Local Govt — 2026-08-28 (partial)

Thank you. Thank you. Senate Committee on Local Government is now beginning. Come to order. Thank you for joining us. Senate welcomes the public in person, holding our hearings in the Capitol building. I ask all members to be present, which it appears you are. We will hear AB 1156 on a referral pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10b. We are also hearing SB 677 and SB 1423 on a referral pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10d. These bills were significantly amended, so the Senate Rules Committee returned the bill to committee to hear those changes. We are now, before we hear the presentation on the bills, we will establish quorum.

Aye. Gerardo here.

Here. Choi here.

Yes. Arrigin here.

Here. Cervantes here.

Here. Laird here.

Here. Sayarto here.

Okay, we have established quorum. I just want to now welcome Assemblymember Wicks. She's not here, so we can go to Senator. Okay, so we'll go in a second since she's not here. We'll go to Senator Weiner on SB 677. Okay, we won't go to him either. We will go to see if anybody wants to do this. SB 1423.

Senator Stern. Welcome, Senator.

Proceed.

Oh, okay. Yeah, we can do, guys, you can keep it so short. We don't even need it. Yeah, but you're the best, Kim. Yeah, let's do it. Let's just, I'll just do it. I got it. It would make more

Unless you have any technical questions, then we can turn to them. All right. Anyone else in support of SB 1423? If you're in support, please come up, give your name and organization.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, anyone in opposition to SB 1423 that wants us to speak? Go ahead. Did you want two minutes? No? Okay.

Okay. Anyone else in opposition, SB 1423?

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to SB 1423? Want to speak? Okay. Seeing none, we'll come to the dais. Anybody in? Oh. Comments or questions for my colleagues? Anybody?

SB 1423, saying none, we'll call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry, closing remarks. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now call the roll. The motion is that the Assembly Amendments be concurred in.

Durazo, aye.

Choi, no. Arrigin? Aye. Arrigin, aye.

Ashby, aye.

Cervantes, aye.

Aye. Laird, aye. Sayarto? No. Sayarto, no. Okay. 5-2. The bill is out 5-0. 5-2. 5-2, sorry. The bill is out 5-2. All right, we're moving on to, back to number one, AB 1156 by Assemblymember Wicks. Okay, you guys are, yeah, yeah, I know. Okay, we'll go to the next person who wants to present. You guys don't want to present today. SB 677 by Senator Weiner. You may come forward. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here to present SB 677. We amended the bill in the Assembly to help California continue to address our housing crisis. I want to thank the chair and committee staff for working with us while we were in the assembly and appreciate the work that we were able to together on the bill. This bill does two things. First, it addresses appeals for subdivision maps and streamlined housing projects, which we have found to have been abused at times. And so in infill situations it eliminates those appeals for with some exceptions The second piece of the bill has to do with TEFRA approvals When there is bond financing for affordable housing projects, city councils right now have to basically approve that funding and it is sometimes used in ways to stop affordable housing projects. So to address the issue, the bill authorizes the state treasurer to enter the state into a joint power authority agreement to issue tax-exempt private activity bonds for a purpose of providing TEFRA approval. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today is Kevin Kitchingham, Director of Housing Development and Construction at Mission Housing Development Corporation, and Stephanie Strain, CEO and Attorney at Stable House and Strain, and Specialist in Affordable Housing Law. Well, welcome, and you'll each have two minutes. Thank you, committee members. Thank you for having us here today. My name is Kevin Kitching. I'm a director of housing development and construction of Mission Housing in San Francisco. We're a 55-year-old nonprofit, and we ran into this issue with the parcel map just recently on a 136-unit project. We're on the third floor of decking for that now, but I can tell you at the time, very painful, costly delay over the parcel map. So we seek your aye vote here on 677 as it relates to the parcel map. This is a reform that will help us further our projects through streamlining and avoid frivolous delays. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Stephan Strain. I'm an affordable housing consultant and attorney in Sacramento. Over the past 25 years, I've represented affordable housing developers throughout the state. This bill by Senator Weiner makes a targeted and important fix to the TEFRA process, removing a key barrier that is currently delaying or preventing the delivery of much-needed affordable housing across California. In practice, some jurisdictions have used this federally required procedure to delay or derail affordable housing projects that have already been thoroughly vetted and awarded financing by the state. We currently have a project that experienced this in Pasadena that we were able to finally prevail on the local jurisdiction, but were delayed several months in starting construction on the project. SB 677 provides the state treasurer with authority to grant the required TEFRA approval when local jurisdictions fail to act, removing a significant procedural obstacle for many projects. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in support of SB 677? Please come forward. Give us your name. Catherine Charles, I'm off the Housing Action Coalition, a proud co-sponsor in support. Good afternoon. Paul Schaefer with the California Council for Affordable Housing. Proud co-sponsors. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Chair members of the committee. Jonah Panetta Carvajal. On behalf of California, you can be a proud co-sponsor in strong support. Thank you so much. Anyone else in support of SB 677? Seeing none, anyone in opposition to SB 677? Please, if you're going to take too many, you can sit here for you. Two minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. My name is Kim Delfino, and I'm here on behalf of the California Native Plant Society. We are in opposition to SB 677 as to the subdivision map issue. We have offered up an amendment. We understand and support the goal of streamlined housing, but SB 677 goes too far by eliminating third-party administrative appeals of subdivision maps. without adequate protections for habitat and habitat conservation lands and natural community conservation plan lands. The change in law matters because tentative maps are where many consequential decisions are made about development like where do the lots go, where do roads and infrastructure go, what remains as open space. And the subdivision map act actually does require the denial of a subdivision if its design or improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injures fish, wildlife, or their habitat, administrative appeals provide an efficient opportunity to catch mistakes before they become final. There can be errors about whether a conservation plan applies, where species surveys are required, whether a subdivision is actually consistent with an adopted NCCP or HCP. And eliminating that appeal doesn't eliminate the dispute. It just simply pushes that into court. And despite being characterized as an infill measure, this will impact habitat. SB 677 can impact important natural lands. It can apply to projects of any size, including projects on the outskirts of communities, on park lands, and adjacent to habitat and conserved lands. And just because these areas are labeled as infill, it doesn't mean that they're sacrifice zones. And we have many NCCPs and HCPs within very urbanized areas. San Diego, Orange County, Riverside, Santa Clara, Placer County, just to name the few. We've been asking for a narrow amendment to preserve the third-party appeals for projects on NCCP or HCP lands or on habitat protecting for sensitive, threatened, or endangered species. Until SB 677 is amended, we must respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome to stay if you want. Anybody else in opposition to SB 677? Please come up. Good afternoon again. Matthew Baker with Planning Conservation League. Respectfully opposed unless amended. Are concerned align with that being stated here by Kim Delfino. Thank you. Jake Schultz on behalf of the California Habitat Conservation Planning Coalition. We are opposed unless amended. We'd like to echo the concerns of the opposition related to the NCCPs and HCPs. Thank you. Thank you. Alex Lumer on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and Community for Green Foothills in opposition, aligning our comments with the testimony. Thank you. Thank you. Marie Blue with permission for opposition for the Endangered Habitats League in agreement with Kim's testimony. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else in opposition? Seeing none, we have come to the dais. Questions? Senator Laird? Let me ask the author. So with regard to the requested amendment, why aren't you taking it? So we incorporated quite a few exclusions that are objective, where you know where they apply and don't apply. And we actually proposed a compromise to the opposition around objectively mapped habitat areas, and that was rejected. And so the vague language that they want would effectively, we think, swallow what we're trying to do here. And again, this bill only applies in fill areas. It's a very focused approach. And these projects, this is not an entitlement bill. So these projects will go through whatever entitlement route, whether it's a CEQA route or if it's a streamlined exclusion or streamlined permitting route, which often those laws often have habitat exclusions in them. It will have already gone through that approval process with whatever the habitat rules are or exclusions are under those permits. This is about the subdivision map act. And so this is after all of that. After the entitlement has already been granted. And we did offer a compromise and it was rejected. Madam Chair, if it's okay, could I ask the other witness to respond to that? Yes, thank you. So, the amendment that was offered was to exclude projects that would be built on top of lands that are already under a conservation easement or have been acquired for conservation, which, by the way, you can't do that anyway. So that really doesn't address our issue. Our issue was that you have NCCP and HCP plan boundaries where you've identified areas where certain rules are now being applied. Those lands may not necessarily, they're not under, there are maps of them, but they're not under a conservation easement at that point. And there are requirements for consistency. Many jurisdictions when they do subdivision maps, they have to look at consistency with NCCP and HCPs And this would take away the third party appeal And so that why it wasn a sufficient amendment And then on my own time to comment I just know from working on a lot of these plans that a lot of the urban infill sites contain sensitive areas And I think the difference is a view that under certain provisions you're acknowledging that, but then under other provisions we're not. And I think I'm grumpy in general over the fact that we're two days from the end of session, and this is the first policy hearing that this bill has gone under in the Senate in a way that we can't amend it. And I don't think gotten amends are really meant for doing that, where there are really sensitive issues and there's differences. And with two days to go in the session, we're hearing it for the first time in a way we can't resolve any of those issues. And so on the substance, I have a problem. But on the process, I have a real problem. And I may be alone, but I intend to stay off this bill. Questions? Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Senator Laird. Seeing none, we can have closing remarks. Thank you very much, and I appreciate that, Senator. We have many, many late-breaking bills profoundly larger, like exponentially larger than this bill that we are all seeing right now as we speak. We can, for whatever the process, that's the process we have in the legislature. We did put this bill in print back in the spring in time for full process in the assembly. And we immediately, early on, immediately flagged it for this committee and worked with the committee and took amendments in response to feedback from the committee. So this is not, like some bills that actually do materialize less than a week before the end of session. This has been in process for several months now. We've done our best to be very open and transparent and collaborative. We've made quite a few amendments to the bill. And on this, I do just want to emphasize in terms of habitat issues, this is not about entitlement. Whatever entitlement process they have to go through, whether it's CEQA or whether it's a streamlined process, which often have habitat exemptions, that will have already happened. This is after the entitlement is granted when you have these appeals under the Subdivision Map Act and it addresses that. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Ashby moves the bill. We'll call the roll. The motion is that the Assembly amendments be concurred in. Senators Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Choi? Choi no. Araguin? Araguin aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes aye. Laird? No. Laird no. Sayarto? No. Sayarto no. Four three. Four three. The bill is out. Thank you very much, colleagues. Thank you. Next. Next and final is AB 1156, Assemblymember Wicks. Welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. Traffic jam. Thank you for hearing this legislation so quickly after amendments were made last night. I really appreciate it for you and your staff work as well. Thank you. As I said to this committee, when a prior version of the bill came before you last year, California must reckon with an uncomfortable truth. We face a significant lack of access to water across many rural communities, with up to one million acres of farmland possibly being fallowed. AB 1159 is a narrower, more targeted proposal than what you heard last year. It provides a voluntary, locally driven option to communities and farmers that are wrestling with this stark reality. Accelerating solar energy deployment on farms currently under the Williamson Act is in critically overdrafted basins. This legislation balances our state's renewable energy and food production needs while prioritizing the repurposing of agricultural lands that don't have adequate access to groundwater. As amended, AB 1156 reduces barriers associated with exiting the Williamson Act contracts, helping to overcome a cumbersome and lengthy cancellation process and prohibitively high cancellation fees. The bill provides two pathways to address these challenges. The first path permits solar environmental leadership development projects in critically overdrafted basins with a streamlined exit from a Williamson Act contract or a farmland security zone contract if they have entered into a qualifying community benefits agreement. The second path extends the authority of the Secretary of Natural Resources to waive Williamson Act cancellation fees for solar projects in critically overdrafted basins or sub-basins if those projects have entered into a qualifying community benefits agreement. AB 1156 will not be the Williamson Act's undoing. It will provide private landowners and local governments and water-constrained regions of the state with a choice. Enter voluntarily to adapt to a harsh economic reality. Either let land sit follow because it's not agriculturally viable or generate clean energy and revenue for landowners and local governments. California's nexus between clean energy goals, water sustainability, and land scarcity presents a rare opportunity to craft a policy that achieves multiple statewide goals. AB 1156 can help fulfill the promise of a carbon-free future and mitigate the worst impacts of climate change in our communities and the economy. Here to testify in support, I have Shannon Eddy, Executive Director of the Large-Scale Solar Association. At the right time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Welcome. And you have two minutes. Good afternoon. Shannon Eddy, I lead the Large-Scale Solar Association. We appreciate the work that has gone into what we acknowledge is a fairly amended bill. This is a product of extensive negotiations with the Natural Resources Agency, the Department of Food and Ag, and also the Department of Conservation. And the result is a bill that has been narrowed and significantly tailored to just those projects that reside in groundwater basins that are in a stage of critical overdraft. You've all heard about SGMA, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, It is expected to probably fallow about a million acres south of the delta in the next 20 years by 2040. So this bill provides an option, a voluntary option for farmers to consolidate the water that they do have onto land so they can continue growing at the same time they have solar as an alternate revenue source so they can keep their farms. A couple of important notes about this bill, local governments retain full authority, discretion in approving or rejecting projects flat out. The bill also retains a high level of community awareness. There is a significant community benefits component here so that the host communities will benefit through community benefits that are fairly non-constrained in addition to significant property tax revenues that are going to be paid by these projects as well. I think at its core what we need to keep in mind is that if there are state policies that are mandating the kind of restrictions that SGMA is restricting, the state also needs to provide policies that have solutions and this bill is one of those solutions to both siting clean energy in a responsible way and also restoring really a life flood to these communities and to the farmers that are going to be losing land. So, appreciate your I vote. Thank you. Anyone in support of AB 1156, please come forward. Thank you, Madam Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Council of the Building. Sorry. It's been a long day, just like the rest of you. The State Building Construction Trades Council, as well as the District Council of Ironworkers in support. We think this is a good bill, and we hope it moves forward. Thank you. Kim Delfino on behalf of the Nature Conservancy in support Thank you Hi there McKinley Thompson Morley on behalf of the Solar Energy Industries Association and our friends at American Clean Power California in support Thank you. Jans Mundy-Jones from the Independent Energy Producers in support. Thank you. Madam Chair and members, Erin Neemola representing IPX Power also in support. Thank you. Hello Madam Chair, Kristen Olson-Kate on behalf of Terrigen in support. Thank you. Okay, is there anyone in opposition to AB 1156? Please come forward. You can come up here if you want or from there, whatever. Is it okay to stand here? Sure. Okay. So good afternoon. My name is Chelsea Gazzillo, and I'm here on behalf of American Farmland Trust in opposition of AB 1156 as drafted. California and the nation's foods fly are at risk if the state fails to take a comprehensive approach to solar siting that avoids the conversion of productive agricultural land. The Williamson Act is a critical tool that helps farmers in production while curbing mounting development pressures on farmland and ranch land. We agree that to meet our carbon neutrality goals, we must find a way to promote both solar development and farmland protection. However, this does not meet that goal. So this bill is drafted and amends the Williamson Act statute language broadly to broadly expand the eligibility of farmland and ranch land for solar development, putting millions of acres at risk. This is because the determination of land eligible for removal is tied to SGMA, critically overdrafted basins and sub-basin definitions, which makes approximately 2.6 million million acres of irrigated cropland in the San Joaquin Valley eligible to exit Williamson Act contracts. AB 1156 also undermines smart growth principles by encouraging development on prime and important farmland and ranchland, which will drive up land prices and make both land and locally produced food increasingly unaffordable. So we want to work with the state to find a compromise to promote smart growth, which includes farmland protection and smart solar. we were not given a really meaningful opportunity to weigh in on this bill and we would like that opportunity. You can see our opposition letter but I know the local governments also oppose and so we ask that you vote no and fight for a California that has affordable agricultural land and promotes smart energy growth. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in opposition to AB 1156 please come forward. Rebecca Marcus, an opposed unless amended on behalf of my clients, California Climate and Agriculture Network and the California Certified Organic Farmers. Additionally, my colleagues at the Community Alliance with Family Farms, California Rangeland Trust, California Farmland Trust, and California Farm Link are also opposed. Thank you. Thank you very much. I see no one else in opposition. Colleagues? Senator Laird? First, let me thank the author for this bill, and we did have an exhaustive public process on this when the bill was much wider. And what the author's doing is narrowing it in a way that we have talked about this in a hearing and narrowing it to try to accommodate as many people as we can. And what we have here is a whole set of conflicting goals and conflicting processes. The Williamson Act, which actually in a prior job I wanted to restore, and I did bills on this when I was in the assembly, and we could not convince the administration to restore it at the state level, and that's where the Sustainable Agriculture Lands Conservation Program came from, is a way to conserve ag land and in some cases in a way that you can deal with the generational transfer and some of the issues with ag land because we can't do the Williamson Act at the state level. We haven't come. And then we have SGMA, which I was involved in when it was enacted, that truly will be taking thousands of acres out of planting in a way that we have to do something for those farmers to try to continue. We also have, and it wasn't mentioned, the fact that in some of these very lands there's high contamination, and the high contamination is as much leading to people not farming in a way that there needs to be an alternative that this bill presents to deal with that. And so with us stepping out of the Williamson Act, with us having SGMA, with us having contamination, and us having the goal to be as close to carbon neutral as we can by 2045, this actually meets almost every single goal in this bill to do it. And so I personally would have preferred that it not have been narrowed because I think the original bill got us to where we needed to go in a much better way. And so I think that this is somewhat of a compromise to do it, and that's good if it brings some more people on. and I just think we should move ahead with this and give this a real chance. So I intend to support the bill and at the appropriate time I would be happy to move the bill. Okay, any other comments or questions? I will be supporting it and I also want to make particular mention of the community benefits agreement. That's something that I've been involved with for many, many years, and we've gotten to the point where it doesn't make sense to do it for that community, but let that community develop based on their particular needs. So this is one of the rare times when I've seen it in a much more rural area than what we're used to in the urban areas. But it does address reaching an agreement with various community organizations from that area, local agencies, tribal governments, and addressing things like workforce development, job quality, and job access. So I think that's a really important part of the model that should continue to be developed. So with that, I'll support the bill. Oh, closing remarks. I just appreciate all your work, Madam Chair, and your push for the community benefits agreement aspect of the bill. And thank you for your comments as well, sir. And with that, I respectfully ask for the aye vote. Okay. Senator Laird moves the bill. Roll call. The motion is that the measure be returned to the Senate floor for consideration. Senator Cerrado? Aye. Cerrado, aye. Choi? No. Choi, no. Arrigin? Arrigin, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Sayarto? 5-1. The bill is out, 5 to 1. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Okay. We're closing down this hearing. I know you guys are listening to me. Thank you to all the individuals who participate in public testimony today. If you were not able to testify, please submit your comments in writing to the Senate Local Government Committee. Your comments and suggestions are important to us. Thank you. We've concluded the agenda. Senate Committee on Local Government is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.