Senate Judiciary Committee
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Judiciary Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
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 to testify is Ryan Kendall, a survivor of conversion therapy and civil rights litigator in Southern California, and Skye Inarratti, a licensed marriage and family therapist with twelve years of clinical experience. And we're also here for technical support, if needed, Crystal, a senior staff attorney at the National Center LGBTQ rights.
I ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
We have a quorum. So, committee assistant porter or maybe chief counsel, Estrada, if you would call the role for purpose of establishing a quorum.
Speaker 3
Sure. For the purpose of establishing a quorum, Hamburg. Here. Hamburg here. Nilo?
Speaker 3
Caballero here. Duraso? Here. Duraso here. Laird?
Reyes? Here. Reyes here. Stern? Valadares?
Wahab? Here. Wahab here. Bubba Pearson? Weiner?
Present. Weiner present. You have a quorum.
Speaker 4
Brian Matthew Kendall. From the ages of 14 to 16, a California licensed therapist abused me using the practice of so called conversion therapy. Using only words, Joseph Nicolosi destroyed my sense of self, leaving me, as a child, convinced that I was unworthy of love and defective simply for being gay. I still live with the damage that caused me. It's why I'm here today asking you to protect others.
Not only did Nicolosi abuse me using conversion therapy, but he also fostered an environment where my parents were free to abuse me in ever more extreme ways to stop me from being gay. Even though he was a mandatory reporter and even though I complained about this abuse to him, he never acted 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.
Speaker 31
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.
Speaker 4
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.
Speaker 7
Good afternoon, Chair, members. My name is Sky Innerardi. I am a citizen of the ION Band of Miwok Indians, and I am a licensed marriage and family therapist here in California, where I have practiced for twelve plus years. I provided services across outpatient, residential, private practice settings, and I have provided direct services to queer, two spirit, LGBTQ plus and indigenous clients throughout my career. I'm in support, strong support of SB nine thirty four.
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. It has no basis in evidence based practice. Every major medical and mental health organization has condemned it as ineffective and unethical.
In my twelve plus years as a clinician, I have never seen credible clinical data supporting that sexual orientation or gender identity can be safely or successfully changed through therapeutic means. What I have seen repeatedly is harm. Survivors present with significantly elevated rates of major depression, PTSD, suicidal ideation. Many meet criteria for complex trauma characterized by deep shame, identity disturbance, and difficulty forming secure attachments throughout the entirety of their lives. These are not abstract findings.
Speaker 13
These are the diagnostic realities in which I've assessed and treated in my practice. In my clinical experience, the full impact of conversion therapy often does not emerge until years later. Survivors frequently lack language or psychological safety to identify what has happened to them as abuse. They may spend years in therapy, long before they can even name what has happened. Current statutes of limitation often expire long before a survivor is clinically ready to come forward.
Speaker 7
This mismatch between legal timelines and psychological healing denies survivors any path to accountability. SB nine thirty four aligns legal accountability with clinical reality. It ensures survivors have a meaningful window to seek justice and hold providers accountable for practices that my profession has unanimously
Speaker 1
All right. If you're in support of SB nine thirty four, please approach the microphone, give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.
Speaker 9
Christopher Stowell with National Center for LGBTQ Rights, here in strong support of this important legislation.
Speaker 5
Craig Polster on behalf of Equality California, proud cosponsor and strong support. Also here on behalf of several cosponsors who could not be here today: The Trevor Project, Lambda Legal, Alliance for Trans Youth Rights, and Trans Family Support Services. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Anuradha Gupta, President of PFLAG Danville San Ramon Valley Chapter. On behalf of everyone in my chapter, PFLAG San Francisco, PFLAG La Morinda, P Flag Clayton Concord P Flag Fremont Tri Cities P Flag Tri Valley P Flag Oakland East Bay P Flag San Jose Peninsula P Flag Los Angeles in strong support of SB nine thirty four. Request you to pass it. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Mary Moyle. I'm with the Sacramento chapter of PFLAG, and we urge and I vote on this. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Hello. I am Lisa Kanazala. I am a California licensed occupational therapist. I am here with PFLAG Danville, San Ramon Valley, and I am here in strong support of SB nine thirty four.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. All right. Seeing no one else approach the microphone, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB nine thirty four, please come to the microphone.
Speaker 12
Good afternoon. My name is Johnny Skinner. I'm here representing Genspect. When I was young, I was a feminine child, and I discovered trans influencers online. They said, Change your body and your life gets better.
Don't and it gets worse. Or as my doctors told my mom, I would commit suicide. The medical and mental health providers didn't bother to ask why I felt the way I did. They poisoned my body with blockers and hormones, arresting my puberty and messing with my development. The result, I'm a 23 year old gay man who's never had an orgasm and may never experience one.
Let that sink in. I was rendered anorgasmic because once you say you could be trans, that's it, full stop. No exploration as to why is allowed, even if you are a struggling kid. The former president of WPATH, Doctor. Marcy Bowers, a California surgeon who had performed the surgery for Jazz Jennings at 17, admitted on video that puberty blockers followed by cross sex hormones results in no orgasms and stunted genitals.
Speaker 39
SB nine thirty four guarantees that more people will end up like me. The walking but wounded. I could have been spared all of this if any of my therapists would have explored why I felt dysphoric, but they never did. They only led me to hate my body more. The Supreme Court just ruled in a rare bipartisan decision that laws like this are unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
Speaker 12
This bill is an attempted workaround that will be used to silence therapists who could have helped me avoid the irreversible harms to my body and the loss of my sexual function, as is the same for many others. So today, I ask you to extend some empathy to survivors like me and vote no for this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Laura Haines. I'm a Democrat, an atheist, and a CASA for foster youth since 2015. This bill forbids challenging LGB or TQ identities, even if that's why the client sought therapy. Both are made untouchable. Some normal questions that might provoke a changed mind could later be deemed conversion.
But conversion therapy refers specifically to abusive practices used in the past to attempt to change sexual orientation and, rightly, long ago made illegal. Here, conversion is used to imply that trans is an innate and permanent condition that only violent conversion could possibly change. But historically, over ninety percent of kids who once strongly rejected their sex naturally outgrew this notion via puberty, two thirds of them gay as adults. Reaching self acceptance is not conversion. Change is not conversion.
Realizing you're autistic is not conversion. Remember, gender is considered fluid, not fixed, as detransitioners continually prove. How can a therapist determine if autism, OCD, or trauma is at the root of a client's sex self rejection if they're walking on eggshells not to jostle trans. What if the kid is not trans? Imagine a 12 year old girl molested at summer camp who comes home insisting she's trans and wants top surgery.
This bill would have a therapist affirm, as identity, a trauma response. That's absurd. Trans I. D. People have a very high number of other mental health disorders.
If ethical therapists are effectively gagged with relevant topics placed off limits, who will help them? I urge you to vote no.
Speaker 1
John you. Those in opposition to SB nine thirty four, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position.
Speaker 14
Good afternoon. Matthew McCrennolds, constitutional attorney with Pacific Justice Institute, in opposition, and happy to answer any technical constitutional questions the committee may have. All righty. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Mary Anne Gehringer from LGB that is, Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Alliance USA, Opposed to this bill, please don't conflate sexual orientation with gender identity. Thank you, Ruth.
Speaker 14
Greg Burr with the California Family Council in strong opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Lisa Disbro from Contra Costa, Moms for Liberty and informed parents of Contra Costa parents in strong opposition. This is not conversion therapy.
Speaker 23
-I'm Bev Talbot, a lesbian with the LGB Courage Coalition. Telling gay and gender nonconforming kids that they are born in the wrong body and must become the opposite sex is the ultimate conversion therapy. -All -Please vote no.
Speaker 19
-Right. -Romy Mancini. I'm a San Francisco resident, a lesbian, a former attorney for the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, and I strongly oppose this
Speaker 20
Barbara Walker, from San Francisco Bay Area, mother of three, member of Woman Are Real, in strong opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Rachel Bordoli, San Francisco resident, registered Democrat, member of Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender. Women are real. Parents strongly opposed to unevidenced treatment of gender confused kids. I strongly oppose this bill.
Speaker 22
Elizabeth Cronin, lifelong Democrat from San Francisco, member of California Teachers Association for thirty five years, strongly oppose.
Speaker 23
Annalene Augustine here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. We are respectfully opposed for very specific civil procedural issues. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Good afternoon. Good afternoon, members. Cashier Williams, California parent in opposition to the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Alright. Anyone else opposed to SB nine thirty four? Please approach, seeing no one else approaching. Bring it back to committee for questions, comments, questions.
No questions. Alright. Senator Caballero.
Speaker 33
Well, I thought I understood what this bill was doing. First, let me thank everybody who came here to testify today about your personal life experiences. They help inform our decisions, and And I heard a lot of pain and I want to acknowledge it basically say I don't think any one of us up here want to see the kind of harm that was done as children. We just don't want to see it. That's not the right thing.
Speaker 24
I am interested in protecting children. And I think there are methods that have been used in the past that shouldn't continue to be used. So that's what leads us to today. I'm trying to figure out how to articulate the question that I have for you because it seems to me that that on the one hand, you have as I understand the bill, it was to focus on a therapy that is harmful and that has been discredited by every single mental and physical health organization. And we've taken action on that before, and this is in my mind a clarification of how we want that kind of therapy not to be utilized in the State of California.
But I'm hearing other concerns raised, and I was wondering if you could articulate the
Speaker 2
Yeah. So what this bill covers is conversion therapy, also known as change therapy, where a person has a certain sexual orientation or gender identity, and a therapist says, I'm going to change you from this gender identity to this gender identity. I'm going to change you from this sexual orientation to this sexual orientation. That is that has completely discredited, and that's what the bill covers. It does not in any way prohibit people going to see a therapist to explore their sexual orientation or their gender identity.
That has always been allowed. It will continue to be allowed. And so this notion that no one can even talk to a therapist about it is not true. But when when you have a therapist, it's like, I'm going to you identify as this gender. I am going to change you to that therapy or to that gender, excuse me.
Or you identify as this sexual orientation. I'm going to change you to that sexual orientation. That's what the bill covers.
Speaker 24
And just so that I can be very, very clear about we're not talking about drug therapy. No. And we're not talking about sex changes. No. And we're not talking about yes, so I guess those were the two two big
Speaker 2
Yeah, this is about a mental health professional providing therapy. That's what this is not about physical, medical interventions. That that's not what this is about.
Speaker 17
Thank you. I also want to begin by thanking Ryan for for giving your testimony. I'm sorry that you went through that, and you you clearly were not the first. You won't be the last. And the the fact that you were here to talk about it, I think, is going to give a lot of courage to others who have gone through the same thing.
And if this bill passes and is signed, then the statute of limitations, which is what we're talking about, is something that would be extended to allow that opportunity to seek recompense for the harm that was caused to you. Now I I I think, like my colleague, senator Caballero, I heard a number of things. Somebody said reaching self identification is not conversion. So if somebody comes in and wants therapy to figure out who they are, that's not considered conversion?
Speaker 2
Yes, that's correct. If someone's exploring and they want to talk to a therapist about it, they'll be able to do so, and the therapist will be able to continue to provide that therapy.
Speaker 17
Somebody else said this bill would have would would would require therapy to affirm what somebody comes in with. But that is with with the identity they come in saying.
Speaker 2
Right. The what the bill does is it applies if a therapist says, you're coming in, you're saying you're gay. I am going to make you straight. Or you're you are you are telling me you identify as a woman. I am going to convert you to identify as a man.
That's what the bill that's what the bill addresses. Convert the the attempted conversion.
Speaker 17
Somebody else said, the therapist should have asked why I was dysphoric as opposed to beginning to give me treatment. This has nothing to do with Somebody could come in having issues, and the therapist has to treat them for those for the issues. Is that correct?
Speaker 2
Yeah. When someone is transitioning, when you get hormones or puberty blockers or surgery, and by the way, the vast majority of trans identifying kids do not even get a diagnosis, let alone physical treatment. But for the ones who do, that goes through an accepted medical process in terms of determining what's appropriate, what's not appropriate. But that's, it's different than you come in identifying one way and the therapist saying, I'm gonna convert you to identify a different way, which is what the bill is about.
Speaker 17
Finally, somebody said we need to help children who gender confused kids. What does this have to do with gender confused kids?
Speaker 2
I I I don't in terms of who said that and what they mean, I there there are people who say that trans transgender people don't exist and that they're all just confused and that any child who identifies as transgender is confused. A lot of people would disagree with that including the medical many in the medical profession. And so I but, you know, that that's their their perspective. And for a child or an adult or anyone who is like who who actually says, I'm exploring my gender and I wanna talk to someone about it, this bill does not in any way impact that.
Speaker 17
So so that that so that I am clear, like my colleague, this has to do with those who have been harmed by conversion therapy. Yes. The statute of limitations has limited their ability to seek recompense for that harm, and this bill extends that statute of limitations so that they are able to, through evidence, show the harm that they have suffered as Ryan has so properly described.
Speaker 15
Thank you. I guess I wanna align my comments with both of my colleagues who have spoken. I was watching from my office and wanted to come down because I wanted to ask you. The comments don't really align with the bill. I can you help me with help me understand this?
I mean, when I read through this bill, this bill is really about
Speaker 2
There are, and we see it in this committee a lot, there are people who believe that trans people don't exist. There are people who believe that a child can never be, specifically, can never be transgender. There are people who believe that there are people who dispute physical care Mhmm. For gender affirming care, particularly physical gender affirming care for people and particularly for children, and that is they're entitled to their views. This is in the transgender context, which is what most of the public comment was about, is if, let's say you are a parent, let's say a parent has a 15 year old who, who was born identified as a girl and now identify as a boy, and if the parent says, I'm gonna send you to this camp where a quote unquote therapist is going to convert you to being a girl through therapy, that this would this would that would be subjected to this bill.
That is very different than a lot of what we were hearing about today. This is about when and and again, the bill applies to adults as well, but in the child context, when a child is like, I'm gay, I'm trans, and the parent says, I'm gonna make you not gay or trans by sending you to that person who's going to inflict severe harm.
Speaker 15
I I hear that. And my understanding of this bill is that this is really just a statute. This is like a as senator Caballero said, we've already legislated in this space. This bill is really clean up relative to the issue in, I think, Colorado, went to the all of that. What what what is your trajectory here?
Where do you go after judicial?
Speaker 15
Appropriations? And and you still have the other half of the house to go through? Yep. Yeah. I mean, you are an author who works really hard on your bills, and you take on tough topics.
It sounds to my ears like what I am reading in this bill, what my, you know, my world we all came to this committee for a variety of reasons. My legal background sees this, thinks that the comments are a bit disconnected with what the bill actually does. So my hope is that in your time between now and the time that you finish this process is that you'll work with folks so that people understand the impacts of this actual language that you have in front of us.
Speaker 2
Yeah. We always work with a lot of people. You do. It's hard to work with people who say that a certain group of people don't exist.
Speaker 15
No, I hear you on That's a hard There were also clearly some people in the group who were speaking that I for whom I don't think that was their position, but also, I think would be natural allies normally to this effort. So that's just my that's just what my ears heard. I'm gonna support the bill. I'm gonna support the effort moving forward. I'm just hopeful that there will still be some additional dialogue so that everyone can kind of be in the same place on what the bill does.
My understanding of this bill, I think, is is righteous. So I'm I'm just hopeful that there will be some greater understanding as you go through that process, and I know you're extremely diligent in that regard. So that's my my 2¢.
Speaker 26
Thank you, chair. Wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I think that we are witnessing some very concerning things on a national front in a variety of spaces, but specifically now within our LGBTQ plus community. And not a lawyer, but as a physician understand the harm that certain nonmedical based practices like conversion therapy can have on individuals at a very young and very vulnerable age. So I thank you for tackling that and want to thank those who have come and revealed their stories.
It's extremely personal and it's extremely difficult to talk about, especially in front of a bunch of strangers. And so I want to thank you all for coming out and talking. I'm wondering if because I was, you know, sitting here a little confused by some of the opposition and we definitely don't want to cause any harm or any confusion within the health professional community. So I'm wondering if some of the concerns that are being addressed are on how certain things are defined, the new definitions within the bill. And I don't know if maybe someone who spoke up in opposition could come and clarify that.
I think there was someone who you. Yeah.
Speaker 12
I think that my concern is developmental with children. I don't think people are born with identities that emerge like a chia pet grows fur. I think your identity is something that is accrued over time through the values that you're raised with, through your personality traits, etcetera, etcetera. So I just don't think you can ring fence as sacrosanct the identity claim of a child saying that their identity is something not in their body. They're identifying with something in the ether rather than something grounded in themselves.
Speaker 13
And it may be true. Ten percent or so of the kids that had these concerns many years ago still had them when they reached adulthood. But nine out of ten outgrew the hatred of their body, and most of them were gay. So this is my concern. When you ring fence PQ identities and LGB identities, the Venn diagram radically overlaps.
And a lot of other mental health disorders like foster youth have dissociation, self hatred, that kind of thing can give you a lot of repressed emotions can give you somatic issues, you know, aching stomach, etcetera.
Speaker 26
Well, I guess my question is, where specifically in the bill are you having a concern with?
Speaker 13
What? Mostly, I'm concerned that, in retrospect, a person who went to an ethical therapist who asked them ethical questions about their gender identity or their homosexual identity, and who changed their mind, could circle back later and say, If you wouldn't have changed my mind, I'd be happier. So that's risky.
Speaker 26
So this is the confusion that I know I'm having and maybe other people are having, because conversion therapy and you can correct me is already illegal here in California, correct?
Speaker 2
It's an administrative enforcement against the it applies to licensed therapists, so it would be administrative enforcement.
Speaker 26
And so this actually just extends the statute Yes. In someone can seek? So Just a minute. I need for him to clarify.
Speaker 2
So, no, it's different approach because we, in 2012, this legislature passed the ban on conversion therapy from licensed mental health professionals. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Colorado law, which is not identical to our law but is similar, is subject to strict scrutiny. And I know a lot of people who are, you know, smart people are figuring out what, that'll be litigated back when it goes back down to the tenth circuit.
There could be changes to the law to etcetera, etcetera. And I frankly, in my view, even under strict scrutiny, I think the state has a valid argument. But this is a different approach. We don't know if our law will end up being enforceable or not. I hope it will be.
But if it's not, this will ensure that there is still accountability and an ability to seek justice. And so and Justice Gorsuch, in his majority opinion, specifically said that malpractice claims are different than a ban. And so that so we are taking this approach.
Speaker 26
Thank you. And so my original question remains, is the concern from the opposition the way in which certain things are defined.
Speaker 14
Yeah. Good afternoon. Again, Matthew McReynolds, constitutional attorney from Pacific Justice Institute. It there are a number of concerns here, and I'll try to just address them briefly. Ours was the first organization that filed suit and got a preliminary injunction against the original bill, SB eleven seventy two, that we're talking about expanding.
Speaker 25
Many of those arguments from fourteen years ago were ratified last week by the Supreme Court in the Chili's versus Salazar decision. And so, if you read the, the press release that was put out about this bill, if you read the findings and declarations, I think what you see is the potential for this body to yet again give the middle finger to the Supreme Court. The press release refers to it as an extremist Supreme Court and goes after it. And that's the body that is going to once again, have this litigated up to it. We and others are eager to take this on because, we have a fundamental disagreement with the senator about the strict scrutiny standard.
Speaker 14
We have litigated that for on and off for the last fourteen years now. We're very, very familiar with it. To the other concerns that were expressed, this is not a simple extension of existing law, and existing law has been really put on thin ice by the decision last week. We think it's highly vulnerable, and challenges will be filed within the next, month or two against it. And so, this is an attempted end run around the Supreme Court.
And like many other similar measures that this legislature has taken in the last several years, many of which we've litigated, we think it's ultimately destined to fail.
Speaker 26
Thank you. So, I I've been asking for specifics within the bill, within the language. I've been asking to specifically point to where is the problem. Is it how, you know, something is defined because I do see that that we have specific definitions in there. Because I'm trying to help with, you know, Senator Ashby was talking about, you know, Senator Weiner sitting down, but I'm not hearing anything specific.
I'm hearing it more on a philosophical, theoretical, and that is problematic for me because when you stand up here and you say this is potentially going to harm children, this is potentially going to obstruct the ability for a provider to practice. That means a lot to me. And if you can't show me where in the language would do that, then I feel like my time has been wasted because I'm asking you where. And I've asked I've asked a couple of times. So I thank you, senator, for bringing this forward, and I'm done with my questions.
Speaker 6
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 cast report from The United Kingdom Of a few years ago that condemned conversion therapy for sure, but issued a strong cost caution, particularly relative to treatment of minors. First of all, a question. What is the statute of limitation for gender confirming care?
Speaker 6
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 a transitioning where there was an allegation of harm. What's the statute of limitation for that sort of action? So,
Speaker 2
and just to be clear, when physicians or providers perform gender affirming care, and once again, the vast majority of trans identifying kids do not even ever receive a diagnosis, and an even tinier percentage receive even hormones or puberty blockers, and almost none receive surgery. And the ones that do of that tiny microscopic number that receive surgery, overwhelmingly, they're probably they're like 17 year olds. So, this whole notion, like that president Trump said in presidential debate, he'll leave in the morning and come back with surgery in the afternoon, that's just completely made up. The people, kids or otherwise, who are receiving care, there are medically accepted standards for doing so. I understand that there are discussions about those standards, and that is totally normal with any form of medical care, and that is subject to normal malpractice claims if someone does not follow the accepted standards of care, and that is a three year statute of limitations, which is the standard malpractice.
Here, conversion therapy, it is not accepted by any medical standard and it does harm that manifests many years later. And so we think these things are very different and they are not the same. And so we are focused on conversion therapy, which this legislature outlawed in one way fourteen years ago, we're now taking a different approach.
Speaker 6
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
Speaker 6
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'm gay and the parent says I'm gonna send you to a counselor to convince you you're not gay, the cast report condemns that. Just about everybody does. But therapy is different. And if you have a situation where you said, I'm gonna send you to somebody who is gonna 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 that you're this and and as we proceed on our therapy here, I'm gonna 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 remain to be seen at a later date depending upon regret for a decision or action that had been taken way back when the therapy was given. And that's the 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 of disagreement that we have, particularly with regard to the treatment of youth, and legal remedies are being treated differently in this bill.
Speaker 6
And and you're I understand that. That's part of the disagreement between what you're saying and what I'm saying. Yeah. 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, among minors.
Well,
Speaker 6
great deal of disagreement on that particular issue, which I think was clarified and and handled well by the cast report. And those conclusions adopted by most of Europe, but not by The United States, continues to be a confusion here, a disagreement here.
Speaker 2
Okay. Just in terms of the, I think, you're talking about, the aspects of the CASI report you're talking about, which by the way is a disputed report, but
Speaker 2
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. It's I not about sending whether it's a gay kid or a trans kid to therapy to change them to be something different.
That's not what CAST report is about. It's not what any of the European announcements are about. And that's why I agree with you that there has been some conflation happening here, because we've seen some of the public testimony today being effectively just about, in general, opposing any support whatsoever for trans identifying kids. Again, they're entitled to their opinions, but that's what they're injecting into this debate, is about conversion therapy, which does not have scientific support and which is harmful to children or adults.
Speaker 6
I didn't hear any witness say that trans kids don't exist, that gay people don't exist. I didn't hear anybody
Speaker 6
Even close to that. They that's alright. I I've been You are assuming that's what they mean. I I I
Speaker 6
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's about. We're debating here the philosophy, as I articulated a bit ago. And I 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 five years later. And that's the philosophic discussion that's sort of underlying everything 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 bill's 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.
Speaker 2
And in terms of the definition of what's called in the bill change efforts, what we colloquially call conversion therapy, it is very tightly and specifically defined in the bill. And so, that's what the bill is about. It's about conversion therapy or change therapy and a malpractice action for engaging in those in that debunked form of therapy.
Speaker 6
The only way to prove that that happened is for a third person to be present during the therapy. But then what Because therapy is a confidential process.
Speaker 2
If you're it sounds like you just said, Senator, if I may, you agree that conversion I don't want 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.
Speaker 2
No, but that that's what Right. But but in order to pursue a claim or an administrative claim under existing law requires adjudication by a third party. That's how the law works. And so it's always gonna be someone, whether it's an, someone from a licensure board or whether it's a court, looking at what happened and determining what happened and whether it violated the law. That's always gonna be the case.
Speaker 6
And and as I said, not to be overly redundant, therapy is a private and protected activity. And the only two people who knows what's go what goes on in therapy is the patient and the the provider. And if it comes to a court case and it's a he said, she said kind of thing, don't I know where the court goes on that because those conversations are protected.
Speaker 2
And that's how malpractice there are many forms of therapy related malpractice having nothing to do with conversion therapy. You can go to a therapist who counsels you in a way that causes you to commit immense harm to yourself and is outside of professional standards, and then you can sue that therapist, and then it's the two of you who are the witnesses and their notes and whatever or recordings or whatever else. That is totally normal. That's how malpractice claims work, whether it's with a physical, you know, dermatologist or with a therapist or a psychologist. That's totally normal.
That's the way malpractice claims work. What we're saying here is that people need more time to be able to bring these claims. Just like we gave more time to the survivors of sexual abuse because sometimes it takes people a long time to be able to process the trauma that has been inflicted on them.
Speaker 22
Well, I want I want to thank all my colleagues for asking the questions because my understanding now is much much better and I I think it's going back I think it's about malpractice claims and the time you would have to file the claim. We're not deciding here about anything else.
Speaker 2
The other piece of the bill also has to do with the malpractice claim and making sure that the actual scientific evidence is what guides the claim. So that's also in the bill. But it's about the same, the malpractice. It's about how long you have to bring it, what the deadline is, and making sure that actual science is what guides the claim.
Speaker 22
And right now, this I'm sorry, if I could ask another question. Right now, that science the science basis is not part of law the law?
Speaker 2
It's it's So we are you know, we you would think that that's what would guide it, but we just clarify that in the bill.
Speaker 3
Thank you. So I I do think that we can all agree that we want to protect individuals who would be harmed in any type of treatment or service. But I I would love to ask I think the bill does more than just extend the statute of limitations, though. And if I think someone from the civil see, Jack was here from civil justice. If I could just ask for some clarification from you.
Speaker 27
So in your letter, can you please elaborate or explain? It significantly expands liability through extended statutes of limitation and modified evidentiary standards. Can you explain the how this bill modifies evidentiary standards and what the impacts could be?
Speaker 23
Thank you, senator, and with permission to come up here and answer the question. Thank you, chair. So, for the CGAC 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 these 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.
Speaker 23
Thank you. Author, Senate, Section E. We have concerns with that expansion of causation.
Speaker 27
Okay. And can you also go into their elaborate a little bit more? This bill also creates a broad new cause of action applicable to a wide range of licensed professionals and entities, including those alleged to have known or had reason to know of conduct. And I think this goes to, Senator Weber's point of how this, if this does impact professionals, whether it's licensed or certificated, you know, what that liability what that growth of liability may look like for professionals.
Speaker 23
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.
Speaker 1
Let me ask a question. 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 gonna treat you with any medication or talk therapy. I'm gonna send you to be exercised.
And 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? I mean, it's the same kind of evidence. It's you're right. You have to show causation.
So I'm now very curious as to how this somehow changes the evidentiary standard for causation.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have concerns with the type of as you've just stated, the type of testimony allowed here to cause causation to specify causation here and establish that. In terms of, I would I would, hope that the standards of reasonableness to testimony allowed in a courtroom would apply if there are claims in that nature, as you said, as well. We'd be happy to dive deeper into the specifics and find a nuance to that
Speaker 1
because if this is changing evidentiary standards, that's something that comes within the purview of this committee, and I don't think it does. I think it remains the same. I think you still need and I'm 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 Let out about me ask the author.
Speaker 2
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 Do you
Speaker 1
think it changes evidentiary standards? No. Oh, okay. Alright. Well, if you don't think so, is he gonna come up and say
Speaker 2
he doesn't think so? I would like for him to Alright. Talk even in more detail about that. Sure.
Speaker 9
So so senator, I think it's important to recognize that we're talking about here the same claims that survivors of conversion therapy can bring today as long as they're within the time limitation period. It's extending the period of time for them to do that. And with respect to evidentiary standards, I think it's not creating any new standard. It's just clarifying that the same, standards that the California Supreme Court has recognized, for example, in cases of latent injury arising out of asbestos exposure, has recognized that, a survivor doesn't need to establish that a specific manufacturer, specific product caused a tumor on a specific date. They just have to present evidence of the known scientific effects of exposure to asbestos, and prove to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that that exposure was a substantial contributing factor to their injury.
Speaker 1
This is just applying the same sort of evidentiary analysis and making that explicit in the context of conversion therapy, which has the same kind of well known and well documented harmful effects on population Right. Wide
So I think what you're saying, the answer to my question is no.
Speaker 26
a Yes. Thank you, Chair. I wanted if you could come back up, because you had mentioned two things, evidentiary proceedings, and then you specifically mentioned something around the actual providers themselves.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Senator, through the chair, if I may. Terms of the specific providers themselves, that was the what we see as a new cause of action against mental health providers established. That does not exist today? Yes. Similar.
Our reading.
Speaker 2
I wouldn't call it a new cause of action. It extends the statute of limitations, and it clarifies evidentiary standards. Wouldn't call it a new cause of action.
Speaker 26
So why would you view this as a new cause of action that's not already established for providers in this, you know, behavioral health space?
Speaker 23
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 wanna respect existing statute of limitations.
Speaker 23
Or For that. And I apologize, senator. I would be very happy to dive deep into this with the author's office and you and your office at any time that you would like to get you the specific answers. And I wanna be really clear in our answers to that if if that's okay, senator.
Speaker 26
Yeah. That's, yeah, that would be very much appreciated. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. There are no There are no further questions. Senator Weiner, would you like to close?
Speaker 2
You know, I think we've discussed this at length, I appreciate the conversation. And fundamentally, this is about making sure that people who have been harmed by this extremely debunked form of therapy that is absolutely psychological torture, trying to turn someone into something that they are not. People should have an ability to get compensation, and there should be accountability. I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Alright. Need a motion. Senator Reyes has moved the bill. Alright. Thank you, Senator Weiner.
Chief Counsel Estrada, would you call the roll, please?
Speaker 3
There we go. Okay. This is SB nine thirty four by Senator Weiner. The motion is due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Umburg?
Speaker 3
Umburg aye. Nilo? Allen? Ashby? Aye.
Ashby, aye. Caballero? Duraso? Aye. Duraso, aye.
Laird? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern?
Beloderes? No. Belodares, no. Wahhab? Aye.
Wahhab, aye. Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner?
Aye. Weiner, aye. You have seven to one with members missing.
Speaker 1
Seven one? Alright. We'll put that on call. Thank you, Senator Weiner. I saw Senator Arrigine here.
Is he hiding somewhere? No.
Speaker 1
Senator Becker, Senator Blakespeare, Senator Allen, Senator D'Arasso. Calling one, calling all. She had to go to housing. Well, anybody have a bill for the fourteenth they'd like to do now? Yep.
Scott.
Speaker 1
Alright. Is there a motion on the consent calendar? So. Senator alright. Senator Waha moves the consent calendar.
Chief counsel, mister Waha, please call the roll on the consent calendar.
Speaker 3
On the consent calendar, that it be adopted. Umberg. Aye. Humberg, aye. Nilo.
Allen. Ashby. Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero.
Duraso. Laird. Reyes. Reyes. Aye.
Stern. Valadares Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab? Aye.
Weber Pearson? Aye. Pearson? Aye. Weiner?
Consent. Five on consent? Yes. Oh. Aye.
6 zero. Members briefing.
Speaker 1
Senator Allen is here. Senator Allen, would you like to present file number seven, SB ten ninety two or SB thirteen sixty five?
Speaker 11
Alright. Well, thank you so much, mister chair and members. Let me start by just thanking the committee for their for its work on the bill, and also I I'm I am accepting the committee's Okay. This is a different type of conversion. It's a conversion of at risk units to market rate.
In order to, to address that challenge, the state began adopting affordable housing preservation laws starting in 1987. Opportunities to preserve unsubsidized affordable housing, are especially important today when the state's affordable housing funding is oversubscribed, as we know, and our existing housing stock is under increasing threat from climate related disasters. Mobile homes are, the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the country, and they provide important homeownership opportunities for many, many Californians. According to HCD, our housing, department, preserving this housing option is critical to meeting the state's housing needs. The twenty eighteen Camp Fire resulted in the destruction of over 30 mobile home parks in Paradise, the vast majority of which have not been rebuilt.
Speaker 6
Over 700 rent stabilized units were destroyed in the recent Palisades fire in my district, approximately half of which were located in two mobile home parks. I know that our former housing chair came to visit the site of that terrible tragedy with me. Over the past twenty years, manufactured home communities increasingly have gone from mom and pop enterprises to ownership by private equity firms, hedge funds, large multi state corporations that seek to capitalize on manufactured homeowners' unique situation. It's certainly not all the case, but just to give you an idea, it's now I think in 2021, institutional investors accounted for 23% of all manufactured home purchases, up from 13% between 2017 and 2019, so it's been increasing. And now, just to give you a data point, 23 private equity firms own over 1,900 manufactured housing parks in The U.
Speaker 11
S. With over 400,000 lots. So you've got these institutional investors that are attracted by high returns and consistent rent payments from captive residents, and that has in turn driven up rent lot rents and increased evictions. Although they're called mobile homes, mobile homes are not typically able to be moved. Many mobile home owners are older, many are disabled, many are on fixed incomes that limit their ability to pick up and move, and communities across the state and country are recognizing the growing need for policy changes to protect affordability of mobile homes and provide opportunities to resident organizations or other nonprofit entities to purchase and preserve the parks.
So the bill provides that if a mobile home park owner receives an offer for the sale, lease, or transfer that management intends to accept, they must provide residents or their designated representative the opportunity to offer a competitive bid to purchase the park. The bill defines reasonable timelines to support residents in the acquisition of support and financing, which can be
Speaker 11
complex task for residents in California with the soaring cost of land. Testifying today in support of the bill, we have Kim Koons, who's Executive Director of the California Center for Cooperative Development and also Ryan Sears, Head of Policy and Research at Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services. This is all about trying to provide a real pathway for residents to offer competitive bids to preserve their communities, and I hope for your support for this bill.
Speaker 34
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. 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, economic security.
Speaker 30
Resident ownership, as Zuzda said, is particularly important in California, where the manufactured homes are really a source of naturally occurring affordable housing under the best of circumstances, but the current investor encroachment in those communities is really putting that at 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 market or too quickly for residents to put in an offer. SB ten ninety two would give park residents a fair opportunity to purchase their communities by ensuring that they receive advance 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, who has a CDFI that loans to parks.
Speaker 31
Good afternoon, Chair Umburg, as well as fellow committee members. My name is Ryan Sears. I am the head of policy and research in Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services. We are a nonprofit headquartered in the Inland Empire. For those who don't know, 10% of Riverside County's housing stock is manufactured homes.
8% of San Bernardino's, County's housing stock is manufactured homes. The majority of those homes are in park communities. Our region is the manufactured home capital of California. And these homes are a form of homeownership where even though the unit is owned outright, the land underneath is leased. The issue that SB ten ninety two 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 ten ninety two 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 ten ninety two 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 ten ninety two, and I am available to answer any questions if there's any need for technical assistance.
Speaker 1
All righty. Thank you very much. Others in support of SB ten ninety two, please approach.
Speaker 9
Good afternoon, chair and members. Brian Augusta, on behalf of the California Coalition for Rural Housing, proud to cosponsor also the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support. Thank you, Emily's father.
Speaker 8
Good afternoon. Graciela Castillo Crings here on behalf of Rock USA in strong support. I
Speaker 15
Rachel Muller, on behalf of the California Coalition for Community Investment, a coalition of over 50 CDFIs in Thank you.
Speaker 20
Good afternoon, Chair members. Tina Rosales Torres, on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support. Thank you.
Speaker 8
Good afternoon. Natalie Spivak with Housing California, and on behalf of Leadership Council, in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. All right. Anyone else in support of SB ten ninety two? Please approach. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition.
If you're opposed to SB ten ninety two, please approach the microphone.
Speaker 32
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Chris Weisaki with WMA. We're here to express our opposition to SB ten ninety two. 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 ten ninety two 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 one hundred and twenty days after a notice is sent to deliver an offer and another one hundred and twenty 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 ten ninety two 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, a 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 to close to fair market value on this bill on the parks. It seems clear SB ten ninety two is an attempt to give these entities an ability to devalue the parks and be able to lowball a purchase offer. For these reasons and those laid out in our letter, we ask for a no vote.
Speaker 33
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jason Eckert, 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 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. Weisaki said, you have to be able to withstand the timelines in this bill. You have to be able to tie up the money. And in some cases, it's a significant amount of money these are large transactions for the two forty 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 purchase the property, you own it knowing that it is subject to these restrictions in perpetuity. So, both of these things devalue the property, and we question the need for that, to be honest with you. It was mentioned earlier that by one of the support witnesses that we want everybody to be able to purchase a park. We don't disagree.
There are over 170 resident owned communities in the state of California today. There is a pathway to resident ownership through the private market, and we believe it's an appropriate pathway and that it works. We we agree also that, to some extent, that that there is a risk here. It's a significant risk that this bill is unconstitutional. So to the extent that it is it is intended to address the tragedies that happened in the Palisades fire, and it is tragic.
The loss of a home is a tragic thing for anybody. We don't believe that it will. The that this this bill would be challenged, and we think it would likely be struck down. Lastly, I just 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.
Speaker 4
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, maw 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.
Speaker 1
All right. Others in opposition to SB ten ninety two, please approach your microphone.
Speaker 34
Right. Good afternoon. Kevin Rogers with the California Association of Realtors, and we oppose.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Anyone else oppose? Seeing no one else, let's bring it back to the committee. Questions by committee members. Yes, Senator Weldon Pierce.
Speaker 30
Thank you, chair. I want to thank the author for bringing this forward and allowing us to have this conversation. I think that, you know, all, if not the vast majority of us, are very concerned about the ability for people to maintain in their homes and be able to have sufficient notice prior to there being any kind of change. So my question my original question has to do with the timing of the notice. I know we're going down from three sixty days to two forty days in this committee with But the that also seems like a long time.
Speaker 26
So I wanted to first, because I have a couple questions, get a little bit of thought process behind that.
Speaker 11
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. I think that the challenge that we have here is that we have a group of residents that would come together to purchase the broader property. And that takes time.
It's easy for and 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 complex tax given the increasing costs of land and all the rest. 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 certainly don't want people to be taking advantage of this, so some reciprocity on good faith, I'm open to as well. 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 park 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.
Speaker 26
Yeah. No. And I think that that is definitely a noble focus and something that I think, you know, many of us would agree with. It you know, that time frame to me is a little long. But it also states that I know initially it was residents would have a hundred and eighty days to respond and then this and this committee were reducing that to a hundred and twenty.
So that's a hundred and twenty days
Speaker 26
For them to basically state, hey, we're interested. So my question is, if at a hundred and twenty days, the owners of the land haven't heard from their residents, are they able to sell at that point?
Speaker 26
Yeah. So you're saying that the residents, maybe I'm reading this wrong, that they have a hundred and twenty days. It was a hundred and eighty Mhmm. To essentially come up with a plan to purchase it or to to to bring an offer forward. If at that time no offer has been presented, does that then open it up for the owner of the land to sell even though it's before 02:40 because it wasn't clear in the language?
Speaker 11
Oh, yes. Absolutely. That's that's the reason why we have the two Okay. Tiers.
Speaker 26
So if they haven't heard from someone by one hundred and twenty days now that we've reduced it
Speaker 11
to Right. The additional one hundred and twenty is then pulling together the money and
Speaker 26
Okay. So that alone could potentially reduce the time. They're not locked Absolutely. Into
Speaker 11
remember, this is different than buying a house. It's a much more complicated and multifaceted investigation when you're
Speaker 26
Yeah, just want to make sure that it's clear that even though they haven't heard in one hundred and twenty days, that they don't have to wait till the 02:40.
Speaker 26
And then my final question is, let's say that the by a hundred and twenty 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?
Speaker 11
Let me start by saying it's it's the hundred twenty days is not just kind of a general vague expression of interest. It it it it's a you have to show they have to be 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 somehow 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'm happy to add that into you. Because again, don't want to see this being taken advantage of as a bludgeon Yeah. Against these home these owners.
Speaker 26
Because I think, you know, if you purchase a home or if you are interested in something, you know, we just, you know, did a cruise thing and we had to do a kind of a down payment to show that we were serious before the, you know, before we had to pay the full amount. And I didn't see anything in the bill that would require this other organiz or this other group to say, yes, we're interested more than this is the plan. Like, the like, we're actually putting down some kind of down payment or something.
Speaker 11
I'm happy to work with the committee on some reasonable and the advocates, you know, for some reasonable tangible steps that show a seriousness of purpose in terms of purchase. You know, don't want it to be too you know, and I want it I don't want it to be grounded in the experience of but but but, you know, again, this is this this is this is about really giving people the option
Speaker 11
To purchase if if if they're able to. And so I I am absolutely happy to work with you and with the committee on on some tangible benchmarks that would have to be met.
Speaker 1
Thank you. 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
Speaker 1
blows it off, do you do have a cause of action for each contract? Yeah. And that's a question. Is that true?
Speaker 17
Another part of your bill has to do first of all, I I I think this is a good bill. I think as senator Weber Pearson talked about, the ability of homeowners, even if they're mobile homeowners, to be able to stay where they've lived oftentimes for decades. If they can put together 50% more than 50% of the the residents, then you'd get a representative.
Speaker 17
They actually have to put together an offer. Yeah. And it has to match the offer they've already received.
Speaker 17
The same terms and conditions. And if that is true, then the offer is accepted, but they are given the additional one hundred and twenty days to get their financing together. Exactly. Okay. So I 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 home owners.
Speaker 11
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 it it creates a, it it could deflate the the perceived value of the property. So I think that's what they're referring to.
Speaker 17
And I understand that, except for the fact that the offer made by the tenants, by these mobile home tenants, has to match
Speaker 17
Okay. The the question about negotiating good faith, I think, is important on both sides. Yeah. Not just on the mobile home owners, but also on the mobile park owners as well Yeah. To negotiate in good faith to to allow these these tenants to be able to stay.
Speaker 19
On the timelines, I appreciate your willingness to work with with the committee and to, and opposition to see how you can come up with a a number. I I don't see any serious problem with the hundred and twenty days initially for the 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 non profits, that have the ability to purchase a park, mobile home park, and they've already been registered. 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.
Speaker 11
That's 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, you know, continue to live there.
Speaker 15
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, understandable.
You all you took all of us on the journey with you, the fire in your area and what happened to folks that you knew and represented in that mobile home park, which I think has informed a lot of I'll speak for myself. It's informed my position on how, owners were displaced. Yeah. 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 doctor Weber because I I personally think two forty 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 Doctor. Weber Pearson said, the 120 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.
Speaker 16
So I guess my point to you is I think these are extremely long periods of time. I think what you're trying to do is write and laudable, but we don't wanna create a scenario that is untenable for people to actually buy and sell these properties in the state of California. I I think you need to do some clarification. Maybe some of this happened because you took amendments, and that that can take a minute too to then remedy the amendments to the intent of your bill. But these time frames for me don't they they're too long.
Speaker 11
We can't go over two forty with these amendments now. There's there's no
Speaker 1
Mistaken. So you've got under the bill as currently written, you've got a hundred and twenty days to cough up a purchase agreement.
Speaker 1
Currently amended. Correct. It's currently amended. If you don't cough up a purchase agreement, all bets are off.
Speaker 1
We'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'll be probably additional financing conditions, then you've got another hundred and twenty days under the bill as amended. So just to make sure that I'm not mistaken, it doesn't mean there's an additional hundred and twenty days somewhere in there. So a hundred and twenty days, cough up purchase agreement, no purchase agreement, all bets are off. If you do cough up purchase agreement, you get another hundred and twenty days to provide the financing and close the deal.
Okay? Alright.
Speaker 15
With the two 120 periods. Okay. It's just that's a really long time. And as the chair has already stated, after the first one hundred and twenty, which the good doctor also said, if you have nothing, then we're done with this and you're moving on. But if you have something, then you
Speaker 15
Then you yeah. Then I'm a little unclear on why you need the second hundred and twenty days because you have an agreement. I mean, in one way, it might be helpful because you couldn't go over the hundred and twenty days. But I'm just I'm just a little perplexed at why you need the second one hundred and twenty days once you already have 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 a hundred and twenty 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.
Speaker 31
So one of the constraints and the reason for those timeline lengths is because there is a need to conduct due diligence.
Speaker 7
Yes. Ms. When we look, for example, at the sale of this park, this public list or this confidential listing of the park did not include the fact that the park is actually vulnerable to certain geological features, like landslides. And so, if a resident organization did enter into a purchase agreement, they would still need time in order to hire geological technicians and folks along the lines of, you know, folks who would be able to help them evaluate the site for continued feasibility, making sure that everything as presented in the initial offering is still aligned with everything that they have, you know, entered into this contract to purchase. And should that have been misrepresented, residents also do need that additional time to then say, okay, maybe we need to go back to the table and renegotiate.
Speaker 15
not you're describing is a breach of contract. I mean, they would you have a duty to disclose that. So if somebody didn't disclose that in the first one hundred and twenty days, they would already be in violation of their legal duties to have disclosed something, especially that, a natural disaster.
Speaker 31
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. You can express your intent to purchase, Mhmm. But until you get back all the feedback from an engineer that says, yes, this is going to you be know, everything is
Speaker 15
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?
Speaker 32
Thank you, Senator. And so I want to first say that we agree with interpretation that the one hundred if no offer is tendered or interest is expressed in the first one hundred and twenty days, game over. It's the park can be sold. It's that second one hundred and twenty days that I think we're struggling with, as an association at WMA. You know, and I just kind of point you to page seven of the bill.
Speaker 8
It's, I forget what code it is. Now, this is not the amended one, but it's seven hundred ninety eight point eight three point two. And in Section C of that, it says management shall not reject a proposed purchase agreement solely on the basis of its inclusion of a financing contingency, the type of financing or payment method, or the time period for closing. So, what our question is, what happens if that time period for closing extends beyond the second one hundred and twenty days? That could actually go beyond the two forty.
Speaker 32
So, I mean, that's one of the concerns that we have about this bill, is that you could push this out beyond the two forty, in theory, if you 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?
Speaker 15
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
Speaker 1
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
Speaker 1
By by legislation, we're creating a first right of refusal. That's what we're doing, is we're creating a first right of refusal on the part of the of part of the tenants.
Speaker 15
Which I'm absolutely okay with on the hundred and twenty days, but I'm having trouble with the second hundred and twenty days.
Speaker 1
In a in a traditional commercial sale, is that the two parties agree? Two parties say, okay, we're gonna you've got x amount of time. And I would encourage the author to say, you know, absent agreement of the parties, that that the whatever time you choose remains that time.
Speaker 11
So Well, I actually think that's here in the bill. It says because because if you keep going, it then explicitly mentions one hundred and eighty days, and it says No, one hundred twenty.
Speaker 11
It says, you know, if the resident fails to arrange all necessary during this period of course, we're now down to one hundred twenty 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, least for transfer of the part.
Speaker 26
If that's the case under that section, why do you have management shall not reject oppose blah blah blah or the time period for closing if the time period for closing is a definite time period?
Speaker 1
if the time period for closing extends beyond the statutory period, I would guess you'd want to amend the bill so that the the law doesn't sort of indirectly extend that period.
Speaker 11
We just don't want we don't mean, and this is why the the good faith language you put in there. We didn't want Yeah. The owners who don't want to sell under these circumstances to run out the clock in a way disadvantageous. But, you know, I can only I mean, I'm I'm I think with the assistance of the senators and
Speaker 1
the Right. We think we're Own the language. We're kinda done writing the bill. Mhmm. So I I know that senator Allen will continue to have this conversation.
We've we've addressed several issues that I think you've you've indicated you will continue to look at. And I know that senator Wahhab has a question and senator Nilo Nilo also has a question.
Speaker 25
So, you know, in this building, the conversation about our housing has largely been about supply and demand, and that is the only conversation that seems to get any traction. And any conversation in this building regarding safeguards, transparency, you know, correcting bad actors, those conversations seem to die in this committee as well. And so I wanna flag as much as possible. I have actually traveled to the Palisades and Altadena and, you know, went on tour, if you will, with, Senator Allen. And this particular site that is the example in the photo that has been shown multiple times, it literally is right next to the water and a massive cliff like land right above it, right?
And when we met with the residents that were impacted by the fires, the individuals that had the most you know, authority were the the property owners. And the people that were the most vulnerable in every aspect of this disaster were either renters or mobile home park owners, the residents at those parks, because they do own the actual home. They don't own the land. They rent the land. Right?
So I just want to give that distinction.
Speaker 25
you know, this this is really important because even right now, I'm running a bill that literally just again protects mobile home park tenants from the potential of a sale that just completely destroys their homes and builds commercial multifamily housing. And this type of housing that we're talking about with mobile home parks do give people an opportunity to own. And granted, it's it's 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 for 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 we go into these communities, we represent the people that are living here that are, and I wanna be very clear, seniors, veterans, immigrants, disabled individuals, seniors that are taking care of their disabled adult kids, and so much more. Right?
These are populations of people that deserve every type of protection, every type of a heads up on a notice. And we're debating these timelines. Right? But if these community members are able to have a handful of folks that are saying, okay, we're gonna find some investor that works with us, maybe create a co op, maybe engage with the housing authority of that particular county, maybe get some government funding to be able to give us the rights to just own the land or buy. I think that is absolutely appropriate.
Absolutely appropriate because we do too much in this building for industry and for the dollar versus the actual people we serve. And and that that is how I feel. This is my biggest frustration in this building. And, you know, when when people are talking about the delays, and it's taking too long, right, again, it's the owners still choose whether to sell and still get market value. Right?
When we're talking about it's a forced sale, it's not. Residents must match the price. It's not like they're getting a massive discount or anything like that. They have to be in similar terms as fair market value. Right?
It's endless delays is what we're talking about. The bill has deadlines. If the sale doesn't work out, if if the requirements aren't met, the owner can walk away. Right? And so I fully support this bill.
You know, I'm I'm very proud of the work that, you know, senator Allen and I have actually done together to protect the most vulnerable community members. I think that's what we need to recenter is who is affected by this. And it's the people that are literally the most vulnerable that just want to be able to live where they have, where they bought a home. So what happens to the property if the land is sold? So we're uprooting the most vulnerable victims here.
So I I just wanna again, I I will make the motion to move this bill. I think it's absolutely appropriate. I think it's the right thing to do, and I think that we need to talk a little bit more about how we protect more people rather than, you know, the takings, if you will. So thank you.
Speaker 6
Alrighty. Thank you. Senator Nieto. Thank you, mister chair. We're talking about, we've been talking about, the ability of people to stay in their home, to maintain the home they've had.
That's reflective of the, statements that senator Wahhab said. But and it says if a sale of the park means everybody's gonna lose their home. I'm I'm I'm missing the logic on that. There's protections for people that live in mobile home parks, and those protections extend regardless of who the owner is. A new owner is subject to the same restrictions of protection of the residents as the selling owner was.
So I'm not sure that I fully understand that seemingly foregone conclusion that the sale of Park means people are gonna lose their homes. And this I I understand the unique nature of mobile homes, that people own the home, but they're renting the space. But they know that when they enter the agreement. That's not something that's all of a sudden realized if the park is gonna go up for sale. And my concern about that is it is a fundamental compromise of private property rights.
We are telling a private property owner, we're putting conditions onto a private property owner that compromise his or her ability to exercise their private property rights, which is the fundamental reasons for for the opposition. And that's a pretty important 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 property of the exercise of private private property rights. That's my concern with the bill. And, again, I'll go back to my first statement.
It doesn't automatically mean that people are gonna lose their homes. They are protected under current laws, under the new owner as they were the old owner. Perhaps you're gonna say, well, the only reason somebody would wanna buy the property is because they want it for an alternative use. But still, the existing owner could pursue that alternative use only under the protections that are provided by California law of of mobile home tenants. So I I the the the argument that we're protecting their home just doesn't seem realistic to me, number one.
And number two, the violation of private property rights is significant in my mind.
Speaker 11
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 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 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 unlimited rights to the tenants in this case. We're giving them some ample opportunity, and we could talk about the time frame and all the things we discussed earlier, but just some fighting chance to come back with a real offer to that landlord and offer them the same amount of money so as to be able to keep themselves in their homes at their own terms. That's what we're asking to do here. So if you're a strict strict laissez fairest, 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 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.
If if disagree with that core concept, then obviously we're not gonna come to an accord. But if
Speaker 1
I'm just guessing that senator Niello has not changed his mind. Just guessing.
Speaker 17
I just want to comment on the opposition. I appreciated the comment from the gentleman who spoke earlier. He didn't come in and say, absolutely not. We don't wanna do this. He just had concerns about some of the timelines, and I appreciate your willingness to work with them.
I think that, you know, as senator Wahhab has has discussed, keeping people in their home is extremely important.
Speaker 17
These are tenants that have been paying for years, and I'm saying decades because I have many of them in my in my district as well. Yes. I want to be able to protect the owners ability to sell. That that's that's the American dream. You you purchase something, and you should be able to sell it at some point.
And we're just saying, just do one extra step to protect the people who have been your faithful tenants. Those protections that senator Nilo talked about, they're not going to be the same with the new purchaser. The new purchaser does not have the same obligation to those tenants that the current owner has. The the the new owner can do just as the senator as the author has mentioned. They can increase the price for for the site, for the rental, to a point where it's no longer affordable.
It's no longer the issue for the prior owner. The prior owner
Speaker 17
done. But just this transition and, again, I I I do applaud you in your position, not saying absolutely not. You're taking away my all my rights. You're saying I have concerns about some of this. As we transition for in this sale, it's going to be a sale price that has to match what the private industry has offered, the terms and conditions, as I said earlier.
So I I I just wanted to say that I appreciated that, and I appreciate the author's willingness to work on this. I think it's a righteous bill. I think it's an important protection for for those tenants, and I I I I want you to continue and and certainly work with the opposition. I know that you will.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Other comments or questions? Seeing none? So senator okay. Senator Russell.
Speaker 22
Just one. Just one. I, 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.
Speaker 22
And we need to build more affordable housing. I see nothing here that takes away from anyone's ability to sell and make a profit and do all of that. But we we saw another thing we saw from the from the fires was these were real communities that stuck together. Yeah. They helped each other out.
They watched out for each other. And that's all that I think these communities wanna do as well. So thank you very much for the bill.
Speaker 1
Alrighty. Thank you. Seeing no other questions or comments, would you like to close?
Speaker 11
No. I just appreciate this thoughtful conversation both of the proponents and opponents and and my amongst my colleagues. We will work on this. I invite and encourage real dialogue as we try to get to striking that balance. I think we recognize that this is a private market.
These folks do deserve an opportunity to you know, make money and and, but we also wanna make sure we're preserving people's rights to to stay in their homes and their ability their ability to stay in their homes, if they can come up with a bonafide competitive offer. So with that, in that spirit, I'd love to work with everybody and ask for an
Speaker 1
I think Senator Wahhab wanted to move the bill. Senator Wahhab moves the bill. Just one final comment. I appreciate your flexibility, and I made a comment earlier about writing the bill in committee. I know you've gotten a number of suggestions, and I also know that that you're a person of your word, and that in terms of, for example, the reciprocal good faith, and in terms of making sure that there's clarity, that you will take all those to heart.
And with that
Speaker 1
And we will continue to work on that. And with that, committee assistant Porter, would you call the
Speaker 19
is file number seven, SB ten ninety two. The motion is to pass as amended to Senate Housing. Umberg?
Speaker 19
Umberg, aye. Nilo? Nilo, no. Allen? Aye.
Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero?
Duraso? Aye. Duraso, aye. Laird? Reyes?
Reyes, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern aye. Valadez?
Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab aye. Weber Pearson aye. Weber Pearson aye.
Weiner? 8 to one.
Speaker 1
81. We're gonna put that on call. And I see Senator Allen is departing and Senator Becker is here. Senator Becker, filename number four, SB nine eleven. The floor is yours.
After Senator Becker, we're gonna Senator Aragine to appear.
Speaker 36
Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm presenting SB nine eleven. This is pertaining to inspections of homes in very high wildfire severity zones to ensure compliance with defensible space standards.
Won't go through because I know you all are aware of the increase in destructive fires. But right now, there's more than 2,000,000 California households, approximately one in four residential structures in California are located within or in proximity of high or extreme fire risk areas as identified by CAL FIRE. 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 that 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 seller of 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 space standards or agree that the buyer will bring the home into compliance within a year of the sale.
While sale transactions are an ideal time to bring homes up to code, the fly in the ointment, there's no really way there's been a loophole and a failure to alert the relevant fire enforcement agencies that the agreement has been reached. 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 California Association of Realtors have expressed concerns with this approach. I've been sitting down with the realtors, the escrow agents, the land title companies to find a way through this. The solution we're now discussing, and I want to just share this with you because this is not the bill in print, the solution we're discussing would modify what's called the preliminary change of ownership report, which is followed by the transferee.
And per a plan amendment, that will now 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.
Happy to go through any of that. Afterwards, here to testify the bill itself is Michael Wara, Senior Director for Policy, Sustainability Accelerator at the Stanford Doris School of Sustainability and Steve Albert, Deputy Fire Marshal at the Contra Costa Fire Protection District.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Senator Becker and members of the committee for inviting me to testify today on SB nine eleven. 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. Michael Michael Worra. I am 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 nine eleven, and I want to sort of speak at the high level.
Speaker 37
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 4,291, as it is evolving and we all know that's something that the Board of Forestry is continually trying to approve in a balanced way. But, over time, more of the homes in the high fire risk communities are really substantively in compliance with the code. Of course, homes fall out of compliance because plants grow.
It's no one's fault. It's not anyone's intention. But it can create a really challenging dynamic between firefighters and homeowners that is absent at the point of a transaction because the rose bush that someone has fallen in love with who lives in the house matters less once they've sold the house. To the new owner, that rose bush is not something that they planted with their mother ten years ago that they're deeply committed to the existence of it. 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 'seventeen and 'eighteen fire seasons. And I urge your support in seeing this bill out of committee. Thank you.
Speaker 26
Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm Steve Aubert. I serve as Deputy Fire Marshal for Contra Costa County Fire Protection District and also here to represent CAL Chiefs Association and Fire Districts Association of California. Thank you, Senator Becker. On behalf of CAL Chiefs and the Fire District Association, we are pleased to support SB nine eleven.
Speaker 38
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 nine eleven 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, CALCHIES and FDAC respectfully ask for an I vote. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1
All right. Others in support of SB nine eleven, please approach your microphone. Oh, seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the opposition. Oh, Soldier Member Woods. Welcome back.
Speaker 33
Afternoon. Jim Wood, California Strategies, representing Fire Aside, 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 his taking this effort up. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Some member would appreciate it. All right. Others in support.
Speaker 29
Hi. Good afternoon. Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. I'm pleased to support, 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 oppose and less amended position on the bill, I look forward to removing that opposition once the proposed amendments are in print.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I think, indeed, Senator Becker has committed to remove your opposition. Yes. Is that accurate? Yeah.
Alright. Thank you. Okay. Others in support, seeing no one else approaching, let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to SB nine eleven, please approach.
Seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the committee. Senator Ashby has moved the bill. Senator Reyes has a question.
Speaker 17
Only because we received so little in writing. I want to confirm it is the obligation of the seller or of the buyer to notify To get the notification that all everything has been done.
Speaker 36
So what what we're proposing going forward is going to modify an existing document that 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 buyers or the realtors, it's going to be part of a report that it's going to be an additional basic check off in a report that already goes through this preliminary change of ownership. And my notes say it's filed by the transferee, which is the buyer.
So part of a report already filed by the buyer.
Speaker 17
And I do want to say that the example given by your witness about this rose bush, it means nothing to the buyer, but it may mean everything to the seller. It was a great example. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1
I'm sorry. Senator Ashes moved the bill. Right. Would you like to close?
Speaker 36
Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for, we have the author of one of the the previous, work on this, and, you know, we're all trying to get, to this point of figuring out how do we provide the right incentives, the right enforcement, the right dollars, to create the defensible space that we all need. I believe this bill is an important step in that direction. I want to thank my team for also working very hard on this and respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 19
This is file item number four, SB nine eleven. The motion is to pass to the Senate Local Government Committee. Umberg? Aye. Umberg aye.
Nilo?
Speaker 19
Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby I.
Caballero? Duraso? Aye. Duraso I. Laird?
Reyes? Aye. Reyes I. Stern? Aye.
Stern I. Valadares? Wahab? It's all you. Weber Pearson?
Speaker 6
I'm up. Sorry. This is senator D'Arrazo, agenda item number nine, s b eleven sixty. You may proceed when you reach the microphone. Wrong way.
How long have you been here?
Speaker 22
Thank you, Mr. Chair. 11 60. Okay. Chair and, members, eleven sixty s s b eleven sixty 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.
Speaker 5
Well, thank you so much. Thank you, Chair Humburg and members of the committee. Like Senator D'Arrazzo 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 eleven sixty is rooted in over a decade of experience gathering and analyzing this data using public records requests.
Speaker 39
And I'd like to say that I haven't taken this journey alone. I've been assisted by incredible staff from judicial counsel and superior court systems across the state. As part of this process, I learned about the ad, 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 report this data is also being published in a report that will be released on April 21 that talks about trends in eviction filings and outcomes across the state. This info has also been used to enact and implement right to counsel legislation in the city of Los Angeles in LA County and to support tenant protection policy advocacy efforts in jurisdictions across California. And this is in some of our most pressing moments like the COVID-nineteen pandemic and the wildfires in Los Angeles County. This data is primarily aggregated filings and outcomes at the county level.
We currently have it for 50 of 58 counties. Now that sounds great until we think about the fact that the counties that don't report contain over 54% of California's tenancies and 57% of its eviction filings. Now, this data is helpful, but it's limited. And that's why we need SB eleven sixty. SB eleven sixty helps us understand what actually
Speaker 39
Thank you very much for this opportunity. I'm testifying in support of SB eleven sixty, and I'm asking this committee to vote aye. Thank you very much.
Speaker 20
Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Tino Rosales Torres. I use sheher pronouns, I'm a policy attorney with Western Center on Law and Poverty. I have had the privilege of working with most of you here on tenant protections for the past five years, and the number one question I get without fail is, What does the data say? And my response is usually, We have some of it, but not all of it, so I'll share what we have.
And what SB what this bill is doing is closing the gap, bridging the gap between the data that we have and the data that we need. I know every one of you want good governance. You want transparency and accountability. And that's all this bill is going to do because it'll allow us to determine whether the bills that we all work so hard to pass are actually effective. Are those solutions addressing the problems that we wish to resolve.
Speaker 18
And that is why we need this aggregated data by zip code. I will share one example. We all worked on the COVID-nineteen, eviction protections, the emergency rental assistance program, and we 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 $5,000,000,000 to over 370,000 households.
Speaker 20
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
Speaker 20
a big word for me, but it's essentially it's going to remain privatized. So it's not like we'll be able to find an individual person or an individual homeowner and figure out what's going on with their housing. It's just 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.
Speaker 34
Good afternoon. Marquis Cedra on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in support. Thank you.
Speaker 40
Good afternoon. Ruth Sosa Martinez on behalf of Power CA Action in support.
Speaker 8
Ruth Good afternoon. Natalie Spivak with Housing California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Ruth Thank you. And seeing no others approaching the microphone, primary witnesses in opposition.
Speaker 34
Good afternoon. Kevin Rogers with the California Association of Realtors, and we oppose. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Others in opposition? Bring it back to the, committee. Questions? Comments? Senator D'Arrasza.
Senator Reyes. I'm bill. I
Speaker 17
just wanna thank you for for this. And I think, as your witness said, we always wanna know what the data is. I mean, how many people are being evicted? How many go to trial? How many trials are dismissed?
And we don't have this in the aggregate form, and it's time that we did. So I thank you for bringing this forward. And with that, would move the bill.
Speaker 6
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
Speaker 6
Yes. It was. It arrived rather late. It is in the committee analysis. But
Speaker 6
Would the realtors like to make any comment relative questions from members of the committee? If not, we have a motion, by Senator Reyes. Please call.
Speaker 19
This is file item number nine, SB eleven sixty. The motion is to pass to Senate Appropriations. Umburg? Nilo?
Speaker 19
Nilo, aye. Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye.
Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Duraso? Aye.
Duraso, aye. Laird? Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye.
Stern? Valadares? Aye. Valadares aye. Wahhab?
Weber Pearson? Weiner? Aye. Weiner aye. 7 to zero.
Speaker 6
7 to zero. We will keep that open. And Senator D'Arrazzo, you are up again. This is file item 10, SB thirteen ninety nine. Great.
Speaker 22
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill preserves California's ability to shine a light on conditions inside the immigration detention facilities. Under existing law established a b one zero three established an important state oversight framework requiring the California Department of Justice to review immigration detention facilities and report on conditions of confinement, standard of care, and due process provided to detained individuals. But that authority is set to sunset on 07/01/2027.
Speaker 2
SB thirteen ninety nine 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 right concerns are too easily too easily go unseen. We have the responsibility to understand what is happening inside these facilities and ensure that the treatment of detained individuals is documented, reviewed, and made transparent, and so that we can be aware we can know and be assured of the well-being of all Californians. In since a b one zero three 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, etc.
Speaker 22
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 Francis Davila, manager of community advocacy with the Acacia Center for Justice to speak in support and help answer questions.
Speaker 28
Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Vilma Palmasolana, 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 s b thirteen ninety nine. Since the legislature enacted a b one zero three in 2017, our department has been reviewing civil immigration detention facilities, and I oversee their 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 thirteen ninety nine.
Speaker 41
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 Waste Processing Center because the facility was unprepared for the population explosion during the Trump administration's immigration enforcement surge in Southern California in June Thank 2020 you.
Speaker 21
CHAIRMAN Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Committee. My name is Frances Stabella, I'm an immigration attorney with the Acacia Center for Justice. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of SB thirteen ninety nine. This bill concerns California's authority to continue reviewing and reporting on conditions inside immigration detention facilities. Since 01/20/2546 people have died in immigration custody, the highest number in over two decades.
Speaker 42
2026 is on track to exceed that with thirteen reported deaths, some of which occurred in California. That makes independent state oversight not optional but essential. While immigration enforcement is a federal issue, the health, safety, and dignity of people detained in California directly impact our communities. California has directed Cal DOJ to inspect detention facilities and issue public reports on conditions of confinement, medical ill care, and due process, but that authority expires in 2027. SB thirteen ninety nine simply ensures this oversight does not disappear.
These reports matters because what happens inside these facilities is often hidden. In January 2023, a man detained at Golden State Annex wrapped a sheet around his neck in an apparent suicide attempt, Yet, staff dismissed the incident saying he was playing with it. There was no documented suicide review, no trauma informed follow-up, and no formal response. In 2023 alone, 41 rape incidents were reported at Otay Mesa, Yet survivors were denied trauma care, appropriate referrals, and investigations. On 02/27/2026, 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, the general public about the realities of these facilities, and what, if anything, can be done to pursue accountability. Thank
Speaker 1
All right. Others in support of SB thirteen ninety nine, please approach your microphone.
Speaker 23
Good afternoon, Chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of Unidos U. S. We're in support. Thank you.
Speaker 41
Jackie Gonzalez, co executive director of Immigrant Defense Advocates, proud co sponsor in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Others in support, please approach. Seeing no one else approaching, let's talk to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB thirteen ninety nine, please come forward, seeing no one coming forward. Let's bring it back to committee for questions, comments.
Questions, comments? Senator Reyes.
Speaker 17
I want to begin by thanking the attorney general and his staff, his team for the inspections, for for the oversight. So important. People have died there. People are you you've you've mentioned so many atrocities. This should not be happening in California, and I'm so glad a b third, one zero three had passed to allow the attorney general to do this, and I appreciate all the work that he and his team have done.
So please thank him on our behalf. And to the to the author, I thank you for bringing the bill forward. I think it's extremely important that we make it permanent. The attorney general should have the ability to do these inspections and do the oversight, for the good of all Californians. It isn't just our immigrants because they are part of our communities, and and we have to be able to make sure that the the if they're going to be held, that they are held in humane, in a humane way and not, ever have harm come upon them.
So I thank you for bringing this forward. And with that, I would move the bill.
Speaker 1
Alright. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, senator Reyes has moved the bill. Senator Raso, would you like to close?
Speaker 22
Thank you. I just wanna end by reminding us that these are not these are people who have not been found guilty of crimes. These are civil this is civil detention. And to hear the report, just examples of the report given by the Department of Justice really should be shocking to all of us. The least we can do is to continue.
There are many other things that we need to do, but the least we could do is to continue the authority of the Department of Justice. So thank you all very much, and an urgent I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Senator Raso. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll. Yes, Senator Reyes. Reyes made the motion, yes.
Speaker 19
This is file item number 10, SB thirteen ninety nine. The motion is to pass to Senate Appropriations. Umberg? Aye. Umberg aye.
Nilo? Allen? Ashby? Aye. Ashby aye.
Caballero? Aye. Caballero aye. Duraso? Aye.
Duraso aye. Laird? Reyes? Aye. Reyes aye.
Stern? Valadares, Wahab, Weber Pearson, Weiner. Five to zero.
Speaker 1
we are now seeking, desperately seeking authors. I think there's a book called that.
Speaker 1
we can go through the count. But let ask Senator Blakespeare or Senator Allen to come down to the
Speaker 1
Oh, is Senator Aragine here? No. Okay. Senator Aragine, yes, we'd like him as well. We don't want to be discriminatory.
Okay. Alright. Let's open the roll and go through the votes that have been taken. On
Speaker 19
Nilo, aye. Allen Capayero? Aye. Capayero, aye. Durasso?
Aye. Durasso, aye. Laird Stern, Weiner. Nine to zero on the consent calendar.
Speaker 19
File item number one SB nine thirty four. The motion was due passed to Senate Appropriations. Chair voting aye. Nilo? No.
Nilo, no. Allen? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye.
Laird? Stern. Eight to two.
Speaker 19
File item number four, SB911. Chair running I, Allen Caballero Caballero I, Laird Valadares.
Speaker 19
File item number 7, SB1092. Chair voting aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero aye.
Laird? Valadares? No. Valadares, no. Weiner?
92.
Speaker 32
File item number 10, SB 1399. Chair voting aye, Nilo, Allen Laird Stern Valadares, Wahab, Weber Pearson, Weiner.
Speaker 1
File item number three, SB 1166. Senator Aragine, thank you. I can see you ran over here. I appreciate that. The floor is yours.
Speaker 35
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Pleased to present SB eleven sixty six, 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.
Speaker 43
I would be remiss in the absence of Senator Layer 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 resolved through the courts and not purged. This will save costs, ensure access to justice. And with me to testify in support of the bill is Sultana Adams and Nick, Cobell from ASME Local three thousand nine hundred and sixteen, representing members of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District employees. And, with respect for your ask, sir,
Speaker 11
Ms. Hello. My name is Sultana Adams. I'm a transportation supervisor at AC Transit and a proud member of AFSCME Local three thousand nine hundred sixteen. I'm here today to urge the California State Senate to support SB eleven sixty six, 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.
Speaker 44
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 processes, practices in a way that is efficient, transparent, and cost effective. Right now, AC Transit employees are governed by the Public Utilities Code, a system that is outdated, costly, and extremely time 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 process practice, and it directly impacts our members, families, as well as our ability to serve the public. This bill would give my local, as well as AC Transit, a better path forward. It would help resolve issues early, reduce the need for expensive arbitrations, and keep our focus exactly where it belongs, delivering public reliable public transit to the communities we serve.
As Senator Aragine 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 right. Our peer organizations.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Senator Aragine. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Nick Kobel. I'm a data engineer, at AC Transit and a proud member of ASME Local three thousand nine hundred and sixteen. I'm here to ask for your support of SB eleven sixty six.
Speaker 10
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.
Speaker 5
PERB 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, SACRT, Santa Cruz Metro, they're all under PERB. AC Transit should be part of that same standard. And to be clear, this 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 eleven sixty six helps to fix that. 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.
Speaker 19
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California. We are proud cosponsors.
Speaker 33
Mr. Chair, I took the long route. Hunter Stern, IBW Local twelve forty five. We have approximately 40 members at AC Transit, we strongly support the bill.
Speaker 1
You. Anyone else in support? Approaching, if you're opposed to SB eleven sixty six. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to committee for questions, comments. Questions, comments?
Senator S.
Speaker 17
I have to tell you, 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 for there's so few public transit districts whose unionized employees don't have access to PERB and to their expertise in labor law, that's such a disservice. I'm glad that you're bringing this bill, and with that, I would move the bill.
Speaker 1
All right. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, Senator Reyes has moved the bill. Would you like to close?
Speaker 1
Excellent close. All right. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll.
Speaker 19
This is file item number three, SB eleven sixty six. The motion is due passed to send an appropriations. Hamburg? Aye. Hamburg aye.
Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby?
Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye.
Duraso? Aye. Duraso, aye. Laird, Reyes? Aye.
Reyes, aye. Stern? Valadares? No. Valadares, no.
Wahab, Weber Pearson? Weiner? Five to two.
Speaker 1
52. Put that on call. I see senator Blake Spurs here for file number five, SB twelve thirty seven. After Senator Blakespeare, we have one remaining author. That's Senator Allen.
Speaker 45
He's on the committee, right? So he'll certainly be here. One would help. Yeah.
Speaker 45
Thank you. Pleasure. Thank you, colleagues. I'm pleased to author SB twelve thirty seven, 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 $0.81 with larger gaps for women of color. For example, for every $1 that a white man makes, a black woman earns $0.58 and a Latina woman earns $0.44 To better identify and address these inequities, California requires companies with a 100 or more employees to report annual pay to CRD disaggregated by race, ethnicity, sex, and job category. However, the department is missing pay data for at least 400,000 workers.
Speaker 22
SB twelve thirty seven will strengthen enforcement by increasing the penalty for repeat noncompliance from $200 to a thousand dollars per employee. Increased penalties will serve as a meaningful deterrent against non compliance and generate additional resources for more proactive enforcement. This bill ensures employers can't treat pay 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.
Speaker 40
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 twelve thirty seven, 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 7,900,000 workers was reported to the Civil Rights Department. However, in that same year, around 8,300,000 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 noncompliance 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 $0.81 to that dollar. And those gaps are even wider, as the senator mentioned, for black and Latina women.
Speaker 9
For the young people that we work with at Power CA 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.
Speaker 40
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 of 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.
Speaker 1
urge an I vote. Yes. Yes, got it. Okay. Others in support, SB twelve thirty seven, please approach.
Speaker 23
Hi. Good afternoon. Carol Gonzales on behalf of Espana's 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.
Speaker 1
Mr. Alrighty, thank you. Anyone else in support of SB twelve thirty seven?
Speaker 16
Ms. Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Emmy Quevedo, and I'm a student at McGeorge School of Law, in strong support of this bill, as for all Latinas who are being paid less.
Speaker 9
it. Justin Brion, 3L from McGeorge School of Law. Thank you for your support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Alright. Anyone else in support? Seeing no one else approaching, let's now talk to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB twelve thirty seven, 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?
Speaker 1
Senator Ashby has moved the bill. Seeing no questions or comments, would you like to close?
Speaker 1
aye vote. Another great close. All right. Thank you. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll.
Speaker 19
This is file item number five, SB twelve thirty seven. The motion is due passed to Senate appropriations. Umburg? Aye. Umburg aye.
Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Ashby?
Speaker 19
Ashby, aye. Caballero? Caballero I. Duraso? Aye.
Duraso I. Laird? Reyes? Aye. Reyes I.
Stern?
Speaker 1
Six to one. We'll put that on call. If this is senator Allen, we'll all be very happy.
Speaker 1
we have one bill left by Senator Allen, so we'll wait patiently. Why don't we, committee assistant Porter, why don't we just go through the roll for those who have not voted?
Speaker 1
folks, I accede to the majority over here on my left. They get uppity. Committees of supporter, if you would call the roll, that would be great. Chief Counsel Estrada.
Speaker 3
Yes. Okay. We're going to start with the consent calendar. Alan Stern Weiner. Are you gonna put it back on
Speaker 3
Alright. The next one is file item number one, SB nine thirty four by Senator Weiner. Chair voting aye, Allen, Laird, Stern.
Speaker 37
Alright. File item number three, SB eleven sixty six by Senator Aragain. Chair voting aye, Allen, Laird Stern Wahhab Wahhab I, Weber Pearson Wahhab Wahhab Weiner. That's six to two members missing. File item number four is by Senator Becker, SB nine eleven.
Speaker 3
Chair voting, aye. Alan Laird Wahhab Wahhab aye. Weber Pearson Weiner. That is nine to zero.
Speaker 3
Next is file item number five by senator Blake Spear. Chair voting aye. Actually, everybody is here
Speaker 1
So, Senator we'll do one more, then Senator Allen will proceed. Go ahead. One more.
Speaker 3
Okay. File item number seven, SB ten ninety two by Senator Allen. Chair voting I, Laird Wiener. 12345678. It's 9 to two with my missing.
Okay.
Speaker 1
Alright. Let's we're gonna go with senator Allen now. Senator Allen, S V 1365, Floor is yours.
Speaker 11
Thank you so much, mister. 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% 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 LA, some loopholes then became readily apparent.
Existing price gouging law defines rental lease terms to have a maximum lease of twelve months. However, some rentals have been listed for longer than twelve 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 is already evidence of these practices impacting fire survivors in Los Angeles.
A Redfin review of lot sales in the Fire Zone found that approximately 40% 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 car right protection enforcement authority to cities with a population of over 750,000. So that's just the city of LA, San Francisco, San Diego, and San Jose. It does not change the scope of the Car Right Act.
The bill also requires the city attorney the city's attorneys to report to both the Attorney General and the District Attorney explaining any proposed prosecution under the Kartrite Act and allows for the Attorney General to take full charge of any investigation prosecution if he or 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, have assistant city attorney Kevin James from the office of LA's, city attorney, Feldstein So to.
Speaker 28
May I, mister chair? Nice Thank to see 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 lowball, 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.
Speaker 36
After lots of research, our work with Senator Allen determined that expanding the enforcement provisions of the Cartwright Act with SB thirteen sixty five 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.
Speaker 28
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 Thank
Speaker 26
Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Watchdog and enthusiastic support. Don't have any more to add.
Speaker 1
Thank you. All right, anyone else in support? SB thirteen sixty five, please approach microphone, seeing no one approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB thirteen sixty five, now's your time.
Speaker 35
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 thirteen sixty five unnecessarily expands California's antitrust law to allow four 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, mister Bonta emphasized how specialized this field of law is. We wholeheartedly agree.
Speaker 17
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.
Speaker 14
you, Mr. Chair and members. Robert Muthrie, California Chamber of Commerce. I will also try to be brief. We are also respectfully opposed to SB thirteen sixty five.
Speaker 46
Similarly, we're not opposed out of any defense to price gouging, and I want to thank the author for a meeting. I've met with staff and tried to discuss it. 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, we have concerns about inconsistent enforcement and cost there. Thank you. Won't take more time.
Speaker 1
Mr. Carney, thank you. Others opposed, SB thirteen sixty five, 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? Okay. Well, I'm sorry. Senator Nieto has a question.
Speaker 6
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 is one can be one egregious example of that. But there can be alleged price gouging with commodities that becomes scarce in an area where the demand for that commodity significantly increases
Speaker 6
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.
Speaker 1
Alright. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, senator D'Rasso has moved the bill. Senator Allen, would you like to close?
Speaker 11
Yeah. Appreciate the the comment. All I will say is that, we 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 mean, 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 respectfully ask my vote.
Speaker 1
All right. Thank you very much. Ms. Porter, it's been moved. Please call the roll.
Speaker 19
Ms. Is file item number eight, SB thirteen sixty five. The motion is due passed to Senate Public Safety. Umberg? Aye.
Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen?
Speaker 19
Allen, aye. Ashby? Ashby, Caballero? Aye. Caballero, I.
Duraso? Aye. Duraso, Laird? Reyes? Aye.
Reyes, I. Stern? What? Stern, I. Valadares?
Valadares? No. Wahab? Aye. Wahab I.
Weber Pearson?
Speaker 1
92. We're gonna put that on call for a moment. We're gonna go through the roll here. I think that we have Senator Weiner. That's who we're missing.
Senator Stern is here. Now you gotta take down that picture. Committee assistant Porter, from the top.
Speaker 19
On the consent calendar, chair voting aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Laird?
Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Weiner? 11 to zero?
Speaker 19
File item number one, SB 934. Chair voting aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, aye.
Laird, Stern?
Speaker 19
item number three, SB eleven sixty six. Chair voting aye. Allen? -Aye. -Aye.
-Laird? Stern? Aye. Stern I. Weber Pearson
Speaker 19
File item number four, SB nine eleven, chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, I. Laird? Weber Pearson?
Speaker 19
Speaker: File item number five, SB 12 37, chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, aye. Laird, Stern? Aye.
Stern, I. Valadares, Weber Pearson?
Speaker 19
Director File item number seven, SB ten ninety two. Chair voting aye. Laird? Weiner? Aye.
Weiner aye. 10 to two.
Speaker 19
-File item number nine, SB eleven sixty. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, I. Laird, Stern?
Aye. Stern, I. Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab, I.
Weber Pearson? Aye. Weber Pearson, 12 to zero.
Speaker 19
File item number 10, SB 1399, chair voting aye. Nilo? Allen? Allen I. Laird?
Stern? Okay.
Speaker 19
Stern I. Valadares? Aye. Wahab I. Weber Pearson?
Aye. Weber Pearson I. Weiner? Aye. Weiner I.
10 to zero.
Speaker 19
File item number three, s b eleven sixty six, chair voting aye, Laird, Weiner.
Speaker 19
File item number four, SB nine eleven. Chair voting aye. Laird, Weiner? Aye. Weiner aye.
12 to zero?
Speaker 19
File item number five, SB twelve thirty seven. Chair voting aye. Laird? Valadares? Weiner?
Speaker 1
That's it. All right, we're recess till next Tuesday and adjourned. Next Tuesday at 01:30 or what time? 01:30. All right.
Thank you all.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.