Bay Point. Those are just a few examples. The uncertainty is far more expensive than just the price tag of the unplanned fees. The unexpected fees cause a domino effect of additional costs like plan redesigns, resubmittals, additional expense inspections, and more. They start a cascade of timing delays, which add tens of thousands of dollars in unanticipated carrying costs.
Speaker 35
And for a nonprofit home builder, Habitat keeps our sales prices affordable for our limited income buyers, which means we can't simply raise the prices in order to absorb these costs that come out of our pocket. Meanwhile, future homeowners who are often contending with unaffordable rents, substandard living conditions, or the threat of displacement are left waiting that much longer for their lives to begin in a stable, affordable home. SB ten fourteen presents a simple, smart solution that gives homebuilders like Habitat for Humanity the transparency and security we need to build the affordable homes that Californians so critically lack. I urge an I vote on SB ten fourteen. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Madam Chair and members, Michael Lang with Spur, a public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. First, I too would like to thank the committee and local government representatives for working with us on this transparency and good government legislation. Government code section six five five eight three a 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 eighteen twenty, Schiavo, that was passed by the legislature and signed into law in 2024, SP ten fourteen would, one, allow a development proponent to request a preliminary estimate of required improvements within thirty days of project submittal, and two, require that within thirty days of receipt of an application for a post entitlement permit, the City must provide an itemized list of all on-site and off-site improvements required for that permit. Given the significant cost these improvements can add to a development, SB ten fourteen will facilitate housing development by increasing transparency and information sharing and reducing the potential for late hits that is last minute and costly surprises.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. We'd like to have anybody who's here in support of SB ten fourteen please come up and just provide us with your name, organization, and where you stand on the bill. All those in favor?
Speaker 14
morning, madam chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California, Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Circulate Planning and Policy, and Kussita Coalition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of SB ten fourteen? Seeing none, anyone here, in opposition to SB ten fourteen? Are the primary witnesses?
Speaker 34
Good morning to the Committee and Chair. My name is Claire Sullivan, I'm here on behalf of the City of San Mateo in respectful opposition to the bill. The city has concerns that the preliminary application, by its very nature, lacks the information necessary to provide accurate cost estimates for necessary improvements, especially under the fluctuating market conditions. The City respectfully requests that the bill be amended to base these estimates based on the actual building permit application rather than the preliminary application. We do thank the author for the recent amendments and look forward to working with you to find a workable path forward.
Speaker 17
Good morning. Tracy Reimer with the Royal County Representatives of California, also on behalf of the League of California Cities, the American Planning Association, and the California State Association of Counties. We do not we are not opposed. We do not have a formal position. However, I did want to take time to thank the author and committee staff for working, to help address our concerns.
Speaker 16
We appreciate the amendments proposed in the analysis. We do have some remaining concerns, we look forward to working on those as the bill moves forward. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? No? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move it to the dais.
Any comments or questions?
Speaker 8
I just I get tired of making it, and then everybody else jumps in. So the concept of your bill is something that I think cities and developers have been struggling with for a long, long time. I remember way, way, way back when I was on city council, we had the one bite at the apple thing that the city developed in order to address just this problem, which was, hey, we give them what we need upfront and once they get into the process we can't change it. The problem we ran into was other agencies and so what is the flexibility to deal with these other agencies because when you're talking about when you you know talk about water districts and you know even school districts and everybody else who wants to jump in and get their slice of the financial pie or to fix whatever it is that they need to fix. How do we deal with that?
Because that's out of the city's control and yet we're trying to require the city to do this thirty day thing. And my other question was what why the thirty days? What's the magic number of thirty days that makes that all possible?
Speaker 2
Well, I think we are open to talking about the number of days for sure. Thirty does, doesn't make it magic or possible. I also think that, we have been very appreciative of opposition's voice to help make this and refine this better. This is not a closed door, safe, protected, policy. We do have, circumstances that a local jurisdiction can require improvements after a specified period.
Some of those would be anything to mitigate a specific adverse impact upon public health or safety. If a post entitlement permit is subject to CEQA or a developer changes the construction permitted under the post entitlement permit. So we are adding flexibility. Okay. Hopefully, Senator, hopefully your confidence in me is more than an HCD and you give me the opportunity to continue to work and put those flexibilities in there.
Speaker 8
That is a big hill to climb right now. So, ouch. Anyway, and that's actually one of my concerns is is you know, some of our state agencies come in and the communication link between cities and state agencies to just get an answer is a lot longer than thirty days. Sometimes it's six months. I understand.
Speaker 8
I I I know, but somehow they always make it one. Yes. Especially when you're dealing with affordable housing.
Speaker 13
So just one to add, we did say thirty business days so it's not calendar days to make sure that there is ample time for staff. And then we do, because oftentimes there's not communication between special districts and city or county, and so the developer does have to go independently to a special district to get that information. In some cases though, the city does have coordination. They're able to do that. So it just depends on a particular situation which agency you'd have to go to, to get additional information on the fees.
Speaker 1
Comments, it to me, it's a question of timing, of knowing that you're going to what's expected of you and what is expected and when it's expected of you, when you get the notice of it. So that's pretty basic.
Speaker 4
The motion is due passed to the Committee on Housing. Senators Drazo? Aye. Drazo, aye. Choi?
No. Choi, no. Abigail? Aye. Abigail, aye.
Ashby, Aye. Cervantes, Cervantes, Cervantes,
Speaker 1
The vote is four The vote is four-two and we remain on call. Okay, we move on, Senator Grayson, to SB ten thirty six. You may proceed.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for their work on this bill and accepting the committee's proposed amendments. SB ten thirty six is a simple bill that would provide clarity under the Mitigation Fee Act by requiring that all jurisdictions provide credit for any use previously on the site when a project is redeveloping a site with similar prior uses so the Mitigation Fee Act governs how local jurisdictions impose impact fees and to charge an impact fee there must be a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the project on which it is being imposed. When a project contains or changes the existing use of site, many jurisdictions can provide a credit to help reduce fees to account for a prior use however this is not always the case SB ten thirty six will create a uniform policy that clarifies that impact fees should only be paid on the new impact that a development causes this will help reduce the cost of duplicative fees and lower overall development costs. And with me today, through the chair, to testify is Michael Lane representing Spur.
Speaker 13
Chair members, Michael Lane with Spur, a public policy think tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. I'd I'd like to thank the committee and local government representatives for working with us on this bill to properly apply the Mitigation Fee Act to redevelopment or adaptive reuse projects on existing sites with previous uses. It's really important to be able to redevelop these types of sites to provide additional economic activity and generate revenues for local jurisdictions. SB ten thirty six does this by requiring local jurisdictions to give credit towards fees for previous uses on a site being redeveloped. This ensures the project is only charged fees related to the new impacts and need for service or facilities created by the new development, which is precisely the intent and the meaning of the Mitigation Fee Act.
We respectfully request, and I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of SB ten thirty six? Please come forward.
Speaker 14
Good morning. Raymond Contreras on behalf of Lighthouse, sorry, with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California Abundant Housing Los Angeles and Spur.
Speaker 8
Thank you. Good morning. Nathan Scatson on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Okay. Anyone else in support? Seeing none, we'll move to those in opposition to SB ten thirty six. Seeing none.
Okay. Wonderful. Motions. Okay. The
Speaker 4
Choi, aye. Arin? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye.
Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird? Cervantes?
Speaker 1
That bill is five-zero on call. This is the Grayson show. Okay. Senator Grayson, you will you can proceed on SB eleven forty five, please.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Madam Chair, and members. Thank you for your gracious patience today. If it wasn't me, it'd be someone else, though. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I am pleased to present SB eleven forty five, which will provide specified streamlining procedures under the California Environmental Quality Act, we know as CEQA, and the federal based closure and realignment disposition process for qualifying projects within the area of the Concord Reuse Project Area Plan.
Before I begin, I would like to accept the committee amendments and express my thanks to the chair and the committee for their help on this incredibly important district bill. SB eleven forty five is a district bill that will support the implementation of a long planned decades and I say decades in the work transit oriented development on the site of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station with housing job creating facilities open space and environmental improvements. The Concord Reuse Project Area Plan anticipates no fewer than 10,000 housing units with 25% of the units affordable to lower income households, up to 6,100,000 square feet of commercial building space community facilities such as school sites neighborhood parks and sports facilities as well as approximately 2,500 acres of open space SB 1145 will help bring this long anticipated and much needed project which also has the potential to create years worth of construction and construction related jobs closer to reality. Now I think it's important to provide a little bit of context for this bill in 2005 the United States Navy identified approximately 4,972 acres of the former inland area of the Concord Naval Weapon Station as surplus to the needs of the federal government in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990.
To put the size of this project into perspective the capital park here in Sacramento is 40 acres in size. The project will be the size of over 100 capital parks the city of Concord is the local reuse authority for the base closure process the LRA has executed legally binding agreements approved by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide four sites totaling 16 acres for permanently supportive housing and 10 acres for local food bank expansion within the former CNWS Concord Naval Weapon Station. In 2010 after a multi year process with substantial public input the City certified an environmental impact report under CEQA and adopted the Concord Naval Weapon Station Reuse Plan.
Speaker 32
In 2012, the City adopted an addendum to the EIR and approved the Area Plan incorporating the Reuse Plan's policies and goals into the City's General Plan and establishing a Land Use Plan that would transform formal naval weapons storage facilities into mixed use transit oriented and sustainable community. The Navy completed National Environmental Policy Act, we know as NEPA, environmental review for the disposal and reuse based on the area plan and issued a Record of Decision in 2017. Now although redevelopment of the Concord Naval Web Station has undergone nearly two decades of land use planning and substantial environmental review under the under CEQA and NEPA, as well as the federal based closure and realignment disposition process, implementation of the Area Plan will require multiple future discretionary development approvals over many years. Without procedural streamlining, the risk of serial sequel litigation and administrative record delays will create uncertainty that undermines the timely delivery of housing, jobs, infrastructure and planned environmental and economic benefits of the City Of Concord and the East Bay Region. SB eleven forty five will facilitate implementation of the Area Plan by leveraging the Federal Base Closure and Realignment Disposition process along with extensive CEQA and NEPA review already completed for the Concord Naval Episcopation for qualifying projects that, among other things, maintain 25% affordability and have labor agreements that fall within the primary development parameters already analyzed in those documents.
Speaker 2
SB eleven forty five does not exempt qualifying CNWS projects from review and oversight. It leverages review and oversight already completed for the Concord Naval Weapon Station. The bill is supported by the City Of Concord as well as Contra Costa County along with Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council, the District Council of Iron Workers of the State of California and Vicinity, and the Sheet Metal Workers Local Union one hundred and four. And with that, we have some testimony today through the chair. I'll have that witness self introduce.
Speaker 14
Good morning. Thank you, Senator Grayson. That was very good. So chairs, members, thank you for the opportunity to speak on SB eleven forty five. I'm Josh Roden here on behalf of the Conqueror Naval Weapons Redevelopment, or CNWS, a project that is already fully within the Concord city limits and expressly included in the city's general plan.
Speaker 20
Environmental review under CECO is completed as part of the area plan's inclusion in that general plan, providing a strong and thorough planning foundation. CNWS is a 10,000 construction job and 16,000 permanent job creating project, consistent with priorities of BRAC properties. It includes a project labor agreement with building trades and carpenters, ensuring quality jobs with strong workforce standards. Beyond employment, the project delivers substantial community benefits, including eight eighty acres of parks and open space within the redevelopment area, on top of the 2,500 acres dedicated to East Bay Regional Parks District. Dollars 2,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and public amenities.
Critically, the 25% of the 12,272 planned homes in the area plan are affordable, and 16 acres are dedicated to permanent supportive housing, directly advancing California's housing and equity goals, housing over 30,000 new residents. SB eleven forty five provides the CEQA and Surplus Lands Act certain needed to move forward with a project that has already undergone extensive public planning while preserving environmental protections and community commitments. For these reasons, we urge you to support SB eleven forty five. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. We're now going to move on to others who are in support of SB eleven forty five. Please come forward. Give your name and organization and where you stand.
Speaker 6
Good morning. Michelle Welkava on behalf of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in support of SB eleven forty five.
Speaker 8
Good morning, Madam Chair, committee members. Robert Cooks, Chief Medical Workers, Local one hundred four in support.
Speaker 23
Good morning, Madam Chair, members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Habitat for Humanity, California, Spur, Circulate Planning and Policy, and Abundant Housing Los Angeles. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Good morning. Erica Valentine, UA local three nine three, representing thirty one hundred members, plumbers, pipe fitters, steam fitters in support. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Good morning. Jason Lester, local one five nine, plumbers and steam fitters representing over 500 members, Stand in support. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Good morning, and committee members. Rachel Schumak with IVW Local three zero two in Contra Costa County here representing over 1,300 electrical workers in support. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Good morning, madam chair and committee members. Eric Michinski, business manager of UA Local three ninety three, plumbers, pipe fitters, and HVAC service techs, in support.
Speaker 7
morning, madam chair and committee members. Tim Sobrante, Contra Costa Building Construction Trades Council representing 20 affiliates, 35,000 members here in support. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Good morning. I'm with the Heat and Frost Insulators, Local sixteen, and we're in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Good morning. Jason Lindsay, Iron Workers, Local three seventy eight in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Good morning. David Calderon, Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local three Northern California in support.
Speaker 7
Good morning, senators. Matt Cremins on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers and Operating Engineers Local three in strong support.
Speaker 22
Madam chair members, Mike Monaghan, behalf of state building trades, I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the sender's perseverance in pursuing this project. We're in strong support.
Speaker 17
Eddie Alvarez, LAOC Building Trades, support my sisters and brothers in the North. Thank you very much.
Speaker 7
Good morning, Madam Chair, committee members. Chuck Leonard, plumbers and steamfitters, Local three forty two, representing over 4,000 members in Contra Costa County. We are in full support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing none, anyone in opposition to SB eleven forty five please come forward.
Speaker 2
morning, Chair and members. My name is J. T. Herichmak, Policy Director from the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California. I want to start by thanking the committee staff who've worked on this measure a lot with us.
Speaker 26
I also want to thank the author for his continued perseverance on this project and the conversations that we have had on this. We are encouraged by the process here, but we still remain here with concerns, which I will go over. On behalf of a coalition that includes the East Bay Housing Organizations where this project is based, the Public Interest Law Project and San Diego Housing Federation were respectfully opposed unless amended. This bill gives the Concord Naval Weapons Station a blanket exclusion from the Surplus Land Act which removes both the accountability tracking and the penalties for non compliance. It's a carve out that no other major exemption gets without accountability for these outcomes.
Since 2021, the Land Act has helped create over 37,000 homes statewide, including 23,000 deed restricted affordable homes. Changing the SLA's enforcement backstop for these sites undermines one of our most effective tools at a time when 180,000 Californians are experiencing homelessness on any given night. The legislature has consistently held that any exemption from the SLA must include a minimum number of affordable units with penalties for non compliance in AB 129 for Chula Vista, AB seventeen thirty four for Los Angeles, AB2319 for qualifying bases, but SB1145 breaks from that principle and gives Concord special status. So we have asked the committee to require a minimum number of affordable units be built and require that the affordable provisions be backstopped with requirements for compliance. We support the CEQA exemption that they are asking for in this bill and we believe that there is a path forward to work on this.
We are eager to work with them on a solution and to build a lot of successful housing here. Thank you.
Speaker 28
Morning, Chair and members. Brian Augusta on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project, also in the opposing less amended position. We too want to join our friends in labor in supporting this bill and supporting this important project so they can deliver both good paying jobs and affordable housing, but do so in a way that ensures that we have an enforceable obligation once this measure leaves the legislature to ensure we deliver those units and those jobs, but also to ensure that we do not create a precedent that will undermine the important work of the SLA. It remains our concern that as my colleague just noted, unlike other bills, including those that are listed in the analysis that have exemptions, this one sits outside the SLA as opposed to being one within the SLA that then brings with it all the enforceable obligations of the SLA and provides an important check to make sure, again, that once we leave this legislature, this multi phase project continues to honor the commitments that have been made in this body. And so we're just beginning conversations with the author who we consider a good friend.
Speaker 17
We've had assurances that we are on the same path, but we remain strongly concerned that we must have a project that is within the exempt surplus provisions of the SLA that ensure that we have those affordability provisions excuse me, enforceability provisions. And if for some reason this is the first project that this legislature or first exemption that this legislature has approved that would need to sit outside the SLA that we ensure that we have that enforceability. And we look forward to having that conversation with the legislature and hopefully with you and your staff as this bill continues to move. So for those reasons we remain opposed but look forward to continuing conversations. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Anyone else in opposition to SB eleven forty five? Please step up. Nope. Nobody? Okay.
Questions and comments from the
Speaker 7
Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator, thank you for your many years of work to try to move this project forward. I mean, this is a multi decade process. And I appreciate you bringing this forward to provide some flexibility to make sure that this project can move forward and actually meet the affordability and project labor agreement requirements that the developer and the city have imposed on this project, which are significant. And I just want to call attention to the amendments and thank the chair and the committee for the work on the amendments, which do require the affordable housing and labor standards and add HCD oversight to ensure that they're meeting the affordability standards.
And I think that's an important change, which I hope gets closer to addressing some of the concerns that you've expressed, because we want to make sure that we get that affordable housing as we're getting this very transformative project for Concord. So I really appreciate the author working to find kind of an reporting and accountability mechanism, but to ensure that there's sufficient flexibility so that this project can move forward and happy to move the bill at the appropriate time. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Thank you very much. I'll be supporting your bill today. I think what this whole issue, I mean, you have all these people that have to come in here. You have a project that makes perfectly good sense in every respect. And yet we have to have legislation to be able to get around some of the inflexibility of the Surplus Land Use Act to do something that is common sense for an administrator of an agency.
You have stumbled upon the angst my angst about ACD and the Surplus Land Use Act. Currently it's being used to put like a square peg in a round hole and we have to go to legislation for somebody to fix that and a lot of times that legislation is based on picking and choosing projects. That inflexibility needs to be addressed so that we don't have to do this circus every time this issue comes up with public land and really good projects. Currently in one of my cities the surplus land act is being used to try to force apartments on a civic center, in the middle of a civic center. And HCD's response is well we do you know that's the law.
That needs to change. So I appreciate the work that you have had to put into this. I think the fact that you have this has taken so many years like my colleague has said down there to do something and get to this point that they probably had already planned many, many years ago points to the fact that there are some things that we need to address and fix so that we still accomplish some of the goals that were envisioned when they developed the Surplus Land Use Act. But at the same time we instill some common sense into the project or into the process because that process when we're talking about affordability that at the end of the day that's what that's what suffers. That's one of those things that nobody thinks about that drives the unaffordability process for California.
So thanks for your perseverance on it and allowing me to get my frustrations out about this the surplus land use act and its detrimental effect that we can't seem to do anything about and it's really frustrating for communities and it's frustrating for people that represent them. Thanks.
Speaker 18
Anybody else comment or questions? Well, I'm you know, want to kudos and thank you for being so persistent as someone said and for working on these issues and for your commitment to the issues. Affordable housing is something that's very important that comes through the SLA and also things like labor provisions, labor standards. So I'm very grateful that those are included and from what I hear of my friends on the housing side also feel like we're moving in the right direction to address the concern that this won't be changed in the future, right? Because it's one thing to give a commitment now and I trust in you, you're a good friend and I really enjoy and respect working with you, but something could happen in the future and then what happens to that 25% affordable housing that we're so excited about.
Speaker 1
So that's what I think we're all working on, we're all concerned about and I feel very good that we're going to get there, keep going in the right direction. Okay? With that, call the vote. Oh, closing room.
Speaker 2
Madam Chair, I must and I don't know if I can articulate adequately my gratefulness to you and to committee staff for the incredible work that you've been able to help guide and give us the suggestions that we need and the amendments that are so vitally important. Thank you to this committee and any opportunity I have to provide Senator C. Artel therapy. I'll be more than happy to come back and talk about HCD some more. All right, thank you.
With that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 4
The motion is due passed to the Committee on Environmental Quality. Senator Zarazzo? Aye. Zarazzo, aye. Choi?
Aye. Choi, aye. Arrigine? Aye. Arrigine, aye.
Ashby? Aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes?
Aye. Laird? Aye. Cervantes? Cervantes?
Cervantes?
Speaker 1
No, that's consent. Oh, that's the first one. Sorry. Senator Weiner, please welcome. Good morning.
Windows. Now you're in the window business.
Speaker 27
It's the beauty of being in legislature. I'm working on all these different important issues.
Speaker 1
Okay. Senator Weiner, you're presenting on SB nine zero eight. You may proceed.
Speaker 27
Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair and members. I'm here to present Senate Bill nine zero eight to ensure that people can choose what windows to have in their homes and can choose to weatherize those windows and reduce their energy bills without micromanagement by cities or HOAs. I accept the committee's amendments, and I very much appreciate the chair and committee staff working with us, and so thank you for that. So this bill is overdue. It streamlines the permit process for energy code compliant windows for residential window replacements, and restricts cities and HOA's ability to add costly additional requirements beyond those that are needed for energy efficiency standards.
We have seen over and over again residents, whether it's someone with a home or perhaps a landlord for an apartment building that wants to replace the windows with weatherized windows to lower costs and to make sure that homes can be appropriately cooled or heated. And they are told no, you can't do it because it doesn't meet whatever design standard. And if you want to do it, you have to fabricate basically fake historic windows that are dramatically more expensive. While I am someone who I've supported historic preservation in San Francisco, we always, in my view, need to do it in a balanced way that also acknowledges that people live in these homes, and, the cost of living is through the roof, and people should have the power to lower their energy bills. So I respectfully ask for an I vote.
And with me today to testify is Sam Moss, Executive Director of Mission Housing Development Corporation.
Speaker 10
Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks, Senator Weiner, Madam Chair and Council. I appreciate the opportunity to come here today. I'm Sam Moss.
I'm the executive director of Mission Housing Development Corporation. We are the oldest nonprofit affordable housing developer in San Francisco, Been around for about fifty five years. We have over 2,000 units and about 4,000 tenants in San Francisco. And I am also asking for an I vote today. I think a lot of people don't realize how old a lot of nonprofit affordable housing developers building stock is.
Speaker 12
We write newspaper articles about new construction and the groundbreakings, but the majority of what we have are decades and decades old. Mission Housing recently rehabbed the five oldest formerly public housing buildings in San Francisco. Two of them were over 100 years old, two buildings. And as Senator Wiener alluded, we had to fabricate historical windows in those buildings instead of just buying energy efficient, cost effective, great new windows. The planning department in San Francisco cannot tell you why they think this, but they think that we shouldn't be allowed to have vinyl windows facing the street.
Speaker 10
That's not a written law. That's just discretionary, opinion. And I know that this kind of bill can seem simultaneously like a no brainer and also important, but it's when when you at the state lead and and and and say, Enough. Let's be efficient. Let's be efficient with our money and our time, it really matters at the local level.
It empowers affordable housing developers to say that's great, you planner, think we should fabricate, you know, new windows that look like they're 150 years old, but what if instead we save 15% to 20%, and we spend that money on resident services, social safety net? The money that we spend to not have energy efficient or vinyl windows comes directly out of things like money for food pantry and help with job help creation, mental and physical health services. And so, as I've said, I'm asking for an aye vote and I appreciate you letting me be here today to speak.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Appreciate your appreciate all your work as a nonprofit developer affordable housing. Yes. All others who are in support of SB nine zero eight.
Speaker 28
Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. We represent for profit and nonprofit as well as single family owners who are facing this in homeowner association. So we respectfully ask for
Speaker 15
Madison Vander Clay on behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition Action Fund in strong support.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of SB nine zero eight? Seeing none, all those oppose SB nine zero eight? Anybody in here in opposition? No?
Seeing none. Questions or comments from the dais? The bill has been moved by senator Ashby. Senator Weiner, you no. Your question?
Okay. Senator Choi.
Speaker 5
I wonder if your bill is restricted to the San Francisco area or entire state.
Speaker 27
No. The for existing buildings, it's the entire state. Under the committee amendment for new construction, it's San Francisco. But this generally comes up with window replacements, and that's the entire state.
Speaker 5
Window replacement for existing homes will be mandated by the state law by this bill.
Speaker 27
So no, it doesn't require homeowners to do anything. This empowers homeowners. If a homeowner chooses to change its their his or her windows to be more weather energy efficient, they will this will empower them to do that so that a city or HOA can't tell them, no, you're not allowed to do that. You have to keep paying high bills. So this gives more ability to homeowners to make those choices for themselves.
Speaker 5
Isn't this more of a local jurisdiction based upon their environment and that community needs appearance? They they should know better than one blanket regulation all over the state.
Speaker 20
I mean, that's certainly one perspective. And we normally design standards. Cities have typically broad latitude to enact design standards, but there are situations where state law, if you have a design standard that makes it impossible, for example, to build housing, then that can be overridden by state law, it sometimes is. So typically, cities have broad latitude and design standards unless it's undermining a state policy. And here, we want the energy people's energy bills are too high.
Speaker 27
I believe that Republicans and Democrats both tend to agree on that. And there this is a way that people can choose to lower their energy costs, and they should be allowed to do so. And that's, we believe, should be a matter of statewide policy.
Speaker 5
If if I'm a renter, will I have an option to replace my window to save my energy bills?
Speaker 27
That would be the typically, the owner of the building would decide, as they do with various aspects of the building, and landlord may decide that they want to weatherize their windows to lower costs. If the renter is if it some renters pay their own electric bill, some don't. If they pay their own electric bill, it would lower their it would lower their bill. But that would be a choice of the owner of the building.
Speaker 5
Seems like this is which is the micromanaging everything that we do locally that can be done from the state. This is always my struggle when I review certain policies like this in this committee.
Speaker 27
Thank you. Appreciate that. I actually think it's micromanagement when a city tells a homeowner that you're not allowed to weatherize your window. That to me is micromanagement, but I understand what you're saying.
Speaker 1
Any other questions or comments? Okay, see none. Senator Weiner, you want to
Speaker 4
The motion is due passed to the committee on housing. Senator D'Arrozzo? Aye. D'Arrozzo, aye.
Speaker 4
Troy, no. Aragine? Ashby? Transparency. Ashby, I.
Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, I. Lair? Serato?
31.
Speaker 1
Senator Hurtado, you're here to present SB eleven seventy two. You may proceed.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning to, members of the committee. I'm here to present SB eleven seventy two, the local tax savings act. I would like to start off by thanking the chair and committee staff for working closely with my office and the bill sponsors. Due to timing, I will be accepting amendments outlined in the committee analysis during the next policy committee. SB eleven seventy two is about saving taxpayer money at the local level.
It's about fairness. It's about accountability and protecting the communities that can least afford to lose. Across California, local governments rely on tax sharing agreements as a tool to attract economic development. But when those agreements are structured without clear guardrails, they can end up doing the opposite, diverting critical tax dollars away from the very communities they are meant to support. In the city of Shafter, a small Central Valley community in my district, local leaders worked in good faith to bring in economic opportunity.
Speaker 25
But instead of seeing the full benefit of that growth, significant portions of their local tax revenue were redirected through consultant agreements that lack transparency and reasonable limits. For a community like Shafter, where every dollar matters, that means fewer resources for public safety, infrastructure, and basic services. It means residents who already feel like they've gotten the short end of the stick are left wondering whether the system is really, you know, working for them. What happened in chapter should not happen anywhere else. S.
Speaker 30
P. Eleven seventy two takes a balanced and reasonable approach. It does not eliminate tax sharing agreements or local control. Instead, it puts in place reasonable caps on consultant compensation and requires full transparency so that decisions are made in the open and with accountability. By aligning incentives with genuine economic development, we ensure that public dollars are actually reinvested back into the communities that generate them as they're intended to do.
With this bill, we are making sure that small and rural communities, and really communities across California have confidence that their government is safeguarding their taxpayer dollars and not being cheated in any kind of way by allowing them to be quietly siphoned away. SB eleven seventy two ensures that economic development works for our communities and not against them. And with me today, I have Chris McKaylee, who is representing the City of Shafter.
Speaker 18
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. As the Senator noted, Chris McKaylee here on behalf of the City of Shafter, the proud sponsor of SB eleven seventy two, and we thank our Senator for carrying the legislation, and as she indicated, your staff in particular working with us to refine this measure, and of course the author has accepted those committee proposed amendments. As the Senator indicated, this bill is prospective in nature, so it doesn't affect any existing or pre existing sales tax sharing agreements, which does have some benefit in terms of the agreements themselves. But here, the emphasis is on placing so called guardrails, particularly on the amount and the duration of these consultant agreements, so that ultimately those dollars are used and benefited by the local jurisdictions such as the city of Shafter and others.
So, we respectfully ask you for your aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone else here in support of SB eleven seventy two?
Speaker 19
Good morning. Ben Trevo with the League of California Cities in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to SB eleven seventy two?
Seeing none. Questions or comments from the dais? Nope. Can we have a motion then? Wait, wait.
Yeah. Motion. Senator Cervantes. Senator Ortizo, you may wrap up.
Speaker 4
The motion is due passed to the committee on revenue and taxation. Senator Gerozzo?
Speaker 1
Let me just hear real front since I'm nuts. That bill is four-zero on call, remains on call. We now move on to Senator Cervantes who is here to present SB thirteen seventy nine. You may proceed.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members for allowing me to present SB thirteen seventy nine today, which would separate the Riverside County Sheriff Coroner in separate offices and establish an independent medical examiner. I want to begin by accepting the committee's proposed amendments on Page four of the committee analysis and thank your staff for all their work. SB thirteen seventy nine is an attempt to fix a broken system in my home county of Riverside. At its core, the goal of this bill is simple. When an individual dies in custody, in custody jail, the family and the public deserves transparency and the truth in a timely manner.
Speaker 11
This bill is limited and targeted in scope and seeks to address a specific and serious situation happening in Riverside County. In 2024, a Cal matters investigation into deaths of individuals in custody in Riverside County jails concluded, and I quote, some of the state's deadliest jails are in Riverside County, and forty five people have died in lockup since 01/01/2021. In 2025 article in the New York Times said that the number of deaths in Riverside County jails from 2020 to 2023, and I quote, made the county system the second deadliest jail in the nation during that period. This bill is about restoring public trust, protecting the rights of families of the deceased, and ensuring that every death is investigated with independence, transparency, and medical expertise. In some cases, deaths involving trauma or neglect have been classified as natural or undetermined, raising concerns about investigative integrity.
Speaker 6
Right now, Riverside County, the same department that may be responsible for the death of a person in custody is also responsible for investigating and determining the cause of death. This is why this is what we know. Between 2020 Between twenty eleven twenty twenty two. There has been 2,226 in-depth in Riverside County. During that same period, ten percent of all in custody deaths in California occurred in Riverside, despite only 6% of the state's population residing there.
We also see concerning demographic disparities, including from 2005 to twenty twenty four, forty three percent of the deaths were among Latinos, which is higher than the statewide share of thirty two percent In addition, we see disproportionate numbers of deaths among young adults during that same period in Riverside County, twenty four percent of individuals who died in custody were were of the age of 24 to 34. Despite the statewide share being fifteen percent of individuals who died in custody were age 35 to 44. The share in Riverside County was twenty two percent, which is higher than the statewide share of seventeen percent. These are not just numbers, but behind every statistic is a family waiting for answers that are often never answered, they never come. Families are left navigating a system where they cannot access timely information and questions question the accuracy of findings.
That leaves them with no option but to seek justice through the courts. This has led to nearly $100,000,000 in settlements due to in custody deaths and have been that have been paid by Riverside County taxpayers over the last decade. This is reflective not just a financial cost to taxpayers, but a system failure in the county. As mentioned, the problem of Riverside County is not newly discovered. The epidemic of in custody deaths has been investigated by press outlets like Cal Matters, the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times.
I'm aware that the county has published its own report regarding this issue. However, having the county investigate and audit its own system that governs in custody deaths, it's a bit like having the fox guard the henhouse. This is why a report by academics, including Professor Nicholas Shapiro at UCLA said, and I quote, Riverside County's decision to conduct the audit internally may have undermined the quality and integrity of the audit if the county's evaluators were less inclined to identify shortcomings of their share corner office, as doing so may reflect poorly on the office and the county Or raised internal conflict, end quote. Community organizations, including Riverside Sheriff's Accountability Coalition, have demanded structural change, including separating the office of sheriff and coroner. SB thirteen seventy nine responds directly to that call.
This bill takes a targeted practical approach that will require Riverside County to separate the sheriff and the coroner office, establish an independent medical examiner, and implement timely reporting requirements for in custody deaths, and improve reporting for transparency purposes. This is a proven model that has been used throughout our state. Major California counties like Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Ventura have independent medical examiners. Three additional counties in you, in your Sacramento, San Mateo have separate offices of sheriff and coroner. These jurisdictions demonstrate that independent medical examiner systems can improve accuracy, strengthen public trust, and facilitate medically informed decisions.
The current system in Riverside County is not only unjust, but also costly. We cannot stand idle by and allow the status quo in our county to remain in place. This bill ensures that when someone dies in custody in Riverside County, their death is not investigated by the same broken system that held the lives in their hands in the first place. We owe the families the truth. We owe our communities accountability and transparency, and we owe taxpayers a system that they can trust.
I respectfully ask for your I vote on SB thirteen seventy nine.
Speaker 7
George Bramathew on behalf of ACLU California Action in support. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4
Good morning, Madam Chair, members. Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. No one else? Seeing no one else, anyone here in opposition to SB thirteen seventy nine? Good morning. Welcome.
Speaker 4
Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in opposition to the bill. The current Sheriff Corner model utilized by choice by a vast majority of California counties, 48 of the 58, enjoys the benefit of operational and budgetary efficiency. Separating these offices will remove investigative efficiencies and drastically increase county costs unnecessarily by requiring the county to stand up a separate corner office. From a governance perspective, the bill is heavy handed and disregards local control.
Speaker 31
Existing law already very clearly permits counties to pursue multiple models of county office consolidation and separation. In other words, counties have this authority and they know how to use it. Just a few years ago, San Joaquin County faced this exact question and they created their own Office of the Independent Medical Examiner. In fact, in late twenty twenty three, and I hope I'm not stealing any thunder from my colleague here, but the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, as the author noted, directed its executive office to evaluate separating the coroner's bureau from the sheriff's department. Having done that, the executive office communicated the following to the board and I quote, as a result of an extensive evaluation, the executive office has reached the conclusion, the negative impacts of separating the coroner's bureau and or public administrator from the sheriff's department significantly outweigh the perceived benefit and would not be in the best interest in the community.
So who wants this? The board of supervisors not listed in support. In fact, there's no entities listed in support in the analysis. We just heard from two groups. There have been legislative attempts to separate sheriff and coroner offices, and they've been routinely defeated and or vetoed.
There's plenty of oversight and ways to deal with perceived conflict that don't require the legislature to impose its will on a county that has asked and answered this question. This is a solution in search of a problem and is a decision best left to the sound discretion of local officials who have budget authority and relevant local experience. So for these reasons, we're respectfully opposed to SB thirteen seventy nine.
Speaker 32
Good morning, chair and committee. My name is Julio Deliano. I'm a lieutenant with the Riverside County Sheriff's Office and here in opposition. Riverside County already studied this exact issue through the formal executive officer report adopted by the Board of Supervisors as mentioned previously. The conclusion was clear.
Separation would be more costly, less efficient, and not in the best interest of our community. The bill overrides that local decision making process. Five elected supervisors and a countywide elected sheriff have already evaluated and rejected this particular structure that's being proposed today. SB 3,079 substitutes that with a state mandate on a single county. This is not a statewide policy.
It is a targeted legislation. That raises serious concerns about precedent and local control. If Sacramento can restructure one county's operation, it can do the same to others. The legislature already addressed this the stated concerns raised by the author through AB eleven oh eight that was passed year. Counties are actively implementing those requirements right now, and SB thirteen seventy nine layers on additional mandates before that policy has even been fully implemented or evaluated.
Speaker 21
We have done extensive research and extensive outreach on specifically this issue, AB eleven oh eight, and we are developing policy right now to address those concerns over perceived conflict of interest. The county's findings are not theoretical. Separation increased costs due to duplication of services. It creates more bureaucracy and less efficiency, and it disrupts integrated operations, including the public administrator function that we operate as well. These decisions should be operational and local in nature.
Speaker 32
They require flexibility based on county size, infrastructure, and resources. One size fits all does not fit in this circumstance, and one county this one county approach obviously doesn't approach this either. With those, we respectfully ask for your no vote.
Speaker 1
Anyone else in opposition to SB thirteen seventy nine? Please come forward. Seeing none. Okay. Questions or comments from the dais?
Senator Laird?
Speaker 9
Thank you. First, I appreciate you bringing the bill forward to focus on this issue, and I think it's difficult in some ways in that I actually agree with the argument that this should not be a precedent. I do not want people to automatically assume in the other 40 odd counties that we were going to consider doing this, but I think the in custody death level that has existed in Riverside County really mitigates for this. And when it's like, oh, it's more cost efficient, and yet there have been $100,000,000 of taxpayer funds spent on settlements is not a cheaper thing. That is really much more expensive.
And as somebody that worked on and off for a county for twenty five years, I really appreciate the efficiency of the coroner being part of the sheriff's department, but I think this is an exceptional circumstance, and it warrants the passage of this bill, and at the appropriate time, I will be willing to move it if we we must have a quorum because I voted Yes,
Speaker 33
Senator, I understand your point clearly, but this notion of a state specifically picking up one county for the justifications that you have illustrated that in custody death rate is so high. To me, the death rate being high is a separate matter from the sheriff and the coroner to be separated because the coroner's job is to, to my understanding, is to identify the cause of the death after the death. So no matter how many, you know, two different people, the court the sheriff himself would not conduct the the body examination to determine the death of the cause. Obviously, there's a medical examiner who is an expert identifying the death cause of the death. Here, the five member county supervisors, they have reviewed it, and they chosen to stay as is.
Speaker 5
So I would rather focus on improving and finding out why they're in custody death rate is so high in Riverside and improving custody services and preventing such a high rate, exceptionally higher rate of death rate in custody in Riverside, that should be focused. But this is assuming that the separation of duties or independent body corner will improve or will reduce the situation, the the high rate of death. There's no guarantee as long as, the current practice of, the jail service, cost custody, service is not proper and inmates are treated the same as is. So and I understand that the Riverside County supervisors have decided not to separate the department. It's the other factor of the cost as this sheriff's department representatives have identified their reasons.
So I wonder why this is specific if the separation is such a good thing to implement that that should be universal entire fiftieth counties rather than targeting one specific county. So cost factor, local control, and uncertainty of improvement of the you know, that was so reducing the death rate of the inmates in the county jail by separation. No no guarantee as long as there's no no change in the custody services by sheriff's department. Having two individuals with a different title. One is a sheriff and one is a coroner.
I don't think there's a guarantee this death rate will all go down. How can you justify that?
Speaker 1
I'm sorry. I just need to interrupt for just one second. I need to go vote, to leave. So senator Choi will take over. Pardon
Speaker 1
Yeah. I have to present. I need to present. Yep, please. But I do think that there are some very valid points.
We don't want this decision being made in all for all, know, forty, fifty counties. We don't want that decision being made here. I think it is something that warrants a different approach than what has been done. So anyway
Speaker 6
And I may close. I could answer and respond to some of that, Madam Chair.
Speaker 6
So I want to directly respond to some of the things that were mentioned today, whether that is by the opposition or members of the committee. I don't know who believes that 100,000,000 in settlement is cost effective, first and foremost. And the California DOJ opened an ongoing civil rights investigation into the increase in deaths in custody. So that is ongoing, just to address that issue, Doctor. Choi.
Also, the department has assumed no responsibility for these deaths. And we do have a county board of supervisors that make up five members, of which try to do something at the local level. And all of us here are aware of the influence that the county sheriffs can have on county politics. And I think it's fair to characterize what happened in Riverside County as a county sheriff is using every tool in his disposal, politically or otherwise, to escape accountability for what has happened under his watch. Californians deserve a fair, unbiased, and transparent process, and this is what we're offering today, is to address the gross negligence, to bring transparency to the taxpayers of Riverside County who have longed asked for this.
And I respectfully ask for the committee's support in moving this bill forward.
Speaker 5
Motion has been made and then I consider that was your closing statement. Okay. The motion has been made. Any other member before we vote on? Okay.
Then clerk will please call the roll.
Speaker 4
The motion is due passed to the committee on public safety. Senator Zarazzo. Choi?
Speaker 4
Choi, no. Aragine? Aye. Aragine, aye. Ashby?
Aye. Ashby, aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye.
Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Cervantes? Four one, on call.
Speaker 5
Okay. We'll leave it open for absent members. Next one is which one? I'd like item 11. Senator Ashby, if you're ready.
Speaker 28
Colleagues Good chair. Okay. I'm here to present SB twelve eighty three, which is sponsored by the Electric Vehicle Charging Association. I'd like to start by committing to take the committee amendments, which will I think, actually be added in judiciary because of timing, right? But thank you to the chair and the excellent committee staff on local government for working with me on this important measure.
Very grateful. California has led the nation, we know this, in advancing clean transportation, including streamlining approvals for electric vehicle charging stations. However, there's an ambiguity in existing law that has prevented local governments from being able to streamline the approval of EV charging stations that have essential additions to them, like canopies and on-site energy storage systems, which is critical in certain areas of our state. As a result, the deployment of chargers is not keeping pace with the growing demand, which is creating an infrastructure gap, which we all know is one of the biggest hindrances to the state reaching its climate and transportation goals, infrastructure that is. So SB twelve eighty three expands an existing requirement for ministerial approval of EV charging stations to include these essential additions like canopies and on-site energy storage systems, and requires local governments to update their EV charging station ordinances by the 2027.
The bill will help accelerate EV infrastructure across the state and particularly in places where we need that storage system in order to provide the charging stations. This will make our transportation goals happen faster. We'll have easier, clearer, and more consistent approvals. I will respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time, and with me I have Reid Addis from the Electric Vehicle Charging Association as my key witness.
Speaker 19
There we go. Okay, thank you Chair and Members Read Addis on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association and strong support here today. The state has put in a thoughtful and comprehensive set of policies to help incentivize zero emission vehicles, make them affordable, make them ubiquitous across the state of California. You've done that through setting policies that promote the number of chargers on the ground. You've done that by putting out incentive programs, and as the Senator mentioned, you've also put out programs to help us with local government permitting.
Speaker 29
But we still have a long ways to go, and when some of these policies were adopted almost ten years ago, we just didn't know what kind of technologies we were going to be installing at the time. So, we think this is a practical fix to modernize, meet, if you will, the technology sophistication, that we're not just installing boxes on the ground, we're installing these chargers that actually do include solar panels, energy storage units with them, and the old policy didn't necessarily capture that. So, SB1283 provides a practical fix, It clarifies and streamline permitting applies not just to the charger itself, but to supporting infrastructure needed to make the project viable. Importantly, this bill does not weaken local authority on health and safety. Local governments still review projects to ensure they meet all applicable safety standards.
Speaker 19
What this bill does do is it ensures that once those standards are met, projects move forward in a predictable and timely manner. SB twelve eighty three helps deliver that. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Any other major witness such as one person? If not, are the other members in support come forward and state your name and organization in the support statement.
Speaker 19
Good morning. Lizzie Quanzona here on behalf of Tesla in support. Thank you.
Speaker 28
Good morning, Megan Murray on behalf of Electrify America in support. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Thank you, chair members. Chris Scroggin with Capital Abstee on behalf of ChargePoint in support.
Speaker 1
Morning. Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities. We are respectfully in opposition of twelve eighty three, first acknowledging the amendments that the author has taken and appreciate the analysis that committee consultants have made. We, however, have main concerns with core issues, which at the state level, policies like twelve eighty three are often framed in the abstract, streamlining, deployment, removing barriers, but cities operate in specifics, staff level, utility coordination, panel upgrades, safety risks, and this bill kind of widens that gap. Senate Bill twelve eighty three continues to require ministerial approval for infrastructure like canopies and complex on-site battery energy storage systems that demand engineering judgment and site specific review.
Speaker 34
The State Fire Marshal just adopted a suite of fire safety codes for battery energy storage systems and is still trying to grapple with the significant safety risks and equipment overheating and thermal runaway and all the other issues that are associated with it. By forcing these into a checklist driven process with rigid timelines, this bill limits the ability of local governments to ensure safe design and appropriate conditions for approval. In addition, Senate Bill twelve eighty three expands legal and financial liabilities while allowing construction to proceed without a permit. It's important to be clear who benefits. The structure or this framework primarily benefits the applicants in the charging industry.
By reducing review time, limiting local discretion, and shifting risk away from developers, That risk does not disappear. It's transferred directly to cities without the tools to manage it. In effect, this bill, Senate Bill twelve eighty three, reduces cost and uncertainty for private applicants, while increasing cost, legal exposure, and operational risk for local government, for those reasons we respectfully oppose.
Speaker 16
Good morning. Tracy Ryan with the rural County Representatives of California. Also, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, we'd like to align our comments with Cal cities in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 26
Very sorry. I missed it on the on the TV, but, Obed Franco, on behalf of, the California Electric Transportation Coalition in support of the bill. My apologies.
Speaker 5
No problem. Okay. Members, questions, and debate. Go ahead, Senator Levy.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. A few comments on this. And first, I appreciate you bringing to Bill. And when we had the 15 bill package and 12 senators on a climate working group in 2022, this was one of the items.
And the real issue is, with regard to the opportunity to charge in certain places in the state, there are charging deserts. And there are charging deserts, in many cases, in multi family locations, in disadvantaged communities, in a way that really impedes our ability to have the electric vehicle transition. And there were real attempts at the time, and even a bill in the package, to try to expedite just for the purposes of multifamily, and we couldn't get it all the way. I think this addresses that. With regard to the comments that were just made by Cal Cities, we are now experiencing, and I had you used the expression thermal runaway.
Speaker 27
I had a thermal runaway fire in my district that gained amazing headlines everywhere in the universe, and it was a cause for real concern. But what happened out of that is that technology was the original technology that doesn't exist, that we would not approve now if it were presented. And 75% of the battery storage that is industrial sized battery storage now in the state has shifted to being containerized outdoors, cement slabs, a different lithium mix. And yet, that fire has poisoned the well across the state for permitting, because people associate anything that might be in front of them with what happened there, even though the technology is different. And it means that out of that situation, a lot of these facilities will not be approved, and so there needs to be a way, and even though it's very controversial, and it's very controversial in my Senate district, the AB two zero five from whatever year that was, 2023, that allows for permitting to advance to the state for the larger ones has, in many ways, local officials are relieved by it because they might understand what is fair in this, but the political pressure is very difficult, and it advances to the state for that to happen.
Speaker 9
And so this bill is really needed. The one thing is that I do share some of the concerns about what some of the penalties might be, or what happens, but the next stop is in judiciary, and that is the logical place to address that. And so I am hoping, providing it gets out of here today, and I will support it, that there will be continued to be those conversations, because I know that with regard to local control, there needs to not be excessive penalties on this just to get people to do the right thing. And so I think that conversation will still continue to judiciary, but our statement today is whether or not we think this is a need that must be met, and I think it is. So at the appropriate time, I will be willing to move the bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to make comments.
Speaker 5
Okay. Any other? Senator elegans? Okay. Yes.
I will support this one even though originally I had some concerns in that EV is something we've been promoting and by was 2035, no gasoline vehicles will be allowed to be sold. So that means we have only practically one option. That's electrical vehicles that's operated by electricity and infrastructure for charging stations. So that's essential. You know, especially, I'm concerned about the rural areas where not sufficient chargers are available, then, you know, it'll be scary when I first time tested.
That was my concern. You know, where can I find the charging station? Just like a gas stations everywhere, then you don't have to worry about it. So by providing the enough charging stations, I think that's an essential effort. And then I hope this will enhance that opportunities.
But my concern is that as far as local opposition concerns, the liability will be placed upon the local governments. But in the initial statement, even though this is once the standard is met, then it it shall move forward. And additional approval approval process will be done by the local governments. But I don't know whether that was a different kind of authority that you are talking about. And senator Ashley Esme is talking about.
So if you can clarify or redefine your question why you feel you are afraid that your liability will be placed upon the local government?
Speaker 34
Thank you for the question. Yeah, I think the version of the bill that we're reading now has legal liabilities to allow a project to proceed if deemed ministerially approved without a permit. And if an applicant feels the timelines are stringent or not being recognized, they can now sue that local municipality, and in addition to this new private right of action, can collect attorney fees and expert fees associated with that. That invites litigation. That invites legal exposure and additional costs to the taxpayers.
Speaker 28
Sure. So I think we're conflating two issues here. One is what are the building inspectors and local government's components? And so in local government, which is what we're here discussing today, this committee has job of talking to the building inspectors, as has my team, as has our sponsor. And we believe that the bill does not create any safety hazard from a building and construction standpoint because as you have rightfully pointed out Senator Choi and as Senator Laird stated, it really gives the cities the same approval standard.
Speaker 36
If a project is deemed hazardous, or they pick a spot that doesn't seem safe, the local government still has the opportunity to say that's not a safe, or that's a hazard, and not move forward with the construction of these sites. So that piece is not changing because of this bill. However, here's the conflation. I think what I'm really hearing is a concern about how a case can be brought, and what the judicial component and litigation piece of this is. This committee and I talked about that and I think we all agree as Senator Laird has stated that is a judiciary committee issue, which many of us in here sit on, and I'll be happy to talk about it.
Speaker 28
Then very open to talking about how we set up the component of making sure that this piece of the bill does move forward. That being said, we can talk about how litigation proceeds when we get to judiciary. It's an important component of the bill, but it will happen in the next committee. I think the other thing I would say about this is it's really important to note that while you're hearing from the cities and counties today, they're going to be the primary beneficiaries of this bill. Because there are places, as you have so correctly stated, in this state that we can't build unless we add this piece.
So the folks that, particularly rural areas, areas where we need to collect, where we need to have that solar awning, that's who's going to benefit from this. So I do reject a little bit here who the primary beneficiaries are. The primary beneficiaries are people in the state of California who have electric vehicles and want to have a surety that they can charge throughout the state of California. That's who benefits from this bill. And Senator Laird could not be more spot on that this piece was left out previously because technology wasn't there.
But it is now, so it's appropriate to come back and put this piece in.
Speaker 5
Okay. To make local governments happy, do you have a rebuttal to that answer?
Speaker 34
I think the I appreciate that, and I think the real barrier that's being identified here is not local government permitting review. That it's private investment. If there are EV owners and they're concerned about range anxiety and where to charge, it's not because local municipalities are not permitting quick enough. It's because there's a lack of investment in that space. There may not be a return on investment that the industry feels is appropriate to invest and put in chargers there.
So that would be my push back.
Speaker 28
Well, let me just respond to that. I mean, many of us have come from local government. I spent twelve years sitting on Sacramento City Council. There's nothing in this that says that the governments have to pay for these. All we're doing is making it easier for those who do want to invest there.
So that's sort of a circular faulty argument. People invest where they believe they can, and I served in local government long enough to know that you find me a developer who doesn't think that our process isn't streamlined enough, and I will sell you a unicorn.
Speaker 9
Just a brief addition because of what came up in the discussion. I failed to note the bill I did last year that reflects on this because out of the battery storage fire, we now have in law fire department participation at every point in the process. In the design, permitting, and operation, we now have lithium safety standards in the building code so local governments don't have to struggle over that. That's in there to do. And there were other things about not building in combustible buildings and other things.
But it was precisely because interestingly, the Moss Landing plant that had the thermal runaway was totally locally approved. That was not a state approval. And yet, the state did not give locals tools in safety standards or fire involvement or other things to be able to take that off the table so they would feel some comfort level in doing it, and that is a backdrop to this bill and what it is. Thanks for letting me add that.
Speaker 5
Okay. Thank you, Senator. I have additional question to the author. Sure. That is regarding the canopy and battery storage units.
Mhmm. Your bill is requiring them in there?
Speaker 28
Doesn't require them. Just allows them if it's necessary as part of the essential construction of a charging station based on the area.
Speaker 5
Why why why electric charger system uses regular current rather than relying upon the battery? Why are we talking about the battery storage just in case the main power line goes off?
Speaker 28
Yeah, because not all areas are the same, but the witness could probably explain to you a little bit better.
Speaker 19
Yeah, thank you, chair. Reid Adas on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association. I think you mentioned, Senator, in some of your comments that there are parts of the State of California where you're more rural. Some of these systems, while they also operate in an urban setting perfectly appropriately, in the rural communities, sometimes the grid doesn't quite suffice to allow the type of units to be installed, both a combination of a solar canopy with an on-site energy storage allows you to retain as much energy on there and allows you to charge as many vehicles as possible. So, as the Senator mentioned, this is not a mandate, but a lot of our technologies are including this, and we think it's useful and increases reliability across
Speaker 5
the The storage unit is for the areas where there's no electricity grid.
Speaker 19
Yeah, many cases it'll store the actual solar power into that unit there on-site when
Speaker 5
it's I not being wonder if the battery power runs out, do you take it to recharge it to the place where it can be charged?
Speaker 19
I'm not an expert on all the technologies, but I think for the most part, it usually is that technology is not the way you're not taking the battery away and charging it. You're actually the solar
Speaker 5
battery So there's no electricity greed to recharge for the times. I I thought that that'll be backup unit, but it's you sound like that should be these main supply power power source.
Speaker 28
I think it could be either one, Senator Troy, depends on the location. The point is, if you are in the heart of Sacramento, you don't need that. You can plug into our grid. We have SMUD, which I love to brag about on a routine basis and as many committees as possible. So why not local gov?
In SMUD you're not going to have a problem. Very unlikely that you're going to have a power outage. But if you're, you know, up in the North, you're traveling to see Senator Dolly and you're in Bieber, going to be a little bit less reliable grid. And there may be and by the way, also the place you don't want to break down is going be a really long time before somebody can get to you. So in areas like that where we're able to capture solar energy, store it on-site, and use that to, you know, get vehicles farther across the state.
It's a very helpful technology. This isn't mandatory, but it will allow that technology in areas where currently we don't have a strong enough grid system to support it.
Speaker 28
It might also be used as a backup somewhere. There might be a place that's so busy that they want to have a backup, or where they find that they could there's a cost efficiency to doing a backup. All of those things are possible, But the real beneficiaries are people who don't have a strong enough grid that we could use solar to capture for one site, for one purpose, for the cars.
Speaker 5
Now you answered the question. This is the power source will be primarily in that case from So, solar solar okay. With that, I think my question is all cleared. And anyone would like to the motion has been already made by Senator Lehrer. Clerk, go ahead.
Speaker 4
The motion is, do pass to the committee on judiciary, senators D'Arazo. Joy.
Speaker 4
Choi, Aye. Abigin. Aye. Abigin, Aye. Ashby, Aye.
Ashby, Aye. Cervantes, Aye. Cervantes, Aye. Laird, Sayarto. 40 on call.
Speaker 5
Number 9. Okay. I see senator Reyes for SB fourteen fourteen. If you are ready, we are ready. Welcome.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, for this opportunity to present SB1414. This bill would create an independent redistricting commission for San Bernardino County, ensuring that lines are drawn through a transparent process and not by those with a direct stake in the outcome. In 2008, the people of California overwhelmingly supported the creation of a statewide Citizens Redistricting Commission with the approval of Proposition 11. Independent Redistricting Commissions provide citizens with an opportunity to draw lines independent of those who would otherwise benefit.
Speaker 24
Without the Independent Commission, county supervisors could potentially draw boundaries that prioritize their re election instead of guaranteeing fair and equitable representation for their constituents. This model has been voted on by this body and implemented in counties like Riverside, Orange and San Luis Obispo. An independent redistricting commission would bring a proven, trusted model to San Bernardino County and will empower the over 2,200,000 people of San Bernardino County to reclaim their voting rights and strengthen our democracy. Here to testify in support are Savannah Jorgensen on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California and Darlene on behalf of Common Cause California.
Speaker 21
Good morning, chair and members. My name is Darlene Azami, and I'm here today on behalf of a coalition comprised of Common Cause California Inland Empire and the League of Women Voters of California. We're proud to support SB fourteen fourteen, your bill to establish an independent redistricting commission in San Bernardino County. SB fourteen fourteen is rooted in a simple principle that people should choose their representatives and not the other way around. Gerrymandering remains a persistent threat to that principle.
When those in power draw their own district lines, it can distort representation, entrench political advantage, and weaken public trust. That's why across the country and across the state of California, there's been movement to take the map drawing power out of the hands of politicians and place it with independent commissions. SB fourteen fourteen would ensure that supervisory lines are drawn through a process that's fair, transparent, and centered on people, not political self interest. It would help assure that communities are heard, communities of interest are respected, and district lines reflect the people that they serve. California is already a national leader in independent redistricting at both the state and local level, and these commissions have developed have delivered more balanced maps, and many counties across the state have adopted a similar model to this one.
Speaker 31
In a county of more than 2,200,000 people, the stakes are too high to leave redistricting in the hands of those with a direct interest in the outcome. And SB fourteen fourteen would put in place a process that the public can trust. While more communities are respected, voices are heard, and representation truly reflects the people. So for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your I vote on SB fourteen fourteen.
Speaker 35
Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. I'm Savannah Jorgensen here on behalf of the League of Women Voters California, proud cosponsors of SB fourteen fourteen. The league helped champion California's statewide citizens redistricting commission, which is now considered the gold standard for independent redistricting. We know what a well designed commission can do.
It improves compliance with the Voting Rights Act, increases representation for communities historically left out of the process, and builds the kind of public trust that makes government more legitimate. San Bernardino County residents have already shown they're ready for that. In the last redistricting cycle, local organizations submitted dozens of community of interest testimonies and even developed their own community drawn supervisorial maps. That's extraordinary civic engagement, but engagement alone isn't enough. You need a structure that ensures that work is actually reflected in the outcome.
And right now, that structure doesn't exist. Even a well intentioned board has an inherent conflict when its members control the lines that define their own seats. SB fourteen fourteen removes that conflict and puts the map drawing an independent body built for transparency and impartiality. A citizens commission insulated from political interference with meaningful opportunities for public participation built into the process, not bolted on after decisions are already made. SB fourteen fourteen does not just create a commission it structures a public process.
Speaker 5
It requires hearings before and after a draft map, countywide outreach, public access to data, and a written final report explaining why the Commission drew the map the way it did. In a county with the diversity and size of San Bernardino, the local work simply cannot remain left undone. The residents showed up. This bill gives them a process worthy of that effort. We urge your I vote.
Speaker 1
Anyone else in support of SB fourteen fourteen? No, nobody's coming up. Okay, seeing no one. Anyone in opposition to SB fourteen fourteen please come up. Good morning.
Speaker 29
Good morning, senators. I'm Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors here on behalf of San Bernardino County in respectful opposition to SB fourteen fourteen. I'd like to note that San Bernardino County has an existing advisory redistricting commission, which we feel has produced a supervisorial map through an extensive public process with, you know, extensive public input and feedback there. We also estimate that the implementation of this bill would cost the county approximately $2,000,000 and would hope to see additional funding for the implementation of this bill. And with that, we respectfully request a no vote.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Anyone else in opposition to SB fourteen fourteen? Okay, seeing none. Questions or comments? Senator Ashby?
Speaker 28
Yeah, so I like the bill. I did a very similar bill built off of the work of Senator Cervantes, who has done similar bills. I think sometimes when you move to the state out of local government and you can look back and have a broader perspective, you can see where independent redistricting really makes a difference. I had the opportunity to lead the independent redistricting effort for the city of Sacramento. When I got here, the county had not adopted that yet, and it really created a lot of issues.
They, had an advisory committee, and people had input. But at the end of the day, it's really, I think, best to have an independent analysis and then decision presented for people to then adopt. So I'll be supporting your bill today and happy to move it.
Speaker 7
Thank you. Well, I also support this bill, and that's consistent with my longstanding view that we should take the power of redistricting out of the hands of politicians and let the community set boundaries. This was an issue that was the subject of a lot of discussion last year when we put Prop 50 on the ballot. And many members on both sides of the aisle argued that, you know, we should really focus on independent redistricting. And I hope that I hope this has a bipartisan vote because I agree that independent redistricting is the right approach.
We've seen egregious examples, including in the city of Berkeley where I was mayor of before I became mayor, where partisan gerrymandering happened or or political gerrymandering happened, which divides committees of interest and weakens people's vote and voice in the process. And so I thank you for bringing this forward, and I'm happy to support the bill today.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Chair. I have a question regarding the idea of a sound independent redistricting commission to be created. It sounds sounds good. However, I would like to hear the role of the advisory independent redistricting committee right now existing, sounds like that's advice to the county supervisors and those inputs are not, well taken by the supervisors. Is that the reason that you are objecting?
Speaker 3
Sure. So our current process has an advisory redistricting committee that has five board appointments from the Board of Supervisors and two judicial appointments. Throughout the process, there were 16 public meetings held in 14 different locations throughout the county. Given the size geographically of the county, we believe that there was effort there for public input in the process. We hope to see future collaboration follow-up.
Speaker 29
With the author and the sponsors for potentially allowing, you know, some aspects of the existing process to be reflected in the bill. Thank you. Would you like to make Yeah, any I
Speaker 1
I just wanted to get a response to your question from the supporters sponsors.
Speaker 11
Doctor. If you want, Madam Chair, the Advisory Commission provides a set of recommendations on how the lines are to be drawn, but the Board of Supervisors are the ones that make the decision. So doing something independently means it's independent. It's not advisory. Advisory means you either take it or you leave it.
If it is independent, then an independent commission is going to put together the lines. Okay.
Speaker 5
And my follow-up question is, does your bill indicate how the independent redistricting committee or commission will be composed of? Who's going to appoint those independent members?
Speaker 11
There will be 14 members that form the commission. At least one commissioner shall reside in each of the five existing supervisorial districts to be put on there. It will be an entire process. Any interested person that meets certain criteria could apply to the county elections officials to be considered for membership on this independent redistricting commission. The county elections official is going to then review the applications, eliminate applicants who do not meet specified qualifications, and then the selection will be made.
Speaker 5
Yeah. Final question is that county opponent, the staff member, expressed a concern of $2,000,000 to implement a new redistricting commission, and she was asking for subsidy state support. Do you include that requirement in your bill, or can you work on that?
Speaker 11
Actually, I know that that is something that certainly is going to be reviewed in appropriations should this bill make it out of committee to determine the actual cost, and then that will that issue then will be determined at that time.
Speaker 5
Okay. So I assume that the work now supervisors themselves are controlling that district in commission?
Speaker 29
Yes. Our $2,000,000 cost estimate was estimated based on the implementation in LA County. We have note of a $1,200,000 appropriation in the twenty twenty three-twenty twenty four budget for LA County. So accounting for inflation and due to the geographic size of the county, we're estimating that by 2031, it would cost around $2,000,000 and look forward to conversations and appropriations to remedy the issue. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. With regards to yes, Senator Laird. Yeah, I'm sorry. Senator Laird, yes.
Speaker 9
Thank you. Just to reflect on this debate, I did a similar bill for San Luis Obispo County in 2023, and the underlying facts were that they did an egregious redistricting, where they tried to pack as many people from one political party in one district and make the other four competitive in a way that belied what the total population was and what the total population felt politically. And the point that reflects on this debate is there were plenty of advisory commissions on the way to the egregious redistricting. But the power to do the egregious redistricting was not changed, and still resided in the hands of the Board of Supervisors. And so, as nice as it is, and as much as there should be advisory commissions to go everywhere, unless there is something that ties the authority to that fair redistricting, that advisory process doesn't mean anything, and that was proven there, and is here.
And with that bill, there was a one time appropriations cost for the year of the redistricting. San Luis Obispo admittedly is smaller than Los Angeles and San Bernardino, but it was 1,000,000 It was going to be in 2031, or whenever the next redistricting was, and the Appropriations Committee thought that that was affordable and moved the bill out. And so in the ideal world, we would have a statewide policy and deal with this so that we weren't doing one offs by counties, because I think and I had a lot of fun, as Senator Eric Gein was referring to, in the floor debate, because all the people that stood for commissions voted against my commission in San Luis Obispo. And at the time, I referred to them as born again commission lovers. And I just think we all should love commissions, and we should love them for all counties, and we should get there, and I think we are put in the position, if there is any egregious redistricting, to take care of that on the way to what there might be for a statewide policy.
So I appreciate you bringing the bill, and I look forward to supporting it.
Speaker 6
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Just want to echo what many of our colleagues did in supporting this independent Citizens Redistricting Commission as I've had to do the same in my own county many years ago, but strongly believe that incumbent supervisors should not be drawing their own district boundaries to prioritize their reelection. We've got to put it in the hands of the citizens and look forward to moving this bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anybody else? Comments or questions? I also want to give my support to you on this bill. Independent redistricting has been going on for a number of years and it was a real, real struggle for people to for all of us to understand how important real independence was.
It was very difficult because we all wanted representation, you know, or ethnicity. We all wanted all these to continue the model of the past of that's the only way to have an independent commission was to have everybody's voices on there. So it's been a real struggle. I've seen it in Los Angeles, but but, you know, and I tried with one bill to make it more independent, but we're we're getting there. So I wanna I wanna thank you for keeping it going and hopefully we all learn our lessons that a truly independent commission is what should exist across the board no matter how uncomfortable that might make us.
So will you wrap up? Thank you. I really appreciate the comments.
Speaker 11
I appreciate the support on behalf of myself and on behalf of all the residents, all the voters, all the of San Bernardino County. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1
all. And we're on to thirteen. We're moving on to item 13, SB 1,400, Senator Arreguin. Senator Ottegine, you may proceed.
Speaker 7
Well, you, Madam Chair and fellow committee members for the opportunity to present SB 1,400. First, I will be accepting the committee amendments, which will be taken in the Senate Health Committee if this bill moves out today. SB 1,400 will modernize the government structure of the Alameda Health System, AHS, providing Alameda County with enhanced flexibility to improve oversight, operational efficiency, and fiscal sustainability of its public hospitals. And following a multisession 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 reflecting this bill reflect the Ad Hoc Committee's determination that added flexibility would provide the Board with more direct involvement in key and targeted issues that impact AHS such as labor relations and personnel.
And I want to call attention to a letter that SAIU California submitted in support of this bill that talked about an issue that really illustrates the importance of these changes to provide operational flexibility. And I'll just read, if I may, just briefly. Last fall, unions representing AHS workers, including SEI Local, solved the AHS Board of Governors were quick to lay off workers, making serious staffing cuts that will lead to outpatient sites closing, including behavioral health services, because of the impacts of HRO1. Had these actions moved forward, not only would it impact hundreds of workers, but it would devastate care for thousands of patients at a time where communities are relying on these public institutions now more than ever. While these layoffs are now on hold, AHS's preemptive actions offer a glimpse into how deliberations are being made today, why the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee are needed now more than ever.
Back to the bill. SB 1,400 allows the Board greater flexibility by allowing supervisors and other county staff to sit on the AHS Board, And given the significant impacts of these changes on those we have elected to represent, we want to ensure that they are more directly engaged in these discussions. Moreover, to put this in context as well, because of the impacts of HRO1, the county is stepping in, Supervisor Tammy addressed this, to not just look at how they can support and stabilize AHS using county funds. And so I think that justifies more than ever the Board having a direct role in the oversight and governance of AHS, given the county's increased fiduciary role in oversight of the existing system. Current statute limits governance flexibility by requiring a governing board that is appointed by, but legally distinct from the Board of Supervisors.
Speaker 26
Since that structure was established in 1996 by former Assemblyman Bates, the healthcare policy environment has become significantly more complex, with the passage of HRO1, which will have a significant impact on public hospitals, including the Alameda Health System in the County Of Alameda. In this evolving environment, the Board of Supervisors has expressed a desire for greater flexibility to be more directly involved in the strategic oversight and system level decision making, particularly as counties navigate new fiscal and operational challenges impacting safety net providers such as the Alameda Health System. At a time where our public health system is under pressure, we need transparency, accountability, and leadership that protects patients and workers. SB 1,400 is about making sure that our public hospital system can continue to serve the most vulnerable residents of our county. With me to testify in support of the bill is the Honorable Lina Tam, representing the 3rd Supervisorial District on the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, and Veronica Bellasio, SEIU Local ten twenty one's Chapter Vice President at the Alameda Health System.
Speaker 36
Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I am Lina Tam. I'm the vice president of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors and also a member of the Health Committee on the Board of Supervisors. I'm here in strong support of Senator Aragines bill with 1,400. I would like to take a moment to share how we got here.
This bill is the result of a very deliberate and local process. Over the past year, our board convened an ad hoc committee on Alameda Health Systems governance. Through six separate sessions. We brought together county leadership, health systems experts and community stakeholders to take an honest look at what's working and what's not. We reviewed multiple governance models, including whether the Alameda County Board of Supervisors should take a more direct role or continue delegating authority to an independent board.
After these discussions and by consensus, we moved forward with a model that gives us the flexibility to step in where we needed while still preserving operational expertise and independence where it matters most. While we learn through the process is that our current structure, well intentioned, may not be nimble enough for today's healthcare realities. As the senator mentioned, we looked at the stark realities of HR1. We want to be nimble enough to coordinate particularly around labor, personnel, and system decision making. SB 1,400 allows our Board of Supervisors to serve as the governing body or appoint others and explicitly allows us to delegate day to day operations while maintaining accountability.
Speaker 15
At the end of the day, this is not a theoretical exercise for us, and it's a very fast and ever changing world of maintaining access to health care. This bill provides the flexibility to respond to that instability. This is about making sure our public hospital system can continue to serve the most vulnerable residents in our county. We took the time locally to study this build consensus and put forward a solution. SB 1,400 simply gives us the tools to implement what our community has already determined is needed.
Speaker 16
Go ahead. Good morning, chair and members. My name is Veronica Palacios. I am a member of SEIU Local ten twenty one and chapter vice president for Alameda Health Systems. I've worked at Alameda Health Systems for twenty five years and currently serve in the emergency room at Highland Hospital in Oakland.
Speaker 37
Alameda Health Systems is a critical safety net for our community and employs over 3,800 SEIU union workers whose commitment to patient care has never changed. Today, I will be talking about why we need your assistance to continue to evolve Alameda health systems to meet the moment in need. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors in 1995 transferred management and operational control to AHS of AHS to an independent public hospital authority. Our health care system, thirty years later, is not working as it should. In 2023, an ad hoc committee identified gaps in the current structure and called for more direct involvement, especially on labor and system wide decisions.
In 2025, the Board of Supervisors were presented with ad hoc committee's recommendations, and that led to the bill you see before you today. SB 1,400 would modernize Alameda Health Systems governance and give the Alameda County Board of Supervisors the oversight needed to ensure accountability, stability, and better decision making. The past winter, we saw why that matters when AHS moved to make deep staffing cuts that would have reduced services and harmed patient care. These layoffs are on hold, but the decision making remains a concern. At a time when our public health care system is under pressure, we need transparency, accountability, and leadership that protects both patients and workers.
I respectfully ask for your I vote on SB 1,400, and thank you for your time.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone else here for in support of SB 1,400, please come forward, give your name, organization.
Speaker 37
Greetings. My name is Tawanda Tawanda Gilbert. I am the chief shop steward of John George Psychiatric Hospital, which is a part of Alameda Health Systems, and I am strongly in support of this bill.
Speaker 33
Thank you. Allison Ramey, on behalf of Alameda Health Systems, in support of the version in print, look forward to reviewing the amendments and working with the author. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Hi there. J. P. Hanna on behalf of California Nurses Association. We don't have an official position, but we've noted one concern that we've had, and we appreciate working with the bill author and the bill sponsors on those ongoing conversations.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition to SB 1,400? Anyone in opposition? Seeing none, we'll come back to the dais.
Any questions or comments?
Speaker 1
The bill has been moved by Senator Laird. Any comments, questions? No, seeing none. Let's call the vote. Oh, closing.
Speaker 4
The motion is due passed to the Committee on Health. Senators D'Arzo? Aye. D'Arzo, aye. Choi?
No. Choi, no. Aragine. Aye. Aragine, I, Ashby.
Aye. Ashby, I, Cervantes. Aye. Cervantes, I, Laird. Uh-huh.
Laird, I, CR two. 51.
Speaker 1
The bill is out 51. Okay. What do we have next? Are we going back? Okay.
We're gonna lift lift the call.
Speaker 4
Okay. This is file item number one, SB nine zero eight. The motion is due passed to the committee on housing. The current vote is three to one with the chair voting aye, vice chair voting no. Senators Arin?
Arin, aye. Laird? Laird I. Segarto? Five to one.
Bill is out.
Speaker 4
This is file item number two, SB ten zero three by Senator Grayson. The motion is due passed to the committee on housing. The current vote is three to one with the chair voting aye. Senators Choi? No.
Choi, no. Cervantes?
Speaker 4
This is file item number three, SB ten fourteen. The motion is due passed to the committee on housing. The current vote is four two with the chair voting I, vice chair voting no. Senator Laird? Uh-huh.
Laird, I.
Speaker 4
This is file item number four, SB ten thirty six. The motion is due passed to the due passed as amended to the senate floor. The current vote is five zero with the chair and vice chair voting aye. Senator Zaraghin? Aye.
Abeghin, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye.
Speaker 4
This is file item number five, SB eleven forty five. The motion is due passed to the committee on environmental quality. The current vote is six zero with the chair and vice chair voting aye. Senator Laird? Aye.
Laird, aye.
Speaker 4
File item number eight eleven seventy two. The motion is due passed to the committee on revenue and taxation. The current vote is four zero with the chair and vice chair voting eyes. Senator Zaragan. Aye.
Zaragan, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Serrato?
Six zero, the vote is out. File item 11 SB twelve eighty three. The motion is due passed to the committee on judiciary. The current vote is four zero with the vice chair voting I. Senator Dirazzo.
Speaker 4
File item number 12, SB thirteen seventy nine. The motion is due passed to the committee on public safety. The current vote is four one. With the vice chair voting no. Senator Dirazzo?
Aye. Dirazzo, aye. Sayarto?
Speaker 4
The consent calendar consists of file item number six, SB eleven sixty nine, file item seven, SB ten eighty six, file item 10, SB eleven twenty six, file item 14, SB fourteen thirty nine, file item 15, SB fourteen forty, file item 16, SB fourteen forty one, file item 17, SB fourteen forty two. Senators Joy? I.
Speaker 1
vote is seven zero. The bill is out. Moving down. Thank Thank you to all the individuals who participated in public testimony today. If you were not able to testify, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate Local Government Committee or visit our website.
Your comments are important to us. We want to include your testimony in the official records. Thank you. We appreciate your participation. We have concluded the agenda.
The Senate Committee and local government is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.