Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Alright. Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. We are holding this committee hearing in Room 2100 of the 0 Street Building. I ask that all members of the committee present themselves in Room 2100 so we can establish a quorum to begin our hearing. Before presentations today, we will note the absence of a quorum.

However, we will begin as a subcommittee. Let me just note on the consent calendar, and we have some other announcements. We have a special order of business today. We are taking up file number one s B934 by Senator Wiener first, which is not the usual custom of the committee, but based on special requests, we're doing so. File number two, SB 1234 by Senator Alvarado-Gil has been pulled from today's agenda and will be heard next week.

There are 10 Senate bills on our agenda today. Two of which are on the consent calendar. They are as follows. File number six, sp nine seventy two by Senator Grayson, and file number 11, sp fourteen thirty three by the Senate judiciary committee. Alright.

So the ground rules are the same today as is always the case. That what we'll do is we'll have two primary witnesses in support, and each of those two primary witnesses in support will be allocated two minutes. And we'll have two primary witnesses in opposition and they also will be allocated two minutes. After the support witnesses speak, others may approach the microphone and give us their name, their affiliation, their position.

In other words, whether they support or oppose the bill, but I'm gonna first call for support.

Then after the opposition testifies, then I will call for Me Too, so called Me Too Opposition testimony. And at that point, you will approach the microphone and give us your name and your affiliation and your position on the bill that is at issue. Senator Wiener is ready and able. So, let's begin with SB 934. Senator Weiner, floor is yours.

Thank you very much, mister chair. I'm here today to present Senate bill nine thirty four, a bill to provide justice to survivors of conversion therapy by allowing them more ability to seek compensation through malpractice claims. Straight up conversion therapy is quackery. It is psychological torture. You can't change someone who is LGBTQ into not being LGBTQ.

All major medical associations agree that sexual orientation and gender identity are immutable characteristics and that so called conversion therapy is fraud that harms patients. Research shows that conversion therapy does not change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, but that it is associated with serious harm, including increased likelihood of depression, suicidality, lower educational attainment, and economic insecurity. In 2012, California, became the first state to ban licensed mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy. This ban has served as an essential bulwark against that practice.

Since California took the first step, 29 other states have also acted either legislatively or via executive order.

However, last week, the Supreme Court put that ban at least potentially in legal jeopardy by directing lower courts to subject the Colorado convert-youth conversion therapy ban by subjecting it to so called strict scrutiny, which is a very, very high level of constitutional scrutiny, essentially saying that psychological torture of children is somehow free speech. But agree or disagree, that was the Supreme Court's ruling, and that's the standard to which these laws will be subjected.

It is critically important to understand that California's law was not part of the Supreme Court case. It was a Colorado law, but there have already been rumblings of a legal challenge to California's law. And so here we are.

It's also important to understand that the Supreme Court ruling, the majority opinion by Justice Gorsuch specifically said that malpractice claims or malpractice cause of action is different than a conversion therapy ban. And that was important and that's what we are doing here today considering a bill relating to malpractice not to a ban. So right now, the existing statute of limitations for malpractice claim three years is insufficient to deal with the long term trauma from conversion therapy particularly of young people.

And so this bill does two things. It extends the statute of limitations if the survivor was under the age of 18 at the time that they were subjected to conversion therapy, they could bring a claim up until the age of 40.

Colleagues, we know that LGBTQ people are under assault in this country. And the common denominator in these attacks, whether from the Trump administration or from red states, is the attempted erasure of our community. In so many ways, they want us to just go away, to go back in the closet or just not to exist at all. And conversion therapy isn't is absolutely a part of that. And like many people, I although I am very fortunate that I was never subjected to conversion therapy.

If the survivor was over 18 years old, then they have ten years Or a survivor may bring a case within five years of discovering injury or illness due to sexual orientation or gender identity conversion therapy. SB 934 also clarifies the role that expert testimony plays in scientific evidence, making sure that we are using the best expertise and scientific evidence in adjudicating these malpractice claims.

I thank my parents for being good decent people who would not do that to a child. We know I know so many people who were sent to conversion therapy as children. They had no choice in the matter. They were sent there and they were subjected to what can only be described as torture. And so with that said, I ask for your aye vote with me today to testify.

Is Ryan Kendall, a survivor of conversion therapy and civil rights litigator in Southern California. And Skye, Inararity, a licensed marriage and family therapist with twelve years of clinical experience. And also here for technical support if needed. Crystal, a senior staff attorney at the National Center for LGBTQ rights. I ask for your aye vote.

We have a quorum. So, Committee assistant Porter or maybe chief counsel Estrada, if you would call the role for purpose of establishing quorum.

Sure. For the purpose of establishing a quorum, Umberg.

Here.

Umberg here. Niello?

Here.

Niello here. Allen. Ashby Caballero?

Here.

Caballero here. Durazo? Here. Durazo here. Laird. Reyes? Here. Reyes here. Stern? Belladares? Wahab? Here. Wahab here. Weber Pearson? Weiner?

Present.

Weiner present. You have a quorum.

Alright. Thank you. The floor is yours.

Thank you. My name is Brian Matthew Kendall. From the ages of 14 to 16, a California licensed therapist abused me using the practice of so called conversion therapy. Using only words, Joseph Nicolosi destroyed my sense of self, leaving me as a child convinced that I was unworthy of love and defective simply for being gay. I still live with the damage that caused me. It's why I'm here today asking you to protect others.

Not only did Nicolosi abuse me using conversion therapy, but he also fostered an environment where my parents were free to abuse me in ever more extreme ways to stop me from being gay. Even though he was a mandatory reporter and even though I complained about this abuse to him, he never acted to protect me. To escape conversion therapy and my family's abuse, I filed dependency neglect charges against my parents and had the state revoke their custody.

But even after getting away, I spent more than a decade of my life suicidally depressed, at times unhoused, and I abused drugs in an attempt to kill myself. I failed out of or withdrew from college five or six times.

My life was a desperate struggle for survival. At no point during that period or for years afterwards could I have brought a lawsuit against the man who abused me and destroyed my life. Conversion therapy robs LGBT youth and adults of their agency by convincing them, as I have heard from youth countless times, that they are somehow at fault for the situation they are in or for being who they are, or as happened with me, that we are defective and undeserving of care.

None of those things are true. Conversion therapy is a medical fraud that kills children. It harms everyone who comes in contact with it. It tears families apart, and that's if you survive. Today, you have the opportunity to give everyone harmed by this vile practice a meaningful chance at justice. I can think of no better use of your votes than that. California has always led the way on protecting LGBT youth from this vile practice, and California can lead the way again today.

I ask you to support this bill.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon, chair, members. My name is Skye Inararity. I am a citizen of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians, and I am a licensed marriage and family therapist here in California, where I have practiced for twelve plus years. I've provided services across outpatient, residential, private practice settings, and I have provided direct services to queer, two spirit, LGBTQ plus, and indigenous clients, throughout my career. And I'm in support strong support of SB 934.

From a clinical standpoint, I wanna be very clear. Conversion therapy is not a legitimate therapeutic practice. It's not a legitimate therapeutic intervention. It has no basis in evidence based practice. Every major medical and mental health organization has condemned it as ineffective and unethical.

In my twelve plus years as a clinician, I have never seen credible clinical data supporting that sexual orientation or gender identity can be safely or successfully changed through therapeutic means. What I have seen repeatedly is harm. Survivors present with significantly elevated rates of major depression, PTSD, suicidal ideation, many meet criteria for complex trauma characterized by deep shame, identity disturbance, and difficulty forming secure attachments throughout the entirety of their lives.

These are not abstract findings. These are the diagnostic realities in which I've assessed and treated in my practice. In my clinical experience, the full impact of conversion therapy often does not emerge until years later. Survivors frequently lack language or psychological safety to identify what has happened to them as abuse. They may spend years in therapy, long before they can even name what has happened. Current statues of limitation often expire long before a survivor is clinically ready to come forward. This mismatch between legal timelines and psychological healing denies survivors any path to accountability.

SB 934 aligns legal accountability with clinical reality. It ensures survivors have a meaningful window to seek justice and hold providers accountable for that my profession has unanimously.

Thank you very much. If you could wrap it up, I assume your urgent eye vote.

As a licensed mental health clinician, I urge your support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright. If you're in support of SB934, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.

Christopher Stolt, National Center for LGBTQ Rights here here in strong support of this important legislation.

Thank you.

Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, proud cosponsor and strong support. Also here on behalf of several cosponsors who could not be here today, the Trevor Project, Lambda Legal, Alliance for Trans Youth Rights, and Trans Family Support Services. Thank you.

Anuradha Gupta, president of P FLAG Danville San Ramon Valley chapter. On behalf of everyone in my chapter, p FLAG San Francisco, p FLAG La Morinda, p FLAG Clayton Concord, p FLAG Fremont Tri Cities, p FLAG Tri Valley, p FLAG Oakland East Bay, p FLAG San Jose Peninsula, p FLAG Los Angeles in strong support of SB 934, requesting you to pass it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Mary Moyle. I'm with the Sacramento chapter of PFLAG, and we urge and I I vote on this. Thank thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. I am Lisa Kanazawa. I am a California licensed occupational therapist. I am here with PFLAG Danville, San Roan Valley, and I am here in strong support of SB 934.

Thank you very much. Alright. Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 934, please come to the microphone.

Good afternoon. My name is Johnny Skinner. I'm here representing Genspect. When I was young, I was a feminine child and I discovered trans influencers online. They said change your body and your life gets better.

Don't and it gets worse. Or as my doctors told my mom, I would commit suicide. The medical and mental health providers didn't bother to ask why I felt the way I did. They poisoned my body with blockers and hormones, arresting my puberty and messing with my development. The result, I'm a 23 year old gay man who's never had an orgasm and may never experience one.

Let that sink in. I was rendered anorgasmic because once you say you could be trans, that's it. Full stop. No exploration as to why is allowed even if you are a struggling kid. The former president of w of WPATH, doctor Marcy Bowers, a California surgeon who had performed the surgery for Jazz Jennings at 17, admitted on video that puberty blockers followed by cross sex hormones results in no orgasms and stunted genitals.

SB 934 guarantees that more people will end up like me. The walking but wounded. I could have been spared all of this if any of my therapists would have explored why I felt dysphoric, but they never did. They only led me to hate my body more. The Supreme Court just ruled in a rare bipartisan decision that laws like this are unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

This bill is an attempted workaround that will be used to silence therapists who could have helped me avoid the irreversible harms to my body and the loss of my sexual function as is the same for many others. So today, I ask you to extend some empathy to survivors like me and vote no for this bill. Thank you.

Alright. Others in opposition, please approach.

Hi. Laura Haines. I'm a Democrat, an atheist, and a CASA for foster youth since 2015. This bill forbids challenging LGB or TQ identities, even if that's why the client thought therapy. Both are made untouchable.

Some normal questions that might provoke a changed mind could later be deemed conversion. But conversion therapy refers specifically to abusive practices used in the past to attempt to change sexual orientation and rightly, long ago, made illegal. Here, conversion is used to imply that trans is an innate and permanent condition that only violent conversion could possibly change. But historically, over ninety percent of kids who once strongly rejected their sex naturally outgrew this notion via puberty. Two thirds of them gay as adults.

Reaching self acceptance is not conversion. Change is not conversion. Realizing you're autistic is not conversion. Remember, gender is considered fluid, not fixed, as detransitioners continually prove. How can a therapist determine if autism, OCD, or trauma is at the root of a client's sex self rejection if they're walking on eggshells not to jostle trans.

What if the kid is not trans? Imagine a 12 year old girl molested at summer camp who comes home insisting she's trans and wants top surgery. This bill would have a therapist affirm as identity a trauma response. That's absurd. Trans ID people have a very high number of other mental health disorders.

If ethical therapists are effectively gagged with relevant topics placed off limits, who will help them? I urge you to vote no.

Thank you. Those in opposition to s p nine three four, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.

Good afternoon. Matthew McReynolds, constitutional attorney with Pacific Justice Institute in opposition and happy to answer any, technical constitutional questions the committee may have.

Alrighty. Thank you.

Alright. Is there a motion on the consent calendar? So Senator alright. Senator Wahab moves the consent calendar.

Chief counsel Strada, please call the roll on the consent calendar.

On the consent calendar that it be adopted, Umberg. Aye. Umberg, Aye, Nilo. Allen. Ashby.

Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero. Durazo. Laird.

Reyes. Reyes. Aye. Stern. Beladares.

Wahab. Aye. Weber Piearson? Weber Piearson aye. Wiener? Consent. 5 on consent. Oh, Valladares aye. Six zero, members.

Six zero. We'll put that on call.

Is Scott's the only building for a tow truck?

That's right.

Senator Allen is here. Senator Allen, would you like to present file number 7: SB1092 or SB1365.

Alright. Well, thank you so much, mister chair and members. Let me start by just thanking the committee for the for its work on the bill, and also I'm I am accepting the committee's amendments. Okay. This is a different type of conversion.

It's a conversion of at risk units to market rate. In order to to address that challenge, the state began adopting affordable housing preservation laws starting in 1987. Opportunities to preserve unsubsidized affordable housing, are especially important today when the state's affordable housing funding is oversubscribed as we know, and our existing housing stock is under increasing threat, from climate related disasters. Mobile homes are the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the country, and they provide important homeownership opportunities for many, many Californians.

According to HCD, our housing department, preserving this housing option is critical to meeting the state's housing needs.

The 2018 Camp Fire resulted in the destruction of over 30 mobile home parks in Paradise, the vast majority of which have not been rebuilt. Over 700 rent stabilized units were destroyed in the recent Palisades fire in my district, approximately half of which were located in two mobile home parks. And I know that our former housing chair came to visit that the side of that terrible tragedy with me.

So over the past twenty years, manufactured home communities increasingly have gone from mom and pop enterprises to ownership by private equity firms, hedge funds, large multi state corporations that seek to capitalize on manufactured homeowners' unique situation. It's certainly not all all the case, but just to give you an idea, it's now I think, you know, in in 2021, institutional investors accounted for 23% of all manufactured home purchases up from 13% between '17 and '19.

So it's been increasing. And now, just to give you a data point, 23 private equity firms own over 1,900 manufactured housing parks in The US with over 400,000 lots. So you got these institutional investors that are attracted by high returns and consistent rent payments from captive residents, and that has in turn driven up rent lot rents and increased evictions. Although they're called mobile homes, mobile homes are not typically able to be moved.

Many mobile homeowners are older, many are disabled, many are in fixed incomes that limit their ability to pick up and move.

And communities across the state and country are recognizing the growing need for policy changes to protect affordability of mobile homes and provide opportunities to resident organizations or other non profit entities to purchase and preserve the parks. So the bill provides that if a mobile home park owner receives an offer for the sale, lease, or transfer that management intends to accept, they must provide residents or their designated representative the opportunity to offer a competitive bid to purchase the park.

The bill defines reasonable timelines to support residents in the acquisition of support and financing, which can be especially complex task for residents in California with the soaring cost of land. Testifying, today in support of the bill, we have Kim Coontz, who's executive director of the California Center for Cooperative Development, and also Ryan Sears, head of policy and research at Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services.

This is all about trying to provide a real pathway for residents to offer competitive bids to preserve their communities, and I hope for your support for this bill.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Floor is yours.

Hi. My name is Kim Coontz. I'm with the California Center for Cooperative Development. We're a nonprofit that helps solve problems, using, cooperative enterprises where the members co own and democratically control the, the enterprise. In this case, it would be cooperative housing that is owned owned by all the manufactured homeowners in the in the park.

We provide technical assistance to help the residents through and beyond the process to help them, to become a successful, democratically governed community. Creating these resident owned communities fosters housing stability, pride, and economic, security. Resident ownership, as Zuzda said, is particularly important in California, where the manufactured homes are really a source of naturally occurring, affordable housing under the best of circumstances. But the current, investor encroachment in those communities is really putting that at at severe risk.

Unlike, owners of single family homes, manufactured homeowners own the home, but they rent the space underneath it, which makes them very, very vulnerable because the owner of the park can decide how much the rent is, whether they will change the, the the reason for the park and make it something else, and make decisions about investment in infrastructure.

So the surest path to long term stability and affordability is when the residents become owners of their own parks. But most park sales happen off market or too quickly for residents to put in an offer. SB 1092 would give park residents an a fair opportunity to purchase their communities by ensuring that they receive advance notice of the sale and a chance to match third port party offers.

Creating this window of opportunity provides the time necessary for park residents to secure funding from state and local programs and lenders such as ROC USA, who has a CDFI that loans to parks.

Thank you very much. I bet you urge us to vote aye.

Yes.

Okay. Alright. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Umberg, as well as fellow committee members. My name is Ryan Sears. I am the head of policy and research in Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services. We are a non profit headquartered in the Inland Empire. For those who don't know, 10% of Riverside County's housing stock is manufactured homes.

8% of San Bernardino's, county's housing stock is manufactured homes. The majority of those homes are in park communities. Our region is the manufactured home capital of California, and these homes are a form of home ownership where even though the unit is owned outright, the land underneath is leased. The issue that SB 1092 addresses is simple. Who should have the opportunity to purchase a manufactured housing community?

Our answer is everybody, including the residents. Right now, as a brief visual aid, I have a picture of the confidential offering memorandum of a park, because many parks are often sold in closed market listings, which means that residents don't even know that their park is going up for sale.

What SB 1092 does is endow residents with the dignity of being included and recognized as potential bidders in the sales process of their community, And it presents a measured solution to the question of who should own our housing stock. Anyone can. We're not getting rid of the market, but what we are saying is that residents deserve a fair chance.

And so what this bill does is ensure that market forces remain, park owners can still secure the best offer for their land, but also that residents, whether in coalition with each other or in coalition with a non profit, can make bids for the land that they have leased oftentimes for decades. And this is a tool for affordable housing preservation that is very low in cost to the state. And so the prevailing headwinds on the national level are clear.

Community ownership is a part of the bedrock of the American dream, and SB 1092 helps ensure that the Californian dream as well prioritizes community ownership. So we thank Senator Allen for his leadership on this issue.

We respectfully request an aye vote on SB 1092, and I am available to answer any questions if there's any need for technical assistance.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Others in support of SB 1092, please approach.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Brian Augusta on behalf of the California Coalition for Rural Housing, proud to co sponsor also the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support.

Thank you, Emily's father.

Good afternoon. Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of ROC USA in strong support.

I bet she's watching this too. Rachel Mueller on behalf of the California Coalition for Community Investment, a coalition of over 50 CDFIs in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair members. Tina Rosales Torres on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Natalie Spivak with Housing California and on behalf of Leadership Council in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Anyone else in support of SB 1092, please approach. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1092, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, mister chair members. My name is Chris Wysocki with WMA. We're here to express our opposition to SB 1092. This bill would effectively strip away the private property rights of mobile home park owners looking to sell their park to a buyer willing to pay fair market value. SB 1092 would be an unconstitutional taking and give residents who want to stop a park sale the ability to do so by imposing unreasonable timelines and and conditions on such transactions.

With the amendments being taken, a resident organization would have a hundred and twenty days after a notice is sent to deliver an offer and another hundred and twenty days after that to secure financing to close the sale. What buyer is gonna wait for eight months? Under this bill, no private party is going to buy a mobile home park in California, and we believe that's the point. Devalue the property to give a resident group the ability to buy a park at below market rates.

We believe that devaluation would also constitute a taking and another point of litigation.

When you sell your home, you would never agree to an offer that didn't include a reasonable time frame or an explanation of the type of financing or payment method. Yet that's what 1092 is forcing mobile home park owners to do. This bill also requires the park owner to negotiate in good faith, but there's no requirement for the resident group to do the same. Under this bill, resident groups who'd say it wants to buy, and when timelines have expired, simply back out by saying never mind.

I realize this bill is in response to the Palisades fire, but why hasn't any public entity stepped up and offered the Palisade Park owners the assistance and options or even funding possibilities for purchasing those parks.

No resident group has stepped in and offered to close to fair market value on this bill on on the parks. Seems clear SB 1092 is an attempt to give these entities an ability to devalue the parks and be able to lope all a purchase offer. For these reasons and those laid out in our letter, we ask for a no vote.

Next witness, please.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Jason Ikerd on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance. I'm gonna do my best not to repeat what my colleague from WMA said because we we share many of his points. But I do wanna talk a little bit about why we view this as diminishing the value of a park. Essentially, it comes down to the number of people who are willing to go into that transaction and to to offer to purchase a park.

As mister Wysocki said, you have to be able to withstand the timelines in this bill. You have to be able to tie up the money. And in some cases, it's a significant amount of money. These are large transactions for the two hundred and forty days that is is anticipated in this bill. There are not a lot of investors who are going to be willing to do that.

And then beyond that, once you purchase the property, you own it knowing that it is subject to these restrictions in perpetuity. So both of these things devalue the property. And we question the need for that, to be honest with you. It was mentioned earlier that, by one of the support witnesses that we want everybody to be able to purchase a park. We don't disagree.

There are over a 170 resident owned communities in the state of California today. There is a pathway to resident ownership through the private market, and we believe it's an appropriate pathway and that it works. We we agree also that to some extent that that there is a risk here. It's a significant risk that this bill is unconstitutional. So to the extent that is it it is intended to address the tragedies that happened in the Palisades fire, and it is tragic.

The loss of a home is a tragic thing for anybody. We don't believe that it will. The that this this bill would be challenged, and we think it would likely be struck down. Lastly, I just wanna conclude there was a lot of discussion of large institutional investors. So we we actually think that that would be one of the main reasons to vote no on this bill.

If you do not wanna see large institutional investors coming into California and swooping up and taking up mobile home parks, you need to consider who has the capacity to wait through the timelines in

this bill and to put up a significant amount of money for the amount of time considered in this bill. It's not people who are small mom and pop owners and it's not, you know, regional players. It's large institutional investors. With that, we respectfully urge your no vote. Thank you.

Alright. Others in opposition to SB 1092, please approach microphone.

Hi. Good afternoon. Kevin Rogers with the California Association of Realtors, and we oppose.

Thank you. Anyone else oppose? Seeing no one else, let's bring it back to the committee. Questions by committee members? Yes.

Senator Weber Pierson.

Thank you, Chair. I wanna thank the author for for bringing this forward and allowing us to have this conversation. I think that, you know, all, if not the vast majority of us, are very concerned about the ability for people to maintain in their homes and be able to have sufficient notice, prior to there being any kind of change. So my question my original question has to do with the timing of the notice.

I know we're going down from three hundred and sixty days to two hundred and forty days in this clinic I mean, in this committee with the amendments, but that also seems like a long time.

So I wanted to, first, because I have a couple questions, get a little bit of thought process behind that.

Yeah. So the idea is that it's about giving, you know the challenge here is and I I hear the arguments and Aye, you know, I I I I understand them. And I'm I am open to reducing the timeline further. You know, I know that I think that the challenge that that we have here is that we have you you have a group of residents that would would come together to purchase the the the the broader property. And and that takes time.

It's easy for and is it you know, it's easy easy for for one, you know, wealthier individual or institutional investor to act, you know, relatively quickly. But when you're talking about a group of people, it's about making sure that they're able to come up with a financing that can be, you know, complex tax given the increasing costs of land and all all the rest.

So for us, it was about trying to provide a reasonable timeline for these folks, for these residents to pull together a, a competitive, real bid. But I Aye, you know, I am I am open to working with the members on further reducing the timeline to address some of the issues that have been raised. You know, I I hear the good faith argument too.

I mean, I I certainly don't want people to be, you know, taking advantage of this. So, you know, some reciprocity on good faith, I'm open to as well. You know, for me that, you know, I I I'm I'm not trying to head us toward the doomsday scenario that's been described by the opponents.

For me, this is about ensuring that we give mobile home rec residents a meaningful opportunity to come up with a competitive bid if their park owner is looking to leave the business so that they can continue to live in their homes.

Yeah. No. And I think that that is definitely a noble focus and something that I think, you know, many of us would agree with. It you know, that time frame to me is a little long. But it also states that, I know initially it was, residents would have, like, a hundred and eighty days to respond, and then this and this committee were reducing that to a hundred and twenty.

So that's a hundred and twenty days. Yeah. For them to basically state, hey, we're interested. So my question is, if at a hundred and twenty days, the the owners of the land haven't heard from the residents, are they able to sell at that point?

If they haven't heard at all, what do you mean? Uh-huh.

Yeah. So you're saying that the residents or maybe I'm reading this wrong, that they have a hundred and twenty days, it was a hundred and eighty To essentially come up with a plan to purchase it or to to to bring an offer forward. If at that time, no offer has been presented, does that then open it up for the owner of the land to sell even though it's before 02:40? Because it wasn't clear in the language.

Oh, yes. Absolutely. That's that's the reason why we have the two Okay. Tiers.

So so if they haven't heard from someone by a hundred and twenty days now that we've reduced it

That's correct. Yeah.

Then the owner of the land is able

to Right. The additional 120 is then pulling together the money and Okay. And, you know, inspection escrow, all all that sort of thing.

Okay. So that alone could potentially reduce the time. So they're not locked into this.

Okay. And remember, this is different than buying a house. It's it's it's a much more complicated and multifaceted Right. Investigation when you're when you're Yeah.

I just wanna make sure that it's clear that Yeah. Even though they haven't heard in a hundred and Yes. Twenty days that they don't have to wait till the 02:40.

That's right.

And then my final question is, let's say that the by a hundred and twenty days, you know, the residents have gotten together Yeah. And they're like, we want to do an offer. And then sometime down the line, they're like, oh, no, we can't. No, we won't. That kinda leaves the owner of the land just kind of out there.

How are we addressing that?

Let me just start by saying, it's it's the the hundred and twenty days is not just kind of a general vague expression of interest. It it it it's a you have to show they have to been able to organize and coordinate and put together a full purchase agreement that they put forward. So it's a serious operation. Again, I I hear the argument about good faith.

If if there's if somehow, you know, if this falls through just like any in any purchase situation, they're they can go ahead with the other, you know, deal that they have on the table.

You know, and I'm I'm certainly not interested in trying to go after residents that have engaged in good faith in this process and for whatever reason that that's it's good faith that it's fallen apart. Now if if there's a, you know, if if we wanna add in some language to ensure that that people aren't just trying to run out the clock maliciously, I am happy to add that into.

Because again, I don't wanna see this being taken advantage of as a as a as a bludgeon Yeah. Against these home these these owners.

Because I think, you know, if you purchase a home or if you are interested in something, you know, we just, you know, did a cruise thing and we had to do a kind of a down payment to show that we were serious before the, you know, before we had to pay the full amount. And I didn't see anything in the bill that would require this other organiz or this other group to say, yes, we're interested more than this is the plan.

Like, the like, we're actually putting down some kind of down payment or something?

I'm happy to work with

the committee on on some reasonable and the advocates, you know, for some reasonable, tangible steps that show a seriousness of purpose in terms of purchase. You know, I don't want it to be o two owners, you know, and I wanna I don't want to be grounded in the experience of but but but, you know, again, this is this this this is about really giving people the option Right. To purchase if if if they're able to.

And so I I am absolutely happy to work with you and with the committee on on some tangible benchmarks that would have to be met.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Show us seriousness of purpose.

Just to clarify, the purchase agreement, if accepted, is a contract, an enforceable contract. Now, I recognize there'll be certain conditions in that contract, but if someone just simply That's blows it off, do you do you have a cause of action for each contract?

Yeah.

And that's a question. Is that true?

That's my understanding.

Alright. Alright. Senator Reyes, then Senator Ashby.

Okay. Yeah.

Another part of your bill has to do first of all, I I I think this is a good bill. I think as Senator Weber Pearson talked about the ability of homeowners, even if they're mobile homeowners, to be able to stay where they've lived oftentimes for decades. If they can put together a 50% more than 50% of the the residents, then you get a representative. Yeah. They actually have to put together an offer.

Yeah.

And it has to match the offer they've already received.

Exactly.

The same terms and conditions.

And if that is true, then the offer is accepted. But they are given the additional one hundred and twenty days to get their financing together. Exactly. Okay. So I I asked that because there were questions about low balling.

But if they low ball, the offer is not accepted and they go back to the original offer or they negotiate with the the mobile homeowners. Right.

Now, their argument is that by putting these additional constraints on the on the ability of the owner to sell by having to go through this process of working with the tenants, it it it it creates a it it could deflate the perceived value of the property. So So I think that's what they're referring to.

And I understand that except for the fact that the offer made by the tenants, by these mobile home tenants has to match.

Exactly.

That would be offer that was received. Exactly. Okay. The question about negotiating good faith, I think, is important on both sides.

Not just on the mobile home owners, but also on the mobile park owners as well Yeah. To negotiate in good faith to to allow these these tenants to be able to stay. On the timelines, I appreciate your willingness to work with with the committee and to, and opposition to see how you can come up with a number. I I don't see any serious problem with a hundred and twenty days initially for the for the offer to purchase the park.

Yeah.

The other question that I had though had to do with the qualified entities.

So these are organizations, maybe non profits that have the ability to purchase a park, mobile home park, and they they've already been registered. So if it if this mobile home park is going to be sold, then these entities, these qualified entities will be told mobile park is going to be sold. You are eligible to come in and make a purchase.

That's right. And it it becomes almost like the designated representative. We wanted to provide a vehicle for this because oftentimes that the this this kind of organization could have the tools and the wherewithal and the financing to pull something together in a expeditious manner. And presumably, they would strike a deal with the residents that would give them priority and and make sure that they were able to, to, you know, continue to live there.

Very good. Thank you for those clarifications.

Thank you. Senator Ashby.

Yeah. Thank you, Senator. Count me amongst the people who believe that our only pathway out of the affordability housing crisis that we're in will definitely include manufactured homes. They're a really important part of the conversation moving forward. Also, very understandable.

You all you took all of us on the journey with you, the fire in your area and what happened to folks that you knew and represented in that mobile home park, which I think has informed a lot of I'll speak for myself. It's informed my position on how owners were displaced.

And I think it's really unfortunate. So I understand and appreciate very much what you're trying to do with the bill. Would like to associate my comments with doctor Weber because I I personally think 240 is too long. That's eight months. That's a really long period of time, especially if you're adding on top of it as you sort of under your breath, I think as you answered doctor Weber.

Pearson said that the hundred and twenty days is additional for folks to get their funding together and put those pieces together for the proposal. I I think I heard that I think I heard you say that trailing off as you were answering her question. So I guess my point to you is I think these are extremely long periods of time. I think what you're trying to do is write and laudable.

But we don't wanna create a scenario that is untenable for people to actually buy and sell these properties in the state of California.

I I think you need to do some clarification. Maybe some of this happened because you took amendments, and that that can take a minute too to then remedy the amendments to the intent of your bill. But these time frames for me don't they they're too long.

We can't go over two forty with these amendments now. There's there's no

Let, let me I'm gonna ask you to clarify something so that I'm

Yeah.

Mistaken. So you've got under the bill as currently written, you've got a hundred and twenty days to cough up a purchase agreement.

That's currently amended. It's currently amended.

Correct. It's currently amended. If you don't cough up a purchase agreement, all bets are off.

That's right. We're done.

We're done. Yeah. Done.

Then if you do produce a purchase agreement and it is accepted because it meets the same terms and conditions, I understand there'll be probably additional financing conditions. Then you've got another hundred and twenty days under the bill as amended. So just to make sure that that I'm not mistaken, it doesn't mean there's an additional hundred and twenty days somewhere in there. So hundred and twenty days cough up purchase agreement. No purchase agreement.

All bets are off. You do cough up purchase agreement. You got another hundred and twenty days to provide the finance financing, close the deal. Okay? Alright.

That's correct.

Okay. So it's 240 total.

Yep.

With the two 120 periods. K. I mean, it's just it's a really long time. And as the chair has already stated, after the first hundred and twenty, which the good doctor also said, if you have nothing, then we're done with this and you're moving on. But if you have something, then you, you purchase agreement. I mean, if a legal binding contract.

Then you yeah. Then I'm a little unclear on why you need the second hundred and twenty days because you have an agreement. I mean, in one way, it might be helpful because you couldn't go over the hundred and twenty days. But I'm just I'm just a little perplexed at why you need the second one hundred and twenty days once you already have that you've entered into together. I mean, you could really look at this from both persons.

Somebody may need longer than one hundred and twenty days to put their financing together. Somebody else might be able to do it really quickly. I I guess I'm just a little confused about that second piece.

I appreciate it. Would you would you mind to the chair if Ryan Sure. Go ahead. Take the the question? Yeah.

So one of the the constraints and the reason for those timeline lengths is because there is a need to conduct due diligence.

Yes.

When we look, for example, at the sale of this park, this public list or this this confidential listing of the park did not include the fact that the park is actually vulnerable to certain geological features like landslides.

And so if a resident organization did enter into a purchase agreement, they would still need time in order to hire geological technicians and folks along the lines of, you know, folks who would be able to help them evaluate the site for continued feasibility, making sure that everything as presented in the initial offering is still aligned with everything that they have, you know, entered into this contract to purchase.

And should that have been misrepresented, residents also do need that additional time to then say, okay, maybe we need to go back to the table and renegotiate.

Maybe that's not describing is a breach of contract. I mean, they would you have a duty to disclose that. So if somebody didn't disclose that in the first hundred and twenty days, they would already be in violation of their legal duties to have disclosed something, especially that, a natural disaster.

But if residents are still interested in trying to purchase, then they might want to still make a renewed bid with the knowledge of new conditions. It's kind of like going through and purchasing a single family home And then wanting to have somebody walk through the property with you and make sure that everything is alright.

You can express your intent to purchase. But until you get back all the feedback from an engineer that says, yes, this is going to be you know, everything is

Yeah.

I get that. But in that example, we haven't that's a bad example because we haven't put those same kind of time restraints. Can we ask the opposition to answer the same question? Sure. Sure.

Thank you, Ryan. Thank you.

Thanks, Ryan.

Thank you, Senator. And, so I wanna first say that we agree with the interpretation that the 100 if no offers tendered or interest is expressed in the first hundred and twenty days, game over. Yeah. It's it's the park and can be sold. It's that second hundred and twenty days that I think we're we're we're struggling with as an association at WMA.

You know, and I just kinda point you to page seven of the bill. It's I forget what what code it is. Now, this is not the amended one, but it's seven nine eight point eight three point two. And in section C of that, it says, management shall not reject a proposed purchase agreement solely on the basis of its inclusion of a financing contingency, the type of financing, or payment method, or the time period for closing.

So, what our question is, what happens if that time period for closing extends beyond the second hundred and twenty days?

That could actually go beyond the two forty. So I mean that's one of the concerns that we have about this bill is that you could push this out beyond the two forty. In theory, if you've if you follow the literal text of the of the bill and that's just that's a very big concern of ours and one of the reasons for our opposition. So that I does that answer your question, Senator?

I mean, it's sort of is it is my question really, I think, at the end because this is the different way of doing things from how we as you you actually pointed out, than how we would handle other land purchases. So I'm

Well, now we're testifying. I think it is absent the timing. It is just how commercial purchases occur. In other words, there's a purchase agreement. That purchase agreement is accepted.

Here, we are by, we're adding

by, by legislation, we're creating a first right of refusal. That's what we're doing. Is we're creating a first right of refusal on the part of the part of the tenants.

Which I'm absolutely okay with on the hundred and twenty days, but I'm having trouble with the second hundred and twenty days.

So in a in a traditional commercial sale is that the two parties agree. Two parties say, okay. We're gonna you've got x amount of time. And I would encourage the author to say, you know, absent agreement of the parties that that the whatever time you choose remains that time.

That's fair.

So that the parties can extend it. They're not bound by the legislation.

Right. Because that could hurt too.

So Well, I've I've actually think that's here in the bill. It says because it because if you keep going, it then it then explicitly mentions a hundred eighty days, and it says One twenty. Yeah.

Fails to arrange on this.

You know, it do if if the resident fails to arrange on this or during this period, of course, we're now down to one twenty, or a longer period as the parties may agree to, or fails, then then management has no further duties under this article with respect to the proposed sale, at least to transfer the part.

Yeah. But that's the point. They might need longer. I okay.

But that

But if Okay. If that's the case. Yeah.

Why do you have the

Thank you.

If, if that's the case under that section, why do you have management shall not reject the post blah blah blah or the time period for closing?

If the time period for closing is a definite time period. That's really my question is

Time. Is

easy. So So this is well

So if the time period for closing extends beyond the statutory period, I would guess you'd wanna amend the bill so that it that the the law doesn't sort of indirectly extend that period.

Right.

Yep. Or important it maybe if your buyer needs

Well, you okay. Yeah. We don't wanna shorten it.

Right. No. I know about Yeah. Right. For what you're trying to achieve, this might hurt you, actually.

We just don't want we don't I mean, and this is why the the good faith language is putting that we didn't want Yeah. The owners who don't wanna sell under these circumstances to run out the clock in a way that would be disadvantageous. But, you know, I can only I mean, I I'm I'm I think with the assistance of the senators and

the Right. Own their language. We're kinda done right in the bill. So I I know that Senator Allen will continue to have this conversation. We've we've addressed several issues that I think you've you've indicated you will continue to look at.

And I know that Senator Wahab has a question and Senator Nilo Nilo also has a question. So Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Senator Wahab. Okay. No. Senator Reyes, did you wanna we'll we'll come back to you.

You're done.

I'm sorry.

You're done. Okay. Senator Wahab.

So, you know, in this building, the conversation about our housing has largely been about supply and demand. And that is the only conversation that seems to get any traction. And any conversation in this building regarding safeguards, transparency, you know, correcting bad actors, those conversations seem to die in this committee as well. And so I I wanna flag as much as possible. I have actually traveled to The Palisades and Altadena and, you know, went on tour, if you will, with, Senator Allen.

And this particular site that is the example in the photo that has been shown multiple times, it literally is right next to the water and a massive cliff like land right above it. Right? And when we met with the residents that were impacted by the fires, the individuals that had the most, you know, authority were the the property owners. And the people that were the most vulnerable in every aspect of this disaster were either renters or mobile home park owners, the residents at those parks.

Because they do owned the actual home.

They don't own the land. They rent the land. Right? So I just wanna give that distinction. Right?

And, you know, this this is really important because even right now, I'm running a bill that literally just again protects mobile home park tenants from the potential of a sale that just completely destroys their homes and builds commercial multifamily housing. And this type of housing that we're talking about with mobile home parks do give people an opportunity to own. And granted, it's it's a slightly different because they still have to rent the land.

And the individuals, if you all go to these mobile home parks, it's incredibly important to talk to the residents. Right?

And in my district, we have, my myself personally, have roughly 92 mobile home parks. Okay? San Jose has roughly 58, 59. Sunnyvale has 16. Hayward has about 10.

Fremont has about three. Milpitas has three. Union City has roughly one. So that, adds up to roughly 92 mobile home parks. Right?

And this bill is largely very, very clear. This is not a forced sale. It's not. Right? It gives people an opportunity.

It's a fair notice and fair opportunity bill that allows for one of California's largest source of naturally affordable home ownership to potentially remain, potentially. And this safeguard of just letting the folks know that this is happening. In the city of San Jose, right, a large metropolitan city and affluent city, they've actually even protected the zoning of mobile home park zoning just to protect and provide more support there.

The individuals, when we have town halls and we talk to constituents and we we go into these communities, we represent the people that are living here that are, and I wanna be very clear, seniors, veterans, immigrants, disabled individuals, seniors that are taking care of their disabled adult kids, and so much more. Right?

These are populations of people that deserve every type of protection, every type of a heads up on a notice. And we're debating these timelines. Right? But if these community members are able to have a handful of folks that are saying, okay, we're gonna find some investor that works with us. Maybe create a coop.

Maybe engage with the housing authority of that particular county. Maybe get some government funding to be able to give us the rights to just own the land or buy. I think that is absolutely appropriate. Absolutely appropriate because we do too much in this building for industry and for the dollar versus the actual people we serve. And and that that is how I feel.

This is my biggest frustration in this building. And, you know, when when people are talking about the delays and it's taking too long. Right? Again, it's the owners still choose whether to sell and still get market value. Right?

When we're talking about it's a forced sale, it's not residents must match the price. It's not like they're getting a massive discount or anything like that. They have to be in similar terms as fair market value. Right? It's endless delays is what we're talking about.

The bill has deadlines. If the sale doesn't work out, if if the requirements aren't met, the owner can walk away. Right? And so I fully support this bill. You know, I'm I'm very proud of the work that, you know, Senator Allen and I have actually done together to protect the most vulnerable community members.

I think that's what we need to recenter is who is affected by this. And it's the people that are literally the most vulnerable that just want to be able to live where they have, where they bought a home. So what happens to the property if the land is sold? So we're uprooting the most vulnerable victims here. So I I just wanna again, I I will make the motion to move this bill.

I think it's absolutely appropriate. I think it's the right thing to do. And I think that we need to talk a little bit more about how we protect more people rather than, you know, the takings, if you will. So thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you. Senator Nieto. Thank you, mister chair.

We're talking about we've been talking about the ability of people to stay in their home, to maintain the home they've had. That's reflective of the statements that Senator Wahab said. But and it says if a sale of the park means everybody's gonna lose their home. I'm I'm I'm missing the logic on that. There's protections for people that live in mobile home parks and those protections extend regardless of who the owner is.

A new owner is subject to the same restrictions of protection of the residents as the selling owner was. So I'm not sure that I fully understand that seemingly foregone conclusion that the sale of park means people are gonna lose their homes. And this I I understand the unique nature of mobile homes, that, people own the home but they're renting the space, but they know that when they enter, the agreement.

That's not something that's all of a sudden realized if the park is gonna go up for sale and my concern about that is it is a fundamental compromise of private property rights. We are telling a private property owner, we're putting conditions onto a private property owner that compromise his or her ability to exercise their private property rights, which is the fundamental reasons for for the opposition.

And that's a pretty important tenant of our society, of our free market economy. If we allow such rights to be compromised here, we could allow it elsewhere if we see some injustice to some class that might be compromised by that compromise of the property of the exercise of private private property rights. That's my concern with the bill. And again, I'll go back to my first statement. It doesn't automatically mean that people are gonna lose their homes.

They are protected under current laws, under the new owners, they were the old owner. Perhaps you're gonna say, well, the only reason somebody would wanna buy the property is because they want it for an alternative use. But still, the existing owner could pursue that alternative use only under the protections that are provided by California law of of mobile home tenants. So I I the the the argument that we're protecting their home just doesn't seem realistic to me, number one.

And number two, the violation of private property rights is significant in my mind.

Does it Sure. Do you wanna respond now or Response, just a couple of things. First of all, I think folks we and we we actually look at a lot of rent control conversations here around this table at this committee. One thing that folks need to know is that the tenant protection act that caps rental rate hikes doesn't apply to mobile homes. So perhaps some of the protections that I think you're assuming is extended to these folks is are are not.

You're right. They could sell to a totally different use. You can also have some of these, you know, you know, kind of a venture cap, right, or that private equity types that will come in and, you know, and and jack up the rates to unaffordable levels. So those are the kinds of concerns. We're trying to strike a balance here.

I mean, this is we're we're saying you know, we we what we're saying, okay, let's give these people who live there, their home, the opportunity to match a bonafide offer. Let's give them that opportunity. I understand that there if you're a strict libertarian with regards to private property rights, I could see why you'd have concerns about this. But we're not giving, you know, unlimited rights to the to the to the tenants in this case.

We're we're just we're we're giving them some ample opportunity, and we could talk about the time frame and all and and and and all the things we discussed earlier, but just some fighting chance to come back with a real offer to that landlord and offer them the same amount of money so as to be able to keep themselves in their homes at their own terms.

That that's what we're asking to do here. So if you're strict strictly as a fairest, I I totally understand the concern. But but we're trying to strike a balance here that that that ultimately will not leave these these landlords high and dry. They're gonna get paid a considerable amount of money. They're gonna get paid what they would be getting paid otherwise, but we're providing the folks that actually been living there for a long time the opportunity to stay.

That's the concept in it. But if there's, you know if if you disagree with that core concept, then obviously, we're not gonna come to the court. But if

I'm just guessing that Senator Niello has not changed his mind. Just guessing.

But I appreciate the discussion.

Yeah. Good. I appreciate you. Senator Reyes.

I just want to comment on the opposition. I appreciated the comment from the gentleman who spoke earlier. He didn't come in and say absolutely not. We don't wanna do this. He just had concerns about some of the timelines, and I appreciate your willingness to work with them.

I think that, you know, as Senator Wahab has has discussed, keeping people in their home is extremely important.

Yeah.

These are tenants that have been paying for years. I'm saying decades because I have many of them in my in my district as well. Yes. I want to be able to protect the owner's ability to sell. That that's that's the American dream.

You you purchase something and you should be able to sell it at some point. And we're just saying, just do one extra step. To protect the people who have been your faithful tenants. Those protections that Senator Nilo talked about. They're not going to be the same with a new purchaser.

The new purchaser does not have the same obligation to those tenants that the current owner has. The new owner can do just as the Senator as the author has not mentioned. They can increase the price for for the site, for the rental, to a point where it's no longer affordable. It's no longer the issue for the prior owner. The prior owner is done, but just this transition.

And again, I I I do applaud you in your position, Not saying absolutely not. You're taking away my all my rights. You're saying I have concerns about some of this. As we transition for in this sale, it's going to be a sale price that has to match what the private industry has offered, the terms and conditions, as I said earlier. So I I I just wanted to say that I appreciated that, and I appreciate the author's willingness to work on this.

I think it's a righteous bill. I think it's an important protection for for those tenants, and I I I I want you to continue and and certainly work with the opposition. I know that you will.

Thank you. Other comments or questions? Seeing none. So, Senator okay. Senator Rossell.

Just one. Aye, I want to add, how much I appreciate the effort to protect, affordable housing. We need more affordable housing than straight out market rate housing. We should do both. I've never said don't do the other.

We have to do more to protect what already exists as affordable housing.

Yeah.

And we need to build more affordable housing. I see nothing here that takes away from anyone's ability to sell and make a profit and do all of that. But we we saw another thing we saw from the from the fires was these were real communities that stuck together. Yeah. They helped each other out.

They watched out for each other. That's all that I think these communities wanna do as well. So thank you very much for the bill. Thank you, Senator.

Alrighty. Thank you. Seeing no other questions or comments, would you like to close?

No. I just appreciate this thoughtful conversation and both of the proponents and opponents and and my amongst my colleagues. We will work on this. I invite and encourage real dialogue, as we try to get to to striking that balance. I mean, I think we recognize that, you know, this is a private market.

These folks do deserve an opportunity to to, you know, make money and and but we also wanna make sure we're preserving people's rights to to stay in their homes and their ability their ability to stay in their homes if they can come up with a bonafide competitive offer. So with that, in that spirit, I'd love to work with everybody and ask for an aye vote.

I think Senator Wahab wanted to move the bill. Senator Wahab moves the bill. Just, one final comment. I appreciate your flexibility, and, I made a comment earlier about writing the bill in committee. I know you've gotten a number of suggestions, and I also know that that you're a person of your word and that in terms of, for example, the reciprocal good faith and in terms of making sure that there's clarity, that you will take all those to heart.

And with that I'd

like to work with a committee on that.

Then we will continue to work on that. And with that committee assistant Porter, would you call the roll?

This is file number 7SB1092. The motion is to pass as amended to Senate housing. [Roll call]. 8 to 1.

8-1. We're gonna put that on call. And I see Senator Allen is departing and Senator Becker is here. Senator Becker, file number four, SB911. The floor is yours.

After Senator Becker, we're gonna ask for Senator Arreguin to appear.

Great. Thank you, mister chair, members. I'm presenting SB911. This is pertaining to inspections of homes in very high wildfire severity zones to ensure compliance with defensible space standards. I won't go through because I know you all are aware of the increase in destructive fires.

But right now, there's more than 2,000,000 California households, approximately one in four residential structures in California. That's one in four residential structures in California are located within or in proximity of high or extreme fire risk areas as identified by Cal Fire, one in four residential structures. Overwhelming data suggests that the two most important factors in protecting those homes from wildfires are, number one, the selection of building materials, and two, the maintenance of vegetation and other flammable materials in order to establish adequate defensible space.

Additionally, insurance industry has told us time and time again, they're unlikely to ensure homes in high fire threat severity zones without compliance with defensible space standards. In 2019, legislature approved legislation requiring a sale of real real property that's located in high fire severity zones to provide to the buyer documentation stating that the buyer is in compliance with fire defense space standards or agree that the buyer will bring the home into compliance within a year of the sale.

While sale transactions are an ideal time to bring homes up to code, the fly in the ointment, there's no really way there's been a sort of a loophole and a failure to alert the relevant fire enforcement agencies that the agreement has been, reached. So while I agree there's broad agreement to fix this and this bill, is doing that, currently in the bill it requires, the seller upon sale to, notify the local fire enforcement agency. The realtors, California Association of Realtors, have expressed concerns with this approach.

I've been sitting down with the realtors, the escrow agents, the land title companies to find a way through this. The solution we're now discussing, and I wanna just share this with you because this is not the bill in print.

The solution we're discussing would modify what's called the preliminary change of ownership report, which is followed by the transferee. And per a plan amendment, that will now notify include a notification of of of an agreement that the buyer has agreed to bring the property into compliance with defensible state standards. So, we've I think found another way to do this, that will, make everyone happy.

What I'm asking for today is the committee's indulgence to move the bill forward, and I commit the to making the necessary amendments before the bill is heard in the assembly, committee. That's what we need to do for timing, purposes.

So happy to go through any of that. Afterwards, we've here to testify on on the, bill itself is Michael Warra, senior director for policy, sustainability accelerator at the Stanford Door School of Sustainability, and Steve Albert, deputy fire marshal at the Contra Costa Fire Protection District.

Thank you, Senator Becker and members of the committee for inviting me to testify today on SB 911. I'm speaking in my individual capacity, but lead a team at Stanford that works on wildfire policy in partnership with the state of California. Sorry. Michael Wara. I'm the director of the Climate and Energy Policy Program at Stanford as well as a senior director for policy at our sustainability accelerator.

So I come to speak in support of SB 911, and I wanna sort of speak at the high level. I think it's really important to understand the context in which this bill arises. Bringing homes into compliance with defensible space statute is a really challenging endeavor for our firefighters across the state, whether they are Cal Fire or local fire agencies.

And in practice, it's been found that change of ownership is a real opportunity to make change so that over time, the number of homes that are in compliance with section forty two ninety one as it is evolving, and we all know that's that's something that the Board of Forestry is continually trying to approve in a balanced way. But over time, more of the homes in the high fire risk communities are really substantively in compliance with the code.

Of course, homes fall out of compliance because plants grow. It's no one's fault. It's not anyone's intention, but it can create a really challenging dynamic between firefighters and homeowners that is absent at the point of a transaction because the rose Bush that someone has fallen in love with, who lives in the house, matters less once they've sold the house. To the new owner, that rose Bush is not something that they planted with their mother ten years ago and that they're deeply committed to the existence of.

And so it creates flexibility and an opportunity to make change, to create public safety and space for our firefighters to work under emergency situations.

This bill is an attempt, as Senator Becker described, to close what is in effect become a bit of a loophole in very well intentioned legislation that was enacted after the seventeen and eighteen fire seasons, and I urge your support in in seeing this bill out of committee. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm Steve Aubert. I serve as deputy fire marshal for Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and also here to represent, Cal Chiefs, Association and Fire Districts Association of California. Thank you, Senator Becker. On behalf of, Cal Chiefs and the Fire District Association, we are pleased to support SB 911.

Bill addresses that critical gap in wildfire safety by strengthening the defensible space compliance. Under the current law, properties may remain, as we stated before, not meeting those defensible space standards for, up to one year, including during peak fire season with limited mechanisms to ensure that timely compliance. SB 911 improves that framework by creating a clear notification and accountability process between the sellers, assessors, and fire agencies to ensure properties are brought into compliance.

Just as importantly, it provides the tools needed to implement this effectively, allowing for flexible verification methods, including third party and remote inspections, prioritization based off of risk, and cost recovery for local agencies. The practical scalable approach that improves defensible space compliance while recognizing the operational realities faced by fire agencies across the state.

For these reasons, Cauchy's and FDAC respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Others in support of SB 911, please approach microphone. Oh, seeing no one approaching, let's turn the opposition. Oh, Assemblymember Woods.

Welcome back.

Good afternoon. Jim Wood, cal California Strategies representing Fireside, a California based wildfire risk management company based in Marin County, in support. As a private citizen and someone who knows a little bit about the legislation, this is the Senator is working on. I appreciate him taking this effort up. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Wood, appreciate it. Alright. Others in support.

Hi. Good afternoon. Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. I'm pleased to support I'm pleased to let everybody know that we've had several productive conversations with the Senator and his staff in the last few weeks. And although we currently have an opposed and less amended position on the bill, I look forward to removing that opposition once the proposed amendments are in print.

Thank you. I think, indeed, Senator Becker has committed to removing your opposition. Yes. Is that accurate? Yeah. Alright. Thank you. K. Others in support, seeing no one else approaching, let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 911, please approach.

Seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the committee. Who's the bill? Senator Ashby has moved the bill. Senator Reyes has a question.

Only because we received so little in writing. I want to confirm it is the obligation of the seller or of the buyer to notify to get the notification that all everything has been done.

So what what we're proposing going forward is going to modify an existing document. There already goes in the process, which is filed by the transferee. So it's called the preliminary change of ownership report. So it's a report that's already filed.

So the changes rather than having the realtors, say for example, be responsible to do it, either the buyer or seller realtors, it's gonna be part of a report that it's gonna be an additional basic check off in a report that already goes through this preliminary change of ownership.

And my notes say it's filed by the transferee Which is the buyer. So it's it's part of a report already filed by the buyer.

And I do want to say that the example given by your witness about this rose bush it means nothing to the buyer, but it may mean everything to the seller. It was a great example. Thank you. Thank you.

Alrighty. Other questions or comments? Senator Reyes has moved the bill. No. Oh. Senator. Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Ashley has moved the bill. Alright. Would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for we have the author of one of the the previous work on this and, you know, we're all trying to get to this point of figuring out how do we provide the right incentives, the right enforcement, the right dollars to create the defensible space that we all need. I believe this bill is an important step in that direction. I wanna thank my team for also working very hard on this and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Alright. Committee assistant Porter, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

6- 0. Put that on call. Okay.

So we have no other authors that are-

No. We have senators also.

Yeah. But that are not on the committee. Okay.

You're up.

I'm up. Yeah.

Yeah. This is Senator Durazo, agenda item number nine, SB 1160. You may proceed when you reach the microphone. Wrong way. How long have you been here?

I just had a martini then.

Well, let's all have that.

Yeah. Let's all have fun.

Bring a thermos.

What the hell?

No. No. No. Here we were a little bit more refined. It's WTH.

I'm sorry.

Okay. I'm ready to go, sir.

Proceed.

Thank you, mister chair. 1160. Okay. Chair and members, 1160, SB 1160 brings transparency and accountability to California's eviction process, an issue directly tied to our growing housing and homelessness crisis. Reports have shown that over half of renters in California are burdened by housing costs.

And in just the past decade, homelessness has increased by 53%. We know that eviction is often the tipping point into homelessness. But without public data, we're essentially navigating, implementing homelessness prevention without a map. This bill works to fix the problem by requiring the judicial council to collect and publish anonymized ZIP code level data on eviction filings and outcomes each year. This data includes how many tenants and landlords are represented by legal counsel, outcomes of cases, and how many end in default.

With this data, policy makers like ourselves, legal service providers, and local governments can identify patterns in eviction filings and outcomes like default between ZIP codes, track local and statewide progress on preventing homelessness, and develop smarter, more targeted solutions based on the needs of a given neighborhood and community. It's about targeting support where it's needed and creating systems that are transparent and responsive to our needs.

Today, we have the pleasure of hearing from Kyle Nelson, director of policy and advocacy with SAGE, and Tina Rosales Torres, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Great. Well, thank you so much. Thank you, Chair Umberg and members of the committee. Like Senator Durazo said, my name is Kyle Nelson. I'm director of policy and advocacy at Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, based in South Central Los Angeles.

My support of SB 1160 is rooted in over a decade of experience gathering and analyzing this data, using public records requests. And I'd like to say that I haven't taken this journey alone. I've been assisted by incredible staff from judicial counsel and superior court systems across the state. As part of this process, I learned about the add, the outcome categories used by judicial counsel and was able to adapt them to reflect categories used by policy makers.

These include default outcomes, dismissal outcomes, outcomes that have been negotiated, and outcomes produced at trial.

We compiled this information into a novel publicly available data set, spanning fiscal years 2010 to 2024. And I've provided this information to elected officials and government agencies, journalists, eviction defense lawyers, housing justice advocates, and academics around the state. And this report, this data is also being published in a report, that will be released on April 21 that talks about trends in eviction filings and outcomes across the state.

This info has also been used to enact and implement, right to counsel legislation, in the city of Los Angeles in LA County, and to support tenant protection policy advocacy efforts in jurisdictions across California. And this is in some of our most pressing moments, like the COVID-nineteen pandemic, and the wildfires in Los Angeles County.

This data, is primarily aggregated filings and outcomes at the county level. We currently have it for 50 of 58 counties. Now, that sounds great until we think about the fact that the counties that don't report contain over 54% of California's tenancies and 57% of its eviction filings. Now, this data is helpful, but it's limited. And that's why we need, SB 1160.

SB 1160 helps us understand what actually--

You could wrap up, please.

What's that?

You could wrap up your testimony.

Yeah. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I'm testifying in support of SB 1160, and I'm asking this committee to vote aye. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Alright. Ready?

You may proceed.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Tina Rosales Torres. I use she/her pronouns, and I'm a policy attorney with Western Center on Law and Poverty. I have had the privilege of working with most of you here on tenant protections for the past five years. And the number one question I get without fail is, what does the data say?

And my response is usually, we have some of it but not all of it so I'll share what we have. And what SB- what this bill is doing is closing the gap, bridging the gap between the data that we have and the data that we need. I know every one of you want good governance. You want transparency and accountability.

That's all this bill is going to do because it'll allow us to determine whether the bills that we all work so hard to pass are actually effective.

Are those solutions addressing the problems that we wish to resolve? And that is why we need this aggregated data by zip code. I will share one example. We all worked on the COVID nineteen, eviction protections, the emergency rental assistance program, and we require data transparency. Because of that, we were able to determine whether or not the program was effective as it was moving through the process, and we made tweaks where necessary.

That was the number one most effective emergency rental assistance program in the state providing over $5,000,000,000 to over 370,000 households. With the data that we are requesting this bill, it's simply gonna determine whether the solutions that we're offering are actually solutions. And just one note on the agri- on the privacy concerns, because the data is aggregated by zip code and it's essentially it's a aggregated is a big word for me, but it's essentially it's going to remain privatized.

So it's not like we'll be able to find an individual person or an individual homeowner and figure out what's going on with their housing. It's just gonna give us a broad picture of what is happening in that area.

And with that, I urge you to, also support this bill. Thank you.

Others, in support, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon. Mark Isidro on behalf of the County Of Los Angeles in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ruth Sosa Martinez on behalf of PowerCA Action in support.

Good afternoon. Natalie Spivak with Housing California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And seeing no others approaching the microphone, primary witnesses in opposition.

Good afternoon. Kevin Rogers with the California Association of Realtors and we oppose. Thank you.

Others in opposition? Bring it back to the, committee. Questions? Comments? Senator Durazo.

Senator Reyes. I'm sorry.

Under Durazo bill.

I just wanna thank you for for this. And I think as your witness said, we always wanna know what the data is. I mean, how many people are being evicted? How many go to trial? How many trials are dismissed?

And we don't have this in the aggregate form. And it's time that we did. So I thank you for bringing this forward. And with that, I would move the bill.

Other questions or comments?

It's been moved. The realtors indicated opposition. I thought it was opposed unless amended evidently not. Have you had discussions with them?

Not yet. Very close to to today's hearing. So Yes.

It was. It arrived rather late. It is in the media analysis. But

So we haven't had that opportunity because of the timing.

Okay.

We're glad to sit down with them, of course.

Would the realtors like to make any comment relative to okay. So any other comments, questions members of the committee? If not, we have a motion by Senator Reyes. Please call.

Opportunity to close.

Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Durazo, you may close.

Ask for your aye vote. Thank you, mister chair.

That was an excellent close. Please call the roll.

This is file item number nine, SB 1160. The motion is to pass the Senate appropriations. [roll call]. 7 to 0.

Seven to zero, we will keep that open. And, Senator Durazo, you are up again. This is, file item 10, SB1399. Great.

Thank you, Mister Chair. This bill preserves California's ability to shine a light on conditions inside the immigration detention facilities. Under existing law, established, AB103 established an important state oversight framework requiring the California Department of Justice to review immigration detention facilities and report on conditions of confinement, standard of care, and due process provided to detained individuals. But that authority is set to sunset on 07/01/2027.

SB1399 removes the sunset provision and ensures the California Department of Justice continues the important work of inspecting and reporting on the conditions within the detention facilities.

It's necessary because detention facilities remain places where health, safety, and civil rights concerns are too easily, too easily go unseen. We have the responsibility, to understand what is happening inside these facilities and ensure that the treatment of detained individuals is documented, reviewed, and made transparent. And so that we can be aware, we can know and be assured of the well-being of all Californians.

In a since AB103 was enacted, California Department of Justice has issued reports several years in a row, and they are currently in the process of finalizing a fifth report. These reports examine the conditions through site visits, review of logs, etcetera, etcetera.

They have documented serious concerns, inadequate medical and mental health care, unsafe conditions, and due process failures. There must be accountability and there must be oversight. This bill ensures California does not lose one of the few tools it has to monitor these facilities and document the truth about what is happening inside.

Today, we have the pleasure of hearing from Bill Malpalmasolana, a supervising deputy attorney general in the civil rights enforcement division at Cal DOJ and Francis Davila, manager of community advocacy with the Acacia Center for Justice to speak in support and help answer questions.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Vilma Palma-Solana, and I'm a supervising deputy attorney general in the civil rights enforcement section at the California Department of Justice and here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta. The attorney general is proud to sponsor SB1399. Since the legislature enacted AB103 in 2017, our department has been reviewing civil immigration detention facilities, and I oversee the team that conducts this work.

The review of the seven privately operated detention facilities is critical to bring transparency about the conditions in which immigrants are being held, and that is why it's critically important to permanently extend this program through SB399.

Through our reviews and reports, we have brought to light issues with medical care, mental health care, the use of solitary confinement, and how conditions affect due process rights. With respect to medical care, we have found inadequate treatment for those with chronic conditions, improper diagnosis, poor prescription practices, delays in the provision of care, and insufficient staffing. We have found, disproportionate use of force against individuals with mental health diagnosis and the use of solitary confinement to manage those with mental illnesses.

We have found that facilities do not have adequate language interpretation services and do not offer meaningful social and recreational programming. We have also found obstacles to adequate legal due process, including phones that shut down for long periods of time, inadequate access to legal materials, obstacles to receiving and sending mail, and barriers to communicating with attorneys.

Last year, when the California city detention facility opened, we inspected it and found that the facility opened when it was not ready. There was inadequate staffing, numerous complaints about the quality and quantity of food and water, and detainees our team interviewed, including elderly women, were visibly distraught as they recounted for our team the frigid conditions they face in the facility without adequate clothing.

We found many similar issues at the Adelanto Waste Processing Center because the facility was unprepared for the population explosion during the Trump administration's immigration enforcement surge in Southern California in June 2025.

Wrap up. That'd be great. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your support.

Thank you. Alright. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Frances Davila, and I'm an immigration attorney with the Acacia Center for Justice. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of SB1399. This bill concerns California's authority to continue reviewing and reporting on conditions inside immigration detention facilities. Since January 2025, 46 people have died in immigration custody, the highest number in over two decades.

2026 is on track to exceed that with thirteen reported deaths, some of which occurred in California. That makes independent state oversight not optional but essential. While immigration enforcement is a federal issue, the health, safety, and dignity of people detained in California directly impact our communities. California has directed Cal DOJ to inspect detention facilities and issue public reports on conditions of confinement, medical care, and due process, but that authority expires in 2027. SB1399 simply ensures this oversight does not disappear.

These reports matters because what happens inside these facilities is often hidden. In January 2023, a man detained at Golden State Annex wrapped a sheet around his neck in an apparent suicide attempt. Yet, staff dismissed the incident saying he was playing with it. There was no documented suicide review, no trauma informed follow-up, and no formal response. In 2023 alone, 41 rape incidents were reported at Otay Mesa, yet survivors were denied trauma care, appropriate referrals, and investigations.

And on 02/27/2026, Alberto Gutierrez Reyes, a husband and father, died at Adelanto. He was repeatedly died denied medical care despite living with diabetes. His death was preventable as diabetes is a common treatable condition when proper proper medical attention is provided. Reports by DOJ inform the legislature, advocates, and the general public about the realities of these facilities and what, if anything, can be done to pursue accountability. Thank you.

Alright. Others in support of SB1399, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Unidos US. We're in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jackie Gonzalez, co-executive director of Immigrant Defense Advocates, proud co-sponsor in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support, please approach. Seeing no one else approaching, let's talk to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB1399, please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to committee for questions, comments.

Questions, comments? Senator Reyes.

I want to begin by thanking the attorney general and his staff. His team for the inspections, for for the oversight. So important. People have died there. People are you've you've mentioned so many atrocities.

This should not be happening in California. And I'm so glad AB103 had passed to allow the attorney general to do this. And I appreciate all the work that he and his team have done. So please thank him on our behalf. And to the to the author, I thank you for bringing the bill forward.

I think it's extremely important that we make it permanent. The attorney general should have the ability to do these inspections and do the oversight for the good of all Californians. It isn't just our immigrants because they are part of our communities and and we have to be able to make sure that the the if they're going to be held that they are held in humane in a humane way and not ever have harm come upon them. So I thank you for bringing this forward.

And with that, I would move the bill.

Alright. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, Senator Reyes has moved the bill. Senator Russell, would you like to close?

Thank you. I just wanna end by reminding us that these are not these are people who have not been found guilty of crimes. These are civil this is civil detention. And to hear the report, just examples of the report given by the Department of Justice really should be shocking to all of us. The least we can do is to continue.

There are many other things that we need to do, but the least we could do is to continue the authority of the Department of Justice. So thank you all very much, and urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Rossell. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll. Yes. Senator Reyes. Reyes made the motion.

Yes.

This is file item number 10 SB1399. The motion is do pass to Senate appropriations. [Roll call]. 50?

50. Put that on call. Thank you.

Thank you,

You're now seeking desperately seeking authors. I think there's a book called that. Alright. We can go through the count. But let me let me ask Senator Blakespear or Senator Allen to come down to the committee. Senator Aragon. Yes. We'd like him as well. We don't wanna be discriminatory. Okay. Alright. Let's open the roll and go through, the votes that have been taken.

[Roll Call]

8 to 2. Back on call.

[Roll Call]

8-0. Back on call.

[Roll Call]

Senator Arreguin.

Yours will get out faster now.

File item number three, SB 1166. Senator Ehrgein, thank you. I can see you ran over here. I appreciate that. Floor is yours.

Thank you, mister chair. Members of the committee, please present SB 1166, which would authorize AC Transit employees to access the Public Employee Relations Board or PERB for adjudicating unfair labor practices. As we know PERB is a labor management relations entity for a vast majority of California's public sector employees. Ensuring that claims of unfair labor practices and disputes are resolved, enforcing, collective bargaining laws, inappropriate remedies.

In recent years, the legislatures authorized employees of numerous transit agencies to access PERB, including BART, the Sacramento Regional Transit District, I will remiss, and the absence of Senator Laird to say the Santa Cruz Metro Transit District, and the Valley Transportation Authority.

AC trans is one of the few districts under a separate framework requiring labor disputes to resolve through the courts and not PERB. This will save costs, ensure access to justice. And with me to testify and support the bill is Sultana Adams and Nick, Cobell from AFSCME local thirty nine sixteen, representing members of the Alameda Contra Costa transit district employees. And, respect for the Astor. I vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Alright. First witness, please.

Hello. My name is Sultana Adams. I'm a transportation supervisor at AC Transit and a proud member of AFSCME local three nine one six. I'm here today to urge the California State Senate to support SB 1166, a bill that would place AC Transit employees under PERB jurisdiction, The same rights and protections already afforded to millions of public sector workers across California. This bill is about fairness, consistency, and modernizing AC Transit's labor relation system.

PERB has decades of specialized expertise in public sector law. It provides clearer rules, trusted processes, and faster, more consistent outcomes. For both the union and AC Transit District, PERB would resolve critical issues like bargaining unit determination, benefits disputes, unfair labor processes, practices in a way that is efficient, transparent, and cost effective. Right now, AC Transit employees are governed by the public utilities code, a system that is outdated, costly, and extremely time incense time in intensive.

And, unfortunately, recent actions by AC Transit management show exactly why change is needed.

Most recently, the district attempted to unilaterally impose changes to our health care benefits, co pays, and coverage without entering the collective bargaining process. That is a clear unfair labor process practice, and it directly impacts our members, families, as well as our ability to serve the public. This bill would give my local, as well as AC Transit, a better path forward.

It would help resolve issues early, reduce the need for expensive arbitrations, and keep our focus exactly where it belongs, delivering public reliable public transit to the communities we serve. As Senator Arteguin already mentioned, many of our peer transit agencies already have transitioned to PERB in recent years.

This is just simply the next step in the modernization trends. Our workers deserve the same rights, protections, and fair process, processes as our peer organizations.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you.

Next witness, please.

Thank you, Senator Arreguin. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Nick Coble. I'm a data engineer, at AC Transit and a proud member of AFSCME local thirty nine sixteen. I'm here to ask for your support of SB 1166.

At its core, this bill is about fairness and modernization. Millions of public sector employees across California already operate under PERB. AC Transit's workers should be no different. Right now, when issues come up between, employees and the management, the process is slow, it's expensive, and it's often unclear. That makes it harder to resolve problems quickly and get back to what matters most, which is serving the public.

PERB offers a better path. It brings clear rules, experienced oversight, and a consistent process for handling disputes. That means fat, faster resolutions, fewer costly arbitrations, and a more stable working relationship between the union and the district. This isn't about creating conflict. It's about preventing it.