Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good morning. Thank you all for being here today. I want to welcome you to the Judiciary Committee meeting. And as a reminder, each side will be allowed two main witnesses, two minutes each. Additional witnesses should state their name and organization only. This allows all authors a fair chance to present their bills and Members of the public an equal chance to have their position reflected in the record. As we proceed with our Bill hearing, I just want to go through the rules.

I want to so everyone understands our Committee rules to ensure we maintain order and run a fair and efficient hearing, with the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time. The rules of conduct by Members of the public include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and must be limited to your name, organization, and support or opposition of a Bill.

No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. No engaging in personal attacks of Members of this Committee, authors, or staff. Please be aware that violation of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement processes. And just as kind of a special order of business, when SB 331 is called, we're going to make a special accommodation for support witness testimony. We received a request to allow one support witness to testify by phone.

As a General rule, we haven't allowed phone testimony for witnesses, but given the unique circumstances of the witness in this case, the witness is a minor who has expressed concern about their safety and welfare. The Committee has granted this one time exception to the rule. With that, we will begin as a Subcommittee, we do not have an author here, so aye would encourage Senators Umberg, Eggman, Rubio, Durazo, Gonzalez, Smallwood-Cuevas, or Stern to please head over. Welcome, Senator Eggman. You don't even have to sit down. Just walk straight over to the table.

Welcome. You have two matters, SB 43 and SB 267. Let's go ahead and start with SB 43.

Mr. Chair, let me get up here. So and I just like to say good morning to everybody and thank you for hearing this today. Thank the Committee for their work on this and the Chair for his work on this. And also to say this is not one piece of legislation. This is a continuum of care that we've been consistently working on over the last decade. Really trying to I was listening on my way in this morning. Joni Mitchell. Both sides now. And I think we see both sides now.

I think we had a lot of good ideas years and years ago, and I think what we've seen now on our streets and in our system is the result of, at one time, not seeing both sides of everything. And when we passed LPA back in the '60s, it was the right thing to do. It was the best thing to do to not to keep people indefinitely institutionalized at the highest level of care.

But what we do know I was reading an article last night from 1987 where they said we got it wrong. This is not compassionate, that we really didn't think about when we said people shouldn't be in institutions, we didn't think about the supports those institutions provided, the housing supports they provided, the food supports they provided, the wraparound services care they provided. And we just looked at them as an evil and not as something that also provided the care,

that if you remove all that, you are left with, I think the results a lot of what we see now. So that's kind of my little preface that this is part of a larger continuum. And as people know, through the last couple of years we have set up a children's backbone for a full continuum of care. We have passed the Care Act. Last year I've worked on providing, gathering more data as it applies to the LPS and the conservatorship.

We have done more on AOT, advanced AOT, I've done that as we've done more on providing people another 30 days before they enter into conservatorship. And then this year a redo of MHSA, both the policy part of it and how we're able to use those resources, and also providing some additional funding to be able to provide more of the village type housing or the housing that heals that we think is so important in treating the most vulnerable of us.

So fast forward today and we know that our largest state mental hospital right now is our prison system. And we know the majority of folks entering in are at a higher rate, those with untreated mental health issues.

And we know repeatedly, we've heard from people who cycle in and out and have perhaps been on an LPS hold for 30, 40 times before they end up really hurting somebody and then ending up losing all of their ability to make decisions because then they're in state prison and or dead or in jail. Is voluntary the best? Of course it is. No argument. It is always the best.

But as we know, sometimes people reach a state where they're unable to make decisions or they suffer from something called anosognosia, which means they don't even understand that they have a mental health issue going on. So what SB 43 does ahead of you today is updates what it means to be gravely disabled in California. To add what we're actually seeing in time, the ability to be able to provide.

And not just if you can't provide know you're not turning down a shelter bed, but if you cannot provide adequate shelter for yourself, if you cannot provide for your basic needs, if you cannot provide for your medical needs and that results in a continuing of care. This Bill is about a safety net. First and foremost just to really be able to finish this continuum of care that we've been working on for this last decade to update the current laws, also be able to have hearsay.

I know we've had some conversation about that. I thank the Committee for their work and really narrowing what we mean by that. As people know, the court passed some laws a while ago. You can't use that. But we know that in those medical records are the signs and symptoms that people who have dealt with folks for years are able to document for a judge to be able to use that when deciding if somebody is at that point where they should be conserved.

And of course, that is on a long line of continuum of care that we hope fewer and fewer of folks reach the place where we see them as gravely disabled as they are right now. I hope we all agree that the status quo is not okay. We see homelessness, we see death, we see incarceration. Let's work on a better solution.

And with me here today, I have Randall Hagar on behalf of the Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California and Leanne Dumas from the City of San Francisco working as an attorney in their office. Thank you.

First witness.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Randall Hager. I actually wear a couple hats today, not only representing the Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California and all the psychiatrists who treat people in the LPS system on a daily basis, but I'm also a board member for the Treatment. Advocacy Center in Arlington, Virginia, which works to remove barriers that exist to the treatment of the severely mentally ill. And I'm also a family member with a son with schizophrenia.

So I would like to start by saying that I think that it's important to understand what schizophrenia is, to realize who that person is out there on the street when you see them. Schizophrenia can be a profoundly disabling disorder. It manifests as hallucinations and delusions. People are often really, really cognitively impaired, particularly if they're not treated. And that's what we see on our streets today.

The LPS Act was meant to be a tool for us to be able to treat people who could not take care of themselves. And when they rise to that threshold where their basic human needs are not something that they can address food, clothing, and shelter, as Senator Eggman referenced, then we take care of them. And we take care of them and treat them and support them until they can take care of themselves. And that's really, I think, the nut of the matter here. It is protective.

It's about safety, safety in the community. And so we don't do this willy nilly. There is a presumption in the law that wherever we can, we place people in the community, and only if they're unsafe there, we bring them into acute psychiatric inpatient hospitals. There's also a presumption that if a person can be treated safely using voluntary methods. We do that. And so what you have before you is the LPS and a new definition of great disability, which helps us with those people who cannot help themselves.

I think in your analysis, the example of Mark Rippy is entirely appropriate. It's gone into in some detail, so I won't repeat that. But I will say that in my experience as a family member, I have had a period of five years now where my son had been on the streets. He's now conserved. He's in an institution, and he's been there for two years. That's how bad he got on the streets. He's on a good medication.

We go out on passes and we enjoy our-

I need you to wrap up.

And so, today, really, I'm asking you to consider the measure before you seen through the eyes of psychiatrists and family members. It's a life saving measure.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Deputy City Attorney Leanne Dumas from the office of San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu. I am here today to express Mr. Chiu's support for this Bill, as well as to say hello from him to his friends and former colleagues here in the Assembly. I also wanted to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support of this Bill, this important issue, and your staff who really worked tirelessly in preparation for today.

The Bill language, as you have before you, really represents significant amendments that were designed to narrowly tailor the effect of this Bill as much as possible while still achieving the goals of the author. And I'm going to focus my comments on the expert testimony aspects of the Bill proposed Section 5122. And the goal here with this language is really to align the way medicine is practiced with the way court receives information about proposed conservatives in conservatorship proceedings.

The way the law stands now, expert witnesses, doctors are required to provide their expert opinion, but they are not permitted to provide the context, the information on which they base that opinion. And that is not the way medicine is practiced. Certainly, doctors do not operate in a vacuum, thank goodness. They have to consider medical records. They have to consider opinions of other providers, facts about a patient's medical history informing their opinion. And the courts are legally required to consider a patient's medical history as well.

Yet they're not allowed to get that information from the expert witnesses. So this Bill allows the court to have all of the information that it needs in order to render a full, complete, accurate decision in conservatorship proceedings. But it also safeguards patients rights because it is very limited, very specific regarding what sources can be used ensuring that the information being provided by the expert witness is of a credible nature. Thank you.

Thank you for the witnesses in support name and organization only.

Mr. Chairman and Members Paul Yoder. Here today on behalf of City and County of San Francisco Mayor London Breed, California State Association of Psychiatrists, California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, City of West Hollywood and the City of Santa Monica, all in support. Urge your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members Chris Valencia. On behalf of the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, in support.

Good morning, chair and Members Jared Moss, on behalf of the City of Camarillo and Riverside, in support.

Good morning. Melanie Klinkeman, Member of Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians. I'm a family member and advocate for a daughter who is severely mentally ill and missing.

Good morning, Alyssa Silhi on behalf of the cities of Redwood City, Carlsbad and Bakersfield, also in support.

Alison Monroe, Families Advocating for the Seriously Mentally Ill and mother of someone with schizophrenia who AWOLed yesterday and is in danger on the street. I'm so grateful for this Bill. I support it.

Moira Topp, on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, as well as the Big City Mayors Coalition, which is the coalition of mayors of the 13 largest cities. They are co sponsors of the measure and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning. Kyra Ross, on behalf of the City of Stockton. Very thankful for all the efforts of the author in strong support of the Bill.

Good morning. Caroline Cirrincione, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support.

Josh Tosney on behalf of Santa Clara County. We have a support if amended position. We're in the process of updating. We just wanted to thank the author and Committee for the work on the Bill.

Good morning. Ross Buckley, on behalf of Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members Meagan Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, in support.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members Jason Bryant, on behalf of the California Downtown Association, in support. Thank you.

Chair, Members, Nick Romo on behalf of San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, in support.

Elizabeth Kaino Hopper, in strong support because I have a family Member who lives with serious mental illness and substance use disorder who's continuously failed by this law. Thank you.

Diana Burdick, I am a family Member of a severely mentally ill son who I am watching die in the streets. I also am the daughter of my mother who is bipolar, but understands that she's ill and she takes medication. However, when you don't know you're going to die, and that's what's happening to him.

Good morning, I'm Teresa Pasquini. I'm an army Member. I'm also a California advocate for the Treatment Advocacy Center. Most importantly, I'm the proud mom of Danny Pasquini and the proud sister of Larry, with an over 50 year history with the LPS system. And thank you, Senator Eggman, and I strongly, strongly support this law. Thank you.

Suzanne Hume, Clean Earth for Kids. Strong support.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in opposition or excuse me, in support. Any witnesses in opposition. And while they're coming up here, I'll ask the Clerk to call the role to establish a quorum.

Maienschein. Here. Essayli. Here. Connolly, Dixon. Haney. Kalra. Pacheco. Papan. Reyes. Sanchez. McKinnor.

Thank you. Okay, witnesses in opposition, up to two minutes each. First witness.

Thank you. Chair and Committee. My name is LaTanya Ri'Chard. I am certified peer support specialist, cofounder and Associate Director of Communities Voices, a peer run nonprofit. I have lived experience in mental health and substance use challenges. 20 years ago, I became depressed and made my first appointment with a psychiatrist. I left her office being diagnosed bipolar one and schizophrenic without ever showing symptoms of being either and without ever being tested. The system disproportionately diagnoses, black and brown people with psychotic disorders.

I have been given seroquel, thorazine, lithium, saffron, risperidone, to name a few, along with four rounds of unneeded ECT. Because of this, my physical health is shot. I've had my gallbladder removed, develop hypothyroidism, prolactinoma, diabetes and chronic pancreatitis, which needed three surgeries, one of which I almost died. Due to these health problems, I was given narcotic pain medicines and became addicted. I've been involuntarily committed as a black woman in America. I don't want to deal with the police like that.

I don't want to have another interaction with the police like that, ever. It was traumatic and unnecessary. I've been in recovery for five years. Building safe housing, affordable housing, providing a good education, jobs and health care can fix the housing problem. Not allowing corporate landlords or out of state developers to build mansions that sit empty for years as tech shelters for the wealthy can go even further to fight the housing crisis. SB 43 terrifies me. It terrifies me to my core.

I understand that there are people that need conservatorship, but not listening to others that are experiencing this problem is a very big issue. You guys need to have peers on the board. No one should have to miss years of their life because of the systems or somebody else's failures. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Deb Roth on behalf of Disability Rights California in opposition. I'm also a person who lives with and at times struggles with mental illness. On occasion, I have been sidelined by it. I hid my mental illness for most of my professional career, which includes 12 years as a staff person in this building. Having watched the Legislature consider involuntary treatment legislation over the last two years, I know I made the right choice in not disclosing information about my mental health.

I'm also relieved that at times when my young adult son who has a mental health disorder and a developmental disorder, when he displayed disturbing behaviors, we came close to calling 5150 while he was still under 18. And I'm so glad we didn't. I am just so grateful that we didn't do that. We appreciate the author having met with us earlier this year, but as has been the case with all of the major mental health reform proposals, we had no part in shaping the policy.

We're tired of hearing that we want to let people die with their rights on. That's not true, and it's insulting, especially to people who have been through mental health challenges, have recovered, or are recovering, and who, based on those experiences and related traumas want to have nothing to do with our mental health system. Turning to the hearsay provision, which we think should be stricken from the Bill entirely, it's helpful to look at why hearsay is generally not allowed. It's not reliable. It's not the best evidence.

Our system provides for cross examination of witnesses to test reliability. If a Doctor says a patient is gravely disabled, shouldn't the Doctor have to testify and be subject to cross examination? I understand I couldn't hear the presentation of the author's presentation of the Bill. I understand the city and County of San Francisco supports the provisions that are in the Bill as proposed to be amended. However, San Francisco is not like Contra Costa, which is not like Santa Clara.

As I understand it, San Francisco may have said something about the difficulty either getting witnesses or getting medical records. That's not the case in all other counties. Please don't make statewide policy based on how things work in one county.

I need you to wrap up if.

if the goal is to get the medical record in, that can already happen with the business records exception. If the goal is to eliminate the need for doctors to testify, well, if you're about to take away someone's liberty and they have committed no crime, shouldn't the person whose opinion carries the most weight be required to testify? Thank you very much.

Thank you. Further witnesses in opposition. Name and organization only.

Hi. Rachel Bhagwat on behalf of ACLU California Action and also with respect registering the opposition of Cal Voices and Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance. Thank you.

Katherine Wolf, Interim Policy Director, and on behalf of the Disabled Students Commission of the Associated Students of the University of California, and with respect also for Human Rights Watch and Los Angeles Community Action Network, in strong opposition.

Hello. Avery Hulog-Vicente, California Association of Mental Health Peer Run Organizations, CAMHPRO. We are in strong opposition of this Bill.

Miya Bray, Racial and Ethnic Mental Health Disparities Coalition. Also in strong opposition.

Andrea Rivera on behalf of the California Panethnic Health Network. Regrettably in opposition. Thank you.

Linda Nguy with Western Center on Law and Poverty. In opposition.

Amer Rashid with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California with strong concerns. Thank you.

Scott Wetch, on behalf of the County of Kern, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Danny Thirakul on behalf of Mental Health America of California and the California Youth Empowerment Network. In strong opposition.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Jolie Onodera with the California State Association of Counties, also here representing the Rural County Representatives of California, and the Urban Counties of California with a position of concerns. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I apologize. On behalf of on behalf of Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange in opposition for Fresno County.

Thank you, thank you. Seeing no further opposition, any questions or comments from the Committee? Ms. Dixon.

First of all, Senator, I know you've been working a long time with this and you have a bipartisan working group and I commend your efforts representing a district that has many homeless, mentally ill people. And I've said this publicly many times, they need help and we're not able to help them. And I was particularly taken with your comment that the law that was passed many decades ago did not take into consideration what happens to these people once they've been released from the facility.

And that's really the purpose of my question. Just like AB 109, when all the prisoners were let out of jail, when these people are now in the county or the city's responsibility, what funds are available to help these mean these are already people who are in these counties, in these communities who should be helped.

Right. It's not like we're inventing new people to bring in that. There's no capacity for these are folks who we have been providing through MHSA and through state dollars, county dollars for help. So it is going to be the reprioritization. I mean, people have said we're going to have to reprioritize. And yeah, I think we do really need to reprioritize who we're able to help through the last couple of years.

As you know, we are on the fifth round now of the bridge funding housing that we have paid for how many billions was that? Five, 6 billion. So we have, the last couple of years, really funded a lot of the infrastructure money through the MHSA grants that will also be for the construction of the village and cottage type housing. So moving away from the institution, but community living for folks with wraparound and I'll let San Francisco speak. We really think that the facilities are there.

We've heard that repeatedly. If we have means to be able to fund those beds, pay for those beds, and with making sure the criteria matches, then we are able to build Medi-Cal and Medi-Care in addition to being able to use some of the MHA Safe fundings just for the direct services, but for the infrastructure of the housing. The buildout that we've been doing, that's what has been in the works for the last five years.

Okay, that's good follow up question. We deal at the local level with facilities that are licensed by the state, but not enforced and managed. Well, our opinion, particularly for sober living, different situation, but there could be some mental illness components. Absolutely. How does the licensing, regulatory aspects and licensing affect this as they are pushed further and more into a quasi institutionalized environment in our communities.

This doesn't deal specifically with housing regulations. I don't know if the deputy attorney wants to be able to talk about this, but I mean, the laws are still the laws. I mean, this is just dealing with what it means to be gravely disabled.

Okay. And just the regulation of them. All right, well, thank you. I'll be supporting this, but in the implementation of it at the local level, I'm going to be sure I understand it. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Essayli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you bringing this and acknowledging there's a big issue out there. And I think you can see there's a desperation for solutions. But I'm honestly torn because I don't know if this is the right solution.

And I know you mentioned there's a lot of people mental health issues in prison, but you're talking about mass institutionalizing the homeless, which with lower due process than what you would get in a criminal court, because you're talking let's be clear about involuntarily committing people. You're going to forcibly assume using police, take them off the streets and put them in a mental hospital. I mean, that's what we're talking about, correct?

Sir, that's what happens right now.

Well, no, right now, we enforce laws. So right now, you get to go to court, you have due process, you get a jury trial, you get a public defender, you get a right to present evidence to a jury, and they have to find you, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty.

You're talking about in the criminal court, right?

Yes -

I'm talking about are most seriously ill right now. What happens right now if somebody is in crisis on the street?

Yeah, I understand what we're talking about expanding that program to cover basically people who are suffering from, I think, mostly substance abuse issues and doctor, I know you have a lot of experience in this, but there's something called drug induced psychosis.

That's correct.

And I think the biggest mistake we made as a State of California was passing Prop 47 because you could see a direct correlation between the passage of Prop 47 and the explosion of homelessness on our streets. I was a prosecutor at the local level.

Prop 47 was a disaster because before Prop 47, if someone was arrested and brought to court for drugs, I'm talking about hard drugs, the meth, the heroin, the cocaine, we would give them a choice, and the choice would be you can either go to prison or go to rehab. Nobody went to prison. Everyone went to rehab. It was a mechanism to get people off the street into treatment. And so we had a good system to deal with that. It wasn't until we got rid of it.

So I commend you for looking for a solution. I'm just struggling if this is the right one. Obviously, you didn't personally pass Prop 47. It's not a criticism of you. It's a state policy issue. So that's what I'm struggling with. But I have a question. So it says you're requesting about $200 million to fund it. We have about 160,000 homeless people on the street. Do we know, like what -

We're not talking specifically just about homeless people. We are talking about people who are gravely disabled, which is a different thing. People, I think, conflate homelessness with grave disability. And while there are many people who are gravely disabled who are also homeless, everybody who is homeless is not gravely disabled.

The definition I'm looking at here says that gravely disabled would be defined as persons due to a mental health or substance use disorder, is unable to provide for basic personal needs of food, clothing, or shelter. I think that covers -

That's the current law, sir.

What?

That's the current law.

Oh, so you're adding personal safety, necessary medical care. Okay, well, I mean, you're talking about expanding it to cover -

Personal safety and medical care. That's correct. I am.

Okay. I think most of the cities here are concerned about the homeless. Okay. I just don't know if this is the right solution, but I appreciate you for trying.

Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the Senator for her many years of commitment. I think there are a few people in the Legislature that have shown more dedication to those suffering with mental health issues. And especially given your background, I think you have a level of expertise that is definitely beyond what many of us carry and bring into the body. And I think my concerns that were raised when the care court issue came forward are somewhat similar in this case.

I understand the seriousness of the issue and that at times, our loss can get in the way of the ability to move at the speed that many cities in particular feel is necessary. My major concerns in this case, of course, is expanding the definition and allowing for gravely ill to include anyone that is suffering from substance abuse disorder. I spent a lot of time representing individuals in drug court, and there's no doubt that I think all of us are going to even need more treatment.

And I think that there's been a collective effort as a state with the Legislature, Administration to put more resources there, but we still don't have enough, particularly on both the substance abuse side as well as the housing side for those that are unhoused and suffering at the moment.

And my worry and the expansion is that it's such a broad category of individuals that are suffering from substance abuse disorder that at the moment, it's an impossibility for us to be able to give the kind of care that would be necessary to deal with what they may be suffering through. Another issue just has to do with the hearsay. And I know there were some amendments, I believe, to that.

But I think one of the questions is given the fact that business records exceptions can be used and what have you, so if you or any of the witnesses want to kind of describe as to what is the problem that is trying to seek, because it's a pretty severe step, major step to take. It's a pretty dramatic, in my opinion, hearsay, any hearsay exception is.

But in this case, given the fact that the depriving of one's liberty and kind of the forced treatment aspect of it, it's pretty significant. So I don't know any insight on that particular aspect.

Yes, definitely. Thank you for the question. It does sound alarming, especially for the lawyers in the room, to have hearsay be permitted in these types of hearings. There are other areas in the law that are analogous to this that already exist. Juvenile dependency, for example, has this type of hearsay exception and this type of testimony was permitted prior to 2016 in the People v. Sanchez case. When that came out, it really had broad and sweeping effects on many areas of the law.

And that case is very different from conservatorship cases it focused on. It was a criminal case with a police officer as an expert witness talking about statements from other police officers. That's very different from what we're talking about here. Here. We're talking about medical experts, doctors who are relying on information, medical records that's credible in order to treat patients and courts that are reliant on that information.

And why the exception as opposed to other mechanisms to get that evidence in? Because it certainly does make it easier in a conservatorship hearing to lead to the conclusion of conservatorship, if that's the opinion of the doctor.

This is. Sorry, to interrupt.

This is really about oral testimony from an expert witness, not about getting voluminous medical records, paper records introduced as evidence. It is really about an expert's opinion and the expert being able to rely on information that that expert must rely on in order to form an opinion. And really it's about the language of the statute mentions it's for the purpose of an expert testifying in a conservatorship proceeding as to his or her opinion.

No, please.

And the evidence that's being relied on. However, if that itself isn't reliable, then that can lead question to the conclusions of the expert.

And the law is narrowly tailored in the Bill language here in order to ensure that the information is only received from a certain class of individuals who are considered reliable, other health practitioners. And there is also a definition provided to ensure that the information is credible in the medical record.

Furthermore, if there's a jury involved, which not always in conservatorship proceedings, but sometimes there is a jury involved, the court is the gatekeeper and is able to have a hearing outside of the presence of a jury that would allow the court to ensure that the evidence that is being discussed is of a credible nature.

And this applies generally, not only if the underlying witness that provided that created the document is unavailable, that's not required.

Correct. It's regarding statements that are made from other healthcare providers in the medical record about a patient.

And healthcare provider is defined?

Yes, it is.

Pretty broadly.

It's defined as licensed doctors, social workers and it actually is a definition that already exists in the statute and is used in other areas of the law.

That could include a paramedic.

Yes.

I'm always going to have wariness in terms of expansion of the hearsay rule, especially when it comes to someone's liberty at stake. And then the general we've seen when it comes to kind of forced conservatorships, when the outcome, when there aren't the resources available, it just ends up in incarceration and can certainly be long term. Again, that's not the goal of the author or anyone that's supporting this.

I get that it's not the underlying purpose of legislation, it's what the outcome is going to be in the real world. And we know that those that are suffering from substance abuse disorder, particularly those that are unhoused, our poorest people of color are people that have been struggling for a very long time.

And we already are seeing even we've seen at least news reports recently of some police departments now that Care court allows for police officers to be the individual that can bring someone in under the system that we have now set up, that they're using this new authority to sweep up the unhoused. And I'm worried that this is just going to further exacerbate that.

Again, not the intention of the legislation or the Governor or the author, but the fact that it's giving that authority in itself allows for this kind of conduct to happen and it's already happening. And so my fear is by further expanding the definition of gravely disabled, it'll further exacerbate, it'll further exacerbate the conditions. Again, that I understand why cities want it, they want streets cleared, but that doesn't necessarily lend itself to the outcome that is the intention of this legislation or other legislation like it.

And so I think it will require all of us to continue monitoring. I know that's something that the author and others have continued to commit, that this is not a one shot thing, it's something that we're going to have to continue to return to. And I do appreciate amendments from the Committee and the authors accepting of those amendments. I do think the amendments have made it better.

But I'm going to lay off this Bill at this time and see if there's any other movement on some of the issues, including hearsay and the definitions of that kind of broader net of gravely disabled, if any of those are improved upon prior to this reaching Assembly floor. Thank you.

If the chair would indulge me for a second.

No. There's no question pending, Mr. Haney.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator, for your leadership and for continuing to work on this issue and to bring it back. This has been a top priority for the city and county that I represent, as well as many of the cities and counties, especially the big cities, that are struggling with how to support people who are suffering and in need of support and treatment. I live in the Tenderloin.

I've represented downtown San Francisco for years before coming here, worked on this issue, visited most of our treatment facilities, our hospitals, our psychiatric wards are done ride alongs. And this is a concern that comes up again and again from our medical professionals and public health professionals who are trying to help people. I absolutely understand and agree with the concerns about not incarcerating people. That's not what this is.

This is trying to get people help and support and treatment who right now we can't medical professionals, any one of us who walk outside, see people that we know need help, and we're not able to help them right now. And when medical professionals and public health professionals, as they are in supporting this Bill, are telling us that they're limited in helping people who need it, I think we need to make a change. We have a paramedic outreach team in San Francisco called EMS Six.

EMS Six goes out and serves those who are the highest users of 911 in our city. Sometimes these are people who have had 911 calls hundreds of times in a single year. These are folks who and I've sat there in the hospital with the paramedics, with the firefighters, with the doctors talking to them about how they can help these folks and avoid them from continuously being cycled on and off the streets.

And what they said is, we don't have the authority to hold this person any longer because of the limitations in the law. And if we did, even for 72 hours, it's not always a conservatorship 72 hours. Now we have a 14 day. We have ways that we can hold people for longer to try to connect them to treatment, often voluntary treatment, more often than not voluntary treatment.

And we right now are not able to do that for many of the people who are most in need and who are most suffering. And we talk about the cost of it.

There's few things more expensive than continuously picking up the same person again and again and again with our ambulances and fire trucks and multiple people, when if we were able to connect that person to treatment, to housing, to shelter, we would be able to both help them potentially save their lives and save money while we do it. So I think that the work that you've done to address some of the concerns here are important, and I certainly understand the concerns around people's rights.

I also believe that right now the law as it is is preventing us from helping many of the people who are most in need. And when a medical professional, public health professional is saying if you gave me 72 more hours and the other thing, I would say, on the one hand we're saying there's not enough beds and not enough facilities and all that. That's absolutely true and we need a lot more of that.

But partly because of that, they're not out there trying to hold every single person unnecessarily. In fact, I think there's a lot more people who they'd like to help. In this case, we're talking about the people who are most in danger and most in need are the only ones that they even have space to hold for a bit longer. Our hospital systems and our treatment facilities are strained to the level that they can't help everyone that they need to.

So this will allow them to help those who are most in need and have the tools to do so. And there are spaces for them. We need a lot more spaces for more people. But the reality is those Shorter term holds are actually able to connect people if we have a little more time, to voluntary treatment. And in some cases, the most severe cases, a conservatorship is the right approach for people. So I thank you for this.

I would ask to be added as a coauthor and look forward to continuing to work on this issue with you and to help people in our communities who are sick and who desperately need our care and attention. Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing no further questions or comments, I want to thank you for bringing this Bill. I think this is important. As somebody who both created and operated a program, a significant portion of my career working with the chronically homeless, the seriously mentally ill, and began a program in San Diego and then operated it, which was very, very successful, this is important. This is a huge piece of the puzzle. That's important.

All of us know when we walk down a street and we see somebody on a street corner who's undergoing severe mental crisis, we know they need help. All of us would say that and what's humane and what's not. I would argue that it's not humane to leave that person on the street corner who's in crisis and who needs help because where are they going to go? Well, where do they go now? They go basically one of two places. Jail, which is a terrible place.

The last place you want to send somebody who's in mental crisis is jail. Or they go to a hospital, like an ER, where they don't get help. They are taking up a bed that all of our for services that they're not getting. They're taking up an ER bed that all of our regions need for other emergencies. They're coming back again and again.

The people I worked with, one of the individuals over 300 days a year, went to the ER 300 days a year, took an ambulance, all that, and wasn't getting better or third, they die on the street, which is a terrible result. This will help alleviate that problem. This will help get that individual in to have medical attention. And once that medical attention happens, they can start adjust. It gives them a chance to make huge changes in their life, and we've seen that.

So I will be supporting this today. I think this is a big step in the right direction to make sure that our cities and our counties can deal with people who really need this help. They're in severe, severe crisis, and this will help them live a more full life. So with that, Senator Eggman, you may close.

Thank you very much. And thank you all for being here today. I think the Chair summed it up with a lovely close. We're not looking to just take people willy nilly off the streets. We're trying to help the people who need help the most. We're trying to free up our system so we can actually treat people and help get them better versus just triaging them over and over and over and again till they end up dead and in prison.

I'm sorry if the disability rights folks are tired of me hearing me say people are dying with their rights on. We're all tired of seeing it and being a part of it. This is just one more step in the continuum of care. Let's complete it. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Motion from Ms. Pacheco. Second from Ms. Sanchez. And for the record, you did accept the amendments.

I did accept the committee amendments.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein. Aye. Maienschein aye. Essayli. Not voting. Connolly? Connolly. Aye. Dixon? Dixon, aye. Haney? Haney, aye. Kalra? Not voting. Pacheco? Pacheco, aye. Papan. Papan, aye. Reyes. Sanchez. Sanchez, aye. And McKinnor. McKinnor, aye.

Your Bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Ms. Eggman, I believe you have a second Bill.

I'm sorry. Yeah, I got so excited. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. And you're all welcome to be added as a co author of this one, too. This one has to do with credit. And I don't know about the rest of you, but I have pretty good credit. I'm proud of that credit. I'll put my score up against anybody's. But if you need a housing voucher, you may not have good credit. And we shouldn't be surprised.

We should not be surprised if you don't have good credit and you need a housing voucher. And as we know, trying to get people housed in California is one of the most important things. And when folks get that Section Eight voucher, that mental health voucher, whatever it is they know that pays 70% of the rent, but they go to a landlord and the landlord says, let's run a credit check for that last 30%, and you get a terrible credit report.

That shouldn't be the reason people get turned down. We should expect they have bad credit. This simply says that they have an option to present something else besides just their credit report, pay stub or blast job, something like that. So we took amendments to a verifiable source that they can pay that 30%, they can use that housing voucher. We can help people get housed. And I have with me today Rebecca from NASW and my friend from the Housing Authority.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Rebecca Gonzalez, and I'm here today on behalf of the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter. We represent approximately 9000 professional social workers in California who have a degree from an accredited school of social work. I'm speaking in support of SB. 267. Currently, individuals who are seeking housing are protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, which protects individuals from discrimination. However, having poor credit remains a significant barrier to obtaining a stable housing situation.

According to research, credit scores are a significant and persistent hindrance to acquiring housing. Credit scores are intricate formulas that may be damaged due to unpaid medical expenses, severe personal predicaments, or bills simply going unpaid because of poverty. Nevertheless, credit reports do not always indicate the complicated reasons for Low credit scores. For example, a person with a poor credit history due to unpaid bills may have poor credit specifically because they choose to prioritize rent over other expenses.

The report lacks nuance and does not give the full picture about why a person handles debt. Furthermore, a credit score is an indication about what has happened in the past and does not show what the person is now. When an individual has received a housing voucher, they often have connected themselves to other resources. SB 267 will allow more voucher holders an opportunity to secure housing by allowing potential tenants to present proof of their financial capability to make payments.

Essentially, this Bill is about providing a fairer, more accurate picture about where a potential tenant is financially with a hope of allowing these crucial housing vouchers to get more people and families indoors and safe. We urge and aye vote. Thank you.

Next witness.

Hello, I'm Andrew Dawson with the California Housing Partnership. We're a private nonprofit that was actually created by the Legislature for increasing the supply of affordable and sustainable homes for Low income Californians. I'm not going to add too much to what was said, but I would say that the use of credit as an indicator of financial responsibility has aggravated the homelessness crisis that we have by preventing Low income Californians from obtaining stable housing.

I just want to end with a quote that I read in the analysis today, which was this Bill recognizes an emerging truth. Credit history is not a reliable proxy. For ability to pay. With that, I'll end shortly, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Witnesses in support. Name and organization only.

Good morning. Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association. In support.

Good morning. Linda Nguywith Western Center on Law and Poverty. In support.

Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation. In support.

Deborah Carlton with the California apartment associate. I want to thank the author for taking the amendments. We have removed our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. See no further. Witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition.

Members Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates, representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association. We are opposed to the Bill. We do appreciate the amendments the Senator has taken on the Bill. And we do realize that this Bill allows us to use credit reports to determine someone's ability to pay. And it's what we rely on to make that determination. We have to mitigate risk in some way, and this allows us to do that. It may not be perfect, but it's what we have.

We use credit reports regardless of whether or not someone receives a credit voucher or not. I guess the biggest sticking point for us at this point, since she's amended the Bill, is if the applicant chooses to avail themselves of the law, they can provide alternative information to my client to determine whether or not they have an ability to pay the rent. And it allows them a reasonable time to present that information to them.

We just don't know what a reasonable time is while they're cobbling together that information. That unit stays vacant. If that unit stays vacant, my client doesn't collect rent on that unit, a unit that may be vacant because someone was evicted from it, which took six months, which during that time there was no rent being collected for that unit. So for those reasons, we are currently opposed to the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Further waiters in opposition.

Dean Rafila with capital advocacy on behalf of the California Rental Housing Association. In opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in opposition. Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'd like to move the Bill. I'm very happy to be a co author on this Bill. As indicated in the prior hearing, credit reports didn't even exist, I think, believe, until 1989. So the sense that this is something that's absolutely mandatory in order to determine someone's ability to pay is just not true.

It's been used as an additional barrier, especially for Low income families, families that are trying to get we already know how hard we've heard it from some of our colleagues how hard it is to be able to get into a unit with first, last, all that stuff. We have other legislation dealing with that. But as I also mentioned previously, the first home we moved into when we came to this country, my father. Rents out Section Eight and has for decades now.

He started renting it Section Eight before credit reports existed. And even to this day, when I've asked him, it's like, Is that something you would need? He said, absolutely not. If you think it's easy to get a voucher, it's not. And sometimes you have to wait for years so folks are heavily vetted just to be able to qualify for many of these vouchers.

There's no need to put an additional barrier, an additional reason to not rent to a family that otherwise deserves to live in the same neighborhoods and communities we do. Thank you.

Did you have a comment, Mr. Haney?

Yeah, I would like to be added as a co author. I think there's a very important point in here which I appreciate, which is that sometimes people have prioritized paying rent over other bills. I think that's really important to note. They may have never missed a rental payment, but the other bills have sometimes added up. And credit history, I think, does tend to punish lower income people. And so there are a variety of reasons why people can struggle with their credit history.

I know I didn't realize until I was later in my 20s when I first looked at my credit report to see that my student loan payments counted against it. And I had bad credit because I had missed Sally May calls. And you don't always pick up. And so there are reasons why people end up having bad credit. And so being able to prove that through other means that they're able to pay their rent is really important. And so I think this is a good Bill and appreciate the work that has been done on it.

Thank you. Ms. Mckinnor?

Yes. I'd also like to be added as a co author. This is a really important Bill. Just quickly. My mother has a best friend that came here and moved from New York to California, and she's an in home care service worker. And during COVID she lost her job and she ended up, within a year, getting one of these vouchers to pay her rent. And by the way, the vouchers helped to pay the rent 70%. Yeah, I don't know why people wouldn't rent to these folks.

And she really had a hard time finding a place. She has a retirement check. She could pay the rent, but of course, she was struggling. And that is why you have a voucher, is because you're struggling. So this Bill is so important, especially to our seniors and our elder folks. So I really appreciate you for bringing this forward. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second motion. Mr. Kalra. Second for Mr. Haney. With that, Senator may close.

Yeah. Thank you very much, all for the support. I couldn't believe it when I went out to visit one of my housings and they said, you don't take a credit check for someone on the voucher. I go, yes, we do. And it keeps so many people out. So I think this is very common sense. Again, seniors are fastest going into homelessness oftentimes because of things just like this.

And they may have bad credit from sometimes people have to live on their credit cards, but they pay their rent. So I think a common sense measure close that gap. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is due. Pass the appropriations, Committee. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein. Aye. Maienschein. I Essayli. Not voting. Connolly. Connolly. Aye. Dixon. Haney. Haney. Aye. Kalra. Kalra. I Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco. Aye. Papan. Papan. I Reyes. Sanchez. Mckinnor. Mckinnor.

Thank you all.

Your Bill is out. Thank you. Senator Dorazo.

Let's start with SB 567, and I know you're presenting for someone else as well after that. So let's start with SB. Five, six, seven thank you.

Good morning, Chair. Appreciate all of you. And the California Homelessness Prevention Act, SB Five, Six, Seven, which will protect many Low income renters from unjust evictions and unreasonable rent increases. These are issues that top the reasons for homelessness. I want to start by thanking the Committee chair very much for working so closely with us, the staff. And there's a series of amendments starting on page 12 to further refine the scope of SB Five, Six, Seven, which I am accepting.

We all know we've been talking about in various ways the State of homelessness and the crisis, how it impacts so many people in our community. It's growing and growing and growing every time there's accounts. We haven't stopped it. The Bill before you has two principal components addressing glaring loopholes with existing provisions that are too vague and difficult to enforce, leaving tenants susceptible to exploitation. SB 567 also provides enforceability for existing protections so tenants are able to defend themselves from unjust evictions through public and private enforcement.

These disturbing trends of evictions an average of 160,000 households face evictions annually. It is estimated 1.5 million Californians faced evictions during an 2018 study. These trends will continue to worsen if we do not proactively address the root of the problem. 567 provides Californians housing stability and reduces the number of people on the brink of homelessness. With me to testify in support are first, Leonor Godinez leader with Faith in Action East Bay and PICO California. Second, Nidia Soto, attendant from Salinas, California.

Ms. Soto will provide her testimony in Spanish. Mr. Brian Augusta, legislative advocate for the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, will help to translate or no, Giovanna. Okay. I'm sorry. I thought you had another career in... And Mr. Augusta will also be available to answer questions.

Thank you. First witness, please.

Thank you. My name is Leonor Godinez and I'm a leader in Faith in action, East Bay and PICO, California, and a Member of the Social justice ministry at St. Anthony's Church in Oakland. I am a small landlord in Oakland and I support SB Five, Six, Seven, it won't hurt small landlords and will help prevent tenants from unnecessary evictions. I have been a small landlord in Oakland for over 40 years.

During that time, the City of Oakland implemented rent control, and I have enforced these rent caps in my units. But I know that not all landlords do. And I know that landlords often evict unjustly. SB 6567 closes loopholes in just cause protections and strengthens enforcement. When I retired, I thought a lot about what I wanted to do when I grew up. Right? I wanted to be of service in some way.

And I determined that for me, when I looked at what was around me, the family core was the essence in society that if the family core is strong and stable, that a child has a better chance of success. But how can you have that success if your housing is unstable? I see five, six, seven as a necessary component in my work of having the core family be stable. Home is sacred. That is why I support SB 567. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Nidia Soto. I am a single mother of three and I live in Salinas, California. I work for the nonprofit BHC that's In Action Council that's in the County of Monterey. In October 2022, my family and my neighbors received an eviction letter from the complex of three apartments where we had been living for 12 years. My neighbors had been there even more, even longer than 12 years. According to the letter, they were planning for electrical and plumbing repairs, and they might have even torn down the apartments. They gave us 60 days. They were two elderly families and my own. We paid $1,297 in rent. Exactly 20 days after moving out, the same apartment was rented to a new family for $2,550.

The owners now rent the other apartments to new families for $801,000 more. Finding a new home was very stressful. Now, 100% of my income goes to pay for a roof for my family. And each month we pay a total of $3,829, almost three times what I was previously paying. The owners really do not touch their hearts when they push families out on the street. Most families have to share housing with two or three families to be able to pay the cost of rent. This harms our children's education and everyone's mental health. We must put a stop to all this. That is really unfair. This is why I ask for you to support this Bill. SB five, six, seven.

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Nidia Soto. I am a single mother of three and I live in Salinas, California. I work for the nonprofit BHC Action Council that's in the County of Monterey. In October 2022, my family and my neighbors received an eviction letter from the complex of three apartments where we had been living for 12 years. My neighbors had been there even more, even longer than 12 years.

According to the letter, they were planning for electrical and plumbing repairs, and they might have even torn down the apartments. They gave us 60 days. They were two elderly families and my own. We paid $1,297 in rent. Exactly 20 days after moving out, the same apartment was rented to a new family for $2,550. The owners now rent the other apartments to new families for $801,000 more. Finding a new home was very stressful. Now, 100% of my income goes to pay for a roof for my family.

And each month we pay a total of $3,829, almost three times what I was previously paying. The owners really do not touch their hearts when they push families out on the street. Most families have to share housing with two or three families to be able to pay the cost of rent. This harms our children's education and everyone's mental health. We must put a stop to all this. That is really unfair. This is why I ask for you to support this Bill. SB five, six, seven.

Thank you. Further witnesses in support. Name and organization only, if any.

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

Nicole Wardelman, on behalf of the Children's Partnership, in support.

Daniel Duarte, San Diego Organizing Project and PICO, California, in support.

My name is Teresa Perez. I'm from San Diego and I'm with San Diego Organizing Project and PICO, and I'm in support of SB 567.

My name is Charlotte Jones. I'm from San Diego. I'm with the San Diego Organizing Project. I am in support of 567.

Good morning. My name is Christy Figueroa Perez, and I'm with the San Diego Organizing Project and been a victim twice of almost losing my home. And I am in support.

Hello, my name is Ashley Mendiola. I'm from San Diego, also part of San Diego Organizing Project and PICO, California. And I'm in support.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Lourdes Varja, San Diego Organizing Project and PICO, California. I'm in support of the SBA five, six, seven. Thank you.

Hello, good morning. My name is Laura Estrada. I am part of San Diego organizing project and PICO, California. And I support this Bill.

Good morning. My name is Zairia Ox. I am with Sacramento Act and PICO. I attend mass at Asobar in Oak Park. And I support this Bill. Thank you.

Eddie Carmona, on behalf of PICO, California and the Nine Federations in support of SB 567, and a proud co sponsor.

Good morning. My name is Patty Shaw. I'm a Member of Sac Act and PICO, California, and I strongly support 567.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Edith Pastrano organizer with Acce, also a tenant in support of SB 567.

Good morning. My name is Yolando Flores. I'm a Member of Acce from Richmond and I support.

Anna Gonzalez from Richmond in support.

Walter Sanchez from San Pablo in support.

Hi, my name is Raul Vasquez and I'm organizing with ACCE in strong support.

Blanca Retano from Richmond, also in support.

Hi. My name is Irma Beltran. I'm a single mother. This is my daughter. Please help us. She's graduating now. She's one of the future lawyers. Please support SB 567. Please.

Andrew Dawson, the California Housing Partnership in support.

Shavana Morales with Leadership Council in strong support as well as Catholic Charities and We Are Not invisible in Fresno. Thank you.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California environmental voters in support.

Mark Sawyer with PICO, California and Sac Act Housing Federation in support. Thank you.

Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association and SEIU California in support.

Good morning. Linda Way with Western Center on Law and Poverty, proud co sponsor and supporter. Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members. Paul Yoder, on behalf of the cities of West Hollywood and Santa Monica and also my oldest who's done a lot of work for Ace. Urgent I vote. Thanks.

Good morning, everyone. Devin Williams with ACCE Antioch, Contra Costa County in support. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. Melvin Willis with Richmond ACCE also speaking as an individual Member of the Richmond City Council, District One, and I urge a support vote.

Good morning. Archie Brunford, retired Navy vet, disabled vet, part of VASH in strong support.

Good morning. My name is Patricia Yar. I come from Pittsburgh, California. I'm with ACCE and I represent Contra Costa. I'm in strongly support 567. Thank you.

Eddie Gums, and I'm with ACCE from Antioch. And I'm also with the Black Owned Beauty Supply Association. And we're in strong support.

Good morning. James Michael Paul with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, California. In support.

Good morning, my name is Kimberly So, and I'm in support. Thank you very much.

Good morning. My name is Sheila Sells. I'm with Sac Act. I'm support.

Good morning, my name is Anne Stubbs. I'm with Sac Act and I'm support.

Good morning. My name is Jay Mitchell. I'm with Faith in Action East Bay and PICO in Oakland. And I am here in support of five, six, seven.

Good morning. My name is Darryl Alder II. I am with SacACT and PICO, and I am also in support.

Good morning. Anya Lawler here today on behalf of the Public Interest Law Project, the National Housing Law Project, the Berkeley Rent Board, the Santa Monica Rent Board and Rise Economy. All in support.

Good morning, my name is Michael Wharton, Faith in Action, West Oakland, and in the support of Five, six, seven, thank you.

Good morning. My name is Joe Lopez. I'm a victim of this housing crisis and I'm strongly in support of Five, six, seven, thank you.

David Sharples of the community group ACCE in support.

LaTanya Ri'Chard, Member of ACCE. I am strongly supporting this Bill.

Rebecca Gonzales, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support.

Raquel Mason on behalf of the California Environmental Justice Alliance Action in support. Thank you.

Samuel Jain with Disability Rights California. We are in support.

Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. Also in support. Thank you.

Duke Cooney, on behalf of ACLU California action in strong support. Thank you, Senator.

Good morning. Saa'un Bell, Power California Action, and we are in support of 567 thank you.

Brian Staff on behalf of United Way Greater LA, in support, thank you.

Andres Ramos, on behalf of Public Advocates as co sponsors, in strong support, thank you.

Jocelyn with Faith in Action, East Bay and PICO, California. Strong support SB 567.

Carmen Ramos, Faith in Action, East Bay and PICO, California. And I support SB 567.

Hi, everyone. Valeria Ochoa with faith in action, East Bay and PICO, California. And we strongly support SB 567. Thank you.

Morning. Olgarena from Salinas, California, from building healthy communities. I support SB. Five, six, seven thank you.

Hi, my name is Melissa Spinosa. I'm from Building Healthy Communities, Salinas, California. And we're in full support of SB 567.

Angela Spinosa from Salinas, California, Building Healthy Communities and strong support.

Isabel Tejeda. I'm from Salinas BHC. I support SB 567.

Good morning. Francisca Rojo from Seaside, California. Support SB 567.

I'm Andrea Rida, I'm from Seaside with BHC and I'm in support of SB 567.

Chris Logan, Faith in Action East Bay and PICO, California, supporting SB 567.

Chris Moreno from Oakland, California, in support of SB 567.

Shane Gusman on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California in support.

Hi, my name is hi, my name is Mia Gerrero, and I'm here to support SB 567.

Anna Renderos from Oakland, California. East Bay Faith in Action and PICO, California, supporting SB 567.

Good morning. Alba Hernandez faith in action, East Bay and PICO, California, in strong support of SB 567.

Hazel Watson from Sacramento Act and PICO in support of SB 567.

My name is Klima Motaki. I'm with Sacramento Act in PICO, California. And I support SB 567.

Lucero Soto with Sacramento Act in PICO, California, in support of SB. Five, six, seven.

Sydney Alper with PICO, California, and as a voter, constituent and chair in Maienshein's district in support of SB five, six, seven.

Gabby Trejo with Sacramento Act and PICO, California, in support of SB five, six, seven.

Reverend Steve Hong, chaplain in hospital with Gospel Imperative. I strongly support SB five, six, seven.

Hi Kiki Velas, a clean buildings advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council in strong support.

Good morning. My name is Sebastian Motelvang. I support SB, five, six, seven.

Allison Monroe, a renter in Oakland. I support just-cause legislation.

My name is Robin, I support five, six, seven.

Jovana Bahardo, with ACCE in Sacramento in strong support.

Robert Copeland, Member of ACCE and Sacramento Homeless Organized Committee. Strong support.

Marquita Fraiser, South Sacramento, strong support.

Reverend Rae Chen Huang, representing over 150 organizations across the state with Housing Now coalition in very strong support.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition. We'll need two chairs there.

Thank you. First witness, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association. Let me start by saying thank you to the Committee for working with us and the author for working with us on amendments. I think we're very close. I think I first want to respect the primary witnesses in support the Bill. And the law was never intended for owners to cheat the system, and I think we fixed that. You have fixed that with the amendments.

I think it's small owners who are primarily affected by the just cause provisions. It's those owners who move into their property who need to or their family because of illness they may have rehab that they need to do because of flooding or water damage, et cetera, that needs the tenants to move out. And it's those owners who may take their homes off the market because they need to sell them because of personal for personal reasons. What we have remaining are concerns with the penalty provisions.

We want to make sure that it's not unjustly imposed upon a small owner who may not have unreasonably affected either. The increase to rent. The California Apartment Association hires an economist to work out the CPI numbers every year because it's not necessarily that easy. So we want to make sure that if a small owner makes a small, minor mistake, so long as it's not malicious or intentional, that they are not exposed to attorneys fees and costs. So we're going to continue to work with the author and the sponsors on those provisions. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members Karim Drissi. On behalf of the California Association of Realtors here today in opposition to SB 567, I'd like to begin my remarks by thanking both the author and the sponsors for their willingness to work on this measure as it's moved through the legislative process. Also want to thank the chair and the Committee and the tremendous Committee staff for their work on this measure. As evidenced by the extensive analysis, however, we still have concerns with the measure.

In particular, SB 567 provides that if a small housing provider inadvertently miscalculates the rental amount and asks for just $1 more than is permitted in AB 1482, they are then liable for attorneys fees and costs. This, to our way of thinking, will create a cottage industry of unscrupulous attorneys who will then prey upon these small housing providers who inadvertently make these minor miscalculations.

This, in turn, will disproportionately impact seniors as well as Members of other vulnerable populations who are more likely to inadvertently make these minor miscalculations than the rental amount. And so we do align ourselves with the suggestion contained on page 17 of the analysis, which suggests that the author may wish to consider amending the Bill to limit recovery of attorneys fees and costs to a housing provider who acts willfully or with a fraud, oppression or malice. However, at this time, we do respectfully request a no vote.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Any further witnesses in opposition? Name and organization only, please.

Good morning. Kate Bell on behalf of the California Rental Housing Association and Apartment Association of Greater LA. In opposition.

Mr. Chair Members Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates, representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association. Opposed to the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in opposition, turning the Committee motion from Mr. Kalra. Second from Mr. Haney. Ms.. Papan.

So as we see here today and we know in our everyday lives we have a critical need for housing, I want to thank the author for making the amendments that you've made to date, because they really did balance. The needs of tenants with what small housing providers really do go through and the constraints that they may have in order to try to keep units on the market. I have some questions.

So on the 51%, I wondered how you came up with the 51%, because in my experience in the real world, there may be a group of, say, four people who aren't related but may invest in a property. They don't want anyone to be a majority owner. So they each own 25%, let's just say. Why is it that one of those folks couldn't allow a family Member to move into a unit should that family Member need the housing or whatever their situation is?

So there are a lot of people go in and they try to create their own generational wealth by pooling their resources to buy a building. And oftentimes that can be four, can be less than four, more than four, and they don't want anybody to be a majority owner. So maybe you could enlighten me about why 51% is this magic number. Because in the real world of people trying to grow the generation of wealth, sometimes they may not own that much percentage of a building.

Okay, thank you. And I'll ask Mr. Augusta to answer that.

Thank you. And thank you for the question. The short answer is there's not magic to 51, other than it does sort of define who is a majority owner. And part of the reason for having that provision in the Bill is it grows out of experience that local governments have had in implementing a similar owner move in provision.

And in those ordinances, as we do here, our goal is to avoid sort of gaming the system by granting a small ownership interest in the property and then allowing that very small owner to claim the right to own or move in. In the circumstance that you describe of four unrelated people owning the property together, I think maybe there's some conversation to be had about what is the right percentage.

But the reality is that sort of arm's length transaction of four people owning property together is sort of what we're trying to ensure that we don't have this instance where an owner is brought in simply for the purpose of displacing the current tenant. So that's why we landed on 51%.

I'll let the author speak to how she might want to move forward on that question, but I think it's very critical, based on the experience we've seen at the local level, that we not open it up to the ability of a very small minority owner using that provision.

Any further.

I do have another question. Yeah. I would ask the author if you could take a look at that, because I think in the real world, with people trying to grow their generational wealth, as I said, it may be that you've got four investors. Nobody's got enough money to buy one building. And you don't want anyone to have more control than a majority interest because everybody wants to be equal. So that's kind of what happens in the real world.

So I'd like to see if you could explore that. Then the second question I have relates to if your family Member moves in, they must stay for 12 months, and if not, then you have to offer the property back to the tenant that was displaced. Do I have that right?

Yes.

Okay. And I'm okay with that. Sometimes things happen in people's lives. Like, it may be that the family Member moved in and they got sick and they're a senior and have to move out and need more care, whatever it may be. And I'm just wondering if there's a way of taking into account something that might come up because the family Member wasn't able to stay for 12 months.

It wasn't like you just moved them in there, wanted to evict the existing tenant, tried to raise the rent, or whatever it may be. Anyway, something to think about because life happens to folks that might have moved in. And it may be that in six months something came up. That's all I'm suggesting. But I appreciate the amendments you made to the Bill, and I will be supporting the Bill today. But please think about the less than 51%.

I will, thank you. And look, all of these, from the very beginning, came from the practitioners, people on the ground who deal with these cases every single day. And we even tried to say, okay, we're not going to change all the laws. What is it that is really going on that contributes the most not here and there. Contributes the most to people getting evicted because hundreds of thousands of people get served with evictions. So we wanted to get the most common practice.

What was the most common abuse? Not every single one, but with the most common abuse. And this is what we came up with. And I'm sure there'll be other circumstances of individuals who have these situations. Like you said, four people getting together, wanting to invest, but we're trying to address what is the most common and what would be the most impactful on families, especially where they're trying to evict them. So we will definitely look at that. Thank you. Thank you for your support. Appreciate it.

Thank you. I have a couple questions and I'll hand it over to my colleagues. First off, when I hear the complaints from the people, what I hear, and I sympathize with them, is that housing in California is unaffordable and it's hard to access. My concern, though, is that we're sort of making the landlords the cause of the problem and the boogeyman. And I don't think that the reason for the high prices and unaffordability is because of landlords.

Landlords are operating in the market that's given to them. So I would just ask Senator, do you think that landlords are the cause of the unaffordability issue? And why are we putting this on their backs to control, capping what they can do with their property, capping how much they can charge? And just why are we regulating landlords and not focusing on the other policy issues behind the cost of housing?

Well, I would love to have one Bill that addresses all the issues that lead to homelessness. I tried to focus on the issues where there is already a laws, these already in place, and how we can better enforce those laws and get rid of those loopholes. That was the whole purpose. It was not to change all the laws. It was frankly, to focus in on where there are loopholes that have contributed to more people getting evictions.

I think their experiences of telling you what they pay in rent is how difficult it is so that if you get evicted and you lose your place, how hard it is to then find another place, how much more difficult it is to find a place that is reasonably priced, how much increase in rent. It's already law. I mean, we're not changing that. We're not blaming. We're not saying all of this is caused by landlords.

We want to fix where there are loopholes and allow these tenants to be able to defend themselves in the case of those loopholes. So we're very, very focused and narrow in what we're trying to do.

I appreciate that. I know how hard it is, and I have lots of friends and family who struggle to get affordable housing. What I'm saying is that it's caused by the decisions that we make in this building. It's the regulations and the taxes that make it very expensive to build affordable housing. And if we're really serious about providing affordable housing to the public, I would encourage the public that we need to focus on reducing regulations that artificially drive up costs.

Prevailing wages is a big part of that conversation. Limiting construction fees, reforming CQA, it's the government that's adding to the cost of housing and building. And we have to get out of the way and give people options rather than regulating the few rental units that we have, we got to build more and we're the biggest impediment to that. That's my overall concern. But with that I yield. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms.. Pacheco.

So I also want to thank the author for taking amendments. I did have a couple of questions. I noticed that one of the amendments that were going to be taken was regarding the definition adding family trusts, which would be revocable and irrevocable trust. But there has to be some relationship sibling, spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, grandparent or grandchild. My concern is this I've encountered situations where you have two individuals that decide not to get married.

They'll be together for 50 years, 50 plus years and decide not to get married, not to become registered domestic partners. So my concern is we may have a situation where there's an elderly person who was with another person for a significantly long period of time and now they won't be considered as a natural person here if they're to inherit from their partner. So is there any thoughts on possibly expanding it to include maybe not just domestic partners but other people?

Because sometimes people will live with somebody and their beneficiaries and they may not necessarily be related but maybe in the case of the circumstance that I just explained they're with their partner for a long period of time. Is there any thoughts of that?

Well, thank you for that question. One of the things that I think has been when we worked with the Committee to come up with that definition because we wanted to really define what we were hearing as a family trust, which is all of the creators, the settlers of the trust and the beneficiaries are related to one another. Once we start to drift away from that we start to get into a question about sort of where are the limits of this?

And I would just put it in perspective because I understand the example that you're giving is a rational one. But as we move further away from that, what we're talking about here is the limited situation in which a property owner wants to move a family Member in to the property. That is a very limited situation. Then we have the very limited situation of the relationship between these two parties that created the trust together.

There's probably ways that they could navigate that business relationship if their goal was to move one member's, sibling or not sibling excuse me, offspring or family Member into the unit to restructure it. But just from the perspective of the sponsors, the more we try to kind of account for each of those instances, the further we get away from trying to keep a tight definition of owner move in for those purposes. But I'll let the author respond to sort of how we want to move forward on that issue.

Well, we could look at that. I'm not sure exactly how to fix that, but we'd be glad to look at that. Thank you.

Thank you. And then I also have some of the same concerns that the opposition has. I'm also a real estate broker in my city, and so I have some of the same concerns. And I'm just curious to see if there's any further conversations that are happening to fine tune this Bill.

It seems like a lot of amendments have already been taken, and it seems like some of the amendments that are being asked for are just a few more amendments. I'm curious to see if there's any dialogue still happening.

We have fine tuned this dozens of times. Fine tuned and fine tuned and fine tuned. I'm always open to hear something else that has been brought up, but we've really tried hard, worked hard, and especially with the help of the chair and the and the Committee who are experts. But we will be open

And to the opposition. I'm just curious to see if there are more amendments that can be made to better this. I know you explained that right now, but is there a place where we can actually get to maybe more neutral from opposition? I know the Apartment Association is possibly they see some improvements being made to this Bill, and I'm just curious what your thoughts are.

Yeah, we appreciate your input and your questions, and we will, as always, continue to work with the author and the sponsors on refining it as we get to our final destination. But I think the issues you raise are absolutely something we've been working on, and we'll continue to work on that. So thank you. .

Sir. I want to thank the author for your leadership and the entire coalition that came together around this Bill. I know it's been a long journey already and many, many changes to it, and it started out with a lot of things in it. But I do want to say that what's in front of us now is incredibly important and impactful. I'm one of the five renters in the state Legislature. We started the Renters Caucus this year to be able to work on issues like this.

And I do think that what is in front of us will have a huge impact on the 17 million plus renters in our state. Many people do not know that laws exist that can protect them. There aren't ways to enforce those laws. There isn't notice requirements. So when we have such an important law like the one that was passed a few years ago, let's make sure that people know about it.

Let's make sure it's enforced, and let's make sure it has meaning for the people who we wanted to protect with it. And this goes such a long way in doing that. I do want to thank the opposition and folks for working collaboratively on this. I think the point that was made about how, in reality we want, of course, everyone who is renting property to follow the law and also know the law themselves.

And when they're not doing that, the larger set of landlords who are following the law are not well served by that either. And so I think this also helps with landlords to be able to have that really notice that they're providing and clear ways to be able to follow the law and know the law as well. And so I appreciate the work that was done by the Committee and the chair and the amendments that were taken. And thank you for your leadership.

I know these bills can be very tough, and this is one that will have a big impact, and you've done it in working well with everybody and I think everyone's collaboration and the very large coalition of tenants that have come together and really helped move this this far forward.

This is a huge victory for the tenant organizations and movement across the state and will do a lot of good to protect people who we want to make sure can just stay in their homes and afford to be there. Thank you.

Yes. I want to thank the author for this Bill. I really want to thank all the people that showed up, that traveled from all across California to raise their voices and let us know how they feel and what's happening to them out there. That's the real world. The real world are people that can't stay in their homes.

In my district, we had a 60 unit apartment building where they evicted everybody to do repairs, and then within three months, they moved people back in with triple the rent. And we got to stop. This cannot happen. This Bill is super important for everybody in California. We want to keep people housed. It's so important, you guys, to keep people housed and not have them sleeping on the street. This is inhumane. We cannot get used to and accustomed to walking over people in the street. This is just not right. And we Californians, we deserve better than that. So I just hope I'm asking everyone to support this Bill today. And thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Reyes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I also want to thank our author. These bills become more important, especially as you continue to talk about them and you bring in other people who have differing opinions, because that's what makes it a better Bill. But in the end, the purpose remains the same, and that is to protect the renters, to make sure that they are not displaced. We talk about homelessness. The best way to not increase homelessness is to keep people where they are housed.

The more we do to displace them, the more we're increasing homelessness. And then we talk about, zero, homelessness is such a problem. Well, let's do everything we can to keep people exactly where they are, and let's make sure that those who use these methods, unscrupulous methods, are stopped so that we keep people in their homes, so that we don't talk about homelessness as if it's something we have no control over. This is one way to control it, and that is keeping people in their homes.

I think two of the suggestions that were made having to do with the 51%, I think it's a fair thing, and I appreciate your willingness to look at that. I think one possibility is that they all have to be equal partners. So you don't have one that is a 70%, and they bring in somebody to be a 30% partner just to have that 30% partner bring a family Member in. But if they're all equal partners, they all have an equal interest in this.

Equal at 50/50, equal at whatever the number is. But your work on this, not just on this Bill, but on this issue is commendable. And I appreciate all that you've done on this Bill, especially because it's these bills that help California to keep homelessness down. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further comments from the Committee, I want to thank you for this Bill. Very pleased to support this today. I think this is a step in the right direction. I know a lot of work went into it, so I appreciate that. In regards to one of the other issues, too, that I would also add to the author that was raised by the opposition just ask you to continue working on the issue of an inadvertent error.

Obviously, we want to make sure somebody who just makes an honest mistake that's taken care of appropriately. But this is a great step forward for people renting here in California. I agree that it helps make sure our homeless numbers do not increase, and it provides some very valuable protections. So with that, please support it today, and you may close.

Thank you. And as one of you mentioned, I want to especially thank the sponsors and the advocates and everyone who's traveled over and over and over again from all over the state. This shows how important it is to them. And I couldn't come up with the kind of language that it takes to make a Bill better and yet still stick to its core mission. So thank you. Everyone gracias, and I urge your support.

Okay, we have a motion. The motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the Clerk to please call the role.

Maienschein aye. Maienschein aye. Essayli. Essali. No. Connolly. Connolly. Aye Dixon. Haney. Haney. Aye. Kalra. Kalra. Aye. Pacheco. Pacheco. Aye Papan. Reyes. Reyes. Aye. Sanchez. Sanchez. No. Mckinnor. Mckinnor. Aye.

Your Bill is out. Thank you. Mr. Umberg, you'll be next. Ms.. Durazo has one more Bill. Mr. Umberg, you are next. And so, Ms. Durazo, I know you're presenting, so please proceed. And as people exit the room, I just ask you to exit quietly, please. So she may present.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here to present SB 399 on behalf of Senator Wahab. I want to start by thanking the committee staff for their work on this bill. SB 399 clarifies that workers have the freedom to decline mandatory meetings or communications where their employer expresses personal views on religious or political matters, including political party or union support or opposition.

These meetings are often referred to as, quote-unquote, Captive Audience Meetings, because, although not job-related, workers are not permitted to leave or not attend without facing discipline or other adverse action. In many workplaces, employees are at will and can be fired at any time for almost any reason. It gives employers tremendous power to pressure workers to do as they say. Imagine that you are at work and your boss calls you into a mandatory all-staff meeting.

At the meeting, the boss asks you to vote for a candidate or a proposition that you oppose. You try to leave but are told you will be written up and possibly fired if you leave. This is what workers face on the job. California has long prided itself as a sanctuary for workers, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or political leaning.

It is important that workers are free to go to work without feeling coerced into listening to the political or religious views of their employer against their will. This bill provides exemptions so employers can communicate legally required information essential for workers to fulfill their job duties. Likewise, nothing in SB 399 prevents employers from communicating their personal, political, or religious beliefs to their workers. It simply clarifies they cannot require workers to attend meetings to discuss religious or political matters that are not germane to the work they do. With me in person to testify today are Freddie Frias, a former REI employee, and Shane Gusman, Gusman on behalf of California Teamsters.

First witness, please.

Thank you so much for listening. Sorry, listening today. My name is Freddie Frias and I worked at REI as a retail sales specialist for a year and a few months. Until about January 31. I worked at the REI store in Berkeley, which was the second REI to unionize. We won recognition of our union in August of 2022. As soon as management found out that we were organizing, they started holding captive audience meetings a few times a day to try and stop our organizing efforts.

They would use different methods for these meetings. Some would be group meetings in the morning with whoever was scheduled to work in the store that day, and some would be private one-on-ones with management spending over an hour walking around the store with us and talking to us about unions. They also used the strategy of bringing in visiting managers to our store. After the unionization effort began, we had more managers than before when we began organizing.

Those floating managers held captive audience meetings while they were at our store while also following around the loudest people on our organizing committee. A personal experience I had was one visiting manager would constantly follow me around, and I had to have several talks with our store manager and other managers before I was able to get her to stop listening in on all of my conversations and reporting them back to upper management.

They would also use scare tactics and try to spread disinformation during these meetings, telling sales associates to ask coworkers who wanted a union to explain exactly what a union pension plan is to try and sow doubt in pro-union associates or saying things that were completely false, like that the union would need to approve any vacation request and also exploiting the daily struggles that workers of color would confide into managers about. The captive audience meetings were also very, very uncomfortable.

It felt like they were mandatory, and it always seemed like managers were reading a script that we had to listen to, either with a small group of people or more often than not by yourself in a cramped office upstairs, or as we were walking away from the stores. This misinformation campaign by management started to work. There are 120 people who work in the Berkeley store.

Once the captive audience meetings started, leaders of the organizing effort, me included, began getting texts from three to four people a day about the misinformation that was being spread. An example being that the union would have to approve vacation requests. We were able to overcome these tactics and win our union, but these captive audience meetings were intimidating to many people and they haven't really stopped. Now they use them for bargaining and attempting to delegitimize the union at our store. In bargaining, they put across a 0% wage proposal over the life of the contract, and then they held captive audience meetings.

We need you to wrap up, sir.

All right. In other stores in California. I'm here today because other workers shouldn't have to go through what we went through. I'm asking for your support and urging to pass Senate Bill 399. It would prohibit employers from requiring workers like myself to attend these coercive captive audience meetings.

Thank you. Next witness.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Shane Gusman on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, proud co-sponsor of this bill. Also the Amalgamated Transit Union, UNITE HERE, the machinists, The Utility Workers Union of America, and the Engineers and Scientists of California, all in strong support. A couple quick points. One is this bill is really acknowledgment of the kind of power that an employer wields in the workplace. They don't wield that power fairly all the time.

And you've heard from the previous witness sometimes with respect to these captive audience meetings, it really is degrading to the employee whether it's a religious discussion, discussion about unions, a discussion about politics. It's really not appropriate in the workplace, and it's just as appropriate for the Legislature to put limits on that. Lastly, there's been a lot of talk that there is a First Amendment issue here. There's no First Amendment issue. The employer is free to talk about anything they want to talk about. They just can't discipline the employee for not wanting to be a coerced audience. And there's no First Amendment right to have an audience. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Witnesses in support. Name and organization only. Go ahead.

Mr. Chair Member, Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support. Here for any questions.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members. Mike West, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, also in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members. Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates, representing the Orange County Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning. James Michael Powell with AFSCME California, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association. In support.

Mr. Chair and members. Paul Yoder, on behalf of the California Faculty Association, in strong support.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition.

First witness.

Mr. Chair and Members, Courtney Jensen on behalf of CalChamber in opposition to SB 399 as a job-killer Bill. With all due respect to the author and sponsors, this Bill has a much broader impact than those shared. Current labor code already prohibits employers from attempting to coerce or influence employees' political activities, including coercing an employee to vote a certain way, attend a political rally, support or oppose certain legislation, or to vote for or against a union. All of those things are already illegal.

What this Bill does is open employers up to new PAGA litigation for sharing information regarding broadly defined political matters with employees. Political matters in the Bill is defined as legislation, regulation, elections, political parties, or unionization. This could impact employer speech as simple as a political sign in a restaurant window, hosting a Legislator at a manufacturing facility, sending out a company newsletter expressing support for equal pay legislation, hosting a regulator at a farm to discuss pending pesticide regulation.

Now, if an employee opts out of this type of speech and the employer assigns the worker to a different facility on the day they host a Legislator, can that employee now call that an adverse action ensue? We think yes. As we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is often crucial for employers to be able to communicate with their workers on pending new rules and what it would mean for the workplace.

The exceptions in this Bill do not allow employer speech unless it is necessary to perform their job duties or required by law. There are many instances of political matter speeches, such as pending COVID regulations or Executive Orders that is important for employers to share with employees that may not be required or necessary for job duties. The practical effect of this Bill will be ending any employer speech involving political matters.

This will have a significant chilling effect on the speech of employers and also information being provided to employees about issues important to the business or their jobs. If there is legislation pending that would have a positive or negative impact on the business or the workers job security, this is something workers would want to know about. We believe this runs afoul of the First Amendment, as is a content based restriction.

Very quickly, we also believe it is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act as it does allow employers to have meetings regarding union organization. Employers are permitted to hold meetings during union election campaigns to express their views. However, they cannot threaten, punish or promise benefits to employees. For these reasons and others, we respectfully request a no vote.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, representing a variety of local government employers providing essential services in their communities. I've also been asked to make remarks on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California. I want to first acknowledge and thank the author for her willingness to meet with us and hear our concerns. However, we remain respectfully opposed because SB 399 is incompatible with the functioning of public employers. Local governments are not typical employers.

Local governments are accountable to the voters and function to develop and implement policy. This may come in the form of self-generated policy and ordinances legislation, as well as legislation coming from the State Legislature, federal government or elsewhere. The broad definition of political matters in this Bill could give rise to the Bill's application in a variety of circumstances which are not the target.

For example, an employee required to attend a City Council or board meeting as a part of their job arguably may be required to attend an employer sponsored meeting at which the employer's opinions about political matters are being shared. Meetings in the form of internal deliberations, analysis, vetting of local rules, or consideration of or implementation of other rules and laws applicable to local governments could also cross the line in some circumstances.

We do not believe that the exemptions in SB 399 are sufficient, and it frankly would be difficult to craft exemptions broad enough to cover all the types of routine government operations that could be caught up in this Bill. Unfortunately, the only way to know the outer bounds of SB 399 is through litigation, the expense of which will be borne by the taxpayer. I also note that local government employees are already afforded significant enforceable protections from antiunion activities under the government code.

We are not aware of these provisions of law failing to protect or vindicate the rights of employees. I again want to thank the author for her time and willingness to meet with us, but today ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Further witnesses in support name an organization only. I mean opposition. I apologize. I saw you U-turn suddenly and I realized I thought you were giving a second chance. No.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Chris Mckayley on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition to Senator Wahab's Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of Committee. Chris Walker on behalf of 300 sheet metal, air conditioning contractors, union contractors across the state in opposition to this Bill.

Hi, good morning. Alyssa Silhi, on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Parks districts, and also on behalf of my colleagues at the California State Association of Counties, the Urban Counties of California, Cal Cities, and Association of California Healthcare Districts. Aligning our comments with our colleagues at CSDA and RCRC in opposition. Thank you.

Sarah Pollo Moo with California Retailers Association. Respectfully opposed.

Good morning. Sabrina Lockhart with the California Attractions and Parks Association in opposition. Thank you.

Nick Chiappe on behalf of the California Trucking Association. In opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Katie Davey with the California Restaurant Association in opposition.

Good morning. Robert Wilson, California Credit Union League here in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Melanie Cuevas, with the California Bankers Association also in opposition. Align our comments with those from the Chamber. Thank you.

Lawrence Gayden with the California Manufacturing Technology Association in opposition.

Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in opposition, questions or comments from the Committee, or a motion? Mr. Essayli?

Let me ask the supporters: what conduct by employers do you have examples of that isn't already illegal? Like what are we trying to do here?

The Bill is very specific in that it would prohibit an employer from taking adverse action. So this does not restrict in any way an employer's ability to communicate their views on political or religious matters, but it would prohibit either taking that adverse action or in some way preventing a worker from being able to do that.

Can you give me a real-life example of an employer doing what you're talking about?

There's an example. So in the case of Trump, Shell Oil held a mandatory rally where workers--

In what state?

In, believe it was in Ohio. In California--

Pennsylvania. It's Pennsylvania. Do you have any examples in California?

Yes, in California, during Prop. 22, one of the examples were that drivers had to, before they were able to log in and be able to start their shift to work, they had to watch a yes on Prop. 22 ad and then click to affirm that they had watched the ad before they were allowed to then do their job. That is one example. Another is that we have a number of propositions that are going to be on the ballot that very much affect workers.

And do you think unions do not hold captive audiences? Do you think unions don't force employees to listen to political statements and views and coerce them into political positions? Do you think unions don't threaten employees? Do you think they don't provide misinformation? You don't think they wield power? You don't think they're coercive? So my question is why not have the same rules on the unions, who are engaged in way more political activity than any employer I know in the State of California?

Unions don't employ in under labor law. They are not taking adverse action. This Bill is focused on the adverse action of employers. There's a power dynamic in the workplace. They have the ability to hire, to fire, to discipline and directly impact the livelihood of workers, often low-wage immigrant workers. That's what this Bill is saying, that employers are not going to be able to take that adverse action against an employee who declines to be coerced to listening to an employer's political speech.

It does not stop the employer in any way from saying whatever they want on legislation, on regulations, on anything that is political or religious.

Let me ask the opposition: do unions have any influence over assignments or people's workplaces, in your experience?

Well, I'll give you this. Under the National Labor Relations Act, when it comes to unionization, there are very clear rules of the road for what employers can and cannot speak about during a unionization process. There are not those same rules during the unionization process for the unions who are attempting to unionize the workers. So there are very clear rules, very specific things that we cannot do. And my understanding is there's no restrictions on the other side.

To your knowledge, do unions control assignments or do they have any influence at the workplace?

Over there can be benefits given for things that union workers do with working with their union. So if they go to a City Council meeting or if they go to other things like that, they may get job assignments or be higher in the assignment process and those types of interactions.

All right, I'll just close with this. Mr. Chair. One thing I know for sure, having been here for six months, unions have way more power in this state than any employer I know. Almost every Bill is sponsored or supported or lobbied by some unions. So the idea that employers are wielding all this political power is not true. Unions are funded almost solely for political influence. They have way more money than any employer. Just look at the politics. Look at the political contributions.

Mr. Chair, is this Bill about unions or is this Bill about employers?

It's about unions.

Hold on, motion. I think that her point is sustained. Mr. Essayli, you're certainly allowed to question on the Bill, but you're moving beyond that by talking about unions in general or legislation in general or every Bill in the Assembly. So if you'd like to ask the author or the author's witnesses or the opposition witness about specifics about the Bill, that's appropriate. Moving beyond that is not appropriate.

Mr. Chair, they brought up the power dynamics of employers. I'm simply rebutting it with the power dynamics of unions. I don't really think much more needs to be said. So with that, I yield, and I'll be opposing this Bill.

Thank you, Ms. McKinnor.

Again, I'll thank the author, Senator Wahab, for bringing the Bill up. Thank you also to my seatmate here for helping me to read through the analysis, just to talk about what you just said about unions and dynamic. It is a power dynamic with an employee that's non-union. I'm a union member. I've been a union Member for 30 years. I know this is not on the unions, but unions where I worked, they don't have any influence over where I worked.

I worked for Department of Social Services. There was no power dynamic there. But when an employer makes an employee watch a film, a Proposition film, or a film on politics, that is abuse of power. And I support this Bill because we cannot have that happening to our employees and our workers in California. And labor has nothing to do with anything like that because they don't control the workplace.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, Ms. Reyes, do you have comments or motion?

I want to thank Senator Wahab. There are issues. There are issues that are brought up by the opposition. And the good thing is that they represent many good employers. And so what they're saying is true and what they question is accurate. But the problem is that we hear from the very employers who are not following what the law already states. And I know that the question was asked and Senator Wahab was not here, and I know that an answer is given.

But on page nine of the analysis, at the top, it has a number of examples of where coercive audiences were held. These meetings were coerced over employees. Amazon in Marino Valley. In Davis, Pete's Coffee, Google, REI, Apple Stores, all in California. I just wanted to make sure that that was brought up. It has to do with power. And without a doubt, that is what we're talking about. Somebody has power over how much you're going to earn, over whether or not you're going to work there.

And the very examples that are noted here, I can tell you, as a workers' comp attorney, I've heard those from many of my clients when I practice law. I think having that kind of balance, when there is no balance, when there is abuse of power, I think is extremely important. For the opposition, I appreciate that they represent very good employers who are not doing this, but clearly there is an issue and it has to be addressed. And with that, I would move the Bill.

Thank you. We have a motion from Ms. Reyes. Second from Ms. McKinnor. Thank you very much to the author and I ask you to please close.

Thank you. For me, this is about democracy in the workplace, and we hope to be able for those employees to all feel safe and protected from the power that is over them. Thank you very much. And I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. I ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein? Maienschein aye. Essayli? Essayli no. Connolly? Connolly aye. Dixon? Haney? Haney aye. Kalra? Pacheco? Papan? Papan aye. Reyes? Reyes aye. Sanchez? Sanchez no. McKinnor? McKinnor aye.

Your Bill is out. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Umberg, who has three bills. I'm going to remind the Committee, both parties have caucus today, so we are through, I believe, the more difficult bills. So hopefully some of these we can pound through pretty quickly, I believe. And I'm going to remind the witnesses, too, it's two minutes or less, too, so we can try to make sure we get through our very busy docket today. With that, Senator, you can start with item 1, SB 35.

All right, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. In a note to Senator Durazo, she need not hurry back because when I left, we had 32 bills left in Senate Judiciary. And my apologies to Assemblymember Zbur. I hope he's had his or at least starting to have his Red Bull. All right, so AB SB 35 is simply a CARE court cleanup bill. The CARE courts were conceived in order to respond to the issue of those who have untreated schizophrenia or psychotic disorders that are unhoused.

Since the passage of this bill, Judicial Council has engaged to work to make sure that issues that we're identifying before CARE court becomes operational are both identified and, to the best of our ability, remedied. What this does is it allows subordinate judicial officers to conduct hearings and removes the filing fee from indigent filers. I would urge an aye vote. With me here is Tracy Kenny from Judicial Council to respond to any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you. Tracy Kenny with the Judicial Council. Really appreciate Senator Umberg trying to clarify some of these provisions that the courts who are in Cohort One will be able to implement on October 1. And happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? While they're coming up, you accept the amendments?

I do accept the amendments, and I thank Ms. Alison Merrilees for her help and support on the bill.

Thank you. Witnesses in opposition. Please proceed.

My name is Mary Ann Bernard. I am a member of NAMI. I am a member of the Family Advocates for the Severely Mentally Ill, and I am opposed only to what was supposed to be a technical amendment which has actually taken away the discretion from the judiciary to hear from family witnesses. You are allowing severely mentally ill people to witness tamper and it needs to stop. Thank you.

Melanie Klinkamon. I'm an advocate with a severe mentally ill daughter who is missing, also a native person. I would just say ditto on what she's saying. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Alison Monroe, Families Advocating for the Seriously Mentally Ill. I very much support CARE court. I appreciate last year's bill. I do not support these amendments because, as Mary Ann Bernard said, they limit the opportunities of families to tell the story of the person who needs protection. These amendments are.

Thank you. Name and organization only, please.

Katherine Wolf, doctoral student in the Sustainability and Health Equity Lab and the Disabled Ecologies Lab at the University of California at Berkeley. Oppose because of the reduction in due process.

Paul Simmons with the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance of California, and we oppose.

Good afternoon. Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU California Action in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in opposition, questions or comments from the committee or a motion? Motion from Mr. Haney, second from Ms. Papan. Seeing no questions or comments from the committee. Senator, you may close.

Thank you. Let me just clarify one point. These amendments nor does the bill in its original form in any way limit the ability for a family member to provide input, to provide testimony, provide information just to make sure that that's clear. Thank you. Urge an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Ask the clerk to please call the roll. Motion is do pass as amended to add an urgency clause to the Appropriations Committee.

Maienschein. Aye. Maienschein, aye. Essayli. Aye. Essayli, aye. Connolly. Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon. Haney. Aye. Haney, aye. Kalra. Pacheco. Papan. Aye. Papan, aye. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez, aye. McKinnor. Aye. McKinnor, aye.

Your bill is out. Item Number Two, SB 40.

Move the bill.

Motion from Ms. Reyes. Second from Mr. Haney. Assembly Member, please proceed.

Well, thank you very much. I want to clarify a few things. First of all, this bill simply provides that the fees from last year will continue to this year. There is no budget cut. Let me repeat: there is no budget cut. Notwithstanding what the Bar has said, for example, as reported by Senator Hertzberg over the weekend, that when you call to get a bar card and they say, 'oh, I'm sorry, you can't get a bar card because of budget cuts,' that's not accurate, number one.

Number two, notwithstanding what the Bench-Bar has been informed that somehow because of budget cuts the JNE Commission can't be fully funded and thus we have judicial vacancies. That's not accurate. Number three, that the Bench-Bar Coalition was informed that the courts are in some way hampered because of state bar budget cuts. That's also not accurate, nor is there to be a reduction in force because of state bar budget cuts. That's not accurate.

What this bill does do is--besides implementing the same fee as last year--it also increases legislative oversight. It provides for Senate confirmation for the Executive Director and the General Counsel. There's been a great deal of controversy concerning the State Bar. Thank you, Tom Girardi, for providing the revelation as to how much reform is required. We appreciate that.

And I also appreciate the fact that, for example, Ruben Duran, the current Chair of the Board of Trustees, I believe, is providing firm and positive leadership. Bar's heading in the right direction, but for right now, I think that we need to maintain the fee as it was last year and I think we need to provide some additional structure and accountability for the State Bar.

Thank you.

With that, I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. The motion is 'do pass as amended.' Ask the Clerk to please--oh, Mr. Essayli.

Thank you. Your bill does more than that, Senator. It includes a provision that says that attorneys now are going to be required to file a bar complaint if they believe another attorney's engaged in treason, sedition, or insurrection. Why is that necessary to put in here?

So a couple of things. One: California is the only state in the union that doesn't have, or at least didn't have until very recently, a requirement that attorneys report other attorneys who are engaged in misconduct. In terms of treason and sedition, well, that's become an issue in the last couple of years with respect to attorneys who facilitate, aid, and abet and even conspire to, for example, overthrow the government.

They conspire to ensure that there's not a peaceful transition of power, both at the federal level--well, primarily at the federal level. So if an attorney, for example, sees another attorney is, in essence, concocting a legal theory that purports to put the Vice President in a position where the Vice President is the sole arbiter of a national election, that would be treasonous. And so, if a lawyer sees another lawyer doing that, they have a duty to report it to the Bar. Doesn't make it a particular crime.

Okay, I have questions on that because we're talking about lawyers making constitutional arguments in a court of law. I think courts are well equipped to dispense with arguments whether they have merit or not. I'm concerned with the weaponization of the bar complaint system against conservative lawyers--such as John Eastman who's going through it right now--who made a constitutional argument about elected officials violating the Constitution and changing election rules. So I have a question.

In 2016, there was an attorney named John Birke, B-I-R-K-E, and he filed a restraining order in California to bar all Members of the Electoral College from voting for President Trump. In a motion filed in federal court naming all 538 Members of the Electoral College, he claimed the votes--them voting for Trump would violate the Equal Protection Clause. They also were a number of attorneys who made an argument that Trump is unfit and under foreign influence, and therefore, he should not be confirmed as President.

So why have none of these attorneys ever suffered a bar complaint or proceeding, and would you report Mr. John Birke as a result of your bill now?

Well, they probably haven't received a complaint because this wasn't the law previously, but it is the law--I would hope here soon--that if an attorney sees another attorney who is attempting to, for example, thwart the peaceful transition of power, that that attorney would report the attorney. Treason is defined in Federal Code. If not clear enough, I'll be happy to further define it here using the federal definition of treason. Whether or not Mr. Eastman has committed treason or not, that's for others to judge.

So would you report Mr. Birke?

Well, I'm not prepared to respond to hypothetical questions, but if Mr. Birke fell within the definition of treason as defined by the United States Code, then, yes, and I was aware of it, yes, I would report him.

Okay. Alright, I'll close with this, Mr. Chair. I just have concerns because a lot of times as lawyers, we oppose actions of the government. For example, there was a big injunction where lawyers oppose the government interfering in free speech and censoring people on social media. I have a concern where if the government says, 'hey, we're acting in the public good, this is for public interest,' and lawyers are challenging this, is this now treasonous to go against your government?

It was the policy in the United States to have segregation. If you attack those laws, you say, 'those laws are bad, they're unconstitutional,' is that treasonous that you're opposing laws of the government? So I'm just very worried we're going down a slippery slope of controlling what lawyers can argue. I want zealous advocacy. I want creative arguments because that's how we change law in the United States. And so I just have concerns. If you're willing to take that out, I support this, but with that, I can't support it. Thank you.

Mr. Haney.

Thank you, Senator, for your work on this and certainly agree with a lot of the pieces of this or all of it, but I did want to ask you about your approach on the fees question specifically. I know that the State Bar certainly feels that they're experiencing financial or budgetary hardships, and there's been inflation.

And there was a State Auditor report noted in the analysis that they believe that there may be some reason to at least have some modest fee increase, maybe not at the level that the Bar is asking for. I wonder, just because you and I haven't spoken about this, I would love to hear your perspective and your thought process and not including a fee increase of any kind in this legislation.

So what is included is the ability for the Bar to use the funds, the proceeds of a sale of the bar building in San Francisco, to provide for operations. If next year, it appears that there's a need for a fee increase, I'll certainly consider that. The tradition is that the Chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee carry the bill next year.

But for this year, I believe that the Bar needs to focus on discipline, focus on some of the other matters in the state audit report, focus on making sure that money is spent prudently and that as a consequence of the sale of the building, that they'll have additional proceeds to be able to operate, but I personally am not in support of an increase in fees this year.

Thank you. I appreciate that and just wanted to have that on the record as well and get your thoughts, and again, appreciate your leadership and your thoughtful process with this. Thank you.

Mr. Connolly.

Thank you, and I appreciate the author's work on this. I'm prepared to support it. I did have a question on the treason piece primarily around what would constitute knowledge and thus a duty to report? I get where you're going with it. We're all aware of the likes of John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani. Let's say I'm a lawyer in California. I'm watching MSNBC. I see them doing their thing. I believe it constitutes undermining democracy or treason. Do I have a duty to report?

So in terms of hypotheticals, if you see a report on MSNBC, I suppose if you believe everything that's on MSNBC, everything is the absolute truth and it's a California lawyer who is advocating what you believe is treason under the federal definition, then, yeah, you would have a duty to report. But my expectation is that every viewer need not accept everything that is promulgated on MSNBC or Fox or any other media outlet.

However, if you, for example, are a partner with someone who is advocating, in essence, the overthrow of the government, then, yeah, you would have a duty to report. So this is a report to the State Bar. This is not an indictment.

This simply tells the State Bar, 'hey, you may want to look at this,' just like if you as a consequence of both the State Bar's rule, the new rule by the State Bar, if you are aware of, for example, a lawyer who's stealing client trust funds, yes, now, you would have an obligation to report that. Yes.

I think it could use a little bit more work in tightening that up.

Thank you.

Sure. I'd be happy to--whatever further clarification you'd like to provide, I'll be happy to entertain that.

Thank you. And before I go to more Committee comment, I realize I skipped over support and opposition, so we had our witnesses in support. Any further witness--our main witnesses support--any further witnesses in support? Seeing none. Do we have witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I guess I didn't. I didn't do so bad after all. Well, there you go. Ms. Reyes, then Ms. Pacheco.

I understand that for purposes of the bill, to know means actual knowledge of the fact in question. Licensee's knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances. Is that your understanding, then?

Well, actual knowledge, yes, it does require actual knowledge. So if you 100 percent believe that everything that is broadcast on TV provides actual knowledge, I suppose that you may have a responsibility, duty to report. I can't imagine that if you heard something on MSNBC and you didn't report it, that that somehow would subject you to discipline.

And the other is, there is still the protection of attorney client privilege. If you acquire this information in an attorney-client relationship, that is not required to be disclosed?

If your client tells you that they are currently conspiring to overthrow the government, you're not required to report that unless they indicate that they're going to use violent means to do so.

Thank you.

Ms. Pacheco.

Thank you to the author. I share the same concerns as my Colleague, the Assembly Member, and my concern is that the definition might be overly broad, so I feel like it also needs to be fine tuned a little bit more. And so my only concern is the same.

Sure, and again, I'm happy to entertain suggestions beyond the Federal Code as to what treason is.

Ms. Papan.

Is the building sold already, or they're in the process--

Is what, I'm sorry?

The building. The San Francisco building. The process--

It's in the process?

Oh, it's in the process.

Yes.

Okay. So no fees this year? As a Member of the Bar, I sort of appreciate that. No increase, I meant no increase.

Right.

Right. Right. Right.

There would be no fees. Yay.

Okay.

Seeing no further questions or comments, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a unique situation where two branches of government have some responsibility for the State Bar. Primary responsibility rests with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the primary responsibility for the regulation and the discipline of Bar Members. We share some of that oversight responsibility more and more. The Supreme Court also has the ability to raise fees should it decide to do so. But this is my attempt, our attempt, to provide for greater accountability to the bar and we are funding the Bar at the same level as last year. I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion. The motion is 'do pass as amended.' Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein?

Aye.

Maienschein, aye. Essayli? No. Essayil, no. Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Kalra? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papan? Aye. Papan, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. McKinnor? Aye. McKinnor, aye.

Your bill is out. Right before you go to your next item, Senator, Umberg, I'd like to call on Senators Rubio, Gonzalez, Smallwood-Cuevas, and Stern to please proceed over here, and with that, Senator, you may proceed on your third item, which is SB 71.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and your staff, in particular, Nicholas Lideckey, for their work and your work on this Bill. This is a very modest Bill. This is a very modest Bill. It simply increases small claims jurisdiction from $10,000 to $12,500 limited jurisdiction. Civil cases from $25,000 to $35,000. These levels were established in the mid 1990s. It provides for greater access to justice. My entire legislative career, I've sought to form coalitions, broad, diverse coalitions, and I've done so on this Bill, primarily in opposition. But nevertheless, I urge an I vote.

Motion from Ms. Pappin. Second. From Ms. Reyes. Witnesses in support, seeing none witnesses in opposition.

You may proceed up to two minutes.

We're part of the unusual coalition. Mr. Chair and Members, I'm Rosemary Shahan, President of Consumers who are Auto Reliability and Safety, and we're respectfully opposing SB 71. We appreciate the improvements that have been made to the bill, but we believe it would still harm vulnerable consumers both by expanding the jurisdiction of limited civil courts without addressing any of their procedural problems, and by making it riskier to bring cases in unlimited civil courts. The analysis states that limited jurisdiction courts provide a forum for resolving minor civil disputes.

We take issue with the term 'minor.' Even though inflation has made the cost of goods and services increase dramatically, incomes have remained relatively stagnant. The median annual income in California is roughly 33,000, and according to the Federal Reserve, 37 percent of Americans lack enough money to cover a 4,400 dollar emergency expense. So millions of Californians are struggling to get by, and they can't afford to lose 25,000 or 30,000 dollars in limited civil where the procedures are stacked against them.

And according to the analysis, the only supporter of SB 71 is the trade association for the debt collectors. If SB 71 passes, the amount they can extract from consumers would increase significantly, and right now, the vast majority of litigation in small claims and limited civil courts is brought by debt collectors and other business interests against consumers. The procedures are streamlined and lack basic protections, making it difficult for consumers to get discovery to defend and show the truth of the matter.

And we agree with the Legal Aid Society of San Diego, which wrote in opposition to SB 71 prior to the most recent amendments, limiting discovery in an even larger number of cases will adversely affect consumers.

You need to wrap up.

Okay. It would also harm consumers with higher amounts at stake by making it riskier that they may not be able to get their attorneys fees if they are not awarded over 35,000. And we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Next witness.

Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Megan Varvais. I live in Sacramento, and I'm here on behalf of Public Justice, which is a national public interest advocacy organization. We oppose SB 71 and we respectfully ask for a no vote because it will harm consumers. I'm not an attorney, but I have experience as a consumer litigant. When I was a struggling college student, I was a named plaintiff in a class action that addressed the overdraft abuses by Chase Bank.

The bank would routinely hold several days of debit transactions and then manipulate the timing of them and hit accounts with them all at once in an order largest to smallest. This had the effect of draining consumers accounts faster and triggering multiple overdraft fees. In less than a year, while I was unemployed and struggling the most, Chase took over one 1,100 dollars in overdraft fees from my account. This dollar amount is well within the limits of minor civil disputes, but it had a profound effect on my life.

I struggled to pay the fees back as quickly as possible to avoid becoming unbanked. The hierarchy of each unemployment payment was rent, bank fees, and then everything else. To this day, I still get very anxious when I need to log into any financial account. Eventually, after winning in the appellate courts, we won the class action. Chase had to return over 110,000,000 dollars to consumers, and we also won an injunction to stop some of the most predatory, overdraft practices the banks had committed.

Here are some ways that a truncated, streamlined, civil justice process would have negatively affected our case. Without discovery, there would be no way to prove that Chase's practices were widespread. I would not have been able to have the case heard in an appellate court. And without injunctive authority, there would have been nothing to stop Chase from continuing its predatory practices, depriving future customers of that particular benefit.

So the dollar amounts might suggest that the disputes are minor, but the consequences are still pretty major, and at this time, I think more California consumers need and deserve the full protection of the process, not less of them. So we ask for no vote.

Briefly?

Very briefly

With the briefest and nicest.

Very briefly.

Rob Moutrie, California Chamber of Commerce. We are very respectfully opposed. Appreciate much work on this. I want to be very clear: we have different concerns. We do not believe limited courts are unworkable, do not believe they lack basic protections, we are only seeking amendments for small discoveries, such as one additional deposition to match thresholds. Thank you.

Further witnesses in opposition?

The biggest barrier--I'm a practicing lawyer, I know the Senator is too--the biggest barrier people have to court is attorneys' fees. It's very expensive to hire an attorney. So by having a modest increase in these limits, it's just going to have more access for people to have access to the court system. So I support this.

Michael Corbett from the California Council of County Law Librarians. We're not opposed to this bill, but we're concerned that it has not yet been amended to protect county law libraries from a revenue loss.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jamie Huff with Civil Justice Association of California aligning our comments with that of the Chamber. Thank you.

Robert Herrell with the Consumer Federation of California shockingly aligned with CJAC on this issue.

We'll thank Mr. Umberg's skill in combining opposition to a bill. Okay, turning over to questions or comments from Committee. Mr. Essayli.

I, frankly, with all due respect to my friends, do not understand this opposition. It makes no sense to me. You guys are acting like limited civil court is somehow lesser than real court. I mean, it's a judge. There's limited discovery, but you could always get--with good cause, you can get more discovery and you can have more depositions.

I don't know if you want me as a co-author, but I'm happy to be a co-author and I think it's good for the public. It may not be good for any special interest, but I think it's good for the public to have more access to court. So I strongly support this.

I welcome you as a co-author if you don't think it hurts your reputation too much.

Mr. Connolly.

I don't want to stand in the way of that. No, I think the bill is getting in a better place with the amendments. I guess I am reacting to the fact that there are some cases in the civil world, they're smaller, but still complex, maybe seeking injunctive relief. The issue here is the discovery limitation, so I am very interested in hearing--I think we heard a little bit from one of the opponents on what would make sense. Is it an additional deposition?

Is it some tweaking around that? So I would ask just, is that something still under consideration? It does seem limited, given with the increase you are going to see some more complex cases.

I'm happy to respond. So certainly, as Assembly Member Essayli pointed out, you can always get an additional deposition. You need to go to the court. Here's the reality of the situation. The reality of the situation is that increasingly, it's not the merits that determine the outcome of litigation, it's the resources. And those with more resources can absolutely bury a smaller entity in discovery costs. And so if you, for example, are a small business person and you've ordered widgets and the widgets don't show up, you're done.

You cannot access justice if you have a dispute with a large entity, if you're a consumer and you've just been ripped off by an airlines like we were, you basically are done. You have no recourse. You have no recourse in unlimited because they can simply bury you in discovery immediately. I'll just give you an example from a case that I handled just recently where there were no merits. There were no merits that would indicate that the plaintiff would succeed.

The plaintiff simply said, 'we're going to drag you through, quote the discovery slog until you give up.' After three years of litigation, the settlement was a walk away, but the purpose was simply to drive them out of business. And so to the example of a class action that is, to be frank, absurd. 110,000,000 dollar class action would never fall under limited jurisdiction. Would never fall under limited jurisdiction. Maybe there's been a class action in the last 50 years in California that's been filed in limited jurisdiction court. I doubt it, but if there has been, I would welcome that information.

Let's say like a Lemon Law case.

Well, a Lemon Law case is different. And certainly in a Lemon Law case, you can file an unlimited jurisdiction and you can file in limited jurisdiction if you so choose. I would guess you'd file an unlimited jurisdiction so that the fees combined with whatever judgment exceed the 35,000 dollars. But as was pointed out, this is a modest, modest increase over the course of the last umpteen years and it simply provides relatively small relief to those who seek justice but can't afford, basically, to fight anybody with greater resources.

Seeing no further questions or comments from the Committee, do we have a motion? Motion from Mr. Essayli. Okay, so we have a motion. A second. Senator Umberg, you may close.

Urge an aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Ask Clerk to call the roll.

Aye.

Maienschein?

Maienschein, aye. Essayil? Aye. Essayli, aye. Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon?Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Kalra? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papan? Aye. Papan, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Sanchez? Not voting. McKinnor? Aye. McKinnor, aye.

Your bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair and members.

You bet. We're still waiting on authors. Do I have a motion on the consent agenda? Motion for Ms. Papan. Second from Ms. Reyes. Ask the Clerk to call the role on the consent agenda. Consent agenda includes SB 296, Dodd, SB 303, Allen, SB 868, Wilk.

On consent. Mainshine? Aye. Mainshine aye. Essayli? Aye. Essayli aye. Connolly? Aye. Connolly aye. Dixon? Haney? Aye. Haney aye. Kalra? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco aye. Papan? Aye. Papan aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez aye. McKenner? Aye. McKenner aye.

Consent agenda is out. Ms. Gonzalez, Senator Gonzalez. Welcome. You have two items. I see you have witnesses here. Which item is this then?

Refinery item.

Which one?

The refinery, 674.

674. Okay, we'll start with that item. 11674. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. First, I'd like to begin by thanking the Committee for their hard work and collaboration and accept the Committee's suggestion amendments. Thank you very much. So I'm here to present SB 674, which will recast the refinery fenceline program to close loopholes and ensure the program is consistently implemented.

The Legislature made a promise to fenceline communities back in 2017 when it passed AB 1647 that refinery pollution flowing into neighborhoods would be adequately monitored and that they would receive real-time alerts when dangerous levels of pollution were detected. However, despite this effort, fenceline communities are still in the dark about the toxins and toxic contents--excuse me--in the air that they breathe.

To date, fenceline communities in the Bay Area have never received an alert on the emission exceedances that have occurred in their vicinity. On Thanksgiving last year, residents of Contra Costa County woke to find white powder blanketing their neighborhood. When the refinery finally notified the community over three days later, they assured everyone that the powder was harmless. Unfortunately, we know that this powder contained cancer-causing heavy metal compounds, which was unfortunate. Far too long, communities have been overburdened by refinery air pollution.

SB 674 will ensure that the refineries are more transparent and consistent, requiring that all necessary pollutants are monitored. Fenceline coverage is comprehensive and adequate, real-time alerts are sent, and root cause analysis and corrective action is taken. Testifying in support today I have Erica Martinez with Earthjustice, and Jan Victor Andasan--I always say that incorrectly--with East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. First witness, please.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Erica Martinez with Earthjustice, which is a co-sponsor of SB 674. 674 makes necessary changes to ensure better compliance with the core pillars of the fenceline monitoring law. The pillars are public health data collection, monitoring, and accountability. While air districts and refineries are indeed different throughout the state, they remain important commonalities that are central to the successful implementation of the law. I will highlight two examples.

It is critical that fenceline programs monitor for the most harmful toxic pollutants. The bill identifies 18 pollutants the program should be tracking based on a 2019 analysis of refinery chemical emissions and health effects. However, the bill also provides a process for an air district to explain why it might exclude one of those pollutants at the local level. Moreover, current law requires air districts to set up a notification system to alert communities when there is an exceedance at a refinery.

We understand additional statutory guidance would be helpful to air districts as they design their notification processes. The bill provides two threshold options that an air district can use in the design and execution of this requirement. In addition, SB 674 leverages the veracity of the data collection with additional auditing and making the data more accessible. Lastly, we continue in discussions with stakeholders, including the opposition, about recasting some definitions in the bill, including questions around auxiliary facilities and refining processes.

We urge your support of this bill and we want to thank the Senator for authoring this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good morning. My name is Jan Victor Andasan. I am a staff and member at East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice where we organize residents in the Long Beach, South Bay, Southeast LA, and East LA community to address industrial pollution affecting predominantly black and brown neighborhoods. Not only do I currently organize and work directly with residents adjacent to refinery operations, but I also grew up next to the now Marathon facility.

Growing up, I thought that these facilities were normal and having respiratory issues like asthma were normal. My brother was born a year after I immigrated to the U.S. and he was born to come out of the womb needing to use a nebulizer to be able to breathe. My family's story is one of many that still happen today, 26 years later, of living in this region. Every day, many residents adjacent to refinery production have to decide what their day will look like.

Does the air feel heavier to breathe? Can I feel my throat close up so instead of walking in the park, I will go to an indoor gym? These are questions I go through every day even when thinking about doing simple errands. We urge you to support this bill because it is not revolutionary. Through this bill, we are simply filling the gaps in fenceline monitoring that needs to occur at all refinery facilities in the state.

This will also fill gaps of monitoring with sites that already have air monitoring. This will allow local residents, like those in LB, Carson, Southeast LA, and Central Valley up and down the state to be equipped to make better decisions in their life. The bill will also allow decision makers to have the data to make more informed policymaking on how to oversee these refinery facilities. Our stories are often told. What does the data look like? How many days did this facility potentially emit?

What were residents exposed to? This bill is about transparency, so refinery emissions over time will be collected and paired with our community narratives, will highlight what truly we are experiencing and what solutions we can create together. Again, I urge you to support this bill and stand alongside refinery community committees. Thank you.

Thank you. Witnesses in support, name and organization only.

Isabella Argueta with the Health Officers Association of California in support.

Thank you, chair and members. My name is Noah Whitley, speaking on behalf of the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and the Clean Seas Lobbying Coalition. In support.

Fatima Balzawayer with California Environmental Voters. In support.

Suzanne Hume Clean Earth for Kids. Strong support.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members Ross Buckley, on behalf of South Coast Air Quality Management District. We're supportive amended, but appreciate the conversations.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in support.

Sorry. Erica Martinez, Sacramento Area congregations together in Support.

Thank you.

Jasper Lysander. In support. I was born and raised in rural Hawaii and I saw the degradation, so.

Thank you. Witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Zach Leary, on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association, we remain opposed unless amended on SB 674. Really appreciate the work of the Committee. We think it's a good step in the right direction. I think there's a couple of outstanding concerns still related to the Bill. I think some of them were outlined by the supporters had good stakeholder conversations with the author, with the sponsors, with the air districts.

I think the outstanding concerns are major relating to the definition of auxiliary facilities and the definition of refineries. We think those should include either contiguous or adjacent facilities that are under common ownership. And then as it relates to the air monitors themselves. The Bill states that it needs to cover the entire perimeter of the refinery unless it's deemed infeasible. We think that this decision should be made at the local level based on site specific information and geographic location.

Every refinery is different and we think it should be based on necessity and need. And so for those reasons, we remain opposed unless amended.

Lawrence Gayden with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members. Mike Monaghan. On behalf of the California State Building Trades, we are opposed unless amended and very encouraged by the conversations with the Senator. Thank you.

Thank you. Further witnesses in opposition. Name and organization?

May I provide a brief statement?

No.

Genesis Tank on behalf of World Energy producers of renewable fuels in Southern California and we have a position of opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Thank you. Faith Conley with Air Products. We're in an opposed unless amended position, but appreciate the conversations.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in opposition, any questions or comments or motion from the Committee. Motion from Ms. Reyes. Do we have a second 2nd from Mr. Connolly. Ms. Pacheco?

Hi. So I want to thank the author for working with the opposition. I know amendments have been taken to address some of the concerns that the opposition has had and so I really appreciate that and I'm curious to see if there's going to be continued conversations to fine tune it. It seems like it's an opposed and less amended. So it looks like both sides are working together, but I'm curious to see if you think more conversations can be had.

Thank you very much. Through the chair. Assembly Member? Absolutely. We've continued we actually had a full pronged meeting not too long ago where every stakeholder was at the table, discussing the issues of auxiliary facilities, refining, as the opposition mentioned, and then moving forward. We will continue to have those conversations, of course, but we want to make sure that we uphold the integrity of the Bill, which is at the utmost to ensure that people's air quality gets better, that their health outcomes improve for living next to refineries.

So that's the utmost intention of the Bill. Thank you.

And I will be supporting the Bill today, but, of course, I'm looking forward to the continued conversations.

Seeing no further questions or comments from the Committee, Senator Gonzalez may close.

I want to thank everybody for coming forward, especially the sponsors, and we'll continue to work on this, as mentioned. And I would just respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much.

Maienschien aye. Maienschien aye. Essayli. No. Essayli? No. Connolly. Connolly. aye. Dixon? Haney. Haney. aye Kalra. aye Pacheco. Aye.

Thank you. The motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Pacheco aye papan. Papan. aye. Reyes. Reyes. aye. Sanchez? No.