Senate Standing Committee on Housing

Good afternoon. I'd like to call to meet to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Housing for Tuesday, 04/21/2026. We do not yet have a quorum so we'll operate as a subcommittee. And we have a special order business which consists of four items. We'll start first with filed in one AB 736, the affordable housing bond act of 2026, by my colleague, Assemblymember Wicks and I'll turn over the assembly member to present on the bill.

Thank you, mister chair, also my personal Senator. Appreciate all your hard work here. I'm excited to be in your committee. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 736, the Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026. The purpose of this bill is to raise more money for the affordable housing our state desperately needs.

I think, obviously, all of you here know the stats. We have about a 170,000 and growing folks experiencing homelessness in our state. Two thirds of our lower income renters are rent burden, paying so much rent that they sacrifice other basic needs in their life like food and health care, transportation.

And our state needs about 1,200,000 units of affordable housing to address this crisis. So that is the challenge.

To build these units, we need tens of billions of dollars. And yet, right now, we've extended all of our dollars from the 2018 bond, and the current budget proposal does not contain new affordable housing dollars. That's why this bond is so important.

permanent supportive housing for folks for formerly homeless, dollars 1,000,000,000 for homeownership programs to help people permanently climb up the economic ladder, and 800,000,000 to make sure we don't lose affordability on existing units who are deed restricted that will retire, dollars 500,000,000 to acquire and rehabilitate existing naturally affordable units, dollars $350,000,000 for farmworker housing and $250,000,000 for tribal housing.

It would help us plug a giant hole by providing the bill that's currently in print, 5,000,000,000 for multifamily housing fund, which is our workhorse of affordable housing programs here in the state, which also includes set asides for seniors and rural areas, dollars 1,700,000,000 for

This will result in the creation and preservation of tens of thousands of affordable units that our communities so desperately need.

This is a great investment. Every dollar, the state money, we put in $5 of other private or public sources are brought in. And the last thing I'll just say about this is we've done a lot, I think, in this legislative body to streamline and to expedite much needed housing in the state. We've made it more accessible to build. We've passed ADU law.

We did major CEQA reforms last year. We're doing a bunch of stuff on housing innovation construction this year, construction defect liability, all these really important things to solve this problem. We have to have public subsidy. It's really important to do that because we have folks who just simply cannot afford the housing here, and we need to do some sort of public subsidy to support those folks.

And I'll also say when we talk about this, we often talk about dollar signs and how many units we get for those dollar signs.

They wanna be able to make sure their kids can get ready for school. They wanna make sure that they have the ability to, you know, celebrate and mourn and do all the other things we do in our homes.

What what what we really are talking about is humans, people in our community, you know, family members, our neighbors, our brothers, our sisters. These are people with lives who need stable housing. They wanna be able to have Thanksgiving dinner in under a roof, you know, that there's security.

So with that, I'm going to have Ray Pearl speak, the executive director of the housing California Housing Consortium. And when the time is right and when you have a quorum, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

That is so critical. And for so many of them right now, they are either living on the precipice of experiencing homelessness or experiencing homelessness, and it is a moral imperative that we do everything we can to stop that.

Thank you so very much. Good afternoon.

Wicks said, over the past several years, the legislature has made real progress towards addressing our shortage of affordable housing.

Good afternoon. Mister chair and committee members, my name is Ray Pearl. I'm the executive director of the California Housing Consortium, and I am also here representing our coalition partner Housing California. Together, we and our members are in strong support of AB 736. As Assemblymember

From securing much needed funding and accelerating local approvals to opening new sites to development, you have demonstrated that when the state needs a clear sets a clear goal and invests in it, we can make a meaningful difference.

California has more than doubled the production of new affordable homes over the past five years. But after decades of underinvestment, the gap that we are trying to close is substantial.

Millions of hardworking Californians are still struggling to find an affordable place to live and the state is far behind its stated goal of building a million affordable homes by 2030. And This is why AB 736 is so essential.

By putting a $10,000,000,000 bond before the voters, this bill will provide a stable long term funding source at the scale needed to keep the affordable housing pipeline moving.

California has a robust pipeline of affordable housing with nearly 40,000 shovel ready units waiting on funding to move into construction. But with the state's revenue picture unclear and resources from the state's housing bond exhausted, California's housing momentum is in danger of stalling. AB 736 is the solution to this challenge.

In closing, I'd like to thank Assemblymember Wicks and Chair Arreguin for your leadership.

We appreciate you making this a priority and we urge you to support AB 736.

Thank you so very much. And assembly member, that was the only principal witness in support.

Okay. We'll now invite anyone who would like to express support for AB 736 to come forward. If you can state your name, your organization, and your position on the bill.

Yep.

Graciela Casio Kings here on behalf of all home and enterprise community partners in strong support.

Christina Rico on behalf of the Bay Area, MTC and the Bay Area Metro Center in support.

Taylor Leibel Varner, on behalf of National Core in strong support.

Thank you, Chair and members. Keshav Kumar with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing LA, the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency, otherwise known as La Casa, SPUR, San Diego Housing Commission, and Circulate Planning and Policy in strong support.

Jonathan Clay on behalf of the County Of San Diego in support.

Ally Saberman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in strong support.

Chair and members, Carlin Shelby on behalf of the San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund, the San Gabriel Valley Regional Housing Trust, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, the Housing Trust Fund of Ventura County, the Orange County Housing Finance Trust,

the cities of Berkeley, Brea, Palo Alto, La Habra, Santa Barbara, and the Santa Paula Housing Authority with a support if amended position requesting local housing trust fund dollars be added. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Just correcting my misspeak. Christina Rico on behalf of the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in support.

Chair, Member, Jayo Dentas on behalf of Alameda County Board of Supervisors in support.

Hi, good afternoon. Karen Lange on behalf of the cities of Santa Monica and Goleta as well as the Mayor of San Francisco and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors all in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Natalie Spivak with Housing California in strong support on behalf of several organizations, Homes and Hope, Urban Habitat, PATH, the Housing Leadership Coalition, the National Alliance End Homelessness, Tenants Together, Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, Disability Rights California, APEN Action, AAPI Force, and MidPen Housing. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Marshall Arnwein on behalf of the ACLU of California Action in strong support. Thank you.

Chair and members, Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association in support. Thank you.

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

Jeff Neal here representing the City of, Visalia also in support.

Anabella Urbina with the CSU Chancellor's Office. Support if amended with the request to include higher education.

Shera Spector for Stone Advocacy on behalf of Elevate California in support.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Taja Stevens on behalf of UDW and ASPE Local thirty nine thirty in support.

Mister chair and members, Jason Murphy on behalf of University of California. Also, support if amended, the request to include public higher education. Thank you.

Hello, you guys. Miss Peavy, candidate running for governor of California, and I am definitely with the bill that you guys have set forth. Thank you.

Rachel Mueller on behalf of the California Coalition for Community Investment, a coalition of 50 state, California CDFIs in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Matti Ribble on behalf of the California Community Land Trust Network in strong support as well as Power California Action. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.

Good afternoon. Danielle Bautista with United Ways of California, the State Association of twenty eight local United Ways in support.

Good afternoon. Anya Lawler on behalf of the California Coalition for Rural Housing, the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, the Public Interest Law Project, Self Help Enterprises, and People's Self Help Housing all in support.

Chair, Assemblywoman Wicks, Don Wilcox with the California Conference of Carpenters here in strong support. Thanks.

Mister chair members, Jason Gonsalves on behalf of the cities of Lakewood, La Quinta, and Norwalk in strong support based on the number of witnesses. The polling looks good.

David Krieger for United Wholesale Mortgage in support.

Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Taisha Watts with the California Housing Partnership in strong support.

Good afternoon, chair members. Dante Goldman, behalf of the San Diego Housing Federation in strong support. Thank you.

Afternoon. Miguel Rambula with the San Joaquin Valley Housing Collaborative. We represent affordable and for profit developers in the Central Valley in strong support.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council, the California Council for Affordable Housing, and Chamber of Progress in support.

Nicole Hortleman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and City of Santa Cruz with the support if amended position to include local housing trust fund dollars in the bond.

Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Property in support.

Is there anyone here who's not in support? Okay. That was a joke, but we'll now take any principal witnesses in opposition.

Chair Erguin and members of the committee, I'm Holden Weisman from Habitat for Humanity Greater San Francisco. We serve San Mateo, Marin, and San Francisco Counties. I'm here on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California and our more than 30 affiliates across the state in opposition of AB 736 unless it is amended to explicitly allocate 10% of the bond

proceeds to the CalHome program, California's only funding program dedicated to increasing the supply of affordable homeownership opportunities through production and preservation.

10% for CalHome is not a random number. A 10% allocation of bond funds is completely consistent with past funding levels, that CalHome has received in previous housing bond issues.

The cost to build a home, an affordable home in in San Francisco, now reaches close to $1,000,000 CalHome is a critical part of the complicated funding puzzle that we have to piece together. This includes CalHome mortgage assistance that keeps mortgages low enough to ensure that our homeowners never pay more than 30% of their incomes to housing costs.

I also wanna share that as Assembly Member Wicks, previously stated, support that we receive through CalHome is critical to unlocking additional private funding that helps complete our overall funding stack. Unfortunately for us, many of our plans may be put on

hold because CalHome now is completely out of money with no guarantee that it could be, restored in the budget. This level of uncertainty about whether or not we could, we can make the funding work is a killer for affordable home projects.

We cert we need certainty about whether and how much CalHome funding will exist each year and not have to worry about how much is going to CalHome or how much it will go to down payment assistance or other house homeownership programs.

The very simple amendment that we ask for, a guarantee of 10 of funds for Cal Home, will not only gain our support for this bill, our strong support for this bill, it will ensure the increase of, the increasing supply of new affordable homes for ownership across California. Please amend AB 736 to explicitly include 10% of bond funds for CalHome. Thank you very much.

So anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 736? Seeing no one approach the microphone, I'll bring it back to the committee for discussion. Senator Durazo will go around the dais.

Yes. I do support I do support the bill and I will be supporting it. At the same time, I just wanna ask that we strengthen the CalHomes program. It is really important. I have 77% of my constituents are renters and they would love nothing more than the opportunity to buy a home.

And this is one of those very few opportunities to be able to do that. So thank you.

Thank you. Senator Gonzalez?

I just filled off that. Thank you so much for bringing this forward. I'm glad to see my cities, some of them supporting this because I think it's very important. You've been working on this along with our Senator, our good Senator here from Napa.

But just to build off of that, in terms of as Senator Durazo said, in what our Habitat for Humanity friends have expressed is that you are still in negotiations with the amount and all of that.

Can you just elaborate a bit about that?

And I share them, you know, we wanna be investing in like, Habitat for Humanity is it's a known program that works, that is serving a community that needs it the most.

Yeah. So when I appreciate Habitat for Humanity's points, I was sitting with them. They were my lead one sitting in another bill earlier today supporting homeownership opportunities. And obviously, they're good work and the comments here on the committee.

So actually, have it going through the process so that we can hear from all of our friends around what the needs are, where can we land in terms of a number. In terms of where we're at in the process, you know, should the bill move through today, it's gonna go to Senate appropriations.

And so I welcome the conversation. This is why I'm actually excited to actually have a hearing, and we have another hearing on this bill in thirteen months.

Similarly, the Senate version that Senator Kibaldin off authored is gonna go through the same process and move to the appropriations committee in the assembly, of which we have some connections there.

And we will continue the negotiations in that process. Ultimately, since this is something that's gonna be on the ballot, it'll be a three party negotiation between the governor, leadership in our respective houses, and the authors, and the chairs of the committees.

But I'm hopeful we can land on something hopefully as robust as possible so that we can include the this type of these types of programs more explicitly.

But it will be a a three party negotiation between, you know, the governor, the the pro tem, the speaker, and our respective houses. But we haven't really honestly had an opportunity to do that yet because the bills haven't moved.

But with the movement now, this process now will begin in earnest. So everyone get your letters in.

Before I go to Senator Cabaldon, we do have a quorum so that the committee assistant can please call the roll.

Senators, Arreguin?

Here.

Arreguin here. Sayerto Cabaldon? Here. Caballero Cortezi? Durazo?

Here. Durazo here. Gonzales? Here. Gonzales here.

Grayson?

Here.

Grayson here. Ochoa Bogue Padilla? Here. Padilla here.

Okay. Senator Cabaldon?

Thank you, mister chair. The polling is good in every respect the voters of the people of California know this is their number one, two, three, four, five concern. And it's not just a theoretical opinion. It's for many, many, many millions of Californians it is it is survival and that's why this is so important.

I mean the we've been sending signals for the last seven years through legislation that the author has carried half of it and the rest of the rest of y'all since I'm a freshman the other half.

But those signals said we're ready to let's go do this, let's go do this. And so folks have gone out and they've acquired the properties, they've assembled the parcels, they've negotiated with Caltrans for airspace, they found 35 different funding sources to get to 85% of the funding for their projects.

They've gone through 16 planning commission hearings where 35 people came to oppose it. They've got they've done all this stuff.

And they have put into the pipeline ready to go 40,000 units of housing, 40,000 units which is an enormous number.

It's nowhere near our need. But compared to what we have been producing up for in terms of affordable housing, it's huge. And this is one area where we can actually deliver.

Now, it's great to hear all the supporters because this is this is one of those those bills that's actually not complicated at all. Like, we did all those things already.

Zoning is taken care of, mostly, permits are mostly taken care of. All we need now is to finish the job and put the last few dollars into projects that most for the most part already have a good chunk of their money and it's at risk if we don't.

So it isn't like we could do this two years from now. These many of these projects will collapse because their funding sources depend on the last dollars coming to finish it.

So this is absolutely critical that we do this very, very much appreciate the author's leadership and the chair of our own committees leadership as well.

We'll be hearing the Senate version of the bill tomorrow in the assembly.

But I want to say thank you to all the supporters and the organizers and everyone else in the community which is an incredibly broad coalition in order to make this happen who have stayed very focused on the bottom line which is getting the finishing the job and getting these

projects funded and really community can do the voters that this time it's gonna matter that we will make a big dent in the supply of housing that is affordable, to them. And so thank you.

I'm looking forward to the of course, at the appropriate moment, I'd love to be able to make the motion on the bill, mister chair. But again, thank you and look forward to the bill.

Thank you. Anyone on this side of the desk? Senator Grayson.

Thank you, mister chair. I know it's been a long day, long committees. So for the sake of time, I just wanna add on to the comments about Calhoun and how important it is. I've worked with you closely in the past on other bills, so I have the highest confidence that it all get worked out. So thank

you. Thank you. In closing, I wanna thank, Assembly Wicks, for your incredible leadership on housing and affordable housing. And this is an exciting moment. I think as the Assemblymember noted, it's been many months.

whether it's funding for student housing, funding for transition youth housing. I wanna show everyone that all those issues are being considered in in the in the conversations that are happening.

But we are finally hearing this bill. I think it demonstrates the commitment of the leadership here in the Senate to move this important bond forward. There is a lot more to discuss in terms of some of the priorities that have been expressed today. Whether it is funding for CalHome,

This is gonna have a transformative impact on our state and I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I'll turn over you to close.

But what is essential is that we move this today and and that we get this on the ballot as soon as possible because we don't have a choice. We desperately need these $10,000,000,000 to create 45,000 homes in California for people experiencing homelessness, for working families, for students, and for people who want to buy an entry level home in the state.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Appreciate the the comments, here, from everyone on the committee. And, you know, this is my fourth year pushing this. We tried to get this on the ballot in 2024, and we lost out to the climate bond and the, school facilities bond, also important issues.

But I think that's why you see so much energy because it's sort of this pent up energy of, like, we need to do this now. And we need to figure out exactly what's gonna be in it. So, note to all the advocates, get your, like, lobbying and letters and all that in because we're gonna really start and earnest those negotiations.

I also wanna thank the pro tem for her leadership in moving this through out of rules purgatory and moving it as well as the Senate version as well that moved very quickly earlier this year and is now over in our house. And that demonstrates to the rest of the world the Senate's commitment to actually move this forward and showing not telling, just doing.

You know? So I love that kind of action, out of out of her and, obviously, to the chair, appreciate, your leadership in wanting to move this as well. And, also, you know, the the governor in the May revise last year, had expressed openness and willingness to support this.

I don't wanna put words in his mouth, but I was I perceived that as a good sign. And, hopefully, that's the place he's in.

And, obviously, the assembly, we continue to push this as well. So, hopefully, we'll get something on the ballot once we get to the negotiations. And with that respect, we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so very much. We have a motion by Senator Cabaldon. The motion is to pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Senators Aragine? Aye. Aragine, aye. Ciarato Cabaldon? Aye.

Cabaldon, aye. Caballero Cortezi? Gerrazzo? Aye. Gerrazzo, aye.

Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Grayson? Aye.

Grayson, aye. Ochoa Bog. Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye.

We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Okay. Without objection, we're gonna proceed to file it in five, SB 1361 by Senator Durazo. And, Senator, whenever you're ready to present.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanna start by thanking you for all the time that you spent with us and your committee, staff, for the amendments and all the time that was spent on this. It was I hope everybody agrees that this is a a wise investment in our time. SB 1361 is a narrow practical bill to protect transit expansion projects from unintended consequences that have emerged under SB 79. It does not change existing housing standards.

Under current law, SB 79, transit-oriented housing requirements apply to both existing and planned future transit stops. Transit stakeholders have identified situations where that framework is creating risks for planned transit expansion. Some local governments are facing significant public pressure not to support future planned transit stops and transit routes more more broadly because those stops could trigger SB 79 housing density and height requirements.

This includes openly threatening environmental review of pirde, transit projects due to possible SB 79 impacts, openly threatening to reduce certain services along planned routes to avoid SB 79 application, threatening to withdraw support for federal funding applications due to opposition to SB 79 requirements. When local support becomes uncertain, the consequences are real.

Project delays, higher construction costs, reduced competitiveness for state and federal dollars, and the loss of good paying jobs. While SB1361 started out as a district bill, the committee stated they believe that this can help jurisdictions throughout the state. For my district, this bill is especially important because Southern California is in the middle of a historic transit build-out of over a $100,000,000,000. These are generational infrastructure investments tied to mobility, cleaner air, and economic opportunity.

SB 1361 simply says, "transit decisions should be based on legitimate transportation planning issues such as safety, station design, traffic flow, construction mitigation, and neighborhood connectivity.

Not opposition ties solely to SB 79 height or density standards." It is my hope and expectation that most local jurisdictions will not need to use this bill. I believe that planning can and should be cooperative at the local level. I also know that we can't relitigate current law at the expense of public transit. And when that happens, we need to step in.

This is also a jobs bill. Delayed or canceled transit projects mean delayed or canceled construction work, apprenticeship for opportunities, and economic activity. California should not lose transit progress because planning systems are working at cross purposes. This bill keeps projects moving while preserving current housing law. The bottom line is this bill protects transit investments, protects jobs, and protects taxpayer funded infrastructure from avoidable disruption.

It keeps the trains running. With me today, I have the following witnesses, Madeline Moore from LA Metro and Keith Dunn from the Building Trades.

Before we go to our witnesses, I have to close out, the public safety committee, but I just wanna make some comments in case I'm not here for the vote so my colleagues, can understand my position on this issue if I may.

I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Durazo, for working so closely with me and housing staff on this bill and for presenting a solution that not only responds to the specific concerns that I initially had with the proposal, but attempts to solve a concern that I and many of my colleagues identified last year when SB 79 was moving through the process.

As stakeholders prepare for the implementation of SB 79, beginning on July 1, some local governments are facing significant public pressure not to support future planned transit stops and transit routes more broadly because those stops could trigger the application of SB 79 standards and increased density requirements. In Los Angeles, we've seen evidence of cities taking steps or threatening to stall, reduce, or thwart transit projects so as to avoid SB 7 =9's application.

This unfortunately puts transit agencies in a tough position because while they are not, proposing SB 79 housing projects, their transit projects can result in housing at greater densities.

Let's be clear. SB 79 already allows cities and counties with the flexibility to exempt sites under specified conditions. It also allows local governments to take other actions to increase housing density around TOD stops in a manner that is workable for their communities through the adoption of a local ordinance or local alternative plan. Many cities are already working to prepare local alternative plans, including in my district, city of Oakland, for example, and cities across Los Angeles County.

And LA Metro is already taking actions to increase housing on sites they own, 10,000 units, 50% of which would be affordable, and already, resulting in thousands of new housing units.

The proposal before the committee today seeks to prevent a city or county from using SB 79 as an excuse to add barriers or prevent current or future transit stops from being constructed. Specifically, it would provide that a local government cannot request a transit operator to reduce service on a transit route, condition the approval or review of a transit stop, or withhold application, hold support for an application for federal funding on the basis of SB 79 applying to that stop.

This amendment is consistent with provisions included in other land use bills to prevent cities from imposing subjective standards or taking actions to specifically target housing applications that are facilitated by state law. It would also apply statewide, to assist some, to assist communities who are facing similar threats throughout the state of California. Finally, it does not undermine or change any of the development standards contained in SB 79.

In my view, this proposal also strengthens SB 79 overall by closing loopholes to prevent more housing from being developed. We'll likely need to refine this language as it moves to the legislative process, but I'm urging my colleagues to please vote aye on this bill today with these amendments to allow these discussions to continue, and would like to be added as a co sponsor at the appropriate time. And with that, Senator Cabaldon, thank you for taking over while I close out the housing committee.

Alright. The public thank you, double chairman. Public safety committee. Yes. Yeah.

I hear there's one more committee over there that's meeting that you're not sharing if you'd like to stop by there too. Alright. Witnesses in support.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much to the members of the committee. My name is Madeline Moore, Deputy Executive Officer for State Government Affairs at LA Metro. I am pleased to be here to speak in support of SB 1361. Firstly, I would like to extend my thanks to the Chair, the author, and the committee staff for your willingness to work with us on these amendments that work to keep our transit projects moving.

Metro is leading the nation's largest transit capital program, investing $120,000,000,000 over forty years. Over the past four years, Metro has opened three rail projects, currently has four additional rail projects under construction, three of which are scheduled to open by 2028, and has three bus rapid-transit projects in final design. These projects are critical to serving our customers, 89% of whom are very low income, 85% of whom are transit dependent. These projects are also essential to meet the state's climate goals, VMT reduction, and housing goals.

LA Metro works closely with cities to secure competitive funding and build transit projects throughout the region.

We have a long history of working very cooperatively with our municipalities on issues such as utility relocation, bus lane infrastructure, and transit signal priority. However, we believe that SB 79 is threatening our transit progress by creating unintended consequences in Los Angeles County specifically. The statute links increased density and development standards to both existing and planned transit stops. In practice, this linkage is creating opposition to transit capital projects themselves. We are already seeing this on the ground.

Local jurisdictions and stakeholder groups that otherwise support transit are expressing resistance to rail and bus rapid transit projects. The amendments to SB 1361 remove the ability for objections to be made to transit projects on the basis of oppose, opposition to increased density requirements that are, exist in SB 79. We believe this will better

Start to close.

Oh. We believe this will better support our common goals of advancing both housing and transit in the state of California. I thank you for your time and look forward to any questions.

Thank you. Next witness in support.

Thank you, Mr. Sitting Chairman, and committee members. Thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward. The state, Keith Dunn, here on behalf of State Building Construction Trades Council. We have long supported transit programs. As many of you know, funding for transit is hard to come by, is hard to spend, and takes years and years and years to plan.

We would hate to see opportunities for some municipalities to back out of those needed services because of fear of inducing densities that they may not wanna see. We're very grateful for the Senator for bringing this forward to provide opportunities to include that funding that's been hard fought. We need to fund our transit systems. We also need to build housing. I think we can do both.

So I think this is a good compromise, great committee amendments. We appreciate the work that has been done and look forward to supporting the Senator and her goal to make sure that not only the LA Basin, but the state of California can meet the transit need that we all know is there, but also the housing need that can come in and fill. And again, it's a connectivity. The you can't have housing without transportation. You can't have transportation without housing.

So it seems like a natural fit. We're very pleased to be here and support and look forward to seeing this move through the process. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Now, we'll now proceed.

Mr. Chairman, members, Jason Gonsalves, on behalf of the City of Paramount. Not backing up, but very much appreciate the collaborative approach and strong support. Thank you.

Alright. We're now at support and opposition, name and affiliation. Welcome.

Good evening. Kiera Ross on behalf of the cities of Pasadena and Glendale in support of the bill in print.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the League of California Cities. We did initially have a supportive amended position. We're gonna review the amendments and have no position at this time, but appreciate the work and look forward to continuing those conversations.

We continue to advocate for a larger scale cleanup as our letter reflects, and just wanted to highlight that to the committee today. Thank you.

Anyone else in support? Alright. Are there lead witnesses in opposition?

Alright. And you each have two minutes.

My name is Chelsea Byers, the City of West Hollywood. I just wanted to thank the author and the Chair for their work on the amendments to ensure that housing and transportation can work together. I'm respectfully withdrawing my opposition today. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Members. Marc Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All. We were the transit, biking, walking sponsor, one of the sponsors of SB 79. Just wanna recognize that SB 79 is having some growing pains when it comes to future transit in our cities, especially in the in the Los Angeles region.

Specifically thinking about also some of the bad faith actions that some certain cities have really taken against certain metro projects, like Glendale and Burbank and others as well. So we appreciate the amendments that have brought us to neutral.

I just wanna recognize that the fundamental problem that this that we're sort of trying to solve here is one of permitting reform that we did try to tackle last year in SB 455 with Senator Wiener. And so as this bill moves forward, it might not even get referred to a Housing Committee in the next house because of the way it's been targeted specifically at transit.

And so we'd love to be really helpful as we get into the transit governance and permitting space about how this actually all works and functions on the ground for transit projects because we think there is needed reform here. Thank you.

Alright. Anyone else wish to register their opposition, name, and affiliation with the committee on this bill?

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance where we were the environmental co-sponsor of SB 79. Also withdrawing opposition. Just wanna appreciate the author for working with us and look forward to continuing.

Alright. Thank you. Name and affiliation and position, please. Welcome.

Hello. Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California YIMBY removing our opposition. We're really grateful to the author and the Chair for the amendments. We'll also be reviewing them shortly for the next...

Okay. Name, affiliation, and position. We can save the party and celebration and congratulations and thanks for later. But thank you very much.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members. Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Bay Area Council removing our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. That seems like a clean sweep, Senator. If there's no further testimony, then we'll return, turn it to the committee. Senator Grayson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just move the bill. Thank you so much, author, for what the good work you've done.

Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you, Senator. I know, obviously, representing Los Angeles with you, it was really important that we were acknowledging all the good work that LA Metro had been doing. And I'm thankful for Madeleine and the team for being here.

And I do want to, I'm hoping... I'm not sure if my our lobbyists from City of Paramount is here. But I do have to address because I did want to make sure, you know, it had been a real struggle with my city to be able to obviously support 79.

I'm hopeful that they can support the new amendments that do, you know, that ensure that we are doing both has been mentioned the housing but also aligning with transportation, the transportation needs. We have the Southeast Los Angeles Gateway Line that goes through a multitude of cities.

So for one city to, you know, to say that they wouldn't want the bill to move forward and to threaten federal funds and to threaten a project affects the whole region. On top of the jobs, on top of all the economics. So I'm hopeful to continue to have conversations, but I needed to say publicly, you know, I met with my City of Paramount multiple times about the issue, getting them on board.

And I'm hopeful that they will be supportive of these amendments in the new iteration. But just really grateful for you and for the Chair and the committee for bringing this new bill forward that I think will be a really great step in the right direction. And obviously still a lot of clarity needs to be done as cities move along.

But I think what I'll also reiterate is what the Chair reiterated too is that cities like Paramount and others have had the opportunity through SB 79 to ensure that they can up zone to ensure that they can plan and give themselves more time. I'm not sure why they haven't done that through the original SB 79. So more talks, more discussions, but I look forward to supporting you on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. I'd just like to say how enthusiastic I am about this approach as well. I mean, this was a I think all of us on the dais right now have all served in local governments. And one of the wonderful things about California local governments is that they're incredibly creative at avoiding what the legislature wants them to do at times. So never bet against the ability of cities and counties to find a different way.

And so many of us did predict that this situation would emerge. I mean, it's completely to be expected. And this fills a very, very important gap that SB 79 or in incentives that SB 79 created. And we absolutely don't want SB 79 to work in reverse. And that's what that's what the threat has been. Most cities will do the right thing.

Some cities will do the right thing unless somebody says, oh my, did you know there's a city next door that's doing the wrong thing? Maybe we could just do that. This deals with those cities. The cities that are way out there, they all will often need to get sued by the Attorney General and what have you.

But this is gonna be the message that the Paramounts. And I have cities like this as well will hear. I also agree that this language will continue to evolve over time. It's not because I can already see some ways I could get around it as a mayor.

But the intention to try to capture those and to make sure that we're all rolling in the same direction on transit projects is critical. So thank you so much for the original bill to raise the issue and then secondly for the great work by the committee staff, the Chair, and the author on this. So, with that, would you like to close Senator Durazo?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And again, I can't say it too many times. Thank you to the staff. Thank you to the committee consultants. Thank you to your staff, my staff. It was almost miraculous. So I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Fantastic. Is there a motion? That's been moved by Senator Padilla. Committee Assistant, please call the roll.

Motion do pass as amended to Senate Local Government. [Roll Call]

Senator Grayson, would you do... Oh. Alright. So the measure will be on call. Thank you, Senator. And Senator Grayson, would you do us the great honor of presenting your bill?

Yes. S p one zero zero three. So I actually have on my notes, good morning. We're a little behind. Good night, chair and members.

I would like to begin by thanking the committee for their work on this bill and accepting the committee's proposed amendments. During my time in the state assembly, I had the opportunity to embark on a statewide housing tour.

The tour brought together cities, counties, developers, supporting housing advocates, and many others to share the challenges and opportunities they face try trying to get housing built across the state. A common challenge that Artur heard were challenges related to housing infrastructure.

We heard time and time again that infill and affordable housing may fail to pencil out due to the cost of updating infrastructure that is needed to revitalize underutilized or vacant spaces in our cities.

Under the current structure, funding may be passed from the state government to developers just to have the same money be passed right back to local governments.

As a result, the supply of much needed housing is further constrained across the state. It is difficult to expand new housing opportunities in the state without building out the necessary infrastructure to support growth. While the state has created several tools that provide funding for housing construction, programs that directly support info infrastructure are not as plentiful.

This could create inefficiencies that drive up cost and create adversarial relationships between local governments and developers who may sometimes impose additional requirements further increasing cost and delays.

SB 1003 aims to provide state support for crucial infrastructure by establishing the infrastructure partnership financing program. The infrastructure partnership financing program would help directly support infrastructure improvements related to housing.

Through the program, local jurisdictions would be able to work with housing developers to identify infill infrastructure needs and jointly apply to the program. Applicants would need to demonstrate how their project would reduce development cost and how those savings would be passed on to future residents.

By providing state support for infrastructure, this program would allow more housing developments to pencil out and could result in cost savings and better efficiency for these developments.

And I do have testimony today with have them self I'd self introduce.

Alright. Welcome. You all have two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon chair and committee members. My name is Ali Sapirman and I'm the advocacy and policy manager for the Housing Action Coalition. The Housing Action Coalition is a statewide pro housing non profit that advocates for more homes at all levels of affordability. Our members include developers, architects, attorneys, and labor partners who build housing across California.

I'm speaking today in strong support of SB 1003, which creates pro housing enhanced infrastructure financing districts. A new tool to help local governments finance the infrastructure that makes infill housing possible. California has made significant progress getting jurisdictions to plan for housing, but planning is not building.

One of the most persistent reasons infill projects stall or never break ground at all is the cost of infrastructure. Site prep, utility connections, access improvements, these costs are to routinely make otherwise feasible

projects impossible to finance. SB 1,003 directly addresses that gap by creating an incentive structure that rewards jurisdictions for aligning their infrastructure investment with their housing goals. Establishing a PEIFD earns jurisdictions enhanced credit towards the pro housing designation

and unlocks priority access to state competitive funding for pre development activities. What's especially impactful about SB 1003 is the joint application mechanism.

Local governments and developers identify infill infrastructure needs together and are required to demonstrate how cost savings will be passed on to future residents. That's real accountability built into the program design.

For our members, the people doing the work of building housing, pre development support like this is often the difference between a project that moves forward and one that doesn't. I respectfully ask your aye vote today. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Are there other witnesses in support that would like to identify themselves by name and affiliation? Any lead witnesses in opposition? Any other witnesses in opposition? If not, then we will return to Senator Padilla.

Alright. Senator Padilla has moved. Yes. And the author has accepted the amendments that are in the analysis.

Yes, I have.

Yeah. I this this bill a a has a special place in my heart of my my jurisdiction was the first to create an EIFD in all of California. And it's the as the author said, it's a very like our our the frontier of of our housing challenge is really infrastructure finance. We see the symptoms all over, complaints about impact fees and other things.

But those impact fee an impact fee is based on a sewer master plan, which is based on engineering, which is based on how much we each excrete and it's based on the science like you can't change that.

And so what we have often done at the city level is subsidized one project at a time. And then that puts us in a position of picking winners, trying to guess who's actually going to build if there's eight projects and some of them seem okay, but the others don't.

The great wisdom of this bill is that it collectivizes that and then invest in the infrastructure in ways that will benefit all the projects, not just one at a time.

you know, part of the challenges that we faced with the legislature has authorized many, many forms of tax increment financing districts over the last decade.

It's not just one developer negotiating, but really reducing the cost for everything, which will then allow for the changes to the impact fees and everything else and will make these projects much more viable. So I think the analysis notes,

And this isn't the redevelopment state participation, but this bill at least proposes a path for state participation through other financing programs and assistance that will potentially make this mechanism viable in a way that the others have have not succeeded.

None of which have resulted in a single one yet. But I think the author is attacking that by trying to grapple with some of the financing mechanism and understanding that the reason why those haven't taken off is that there's absolutely no state participation at all.

So kudos to the to the author for a thoughtful well designed approach that's clearly done by a former mayor as well and looking forward to voting for the bill as well. So the motion there's a motion by Senator.

But, yeah, Senator Grayson, would you like to close?

I could not close any better than you just did, so I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. Committee assistant, would you please call the roll?

Do you pass as amended to Senate appropriation senators Arreguin, Sayardo, Cabaldon? Aye. Caballero, Cortezi, Durazo, Gonzales, Grayson?

Grayson, aye. Ochoa Bogue, Badia? Aye. Badia, aye.

Aye.

Alright. We'll place that measure on call center to Grayson. Let's move to SB 1014.

As many of you already know, we don't need to announce it, but California has a massive and growing housing production and affordability crisis. Driving this affordability issue is the exponential rising cost of building new housing.

Thank you, mister chair and member of the committee. I would like to begin by thanking the committee for their work on this bill and also accepting the committee's proposed amendments.

Development fees and other construction requirements can make up a significant portion of building cost and are much higher in California compared to the rest of the nation.

SB 1014 will help provide greater certainty for housing developments by requiring local jurisdictions within thirty days of submission of a preliminary application, provide a good faith estimate and list of any on-site or off-site improvements.

Despite the state's significant legislative reforms intended to improve fee transparency, builders continue to struggle to anticipate certain development costs, such as those on-site and off-site improvements. Builders may find out about an on-site or off-site improvements late in the process, adding unforeseen development cost and making projects less likely to pencil out.

The bill would also prevent a local jurisdiction from requiring any additional on-site or off-site improvements that are not disclosed within thirty days of submitting a building permit application with and then also I will have, through the chair, my witness self introduce.

Welcome. And you'll have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you, committee members. I'm Chris Morgenthaler with Habitat for Humanity. Habitat's mission makes homeownership affordable, and we serve the East Bay and Silicon Valley. We're grateful to Senator Senator Grayson for his leadership in addressing a significant home building challenge that Habitat faces and proud to support SB 1014 as a meaningful solution.

One of Habitat's biggest costs are development fees. At the 10 home development we're building in Hayward, we are paying $76,000 per unit in fees. For the 42 homes we're building in Walnut Creek, fees account for 65,000 per unit and over 2,700,000 for that development. When those fees arise unexpectedly, late in the project planning timeline, they add fixed costs and cost us time delays in building. In Hayward, we were hit with unexpected costs when we had to redesign our utilities plan late in the game.

In Walnut Creek, our irrigation plan had to be redone. We've been required to build additional sidewalks towards the end of a project in Martinez, and it had 200 meters of a sewer line added to a a project after print plan approvals in Bay Point.

Uncertainty is far more expensive than the price tag of unplanned development fees. Unexpected fees cause a domino effect of additional costs like planned redesigns, resubmittals, additional inspections, and more.

They start a cascade of timing delays, which add tens of thousands of dollars in unanticipated carrying costs.

As a non profit home builder, Habitat keeps our sales profits affordable for our limited income homebuyers. So that means we can't simply raise the prices in order to absorb these costs.

Meanwhile, future homeowners who are often contending with unaffordable rents, substandard living conditions, and the threat of displacements are left waiting that much longer to begin their lives in safe, stable, affordable homes that they can own.

SB 1014 presents a simple, smart solution that gives home builders like Habitat for Humanity the transparency and security we need to build the affordable homes that Californians so critically lack. I urge an aye vote on SB 1014.

Thank you.

And I have one more witness. Two minutes.

Okay. Yes. You have two minutes to present.

Great. Thank you, chair.

Mister chair and members, Michael Lane with Spur Public Policy Think Tank in the San Francisco Bay Area. The government code refers to site improvements as a potential or actual governmental constraint that must be analyzed as part of the housing element process as these requirements can add millions of dollars to the cost of a housing development and jeopardize feasibility and financing.

improvements within thirty days of project submittal and two, require that within thirty days of receipt of an application for a post entitlement permit, the city or county provide an itemized list of all on-site and off-site improvements required for that permit.

Using the framework for development impact fee disclosure and transparency developed in AB 1820 Chiavo that was passed by the legislature and signed into law in 2024. SB 1014 would one allow a development proponent to request preliminary estimate of required

Given the significant cost these improvements can add to a development, SB 1014 will facilitate housing development by increasing transparency and information sharing and reducing the potential for late hits that is last minute and costly surprises.

We Respect the request and I vote.

Thank you very much. We are in the Senate Housing Committee. I'm in the correct place. Thank you, Senator Baldwin, for sharing in my absence. We'll now take Me Too testimony in support of SB 1014.

Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Berry Council and strong support. Thank the Senator for his tireless work on this issue.

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

Brooke Pritchard on behalf of California DMV is a proud cosponsor.

Good afternoon, mister chair. Good evening, mister chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Circulate Planning and Policy, and Fields and Company. Thank you.

Thank you.

Natalie Spivak with Housing California in support. Thanks.

Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association as a Tweener position. One, I wanna thank the author, the author staff, sponsors, committee staff for their diligent work on this bill. Thank you for championing this measure. We look forward to, continuing to work with you on this legislation and coming on it in official support. Thank you.

There's a there's a warning to express support for SB 1014. Seeing no one else will not take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1014. So anyone wishing to express opposition to the bill. Seeing no one, that's a good sign. Oh, sorry.

Please come forward.

Almost. Yep.

And you have two minutes to address the committee.

Thank you. I'll make it brief. Claire Sullivan, on behalf of the cities of San Mateo, Belmont, and Redwood City, in respectful opposition on the record, but we're looking forward to reviewing the amends, and we are very grateful grateful to the author. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1014? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments from members of the committee. Senator Cobaltin?

So the author's prior build out with infrastructure finance which is a core issue and this one more with certainty. This doesn't purport to try to contain the cost but simply make sure that they are identified in advance and I think it's it's also a well tailored solution and I appreciate also the the conversations with with the League of Cities and others about exactly what that frame looks at.

It may already be covered here but the you know that because I have a 400,000 person city proposed in my city in in my district I sometimes look at these proposals like, well, how would that work? So I just I would like to, you know, as if we can continue to talk about it, maybe it's already covered and the staff can help.

But I'm I'm trying to imagine the process of submitting your preliminary application for a city of that scale or just a large scale complicated project in your city, maybe it's going to double the size of your city or what have you.

And your range of your the range of focus in your in your lens to be able to see all of the projects at that point is going to be is even with a preliminary submittal is still going to be a bit fuzzy, maybe very fuzzy if you have no no idea what the infrastructure is. So it may already be addressed in here based on what exactly what specific parts of the subdivision map and back to talking about.

But we'd love to continue that conversation and be sure that for these extraordinarily complex projects and or in really in really low capacity jurisdictions that there's that, you know, that we're counting for that in the list of exceptions that you have.

Absolutely.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? I'll turn it back over to you, Senator, to to close.

Thank you, and thank you for those comments from my colleague from Napa. I we are aware that there are extenuating circumstances. For instance, a conversation is happening about that disclosure and when does that time line start, whether it's from a preliminary application or the issuance of a permit. Also, the conversation around what if a study is exist on what size pipeline and infrastructure and what kind of timing can we work with that.

So there's there's more conversations to to be had to make this bill the perfect bill that it's going to be.

So, with that, I simply ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. Move by Senator Cabaldon. The motion is do passes amended to the appropriations committee. Please call the roll.

Senators Ergine. Aye. Ergine, aye. Cierto Cabaldon. Aye.

Caballero Cortezi Durazo, Gonzales, Grayson?

Aye.

Grayson, Aye. Ochoa Bog, Padilla? Aye. Padilla, Aye.

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. We're waiting for our last two authors. But while we are, can we please lift the call on bills? We haven't made a motion on consent yet.

Okay. I'll ask for a motion on the consent calendar which is SB 1072, the committee omnibus bill.

So moved.

Moved by Senator Grayson. Thank you.

Senator Zareghein. Aye. Aye. Aye. Ciaruto, Cabaldon,

thirteen sixty one and one thousand and three.

Senators Aragine? Aye.

Aye. We'll keep that on call.

File item seven, SB 1,003. Senator Zaregine?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay. We'll keep that on call as well. Okay. We're gonna recess the committee for five minutes while we wait for another author to arrive to present.

Okay. We'll keep that on call as well. Okay. We're gonna recess the committee for five minutes while we wait for another author to arrive to present.

Okay. We'll keep that bill on call for absent. Thank you. So Senator Allen is still presenting in natural resources, but let's lift the call on the consent calendar and on bills starting from the top of the consent calendar. The consent calendar consists of one item, which is SB 1072, the committee omnibus bill. You can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll keep that on call. I think those are all the the bills that we've taken up so far. So we're gonna recess the committee. We'll wait for our last author. Thank you.

Okay. The Senate Senate Committee on Housing is back in session. We're gonna go back to our special order of business and proceed to file it into SB 1092 by Senator Allen. And, Senator, whenever you're ready, you may presenting your bill.

Well, thank you so much, and I I appreciate the patience and and flexibility. We're all running around. I was just presenting a bill in Natural Resources. So let me start with SB 894. Right?

No. No. I'm sorry. No. No.

No. No. SP ten ninety.

It's ten ninety two.

Yes. Ten ninety two. Ten ninety two. Okay. So the I'm coming to you today with two bills involving the the challenges faced by mobile home residents.

And it's it's a a very serious we're we're trying to get to a serious set of issues that I've just become so acutely aware of in, in the wake of the terrible fires that I experienced in my community. Let me just start by thanking the committee for, your work. With my office on this bill, I I will be accepting the committee amendments.

So just to give some background to address the, risk of conversion of at risk units to market rate, the state began, to adopt affordable housing preservation laws starting back in 1987. Opportunities to preserve unsubsidized affordable housing are especially important today when the state's affordable housing funding is oversubscribed and our existing housing stock is under increasing threat from climate disasters.

So mobile homes are the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the country. They provide really important homeownership opportunities for many Californians. And according to HCD, preserving this housing option is really critical to meeting the state's housing needs, and I know so many of our experts agree. The twenty eighteen Camp Fire resulted in the destruction of over 30 mobile home parks in Paradise, 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 over the last twenty years, mobile manufactured home communities increasingly begun from mom and pop enterprises to ownership by private equity firms, hedge funds, large multi state corporations that seek to capitalize on manufactured homeowners, a unique situation. Just between from 2019 just from the the 2017 to 2019 to twenty twenty twenty one period alone, the the institutional investors in this space went up from 13% to 23%, up by 10% in just a matter of a couple of years.

Now we have 23 private equity firms that own over 1,900 manufactured housing parks in The US. That's over 400,000 lots. So, you know, we know of course while we call them mobile homes are not really they're not typically able to be moved.

Many mobile homeowners are are older. They're disabled. They're in fixed incomes that limit their ability to pick up and move. We have communities across the state and county that are recognizing the the growing need for policy changes to protect affordability in mobile homes and provide opportunities to resident organizations or other nonprofit entities to purchase and preserve the parks.

So the bill this bill provides that if a mobile home park owner receives an offer for the sale, lease, or transfer that management intends to accept, they have to 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 their acquisition of support and financing, which can be especially complex task for residents in California with a soaring cost of land. In testifying, with me in support of the bill today, we have John Brown, a resident of the Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates. He's come up from from LA. They lost everything in the fire. And then we also have Kim Coons who's executive director for the California Center for Cooperative Development.

Great. Thank you. Good evening.

I don't know if this is on.

There we go. Good evening, everybody. Thank you, chair, committee members. My name is John Brown. I lived in Palisades Bowl with my wife and two young kids.

Our home burned down last year in the Palisades fire. But the space is cleaned. Our lease is intact, and we're ready to return along with our 400 neighbors, one of them. My friend Barry there sitting right over there.

However, as we work toward replacing our homes, we face a park owner attempting to sell the park without providing us any information or opportunity to ensure our residency and return to that community.

A few months ago through a marketing piece that was quietly floated around, actually a councilwoman had found it and sent it to me and said, have you seen this? And it was a a park the park is for sale and it was characterized a quote unquote blank canvas for transformative

development. It doesn't meant didn't mention anything about the 150 active leases or the hundreds of senior citizens, teachers, families, or veterans who call this place home.

Over a million mobile home residents in California are at similar risk, if their park owner decides to sell. Park owners should absolutely have the right to sell.

I support that and and certainly at the best price the market's willing to offer and this bill supports that. But this isn't a pizza place where people can just go grab a slice somewhere else. You know, this is this is not an apartment where you can pack up and move like the Senator said.

These are these are manufactured homes that are in many cases, basically attached to permanent foundations. You know, so we can't just pick up and move.

So business owners should have the freedom to do business without unnecessary constraints, but we also have to consider the businesses that they are running. That's a mobile home park, not a pizza shop. This bill ensures reasonable social responsibilities to the people living in these communities and I urge you for a I vote on SB 1092. Thank you guys so much.

Thank you very much, John.

Hi. My name is Kim Coontz. I'm with the California Center for Cooperative Development. We are a non profit that works statewide and we help one of the things that we do is help residents to purchase their manufactured home park

and we kind of facilitate that. We link them up with financing and so forth. And them up with financing and so forth. And really what that does is it brings those residents security, stability and pride in their community.

Like single family homeowners, owners of manufactured homes put equity into that house. But unlike other single family homeowners, they don't own the land underneath their home which makes them very, very vulnerable.

It makes them, particularly when they rent it from, from a park owner that, maybe raises the rents, under invests in infrastructure, and even closes the parks, which can cause displacement of them and their neighbors.

And the investor involvement in manufactured home parks is really new and growing. As real estate prices have increased investors have increased their involvement in these parks.

They're cheaper but also they have very, very motivated residents who have high stakes to higher rents so they put up with it for a very, very long time and ultimately many of them lose their home as these as the parks turn over and new people new investors are turn them over.

So resident ownership of parks creates stability and affordability and still as I said those sales happen off market or too quickly for residents to put in an offer.

residents to secure funding from lenders as well as, state and local programs if they're available. So we really thank Senator Allen for his leadership in this issue and respectfully, request an aye vote.

Based on similar laws in 21 other states SB 1092 would give park owners fair opportunity to purchase their communities by ensuring that homeowners receive advance notice of the sale and a chance to match third party offers. Creating this window and opportunity provides the time necessary for park

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1092? You can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support and also on behalf of Housing California in support. Thank you very much. Brian Agusto on behalf of the California Coalition for Rural Housing, one of the sponsors of the measure in support.

Thank you.

Good evening. Danny Kanda, Kaiser on behalf of Cameo Network, a micro enterprise network. Thank you.

Barry McManus speaking, for or on behalf of a lot of the older people that aren't able to get up here from LA. Strongly, firmly, I don't know what else to say, support this.

Thank you, sir.

Good evening. Matti Ribble on behalf of the California Community Land Trust Network in support.

Thank you.

Good evening, chair and members. Graciela Castillo Krings on behalf of ROC USA in strong support. Thank you.

Daniel Rivera, professor at UC Berkeley strongly in support.

Thank you. Seeing no one else wishing to express support for SB 1092, we'll now take, two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill.

Good evening, mister chair, members, Senator Allen. My name is Chris Wysocki with WMA, and we're here to urge a no vote on SB 91092. I'm going to start off by saying resident groups already have the right to approach an owner, make an offer and work with them on being the buyer if the owner wants to sell.

In fact, the resident group of the parks destroyed in Senator Allen's district have had over a year to approach the owner and make a reasonable offer, as noted in the flyer that was mentioned earlier. The problem is they don't wanna offer what the property is actually worth, which is why they want this bill.

SB 1092 is intended to devalue the property of a mobile home park owner by having the government give resident organizations a gift of the right of first refusal to purchase a park and delay a sale for up to eight months. Rights of first refusal are common in the real estate market, but they usually require a potential buyer to put up a non refundable deposit to secure that right.

SB 1092 simply gives away this right, and that is taking a taking that will be litigated in the courts for years to come. The proponents also would have us believe that a resident organization's failure to secure financing for eight months is no big deal and that a future buyer will just come in and offer the same price as it did eight months ago. That's just not realistic.

The real intent of S. B. Ten ninety two seems to be to drive the price down below true market value and dissuade private, private buyers. I'd also point out that the argument about large corporate investors taking over mobile home parks and displacing residents or jacking up rents is particularly troubling and it's simply not true in California. Over half the state does have rent control like the parks in Mr.

Allen's district and everyone knows that rent control means you can't arbitrarily displace people or raise their rent at will. And it's often said that, mobile home parks are the last unsubsidized form of affordable housing in California.

But let me tell you, it is subsidized. It's just subsidized by the private property of the park owner and not the government. In addition, California has strict relocation benefits for residents everywhere in California that ensure an entity can't buy a park and displace residents without compensation.

To imply anything to the contrary is simply untrue. The MRL and resident protections are unique in California and lumping us in with other states that do not have anything close to the MRL is a disingenuous argument to us, it seems. For these and the other reasons raised in our letter, we'd urge a no vote on SB 1092. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, mister chair and members. Jason Ikerd on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance and respectful opposition to the bill. I just wanna focus on a couple of things that mister Wysocki said. When we talk about the bill devaluing parks, there there are specific reasons for that and it's an easy place to get confused. The question is not whether or not the resident groups would have to match the offer on the table.

The question is whether the offer on the table is of the same value that it would be otherwise. The reality of the bill is that it will result in in a reduced market for mobile home parks. There will be fewer buyers who can withstand the provisions of this bill and make a a serious offer. And there's three ways, or three reasons why people might not be willing to be a buyer.

One is that you can simply lose your deal after having done the work to come to a final deal.

You can have it taken away from you under this bill. The other is a little simpler, which is that your property will be subject to the same rules. It is actually a major change in property rights and it is something that is unique to any other property that you would purchase.

But the biggest thing and I think most relevant to this discussion of institutional investors is the sunk costs. These are large complex transactions.

It's not unusual for a mobile home park in an urban area to cost up to $10,000,000. It is there is a lot of due diligence required before you buy a park. You have to look at park finances. You have to look at the leases. You have to look at local rent control ordinances and other local laws.

That due diligence cost can be in the tens of thousands of dollars easily. In addition to that, there are financing costs, commitment fees, etcetera, that can range 1% to 2%. So what we're looking at is sunk costs in the six figures. Who can withstand that? It's institutional buyers who can look at that as the cost of doing business.

If you are a person who can barely afford the $10,000,000 park or barely afford the financing on a $10,000,000 park, you are not going to be able to withstand losing the 6 figures that you would have to put up to enter into that transaction. For these reasons, we respectfully oppose the bill and request your no vote today.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1092? Seeing no one approached the microphone, I'll bring it back to the dais and, Senator Padilla.

Thank you very much, mister chairman, and to the author. Appreciate you bringing the bill. I intend to support your bill moving forward, but I just had some some questions.

Typically in typically, you know, a right of first refusal transactions you will know, the triggering is the notice of intent to market or list, and that prior to any what anyone could allege would be the consummation of a contract, there's an opportunity to make an offer or be a party to the purchase that you could refuse or decline. Here, it's interesting.

I'm curious why you're going in this order that the trigger here seems to be that the ownership as in receipt of a of an offer that they then publicly notice to the affected residents as their intent to accept that offer after I'm assuming some conversation around consideration has taken place.

I'm just I'm just wondering if the order of operations here in the draft doesn't give rise to some unintended tort claim exposure that could just delay or blow up or not not actually preserve the housing stock here and have an adverse effect on the the goal of the bill, which is to continue to try to encourage the opportunity for resident organizations who are part of the park to then achieve ownership of the park.

And so I'm just wondering if if you're if you're looking at unintended tour claim exposure here because of the order of how this is laid out in the statute I mean, in the potential statute as you have it, tortious interference or, you know, there's other, you know, there's other claims that

could come from someone who you've negotiated your intent to accept their offer to purchase and then you publicly indicate your potential willingness to to back out of what they could conceivably argue as a as a contract agreement.

Again, I support the goal. I understand the goal. I understand the policy objective. I wanna be supportive of that, but I'm also concerned that there might not be some unintended consequences here.

And that that in turn has the impact of delaying or blowing up the sale or transaction, and then that has an impact on the ability to preserve the housing stock. So I'm I'm just curious as to why it's in this order and whether you're addressing

Appreciate the question. I'm happy to obviously, I wouldn't want to see that either. From our perspective, this was a reasonable set of steps that would allow for basically, we want to make sure that there's no you know, we we worked on legislation before where there was complaints about, well, how do you really find a way to make sure that that the the owners being made whole.

So we don't want the owners to be in a situation where they they feel as if somehow they're accepting, you know, less compensation just because we have the residents purchasing instead of somebody else. Now I know the bill says that they can't accept the proposed offer without conditions related to the residents. So I don't know that I I I you know, if if you're yeah.

I'd love to we we need to go revisit this with judiciary or or, you know, I I I wasn't I I don't know that this issue of tortious claims has come up yet in the context of the bill, but I certainly would I would want I would not want I would wanna do everything we could to avoid that situation, certainly. So if you've got ideas

Yeah. No. And I appreciate, mister chairman, I appreciate the response and the sensitivity to it, and I understand that's your intent. So Yeah.

You know, I'm happy to help you move just

But just because they have good intent doesn't mean we don't have to work together. You might

have a little more exposure to people frustrating the process than you would in a typical order. But that's just Yeah.

So Yeah. Okay. Well, we'll spend some time on that and we'll certainly welcome your engagement if the bill gets out today.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So I'm I'm trying to think more on the practical side of your attempt because I completely I sympathize with all of the folks that are here today that lost their homes and are coming back and trying and thinking that you're coming back to home and realize that oh wait may not potentially have a home to come back to if the property is being sold.

So I actually appreciate your intent in trying to empower the these homeowners to be able to purchase, have an ability to purchase the properties. But I'm curious because if you're in the current process when they're purchasing the property, their potential buyers are purchasing the whole estate as one property purchase. If they were to do by the homeowners, I'm kind of curious as to they have to secure finance, they have to be able to do that.

But if you're only having a couple that can qualify to actually purchase a mobile home block, which is very difficult to get it from my understanding, my past experience.

What happens if you're hodgepodge, if you're not selling the whole property, you're just selling a couple of parcels, what happens to the rest of the property that is not able to be sold or bought by the buyers?

So you're saying if they decide to split the lot?

Split the lot, but say you have lot one, two, three, four, one is sold, two is not sold, three maybe, four, but it's all hodgepodge. You don't not every buyer is qualified to purchase that property or wants to pursue with purchasing property. So what happens to those lots that are not are not able to be bought but yet, you know

Yeah. I mean, the idea and we can have or we just can talk about this. I mean, the the concept is that we'd have a a resident organization that would would purchase as a group.

All of the land.

This isn't about the individual sales of of lots and and split. So I don't know that that Bill speaks to that phenomenon.

Okay. So that isn't because the way that it's the way that I I think you just way that I

Maybe you just found a loophole.

The way that I'm reading it, it was just more of a, you know, if you're if you're having the homeowners have the ability to purchase it, I would I just assumed that it was individuals wanting to purchase it. So you're looking at an organization No.

They come together as a group.

Together and buy

purchase it. Yeah. You know, because we don't wanna switch to I mean, that that will be very unfair to the to the to the park owner.

To the okay. To the park owner.

The idea was that they that the that the that the an organization representing all the tenants would would would would have to put up a bonafide offer that matches.

To find a bond? Yeah. So that time frame so we incorporate as a well we use a non profit statute. There's a couple of statutes that are mentioned in the legislation and then the residents are purchasing the entire parcel cooperatively. Right.

So there is a section in there about, condos, but I think it's very minor and I think it's very unlikely that it would that could happen.

But if the landlord decide to split the lot, what what what's the what's the mechanism there?

Well, I'll tell you that it is super expensive and it is super hard to do that because Yeah. Of the zoning and everything. Sometimes it is done. It usually takes

Right.

Maybe ten years to do. But I I don't know. That's a really that is something you can You could

build it.

I think it's something that would be very, very long term.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Okay. If not, Senator Allen, would you like to close?

Yeah. I appreciate the discussion. You certainly welcome folks' ideas, if if the bill moves forward as to how to make it work better. But respectfully, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I'll entertain a motion on SB 1092 moved by Senator Gonzales. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.

Senators Aregine. Aye. Aregine, Aye. Cierto, Caballero, Cortesi. Aye.

Cortesi, Aye. Durazo? Aye. Dorazo, Aye. Gonzales?

Aye. Gonzales, Aye. Grayson Ocho Bogue. Ocho Bogue, Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

We'll keep that on call. Thank you. And then lastly, SB 1093 by Senator Allen.

All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks. I'm accepting the committee amendments.

Thanks for the work by the committee. Similar topic, different set of issues. We know that opportunities to preserve unsubsidized house, affordable housing are especially important today when our affordable housing funding is oversubscribed. Our existing housing stock is under increasing threat from climate disasters. And as we've discussed, mobile homes are very, mobile home parks are very important part of our affordable housing system.

We've seen a lot of destruction with all these fires, both in my area, but also up in Northern California as well. This bill does four main things. It requires consistent and transparent communication from the mobile home park owners after disaster until the park is rebuilt or until a closure or change of use is approved. This requirement does not bind owners to pursue any specific path.

Residents simply deserve not to be left in the dark without any understanding of what's happening and when, if ever, they may be able to return home.

Second, it requires park owners to provide residents with timely access to the property after any evacuation orders are lifted or the region is approved for resident access.

Third, the bill fixes an oversight from legislation passed last year that unintentionally stripped residents of their rights to appropriate reimbursement should a park owner choose to close the park or change the use after disaster.

And then fourth, the bill requires park owners to thoroughly consider the benefits, the cost, the available resources for rebuilding and preserving the mobile home park, and the equity that mobile home park owners have invested in their properties. Environmental testing, relocation feasibility, and economic cost to the greater community should all be considered when, before decision to close or redevelop the land is made.

So, this bill provides residents that have been displaced by disaster with guarantees of transparent communication, the opportunity to salvage any personal items, the assurance that the ability of return and, the right to rebuild their homes has been thoroughly considered, and the right to be fairly compensated for their loss of their right, to return.

So here again, to testify and support, we have John Brown, resident of, the Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates and also cCo president of the Palisades Bowl community group. And also doctor Danielle Zoe Rivera, who's an assistant professor of landscape architecture and environmental planning at UC Berkeley. Go go Bears. We look forward to hearing both of our witnesses.

Go Bears.

Okay. Once again, thank you guys so much. And, thank you Chair and, members of the committee. Again, just for the record, again, my name is John Brown. I lived in the Palisades Bowl with my wife and two kids.

Yeah. So, you know, it's it's I would say it's appropriate at this point at at at 06:42 to to sort of use this as a as a metaphor for how we've been feeling as a community. You guys probably wanna go home right now and, that's how we've been feeling for fifteen months. But in a much more painful way because at the end of the day we we don't get to go home. We don't know if we're going to be able to go home.

Park owners don't have any obligation to communicate with us about what their plans are. The again, the only reason we found out that the park was for sale was because, you know, the marketing material came through sort of backdoor to us. I mean, we have just no idea what destiny holds for us. And we all we all just wanna go back home.

After the fires, the the entrance to our park was gated off and we were unable to go in to search for belongings on our lots while our neighbors in the Palisades were going to their lots and looking for belongings.

We were unable to even go back to our spaces where our homes burnt. The park was just gated off. I couldn't take my kids there to grieve. I couldn't go there with my wife. There were people that had to sneak in to to go back to look for belongings and by the time they did, there were scavengers and homeless people and people went through their stuff.

I have a friend Georgie. She had she had lost a child at a very, very young kid at a young age and had an urn with her with the ashes. And by the time she got back in weeks later, it was gone.

So, you know, I I just think that, you know, again, the park being for sale, us not being able to have some legislation that that requires the park owners to at least communicate with us, you know, is just is just not it's just not right. So SB 1093 would correct a lot of these things.

Senator Allen laid it out. I think you guys have read it and I and I really appreciate you guys hearing this bill. You know, again, we go to bed every night just wondering when we can go home. We have reached out to these owners. They don't communicate with us.

We are trying to cooperate and coordinate with them, but there is nothing in the law that says that they have to even talk to us. So I think that SB 1093 would help that and it's a good start and I urge your aye vote on SB 1093. Thank you guys.

Thank you very much.

Hi. I had good afternoon, but good evening. I'm Dr. Danielle Zoe Rivera, Assistant Professor of Environmental Planning at the University of California, Berkeley, and I'm here to provide technical support for SB 1093.

Since August 2025, I've been working with MPHS to conduct research in this area of the Pacific Palisades looking at impacts to manufactured housing communities. And, I'd like to share some information about a survey we conducted of the three MHC communities that were impacted by the fire.

First, our survey found that 85% of residents wish to rebuild their homes while 13% are unsure if they're really going to be able to rebuild their homes. When asked what their major considerations were in determining whether or not they want to rebuild, the top consideration by far was actually whether the land owner would permit rebuilding. In fact, in March 2026, 15 months after the fire, 93% of respondents said they were unsure if their landowner was going to even allow rebuilding at all.

Second, residents were concerned about communication from landowners. As part of the survey, we asked residents to rank how responsive different stakeholders were to their needs since the Palisades fire occurred and 80% of residents actually marked the landowner as the least responsive of all the stakeholders.

Furthermore, 35% of respondents reported that their landowner has not communicated with them at all since the fire, and 49% of residents say the landowner has only communicated with them once in the last six months. In closing, residents emphasize the stress and challenge of not knowing if they can go home or if they should be looking for alternative housing arrangements. Residents also emphasize the importance of manufactured housing as both key affordable housing and, emphasize their close knit communities they want to hold.

Additionally, over half of our survey respondents were 60 years old, emphasizing how important manufactured housing is for those on fixed incomes. So in light of these results, I'd like to show my full support of SB 1093.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1093? Seeing no one approach the microphone, we will now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition.

Mister chair, members, well, the good news is it's the last time you'll see me tonight. So, Chris Wysocki with WMA, here to urge a no vote on October. First of all, WMA really does emphasize with the people who lost their homes in the Palisades fire, but it should be known that the residents weren't the only victims. Major reason for WMA's opposition is that it assumes people wanna move back to a mobile home park after the disaster.

That didn't happen in the in paradise after the Camp Fire.

30 parks were destroyed and only five were rebuilt. They weren't rebuilt because the park owners weren't willing to rebuild but there wasn't enough interest for from residents to return. If ten ninety three was in place in 2018, park owners in Paradise would have been forced to pay for the value of the home plus the value of the space that the home sat on prior to the fire.

In 2017 when the Tubbs fire destroyed the Journey's End mobile home park in Santa Rosa, the city and the park owner reached a deal to increase the supply of affordable housing. If SB 1093 was in place then, the deal never would have come together because the park owner would have had to have paid roughly $48,000,000 to the 160 people who lost their homes in the fire, thus needing an additional $48,000,000 to make the project viable.

This bill also has a number of technical reasons to oppose including having HCD develop and execute a liability waiver for residents to sign seven days after the for evacuation order is lifted. Liability waivers protect the park owner from lawsuits if someone gets injured on the site of a burned down park while debris is still present. WMA also strongly objects to the fine structure, the $2,500 per day per space if any part of SB 1093 is not followed.

For Tahitian Terrace for example, the fine would be roughly $400,000 a day, each day a status update is late being sent. Finally, it's noticeable that this bill is a companion to ten ninety two.

In that bill, the resident organization looking to buy the park would benefit from a lower valuation of a destroyed park. In this bill, the residents would profit greatly from evaluation assuming it was fully operational as a park. It seems that these two bills are working together like someone who actually wants to have their cake and eat it too. For these and other reasons listed in our letter, we urge a no vote on SB 1093.

Thank you.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Jason Ikerd on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance. A few comments that reflect the the senator's presentation. You know, there's been a lot discussed on communication. If this bill was just about post disaster communications with residents, you know, whether we agreed with the original version or not, I'm confident that there would be a way to probably get there.

But the bill does go significantly further, and it applies, you know, not just to the parks that were destroyed in those tragic fires, but also all parks that are destroyed in disaster going forward. And the requirements of the bill are pretty onerous and quite challenging. Park owners operate in a variety of ways, all sizes, all different levels of sophistication.

This bill says that, you know, with seven days after an evacuation as order is lifted, residents have to be allowed back into a park and as mister Wysocki just said, if you would like to not bear the liability associated with allowing residents into a park when there is still risk because an evacuation order being lifted does not mean there is not risk on a property. You have to have that waiver approved by HCD.

There is no guarantee that those timelines line up, so we could actually just be asking a park owner to bear that liability potentially. In addition, you know, the author states that that there's no intent to bind a park owner to any path, but if for one of the many reasons that you might choose not to reopen your park, you have to go through a complex set of five analyses. These are not simple analyses.

I encourage you if you haven't already to look at page three of 10 of the analysis. There's an environmental analysis, on on soil, etcetera, heavy metals.

There's an economic impact analysis. And if you fail to comply, there are immense opportunities to litigate in this bill. And it is hard for us not to conclude that the overall intent of the bill is in fact to bind a park owner into a particular path. For these reasons, we have to respectfully oppose the bill and request your no vote.

Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition SB 1093? Seeing no one else, I'll bring it back to the days and ask if there are any questions or comments from members of the committee. Senator Ochoa Bogh and then Capriero.

Hi. So I'm kind of curious as to obviously not just communications there's more to it. I'm kind of curious to understand the thought process of what the opposition mentioned as far as having to compensate for both the mobile home unit as well as the value of the land on that perspective within this bill? What's the thought process? And I'm asking because they don't own the actual land portion of it.

They own the mobile home but not the land. What would compel the thought process that they would have to compensate for both the mobile home unit as well as the value of the land?

I mean well, the value of the land is wrapped up in the in the value of the property. But what do you? we're just asking them to do an analysis associated with this. It's not as though

is analysis or according to the opposition

What are your concerns about the implications of it? Yeah. Yeah.

So prior to a bill that was passed last year, the park owner is required to to cover the in place value, if they close the park or, you know, but since there is no home on it, I think it was missed that there is in place value to our leasehold interest that we still have in that park.

And if there's no home sitting on it, like a home, let's say, in Palisades Bowl, it only costs a few $100,000 to put a manufactured home on that space. But some of these homes are selling for $700,000 a million dollars because the leasehold interest, the right to lease that space has value.

That in place value is what this bill says should be replaced, not the home itself. Our insurance, we are responsible for that. We take full responsible full responsibility for the for the replacing the home itself. We either have insurance or under insured, but that's on us, not on the park owner. But if they want to close the park, we still have that leasehold interest, which if the park didn't burn, they would have to cover that.

So it's almost like they're they're it's a win for them if the park burns down and this doesn't exist because now they don't have that in place value that they would be covering, if that makes sense?

I'm trying to

Because you guys said that the property it's very this is the problem we're dealing with here. Right? The property their property right is based on the property sitting on top of the land. The second that property is destroyed, they lose all their property rights.

And that's part of why we're in the situation where they can't even go back to their own properties in the wake of a fire without the permission of the owner because their property rights are extinguished with the destruction of the property.

This is the unique situation of a mobile of a mobile home park. So the idea is that the the value of the land is an important part of the leasehold value that they have with that property. And so that needs to be taken into account when we're thinking about about about their property rights here.

I bought my I've actually the house that burned. We bought that space. We bought the space lease. It was empty. There was nothing on it.

We paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for what you would probably say is nothing. My father said to me, are you sure? You don't own the land? What are you paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for? There's nothing even on the land.

I paid for the leasehold. When it transferred in escrow, we paid the people who had the lease prior to us, my wife and I. We paid them money. And in escrow, the lease changes hands and the park owner approves us as the leaseholder now to that space, and now we have the right to put our home on that land. That home burned.

That's, again, on us. We had insurance, luckily. But, again, that leasehold value is still worth money, and we believe that we we should be compensated if the park owner decides to repurpose the park or to sell it or to do something that would remove that value from us, that would take that value, that equity from us, which is already in current law if the park didn't burn down.

There there would be impact, you know, reports and all that, you know, they would have to do that relocate.

Otherwise, you get a massive windfall from having had the the park burned down.

This would be

In that respect, I understand it's not a positive thing for anybody involved. So that's the idea.

Which through the chair, would it be okay to hear from the opposition on on this because they're the ones that brought up the the issue. So I'm kind of curious. I'm just trying to understand it.

Sure. Yes. Thank you.

So yeah, it's you know the the problem with the argument is that the leasehold property value is actually the property of the park owner. I mean, that's so basically what this bill is doing is trying to transfer the right transfer the value of the land underneath the home to the to the tenant or to the homeowner. Well And so, I mean, I think that's a fundamental problem with the bill.

But you recognize that there's a value to the leasehold. Right? I mean, like, that right?

The value of the land is the park owners and the the reason the homes cost so much

But what about this phenomenon what about this phenomenon here where you are where this this is premium associated with

Yeah. But that and that's why if it's if it was a normal closure, you're right, it would be subject to to that type of that type of structure. Right. This was an act of God. Nobody nobody could could have imagined it and there's no home on the land anymore.

So I mean, I'm and this is a tragedy beyond belief. No doubt about it. But transferring the property value of the leasehold to the tenant is entirely inappropriate from our standpoint.

Okay. We'll go next to Senator Caballero and then Senator Padilla.

Well, my question to the author was, the gentleman made some statements about the treatment between the different bills having your cake and eating it too. And I was wondering if, Senator Allen could, address that. I mean, what what's his view of of this is this is difficult because, there are different property

Interests.

Interests that people have paid for Yeah. And that and as And