Senate Judiciary Committee

Senator wean floors yours. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair. I'm here today to present Senate bill 934 ability to provide justice to survivors of conversion therapy by allowing them more ability to seek compensation through malpractice claims. Straight up conversion Conversion therapy is quackery. It is psychological torture. You can't change someone who is LGBTQ into not being LGBTQ. All major medical associations agree that sexual orientation and gender identity are immutable characteristics and that so-called conversion therapy is fraud that harms patients. shows that conversion therapy does not change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity but that it is associated with serious harm including increased likelihood of depression, suicidality, lower educational attainment, and economic insecurity. In 2012 California became the first state to ban licensed mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy. This ban has served as an essential bulwark against that practice. Since California took the first step, 29 other states have also acted, either legislatively or via executive order. However, last week the Supreme Court put that ban, at least potentially, in legal jeopardy by directing lower courts to subject the Colorado convert youth conversion therapy ban by subjecting it to so-called strict scrutiny which is a very very high level of constitutional scrutiny essentially saying that psychological torture of children is somehow free speech but agree or disagree that was the supreme court's ruling and that's the standard to which these laws will be subjected. It is critically important to understand that California's law was not part of the Supreme Court case. It was a Colorado law, but there have already been rumblings of a legal challenge to California's law. And so here we are. It's also important to understand that the Supreme Court ruling, the majority opinion by Justice Gorsuch, specifically said that malpractice claims or malpractice cause of action is different than a conversion therapy ban. And that was important and that what we are doing here today considering a bill relating to malpractice not to a ban so right now the existing statute of limitations for malpractice claim three years is insufficient to deal with the long-term trauma from conversion therapy particularly of young people and so this bill does two things it if the It extends the statute of limitations. If the survivor was under the age of 18 at the time that they were subjected to conversion therapy, they could bring a claim up until the age of 40. If the survivor was over 18 years old, then they have 10 years. Or a survivor may bring a case within five years of discovering injury or illness due to sexual orientation or gender identity conversion therapy. SB 934 also clarifies the role that expert testimony plays in scientific evidence, making sure that we are using the best expertise in scientific evidence in adjudicating these malpractice claims. Colleagues, we know that LGBTQ people are under assault in this country, and the common denominator in these attacks, whether from the Trump administration or from red states, is the attempted erasure of our community. In so many ways, they want us to just go away, to go back in the closet, or just not to exist at all. And conversion therapy is absolutely a part of that. And like many people, although I am very fortunate that I was never subjected to conversion therapy, I thank my parents for being good, decent people who would not do that to a child. I know so many people who were sent to conversion therapy as children. They had no choice in the matter. They were sent there, and they were subjected to what can only be described as torture. And so with that said, I ask for your I vote with me today testify is Ryan Kendall a survivor of conversion therapy and civil rights litigator in Southern California and sky In a rarity a licensed marriage and family therapist with 12 years of clinical experience and also here for Technical support if needed crystal a senior staff attorney at the National Center for LGBTQ rights. I ask for your I vote

Sure. For the purpose of establishing a quorum, Umberg. Here. Umberg here. Nilo. Here. Milo here, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Caballero here, Durazo, Durazo here, Laird, Reyes, Reyes here, Stern, Valadez, Wahab, Wahab here, Bubber Pearson, Wiener. Present. Wiener present. You have a quorum.

Thank you. My name is Ryan Matthew Kendall. From the ages of 14 to 16, a California licensed therapist abused me using the practice of so-called conversion therapy. Using only words Joseph Nicolosi destroyed my sense of self leaving me as a child convinced that I was unworthy of love and defective simply for being gay I still live with the damage that caused me It why I here today asking you to protect others Not only did Nicolosi abuse me using conversion therapy but he also fostered an environment where my parents were free to abuse me in ever more extreme ways to stop me from being gay Even though he was a mandatory reporter, and even though I complained about this abuse to him, he never acted to protect me. To escape conversion therapy and my family's abuse, I filed dependency and neglect charges against my parents and had the state revoke their custody. But even after getting away, I spent more than a decade of my life suicidally depressed, at times unhoused, and I abused drugs in an attempt to kill myself. I failed out of or withdrew from college five or six times. My life was a desperate struggle for survival. At no point during that period or for years afterwards could I have brought a lawsuit against the man who abused me and destroyed my life. Conversion therapy robs LGBT youth and adults of their agency by convincing them, as I have heard from youth countless times, that they are somehow at fault for the situation they are in or for being who they are, or, as happened with me, that we are defective and undeserving of care. None of those things are true. Conversion therapy is a medical fraud that kills children. It harms everyone who comes in contact with it. It tears families apart, and that's if you survive. Today, you have the opportunity to give everyone harmed by this vile practice a meaningful chance at justice. I can think of no better use of your votes than that. California has always led the way on protecting LGBT youth from this vile practice, and California can lead the way again today. I ask you to support this bill.

Good afternoon, Chair, members. My name is Skye Narearity. I am a citizen of the ION band of Milwaukee Indians, and I am a licensed marriage and family therapist here in California, where I have practiced for 12-plus years. I've provided services across outpatient, residential, private practice settings, and I have provided direct services to queer, two-spirit, LGBTQ+, and indigenous clients throughout my career. And I'm in support, strong support of SB 934. From a clinical standpoint, I want to be very clear. Conversion therapy is not a legitimate therapeutic practice. It's not a legitimate therapeutic intervention.

Thank you. There's been an expression of confusion, and I think it's because the bill is about the statute of limitations, but the discussion is a philosophic one relative to the treatment of gender dysphoria, particularly among minors. And on that point, I would point to the Cass report from the United Kingdom of a few years ago that condemned conversion therapy, for sure, but issued a strong caution, particularly relative to treatment of minors. First of all, a question. What is the statute of limitation for gender-confirming care?

If someone was to decide to change their gender, particularly if they're a minor, and that was accommodated via therapy, hormone treatment, or even surgery, and then subsequently a transitioning where there was an allegation of harm, what's the statute of limitation for that sort of action?

You confirmed my confusion because you spent most of your time talking about the philosophic issue, not so much the statute of limitations. And that's why I say there's... Because that's been injected into this, excuse me. That's why I say there's some confusion here as to exactly what it is that we're talking about expressed in the questions that have been posed Now conversion therapy strictly speaking where a kid says I gay and the parent says, I'm going to send you to a counselor to convince you you're not gay, the Cass Report condemns that. Just about everybody does. But therapy's different. And if you have a situation where you said, I'm going to send you to somebody who is going to tell you you're not what you say you are, but you are something else, and if that's successful, that's conversion therapy. The problem is I don't think it's that simple. The discussion between a therapist and a patient is between the therapist and the patient. and if there was a conversion as a result of going to a therapist to explore gender confusion, but it ended up being a conversion, who is to say that the counselor either did or didn't say, you think you're this and as we proceed on our therapy here, I'm going to convince you that you're something else. It's not that simple. I don't think that we would ever necessarily know that. Whether it could be proved conversion therapy ends up, remained to be seen at a later date depending upon a regret for a decision or action that had been taken way back when the therapy was given. And that's the concern about this. So, number one, there's a difference in treatment. You're saying they're fundamentally different things. But philosophically, they are among the same universe of disagreement that we have, particularly with regard to the treatment of youth. And legal remedies are being treated differently in this bill.

I understand that. That's part of the disagreement between what you're saying and what I'm saying. Because part of the confusion, as I said, is grounded in the discussion is not about statute of limitations. The discussion is the philosophic issue of therapy for gender confusion, particularly among minors. There's a great deal of disagreement on that particular issue, which I think was clarified and handled well by the Cass report. And those conclusions adopted by most of Europe but not by the United States continues to be a confusion here, a disagreement here. Just in terms of the, I think what you're talking about, the aspects of the CAS report you're talking about, which, by the way, is a disputed report. You say it's a disputed report. No, no, I'm saying there are people who dispute it. But also some of the European announcements and pronouncements that have come out is about physical care. It's about surgery, hormones, puberty delayers. It's not in any way about saying trans people don't exist. and it not about sending whether it a gay kid or a trans kid to therapy to change them to be something different That not what CAST Report is about It's not what any of the European announcements are about.

I didn't hear any witness say that trans kids don't exist, that gay people don't exist. I didn't hear anybody say it about gay people. Even close to that. They – I've been –

I'm doing more than assuming. Maybe you heard something different than I did. You're more than assuming. And that's part of the confusion because we're not debating here a statute of limitations, which is what the bill is about. We're debating here the philosophy, as I articulated a minute ago. And you and I have some fundamental disagreements on that. But I'm not saying that there's no such thing as trans kids. I'm also agreeing that actual conversion therapy, where the intent is to counsel a person who thinks they're one thing and convincing them that it's another, is wrong. But therapy, when one is confused, particularly a minor, is not wrong. but it could be conflated to conversion therapy depending upon what happened and depending upon what that individual thought five years later. And that's the philosophic discussion that's sort of underlying everything that we're talking about here, and there are a lot of people in the audience that are nodding their head at that, and that's what's creating the confusion because the bills about a statute of limitations, that's not what we're debating here. we have a difference in philosophic approach of the treatment of gender dysphoria, particularly with regard to minors.

The only way to prove that that happened is for a third person to be present during the therapy. Because therapy is a confidential process. And it sounds like you just said, Senator, if I may, that you agree that conversion therapy is wrong. I don't want to put words in your mouth. I think I heard you say conversion therapy is wrong and the cast support report said that it's wrong. But counseling is appropriate. No, but that's what – right.

And as I said not to be overly redundant therapy is a private and protected activity and the only two people who knows what goes on in therapy is the patient and the provider And if it comes to a court case, and it's a he said, she said kind of thing, I don't know where the court goes on that because those conversations are protected. And that's how malpractice claims.

Senator Durazo, then Senator Valderas.

All right. Senator Valderas.

It significantly expands liability through extended statutes of limitation and modified evidentiary standards.

Thank you, Senator. and with permission to come up here and answer the question. Thank you, Chair. So, um... For the wheat, CJAC has concerns with the expanded statute of limitations in general for civil liability purposes and ensuring fairness in the civil justice with respect to the existing statute of limitations. To your specific question on modifying evidentiary standards, this bill modifies causation standards by allowing general causation to be established through expert testimony and permitting specific causation to be inferred from the evidence. That is in, sorry, apologies, I'm getting the exact section, but that is outlined. It's section E. Thank you, author Senate Section E. We have concerns with that expansion of causation.

Thank you, Senator. Yes, we see this as a new cause of action to have an extended statute of limitations period for mental health professionals. To the author's previous comments on relating this to medical malpractice cases. So we see the extended liability there, and we see this as a new cause of action, which is why we do have concerns for that component as well. Okay.

Yes.

You've now touched upon a nerve here with respect to evidentiary standards. So tell me if someone goes to a therapist and says, I have schizophrenia, or at least exhibits schizophrenic symptoms, and the therapist says, you know what you need is an exorcism. I'm not going to treat you with any medication or talk therapy. I'm going to send you to be exercised. And it turns out that person suffers harm because that health care provider didn't provide anything other than a recommendation to go to see an exorcist. How is that evidentiary standard any different than what's proposed in the bill?

You have to show causation. So I'm now very curious as to how this somehow changes the evidentiary standard for causation.

evidentiary standards that's something that comes within the purview of this committee and I don think it does I think it remains the same I think you still need and I going to ask the author in a second I think you still need the same causal connection and you still have to prove it by preponderance and you still have to prove that they fell below the standard of care. And I think that's exactly the same for any other behavioral practitioner. And I understand you're saying it's not, so I would be interested in finding out about that.

Yeah, and I actually, if the chair would like, I can ask Mr. Stoll can also talk about these issues with the National Center for LGBTQ. Do you think it changes evidentiary standards? No.

I would like for him to talk even more detail about that. Sure. Okay.

The answer is no. Okay. All right.

Yes, thank you, Chair. I wanted if you could come back up because you had mentioned two things, evidentiary proceedings,

It extends the statute of limitations, and it clarifies evidentiary standards. I wouldn't call it a new cause of action.

We see this as a new opportunity for claims to be revived also. And just in general, we do have concerns with that just from a standpoint of the civil fairness and civil liability and want to respect existing statute of limitations.

For that. And I apologize, Senator. I would be very happy to dive deep into this with the author office and you and your office at any time that you would like to get you the specific answers and I want to be really clear in our answers to that if that okay senator

All right thank you. There are no further questions. Senator Wiener would you like to close?

All right. Need a motion?

All right. Thank you, Senator Weiner. Chief Counsel Estrada, would you call the roll, please?

You have 7-1 with members missing. 7-1. All right, we'll put that on call. Thank you, Senator Wiener. I saw Senator Errageen here. Is he hiding somewhere? No. No, he's sharing housing. And Senator Becker, Senator Blakesweer, Senator Allen, Senator Durazo calling one, calling all she is to go to housing well anybody have a bill for the 14th they'd like to do now Thank you. All right. Is there a motion on the consent calendar? All right. Senator Wahab moves the consent calendar.

6-0, members of the thing. All right, 6-0, we'll put that on call. That's right. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Allen is here. Senator Allen, would you like to present file number 7, SB 1092, or SB 1365?

Hi. My name is Kim Koontz. I'm with the California Center for Cooperative Development. We're a nonprofit that helps solve problems using cooperative enterprises where the members co-own and democratically control the enterprise. Otherwise, in this case, it would be cooperative housing that is owned by all the manufactured homeowners in the park. We provide technical assistance to help the residents through and beyond the process to help them to become a successful democratically governed community. Creating these resident-owned communities fosters housing stability, pride, and economic security. Resident ownership, as it was just said, is particularly important in California, where the manufactured homes are really a source of naturally occurring affordable housing under the best of circumstances. But the current investor encroachment in those communities is really putting that at severe risk. Unlike owners of single-family homes, manufactured homeowners own the home, but they rent the space underneath it, which makes them very, very vulnerable because the owner of the park can decide how much the rent is, whether they will change the reason for the park and make it something else, and make decisions about investment in infrastructure. So the surest path to long-term stability and affordability is when the residents become owners of their own parks But most park sales happen off or too quickly for residents to put in an offer SB 1092 would give park residents a fair opportunity to purchase their communities by ensuring that they receive advanced notice of the sale and a chance to match third-party offers. Creating this window of opportunity provides the time necessary for park residents to secure funding from state and local programs and lenders such as Rock USA has a CDFI that loans to parks. Thank you very much. I bet you urge us to vote aye.

All right. Next witness, please.

8% of San Bernardino's County's housing stock is manufactured homes. The majority of those homes are in park communities. Our region is the manufactured home capital of California, and these homes are a form of homeownership where even though the unit is owned outright, the land underneath is leased. The issue that SB 1092 addresses is simple. who should have the opportunity to purchase a manufactured housing community? Our answer is everybody, including the residents. Right now, as a brief visual aid, I have a picture of the confidential offering memorandum of a park because many parks are often sold in closed market listings, which means that residents don't even know that their park is going up for sale. What SB 1092 does is endow residents with the dignity of being included and recognized as potential bidders in the sales process of their community, and it presents a measured solution to the question of who should own our housing stock. Anyone can. We're not getting rid of the market, but what we are saying is that residents deserve a fair chance. And so what this bill does is ensure that market forces remain, park owners can still secure the best offer for their land, but also that residents, whether in coalition with each other or in coalition with a nonprofit, can make bids for the land that they have leased, oftentimes for decades. And this is a tool for affordable housing preservation that is very low in cost to the state. And so the prevailing headwinds on the national level are clear. Community ownership is a part of the bedrock of the American dream. And SB 1092 helps ensure that the Californian dream as well prioritizes community ownership. So we thank Senator Allen for his leadership on this issue. We respectfully request an aye vote on SB 1092. And I am available to answer any questions if there's any need for technical assistance. All righty. Thank you very much. Others in support of SB 1092, please approach. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Brian Augusta on behalf of the California Coalition for Rural Housing, proud to co-sponsor also the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support. Thank you, Emily's father. Good afternoon, Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of ROC USA in strong support. I bet she's watching this too, huh? Rachel Mueller on behalf of the California Coalition for Community Investment, a coalition of over 50 CDFIs in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Tina Rosales-Torres on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Natalie Spivak with Housing California and on behalf of Leadership Council in support. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Anyone else in support of SB 1092, please approach. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you are opposed to SB 1092 please approach the microphone MR Good afternoon Mr Chair and members My name is Chris Wysocki with WMA We are here to express our opposition to SB 1092. This bill would effectively strip away the private property rights of mobile home park owners looking to sell their park to a buyer willing to pay fair market value. SB 1092 would be an unconstitutional taking and give residents who want to stop a park sale the ability to do so by imposing unreasonable timelines and conditions on such transactions. With the amendments being taken, a resident organization would have 120 days after a notice is sent to deliver an offer and another 120 days after that to secure financing to close the sale. What buyer is going to wait for eight months? Under this bill, no private party is going to buy a mobile home park in California, and we believe that's the point. Devalue the property to give a resident group the ability to buy a park at below market rates. We believe the devaluation would also constitute a taking and another point of litigation. When you sell your home, you would never agree to an offer that didn't include a reasonable time frame or an explanation of the type of financing or payment method. Yet that's what 1092 is forcing mobile home park owners to do. This bill also requires the park owner to negotiate in good faith, but there's no requirement for the resident group to do the same. Under this bill, the resident group should say it wants to buy, and when timelines have expired, simply back out by saying, never mind. I realize this bill is in response to the Palisades fire, but why hasn't any public entity stepped up and offered the Palisade Park owners the assistance and options or even funding possibilities for purchasing those parks. No resident group has stepped in and offered close to fair market value on this bill on the parks. Seems clear SB 1092 is an attempt to give these entities an ability to devalue the parks and be able to lowball purchase offer. For these reasons and those laid out in our letter, we ask for a NOVA. Next witness please. Thank you Mr. Chair and members, Jason Ackert on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance. I'm going to do my best not to repeat what my colleague from WMA said because we we share many of his points. But I do want to talk a little bit about why we view this as diminishing the value of a park. Essentially it comes down to the number of people who are willing to go into that transaction and to offer to purchase a park. As Mr. Wysocki said, you have to be able to withstand the timelines in this bill. You have to be able to tie up the money, and in some cases it's a significant amount of money. These are large transactions for the 240 days that is anticipated in this bill. There are not a lot of investors who are going to be willing to do that. And then beyond that, once you've purchased the property, you own it knowing that is subject to these restrictions in perpetuity. So both of these things devalue the property, and we question the need for that, to be honest with you. It was mentioned earlier by one of the support witnesses that we want everybody to be able to purchase a park. We don't disagree. There are over 170 resident-owned communities in the state of California today. There is a pathway to resident ownership through the private market, and we believe it's an appropriate pathway and that it works. We agree also that to some extent that there is a risk here. It's a significant risk that this bill is unconstitutional. So to the extent that it is intended to address the tragedies that happened in the Palisades fire and it is tragic The loss of a home is a tragic thing for anybody We don believe that it will that this bill would be challenged and we think it would likely be struck down Lastly, I just want to conclude there was a lot of discussion of large institutional investors. So we actually think that that would be one of the main reasons to vote no on this bill. If you do not want to see large institutional investors coming into California and swooping up and taking up mobile home parks, You need to consider who has the capacity to wait through the timelines in this bill and to put up a significant amount of money for the amount of time considered in this bill. It's not people who are small, small and pop owners, and it's not, you know, regional players. It's large institutional investors. With that, we respectfully urge your no vote. Thank you. All right. Others in opposition, SB 1092, please approach the microphone. Hi, good afternoon. Kevin Rogers with the California Association of Realtors and we oppose. Thank you. Anyone else oppose? Seeing no one else, let's bring it back to the committee. Questions by committee members. Yes, Senator Weber-Pierce. Thank you, Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing this forward and allowing us to have this conversation. And I think that all, if not the vast majority of us, are very concerned about the ability for people to maintain in their homes and be able to have sufficient notice prior to there being any kind of change. So my question, my original question has to do with the timing of the notice. I know we're going down from 360 days to 240 days in this committee with the amendments, but that also seems like a long time. So I wanted to first, because I have a couple questions, get a little bit of thought process behind that. Yeah. So the idea is that it's about giving, you know, the challenge here is, and I hear the arguments, and I understand them. And I am open to reducing the timeline further. You know, I know that – I think the challenge that we have here is that we have – you have a group of residents that would come together to purchase the broader property. And that takes time. It's easy for one wealthier individual or institutional investor to act relatively quickly. But when you're talking about a group of people, it's about making sure that they're able to come up with the financing. It can be a complex tax given the increase in costs of land and all the rest. So for us, it was about trying to provide a reasonable timeline for these folks, for these residents, to pull together a competitive, real bid. But I am open to working with the members on further reducing the timeline to address some of the issues that have been raised. I hear the good faith argument, too. I mean, I certainly don't want people to be taking advantage of this. So some reciprocity on good faith I'm open to as well. So, you know, for me, I'm not trying to head us toward the doomsday scenario that's been described by the opponents. For me, this is about ensuring that we give mobile home rec residents a meaningful opportunity to come up with a competitive bid if their park owner is looking to leave the business so that they can continue to live in their homes. Yeah, no, and I think that that is definitely a noble focus and something that I think, you know, many of us would agree with. You know, that time frame to me is a little long. But it also states that I know initially it was residents would have like 180 days to respond. And then this and this committee were reducing that to 120. So that's 120 days for them to basically state, hey, we're interested. Um, so my question is if at 120 days, the, um, the owners of the land haven't heard from the residents, are they able to sell at that point? If they haven't heard at all, what do you mean? Yeah. So you're saying that the residents, or maybe I'm reading this wrong, that they have 120 days, it was 180, to essentially come up with a plan to purchase it or to bring an offer forward. If at that time no offer has been presented, does that then open it up for the owner of the land to sell, even though it's before 240? Because it wasn't clear in the language. Oh, yes, absolutely. That's the reason why we have the two tiers. So if they haven't heard from someone by 120 days now that we've reduced it, then the owner of the land is able to sell it. Right. The additional 120 is then pulling together the money and inspections, escrow, all that sort of thing. Okay. So that alone could potentially reduce the time. So they're not locked into this. And remember, this is different than buying a house. It's a much more complicated and multifaceted investigation when you're buying a house. Yeah, I just want to make sure that it's clear that even though they haven't heard in 120 days, that they don't have to wait until the 240. That's right. And then my final question is, let's say that by 120 days, you know, the residents have gotten together and they're like, we want to do an offer. And then sometime down the line, they're like, oh, no, we can't, no, we won't. That kind of leaves the owner of the land just kind of out there. How are we addressing that? Let me start by saying the 120 days is not just kind of a general vague expression of interest. You have to show they have to have been able to organize and coordinate and put together a full purchase agreement that they put forward. So it's a serious operation. Again, I hear the argument about good faith. If this falls through, just like in any purchase situation, they can go ahead with the other deal that they have on the table. I'm certainly not interested in trying to go after residents that have engaged in good faith in this process. And for whatever reason, it's good faith that it's fallen apart. Now, if we want to add in some language to ensure that people aren't just trying to run out the clock maliciously, I am happy to add that in too. Because, again, I don't want to see this being taken advantage of as a bludgeon against these owners. Because I think if you purchase a home or if you are interested in something, we just did a cruise thing, and we had to do kind of a down payment to show that we were serious. before we had to pay the full amount. And I didn't see anything in the bill that would require this other group to say, yes we interested more than this is the plan Like we actually putting down some kind of down payment or something I happy to work with the committee on some reasonable and the advocates for some reasonable, tangible steps that show a seriousness of purpose in terms of purchase. I don't want it to be too onerous, and I don't want it to be grounded in the experience of, But, again, this is about really giving people the option to purchase if they're able to. And so I am absolutely happy to work with you and with the committee on some tangible benchmarks that would have to be met. Okay. Show a seriousness of purpose. Just to clarify, the purchase agreement, if accepted, is a contract, an enforceable contract. Now, I recognize there will be certain conditions in that contract, but if someone just simply blows it off, you do have a cause of action to reach a contract. And that's a question. Is that true? That's my understanding. Okay. Yeah. All right. All right. Senator Reyes, then Senator Ashby. Another part of your bill has to do, first of all, I think this is a good bill. I think, as Senator Weber Pearson talked about, the ability of homeowners, even if they're mobile homeowners, to be able to stay where they've lived, oftentimes for decades. If they can put together 50 percent, more than 50 percent of the residents, then you get a representative. Yeah. They actually have to put together an offer. Yeah. And it has to match the offer they've already received. Exactly. The same terms and conditions. And if that is true, then the offer is accepted, but they are given the additional 120 days to get their financing together. Okay. So I asked that because there were questions about lowballing, but if they lowball, the offer is not accepted, and they go back to the original offer, or they negotiate with the mobile homeowners. Right. Now, their argument is that by putting these additional constraints on the ability of the owner to sell, by having to go through this process of working with the tenants, it creates a – it could deflate the perceived value of the property. So I think that's what they're referring to. And I understand that, except for the fact that the offer made by the tenants, by these mobile home tenants, has to match – Exactly. With the offer that was received. Okay. The question about negotiating good faith, I think, is important on both sides, not just on the mobile home owners, but also on the mobile park owners as well, to negotiate in good faith to allow these tenants to be able to stay. On the timelines, I appreciate your willingness to work with the committee and opposition to see how you can come up with a number. I don't see any serious problem with 120 days initially for the offer to purchase the park. The other question that I had, though, had to do with qualified entities. So these are organizations, maybe nonprofits, that have the ability to purchase a park, mobile home park, and they've already been registered. So if this mobile home park is going to be sold, then these entities, these qualified entities will be told, mobile park is going to be sold. You are eligible to come in and make a purchase. That right And it becomes almost like the designated representative We wanted to provide a vehicle for this because oftentimes this kind of organization could have the tools and the wherewithal and the financing to pull something together in an expeditious manner And presumably they would strike a deal with the residents that would give them priority and make sure that they were able to continue to live there. Very good. Thank you for those clarifications. Thank you. Senator Ashby. Yeah. Thank you, Senator. Count me amongst the people who believe that our only pathway out of the affordability housing crisis that we're in will definitely include manufactured homes. They're a really important part of the conversation moving forward. Also, very understandable. You took all of us on the journey with you, the fire in your area and what happened to folks that you knew and represented in that mobile home park, which I think has informed a lot of, I'll speak for myself, it's informed my position on how owners were displaced, and I think it's really unfortunate. So I understand and appreciate very much what you're trying to do with the bill. I would like to associate my comments with Dr. Weber because I personally think 240 days is too long. That's eight months. That's a really long period of time, especially if you're adding on top of it as you sort of, Under your breath, I think as you answered, Dr. Weber Pearson said that the 120 days is additional for folks to get their funding together and put those pieces together for the proposal. I think I heard you say that trailing off as you were answering her question. So I guess my point to you is I think these are extremely long periods of time. I think what you're trying to do is write and laudable. But we don't want to create a scenario that is untenable for people to actually buy and sell these properties in the state of California. I think you need to do some clarification. Maybe some of this happened because you took amendments, and that can take a minute, too, to then remedy the amendments to the intent of your bill. But these time frames, for me, don't – they're too long. We can't go over 240 with these amendments now. There's no – Let me – I'm going to ask you to clarify something so that I'm not mistaken. So you've got under the bill as currently written, you've got 120 days to cough up a purchase agreement. It's currently amended. It's currently amended. Correct. It's currently amended. If you don't cough up a purchase agreement, all bets are off. That's right. You're done. We're done. You're done. then if you do produce a purchase agreement and it is accepted because it meets the same terms and conditions, I understand there will be probably additional financing conditions, then you've got another 120 days under the bill as amended. So just to make sure that I'm not mistaken, it doesn't mean there's an additional 120 days somewhere in there. So 120 days, cough up purchase agreement, no purchase agreement, all bets are off. If you do call for a purchase agreement, you've got another 120 days to provide the financing and close the deal. Okay. All right. That's correct. Okay. So it's 240 total. Yep. With the two 120 periods. Okay. It's just a really long time. And as the chair has already stated, after the first 120, which the good doctor also said, if you have nothing, then we're done with this and you're moving on. But if you have something, then you purchase agreement. I've been a legal binding contract. And you. Yeah. Then I a little unclear on why you need the second 120 days because you have an agreement I mean in one way it might be helpful because you couldn go over the 120 days But I just a little perplexed at why you need the second 120 days once you already have a legal document that you've entered into together. I mean, you could really look at this from both perspectives. Somebody may need longer than 120 days to put their financing together, somebody else might be able to do it really quickly. I guess I'm just a little confused about that second piece. I appreciate it. Would you mind, through the chair, if Ryan could take the question? So one of the constraints and the reason for those timeline lengths is because there is a need to conduct due diligence. When we look, for example, at the sale of this park, this confidential listing of the park did not include the fact that the park is actually vulnerable to certain geological features like landslides. And so if a resident organization did enter into a purchase agreement, they would still need time in order to hire geological technicians and folks along the lines of, you know, folks who would be able to help them evaluate the site for continued feasibility, making sure that everything as presented in the initial offering is still aligned with everything that they have entered into this contract to purchase. And should that have been misrepresented, residents also do need that additional time to then say, okay, maybe we need to go back to the table and renegotiate. Maybe things were not presented. I guess so, but what you're describing is a breach of contract. I mean, you have a duty to disclose that. So if somebody didn't disclose that in the first 120 days, they would already be in violation of their legal duties to have disclosed something, especially that, a natural disaster. But if residents are still interested in trying to purchase then they might want to still make a renewed bid with the knowledge of new conditions it's kind of like going through and purchasing a single-family home and then wanting to have somebody walk through the property with you and make sure that everything is all right yeah you can express your intent to purchase but until you get back all the feedback from an engineer that says yes this is going to be you know everything is I get that but in that example we haven't that's a bad example because we haven't put those same kind of time restraints. Can we ask the opposition to answer the same question? Sure. Sure. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. And so I want to first say that we agree with the interpretation that if no offers, tendered, or interest is expressed in the first 120 days, game over. It's the park and can be sold. It's that second 120 days that I think we're struggling with as an association at WMA. And I just kind of point you to page 7 of the bill. I forget what code it is. Now, this is not the amended one, but it's 798.83.2. And in Section C of that, it says, management shall not reject a proposed purchase agreement solely on the basis of its inclusion of a financing contingency, the type of financing or payment method, or the time period for closing. So our question is, what happens if that time period for closing extends beyond the second 120 days? That could actually go beyond the 240. So, I mean, that's one of the concerns that we have about this bill is that you could push this out beyond the 240. In theory, if you've... Follow the literal text of the bill. And that's just, that's a very big concern of ours and one of the reasons for our opposition. So does that answer your question, Senator? I mean, it sort of is, it is my question really, I think, at the end, because this is the different way of doing things from how we, as you actually pointed out, than how we would handle other land purchases. So I'm. Well, now we're testifying. I think it is, absent the timing, it is just how commercial purchases occur. In other words, there's a purchase agreement. That purchase agreement is accepted. Here we are, by legislation, we're creating a first right of refusal. That's what we're doing, is we're creating a first right of refusal on the part of the tenants. Which I'm absolutely okay with on the 120 days, but I'm having trouble with the second 120 days. So in a traditional commercial sale is that the two parties agree. Two parties say, okay, you've got X amount of time. And I would encourage the author to say, you know, absent agreement of the parties, that whatever time you choose remains that time. That's fair. So that the parties can extend it and they're not bound by the legislation. Right, because that could hurt too. Well, I actually think that's here in the bill. Because if you keep going, it then explicitly mentions 180 days and it says. 120. Fails to arrange all necessary. It says if the resident fails to arrange all necessary during this period, of course we're now down to 120, or a longer period as the parties may agree to, or fails, then management has no further duties under this article with respect to the proposed sale, lease or transfer of the part. Yeah, but that's the point. They might need longer. Okay. But if that's the case, why do you have the... Thank you. If that's the case under that section, why do you have management shall not reject, or the time period for closing, if the time period for closing is a definite time period? That's really my question. So if the time period for closing extends beyond the statutory period, I would guess you'd want to amend the bill so that the law doesn't sort of indirectly extend that period. Yeah. Or shorten it if you're by or need it. Well, okay. We don't want to shorten it. No, I know. For what you're trying to achieve, this might hurt you, actually. We just don't want – I mean, this is why the good faith language is put in there. We didn't want the owners who don't want to sell under these circumstances to run out the clock in a way that would be disadvantageous. But, you know, I can only imagine. I mean, I think with the assistance of the senators in the committee, we own the language. We're kind of done right in the bill. So I know that Senator Allen will continue to have this conversation. We've addressed several issues that I think you've indicated you will continue to look at. And I know that Senator Wahab has a question and Senator Nilo also has a question. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Senator Wahab. Okay. Senator Reyes, did you want to – we'll come back to you. I'm sorry. You're done. You're done. Okay. Senator Wahab. So, you know, in this building, the conversation about our housing has largely been about supply and demand. And that is the only conversation that seems to get any traction and any conversation in this building regarding safeguards transparency correcting bad actors those conversations seem to die in this committee as well And so I want to flag as much as possible. I have actually traveled to the Palisades and Altadena and went on tour, if you will, with Senator Allen. And this particular site that is the example in the photo that has been shown multiple times, it literally is right next to the water and a massive cliff-like land right above it, right? And when we met with the residents that were impacted by the fires, the individuals that had the most authority were the property owners. And the people that were the most vulnerable in every aspect of this disaster were either renters or mobile home park owners, the residents at those parks, because they do own the actual home. They don't own the land. They rent the land. So I just want to give that distinction. Right. And, you know, this this is really important because even right now I'm running a bill that literally just, again, protects mobile home park tenants from the potential of a sale that just completely destroys their homes and builds commercial multifamily housing. and this type of housing that we're talking about with mobile home parks do give people an opportunity to own and granted it's slightly different because they still have to rent the land. And the individuals, if you all go to these mobile home parks, it's incredibly important to talk to the residents, right? And in my district, we have, myself personally, have roughly 92 mobile home parks, okay? San Jose has roughly 58, 59. Sunnyvale has 16. Hayward has about 10. Fremont has about three. Milpitas has three. Union City has roughly one. So that adds up to roughly 92 mobile home parks, right? And this bill is largely very, very clear. This is not a forced sale. It's not, right? It gives people an opportunity. It's a fair notice and fair opportunity bill that allows for one of California's largest source of naturally affordable home ownership to potentially remain, potentially. And this safeguard of just letting the folks know that this is happening. In the city of San Jose, right, a large metropolitan city, an affluent city, they've actually even protected the zoning of mobile home park zoning just to protect and provide more support there. The individuals, when we have town halls and we talk to constituents and we go into these communities, we represent the people that are living here that are, and I want to be very clear, seniors, veterans, immigrants, disabled individuals, seniors that are taking care of their disabled adult kids, and so much more. Right. These are populations of people that deserve every type of protection, every type of a heads up on a notice. And we're debating these timelines. Right. But if these community members are able to have a handful of folks that are saying OK we going to find some investor that works with us maybe create a co maybe engage with the housing authority of that particular county maybe get some government funding to be able to give us the rights to just own the land or buy. I think that is absolutely appropriate. Absolutely appropriate because we do too much in this building for industry and for the dollar versus the actual people we serve. And that is how I feel this is my biggest frustration in this building. And, you know, when people are talking about the delays and it's taking too long, right? Again, it's the owners still choose whether to sell and still get market value, right? When we're talking about it's a forced sale, it's not. Residents must match the price. It's not like they're getting a massive discount or anything like that. They have to be in similar terms as fair market value, right? It's endless delays is what we're talking about, the bill has deadlines. If the sale doesn't work out, if the requirements aren't met, the owner can walk away, right? And so I fully support this bill. You know, I'm very proud of the work that, you know, Senator Allen and I have actually done together to protect the most vulnerable community members. I think that's what we need to recenter, is who is affected by this. And it's the people that are literally the most vulnerable that just want to be able to live where they have, where they bought a home. So what happens to the property if the land is sold? So we're uprooting the most vulnerable victims here. So I just want to, again, I will make the motion to move this bill. I think it's absolutely appropriate. I think it's the right thing to do, and I think that we need to talk a little bit more about how we protect more people rather than, you know, the takings, if you will. So thank you. All righty. Thank you. Senator Niedo. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're talking about, we've been talking about the ability of people to stay in their home, to maintain the home they've had. That's reflective of the statements that Senator Wahab said. And it's as if a sale of the park means everybody's going to lose their home. I'm missing the logic on that. There's protections for people that live in mobile home parks, and those protections extend regardless of who the owner is. A new owner is subject to the same restrictions of protection of the residents as the selling owner was. So I'm not sure that I fully understand that seemingly foregone conclusion that the sale of the park means people are going to lose their homes. And this, I understand the unique nature of mobile homes. that people own the home but they're renting the space. But they know that when they enter the agreement. That's not something that's all of a sudden realized if the park is going to go up for sale. And my concern about that is it is a fundamental compromise of private property rights. we are telling a private property owner we're putting conditions onto a private property owner that compromise his or her ability to exercise their private property rights which is the fundamental reasons for the opposition. And that's a pretty important tenet of our society, of our free market economy. if we allow such rights to be compromised here, we could allow it elsewhere if we see some injustice to some class that might be compromised by that compromise of the exercise of private property rights. That's my concern with the bill. And again, I'll go back to my first statement. It doesn't automatically mean that people are going to lose their homes. They are protected under current laws, under the new owner as they were the old owner. Perhaps you're going to say, well, the only reason somebody would want to buy the property is because they want it for an alternative use. But still, the existing owner could pursue that alternative use only under the protections that are provided by California law of mobile home tenants. So the argument that we're protecting their home just doesn't seem realistic to me, number one. And number two, the violation of private property rights is significant in my mind. Sure. Do you want to respond now or in response? Just a couple of things. First of all, I think folks, and we actually look at a lot of rent control conversations here around this table at this committee, One thing that folks need to know is that the Tenant Protection Act, that caps rental rate hikes, doesn't apply to mobile homes. So perhaps some of the protections that I think you're assuming is extended to these folks are not. You're right. They could sell to a totally different use. You can also have some of these kind of venture capital, private equity types that will come in and jack up the rates to unaffordable levels. So those are the kinds of concerns. We're trying to strike a balance here. I mean, this is – we're saying, okay, let's give these people who live there, their home, the opportunity to match a bona fide offer. Let's give them that opportunity. I understand that there – if you're a strict libertarian with regards to private property rights, I could see why you'd have concerns about this. But we're not giving, you know, unlimited rights to the tenants in this case. We're giving them some ample opportunity. And we can talk about the time frame and all the things we discussed earlier. But just a fighting chance to come back with a real offer to that landlord and offer them the same amount of money so as to be able to keep themselves in their homes at their own terms. That's what we're asking to do here. So if you're a strict laissez-faireist, I totally understand the concern. But we're trying to strike a balance here that ultimately will not leave these landlords high and dry. They're going to get paid a considerable amount of money. They're going to get paid what they would be getting paid otherwise. But we're providing the folks that have actually been living there for a long time the opportunity to stay. That's the concept. But if you disagree with that core concept, then obviously we're not going to come to an accord. I'm just guessing that Cerenillo has not changed his mind. Just guessing. But I appreciate the discussion. Good. I appreciate you. Senator Reyes. I just want to comment on the opposition. I appreciated the comment from the gentleman who spoke earlier. He didn't come in and say, absolutely not, we don't want to do this. He just had concerns about some of the timelines, and I appreciate your willingness to work with them. I think that, you know, as Senator Wahab has discussed, keeping people in their home is extremely important. Yeah. These are tenants that have been paying for years, and I'm saying decades because I have many of them in my district as well. Yes, I want to be able to protect the owner's ability to sell. That's the American dream. You purchase something, and you should be able to sell it at some point. And we're just saying just do one extra step to protect the people who have been your faithful tenants. Those protections that Senator Nilo talked about, they're not going to be the same with a new purchaser. The new purchaser does not have the same obligation to those tenants that the current owner has. The new owner can do, just as the senator, as the author has mentioned, they can increase the price for the site, for the rental, to a point where it's no longer affordable. It's no longer the issue for the prior owner. The prior owner is done. But just this transition, and again, I do applaud you in your position, not saying absolutely not, you're taking away all my rights. You're saying I have concerns about some of this. As we transition in this sale, it's going to be a sale price that has to match what the private industry has offered. terms and conditions, as I said earlier. So I just wanted to say that I appreciated that, and I appreciate the author's willingness to work on this. I think it's a righteous bill. I think it's an important protection for those tenants, and I want you to continue and certainly work with the opposition. I know that you will. Thank you. Other comments or questions? Seeing none. Okay, Senator Rosso. Just one. I want to add how much I appreciate the effort to protect affordable housing. We need more affordable housing than straight-out market-rate housing. We should do both. I've never said don't do the other. We have to do more to protect what already exists as affordable housing, and we need to build more affordable housing. I see nothing here that takes away from anyone's ability to sell and make a profit and do all of that. But another thing we saw from the fires was these were real communities that stuck together. They helped each other out. They watched out for each other. And that's all that I think these communities want to do as well. So thank you very much for the bill. Thank you, Senator. All righty. Thank you. Seeing no other questions or comments, we'd like to close. No, I just appreciate this thoughtful conversation. and both the proponents and opponents amongst my colleagues, we will work on this. I invite and encourage real dialogue as we try to get to striking that balance. I mean, I think we recognize that this is a private market. These folks do deserve an opportunity to make money, but we also want to make sure we preserving people rights to stay in their homes and their ability to stay in their homes if they can come up with a bona fide competitive offer So with that, in that spirit, I'd love to work with everybody and ask for an aye vote. I think Senator Wahab wanted to move the bill. Senator Wahab moves the bill. Just one final comment. I appreciate your flexibility, and I made a comment earlier about writing the bill in committee. I know you've gotten a number of suggestions, and I also know that you're a person of your word, and that in terms of, for example, the reciprocal good faith, and in terms of making sure that there's clarity, that you will take all those to heart. And with that— I'd like to work with the committee on that. And we will continue to work on that. And with that, Committee Assistant Porter, would you call the roll? This is file number 7, SB 1092. The motion is do pass as amended to Senate Housing. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo no Allen Allen I Ashby Ashby I Caballero Durazo Durazo I Laird Reyes Reyes I Stern Stern I Valaderas Wahab Wahab I Weber Pearson Weber Pearson I Weiner. 8 to 1. 8 to 1. We're going to put that on call. And I see Senator Allen is departing and Senator Becker is here. Senator Becker, file number 4, SB 911. The floor is yours. After Senator Becker, we're going to ask for Senator Arrageen to appear. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm presenting SB 911. This is pertaining to inspections of homes in very high wildfire severity zones to ensure compliance with defensible space standards. I won't go through, because I know you all are aware of the increase in destructive fires. But right now, there's more than 2 million California households, approximately one in four residential structures in California. California, so that's one in four residential structures in California, are located within or in proximity of high or extreme fire risk areas as identified by CAL FIRE, one in four residential structures. Overwhelming data suggests that the two most important factors in protecting those homes from wildfires are, number one, the selection of building materials, and two, the maintenance of vegetation and other flammable materials in order to establish adequate defensible space. Additionally, insurance industry has told us time and time again they are unlikely to insure homes in high-fire threat severity zones without compliance with defensible space standards. In 2019, legislature approved legislation requiring a sale of real property that is located in high-fire severity zones to provide to the buyer documentation stating that the buyer is in compliance with fire defense-based standards or agree that the buyer will bring the home into compliance within a year of the sale. While sale transactions are an ideal time to bring homes up to code, they're flying the ointment. There's no really way – there's been sort of a loophole and a failure to alert the relevant fire enforcement agencies that the agreement has been reached. So while I agree there's broad agreement to fix this and this bill is doing that, currently in the bill, it requires the seller upon sale to notify the local fire enforcement agency. The realtors California Association of Realtors have expressed concerns with this approach I been sitting down with the realtors the escrow agents the land title companies to find a way through this The solution we are now discussing and I want to just share this with you because this is not the bill in print The solution we were discussing would modify what's called the preliminary change of ownership report, which is followed by the transferee. And per a planned amendment, that will now include a notification of an agreement that the buyer has agreed to bring the property into compliance with defensible state standards. So we've, I think, found another way to do this that will make everyone happy. What I'm asking for today is the committee's indulgence to move the bill forward, and I commit to making the necessary amendments before the bill is heard in the Assembly Committee. That's what we need to do for timing purposes. So happy to go through any of that. Afterwards, here to testify on the bill itself is Michael Wara, Senior Director for Policy, Sustainability Accelerator at the Stanford Door School of Sustainability, and Steve Albert, Deputy Fire Marshal at the Contra Costa Fire Protection District. Thank you, Senator Becker and members of the committee for inviting me to testify today on SB 9-11. I'm speaking in my individual capacity, but lead a team at Stanford that works on wildfire policy in partnership with the state of California. Sorry, Michael Wara. I'm the director of the Climate and Energy Policy Program at Stanford, as well as a senior director for policy at our Sustainability Accelerator. So I come to speak in support of SB 9-11, and I want to sort of speak at the high level. I think it's really important to understand the context in which this bill arises. Bringing homes into compliance with defensible space statute is a really challenging endeavor for our firefighters across the state, whether they are CAL FIRE or local fire agencies. And in practice, it's been found that change of ownership is a real opportunity to make change so that over time, the number of homes that are in compliance with Section 4291 as it is evolving, and we all know that's something that the Board of Forestry is continually trying to improve in a balanced way, but over time, more of the homes in the high-fire risk communities are really substantively in compliance with the code. Of course, homes fall out of compliance because plants grow. It's no one's fault. It's not anyone's intention. but it can create a really challenging dynamic between firefighters and homeowners that is absent at the point of a transaction because the rosebush that someone has fallen in love with who lives in the house matters less once they've sold the house. To the new owner, that rosebush is not something that they planted with their mother 10 years ago and that they're deeply committed to the existence of. And so it creates flexibility and an opportunity to make change, to create public safety and space for our firefighters to work under emergency situations. This bill is an attempt, as Senator Becker described, to close what has in effect become a bit of a loophole in very well-intentioned legislation that was enacted after the 17 and 18 fire seasons. And I urge your support in seeing this bill out of committee. Thank you. Thank you. Next witness. Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm Steve Albert. I serve as Deputy Fire Marshal for Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and also here to represent Cal Chiefs Association and Fire Districts Association of California Thank you Senator Becker On behalf of Cal Chiefs and the Fire Districts Association we are pleased to support SB 911 The bill addresses that critical gap in wildfire safety by strengthening the defensible space compliance. Under the current law, properties may remain, as we stated before, not meeting those defensible space standards for up to one year, including during peak fire season with limited mechanisms to ensure that timely compliance. SB 911 improves that framework by creating a clear notification and accountability process between the sellers, assessors, and fire agencies to ensure properties are brought into compliance. Just as importantly, it provides the tools needed to implement this effectively, allowing for flexible verification methods, including third-party and remote inspections, prioritization based off of risk, and cost recovery for local agencies. It's a practical, scalable approach that improves defensible space compliance while recognizing the operational realities faced by fire agencies across the state. For these reasons, Cal Chiefs and FDAC respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Others in support of SB 911, please approach the microphone. Oh, seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the opposition. Oh. Assemblymember Woods, welcome back. Good afternoon. Jim Wood, California Strategies, representing Fireside, a California-based wildfire risk management company based in Marin County, in support. As a private citizen and someone who knows a little bit about the legislation, this is the senator's working on. I appreciate him taking this effort up. Thank you. Thank you. Assemblymember Wood, appreciate it. All right. Others in support. Hi. Good afternoon. Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. I'm pleased to let everybody know that we've had several productive conversations with the senator and his staff in the last few weeks. And although we currently have an opposed and less amended position on the bill, I look forward to removing that opposition once the proposed amendments are in print. Thank you. I think, indeed, Senator Becker has committed to removing your opposition. Yes. Is that accurate? Yeah. All right. Thank you. Okay. Others in support? Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed, SB 9-11, please approach. Seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the committee. Move the bill. Senator Ashby has moved the bill. Senator Reyes has a question. Only because we received so little in writing, I want to confirm it is the obligation of the seller or of the buyer to notify. to get the notification that everything has been done? So what we're proposing going forward is going to modify an existing document. There already goes in the process, which is filed by the transferee. So it's called the Preliminary Change of Ownership Report. So it's a report that's already filed. So the changes, rather than having the realtors, say, for example, be responsible to do it, either the buyer or seller realtors, it's going to be part of a report that it's going to be an additional, basically, checkoff in a report that already goes through this preliminary change of ownership. It might no say it's filed by the transferee, which is the buyer. So it's part of a report already filed by the buyer. And I do want to say that the example given By your witness about this rose bush, it means nothing to the buyer, but it may mean everything to the seller. That was a great example. Thank you. All right. Other questions or comments? Senator Reyes has moved the bill. Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Ashton has moved the bill. All right. Would you like to close? Yeah, thank you. Thanks for the author of one of the previous work on this. And, you know, we're all trying to get to this point of figuring out how do we provide the right incentives, the right enforcement, the right dollars to create the defensible space that we all need. I believe this bill is an important step in that direction. I want to thank my team for also working very hard on this and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. All right. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number four, SB 911. The motion is due pass to the Senate Local Government Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo. Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen. Ashby. Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero. Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern. Aye. Stern, aye. Valadarez. Wahab. Weber Pearson. Wiener. 6-0. 6-0. Put that on call. Okay. Thank you. This is Senator Durazzo, agenda item number nine, SB 1160. You may proceed when you reach the microphone. Wrong way. How long have you been here? I just had a martini that time. Well, let's all have that. Yeah, let's all have fun. Bring a thermos. What the hell? No, no, no. Here, we're a little bit more refined. It's WTH. I'm sorry. Okay. I'm ready to go, sir. Proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 1160, okay. Chair and members, SB 1160 brings transparency and accountability to California's eviction process, an issue directly tied to our growing housing and homelessness crisis. Reports have shown that over half of renters in California are burdened by housing costs, and in just the past decade, homelessness has increased by 53%. We know that eviction is often the tipping point into homelessness, but without public data, we're essentially navigating, implementing homelessness prevention without a map. This bill works to fix the problem by requiring the Judicial Council to collect and publish anonymized zip code level data on eviction filings and outcomes each year. This data includes how many tenants and landlords are represented by legal counsel outcomes of cases and how many end in default With this data policymakers like ourselves legal service providers and local governments can identify patterns in eviction filings and outcomes like default between zip codes, track local and statewide progress on preventing homelessness, and develop smarter, more targeted solutions based on the needs of a given neighborhood and community. It's about targeting support where it's needed and creating systems that are transparent and responsive to our needs. Today, we have the pleasure of hearing from Kyle Nelson, Director of Policy and Advocacy with SAGE, and Tina Rosales-Torres, Policy Advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. Great. Well, thank you so much. Thank you, Chair Umberg and members of the committee. Like Senator Garazzo said, my name is Kyle Nelson. I'm Director of Policy and Advocacy at Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, based in South Central Los Angeles. My support of SB 1160 is rooted in over a decade of experience gathering and analyzing this data using public records requests. And I'd like to say that I haven't taken this journey alone. I've been assisted by incredible staff from Judicial Council and Superior Court systems across the state. As part of this process, I learned about the outcome categories used by judicial counsel and was able to adapt them to reflect categories used by policymakers. These include default outcomes, dismissal outcomes, outcomes that have been negotiated, and outcomes produced at trial. We compiled this information into a novel publicly available data set spanning fiscal years 2010 to 2024. and I've provided this information to elected officials and government agencies, journalists, eviction defense lawyers, housing justice advocates, and academics around the state. And this data is also being published in a report that will be released on April 21st that talks about trends in eviction filings and outcomes across the state. This info has also been used to enact and implement right-to-counsel legislation in the city of Los Angeles in L.A. County, and to support tenant protection policy advocacy efforts in jurisdictions across California. And this is in some of our most pressing moments, like the COVID-19 pandemic and the wildfires in Los Angeles County. This data is primarily aggregated filings and outcomes at the county level. We currently have it for 50 of 58 counties. Now that sounds great until we think about the fact that the counties that don't report contain over 54 percent of California's tenancies and 57 percent of its eviction filings. Now this data is helpful but it's limited and that's why we need SB 1160. SB 1160 helps us understand what actually happens. You could wrap up, please. What's that? You could wrap up your testimony. Yeah. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I'm testifying in support of SB 1160, and I'm asking this committee to vote aye. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Ready? You may proceed. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Dino Rosales-Torres. I use she, her pronouns, and I'm a policy attorney with Western Center on Law and Poverty. I have had the privilege of working with most of you here on tenant protections for the past five years and the number one question I get without fail is what does the data say and my response is usually we have some of it but not all of it so I share what we have and what SB what this bill is doing is closing the gap bridging the gap between the data that we have and the data that we need I know every one of you want good governance. You want transparency and accountability. And that's all this bill is going to do because it will allow us to determine whether the bills that we all work so hard to pass are actually effective. Are those solutions addressing the problems that we wish to resolve? And that is why we need this aggregated data by zip code. I will share one example. We all worked on the COVID-19 eviction protections, the emergency rental assistance program, and we required data transparency. Because of that, we were able to determine whether or not the program was effective as it was moving through the process, and we made tweaks where necessary. That was the number one most effective emergency rental assistance program in the state, providing over $5 billion to over 370,000 households. With the data that we are requesting this bill, it's simply going to determine whether the solutions that we're offering are actually solutions. And just one note on the privacy concerns, because the data is aggregated by zip code and it's essentially – aggregated is a big word for me. But it's essentially going to remain privatized, so it's not like we'll be able to find an individual person or an individual homeowner and figure out what's going on with their housing. It's just going to give us a broad picture of what is happening in that area. And with that, I urge you to also support this bill. Thank you. Others in support? Please approach the microphone. Good afternoon, Mark. You see you on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Ruth Sosa Martinez on behalf of PowerCA Action in support. Good afternoon, Natalie Spivak with Housing California in support. Thank you. Thank you. And seeing no others approaching the microphone, primary witnesses in opposition. Good afternoon. Kevin Rogers with the California Association of Realtors and we oppose. Thank you. Others in opposition? Bring it back to the committee. Questions? Comments? Senator DeRosa. Senator Reyes. I'm sorry. On the DeRosa bill. I just want to thank you for this. And I think, as your witness said, we always want to know what the data is. I mean, how many people are being evicted? How many go to trial? How many trials are dismissed? And we don't have this in the aggregate form. And it's time that we did. So I thank you for bringing this forward. And with that, I would move the bill. Other questions or comments? It's been moved. The realtors indicated opposition. I thought it was opposed unless amended. Evidently not. Have you had discussions with them? Not yet. Very close to today hearing Yes it was It arrived rather late It is in the committee analysis So we haven had that opportunity because of the timing We glad to sit down with them of course Would the realtors like to make any comment relative to... Okay. So any other comments or questions from members of the committee? If not, we have a motion by Senator Reyes. Please call. Oh, I'm sorry. Senator DeRazzo, you may close. I ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That was an excellent close. Please call the roll. This is file item number 9, SB 1160. The motion is to pass to Senate Appropriations. Umberg? Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Valladeras? Aye. Valladeras, aye. Wahab? Weber Pearson? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 7-0. 7-0. We will keep that open. And Senator Durazo, you are up again. This is file item 10, SB 1399. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill preserves California's ability to shine a light on conditions inside the immigration detention facilities. Under existing law, AB 103 established an important state oversight framework requiring the California Department of Justice to review immigration detention facilities and report on conditions of confinement, standard of care, and due process provided to detained individuals. But that authority is set to sunset on July 1, 2027. SB 1399 removes the sunset provision and ensures the California Department of Justice continues the important work of inspecting and reporting on the conditions within the detention facilities. It's necessary because detention facilities remain places where health, safety, and civil rights concerns are too easily go unseen. We have the responsibility to understand what is happening inside these facilities and ensure that the treatment of detained individuals is documented, reviewed, and made transparent so that we can be aware, we can know, and be assured of the well-being of all Californians. Since AB 103 was enacted, California Department of Justice has issued reports several years in a row, and they are currently in the process of finalizing a fifth report. These reports examine the conditions through site visits, review of logs, et cetera, et cetera. They have documented serious concerns, inadequate medical and mental health care, unsafe conditions, and due process failures. There must be accountability and there must be oversight. This bill ensures California does not lose one of the few tools it has to monitor these facilities and document the truth about what is happening inside. Today we have the pleasure of hearing from Vilma Palma Solana, a supervising Deputy Attorney General in the Civil Rights Enforcement Division at Cal DOJ, and Frances Davila, Manager of advocacy with the Acacia Center for Justice to speak in support and help answer questions. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Vilma Palma Solana, and I'm a supervising Deputy Attorney General in the Civil Rights Enforcement Section at the California Department of Justice, and here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta. The Attorney General is proud to sponsor SB 1399. Since the legislature enacted AB 103 in 2017, our department has been reviewing civil immigration detention facilities, and I oversee the team that conducts this work. The review of the seven privately operated detention facilities is critical to bring transparency about the conditions in which immigrants are being held, and that is why it's critically important to permanently extend this program through SB 1399. Through our reviews and reports, we have brought to light issues with medical care, mental health care, the use of solitary confinement, and how conditions affect due process rights. With respect to medical care, we have found inadequate treatment for those with chronic conditions, improper diagnosis, poor prescription practices, delays in the provision of care, and insufficient staffing. We have found disproportionate use of force against individuals with mental health diagnosis and the use of solitary confinement to manage those with mental illnesses. We have found that facilities do not have adequate language interpretation services and do not offer meaningful social and recreational programming. We have also found obstacles to adequate legal due process, including phones that shut down for long periods of time, inadequate access to legal materials, obstacles to receiving and sending mail, and barriers to communicating with attorneys. Last year, when the California City Detention Facility opened, we inspected it and found that the facility opened when it was not ready. There was inadequate staffing, numerous complaints about the quality and quantity of food and water. And detainees our team interviewed, including elderly women, were visibly distraught as they recounted for our team the frigid conditions they faced in the facility without adequate clothing. We found many similar issues at the Adelanto Ice Processing Center because the facility was unprepared for the population explosion during the Trump administration's immigration enforcement surge in Southern California in June 2025. Thank you. If you'd wrap up, that'd be great. Thank you. Thank you so much for your support. Thank you. All right. Next witness, please. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Frances Davila, and I'm an immigration attorney with the Acacia Center for Justice. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of SB 1399. This bill concerns California's authority to continue reviewing and reporting on conditions inside immigration detention facilities. Since January 2025, 46 people have died in immigration custody, the highest number in over two decades. 2026 is on track to exceed that with 13 reported deaths, some of which occurred in California. That makes independent state oversight not optional but essential. While immigration enforcement is a federal issue, the health, safety, and dignity of people detained in California directly impact our communities. California has directed CalDOJ to inspect detention facilities and issue public reports on conditions of confinement, medical care, and due process. But that authority expires in 2027. SB 1399 simply ensures this oversight does not disappear. These reports matters because what happens inside these facilities is often hidden. In January 2023, a man detained at Golden State Annex wrapped a sheet around his neck in an apparent suicide attempt. Yet staff dismissed the incident saying he was playing with it There was no documented suicide review no trauma follow and no formal response In 2023 alone 41 rape incidents were reported at Otay Mesa yet survivors were denied trauma care appropriate referrals and investigations And on February 27, 2026, Alberto Gutierrez-Reyes, a husband and father, died at Adelanto. He was repeatedly denied medical care despite living with diabetes. His death was preventable as diabetes is a common treatable condition when proper medical attention is provided. Reports by DOJ inform the legislature, advocates, and the general public about the realities of these facilities and what, if anything, can be done to pursue accountability. Thank you. All right. Others in support of SB 1399, please approach the microphone. Good afternoon chair and members Karen Stout here on behalf of UnidosUS. We're in support. Thank you. Thank you. Jackie Gonzalez, co-executive director of immigrant defense advocates, proud co-sponsor and support. Thank you. Thank you. Others in support, please approach. Seeing no one else approaching, let's talk to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1399, please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to committee for questions. Comments? Questions? Comments? Senator Reyes. I want to begin by thanking the Attorney General and his staff, his team, for the inspections, for the oversight. So important. People have died there. You've mentioned so many atrocities. This should not be happening in California. And I'm so glad AB 103 had passed to allow the Attorney General to do this. and I appreciate all the work that he and his team have done. So please thank him on our behalf. And to the author, I thank you for bringing the bill forward. I think it's extremely important that we make it permanent. The Attorney General should have the ability to do these inspections and do the oversight for the good of all Californians. It isn't just our immigrants because they are part of our communities and we have to be able to make sure that if they're going to be held, that they are held in a humane way and not have harm come upon them. So I thank you for bringing this forward. And with that, I would move the bill. All right. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, Senator Reyes has moved the bill. Senator Rosso, would you like to close? Thank you. I just want to end by reminding us that these are people who have not been found guilty of crimes. This is civil detention. And to hear the report, just examples of the report given by the Department of Justice really should be shocking to all of us. The least we can do is to continue. There are many other things that we need to do, but the least we could do is to continue the authority of the Department of Justice. So thank you all very much, and I urge an aye vote. Thank you, Senator Rosso. Committee of Assistant Porter, please call the roll. Yes, Senator Reyes made the motion, yes. This is file item number 10, SB 1399. The motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadez? Wahab, Weber Pearson, Wiener. 5 5 put that on call Thank you Thank you Mr Chair All right you now seeking desperately seeking authors I think it was a book called that All right, we can go through the count. But let me ask Senator Blakesphere or Senator Allen to come down to the committee. I was Senator Arrogean. Oh, is Senator Arrogean here? No. No, okay. Senator Arrogean, yes, we'd like him as well. We don't want to be discriminatory. Okay. All right. Let's open the roll and go through the votes that have been taken. On the consent calendar, chair voting aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Stern? Wiener? 9-0 on the consent calendar. 9-0, back on call. File item number 1, SB 934. The motion was due past the Senate Appropriations. Chair voting aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Laird? Stern? 8-2. 8-2, back on call. File item number 4, SB 9-11. Chair voting aye. Allen. Caballero. Caballero aye. Laird. Valadeiras. I'll be back. Valadeiras aye. Wahab. I will not let him be. Weber Pearson. Wiener. 8-0. 8-0. Back on call. File item number 7, SB 1092. Chair voting aye. Caballero? Caballero aye. Laird? Valadez? Valadez no. Weiner? 9 to 2. 9 to 2. Put that on call. File Item 9, SB 1160. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Allen? Laird? Stern? Wahab? Weber Pearson? 8-0. 8-0. Put that on call. File Item 10, SB 1399, Chair voting aye. Nilo, Allen, Laird, Stern, Valadeiras, Wahab, Weber Pearson, Wiener. Ten. Ten. All right. 5-0. I'm sorry? 5-0. 5-0 on call. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Senator Aragene. Yours will get out faster now. File item number three, SB 1166. Senator Aragene, thank you. I can see you ran over here. I appreciate that. The floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Please present SB 1166, which would authorize AC Transit employees to access the Public Employee Relations Board, or PERB, for adjudicating unfair labor practices. As we know, PERB is a labor management relations entity for a vast majority of California's public sector employees, ensuring that claims of unfair labor practices and disputes are resolved, enforcing collective bargaining laws and appropriate remedies. In recent years, the legislature has authorized employees of numerous transit agencies to access PERB, including BART, the Sacramento Regional Transit District, I will be remiss in the absence of Senator Lair to say the Santa Cruz Metro Transit District and the Valley Transportation Authority. AC Transit is one of the few districts under a separate framework requiring labor disputes to be resolved through the courts and not per. This will save costs, ensure access to justice, and with me to testify and support the bill is Sultana Adams and Nick Cobell from ASME Local 3916, representing members of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District employees and respectfully ask your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you. All right. First witness, please. Hello, my name is Sultana Adams. I'm a transportation supervisor at AC Transit and a proud member of AFSCME Local 3916. I'm here today to urge the California State Senate to support SB 1166, a bill that would place AC Transit employees under PERB jurisdiction, the same rights and protections already afforded to millions of public sector workers across California. This bill is about fairness, consistency, and modernizing AC Transit's labor relations system. PERB has decades of specialized expertise in public sector law. It provides clearer rules, trusted processes, and faster, more consistent outcomes. For both the union and AC Transit District, PERB would resolve critical issues like bargaining unit determination, benefits disputes, unfair labor practices in a way that is efficient, transparent, and cost-effective. Right now, AC Transit employees are governed by the Public Utilities Code, a system that is outdated, costly, and extremely time-intensive. and unfortunately, recent actions by AC Transit Management show exactly why change is needed. Most recently, the district attempted to unilaterally impose changes to our health care benefits, co-pays, and coverage without entering the collective bargaining process. That is a clear unfair labor practice, and it directly impacts our members, families, as well as our ability to serve the public. This bill would give my local as well as AC Transit a better path forward. It would help resolve issues early, reduce the need for expensive arbitrations, and keep our focus exactly where it belongs, delivering reliable public transit to the communities we serve. As Senator Adeguene already mentioned, many of our peer transit agencies already have transitioned to PERB in recent years. This is just simply the next step in the modernization trends. Our workers deserve the same rights, protections, and fair processes as our peer organizations. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Next witness, please. Thank you, Senator Araguin. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Nick Coble. I'm a data engineer at AC Transit and a proud member of ASME Local 3916. I'm here to ask for your support of SB 1166. At its core, this bill is about fairness and modernization. Millions of public sector employees across California already operate under PERB. AC transit workers should be no different. Right now, when issues come up between employees and the management, the process is slow, it's expensive, and it's often unclear. That makes it harder to resolve problems quickly and get back to what matters most, which is serving the public. PERV offers a better path. It brings clear rules, experienced oversight, and a consistent process for handling disputes. That means faster resolutions, fewer costly arbitrations, and a more stable working relationship between the union and the district. This isn't about creating conflict. It's about preventing it. When both sides have a trusted system in place, issues can be addressed early and handled fairly. We've already seen other transit agencies move in this direction. Agencies like BART, VTA, SAC-RT, Santa Cruz Metro, they're all under PERB. AC Transit should be part of that same standard. And to be clear, the need for this is real. We've seen recent actions where changes to health care benefits were attempted without going through proper bargaining processes. That kind of situation creates unnecessary tension and uncertainty for workers. SB 1166 helps to fix that. It gives us the tools to ensure good faith negotiations and a fair process moving forward At the end of the day this bill helps both workers and management do their jobs better It allows us to focus less on disputes and more on delivering reliable transit service to communities we serve Thank you for your support and your attention in this consideration. Thank you very much. Other witnesses wish to testify? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Jan Sommeli with AFSCME California. We are proud co-sponsors. Thank you. All right. Anyone else in support of SB 1166? Here we go. Sorry, Mr. Chair, I took the long route. Hunter Stern, IBW to Local 1245. We have approximately 40 members at AC Transit, and we strongly support the bill. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Anyone else in support? Saying no one else approaching. If you're opposed, SB 1166. No one approaching. Let's bring it back to committee for questions, comments. Questions, comments? Senator S. I have to tell you that when I first started to read this, I thought, what is the senator doing just for his county? This is not fair until I read that most of the others are already doing this. And this is the absolute fairest. There are so few public transit districts whose unionized employees don't have access to PERB and to their expertise in labor law, and that's such a disservice. I'm glad that you're bringing this bill, and with that, I would move the bill. All right. Other questions or comments? Seeing none. Senator Reyes has moved the bill. Would you like to close? Expectably ask your aye vote. Excellent close. All right. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number 3, SB 1166. The motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations. Umberg? I'm burger I need low no you know no Allen Ashby Ashby I Caballero Caballero I to Russell to Russell I layered Reyes Reyes eyes stern Valadere's Valadere's no Wahab Weber Pearson Wiener five to two five to put that on call. I see Senator Blakespeare is here for file number 5, SB 1237. After Senator Blakespeare, we have one remaining author. That's Senator Allen. He's on the committee, right? So he'll certainly be here. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, colleagues. I'm pleased to author SB 1237, a priority measure for the Women's Caucus that is sponsored by Power California Action. This bill will strengthen enforcement of California's pay equity reporting laws to ensure that the Civil Rights Department, CRD, can effectively combat wage discrimination. California has led the nation on equal pay, but our laws are only as strong as their enforcement. Wage disparities persist. For every dollar that a man earns, women earn only 81 cents, with larger gaps for women of color. For example, for every $1 that a white man makes, a black woman earns 58 cents, and a Latino woman earns 44 cents. To better identify and address these inequities California requires companies with 100 or more employees to report annual pay to CRD disaggregated by race ethnicity sex and job category However the Department is missing paid data for at least 400 workers SB 1237 will strengthen enforcement by increasing the penalty for repeat noncompliance from $200 to $1,000 per employee. Increased penalties will serve as a meaningful deterrent against noncompliance and generate additional resources for more proactive enforcement. This bill ensures employers can't treat paid data reporting as optional, and it gives CRD the tools it needs to effectively combat wage discrimination. It's a critical step toward ending persistent wage disparities and delivering real pay equity for women. With me, I have Ruth Sosa-Martinez on behalf of Power California Action. Thank you, Senator, and good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Ruth Sosa-Martinez on behalf of Power CA Action. We work with young adults across the state to advance economic opportunity, and we're proud co-sponsors of SB 1237, because although California has the strongest equal pay laws in the country, enforcement is just not keeping up with those laws. In 2023, the most recent year for which data is available, pay data for approximately 7.9 million workers was reported to the Civil Rights Department. However, in that same year, around 8.3 million people were employed by businesses that are subject to this law, which means that the CRD is missing pay data for at least 400,000 employees due to non-compliance with reporting requirements. Currently, the penalty is so low that large companies often treat this as just the cost of doing business. And when employees don't report, the state really can't identify where those wage disparities lie. This bill makes it clear that compliance isn't optional, but it's required and expected of all businesses. For every dollar a man earns, women earn just 81 cents to that dollar, and those gaps are even wider, as the senator mentioned, for black and Latina women. For the young people that we work with at PowerCA Action, entering the workforce that already has significant wage gaps is deeply personal. These disparities start very early in their lives, and they compound over time, shaping their ability to build long-term financial stability for themselves and for their families. We hope to have our young advocate here. Her name is Kylie Barker to share her experience directly. And unfortunately, she was unable to take time off work. Missing a day's worth of pay was really detrimental to her and her family. But I would love to share a quote from her. She stated, I moved to the Central Valley straight after high school. And even after several years, I still haven't been able to find stable employment. I've had to rely on short-term jobs where there's little transparency around pay or consistency in wages, and it often feels like I'm just expected to accept whatever I'm given because the limited opportunities there is available. Without clear reporting and enforcement, it's hard to know if I'm being paid fairly or to do anything about it if I'm not. Young workers like me deserve transparency and fair pay from the start, so we have a real shot. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks. You urge an aye vote. Yes. Yes. Got it. Okay. Others in support, SB 1237, please approach. Hi, good afternoon. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality hope how to co-sponsor the bill as of a few minutes ago, so we're really eager to see this bill move forward and urge your support. Thank you. All righty, thank you. Anyone else in support of SB 1237? Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Emmy Quevedo and I a student at McGeorge School of Law in strong support of this bill As for all Latinas who are being paid less we ask for our support Thank you very much Appreciate it Justin Breen 3L from McGeorge School of Law Thank you for your support Thank you. All right. Anyone else in support? Seeing no one else approaching, let's now talk to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1237, please come forward. Going once, twice, three times. All right. Let's bring it back to committee for questions by committee members. Questions by committee members? Senator Ashby has moved the bill. Seeing no questions or comments, would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Another great close. All right. Thank you. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number 5, SB 1237. The motion is due pass to Senate Appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Durazo aye. Laird. Reyes. Reyes aye. Stern. Valadez. Wahab. Wahab aye. Weber Pearson. Wiener. 6-1. 6-1. We'll put that on call. If this is Senator Allen, we'll all be very happy. Oh, it was the wind. He left. All right. So we have one bill left by Senator Allen. So we'll wait patiently. You're your boss. I'm going to move up to the front at the same time. Why don't we, Committee Assistant Porter, why don't we just go through the roll for those who have not voted. These folks, I accede to the majority over here on my left. All right. Yeah, they get uppity. So, all right. Committee of the Supporter, if you would call the roll, that'd be great. Oh, okay. Chief Counsel Estrada. Yes. Okay. We're going to start with the consent calendar. Alan Stern Wiener are you gonna put it back on yeah put it back on call what is it that's the consent calendar but I know what's the vote oh sorry nine to zero nine zero put it back on call all right the next one is file item Item number one, SB 934 by Senator Weiner. Chair voting aye. Allen, Laird, Stern. Okay. Put it back on call. All right. File item number three, SB 1166 by Senator Erdogan. Chair voting aye. Allen, Laird, Stern, Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson, Wiener. That's 6-2. 6-2. Back on call. Members missing. File item number 4, by Senator Becker, SB 911. Chair voting aye. Allen, Laird, Wahab. Aye. Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson, Wiener. That is 9-0. 9-0. Back on call. Next is file item number 5 by Senator Blake Sphere. Chair voting aye. Actually, everybody is here who voted. So Senator, we'll do one more, then Senator Allen will proceed. Go ahead. One more. Okay. File item number seven, SB 1092 by Senator Allen, chair voting aye. Laird, Wiener, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine to two with members missing. Okay. All right. We're going to go with Senator Allen now. Senator Allen, SB 1365, floor is yours. Thank you so much, Mr. Schott. So the fires in Los Angeles destroyed thousands of homes and displaced tens of thousands of people. And to this day, many, many people are still living in temporary housing as long as they navigate the rebuild process. Existing law provides price gouging protection in disaster areas, including prohibitions on raising rental rates more than 10 percent above the prices charged immediately prior to the emergency. However, during attempts by the city attorney in Los Angeles to enforce price-gouging protections in L.A., some loopholes then became readily apparent. Existing price-gouging law defines rental lease terms to have a maximum lease of 12 months. However, some rentals have been listed for longer than 12 months to circumvent post-disaster rental protections. Existing law provides price gouging protections for short-term rentals leased in daily rates at the time of the disaster declaration, but does not provide rent protection if the property is converted to daily rates after the disaster. Additionally, the fires have highlighted a lack of robust enforcement of existing protections against anti-competitive business practices under the Cartwright Act, which is currently only enforceable by the Attorney General and the District Attorneys. There's already evidence of these practices impacting fire survivors in Los Angeles. A Redfin review of lot sales in the fire zones found that approximately 40 percent of fire impacted lots that sell in the Pacific Palisades, Altadena, and Malibu areas have been purchased by real estate developers. Homeowners have reported that investors are making lowball offers that some desperate victims feel forced to accept. The bill would expand Cartwright Protection Enforcement Authority to cities with a population of over 750,000. So that's just the city of L.A., San Francisco, San Diego, and San Jose. It does not change the scope of the Cartwright Act. The bill also requires the city's attorneys to report to both the attorney general and the district attorney explaining any proposed prosecution under the Cartwright Act and allows for the attorney general to take full charge of any investigation or prosecution, if she chooses. The bill enhances existing protections for disaster victims and consumers, by closing lease length and day rate rent gouging loopholes and through expanded enforcement authority to protect from anti-competitive business practices. So testifying in support of the bill today, we have Assistant City Attorney Kevin James from the opposite of L.A. City Attorney Feldstein Soto. Madam, Mr. Chair, nice to see you. Thank you all. As Senator Allen mentioned last year, the Southern California wildfires killed over 30 people and destroyed two communities. Within days two things began to occur One institutional real estate investors swooped in like vultures and began making low ball all cash offers to the homeowners in the area that had just lost their homes In the wake of such a natural disaster, families often face immense pressure to sell. This destabilization creates a large window of vulnerability that companies with opaque and confusing ownership structures looking to take advantage of the disaster can easily step into. Numerous media reports confirm that this disaster acquisition by Wall Street and private equity is not unique to us. According to federal data, institutional investors went from owning fewer than 1,000 single-family homes before 2011 to 450,000 by 2022 and estimated to be over 600,000 today. Our fire victims have asked what we in the city attorney's office can do to protect their communities. After lots of research, our work with Senator Allen determined that expanding the enforcement provisions of the Cartwright Act with SB 1365 to just the four city attorneys with populations over 750,000 would add resources to protect our vulnerable residents from these predatory and collusive schemes. Our current jurisdiction under the Unfair Practices Act is insufficient because it covers specific bad acts attempting to drive out a market rival. but these predators are working with their rivals. It takes the Cartwright Act authority to break up a conspiracy and the collusion. And our existing jurisdiction that we have under the unfair competition law is insufficient because it only allows for injunctive relief and occasional restitution but the Cartwright Act allows for treble damages and attorney's fees. That's a real deterrent for these bad actors. Mere injunctive relief is not. The second thing that occurred was price gouging. In our efforts to enforce the state's existing price gouging law, we found three loopholes. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir, and I would request an aye vote. All right, thank you. Senator Allen did a great job of covering those loopholes. All right, thank you. Senator Allen is grateful. All right. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Watchdog in enthusiastic support. I don't have any more to add. Okay, thank you. Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support. Thank you. All right. Anyone else in support? SB 1365. Please approach the microphone saying no one approaching. Let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1365, now's your time. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I will be brief. My name is Embert Madison on behalf of the California Apartment Association. First, let me state that CAA strongly opposes price gouging after an emergency is declared. In fact, last year, after the tragic fires in Los Angeles, we took out a full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times educating local businesses and property owners about the price gouging law. But we believe that SB 1365 unnecessarily expands California's antitrust law to allow for city attorneys to enforce a set of complex laws more properly handled by our Attorney General. Just a few weeks ago, Attorney General Bonta put out a press release reiterating how important antitrust enforcement is for his office right now. In that press release, Mr. Bonta emphasized how specialized this field of law is. We wholeheartedly agree. Due to this, we do not feel that allowing these four cities to additionally litigate California's antitrust laws will produce uniform enforcement. For these reasons and those outlined in our letter we respectfully request a no vote Thank you All righty thank you Others opposed SB 1365 It a good wobble Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Robert Moutry, California Chamber of Commerce. I will also try to be brief. We are also respectfully opposed SB 1365. Similarly, we're not opposed to any defense suppressed gouging and I want to thank the author for a meeting. I've met with staff and tried to discuss it. But our concerns here are limited to this change that expansion of the Cartwright Act to the cities, we think, is something which is obviously we would disagree, but we do not think is needed. And we have concerns about inconsistent enforcement and costs there. Thank you. It won't take more time. All right. Thank you. Others opposed? SB 1365? Now's your chance? All right. Let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members. Seeing somebody just moved the bill. Senator Drosso moved the bill? Yes. Okay. Well, I'm sorry. Senator Nielo has a question. Not so much a question, two comments. With regard to price gouging, certainly that is a huge issue in an area where there's been a disaster, and rental units can be one egregious example of that. But there can be alleged price gouging with commodities that become scarce in an area where the demand for that commodity significantly increases to attract that same commodity from another area where it could be selling for less there but more in the area of the disaster. And price gouging can be alleged in those instances. That's one concern that I have. But more importantly, and my concern, really fundamental concern with the bill, is we are addressing a specific circumstance in a specific area of the state and applying it all over the state. And that doesn't make sense to me. All right. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, Senator DeRosso has moved the bill. Senator Allen, would you like to close? Yeah, I appreciate the comment. All I will say is that we have routinely extended certain prosecutorial authorities to our largest city attorneys because they do have the office capacity and size and scope and the size of constituencies to be able to handle these kinds of cases. That's all that we're doing here. We're just trying to make sure that the same robust discussion, both pre and in court, would have to still be met in order to have a finding of price gouging. This doesn't change any of the standards. With that, I respect you to the aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. Ms. Porter, it's been moved. Please call the roll. This is file item number 8, SB 1365. The motion is due pass to Senate Public Safety. Umberg? Aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valaderas? No. Valaderas, no. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? 9 to 2. 9 to 2. We going to put that on call for a moment We going to go through the roll here I think we have Senator Weiner that who we missing Senator Stern is here Okay Okay now you got to take down that picture. Thank you. Committee assistant Porter from the top. On the consent calendar, chair voting aye. Hey, order. There we go. On the consent calendar, chair voting aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Laird? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Wiener? 11 to 0. 11 to 0. Back on call. File item number 1, SB 934. Chair voting aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Laird? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. 9-2. Everyone's voted. 9-2. On call. No, everyone's voted. Everyone's voted. All right. That bill is out. 9-2. File item number 3, SB 1166. Chair voting aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Laird? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener? 9 to 2. Members missing? 9 to 2. Back on call. File item number 4, SB 911. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Laird? Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner? 11-0. 11-0. Back on call. File item number 5, SB 1237. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Laird? Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Valadeiras, Weber-Pearson, aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener, 9-1. 9-1. Back on call. File item number 7, SB 1092. Chair voting, aye. Laird, Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. 10 to 2. 10 to 2. That bill is out. File item number 8, SB 1365. Chair voting aye. Laird. Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. 10 to 2. 10 to 2. Bills out. File item number 9, SB 1160. Trustee Chair voting aye Allen Allen aye Laird Stern Aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson? Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. 12-0. 12-0. Bill is out. File Item Number 10, SB 1399. Chair voting aye. Nilo. Allen. Allen aye. Laird. Stern. Aye. Stern, aye. Valadarez. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Weber-Pearson. Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. Ten to zero. Ten to zero. Bill is out. I'll go back through for Senator Wiener. Okay. On the consent calendar, Laird, Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. 12-0 on the consent calendar. 12-0, consent calendar is adopted. File item number 3 SB 1166 chair voting aye Laird Wiener Is this 3 Yeah 1166 Wiener aye 10 to 2. 10 to 2. Bill is out. File item number 4, SB 911, chair voting aye. Laird, Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. 12 to 0. Bill is 0. Bill is out. File item number 5, SB 1237, chair voting aye. Laird, Valadez, Wiener. Aye.

10 to 1. 10 to 1, bill's out. Okay, that's it. That's it. All right, we'll recess till next Tuesday and adjourn.

Next Tuesday at 1.30 or what time?