Assembly Standing Committee on Housing and Community Development

Alright. Welcome, everyone, to the welcome to the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee. We have 14 items on our agenda today. Two of our items are on consent.

That's item SB 799 and item three, SB 799, item nine, SB 1072, item seven, SB 107, Menjivar has been pulled from the agenda at the request of the author To facilitate the goals of the hearing within the time we have, each bill can have two main witnesses in support and opposition, and each main witness gets two minutes each.

You can submit written testimony through the position portal on the committee's website and will become an official part of the record. We will not permit any conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. We are in Room 447 at the Capitol, and the hearing room is open for in person attendance of the hearing. All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its livestream on the assembly's website. And thank you for your patience and understanding.

We do not yet have quorum, so we will start as a subcommittee. But I do see we have an on time ready to go Senate author. So we will bring up Senator Grayson for item first for item six and item eight, SB 103 and SB 1014. You wanna do which one first?

Ten zero three.

Alright. We're g0nna start with item six, SB 100 10 o three.

Good morning to the highly esteemed Chair and member members of the committee. SB 1003 aims to provide state support for critical infrastructure for housing developments. Oftentimes, a common issue that many in the housing space run into are challenges related to housing infrastructure as housing may fail to pencil out due to the cost of updating infrastructure constraining the amount of housing that we can build in the state.

It is difficult to expand new housing opportunities in the state without building out the necessary infrastructure to support that growth. So this bill will help create an incentive structure that will provide additional benefits to local jurisdictions who create pro housing enhanced infrastructure districts we refer to as PEIFDs.

If a local jurisdiction creates a PEIFD, they will receive additional points towards programs that can help provide support for housing related infrastructure. 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 with me through the Chair, I do have a witness who can self identify.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. My name is Ally Saferman, and I'm the advocacy and policy manager for the Housing Action Coalition. The Housing Action Coalition is a statewide pro housing nonprofit that advocates for more homes at all levels of affordability. Our members include developers, architects, attorneys, and labor partners who build housing across California.

I'm speaking today as a proud sponsor 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 on getting jurisdictions to plan for housing, but planning isn't building. One of the most persistent reasons info projects stall or never break ground at all is the cost of infrastructure. Site prep, utility connections, access improvements. These costs routinely make otherwise feasible projects impossible to finance. Programs that fund affordable construction are relatively plentiful, but programs that support infill infrastructure are not.

That gap is real. And it's the reason that so many projects struggle to pencil out even when the will to build exists. SB 1003 directly addresses that gap. Establishing a PEIFD earns jurisdictions enhanced credit towards the pro housing designation and may unlock priority when applying for competitive state programs, including funding for pre development activities like site specific infrastructure that improves neighborhood conditions, connectivity, and access.

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.

Ultimately, SB 1003 will help unlock housing, leverage local investment, and generate lasting returns. I respectfully request your aye vote today. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much. Are there other folks here who are in support of this bill? Not seeing anyone. I don't believe there's any opposition, but is there any opposition to this bill?

Not seeing any? Colleagues? Comments? Not seeing any of those. You may close.

Respectfully ask for an over. Thank you.

Well, thank you so much, for your leadership on this. I I love this bill. It's it's you know, we hear a lot about all of the things that we need to do to make sure that we can get projects moving, And one of those, of course, is housing is financing and giving local localities the tools to do that, I think, is is is hugely critical and being more creative about it.

So appreciate your leadership on this, and we will take a motion on that when we have a quorum. Why don't we move to the next bill, which is item number eight SB 1014.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. As many of you already know, California has a massive and growing housing production and affordability crisis. Driving this affordability issue is the exponential rising cost of building new housing. Development fees and other construction requirements can make up a significant portion of building costs and are much higher in California compared to the rest of the nation.

Despite the state's significant legislative reforms intended to improve fee transparency, builders continue to struggle to anticipate certain development cost such as those for on-site and off-site improvements.

Builders may find out about an on-site or off-site improvement late in the process, adding unforeseen development cost and making projects less likely to pencil out. SB 1014 will help provide greater certainty for housing developments by requiring local jurisdictions within thirty days of submission of a preliminary application, providing a good faith estimate and list of any on-site off-site improvements.

The bill would also prevent a local jurisdiction from requiring any additional on-site or off-site improvements that are not disclosed within thirty days of submitting a building permit application. With me to testify today is Michael Lane representing SPUR and Nolan Gray representing California YIMBY through the Chair.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Nolan Gray. I'm an AICP planner and the senior director of legislation and research at California YIMBY. We are a statewide organization of over 80,000 members committed to ending the California housing shortage and making our state an affordable place to live, work, and raise a family.

In a recent viral Instagram post, which is how many of us consume our news, unfortunately, a local California developer shared the total bill, to build a 747 square foot two bedroom apartment, valued at $132,000. The total bill was $30,000. That is to say fees alone added up to roughly a quarter of the value of the home, 20,000 of which was to repave a nearby street.

As startling as this may seem, this was probably a good outcome because the developer knew upfront what the fees and mandates were going to be. In many cases, developers are not quite so lucky, especially small scale developers who are operating on razor thin margins.

While local jurisdictions are required to disclose fees upfront, state transparency laws do not cover on and off-site improvements. As a result, local jurisdictions often raise new mandates late in the process that add enormous costs to projects. And if they don't kill those projects altogether, they often scare new projects from applying. SB 1014 is a targeted good government fix. It requires local jurisdictions to make a good faith estimate of any such mandates within thirty days of receipt of a final application.

Notably, this bill does not in any way constrain the right of local jurisdictions to require on or off-site improvements, nor does it prohibit such mandates late in the process if conditions change or if new health or safety issues are uncovered later on. Rather, SB 1014 extends smart protections that already apply to impact fees to on and on-site improvements, giving all parties, planners, cities, and developers alike the certainty and stability they need to proceed with building the housing our state needs. For this reason, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Mister Chair and members, Michael Lane with SPUR, a 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.

Using the framework for development impact fee disclosure and transparency developed in AB 1820 Schiavo that was passed by the legislature and signed into law in 2024, SB 1014 would, one, allow a development proponent to request a preliminary estimate of required improvements within thirty days of projects submittal, and two, require that within thirty days of receipt of a complete 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.

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

Thank you. The other folks who are here in support of the bill.

Good morning, Mister Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing Los Angeles, Habitat for Humanity, California Fieldstead, San Diego Housing Federation, and Circulate Planning and Policy. Thank you.

Good morning. Ali Sapirman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in strong support.

Thank you. Are there opposition witnesses here? Please come to the front.

Good morning. Claire Sullivan on behalf of a short list of cities in respectful opposition, due to practical implementation concerns with the thirty day shot clocks. We have the city of Carlsbad, city of Rancho Cucamonga, and the city of Thousand Oaks in oppose positions. And in oppose and less amended positions, we have Belmont, Redwood City, and the city of San Mateo. Thank you.

Alright. Anyone else here in opposition? Not seeing anyone. We will bring it back, colleagues. No questions or comments.

Again, Senator, appreciate your leadership here. This is common sense, I think, thoughtful, to make sure that folks know the cost and that the housing that is proposed will actually pencil and that they can get done. And that kind of transparency, I think, is important. And so, again, appreciate your leadership. But you may close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Alright. We will take that motion when it comes up. And again, appreciate your work and being here right on time. In and out.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Thank you, sir. Alright. Next up, we are gonna bring up item number four, SB802. Senator Ashby, welcome.

And I see we have former mayor, former pro tem, and, of course, his most important office, former Assembly member here.

Exactly. Please, Tim Steinberg.

Thank you.

Welcome. And I will turn it over to Senator Ashby.

Thank you so much. Thank you, colleagues, for having us here today. And thanks to the mayor for making time to come back to the capital and hang out with me and try to bring the most popular person I could find to to sit next to me.

Joe Smith.

Joe Smith. Yeah. Yeah. Joe Smith.

That's that's actually not that's not inaccurate either, is it?

Joe is great. Alright. Thank you so much, Mister Chair. And I wanna just start off these comments by saying thank you to you and to this staff. And I know that almost every speaker comes up and says, I want to thank the staff and the Chair for their hard work.

Way above and beyond a year of your lives. Thank you so much for helping me with this bill. I think so much better from your input. Your staff was amazing. They were incredibly helpful, engaged, kind, considerate.

We love work them and Chair. You did an amazing job as well to helping lead us to a great place, and I'm forever grateful to all of you. Thank you so much. SB802 is essentially a district bill. It requires the Sacramento region to form a joint powers authority to address our long standing lack of coordination on housing and homelessness.

I've spent over a year negotiating most of the terms and iterations of the language that you have in front of you today. We've worked closely with regional partners, including Sacramento County, the City Of Sacramento, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights, Folsom, the continuum of care, Sacramento steps forward, unions, housing organizations, business groups, service providers, community organizations and local elected officials. Members, most of you spend a big chunk of your lives here in Senate District 8 with me.

You witnessed firsthand the level of dysfunction on the streets of Sacramento. I don't need to lay out that picture for you.

But it does mean that you should not be surprised to hear that homelessness is the top concern for my residents, for my constituents. With over 7,500 people experiencing on the street homelessness in Sacramento County right now. The state's homeless population overall is decreasing, but Sacramento continues to rise. Recent data shows that Sacramento County has experienced a 13 rise in homelessness, far above the rest of the states 3% decline.

Students are among the most affected with an almost 20% rise in student homelessness, Double that of the states increase in student homelessness.

Sacramento spent over twenty years trying and failing to create a joint powers authority to address this issue. As early as 2010, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and the Sacramento City Council approved resolutions supporting the creation of a joint powers authority to coordinate homeless services. In the end, no JPA was actually created. In 2019, the Sacramento County Grand Jury looked at homelessness in Sacramento and warned of the dysfunction caused by the lack of coherent organizational structure and suggested better coordination.

Again, no joint powers authority was created.

In 2022, frustrated voters passed measure O demanding that the city and county come to an agreement and take action to address homelessness in the region. Still no JPA was formed though the then mayor and our former pro tem, Darrell Steinberg did develop a strong framework that could serve as a base. Though at present, there is no form of accountability, nor form of implementation for what he wrote because there is no joint powers authority.

In 2023, another grand jury report comes out with very little improvement describing the region's homelessness response as disjointed, lacking accountability and largely reactive rather than strategic. The report once more suggested better coordination and again, no joint powers authority was created.

Sacramento alone has received nearly half $1,000,000,000 in state funding over the past four years. But to this day, still lacks a coordinated strategic plan to spend it effectively. Without a regional strategy, these funds have been directed towards separate and at times conflicting priorities and programs. Sacramento's current system is fragmented. Among multiple government agencies and planning bodies, there are more than eight boards and nearly 90 Board Members working in silos, making decisions about homelessness and housing without ever coordinating across the region of Sacramento.

This lack of alignment results in duplicated and inconsistent services. It's inefficient use of tax dollars, missed opportunities to secure additional state and federal funding, And more important than any of that, it leaves vulnerable Sacramento people without a clear pathway to help. They have no idea where to go. There is no front door in Sacramento. Families seeking assistance must navigate multiple agencies and service providers.

Each directing them to different parts of the system creating confusion and barriers. Since the introduction of this bill, SB802, local efforts to form a JPA have advanced and that's a good thing. The County Of Sacramento and all of its cities have signed an agreement to discuss forming a governing body that addresses constituents most pressing issue, homelessness. A joint powers authority, as you all know, is the strongest and most accountable governance structure available to address regional challenges like homelessness and housing.

JPS are not a new concept.

They're highly effective and in this region, utilized mightily. Transportation, air quality, library services, you name it. They are all managed by joint powers authorities. This is not a new model for Sacramento. Unlike agreements, a JPA has legal authority to manage funds, enter contracts, pursue grants and implement regional strategies.

This bill does not replace local control. It brings local governments together to make better regional decisions. As currently written, SB802 requires the County Of Sacramento, the City Of Sacramento, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights and Folsom to participate in and work together to establish a JPA that addresses housing and homelessness regionally. Jurisdictions have established a task force of elected officials, which is expected to convene this July.

It is my sincerest hope that the local entities at that time will form a joint powers authority that mirrors SB802's goals and gives our region a fighting chance at success in addressing homelessness.

Obviously, if that were to happen, if they formed a JPA on their own that mirrored the goals of SB802, we would no longer need this bill. To be abundantly clear, I am rooting for them. SB802 enjoys tremendous support from a vast array of organizations. Here are a few. Of course, mayor Daryl Steinberg, who's here with me.

The majority of the Sacramento City Council, including the vice mayor, Karina Talamantes, the mayor Pro Tem, Eric Guerra and council members, Katie Maple, Karina Lisa Kaplan, my Vang and Rick Jennings. Also supporting this bill is SCIU California, Sacramento Regional Business Leaders Council, WellSpace Health which is the largest mental health provider in most of our districts but certainly in Northern California. California YIMBY, the California Black Chamber, Meadowview Neighborhood Association, Midtown Association, Alan Warren, a former Sacramento City Council member and housing developer in our region.

Josh Panay and Steve Cone, both former council members from East Sacramento. The Sacramento advocates for rail and transit, Garden Land Northgate Neighborhood and Association, Sierra Curtis Neighborhood Association, many others including South Natomas, the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, Youth Forward, LA Alliance for Human Rights, Dignity Moves, Floor and Road Partnership, and LifeSteps, one of the largest providers of services to at risk youth in our community.

I have made amendments from almost every organization that has asked me to do so, including the city of Sacramento, Folsom, Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova, IBEW three forty, the continuum of care, Sacramento steps forward, and every committee that we have been in so far. Sacramento has the opportunity to lead here. They have the opportunity to create a model of efficiency and truly serve our residents, proving that we are best not just in Sacramento, but in the state of California when we are working together.

I will now hand this over to my witness who you all already know is former mayor Daryl Steinberg and former pro tem of the Senate. And as you pointed out, obviously, former Assembly member as well.

But there really is no one who knows this issue better. This is not your ordinary witness. He served as mayor for eight years and from the very first meeting, worked tirelessly on this issue. And the successes that we have seen are a direct result of that work. In fact, I would argue most of the dollars that I'm complaining went there came as a result of this individual serving as mayor at that time.

He is not a expert on this issue. He is the expert on this issue. And I am very fortunate and lucky to have him sitting here with me today. I hope you will ask him all the questions because he's really truly worked on this for a very long time.

Well, that was a very kind introduction. Thank you, Senator Ashby, for taking on the hard issue because this is it's always easy to take on the easy stuff. It's most meaningful and important when you take on the hard stuff. That's exactly what you're doing. So I commend you.

Mister chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity. I would just say as a quick point of personal privilege that I don't come back here that often intentionally because this is a very special place to me. The legislature, both the Assembly and the Senate. And when I come back, I want it to be for something important and meaningful. And I'm here today because to me, this bill is that important, not just for Sacramento.

I know it is a district bill, but as a potential template for the state of California. Again, appreciate the introduction about my background. There's one other thing I think it is important to add that I was the author of California's Mental Health Services Act, proposition 63, which is now prop one, which has generated 30 plus billion dollars of funding for mental health, including homelessness, but not nearly enough of it directed towards the people living in our encampments.

And I'll get to that in a moment as to why this bill is in fact so important. As Senator Ashby said, during my years of mayor, and I did nothing alone, we made real progress in combating homelessness, but could have done much more if the city and county had actually governed together.

And as you all know, the problem of homelessness is unsheltered homelessness. It's not exclusive to urban centers to the major cities. But for a variety of reasons, the majority of the problem exists within our cities. And, of course, cities are responsible for shelter, for tiny homes, for permanent housing, for affordable housing as our counties, but that is a core responsibility of cities. Counties, on the other hand, are exclusively responsible for health and human services, specifically mental health and substance abuse.

When I wrote that initiative in 2004, every penny except for state administration was directed to, our county partners. And so I asked this question rhetorically to all of you. Under what version of good government does it make sense for the city and county to govern homelessness separately? When helping as many people as possible and making the problem better requires all of the above. Shelter, housing, tiny homes provided mostly by the city within city limits in the city jurisdiction.

But also the mental health and substance abuse treatment exclusively again provided by the county. Governing together will allow all of the issues underlying unsheltered homelessness to be considered and decided together, providing a much better opportunity for better results. You know, form, it should serve function as they say. Right? Form is important if it makes the substance better.

And I wanna spend just a moment why I believe very specifically a joint powers authority will improve outcomes for the city and county of Sacramento and the other cities, of course, within the county. If we are honest about it, the state of California and the Sacramento region, because there there are a lot of similarities between what's happening statewide and what's happening in Sacramento, have made real strides in building more beds for unsheltered people.

Where we really fall short is not getting enough people who need it, the services and the treatment they need to maintain their shelter and permanent housing stability. The fact of the matter is look at the statistics under the Mental Health Services Act and now the BHSA. Too few wrap around services, we call them full service partnerships, are being offered to people languishing in encampments because they're the hardest people to serve.

The responsibility and unlimited discretion about who gets outreach and who gets these wraparound services now lies exclusively with the county. City leaders do not wanna become the health and human services providers for this population. It's not what cities do, but they must have a voice. And that's the point of the bill. A much stronger voice in assuring that people living for months or years on our sidewalks get the help they need.

Hopefully, voluntarily, but involuntarily if necessary as a last resort. That cannot happen, and it doesn't happen where the county governs alone without their city partners. So this is an opportunity now as the Senator said for the city and county under SB802 to govern together. To set clear standards for encampment outreach, case management, shelter, housing, and services. Both the city and county elected leaders are accountable to the public for better results.

City leaders now have no authority over who receives mental health and substance abuse services. Accountability without any authority is both unfair and it's ineffective.

Finally, passing eight zero two is the Senator said would be a prod to end the fragmented leadership, the disparate priorities between local governments, the uneven responses to the crisis on our streets, and the consistent failure to recognize in policy and practice that most human beings that find themselves in the worst nightmare of living in danger and squalor need their governments to work together So that shelter, housing, and wrap around services are not just separate boxes for each government to check off, but the common commitment of all county and city leaders.

This is a must pass bill in my view, and I urge you to do so. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mister member Mister mayor and and and Mister Assembly member. I believe your other witnesses here for

If I can, if that's okay. Sure. Yeah. I just wanna introduce Joe Smith. He's here as an expert witness in case you have questions that are more technical in nature.

Joe is the Chair of the Continuum of Care for Sacramento County. He has lived experience, became an advocate at the largest organization in our region, Loaves and Fishes, where he advocated not just for, issues that folks were facing on the streets, but also legislation. And now runs several of some of the most successful programs across Sacramento. So if we if we need his help, Joe is here, to answer tough questions.

Great. Thank you for being here. Alright. Other folks who are here, who are in support of this bill can line up if you will, state your name, your position, and your affiliation, please.

Hi. Good morning. Crystal Strait, representing the Steinberg Institute in support.

Thank you. Yeah.

Good morning, Mister Chair. Edgar Guerra with SEIU California in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jasmine Asher representing the Greater Sacramento Urban League. We are in support.

Glenda Marsh representing the Sacramento Advocates for Rail and Transit here in support.

Good morning. Sacramento City Council member at District 1 who replaced, Senator Ashby in strong support of SB802.

Good morning, Eric Guerra. Councilman for the City Of Sacramento and member of the City County Partnership Homelessness Committee in strong support.

Good morning. Sumathi Mehta, trustee in the Thomas Unified School District, strong support.

Hi there. Katie Hanzlick here on behalf of Sacramento Vice Mayor, Karina Talamantes, and Sacramento City Council Member, Katie Maple, who's also a member of the Continuum of Care and support. They're sorry they can't be here, but thank the Senator for her leadership.

Evan Craigon on behalf of the Sacramento County Young Democrats in strong support.

Tiffany Scott, president and CEO of Paratrans Inc and PI Housing in strong support.

Bobbin Mulvaney, small business owner. I am in support of this bill.

Patrick Mulvaney, in support of 802, restaurant owner.

Howard Chan, former Sacramento City Manager, twenty three year resident of Sacramento, and, strong support of SB802, and I urge your aye vote.

Good morning. Britta Guerrero. On behalf of the Sacramento Native American Health Center and board member of the Central Valley Health Network and a previous board member at Sacramento Steps Forward in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Ben Avey with WellSpace Health, the region's largest community health system serving people experiencing homelessness in strong support.

Good morning. Axel Diaz on behalf of LifeSTEPS, strongly support.

Debbie Hughes on behalf of LifeSTEPS, and we strongly support.

Hello. Good morning. My name is Anna Tocolo here representing Youth Forward in strong support. Thank you.

Hello. Good morning. My name is Yulin Zhu, and I'm also representing Youth Forward. I'm a resident of Natomas, and I'm also a pre-med student at UCLA, and I'm in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Allison Lee with Urban Capital here, and we strongly support this bill.

Good morning. Wesley Sage Walker from Gateway Development Company in strong support.

Hi. Good morning. Daniel Conway, longtime Sacramento resident, cofounder of the LA Alliance for Human Rights, lead proponent of Measure O in 2022. I wanna thank the vice mayor for her work. I wanna thank the mayor for his work and urge your aye vote.

Good morning, Karina Raimundo on behalf of Midtown Association and strong support.

Thank you, Chair, Elder Jackson III, representing Inside Circle and in strong support for not just housing, but public safety and family stability. I wanna thank the Senator for this bill.

Austin Schlocker, SMART board member, Sacramento advocates for rail and transit. We are in support. And as a fourth generation Sacramento County District 3 resident, I emphatically support this. Thank you, Senator Ashby. Thank you, Daryl.

Good morning, Chair Haney. Scott Ford on behalf of Downtown Sacramento Partnership, property based improvement district, representing the part of California's capital, strong support of SB802.

Good morning, Chair. Jay Martinez, Sacramento County, New Approach Association leader, with lived experience and strong support.

Good morning. Lynn Lindsey, president, North Natomas Community Coalition. We are in full support and respectfully urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Nolan Gray, California and beyond support.

Good morning. Bay Murey, local real estate developer of all different housing types here in strong support and really wanna thank Senator Ashby. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Benjamin Laurel. I'm a social worker and the chief operating officer of First Step Communities, and I'm here in support of this bill.

Hi. I'm Joseph Pacheco. I'm the executive director of First Step Communities. We are a a service partner with both the city and the county, and we operate 400 shelter beds every night. We are in support of this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Laura O'Connor representing Compassionate California, which I'm a board member, and also representing Laura Hanson, our mutual colleague who worked with both of you in forming and successfully one compassionate capital corridor. Strong support of the bill. Thank you.

I'm William Franco, commander of the Veterans Affiliated Council, and we're in strong support of this bill. Thank you so much, Senator Ashby.

Morning. I'm John Fagnocchi, CEO of the Sacramento Regional Business Leaders Council, Sacramento region's only privately financed, 100% independent business political advocacy group, and we are in strong support. Thank you, Senator.

Mister Chairman, Members, Jason Gonsalves representing the cities of Folsom, Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, and Rancho Cordova. We cannot thank the Senator enough for her work on this. Literally midnight Zoom meetings with the Senator directly. So we very much appreciate it. A Tweener wouldn't do justice for the work the Senator has done, but I'm pleased to say the cities of Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova, and Elk Grove are no longer opposed.

Thank you.

Fantastic. Thank you all for being here. Do we have, primary witnesses in opposition? Come on up.

Oh, we do not have any. Oh, do okay.

Do we have folks who wanna register their opposition generally?

Hello. I'm Linda Wheaton with the SAC Act Housing and Homelessness Policy Committee, and a long time housing professional. Registering our respectful opposition. Well, this has been asserted to be a district bill. I for the reason set forth in our letter to you, I would suggest that it goes beyond that because it would set president to precedent statewide for mandating participation in the JPA.

Thank you.

Thank you. Others who are here in opposition.

Thank you. Others who are here in opposition.

I I will, after, also call up folks who are neither opposed or support but want to express a position.

Alicia Deint, social worker and, volunteer leader for Sacramento Act, requesting respectfully requesting your opposition to this vote.

Thank you. Thank you.

Alright. Seeing no one else here in opposition, I know there were a couple of folks who wanted to come up, and, share their position, that is neither support or oppose, and we will give them, the opportunity to do that. I think somebody was gonna speak for a few minutes, and then others can just express their position.

Alright. Alright. Hi, guys. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Haney, members of the committee. I'm Siobhan Gattari, deputy county executive for Sacramento County. And I'm here to update you on the regional progress that we've been making in the region around homelessness. The need to address homelessness here in Sacramento and across the state has only grown more urgent for our community and for this legislature alike.

In Sacramento County, our response has accelerated to match it. The county, our cities, and our continuum of care each carry a distinct complimentary piece of this work, and we are carrying it together. We appreciate Senator Ashby's strong interest in improving our regional response to homelessness. We're also grateful that her recent amendments to SB 802 have acknowledged and reflected the work the county and our partners have already built.

A letter of intent signed by this county CEO and every city manager in Sacramento County commits us to build a regional structure together, one we designed and one we are accountable for.

A key milestone launches this summer, a task force made up of elected officials from across the region, Along with our continuum of care, we'll be finalizing the authority and the structure for this governance model, and we don't intend to slow down. We appreciate the, the ability to talk today.

Although our board has been opposed consistently to SB 802, we appreciate the Senator reaching out and being willing to work with us to accept our input, and we hope that we can move forward together in partnership, with the legislature. We still don't believe we need a bill, but we are happy to work alongside our partners and with the legislature to see what makes the most sense for our region. We look forward to keeping this committee updated as our regional model moves forward. Thank you.

Chair, any members of the committee. My name is Justin Raffel. I'm the mayor of the city of Folsom. I'm here to add Folsom's voice, to the regional progress, you that you just heard about. While we remain opposed, to the state mandating any joint powers authority, we are committed to regional collaboration on homelessness and housing.

Folsom currently participates in eight joint powers authorities, and we financed over a thousand affordable units through our local affordable housing trust fund. Our region through SACOG is the highest per capita housing producer among major California metro areas for the last eight years running and 18 of the last twenty four years. We're working hard to address California's housing crisis alongside our neighboring cities and counties. That's why Folsom signed a letter of intent, for the new regional structure, to bring more accountability and homelessness funding.

It's why I've committed to serve on the task force myself, and Folsom intends to be at the table.

We share the county's appreciation for the senator's recent amendments. Folsom didn't need a requirement to show up, for this region. We don't intend to slow down now. This is what collaboration looks like when cities choose it. Real commitments, real timelines, and real accountability to our neighbors.

So Folsom remains committed to the partnership, and we look forward, to building it alongside the county, our fellow cities, the legislature, the continuum of care. Thank you so

much for their time today. Thank you. Other folks who are here, I wanna express a position that is neither support or oppose.

Good morning. Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties. Really wanna thank the Senator for her leadership on the homelessness issue. We continue to review the latest amendments and ongoing discussion and really appreciate the author's willingness to work to alleviate county concerns. Thank you so much.

Morning, Mister Chair members. Bill Romanelli here on behalf of the Folsom Chamber of Commerce. We are in opposition to SB 802 respectfully, for the reason stated and certainly support the, letter of intent that has been expressed today. Thank you. Thank you.

Alright. Seeing no one else here who wants to express a position of any kind, I will bring it back, to members of the committee. Yeah. Miss Avila Farris.

Thank you, Chair. And I wanna thank the Senator for bringing forth her bill and really appreciate the dialogue that you've had with all of us over the past year and a half on this bill. You've worked really hard. I have to say as a freshman legislator, I haven't seen someone work as hard as you have on this bill. And I really appreciate, why sometimes we may agree to disagree.

I I admire your persistence and desire to to work with all parties regardless of their perspective. I'm still very concerned about this bill as we discussed last year and even this year. As someone who practice at the local level. My career has been in housing and community services, in particular in homeless services.

And so thirty years of my profession and at the local and the county and the state and federal level to see this be formed and take local control from decision making doesn't sit really well for me.

I don't think the legislature should be used to be weaponized to control local politics. I understand it's really complex. And given the testimony, I know people are frustrated with the homeless situation and the housing situation here in Sacramento that we're all frustrated in the state of California. It's not, you know, unique to Sacramento.

And it's overall as legislators that we all have to do a better job of how we're gonna deliver services, how we're going to fund programs, and in particularly how we're going to rehumanize our community members that are struggling with behavioral health issues.

You can build all the housing in the state of California, But if we don't create the programs and create institutions to help people who are severely impaired and cannot make decisions from themselves, homeless shelters are not gonna take care of that. Supportive housing is not going to take care of that. And I know it's not a popular dialogue to have because we have swung the pendulum, you know, in two extremes and we need to find that common ground that we have vulnerable community members.

We have vulnerable community members who, unfortunately, if not medicated or supported, will not never be able to function in society without an institution that provides medical and housing treatment. So fundamentally, this bill for me just hits a lot of third rails because it's perpetuating a already broken fragmented system.

And we as legislators have a responsibility to lean in hard to have the difficult conversations, not just in Sacramento County, but statewide of how we're gonna reform the system. From the legal system to people's rights, and no one's talking about taking anyone's rights, but we have to acknowledge that the reality is that we have community members that need a lot more support. And again, it's complex. It's very personal. And we hear it from the testimony.

And I think that there is a path forward collectively as a state and community members together. And I hope that we can find that. But today, I know I have talked with you and I know I really struggle with this bill. But given the testimony that you're continuing to work with the community members, I'm gonna go ahead and support it. Even though it is contrary to what I think is good, you know, fiscal and also good public policy at the local level.

I feel the local localities should work together at the county and at the city level. But I understand there's dysfunction, but it's not just unique to Sacramento. And so I will allow the bill and support it because I know that I have your commitment to continue to work with the people who oppose this bill, and find a common ground that we can lean harder at the state level in bigger policy discussions.

Miss Colosa.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the Senator. Thank you to, everyone who came both, in support and opposition, to this bill. I really commend the Senator for tackling such a hard issue. It's it's really more than an issue.

It's the crisis of our time. I know that representing Los Angeles, where homelessness is at our doorstep every day. And, even though I represent, a district that is, you know, thousands of miles away, as legislators, Sacramento is our second home. And we spend more time in Sacramento, than we do in our own district. So I see you also as my Senator, since I'm here all the time.

And even though it's my first term, I have, personally seen how much worse the homelessness crisis has gotten, in Sacramento. You know, I live in Midtown, and it's gotten so so bad. And you have done so much work to really listen to the opposition, to work with partners, to have, an open heart and an open, ear to solutions because I know that that's really what's driving this bill, is figuring out what solutions do people have on the table.

And I think learning from our many mistakes in Los Angeles on this crisis, I think I have a few thoughts. You know, one, we also have a joint powers authority, also known as LAHSA, in the city of Los Angeles and the county of Los Angeles.

So I think that there's some really important lessons learned as, I also work to tackle, homelessness issues in Los Angeles that we know that forming a JPA is not the, you know, end all be all. And I hope that you look at what's happening in Los Angeles and work to, ensure more guardrails, which I know you are. But I think that there's a lot to learn there.

At the same time, how things are currently functioning also and doing nothing is also not going to make progress on this issue. And so I think that, for me, what I see about this bill and what I think has been really important, to observe in Los Angeles is that the homelessness crisis is incredibly politicized depending on who is in office.

And what I see being, the state's role is really how do we stabilize this? How do we not, take this issue and, find a different solution for it depending on who is in office and how we may feel about this? As we know what some of the, what what the evidence says, what what a lot of the research says about how we tackle this, whether it is through behavioral health services, mental health services, housing, you know, all these different solutions have to be at the table.

And so, you know, I fully trust in you and your ability to to navigate this. And so, when, the time is appropriate, happy to move this bill and also, would love to be added as a co author because I see as this crisis that you're tackling here in Sacramento is deeply tied to the crisis that we tackle in Los Angeles. Thank you so much.

Mister Patterson.

K. Thank you, Mister Chair. You know, I've now spent more than half my life in the Sacramento region. Proud Sac State grad. And it was a long time ago now, but but still a big supporter of what they're doing over there.

Great to see my friend, doctor Luke Wood, as the president and and what he's doing. So, you know, I really you know, I was I was running the CIM in December, and that's not like a flex or anything. Actually, it was a it was a it was a really bad idea to do that. But, you know, I ran the CIM and I was, you know, running down and we're entering Sacramento.

And, you know, about when you get to, you know, what and you're you get to how and things like that, you know, people really start to come out and root on the runners, which honestly you really need because you're near death.

But, you know, it really reminded me, you know, as I was coming, you know, from, you know, Sac State, Midtown, Downtown, you know, how great of a city Sacramento can be. You know, it's really a great city here. And I've noticed, obviously, from the time that I came here and I did leave for a brief stint to move to the Bay Area for a couple years and quickly escape back home, that sorry. I think I was, like Resistant here. I was a constituent of yours.

No. That's good. You know, it's a great place, but but, you know, I noticed the increase in homelessness in in Sacramento. I mean, it's it was it was a big deal. But the reason why actually, when this bill was initially presented to me, my initial reaction was, I think this is a good idea.

That was honestly, like, right out of the gate, my impression of this bill. And the reason is because we have such a fragmented system on addressing homelessness in California. And the state is literally investing billions of dollars in addressing homelessness. You know, and I learned some facts, you know, through the course of this bill in terms of how many people are employed, in addressing homelessness, in this region.

And I'm not saying that that's not important or anything like that, but it's such a huge magnitude of dollars going into addressing homelessness, and it's hard to say that there have been a lot of result.

I think there have been some improvements, in various areas. I don't think there's enough collaboration. How I've really looked at this is actually a model of local government control that can be used in other regions.

And yes, I understand the state is forcing the creation of a state is forcing the creation of a JPA, but the JPA is gonna be run by local officials. And so I actually thought that this was a great model of sort of forcing the issue where the state has massive investments in in the Federal Government too of literally billions of dollars. And we have to force the issue that local governments and regions come together and address homelessness. And it needs to be more than an ad hoc basis. You know?

It needs to be more than sort of like a voluntary group. You know? It has to be, we are invested in this planning and organization together. You know? And we do a lot of things here in the Sacramento region with all these economic development groups, whether it's GSAC or so on and so forth, to not only bring business, but to also, you know, address some of the issues, that that harm economic vitality in this region.

And I think that this is a really important step. I've actually always thought that. And it was, sort of a lot of you know, a lot of people were interested in this bill, maybe on the other side the other side of the issue. And, you know, those were important voices to me as well. But from the get go, I thought that this was a good idea.

And if it's successful, I think it should be replicated in other areas of the state. So Aye, from day one, have looked forward to supporting this bill, and I look forward to supporting it today.

Alright. Not seeing any other members of the committee, who, wanna share their thoughts or questions. Aye, will say a few things. First, I Aye, really do wanna share the the the gratitude, to the Senator for your leadership. I know that you started this process, felt like a year ago, but probably was longer for you in terms of, how how long you've been working on this and working to get it right.

And just to see, all of the engagement and, all of the follow through to listen to to the all of the folks in this room. I think, initially, when we set this bill, what the support and opposition situation would have looked like would have been a little bit different. But because you brought everyone to the table, you didn't give up. You you kept on going and working to get it right and doing it in a way that was collaborative.

I think that demonstrated what, state leadership, should look like in terms of our responsibility to bring local leaders together, to sometimes have them have conversations that they might not have otherwise had, that are sometimes uncomfortable, but that needed to be had.

And it was interesting to hear from some of the local folks who had been very strongly opposed, and and calling me in in more recent days and weeks saying, look, this is no longer needed because we're already doing this. And it it shifted to that.

And and that's actually, I think, what you wanted all along was to have folks come together and to get this done and get this done in their own way because that's what's gonna make it sustainable, and that's what's gonna make it actually work. Nobody thinks, and I don't I don't believe you believe this, that this should be imposed by the state.

But at the same time, sometimes the state has a has a role to help to to bring people together and to have some set of requirements and give the space for these conversations and agreements to happen between localities.

And and I I I think this is one of the first conversations that I had, with the mayor when when we had lunch was about this very issue, which is we can't have a a system if we're going to truly, effectively and efficiently address our challenges around homelessness and mental health, if we have a system of governance around it where everybody just goes like this.

And they're incentivized to pass someone on to the next city or to onto the county or or or or just or from the county back to the city, and it's it's a it's a it ends up being a a a system that doesn't work for anyone. And it it's at no particular fault of any of those individual bodies, but they know that we have not set them up for success. And success on this issue can only come through collaboration.

It can only come through deep strategic planning collectively because people who are struggling with mental illness, people who are homeless, people who need affordable housing.

They are not looking at where the particular line between one city and another ends and begins. They don't know, which entity has the funds that are supposed to be allocated for them. Sometimes those are funds that are split between cities and counties. All of that lends itself, to the need for us to work together and to set up these kind of joint authorities where we all come to the table.

And I really wanna appreciate the county and the individual cities because what I heard through this process was not that we don't wanna help folks, we don't wanna come to solutions.

In fact, we heard quite the opposite that we wanna be able to have our authority to continue to do what we're doing, and we don't want that to be undermined by setting up a new process. We're committed to this work, though. We are absolutely committed to this work, and that's what I heard from everyone as as part of this process.

And I think that, ultimately, when there is this JPA that's set up, I believe, ultimately, and you believe as well, through through a process that, the cities and the county, determined for themselves that we will be in a much stronger place for this region. And we all care about this region, generally, but also because a lot of us at at this dais, of course, spent a lot of time here as well.

But it it it should be as as we've heard, I hope, a a model for what can happen in other parts of the state as well. And, again, I appreciate your your leadership, Mister mayor. I know that you've, really saw this firsthand of the need for this kind of collaboration.

And, again, for the county, our representatives, the county board of supervisors who I heard from a lot, from the each of the cities, from Folsom, from Elk Grove, from everyone who has been a part of this, all the city leaders and city council members who are here. I know we're really appreciative of you all being willing to take this on, and maybe at first, some of the concerns being able to come back to the table and say, let's figure this out together.

And again, it was because of of your, everyone recognizes your your willingness, to listen, and also not give up even when it seemed like it was unclear how it was gonna move forward. And so we really appreciate I think everyone here appreciates the work that has been done. And ultimately, let's not lose sight of the fact that what this is about is making sure people get the help and support that they need.

If they need to get into housing, that we have a way to do that. It doesn't have them fall through the cracks or walk into one door and immediately have to start over because they're in some other place that we've set up bureaucratically that doesn't actually treat them in a way that reflects a collaborative strategic approach that I know that you're trying to set up.

So, with that, happy that we are in the place we are on this bill and grateful for everyone's leadership here and I'll give you the opportunity to close.

First of all, thank you so much and thank you for your very important and thoughtful words. And I I know you took a lot of calls and meetings on this bill, all of you. So it is it is never my intention with the bill to put any of you in the position of having to receive that many calls and messages and unfortunately for you, they all live here so it's easy for them to get to you.

And I'm very sorry about that but if that's what it takes to serve the people of Sacramento and to really get the results for every dollar that goes out into our community then hopefully it will have been worth it. You asked me, Chair Haney, how long this journey has been for me.

I was my first day as an elected official on the City Council was the day that Sacramento took the vote to make a JPA in 2010 in December. And it never was formed. I'm now their Senator and it's 2026. So I guess you could say this is a sixteen year journey for me, and I'm trying very hard to see it through.

The other thing I think is really important for me to say in this close is more about the people on this side of the room than that side of the room.

I wouldn't run this bill. If I didn't wholeheartedly believe In Folsom and Elk Grove and Rancho and Citrus Heights and the county and the cities of Sacramento. If I didn't believe in you, if I didn't think you could do it, I would be trying to take authority away, not centralize it and give it back to you, which is exactly what this bill does. As the Assembly member from Rockland stated, this doesn't take any local authority. It centralizes it.

If anything, it's an amplifier and gives it right back to you. What I do trust is the elected officials that are in those seats right now and the hardworking staff that are in those seats right now. I just want them to work together instead of in silos. That is my one and only goal, and I am rooting for you. Probably the number one cheerleader for you to do this yourself in July.

But if you don't, there are twenty six years, two grand jury reports, one ballot measure, a lawsuit, and several other failed attempts that tell me that this just might be the state's role to push you along. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I truly, from the bottom of my heart, thank everyone who has engaged and everyone who showed up today to participate in any way. You have all made the bill better.

Thank you so much, Senator. And and and and again, I know that there's some process ease that are going forward now that we've heard a lot about, with the county and and the cities and that, it's possible that we're in a different place with this even when we come back in in August in in terms of what the next steps with this bill will be and wanted to acknowledge that as well.

I also wanna thank, and I should have said said this as well, our colleague Assembly member Wynne has also been very in involved and engaged and and and and is a is a big part of, I think, how we were able to get to where we are and Assembly member Krell as well. I wanna thank them for their leadership and and and all of the input that they gave up, us as well, as their colleagues.

So we don't yet have a quorum still, but, at the appropriate time, we will, motion and and move this bill forward.

And, again, wanna thank everyone for being here. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

Alright. Go first. Go first.

Which one? Which bill? Which bill?

Alright. Senator Allen, we have SB 1092 and 1093. Are you gonna take up 1092 first?

Yes. If that's okay.

Alright. Perfect. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mister Vice Chair. I wanna thank the committee for its work on with our office on this bill. And I appreciate the good work for the committee. So to address the conversion of at risk units to market rate, the state began to adopt affordable housing preservation laws starting back in 1987. Opportunities to preserve unsensitized 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 exacerbated disasters.

Now mobile homes are the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the country. They provide important homeownership opportunities for many Californians and according to HCD preserving this housing option is critical to meeting the state's housing needs. The 2018 campfire resulted in destruction of over 30 mobile home parks up in paradise.

The vast majority of which have not been rebuilt and over 700 rent stabilized units were destroyed in the recent Palisades fire in my district approximately half of which were located into once very beautiful and special places, two mobile home parks that we lost. We've seen some trends in this market over twenty years and there's certainly still a number of manufactured home communities that are mom and pop.

And that's great. But we've also seen a real transition from a lot of those mom and pop enterprises toward ownership in many cases by big private equity firms, hedge funds, large multi state corporations that seek to capitalize on manufactured home owners unique situation. Just to give you a sense, I think we're now up to, over about a quarter of all man manufactured home purchases are from institutional investors. That's up from a 13% back in 2019.

23 per 23 private equity firms now own over about 2,000 manufactured home parks in The US with over 400,000 lots.

And so, you know, what what we've seen no. No. You know what? We've seen all sorts of market skew as a result. Right?

You you have, folks that are attracted to high returns, consistent rent payments from these captive residents. It's driven up lot rents. It's increased in evictions. As we all know, while they're called mobile homes or mobile homes are typically not able to be moved. And we also know that our mobile home park, you know, demographic often is older, disabled on fixed income that might limit their ability to pick up and move.

So we certainly have been seeing this committee has done work on this area. We've seen communities across the state recognizing the growing need for policy changes to protect affordability of mobile homes and providing more opportunities for resident organizations and other nonprofit entities to purchase and preserve the parks.

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 an especially complex task for residents in California with the soaring cost of land. Testifying in today in support of the bill are Zelda Lambrecht.

He's a resident of the Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates. We've also got Ryan Sears as head of policy and research for neighborhood partnership housing services. I also just wanna recognize that we have a number of people who are here for several fire and relief recovery related bills that have come up from Altadena and The Palisades, and I I and and they're here in support of this and other bills.

And I just wanna recognize them, the the struggle, the hardship they've gone through, and and wanna thank them for making the the truck up here to Sacramento to help us tell this really tough set of stories. So with that, I'd love to turn to my, my my witnesses.

Great. Thank you.

You have, two minutes each. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Zelda Lambrecht, and I'm a member of the Palisades Bowl community group. I'm here in strong support of SB 1092. I'm one of the residents of The Bowl who lost everything in the fires of twenty twenty five, and our community was one of the last sources of affordable housing on the West Side Of Los Angeles. Neighbors who've lived there for decades, many of us were seniors, all of us owning our homes and rented the land beneath us.

SB 1092 matters, because when an owner decides to sell, residents shouldn't be powerless to save our community. This bill gives us a fair, real opportunity to compete, to come together, match the competing offer, and buy the park ourselves, or partner with non profits or local agencies to keep it affordable. The park owners didn't just purchase empty acreage. We were already there. They bought a small town, in effect.

They bought a community. And that transaction comes with human responsibility and a moral commitment. They don't get to do just whatever they want because a devastating accident happened to burn us to the ground. They need to be held accountable for people, not just profits. And they have absolutely no interest in us.

So, therefore, they need to step aside and let someone who does rebuild our community, because our residents are interested. We're ready, and we wanna rebuild our home. We're not asking for a handout. We're asking for a fair shot to save the place we call home. Please vote yes on s B1092.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Ryan Sears. I am the head of policy and research at Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services. We are a non profit headquartered in Southern California in the Inland Empire where manufactured housing makes up over 10% of our total housing stock. We are here today as a cosponsor of SB 1092 alongside the California Coalition for Rural Housing and Rock USA, resident owned communities USA.

SB 1092 gives mobile home park residents a real enforceable chance to buy their community before it's sold out from under them. When an owner intends to accept a sale, residents get a fair notice and the actual terms that they need to match in order to be able to take control of their community and be able to purchase it. They then have a hundred and twenty days to organize their matching offer either on their own or through a non profit or housing authority.

If they match the price in terms, they get the right to buy. It isn't theoretical.

It isn't compelled, but it is essential. NPHS has partnered with UC Berkeley to survey residents displaced by the twenty twenty five Palisades fire. One resident told us that their community wanted to buy their park as a non profit and operated as affordable housing for decades to come. But the land owner, in her words, would not talk to us. Another described the land owner who terminated tendencies while trying to sell the park without ever acknowledging the residents or their ability to return.

SB 1092 is a reasonable step. It does not block sales. It just makes sure that residents aren't the last to know and that they get a fair shot at competition. We urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Are there any, other individuals in support of this measure? Name and affiliation, please.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Brian Augusta on behalf of the California Coalition for Rural Housing, one of the proud cosponsors of this measure. Urgent Aye vote.

Good morning. Rachel Mueller on behalf of the California Coalition for Community Investment, a coalition of over 55 CDFIs statewide in support. Thank you so much.

Good morning. Ismael Romo on behalf of, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, National Housing Law Project, Public Interest Law Project in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Purva Bhattacharjee with housing California in support.

Morning. Rick Manetti with Kaiser Advocacy in support on behalf of the California Community Land Trust Network and the CAMEO Network.

Good morning. Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Hi. I'm Nathan Prevost, strong support.

Magda Molina, Los Angeles homeowner in strong support.

Elaine Lee from San Diego. I support this bill.

Carmen Balber on behalf of Consumer Watchdog, in support.

Kaye Steinsapir, Pacific Palisades resident, in strong support of the bill.

Alyona Bernstein, Pacific Palisades resident in strong support of this bill.

Barry Zetlin, forty year resident of The Palisades lost our home in the fire. Strong supporter of the bill.

Good morning. Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of ROC USA and All Home in strong support.

Great. Thank you. Are there any, primary witnesses in opposition to this measure? Alright. Thanks for being here.

You'll have two minutes each.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, members. I appreciate it, Senator. My name is Chris Wysocki with WMA. We're the largest trade association of mobile home park owners in the state representing about 1,700 members that house about half the state's population in terms of mobile home residents. And on WMA's behalf, I'm here to speak in opposition to 1092.

In the interest of time, our opposition can basically be narrowed down to a few points. We have a lot in our letter, but you the points that we wanna highlight here. First, we believe ten ninety two is an unconstitutional taking of private property by government giving a reg resident organization a first right to purchase a park and delay the sale for months while residents get to decide if they wanna match an offer that has already been accepted.

SB 1092 necessarily will drive the price of the park down. Furthermore, government can use eminent domain to acquire property for a public use, ten ninety two is giving government the ability to compel a park owner to sell his property to another private entity.

And the courts have consistently ruled in this is unconstitutional in California. Other states may allow it, but they have different constitutions. Further, the timeline set up, even with the amendments that were recently adopted, They work to stifle ten thirty one exchanges, which further limits the ability for park sale transactions. Second, the author and the witnesses are trying to paint a picture that park sales are driving people out of their homes. It's just not true.

When a park sells, the residents are still protected by the MRL, and they can't be just summarily kicked out of their homes. They can also form right now a resident organization to purchase a park. There's nothing that prevents that. In fact, there's a lot of parks in across the state that are resident owned currently. And there are a number of parks up for sale across the state that they could buy if they so chose.

If the other author wanted to keep the rents low in parks that are sold, why not make the sale of a park tax exempt since the increases that so many people are talking about in their rent are caused by reassessment of the park's value based on sales price? Also, HCD has several conditions in this. Wrapping up. Sorry.

For those reasons and those in our letter, we ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you, members. Jason Ikerd on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance also in respect to opposition. Wanna start by acknowledging, because it's important to paint it for those who are here who have lost their homes. Just as a brief aside, personally, my my parents lost their home in a fire fifty years ago. It still pains them, so I don't make light of that.

But we don't believe that the policy in this bill is the appropriate solution to what we're dealing with there. We agree with Mr. Wysocki that one of the things that fundamentally this bill does is devalue a park. And to be really clear, that is not a question of whether the offer is matched. That is a question of what the offer is on the park initially. There will be fewer, few potential buyers who are willing to put an offer in on a park knowing that it may be superseded by someone else's offer

to purchase. Also, there's gonna be willing to put an offer in on a property knowing that it's gonna be subject to this requirement in perpetuity. So between those two things, that will drive a loss of value for the parks. There is another significant issue though, and and the author spoke to the increase across the country and and private equity ownership of mobile home parks.

We sincerely believe that if that is a concern for the members of this committee, that that is one of the reasons you should vote against this bill.

When you go to purchase a park, just like any other property purchase, there are certain costs that are not recoverable. There are due diligence costs that are associated with it. If it's a fairly large park, like an average size mobile home park in an urban area, those are tens of thousands of dollars worth of cost just for due diligence. But financing costs can add another one per to 2% as well.

You push into for a park that would be valued at 10,000,000, which is not unusual, into a 6 figure loss if the deal is superseded.

When you think about who can assume that loss and just take the risk on it, it is not some private property owner looking to get into the business of mobile home parks or who is already in that business. The risk is significant. It's just too much. We think it's far more likely that it would be a a corporate owner or a private equity owner, however you wanna say it, that would be able to step in and see that as just the cost of doing business.

There is no version of this policy that does not bear that risk and the risk of devaluing parks, so we must respectfully oppose it and request your no vote today.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition to this measure? Alright. Seeing none, I will bring it back to my colleagues. Is anybody?

Yes. Miss Wilson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the the author's intent here, in terms of preserving what is now the most affordable type of housing in our state. And and and I would argue probably the most flexible type of housing as well. My difficulties with this bill, and just wanna note that why I won't be able to support this today is is fundamentally the right to purchase.

I think that when, we as a state are providing, subsidies as it relates to making something affordable, The acceptance of those subsidies limits the rights of the owner.

You we give you this, and if we and if you accept this, then we put limitations around your property rights and and and other things. There's strings attached. But mobile homes are inherently, just because of their product type, affordable. It is not through subsidies of the state.

And so then to take something that is privately owned, inherently affordable, and then put constraints on it, and treat it differently than you would treat somebody selling their single family home, their private apartment building that had no assess these things of that nature, it just seems fundamentally wrong.

And so I think for me, I I I've I've supported notices and things of that nature, providing at advanced notice on things to ensure that, especially when it comes to mobile homes, they they have an opportunity to know something is happening and so they can get their resources together or they can start to prepare well in advance. But I think that fundamental, you have a right to purchase first without having subsidies associated with it.

You just inherently gets at property rights and treats them differently and make something that is inherently affordable, less affordable. And I wanna protect those things that are by themselves, that we didn't have to do anything as a government to create affordability. And so I won't be able to support your bill today for those reasons.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Kalra.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I will be supporting this bill. I know it's coming. I think if it does pass in this committee to judiciary, so I'll, you know, reserve some of my thoughts and comments after we get an opportunity for judiciary to do its analysis. But on the housing fronts, because we are on the housing committee, I will say, look, sounds it has more mobile home residents than any city in the state, maybe kind of on par with San Diego.

Those are the two that have the most in the most expensive housing market, the most expensive state, you know, expensive state in the nation. We have people literally that would not survive without mobile homes. And this is not a matter of them being inherently more affordable. It's just that they've been around for a long time in those communities.

When San Jose first started a suburban sprawl, mobile home parks spread very quickly because they were seen as a very quick, more affordable way to make a lot of money for developers as opposed to building out these massive housing projects and developments, which also came as well.

We are in such a massive crisis, and yet time and again, we have an opportunity to actually put give some opportunity for those that are struggling the most. And most many of these mobile home parks, certainly in San Jose, are de facto elderly affordable housing. When I go to those affordable when I go to those mobile home parks, I've been to many of, there are folks that literally would not survive in this valley, in Silicon Valley. They'd have to, who knows, go where.

But it's the only way that they can actually survive.

A lot of families very close to me. I have a number of mobile home parks, a lot of families, working families with children. One of my staff members, he and his family live in a mobile home park.

And so if we truly mean what we say about lifting people up and giving them an opportunity, everyone has to be part of that solution to, you know, I understand some of the burdens that it might raise, but think about the burdens our families are going through right now just to survive. And, you know, and as mentioned, you're talking about these parks that are $10,000,000 or more.

It really closed out any opportunity for anyone other than those that are in the mobile home business or private equity to even have a shot. This simply says give these folks a shot. And probably more often than not, they won't wanna do it or won't get organized to do it.

And that's fine. It's their choice to want to be able to do that. Right. But to have so much respect and protection of property rights of extraordinarily wealthy, corporations, many of which are owned by corporations or families that have owned these properties for a very long time, it made a lot of money off mobile home residents.

And to not have that same consideration for those who are struggling to survive, is beyond me, in this environment we're in right now, where time and again, year after year, the number one crisis is housing, and yet we're not doing enough for those who are actually struggling to survive in our communities.

And so I'll be supporting the bill and think that, you know, having to go through a process in mobile home parks aren't sold like a single family residence where they were gonna put it on the market and hopefully in thirty or sixty days will be in escrow. And these these are large properties that can take sometimes years to sell under current circumstances. So by saying, hey.

We're gonna give an opportunity for the owners the residents to see if they have a to get to see if they can, you know, even want to be able to do this and give them a shot to do it is a win-win for everyone. The residents get to have some ownership.

I get that they that, you know, they will, in all likelihood, get still get to live there no matter who comes in and buys it. But owning that property under there and not only that's not always the case. We had to fight very hard in San Jose. There was a a lot there, you know, in Winchester, the in kind of West San Jose, very, very valuable property value now compared to when it was built sixty, seventy years ago or fifty years ago.

There was a massive fight for those residents, because they were being displaced, because there was a better use for that land today than maybe fifty years ago.

And so if we truly want people not just to stay in their homes, but have the opportunity to own the land under it, I think this is a small this is I don't think this is government overreach. I don't think it's so burdensome for us to give the opportunity, for these residents to have to have the ability to own these parts. And then on top of that, they will have more ownership on maintenance upkeep because they're living there and they own it.

And so, you know, I definitely support this. And I think we have to wait a little bit for some other members to get here to do a motion.

But I'll certainly be doing that when we have the opportunity.

Thank you. Yes. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. Senator, thank you for your bill and put some thoughtful consideration into this. I understand the spirit of what you are trying to do, but unfortunately, today, I will not be able to to support your bill. You know, I always talk about the the housing economic matter that we need to create a housing infrastructure that allows people to have, you know, everything from homeless housing to transitional housing to permanent housing to homeownership.

And the mobile home arena is it's a unique space and it has its own nuances.

And I think this bill is going to present a lot of unintended consequences in the market where we start taking away property rights and and telling individuals when and where and who they can sell to. I think it's a very dangerous territory policy wise.

It is our responsibility as the legislature to create different types of housing types, but it's also our responsibility if we are really serious about housing affordability, and the state needs to put their money in their mouth and actually fund housing the way it needs to be funded in the state of California. We also need to change a lot of our state policies to encourage different types of housing development.

When we wanna go after a certain segment or economic group in the state of California around housing, it isn't the responsibility of residents to build housing.

It isn't the responsibility of the owners. It's the responsibility of our cities and our counties and the state working in tandem with municipalities to create the legislation to to build the housing and streamlining. I think this bill, again, will create a lot of unintended consequences and attack a segment of a group providing housing a different type of housing, and it's the wrong approach.

And I'm always open to trying to figure out other solutions that I think this would actually put more market pressures onto the housing market. So today, unfortunately, I will not be able to support this bill.

Great. We're seeing that on the last one. Yeah. I think, you know, my perspective is it's you know, I I don't really understand. I just as a individual, if I owned a property and then have to and somebody and I have an offer to, you know, to sell it to somebody, and then I have to wait several months before I can sell it to that person.

I just think it changes the entire dynamic of the sale process. And, I can't imagine very many people or potential buyers wanting to go through that process. I think we we know I think we all know that the chances of the people living in a mobile home park of wanting to purchase the park is is pretty slim that that will happen, but this applies to 100% of transactions, out there.

And I think, you know, I think it'd be great if if the park owners or, the park residents can go out and buy it. You know, it's just it's such a long time frame.

I think, you know, I'm I'm really concerned about just the the the amount of time that it would take to for this to happen.

And one other point that kind of was made by one of the witnesses in terms of the price being the same, you know, there are a lot of other things in a transaction, that occur, and it might be in an offer that are very nuanced, like the, you know, time to close being a big one, in terms of if somebody makes an all cash offer, Obviously, that's gonna be a very quick transaction, even if it's a financed offer.

I mean, you know, it could be thirty to sixty to ninety days or something like that. But, but there's nothing in the bill, I don't think, that requires the actual terms of the deal to be the same because there could be a lot of other terms, in that sales transaction in terms of repairs or or improvements, by the owner that need to be made or things that need to happen from the from the buyer in order for it to happen.

So nothing in the bill that really kinda addresses that as well that actually makes it an equal offer other than the price.

And so I think those are important considerations, you know, as you as you move forward here. So I, you know, I can't support it. I don't know if that's a surprise by anybody, but I those are all my comments I have on the bill today.

We don't have a quorum yet.

Was anybody else waiting to speak here? Everyone spoke. Everyone spoke. Okay. Have you closed yet?

You may close.

Well, thank you, Mister Chair. And I Aye, you know, I do appreciate the, the the discussion committee. You know, it's a as you all know, this is a difficult area of of work because, you know, when when you bring up the fact that we don't have, you know, this kind of set of rules associated with a single family home, that's because the person living in the single family home actually has full control over the decision about whether and under what circumstances to sell.

In this case, we've got the the the the residents who typically own their mobile homes who are are are given so little power over their own futures. And we're trying to come up all we're trying to do here with this bill is to come up with a reasonable proposal that that that recognizes this unique situation that these owners are in.

These these residents are in, make sure that the owners are made whole, and we do it in a fair way that that doesn't skew the market. So, you know, but allows allows folks to come together with a within a reasonable time frame that recognizes that these are complex purchases to to to stay in their stay in their homes if that's what, their what they wanna do. That's the goal here.

You know, I'm very happy to work with the committee further, with the members who have concerns about the bill, to see if there's a way for us to get it to a place where, where you'll feel more comfortable, that we're meeting those goals while also ensuring that there are, you know, adequate property rights protections.

But if, you know, if the opposition is just to the to kind of the basic this is a basic objection to the idea that we would provide these folks with any, you know, additional tool any tools to allow them to stay in their homes in in the in the case of a major sale, then, obviously, you know, we're gonna have a disagreement.

We're, you know, we're talking about a vulnerable population, and and I'm trying to figure out a path here that will maximize their chances of of being able to stay in their homes if that's what they if if they're able to come up with, with a sales, proposal that's meaningful and, that matches the market, price that's been offered on a on a property. So it's in that spirit that offer this bill forward.

I certainly appreciate the work that we've done with the committee on this, and I, you know, hope that members will see the wisdom of what we're doing and and happy to continue working with people on this on on this difficult area of policy making that that's all about trying to protect, you know, some of our most some of our most important housing stock while at the same time, you know, protecting the property rights of the of the owners.

So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote when the appropriate moment comes.

Great. Thank you. Well, hopefully, we'll have quorum here soon, and we get to continue the conversation now. You have another item, item 10, SB item 11, SB 1093.

You guys are probably, you're not gonna stay for this? Stay on. I miss you guys if you step down. Okay. Well, thank you for that discussion, and now we're on to another kind of related but different bill that comes out of our mobile home park challenges as well. Let me just start again by thanking our wonderful committee. We'll be accepting the committee amendments. You know, so this bill comes out of some of the experiences my constituents experienced after the fires, but not just down in Los Angeles. Also the Tubbs Fire, Camp Fire, and more.

The bill does three things. It requires consistent and transparent communication from the mobile home park owners after a disaster until the park is rebuilt or until a closure or change of use is approved. This requirement doesn't bind owners to pursue any particular 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.

So it addresses some of the notice issues that Assembly Member Wilson was raising in the comments with regards to the last bill. It also requires park owners to provide residents with timely access to the property after any evacuation orders are lifted or if the region's been approved for resident access. We saw this in the case of the last fires. You know, where mobile home park owners were not able to go back to their own properties without the explicit permission of the park owner.

And that was that was an experience that was denied to them that all the other residents who lost their homes in the fire zones were able to at least sift through their properties and see what they could salvage on their own terms. And then finally, the bill requires park owners to thoroughly consider the cost, benefits, and available resources for rebuilding and preserving the mobile home park and the equity that mobile homeowners have invested in their properties.

Environmental testing, relocation feasibility, economic cost to the greater community shall be considered before decision to close or redevelop the land is made. So this is this is all about trying to provide those residents who've been displaced by disaster with guarantees of transparent communication, the opportunity to salvage any personal items.

The assurance of the ability to return and rebuild their homes has been thoughtfully considered, and the right to be fairly compensated for the loss of their right to return. So here, again, in support of the bill, we have Zelda Lambrecht. He's a resident of Pacific Palisades Bowl Mobile Estates, and also Ryan Sears, head of policy and research for the Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Zelda, once again, a member of the Palisades Bowl Community Group, and I'm here in strong support of SB 1093. A year and a half after the fires destroyed our homes, we still have no idea what's happening to our community because our park owners won't tell us. No timeline, no communication. They've ghosted us.

For over a year, we have lived in limbo, unable to plan, unable to heal, unable to move forward. SB 1093 fixes the gap in current law. Today, the law spells out what happens when an owner chooses to rebuild, but it says almost nothing when an owner simply goes silent. It requires communication on a real timeline. It guarantees residents the right to access our own property.

It requires environmental testing before an owner can close a park for good. My personal journey is that my dream home in the Palisades was my future. It was built from a lifetime of hard work after a soul sucking divorce. There, I found my community, family, my safety, and a legacy for my children. Now my future vaporized into ashes.

This bill won't undo what we've lost, but it makes sure no family ever again has to face a disaster and a wall of silence from the people who control our future. So imagine your morning today. You know, you got up, you drink coffee from your favorite mug, you kissed your family goodbye, you got in your car, you came to work, and tonight, you get to drive home, maybe think about dinner, maybe you'll walk your dog and tuck your children into bed.

A normal, perfect day. I used to have those perfect days too, but now my neighbors and I wake up every day not knowing at all where our future lies. We're just normal families and we want our lives back. We're just normal, and we hope that your vote yes today on SB 93 will be able to send us home. Thank you.

Thank you. Before you begin, we wanna establish quorum so we can ultimately vote on these bills.

[Roll Call]

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. As I said just a couple of moments ago, my name is Ryan Sears. I'm the head of policy and research at Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, a SoCal based affordable housing organization. NPHS is here to express our strong support of SB 1093, and that is rooted in a survey that we have administered in collaboration with UC Berkeley. We partnered with UC Berkeley's Just Environments Lab to survey residents of the manufactured housing communities destroyed in the 2025 Palisades Fire.

And our findings, rooted in the lived experiences of homeowners, show exactly why this bill is needed. Fifteen months after the fire, 93% of residents still don't know if their landowner will let them rebuild. 83% have heard from park management only once in six months or not at all. And the financial toll is staggering.

Households have lost an average of 1.3 million in assets, but received only 280,000 in insurance and aid, just 21% of what they have lost. Additionally, these homeowners are overwhelmingly seniors. 81% of respondents are 60 and on fixed incomes. Most have lived in their communities for decades. They aren't asking for a handout. They're asking for basic transparency and a shot at going home.

SB 1093 is a fix to that issue. It corrects the silence in current law, and it requires park owners to communicate on clear timelines. It protects residents' rights to access their own property after a devastating disaster, and it requires real environmental and feasibility review before park can close. It guarantees fair compensation if it doesn't reopen, and it ensures that disasters are not an excuse for displacement or for the further hardship, furthering of hardship for so many vulnerable communities. With that, we respectfully encourage you to vote aye.

Thank you. Alright. Other folks who are here in support of this bill.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Brian Augusta on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support.

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

Great. Thank you. Alright. Primary witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Again, Chris Wysocki with the WMA, and we are here to respectfully oppose 1093. Let me first I'll just start by saying, you know, what happened in the Senator's district in the Palisades Bowl and Tahitian Terrace was a tremendous tragedy, and our hearts go out to you. But also it needs to be understood that the park owners lost a lot too. They built these parks.

They have had these parks in their own families for, you know, several decades. They lost their entire business by no fault of their own in a natural disaster. Now I'm not saying that to minimize the impact of the residents, but there also needs to be an understanding that the park owners lost a tremendous amount as well. First of all, we do wish to appreciate the committee consultant's recommendations and the amendments involving the leasehold value issue.

But that was just one of the many reasons of our opposition. When the two parks were destroyed in the Senator's district in Palisades Fire, the owners put up the, put up fencing to keep out looters, and they began letting residents back onto the property as soon as possible as long as residents signed a liability waiver. Most of them did. Some did not.

SB 1093 would require a park owner to let residents back onto a property seven days after an evacuation order is lifted and would further require HCD to approve a liability waiver before it can be given to residents. If HCD should somehow fail to timely approve a waiver, the park owner's in a dilemma.

They either can subject themselves to a massive fine of $2,500 per space per day in the park or they can open themselves up to a massive lawsuit if the resident gets hurt on debris or other materials that are in the park. And if they should breathe in some toxic material, there's long term liability as well. Finally, this bill fails to recognize this. Most parks around the state do not have the inherent appeal for residents to return.

In the 2018 Camp Fire, 30 parks were destroyed in Paradise, and only five have been rebuilt, as the Senator mentioned in his prior bill. But the parks weren't rebuilt because the park owners wanted to close. They remained vacant because the people who lived there before the Camp Fire moved on and didn't wanna return. So 1093 we believe is fundamentally bad policy. It subjects park owners to unnecessary liability. And for that and many other reasons in our letter, we respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Once again... Excuse me. Jason Ikerd on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance. Wanna echo the appreciation for the committee's work on the amendments related to lease hold interest. I mean, reverting back to existing law in this regard, you know, as the analysis notes, ensures that when a park is destroyed and the owner is not responsible for that destruction, obviously they are not asked to be the insurer of last resort.

When a park is destroyed, just like any business that might go through that, the owner is it sort of a pivotal point and they I think it's a natural point where you can understand that they would assess what they would do with their business. Are they going to continue to operate? Are they going to seek to not do so? And they are not even the only essential type of service, if we wanna call it that, that would be in that position.

You could look at a grocery store. You could look at a pharmacy. But despite the fact that it's a natural and reasonable thing to do to consider whether or not you wanna continue to operate, we think that even beyond the points that Mr. Wysocki raised on liability, this bill asks an owner to really go above and beyond and truly kind of expose themselves, we believe, to some litigation in order to even explore the options to close a park.

So the analysis notes on pages two and three that there are five analyses that a park owner would have to go through. So the first two deal with the cost of rebuilding a park, and the resources available to rebuild a park. But then we go on to a really thorough assessment of soil sampling and various other environmental screenings.

And aside, you know, obviously, if a park is gonna reopen, it's relevant that it is safe, but I'm not sure actually what the relevance there is to a closure. But beyond that, that is a pretty complex set of analysis to ask park owners to go through. This is not a normal course of business for them. We go on to the feasibility of relocating the park within one month.

What does it mean to be feasible in this context? I mean, if a property is available at an incredibly significant price or if several properties are, is that considered feasible? And then we move on to identifying the economic cost to the neighborhood, city, and county of losing the mobile home ownership units. Again, this is a fairly complex analysis. And embedded in the bill is the right to litigate against a park owner if they fail to comply with these analyses.

When we look at the prior bill and this bill together, it is hard for our owners not to see on the one hand, an SB 1093, a bill that makes it very challenging to close a park. But on the other hand, an SB 1092, a bill that makes it very challenging for them to not sell a park to a resident group at a reduced price. We are fundamentally opposed to that.

I would conclude by saying that we've heard a lot about the need for transparency. The notice provisions at the start of this bill, if we were talking about that issue, we understand and obviously don't disagree with the fact that there is some need to be transparent and to work through that. But this bill goes far beyond that, so we must respectfully oppose it and request your no vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Others who are here in opposition to the bill. Not seeing anyone. I will bring it back to the dais. Questions, comments? Ms. Wilson. We have a motion. Ms. Wilson.

I was looking for, leaving space for the follow-up to the motion. Anyway, so here's the deal, and I appreciate... I didn't get to hear the testimony the first time, so I'm sure you mentioned where you're from. And so my heart goes out to you and your community members who've really been displaced, and others, from the fires. It's tragic, and I have it's my first time being here in the Assembly. Some major fires that were referenced happened prior to coming here.

So this was my first time experiencing what it's like to be a state official and having so much devastation happen to communities. And then in some ways feeling helpless of not being able to act quick enough or to really do something meaningful that matters. And so I've been mindful of the bills that come through to support my colleagues from the area who are boots on the ground, so to speak, who know how to address these better than I could being a legislator from up north.

But I appreciate your testimony, and I appreciate the author. And as he noted from my prior testimony, I think when it comes to notifications, any way that we can expand that and improve on that to ensure, especially when it comes to housing. Because when we think about Maslow's hierarchy needs, the need for shelter, right, is it's at the core. Right?

It's a self actualization, so you have to have shelter. When we get into the other things though, that's where I think it becomes onerous. And so notifications, yes. The fact that you all have been displaced for over a year and a half and have not heard anything, there should be regular updates about what's happening.

Even if it's a status quo update, it just feels good to know that somebody is keeping you in the loop, and silence is not acceptable. And so whoever owns that park, if they're listening, absolutely unacceptable and not a way to do business despite what may be going on in your own personal life. If you have a business, then you have duties as a business.

I think when we get into, and there were amendments in the committee, but I didn't note in your testimony whether you were taking them. I might have missed it, and you're accepting those amendments. So I think that definitely improves because there were some provisions out there that were amended out that I think were appropriately amended out.

But I'm still concerned about some of the other things with when you're deciding whether to close all of those additional provisions. And so I'm wondering, the intent. I'm trying to understand the intent behind those and how you saw that they added value to the process or protected the residents who owned a park, not the land, but I'm sorry. Owned their home, not the land that it sit on, but how it provided greater protection or added value to them.

You're referring to the, this consideration of the cost and benefits? Is that, is that...

Yeah. There were, I think, about six or five or... Five. Five provisions of after it's been damaged now while the consideration of what's next, particularly around if I'm closing. If I understand it. Or closing or not or not going to closing or changing its use, like, selling it for somebody to put something else on there or whatever it is.

or Five.

And maybe Ryan will want to speak more about it, or Zelda. But I mean, it's ultimately just about making sure that there's a thoughtful consideration of, you know, various factors that impact a park after something like this. So environmental testing, relocation feasibility, economic cost of the greater community, those should be considered before decision to close or redevelop the land is made. But that's the concept at least. And if there's a way to... I think I hope we can all agree that that's a good least concept. And then, you know, if you want...

So a lot of private entities do... Thank you. A lot of private entities do some level of analysis before they, cost benefit analysis, right, before they close. Every once in a while, something is absolutely privately owned by one single owner, and they can wake up in the morning and decide to do something without any analysis.

But most people in business do some type of cost benefit analysis. Why... Based on their own specific needs. Yes. Absolutely. Why would we put a threshold on a private entity driven... Why would the state do that though? To force analysis on whether they decide to continue or not continue or sell for different purposes?

Because of this unique position of these mobile home parks that they where they it's a private property, and it's also got a broader, there's a broader benefit. There's a broader set of considerations because of the housing component, because of the residents. But with your permission, I'd love Ryan to...

To also a point that Assemblywoman Ávila Farías made earlier, mobile home parks are a part of an economic ladder. Right? You have an opportunity to both be a renter, but also to be a homeowner. So you're slowly building equity, maybe not as quickly as a single family homeowner.

But you're still on that ladder where you're starting to engage in wealth building. And so to suddenly, you know, have that potential where maybe you don't get to return home, that takes a lot of equity building opportunities away. It takes a lot of that safeguard and stability that comes with homeownership away.

Are you talking about the equity? So in particularly in regarding mobile homes. So you're talking about the equity the person has in their own trailer and the trailer being in that particular spot?

Well, so just having that home. Right? When you take out a personal property loan, you're still making payments and then with the expectation that eventually you will be able to sell your home. Right? And if your park owner chooses not to allow rebuilding to occur, you are now deprived of your ability to capture the equity that you would have in your home

Right. And you're getting insurance for that. Like, you're... Right? And I know we can spend... This is not Insurance Committee, but we can spend a lot on because I've had fires devastate my own community in small scale and having the issue with undervalue and insurance and all that. But the proper mechanism for that is with insurance. Not with the land owner.

With the argument on the bill's provision regarding an analysis of the economic, you know, toll to your community from the loss of these units. That's kind of rooted in the fact that you've now taken away one of those rungs in that economic ladder. Right? Now you've gone from having 350 manufactured housing units where folks were able to go in and be a working class family raising your kid near your work and near all that you need, and suddenly that's ripped away from you. And the average home price in your neighborhood is nowhere near what you were able to, you know, attain.

So if I can understand correctly, you're saying the economic benefit to the community outweighs the rights of the property owner, and as such, an analysis should be done that they should properly consider that prior to their decision making, and that's what we're doing?

I wouldn't say that outweighs. I just think that they're both relevant factors that ought to be that ought to be in the mix. We, you know, we certainly you know, we do have, existing requirements, whereby the government, you know, with regards to the the review of closures because of this broader, you know, this broader need.

Like, this broader benefit that the mobile home parks provide. They already don't have a right to just automatically close, but we're just saying that in a that in a disaster context, there's some additional factors that ought to be reviewed, given all that we know about the dangers associated with these these these modern disasters. So it's a...

And then additionally, on the environmental testing points, those were really rooted in the fact that if you look at California's manufactured housing stock, the standardization of manufactured housing and mobile homes, that's a we cleave that distinction at 1976, which is when the federal government formalized their manufactured housing code. Prior to that, those units are were, you know, we standardized it because there was asbestos and formaldehyde.

Cause there were some bad things happening. We intervened. Real quick, I wanna... Thank you. I wanna go back to something that we do now. And you said prior to closure, the government, state government has intervened in the sense that you can't just automatically close. And there are steps to there are steps you have to do that before you... Review. And are those different? Did you take those steps and put them in here?

No. We're asking for some additional steps post disaster, things like environmental testing, those kinds of things.

Which would be good if you wanted to keep it open. Right? To close seems a bit interesting to pay for that. So I so I, in the same position, and I'd already notified that I wouldn't support. But I just wanted to understand better because there are portions of this I like, and there's portions of this I don't. And so wondering, you know, is there an opportunity to say, okay. Well, if this has changed, I'll support today. This is, let's see what happens on the floor.

I don't think I'm there yet, but I do wanna note that a part of your testimony where you said that if you have a property that has not been, that is perfectly functioning fine and you wanted to close it, there are steps that you have to do that the government has imposed that you have to do prior to close.

I think that in the face of a natural disaster, that if the if the property owner had to still, despite it being destroyed, have to go through those steps before they permanently close, that would make sense to me. But to take the disaster and then add additional burden on if a disaster doesn't make sense to me. You seem to be perplexed, I wanna make sure you understand. I can't stay to vote because I gotta go to a meeting, but I wanna make sure you understood what I meant. You understand what I was saying?

Well, but the disaster raises a set of new considerations that weren't there before. You know, we can talk about what's onerous, but or what's reasonable. And I'd be a year for that engagement with you. But the disaster, especially a fire, there are all sorts of implications that I think we ought to be considering. You know, obviously, there's an environmental set of challenges that ought to be considered. There's a whole set of economic costs to the greater community, relocation.

There's a follow on impact that we're feeling in the entire economy of Southern California. Again, not the fault of the homeowner of the of the mobile park owners, but relevant considerations in the public policy space that ought to be brought into the conversation when these decisions are being made, as long as it's done in a reasonable way. And obviously, there's a disagreement over how reasonable this is. And, you know, you know, I would hope that we could come to some sort of accord together given, you know, your expressed views on this question.

But I would I would just submit back to you that the disaster does raise new implications and questions. This is not as simple as a mobile home park owner deciding they wanna move into another business. There's a new set of circumstances on the ground, both economic and environmental, associated with the disaster that needs, that can't be just ignored.

Understood. Thank you so much for engaging back and forth. Office is always open to have these even offline. Thanks.

Alright. Anyone, any other comments from members? Assembly Member Ávila Farías.

I'll just continue to tease out this... Hold on. I'll just continue to tease out this dialogue. So if we apply... Because I, you know, the test here is, can this policy be applied everywhere? Right? And that's always the test if this is, you know, trending in a good public policy. So if my single family home burned down and we layer this concept on top of it, do you think private homeowners in single family would be happy with this legislation?

I mean, look, again, this is a different... It's... In the case of the single family home, the single family homeowner has so much more control over the situation in terms of the sale. This is we're not talking about, you know, they get to decide whether to sell or what to do. In the case of the of the mobile home residents, that decision is out of their hands.

And so we're trying to figure out a way, again, just like we were in the last bill, to recognize this unique place that this particular type of housing has. There's a reason why we regulate this area of housing much more than we regulate single family homes. There's a reason for that.

Right. But it also has its nuances. You know, we selectively, wherever your affordability, we choose to buy a townhouse, a planned unit development. I personally, you know, have had experiences in planned unit development. Did it once when I was younger, would never do it again. We all make personal choices of where we want to live and the conditions. So and, you know, a lot of factors of economics as well play into that. But needless to say, we make decisions individually where we want to live.

And so you enter a mobile home park knowing that you don't own the land, that you are renting, you own the structure, and you get insured that if something were to happen like a fire, then you're dealing with the structure and not the land. So now we're saying the mobile park homeowners don't have any rights to their properties, and we need to layer on more complexities of how this is going to work.

And we're definitely not saying they don't have any rights to their property.

Well, I mean, your legislation is making it more complex to operate in the space.

It doesn't deny their rights to the properties.

But why are we not... If you wanna reform the space, then why aren't we looking... We're dealing with a housing market that was created many years ago to fill a niche. And so if we wanna reform this housing market, then we have to look at it statewide and how when we design mobile home parks legislation and how they're going to operate.

I think this is penalizing the homeowners again, or the owners of the mobile home parks, and it's not favorable, and it's not understanding what this housing type is supposed to, the intent of it. And so I'm just curious why we're trying to change the structure of what the intent of mobile home parks of the type of housing that it is.

Gosh. Well, I mean, that question of intent is a very interesting one, and I think there's clearly major differences of opinion, I suppose. You know, I think some people look at it as a simple kind of asset on a spreadsheet. Others look at it as their homes. And, you know, this is the debate of a rent control. This is a debate over so many aspects of the regulation of our economy.

Is this just a purely, you know, set of kind of capital related considerations or, you know, to what extent do we recognize the fact that this is an incredibly important home, housing option for real working people that's affordable, where they live, where they've got, where they built up equity and life and history. That's the challenge here. I mean, this is why we treat these parks differently than we do treat other types of problems.

But it's also rechanging. I mean, again, it's understanding housing that these are private developments. And if we, as the state, want to subsidize or the federal government wants to subsidize, we're trying to impose rules without the subsidy restrictions. And so it does not make sense to me that we're in this space trying to regulate a private environment privately funded.

We regulate all sorts of industries that we don't subsidize.

Again, how affordable housing works is taxpayer money goes in. We have compliance and regulatory guidelines. You are now trying to regulate a private environment of private investment. And this is where the mechanics of this is wrong. Again, I'm always open for dialogue and trying to figure out if we wanna change how this environment is working.

Then let's reform it structurally in how the investment goes and how the investment goes out. But, again, I see a lot of mechanical pieces wrong with this legislation, but I'm always happy for dialogue on this space. And, again, it's not making sense of how the housing economic ladder is going to help the community and also help the owners.

Okay. I'd love to give Ryan some opportunity. I saw he's antsy, wanted to jump in.

Well, I just wanna highlight, you know, while there is no direct subsidization that's flowing in to park communities, you know, we aren't using LIHTC to build mobile home parks. True. There are a number of, you know, what I would say is silence within existing law that is effectively subsidy. I mean, manufactured housing communities unless locally imposed are not subject to rent control ordinance like multifamily properties are.

That in and of itself is a distinct opportunity provided to park owners that is, you know, not available to other multifamily housing owners. So I would argue in some regard that there is, whether official or not, it is a way in which communities are vulnerable and in which we have already, as a state, in the Mobile Home Residency Law, expressed a vested interest in wanting to ensure that those units are kept affordable naturally. And so we are with this 1093 legislation with the requirements regarding considerations of what exactly closure looks like.

You know, part of that is also just stemming from the concern that, you know, if a community were to be destroyed, as the Palisades Bowl was, as Tahitian Terrace was, those units, you know, those were locally restricted rent controlled units. Those were units that were intentionally affordable.

And while that may not be the case writ large, you know, the fact that you had a local RSO protecting those units, and now you don't have any way to assess the loss of those, the economic toll that's caused by that protected unit, that is a significant and, you know, loss to the community and warranting of further understanding and study. That's all I'll share on that point.

Alright. Any other questions or comments? I would just again say, look, we're in a different world than here than we were 40 or 50 years ago, not just in terms of wildfires and disasters, but in terms of our housing market. And, you know, I think it's, quite frankly, a place of privilege to say we have the right to choose where we wanna live.

Yes, I guess literally that's true. But our housing crisis is putting people in a position where mobile home parks may be the only opportunity, affordability wise, for them to find a place to live. And so they don't own the land under there, but that is their home. That's where they... And if you had a single family home, once the fire department and disaster relief clears the place for you to go return to get your property, you can do that. Why?

Because it's a mobile home park. Should you not be able to do that as well? Again, once it's made safe and the appropriate emergency personnel and disaster relief, what have you, says that it's safe to go there. And a lot of what's being asked here, you know, what actions or plans for debris removal, environment, those are all things that a mobile home park owner is going to do anyway on their own. And maybe they decided they want to do a, b, or c with it.

It's just a matter of ensuring that the folks that actually live there have some transparency, some idea of what, if any, plan is there because they have to plan the rest of their lives too. And so I think this is, you know, given what we've seen all too often, I think more often than we've seen before with with wildfires and other disasters. This is critically important.

We're not in the same in the same place where you've been in the past. And many of these mobile home parks have, as mentioned, has been have been around for generations, many, many years, which also means they were, the land was bought for pennies on the dollar of what that land is valued today.

And so it's not just a matter of putting a burdens on the mobile home parker. Let's, it's not like they haven't benefited from this relationship of owning these parks. Let's all understand during a disaster that everyone is going through a crisis. Let's try to help each other through that crisis. And I think transparency is is a big part of that, allowing folks to get their property, their valuables, whatever prized possessions might be left as a part of the healing process for everyone.

And so, again, I think that, I think that if we're going to be serious about responding to wildfires and helping victims, let's I think this is a pretty modest way to do that in communities where they may not own the land, but they certainly have a home there. And so obviously I'm supporting the bill. I think we have a motion already on the table. Do we have a motion and a second on this? Okay. Okay. Motion. Assembly Member Caloza.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you to the Senator and your witness. I apologize for, you know, what you've been through. And, you know, I started my term with the Eaton and Palisades Fires, unfortunately, and understand the intent of what you're working through and saw the support as well from our local elected officials in Los Angeles, and the work that you're doing on this.

I don't know if you wanted to take a moment to respond to some of what the opposition is saying. I do think that as, you know, a body as we've tried to work and move through a lot of these bills to really look at and focus on the recovery process. How do we do that in the way that, you know, really tries to understand the full magnitude of the folks that are being impacted?

I know that, for instance, a lot of the folks who are impacted, you know, are dealing with other industries in which they're also having issue. This is awkward for me to say only because of stuff happening is the insurance industry, for instance. And so I just I wanted to ask if you wanted to elaborate or respond to anything the opposition was saying.

What anything in particular you wanna you want me to focus on?

I'm happy to go through their letter, but if you wanted to respond to some of the concerns that they shared.

Well, I mean, okay. I get.. Look. I think the I get the sense that the communications issues, whether they're concerned about, well, the communications is, I think, is probably the least of your concerns. The access to the properties, you know, if I know there was a concern raised about liability. I'm happy you know, if you wanna provide us with some language about like indemnity, you know, happy to consider that with regards to people being able to access their properties.

I understand it's a dangerous setting. We don't wanna have people going to their properties and then suing because something goes wrong at the property for reasons that are, you know, outside of the reasonable, you know, scope of the responsibility of a of a mobile home park owner post disaster. I understand how chaotic these sites are having been there literally a couple days on the after the fire on the ground.

So that's reasonable to me conceptually, but I do wanna make sure that we provide folks with the opportunity to go back to their properties. It was a very frustrating experience, quite frankly, to be able to bring constituents back to their homes, their single family homes. But the folks that were living in the mobile home park were not given that opportunity. And oftentimes, other people were getting into the area. There was fears about people rummaging through their properties.

You know, it did happen. Right? With people kind of breaking through the fence and then trying to steal things when they weren't even able to leave legally go back to their property. Without, you know, the landlord's, you know, the mobile home parks owner's permission. So that was an issue. I will remind, you know, Zelda reminded me, you know, she's got a mortgage. She's got a mortgage. Right? This is not just, you know, there is a property right here. This is not a simple rental.

And by the way, their rent, there are property rights associated with the rental too, but this is you know, she's paying a monthly mortgage associated with her property. I just wanna remind people of that. Finally, you know, getting into this, you know, kind of broader dialogue that we were having with Assembly Member Wilson, you know, I think we recognize the fact that there is a set of rules that are already in place with regards to closure.

And we just wanna make sure, given everything we know about the localized and regional impacts associated with a major disaster burning down or destroying a park. There's that some of the considerations that we know are relevant be brought into the conversation. How do we do this in a way that's not onerous? We certainly have tried to craft it that way.

We took amendments from the committee to try to hone the bill so this doesn't become, you know, a kind of an unnecessary set of onerous challenges for the owners. But I'm, you know, very open to continual, you know, honing of the of the language if that's of interest to you, Assembly Member. But I think I think there is a recognition.

The bill seeks to recognize what is a such an unmitigated fact on the ground given our experiences in Los Angeles that there are a set of considerations associated with disaster that ought to be brought into bear when thinking about the closure process of a park, and that there is a state interest in asking those considerations to be examined in the wake of a major disaster.

Thank you, Senator, and thanks to my colleagues, Assembly Member Ávila Farías and Wilson, for their comments on this too. And I would encourage you, support this today, but encourage you to work with the opposition and our colleagues who have done a lot of work as well on the housing space. And happy to follow-up as well.

Thank you. Yeah. Happy to work with your office too.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? And if this bill passes, going to Judiciary, we're happy to work with the author and the mobile home park owners to work on the indemnity issue because I don't think the intention, I mean, I totally understand the concerns of mobile home parks. They're going to an, even after it's been cleared, there's still risks there.

And this is going to Judiciary, right?

It is. If it passes, it goes to Judiciary. So, like, I'm sure the Judiciary staff would be happy to work on that indemnity issue to ensure that the mobile and park owners are not made liable for if someone does choose to go onto a site that was, may have been lost to a wildfire or what happened.

Yeah. Because they are dangerous sites. I walked them. You have too.

Even once they've been cleared to go and look for your property, there are still potential dangers there. And I think that's a very reasonable concern from the...

Including respiratory dangers.

Yeah. So okay. So would you like to close, Senator?

No. Appreciate the robust discussion. These are tough issues. You know, this is a very, this is a unique area of policy. Right? I mean, we, you know, I think the state recognizes this special place that these parks hold in our system, and I think we all struggle with how much they ought to be regulated given this special place. I think, you know, we've tried, we've tried to craft this in a way that is carefully, you know, tethered to the set of challenges that we've seen on the ground.

But I'm very open to additional work and welcome that work in the in the Judiciary Committee. And I welcome the voices not only of the opposition, but also of the other Members informing the process of Judiciary as we seek to hone some of these amendments and get this to a place that is fair and respectful of the rights both of the residents and the owners. And with that, in that spirit, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Motion do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

That will be placed on call. Alright. Thank you very much, Senator. Next, we have Senator Caballero. Item 12, that's SB 1116.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members, for the opportunity to present SB 1116, a follow-up to SB 684, which is the starter home revitalization act, which created a streamline ministerial pathway to build small scale housing up to 10 units on infill sites. Since its enactment, we have seen strong developer interest, but also clear implementation challenges that have limited its full potential.

Whenever you're ready.

This is set up weird, so I'm trying to this bill reflects two years of real world data and feedback from local governments, planners, builders, and housing advocates. While it's the original bill, SB 684 created the framework, differences in how the law was interpreted has created implementation challenges and made some projects infeasible. SB 1116 makes several important changes.

It clarifies development standards such as height setback and density, and defines what constitutes vacant and abandoned parcels so they can't be used to prevent implementation of the streamlined ministerial process. So, under the theory that 500 words are better than two words, it makes the bill longer, but it's very makes it very clear what we mean about vacant and abandoned. It reinforces ministerial approval and clear timelines to provide certainty for the applicants.

It updates subdivision standards to allow more flexibility for small light lot development, which is what, this bill was intended to do. It addresses private restrictions, including HOA indeed provisions that can block housing and improves reporting to better track outcomes and production.

Taken together, these changes are designed to remove barriers, provide clarity, and ensure the law produces the housing housing it was intended to deliver so we can build small scale homeownership opportunities across California. They're all technical changes. Now I'd like to turn to my lead witnesses. With me today is Nolan Gray, Senior Director of Legislation and Research with Cal YIMBY, and Paul Steidl, Licensed Architect and Cofounder of BuildCasa, a mission driven developer.

Thank you, please.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify again. My name is Nolan Gray. I'm an AICP planner and the Senior Director of California YIMBY. We're a statewide organization of over 80,000 members committed to ending the California housing shortage and making our state an affordable place to live, work, and raise a family.

The bad news is that when it comes to homeownership, our state has been failing middle class families. The median home price in California is now over 10 times the median household income. For context, a healthy ratio tops out at about five. And as a result, hundreds of thousands of families have been forced to leave California in recent decades.

This exodus is happening because our state has failed to build enough of the starter homes we need to sustain the California dream and create the next generation of homeowners.

The good news is that we've already made substantial progress toward that solution. In recent years, this chamber and many members of this committee have helped to pass the Starter Home Revitalization Act, which streamlines the process of building townhouses and small lot single family homes. And these are the starter homes of 2026. So why are we back here? To quote Ernest Hemingway, the only kind of writing is rewriting.

As implementation has scaled up, we've learned a lot about a number of small ways that the Starter Home Revitalization Act could be improved, and SB 1116 reflects a lot of those lessons. They call it a cleanup bill. As the son of a mechanic, I like to call it tune up. SB 1116 clarifies definitions, strengthens oversight, and standardize standardizes implementation, which provides certainty for planners, local elected officials, and developers alike.

Indeed, every single fix in this bill addresses a real world challenge that's been faced by one of those parties, who have used this law to build housing.

In questioning, I'm more than happy to elaborate on the specific technical amendments here. But in the meantime, we respectfully request your aye vote on 1116. Thank you.

Thank you. Please.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of SB 1116. My name is Paul Steidl. I'm cofounder of BuildCasa, a small scale infill housing developer and a licensed architect. We're building some of the first homes in the state using the Starter Home Revitalization Act, the SHRA.

We're currently permitting 44 units under this law and now completing construction on the first units. These are true starter homes. They're two and three bedroom units. They're on individual lots and they'll be sold to buyers at roughly 30% below the average home price. I wanted to highlight a few issues that we've encountered on the ground.

First, we frequently see stale CC and RS from decades ago that restrict subdivision and smaller lots. We've we've had to walk away from multiple good projects, for new housing because of old restrictions on title, and this is pretty common around the state. Second, the final mapping process doesn't have any timeline accountability. The phase has been a major source of delay for our projects. Regularly, it takes three to four times longer than the tentative map approval, which does have a shot clock.

Delays of this magnitude could threaten the viability of the projects. Third, because of gray areas in the text, we routinely run into design questions related to basic zoning definitions. In many cases, we've had to reduce the size of units to meet conservative local interpretations or seek HCD guidance. This is a common source of delay and the livability of the units is affected. This bill directly addresses these problems and others.

It clarifies definitions. It adds a shot clock for the final map stage, addresses the stale CC and RS, and it gives HCD oversight of local ordinances. The result will be a better law that produces for sale starter homes for Californians. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1116. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1116?

Morning, Mister chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing, a a proud co sponsor, SPUR, Fieldstead, Circulate Planning and Policy, Unidos, Southern California Obtainable Housing, Power California Action, East Bay Leadership Council, North Bay Leadership Council, Visionary Home Builders, Montebello Housing Development Corporation, and Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ali Sapirman on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support.

Thank you.

Bob Naylor, I think I heard Fieldstead mentioned in the long list of clients before, but I affirm Fieldstead's support.

Thank you.

Sylvia Aguilar on behalf of Casita Coalition, a proud co sponsor in support.

Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Charles Contrebecki, interns of advocacy on behalf of Elevate California in support.

Thank you.

And Alicia Priego on behalf of the Chamber of Progress in support.