Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

Alright. The Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. First, a few administrative announcements. Today, just like every other hearing, we will proceed as follows. That on each bill that's called, there'll be two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition. Each of those witnesses will be accorded two minutes.

In other words, four minutes for each side. After the support side testifies, then those who are in support, wish to express their point of view. They should approach the microphone, give us their name, their affiliation, and their position, whether you support or oppose the bill. Then we'll do the same thing with opposition. Two witnesses, two minutes each.

And then those who are in opposition, approach the microphone, give us your name, your affiliation, and your position. Today, we have a couple bills on the consent calendar. We have file item number six, SB 1267 by Senator Allen, and file number nine, SB 880 by Senator Wahab. Are they as amended? No.

No. And then this one was pulled off of consent when we heard.

And file item number four was formally on consent but is no longer on consent, and that's file item number four, SB 1364. We do not have a quorum, but I would invite members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to present themselves in Room 2100. So we're going to proceed as a subcommittee, and I see we have two authors here. First, Senator Blakespear, SB 1088.

Also, one other administrative note. Thank you. Welcome to Senator Alvarado-Gil, who is today subbing for Senator Valladares. Thank you for being here. Alright. So as I've noted before, we currently have 50% of the Republican contingent to Senate Judiciary, and we have about 20% of the Democratic contingent. Alright. Senator Blakespear, floor is yours.

Okay. Well, thank you, Chair and colleagues. Hello. I'm pleased to author SB 1088, which is sponsored by the Coalition for Compassionate Care of California. This bill will help ensure people receive the medical treatment they desire at the end of their lives or when they are no longer able to express their wishes.

I'm a former estate planning attorney who drafted wills and trusts and worked with clients who care deeply about charting their own exit from this life, and I've seen firsthand the deep significance of advanced planning. Advanced planning documents allow a person to declare and then document the type of care and medical treatment they want and that they don't want should they become incapacitated. There are three legal tools for communicating one's care preferences.

Advanced health care directives, prehospital do not resuscitates or DNRs, and then the POLST, which is currently physician orders for life sustaining treatment. Advanced health care directors, sorry, directives allow a person to designate someone to make medical decisions on their behalf and explain what medical treatment should be done if they lose decision making abilities.

However, an advanced health care directive expresses preferences. These are not medical orders. They're not signed by a doctor. The instructions can be vague, and providers and the designated decision maker may view them as general guidance. The other two tools are prehospital DNR and a POLST.

And this is an example of the current POLST, which some of you may have seen on people's refrigerators. They will fill them out and post them there so that they're available should they need to be immediately grabbed. While a DNR limits resuscitation attempts following cardiopulmonary arrest, a POLST allows a patient to decline interventions like CPR, ventilators, and feeding tubes during any life threatening emergency.

Both prehospital DNRs and POLST are highly specific, standardized, and signed by a medical provider, making them binding medical orders that other health care providers are required to follow. SB 1088 aligns the three planning tools and makes important modernization updates.

First, in recognition that physician assistants and nurse practitioners can sign a POLST, it updates the name of POLST to Portable Orders Listing Scope of Treatment and allows those providers to also sign a prehospital DNR. It also clarifies that POLST and prehospital DNR forms are entirely voluntary and that care can't be conditioned on completing one.

It also clarifies who can sign a POLST on behalf of a patient. It creates a presumption of validity for a POLST executed in another state. It allows electronic signatures to be used to facilitate electronic completion, storage, and retrieval of POLST forms.

These are modern and reasonable reforms that help people plan for the end of their lives. With me in support, I have Dr. Karl Steinberg on behalf of the Coalition for Compassionate Care of California. If you'd like to come to the microphone there, they'll take your testimony from there.

Alrighty. Thank you, doctor. Floor is yours.

Thanks, Senator. And thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I'm Dr. Karl Steinberg. I've been a hospice and nursing home medical director in San Diego County since 1995, and I'm here on behalf of the Coalition for Compassionate Care of California, which I'm a past chair of.

The coalition introduced the POLST program and assisted then Assembly Member Lois Wolk with the original POLST legislation, AB 3000, back in 2008 to help ensure people near the end of life get the treatments they wanna get, but don't have to endure treatments they don't want by way of portable medical orders. Since then, we've supported the program and sponsored several bills to improve access to POLST and develop a statewide electronic registry.

And this bill, as the Senator says, seeks to make further improvements to the POLST process in California. It'll help clarify who and under what authority can sign a POLST or DNR on behalf of an incapacitated patient, and it will help providers correctly identify authorized surrogates and exclude those not authorized to sign.

It'll change the name, as the Senator stated, and it will put into statute the long standing principle that POLST is never mandatory. Because we frequently hear that nursing homes are forcing all patients to complete a POLST form, despite lots of efforts by us, CDPH, and other industry organizations to educate them.

California's Emergency Medical Services Authority or EMSA is currently developing a statewide electronic registry for POLST, as mandated in AB 1234. Most health systems already use electronic health records, yet this the current statute doesn't define or authorize any type of electronic signature of the form.

So we'd like to bring the law into alignment with current practice standards. And finally, visitors and temporary residents in California should have confidence that orders reflecting their documented treatment preferences will be honored by our healthcare systems.

Existing law already allows recognition of advanced healthcare directives from other states, and we believe the same should apply for POLST and prehospital DNR orders. Thanks for your attention. I'll be glad to field any questions if I can.

Alright. Thank you, doctor. Next witness, please. Seeing no other witnesses approaching the microphone as primary witnesses. If you support SB 1088, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, your position.

Nicette Short on behalf of the Alliance of Catholic Healthcare in support.

Thank you. Others in support? Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1088, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice. Seeing no one approaching.

Alright. Let's bring it back committee for questions by Committee Members. Questions, comments by Committee Members? There are none. At the appropriate time, I expect there'll be a motion and a vote. We don't have a quorum yet, but we will. Alright. Oh, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. I appreciate the consideration and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Okay. Let's turn now to Senator Choi. Senator Choi's bill, which is file item number two, SB 1242.

Good afternoon, Chairman and the committee members. I'm here to present Senate Bill 1242, which allows a family member as the original petitioner to participate in the care court program for the purposes of care coordination and providing relevant information to the court. The CARE Act was enacted to provide court court supervised treatment for those with the untreated or on under treated mental illness. The CARE Act promotes family centers centered care and the community based services for people with a serious mental illness.

This is because family members are often the most familiar with the respondents' medical history, conditions, treatment needs, and risks.

Unfortunately, current law limits family member petitioner's ability to participate beyond the initial hearing. Excluding family members from proceedings can reduce care courts' effectiveness by depriving the court and the care team of critical information and the limiting family involvement in treatment planning, support, and care coordination. This, undermines the Care Act's main goals, which are community and the family centered care.

SB 1242 addresses this by allowing family members who are the original petitioners to participate in the care code program for the purpose of assisting in care coordination and providing relevant information to the care team. This bill also preserves the full judicial discretion to limit or exclude participate participation should the court determines that the such participation would be harmful to the respondent's treatment or well-being.

Testifying in support of SB 1242 is Doctor Suzanne Fiddler with the Conference of California Bar Association and Keanu Hopper, a Family Care Act petitioner and a volunteer with the Treatment Advocacy Center, Grave Disability Work Groups, and NAMI both advocates for individuals with serious mental illnesses. Thank you, and I would like to turn over to my main witness.

Alrighty. Thank you. Floor is yours.

I'm Suzanne Fiddler speaking on behalf of the Conference of California Bar Associations, the sponsor of SB 1242. Today, original petitioners as family members can initiate care proceedings, but are excluded from ongoing participation without the respondent's consent. Yet meaningful consent requires the ability to weigh the benefits and consequences of excluding this critical support. The individuals this act is designed to serve are suffering from severe mental illness, which may impair insight, decision making, and their perception of reality.

What may appear as refusal is often driven by the illness itself.

Family petitioners are the original source of information. They are involved in crises, recognize deterioration, and often know the status of their loved ones in real time. Yet current law excludes these key partners, leading to gaps in information and fragmented care. Without coronation, individuals cycle through hospitalizations and deterioration, leading to homelessness, incarceration, or self neglect. SB 1242 addresses this by allowing limited engagement of family petitioners to assist with care coordination and provide real time information with judicial oversight.

This bill does not replace the supporter role. It does not require court participation. It does not grant access to protected health information. It does not expand involuntary treatment or weaken due process protections. This bill does improve care coordination and prevents unnecessary isolation of respondents from family support.

This bill aligns with welfare and Institutions code 5801, which recognizes that mental health services are best delivered in the community with clients and families directly participating in decisions affecting their lives. SB 1242 is a balanced practical step that strengthens the Care Act while preserving individual rights. I strongly urge your aye vote.

Other witnesses in support.

Hello and thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak today. Thank you, Senator Choi, honorable chairman, and senators. I volunteer with Treatment Advocacy Center and some other groups, including locally, Sacramento's family advocates for individuals with serious mental illness. I'm also a care petitioner, a family care petitioner.

Today, I'm sharing my family's experience because it reflects what families like mine across the state live with every day when our loved ones do not receive adequate treatment and support services for their serious mental illnesses involving psychosis.

Fourteen for fourteen years, our daughter tried different treatments, therapies, and community supports for her symptoms of schizophrenia and psychosis. When her illness is under treated, her perception of judgment are distorted. Like many people with psychosis, she experiences anosognosia where she cannot recognize she is ill or needs treatment. During untreated psychosis, she became justice involved. Inmate psychiatric care did not fully stabilize her, and she refused all reentry services and was released to the streets of Sacramento where condition worsened.

Family provided much support and filed a care petition as a hopeful path to prevent continued deterioration. At the initial care hearing, the petition was allowed a brief update for remove but then removed from further input. When our daughter reported continued housing and health care and progress in SSI application information she truly believed to be true, family had zero avenue to present their observations that Housie was actually ending. She had no health care and her SSI application was stalled. She was not being dishonest.

She was describing her reality. The care petition was dismissed. Within weeks, she was unhoused, deteriorating, and cycling through acute psych hospitals, which continues seven months later. It's important for you to know that during a time of stability, my daughter publicly supported the Care Act and gave an interview to San Francisco Chronicle. Yet when she most needed Care Act services, she fell through an unintended gap.

SB 1242 makes a narrow balanced improvement. It allows family petitioners to participate.

Thank you, ma'am. And thank you for your work in this space. I know that this is a passion of yours and we appreciate that.

Appreciate your all your work. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Others in support of s B1242, please approach.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists in support. Thank you.

Marvin Hopper, my daughter's care court recipient support.

Thank you.

Mary Ann Bernard. I am a member of FASEME, meaning I am a family member of someone with severe mental illness. I am also a lawyer who used to represent mental hospitals in another state. This is a much needed,

Improvement in law. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

David Bullock, SFI Alliance in support.

Thank you.

Allison Monroe, cofounder of Families Advocating for the Seriously Mental Ill, which is based in Alameda County. And I support.

Thank you.

Lawrence Abbott, Lathrop, California. Strong support.

Thank you. Ann Donnelly. I support, this bill, and I think if my son, had this program, it might have saved his life. He passed away last June because of the lack of participation that we were allowed in his full service partnership. Thank you

I'm these are trite words, but I'm sorry for your loss, and and thank you for coming to to advocate in his honor. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Jane Dixon, and I'm also a member of the advocates, and a mom, and in support of 1242 so that, we as caretakers, moms, dads, even a grandparent, it could even be a spouse

Alrighty.

Is able to parallel their person as they suffer through psychosis and and the demonstration of

I bet you're gonna urge us to vote aye.

This is definitely an eye vote.

Alright. Thank you. Alright. Thank you very much. Alright.

Anyone else in support of SB 1242? Alright. Let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1242, please come forward.

Thank you, Chair, Members. Samuel Jan with, Disability Rights California. We are here in opposition of SB 1242, which would allow some family members to participate in confidential confidential care court proceedings even if the respondent objects. Care court already allows family members to participate in care court proceedings either as a voluntary supporter or as a petitioner with the respondent's consent. The only thing that this bill does is remove the consent requirement.

I wanna acknowledge that family members are a very important factor in mental health recovery. A loving and supportive family can be the difference between an individual getting the help they need in the community and becoming institutionalized. Unfortunately, not all families or family members are supportive. One in four children experience abuse or neglect. One in fifteen children experience sexual abuse from a family member.

Some families are not abusive but dysfunctional to the point their involvement negatively impacts health and recovery. SB 1242's safeguard to this is that the court can limit a family member's involvement in care proceedings if detrimental to the respondent. This operates under the assumption that the that the court can accurately determine if a family member's involvement is detrimental.

It puts the burden on the respondent to detail their issues with the family member's involvement, which they may struggle to communicate, particularly in the midst of a mental health crisis. Allowing a family member to participate in care proceedings against the wishes of a respondent is at best coercive and trust eroding, and at worst, severely damaging to their mental and emotional health.

Proponents of this bill have said that this change is important for family members to purse provide insight for care teams into the respondent's condition. Family members and third parties can already provide information in one direction to county behavioral health, including care teams. The only change that this bill makes is to allow family members a patient does not want to participate or receive information about their proceedings.

Alright. Thank you very much.

To participate and receive information about their care proceedings. For these reasons, we ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Alright. Others who are opposed to SB 1242, please approach the microphone. Alright. Seeing no one else yes.

I just wanted to write a a me too for the cowboys. For I'm sorry? For for cowboys as an option.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Alright. Anyone else opposed to SB 1242, seeing no one approach? We're gonna establish a quorum here, the ever ephemeral quorum. Committee assistant Porter, please call the roll for purposes of establishing quorum.

Umberg? Here. Umberg, here. Niello? Here. Niello, here. Allen? Here. Allen, here. Alvarado-Gil?

Here. Alvarado-Gil, here. Ashby? Caballero? Durazo? Here. Durazo, here. Laird? Reyes? Here. Reyes, here.

Stern? Wahab? Weber Pierson? Here. Weber Pierson, here. Weiner.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Alright. Questions or comments by committee members? Senator Durazo and doctor Weber Pierson and okay.

Senator Reyes. So let's start with Senator Durazo and Senator Weber Pierson.

Yeah. I just would like the, opposition witness to ask a question.

Sure.

I'm trying to understand better the role of family, what's allowed, what's not allowed, both currently and with this. And where's the downside? Where's the danger that we, you know?

Yeah. Yes, Senator. That that's a good question. And, you know, as the analysis details, this issue has came up, repeatedly in multiple care court follow-up bills. And those bills have steadily increased family member involvement in care court.

So where things stand today is that family members can be involved in care court proceedings as long as the respondent consents. So the only thing that this bill does is it removes that consent requirement.

And could you do you see any benefit to that in terms of what what we what was described as individuals, respondents that are ill and how that fits into their illness fits into their capacity to make decisions, I guess, what it is.

Yes, Senator. So, you know, one of the things that the the author and the proponents said that, you know, it's important for family members to provide insight into the respondent's condition. You know, some family members and other individuals don't know this, but you can actually provide information to county behavioral health in one direction. It's just that that information county behavioral health can then cannot provide information in the other direction to the family member.

So they can already call county behavioral health, which which includes individuals on the care team, and provide information about the individual's condition, which can then be part of the care court proceedings.

Do you support or don't support that it's a one way?

That that's just in, HIPAA medical confidentiality protections.

Okay.

Okay. Alright. Senator Weber Pierson and Senator Reyes.

Thank you, Chair. And I guess my, questions are aligned with the direction in which, Senator Durazo was going. So, Senator Choi, is it to your understanding and your intent for the bill to remove the ability for the individual to be able to consent to having his or her family guardian, whoever participate?

Okay. As I stated a while ago in my statement, this bill preserves a full judicial discretion to limit or exclude the participation should the court determines that such participation would be harmful to the respondents' treatment or well-being. So when family is the primary cause for the mental illness, the judicial court will have a full right to exclude them. So I would like to refer to doctor Fidelor for further explanation.

Yeah. I guess my question wasn't about judicial. My question was about the individual patient. So based on what you've just read, it sounds like it does remove patient consent and places that in the hands of a judge to make the decision as to whether or not the family being involved would be detrimental to that particular individual's case. Question, I guess, for the, sponsors or supporters.

As it stands right now, if I am undergoing a care court proceeding and I want someone from my family or whoever may have initiated it, can I request that?

I'm I'm sorry. Request that you find out

Request that they be involved in the proceedings at this time. Because right now, you're this bill would allow the judge to decide. But I'm saying right now, if I'm going through this and I say, hey, I want my mother to be able to participate in the proceedings, to have all of the information, am I is that allowed right now?

The respondent has the right to provide consent for the participation of the original petitioner, as well as to name a supporter. So there's two different roles.

So they, so right now, if I am an individual and I want my family to participate in all of this, I do have the ability to do it at this point? You do? Okay. Alright. I am concerned about the potential for having someone involved in the proceedings that the particular individual may not, care to be there, whether it is extreme to the point where a judge would say you are, you know, a a true detriment or just for my own privacy, I don't want you there.

Understanding that they still can provide information that would be relevant to that particular individual's medical or behavioral health background, I do have some concerns about removing the consent from that particular individual to, state who and who they do not want, as a part of the proceedings. So but thank you so much for bringing this forward, and thank you for answering my question.

Alrighty. Thank you. Senator Reyes.

Thank you. I really appreciate all that we've been able to do through Care Court. I think it's a new process and I think that taking care of those with severe mental illness is extremely important. Finding ways for for treatment, finding ways for for housing. This is also important.

And we have seen a number of bills especially in this committee that have to do with who is involved and who has the the capacity

to require that a family member be involved in Cal Court. So we've gone through quite a few things. I want to as as a side, I do wanna thank the family members who've come up to testify because I've spoken with many, since this began and even before as an attorney about how difficult it is to to be able to take care of a loved one, who who needs help, who doesn't know they need the help and can't make the decisions. I absolutely understand that.

As an attorney, I also want to be sure that we we protect the right of an individual to to make the decisions as best they can.

And something that was mentioned and I'm glad that my colleagues talked about that is under the proceedings now, the a family member and a supporter can be involved in the care of the individual. And that is extremely important that that person can say, yes, I do want them involved. Because we all know that you you are loving families, but we all recognize that not every family and not every individual has a loving family.

And sometimes it is those very same individuals that are causing the very harm that is now being treated. And trying to find that balance, I think is the most difficult part of this.

Trying to make sure that that what we are doing is the best that we can for that individual that most needs the help. The system as through the various iterations, we are now at the point where that person who asked that the family member participate in family court. That person can be involved. Unless the person says, you know what? They caused me more harm than they do good, and I don't want them involved.

And that's an important part. That's something that that we we we're we're at that point where that can happen. I am as a lawyer, I'm concerned about how much time it would take to get a decision from a judge once you petition. Let's say that the the person receiving the care says, I don't want this family member involved. They then have to file a petition to have them removed.

That petition goes to a judge. I'm sure there is going to be a hearing. I'm sure there's going to be, evidence presented. And when all of this is happening, all the while that person that the patient may feel is causing them more harm will remain in that person's life. There isn't a stay on on on on their participation.

These are details that that I'm concerned with. I want to be sure that we protect the right of that individual even if because the judge can decide they they cannot they don't have the capacity to decide whether or not somebody should be involved. And we're taking their right away to consent as has been noted by my colleagues. That's a lot to take away from a human being. And I'd like to hear from from both if I through the Chair.

Sure. I'd like to hear from, the the

Doctor, go ahead.

Sponsor.

If if you would like.

Absolutely. So I wanna step back for just a moment about the care act. The care act is designed to help individuals suffering from severe mental illness. Correct. And that means that they are without this program, they are unlikely to survive in the community safely.

What this bill is to address is the fact that requesting and requiring that person who is currently suffering from psychosis and impaired insight to be able to understand that consent, which means weighing the benefits and the consequences of having a family member who's a petitioner to simply provide ongoing information and assist where they can. This is a partnership. It's not taking away any particular rights. No other consent is required from that per from that respondent for any other action of of care court.

So this is providing that partnership and understanding that affirmative consent really means understanding what they're consenting to.

And until that occurs, we're bringing in family support, providing that information. Currently, there is not that ability. Once a respondent is deemed to say that there's no participation from the original petitioner, they are completely excluded. There's no communication. There's no one way communication even.

And that leads to fragmented care. That leads to the gaps that we're seeing, and the repeated hospitalizations, deterioration, and self neglect.

I will tell you through the chair that that it it presumes healthy family relationships. And you have great great evidence here of that. But sometimes it is those family members from what I've experienced. For some of those cases, it's the family relationship that is causing a lot of the problems. And trying to again, trying to find that balance.

And so my concern is this process for, for the judge to make that decision. The judge has to decide that having that person involved would cause more harm to that person in care court than it would than they would that it causes harm to that person in care court. So from the time that person says this person is causing it, it's more harmful. I don't want them involved. Then it goes to a judge.

There has to be a hearing and during that whole process, that person remains involved. So those details, unless the author would like to those details about from the time there is a petition that is filed or who files a petition. Is it the mental health professional who says the family should not be involved? It's it's causing more problem or is it the the the the patient?

Who is it that's requesting this and what is the process and is there a stay on the the the the the involvement of the family while this is being determined?

And whose opinion is going to be weighed more? Is it the mental health professional? Is it going to be the the the the patient? I I'm concerned about those details. It's I think it's well intended.

I'm concerned about the details and I don't know if someone can respond to those details.

Go ahead.

I can. So this language with judicial discretion is currently in in the law as of July of of twenty twenty five. There's judicial discretion to not provide notice to the original petitioner as far as any hearing. So right now, there is that language in judicial discretion. We're looking at a situation where we need the family to provide that help.

If it's not helpful, then that's fine. We have it's most of the work is outside the court. It's with the social workers, the psychiatrists, the nurses, the whole team that's there to support that individual, which also requires information, where that person is, what their condition is. It's to provide that whole care coordination for the purpose of assisting that severely mentally ill person who will not be able to safely survive in the community.

Mister Chair, can we hear from the opposition, please?

Sure.

Thank you, senators. And II really appreciate raising this these issues. I think that these are really serious issues with this specific bill. And I think that you're absolutely right, Senator, that this would involve a judicial determination where there would be a hearing where the respondent would likely need to detail the issues that they have with the petitioner.

And, you know, in response to what the proponents said, you know, the these there are requirements for an individual to be subjected to care court.

However, these are not individuals who are eligible for involuntary treatment. So they're they're in a middle ground where they, you know, are maybe too symptomatic for for just regular outpatient treatment, but they're not quite symptomatic enough for involuntary treatment. So I think yeah. Our our our concerns are that putting the burden on the individual to communicate, you know, all of these different reasons, you know, why why they're why they object to the to the their family members involvement is is a really big concern.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you. Let me take a step back. So first, we should understand that care court is voluntary. So respondent can withdraw from care court. Number one. Number two, respondent has counsel.

So it's not just someone with schizophrenia who's trying to advance their own cause. It's someone who has counsel and also has a supporter. Thirdly, is that family members are often in in fact, almost always the person or persons who actually have that information and provide the day to day observation and support. So, fourthly, and all of us draw our own experiences when we legislate having lived experience in this space. Those with schizophrenia sometimes are quite lucid and sometimes are not lucid.

Some days they like their families, some days they don't like their family. And so, to the extent that you happen to find a day when they don't like their family. They also have counsel there by the way to to help them. I'm talking about the respondent. And they exclude their family.

What will happen oftentimes is without that information, without that support is that they are going to deteriorate. And so I think the protections that are built in to care court with again voluntary nature of your participation. Number two, your counsel. And number three, judicial discretion That allows the family members to continue to provide input, to continue to provide support, and at the same time, being mindful.

And I recognize there is a clash of certain values that that still provides the individual with agency and still provides the the individual with the ability to when they're lucid to to make informed decisions.

But excluding the family members is is really, not in the best interest of 99.9% of those who are engaged. And so to the extent that there happens to be a, you know, very rare circumstance where a family member wants their their family member to be engaged in care court and they want them to be engaged and then engage in nefarious, I suppose, activities, I think that's incredibly rare rare circumstance. So other questions or comments? Yes. Senator Durazo.

I just wanted, to say to, Senator Choi, I am barely, I mean, barely convinced to support the bill today. We knew when we passed care court that it was gonna be an inch by inch. You know, what can we do to strengthen the care court concept and and and actions. We knew we had to do something. We knew we had to do something dramatically different and that's what ultimately without all the details, we said, okay, we're willing to try it.

But I will continue to talk to the opposition. I'm not sure I'll get through to the floor vote. But I just want you to know, as you know, this is very difficult. It's very difficult emotionally for a lot of us. You know, many of us have friends or family who are in this situation and, you know, you keep picturing that individual.

So I will be supportive for now and but appreciate what you're trying to do.

Alright. Other questions or comments? I move the bill. Senator Niello moves the bill. Alright.

Senator Choi, would you like to close?

Thank you, everybody, making contributions to the discussion. I know unfortunate situations like this with the family member with the mental illness. Ninety nine percent of the time is a family will care of that family member who's right now in this situation of suffering a mental illness. But the the rare cases when family member is contributor to the patient who happens to be such as abuse of the child for many in different forms.

Those cases, by the hearing, the judge, judicial court has had that information already known to the person.

That's the reason, as I stated a second time, judicial court will reserve a full right to exclude family members. So this is the reason this bill is, I believe, will be safe for the family member and the pay patient who is suffering the mental illness. So therefore, I strongly encourage an aye vote so we can assure that the individuals with the mental illness get the support that they need. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Choi. And just, before we take a vote, just a final word to the family members because I recognize several of you from this journey, that began four years ago, four plus years ago. And I mentioned it to at least one of you, but I am grateful. And I know that some of your family members have fallen through the cracks. And I know that that some of you have suffered mightily.

And I really appreciate the fact that you're doing what you can in recognition of your loved ones to continue to improve Care Court because it is a work in progress and it will continue long beyond my time here to take, I think, steps to close certain gaps. And I think this bill does close a a particular gap. So with that, committee assistant Porter, please call the roll.

This is file item number two, SB 1242. The motion is do pass. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Niello? Niello, aye. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye.

Alvarado-Gil. Alvarado-Gil, aye. Ashby. Caballero. Caballero, aye.

Durazo. Durazo, aye. Laird. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern. Wahab. Weber Pierson. Weiner. 7-0.

7-0. We'll put that on call.

Thank you.

Alright. I see Senator Menjivar is here. So the the lineup would be Senator Menjivar, Senator Perez, then we'll turn to committee members. Alright. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, mister chair. Colleagues, if you didn't know, approximately 14,000,000 people live in HOAs here in California. And while back in the 1980s, we established the Davis Sterling Act, which prescribed, the requirements from these HOAs, there's these are associations largely operate outside of state oversight, but hold tremendous power over their homeowners. And these associations represent an ever growing share of California's housing stock and membership is mandatory. In fact, nationwide, 64% of all new housing construction is now gonna fall under HOAs.

And during a time when Californians are experiencing both the housing shortage and affordability crisis, it is imperative to state act. I've heard concerns well, a lot of you have heard concerns from constituents related to the lack of transparency that exists in HOA board operations and the need to protect their pocketbooks.

And before I dive into the details, I want to acknowledge that in the previous committee, I committed to amending the bill on different levels to address some of the concerns that I was hearing both from my colleagues and from the opposition. As I was waiting to hear back from committee on potential committee amendments, I passed the deadline to provide author amendments. And I was thinking I would address all the concerns, as a lump sum when that happened.

And when that didn't, unfortunately, I am now presenting the same bill that I presented in housing committee. I've already spoken to the opposition. I have recommitted in ensuring that what I shared with them, is correct still today. And we will be continuing conversations, and we've already established a new meeting hopefully for next week, to do something before I present on the floor. We have, not landed the plane just yet.

We've had conversations already on what we're looking for. It's continuing to push and give, but I am in good faith conversation and negotiating with them till this day. So the cap that exists right now was established in 1987 that increased it from a 10% cap to a 20% cap. And you can imagine, which is why we are in ongoing negotiations because this has been placed for a long time.

So SB 1007 is looking to attempt to tackle the extensive increases in HOA fees in three ways.

First, as home homeowners are paying their monthly fees, they should have the right to know how much of their money is being used for third party management companies to assist with the operations. And like I mentioned, I intend to amend the bill to try to provide more clarity than what is currently in print. The visual aid requirement, will be clarified to require HOA boards to provide a comprehension comparison breakdown of anticipated expenditures versus actual expenditures for the current fiscal year.

If I already share with the opposition that I don't intend to add more work, I don't want another piece of paper that's gonna be buried in the report. How can we just, remove some, duplication and put it more visible for people to see in the front?

It's not about more information. It's about where that information can be placed. Second, if a homeowner is being accused of a violation and being charged a penalty, we also wanna make sure that if and only if the HOA has evidence, whether it's a video, whether it's photos, whether it's a recording, that they provide said evidence they use to come up with that violation to the person that is being accused of the violation.

Homeowners should have the right or already have the right to contest an alleged violation at a board meeting.

So this provision on access to available evidence is really about fairness and transparency. And lastly, the bread and butter of this bill is around limiting how much HOAs can raise regular fees without a homeowner's vote. Current law allows for a regular assessment fee up to 20%, which is incredibly too high. Your salary, my salary, unfortunately, does not get increased by 20% every single year to adjust to the increases of stuff.

We wanna make sure that HOAs are better managing the amount of money they have, whether it's in their reserves, whether they're planning ahead so that people are not assessed a 20%, regular assessment fee and a special fee on top of that and an emergency fee on top of that because that's what we've seen.

For example, ABC recently showed and talked about in Yorba Linda community where, homeowners were assessed 20% in regular assessment fees, then they were hit with a special assessment and an emergency assessment at the same time that amounted to $60,000 in the next four years. Some residents had to make the hard decision to sell their home and move out. And one homeowner was quoted saying, we're going to have to move out with my parents. There's just no way we can afford that much money.

This is just one example of some poor planning and massive hikes that, that cover HOA obligations.

And we must find a way to allow associations to operate, be, solvent, but also not continue to increase in such dramatic ways. Another recent article by Wall Street Journal shared a piece earlier that surging fees are a major reason that the condo market has been the weakest in more than a decade. I gave another example here in Walnut Creek where residents fees had more than doubled since 2015 to a thousand five hundred.

He now pays more in his fees alone than he does, on his principal and interest of his mortgage. So let's be clear.

This does not mean that HOAs cannot raise assessments beyond the cap. HOAs can still go to their homeowners, but they have to put it for a vote. I get it. That's difficult to put it up for a vote, but I wanna make sure you are made aware that if you're gonna pay more, that you should have made that decision, yourself, and that you're able to plan.

And to quote the analysis on page seven from this committee, this ultimately puts the power in the hands of the HOA membership and increases the accountability of the board to the members that they elect.

So, mister chair, now I would like to turn over to I have one witness here with me in support of this bill.

Alrighty. Thank you.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Robert Hurrell. I'm the executive director of the Consumer Federation of the of California. We are a cosponsor of the bill along with the Center for California Homeowner Association Law. 14,000,000 people in California, 50,000 of these HOAs.

That's quite a bit. That's about a third of the population of the state, little more. There's much as you heard from the author that is not disagreed on, at least not in a major level. Escalation and evidence when you find some of these HOAs have been extremely aggressive in finding some of their members. And some of those HOA boards begin to look like kangaroo courts.

Transparency increasing it, especially with the opaqueness of budget and budget related documents, which is really the core thing that an HOA should be doing is coming up with the ways in which they raise and spend that money. And visual aid or other ways in which the members of the HOA can actually understand where their money is going. Some of that is quite opaque for far too many of the 50,000 HOAs. The heart of the bill, however, is this 20% increase. It doesn't limit your special assessments.

It doesn't limit your emergency assessments. I think there's a lot of those happening. Some for good reasons. Some for less than optimal reasons. The analysis which I think is quite thorough and does a very good job talks about examples in on page six.

In San Jose, in Modesto, you already heard from the author about the example in Yorba Linda, so I won't be redundant. These are increases without a vote of the members of the HOA. There is nothing stopping an HOA board from going to their HOA members and saying, here's the crisis we're facing or here's the situation and let's have a vote. But I think many of them don't want to do it.

And I think some friends in some of those cases, it's because there's less than optimal management or the management company is pushing them or some combination thereof.

So we think this bill, SB 107, is a reasonable step to put some guardrails in this. And as the author noted, negotiations, good faith negotiations continue on this matter, and, happy to answer any questions, but urge you to support the bill today. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support of SB 10007, please approach the microphone.

Megan Varvay with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the California Low Income Consumers Coalition in support.

Thank you. Others in support, seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to a SB 1007. Thank you, mister Brown.

Mister chair and members of the committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute. Thank you to the author, for, the words in the opening statement about us continuing to talk. We have had, a meeting and look forward to additional meetings, on the issue. The point I, principally wanna talk about is the, cap, on assessments as you've heard. If you look at the Davis Sterling Act, associations are only allowed to budget for their operating expenses. And as we've seen across the state, those operating expenses have gone up extraordinarily over the years. We actually did a census of some of our association manager, members and asked them for examples of assessment increases over the last, few years and the rationale behind those. Of those associations that reported back, anyone who is raising assessments between 15 to 20% raised them primarily because of insurance, which we have no control over, but most governing documents require an association to be fully insured.

We've seen, especially for condominium associations, anywhere near a potential fire area, insurance premiums going up 500%, 600%, 700%. And some insurance companies will not provide you full insurance.

So now you're looking at multiple policies trying to piece them together because your association documents require you to be fully insured. So associations aren't just raising assessments for the purposes of raising assessments. We've also seen increases due to balcony inspections, which is a state mandate for any condominium with wooden structures to have to actually inspect those, wooden structures on a regular basis and then replace them. The cost of labor has gone up. The cost of inspections have gone up.

And so this is why we've seen these issues with assessments being increased. The last thing a board member that's elected by their neighbors wants to do is increase assessments. In fact, that's one of the leading causes of recall elections that we And

I and I bet you're gonna tell us to vote no.

I'm gonna ask you to vote no, mister chairman, and look forward to working with the author. Alrighty.

Thank you very much.

Mister chair and members, Jennifer Wadda on behalf of the California Association of Community Managers. We also appreciate the author's willingness to work with us. We look forward to working with her as well. We are currently opposed to 1007. We do believe, as mister Brown stated, that it would undermine the ability for associations to fund critical operations like insurance, utilities, maintenance, all of which are increasing in cost.

Also, we don't think, getting a membership vote is that simple and straightforward. Any of you in associations may know that. This very committee has actually looked at many bills trying to increase or address the issue of lack of voter engagement. That problem continues, and it is pervasive. In the end, I guess I would ask with this bill and its current version, if the members were not to approve of, increasing assessments and the costs exceed the rate of inflation, what then? How is the association supposed to fulfill its obligation to actually fund the things that the members in that community, deserve and are and are owed? Thank you.

Thank you. Others who are opposed to SB 1007, please give us your Me Too testimony.

Hello. Good afternoon. Jasmine Vai on behalf of California Building Industry Association with a respectful oppose unless amended position. We look forward to continuing to work with the author.

Thank you. Anyone else opposed? You're not opposed, are you?

I am. I am one of the co sponsors. I am authorized today to also note for the committee that the California Association of Realtors are in support but could not be in attendance today. Thank you.

Alright. Anyone else? Seeing no one else either supporting or opposing. Let's bring it back. Committee, questions by committee members? Seeing Senator Reyes. Yes. And then Senator Nielo. Okay. Then Senator Durazo, then Senator Caballero.

I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I think that something that the opposition said that was very important is that if they're capped and their expenses beyond that, that becomes a problem. But as I understand the bill as written and I understand that was true even before is that the HOA can still take it to the homeowners but now the homeowners are going to want evidence of what of of the they want details. So the transparency part of this is also very important.

So and I encourage you to continue to work with the opposition. Sounds like you guys have had great conversations. It looks like it's headed in the right direction with all the details. So at the appropriate time, I will move the bill.

Alrighty. Thank you. Senator Neillo, and Senator Durazo, and Senator Caballero.

Thank you, mister chair. Homeowners associations can be difficult. Just talk with our colleague Joe Patterson about that. That's a issue that rankles him a bit. So I get that.

And my concern is the cap on raising dues because it can cover operational expenses. But some homeowners association have obligations beyond operating expenses, capital expenditures, replacing roofs and things like that. There are many homeowners associations that have that sort of responsibility. That's not an operating expense. So that means when they're faced with that they have to address that either by increasing annual expenditures for a reserve or a special assessment.

And it becomes much more difficult when there's an I'll say artificially low cap on what the board can approve. And I say artificially because I don't think inflation is a good measure of that which homeowners associations, have even as operating expenses. Especially, sort of from time to time like insurance currently, as an example. So my concern about this is the limitation, not the the rest of the, issues, make good sense.

And, in some cases, the members of the homeowners association need to pay better attention to their organization.

And if the ability to raise, fees beyond what is needed is going to be reflected on the financial statements and if people are engaged, they're going to act on that. So, all of the other provisions are okay with me, but the cap on raising fees, the monthly fees, I think is an issue.

Right. Thank you. Senator Durazo. Then Senator Caballero.

Thank you. If you could explain a little bit better some of the things that I think others have been saying about where costs are involved. And then there's I'm so used to, not the HOAs. Is there a profitability incentive here? I mean, what happens if less than what's needed, you know, is given is, you know, in terms of funding is provided.

I'm just is it how won't it hurt the the association? If it hurts the association, does it hurt what the the tenants need for them to have the the kind of place they are looking for to feel comfortable.

Thank you for that. I definitely was going to respond in my my closing, but I appreciate you opening the door for me on that. Current law exists now, and I'm not touching this part of current law that if something exceeds what the regular assessments can pay for, they can assess a special assessment that exists in current law right now up to 5%, increase. I'm not touching that. They still can do that without a vote.

That can cover a roof. That can cover a change in the middle of the fiscal or calendar year of, insurance premiums that they didn't know about six months ago when they assessed the regular assessment. That is in law right now. So if anything exceeds, for a major change, a major construction, repair, they can assess a special assessment, like I mentioned, above 5% to cover that.

So regardless of what SB 1007 is saying, they're still gonna have the ability to come to the homeowners without requesting a vote if something comes up that they did not know or they did not know what's gonna happen in the middle of the year.

And it could just automatically

On without a vote, up to 5% increase. Yes. A one time special assessment. They can also do an emergency assessment. The fires that just happened, what if an emergency happened and one of their homes or roads were burned down or a tree fell because of flooding or, Santa Ana winds?

They can also do an emergency assessment without a vote to cover the cost that came out of that emergency. Those are not being touched whatsoever in this bill.

And then there's the, consumer price index.

Yeah. So my and I said this in my opening. The bread and butter of this is what's really being negotiated. Currently, right now, it does say that it can't they cannot increase it past the cost of inflation. We are trying to land where we're gonna be on the actual increase.

We don't we haven't landed yet. We've thrown numbers back at each other. Slow pitch, not thrown. But we've given in the numbers back in to each other on where we wanna land. We just haven't gotten to the right number that we both were gonna be okay and yeah.

To move forward with.

Good. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you. Senator Caballero?

So you may have answered, my question, and the again, it's the cap that's the issue. The rest of it, I think, is good transparency issues. And the challenge with the kind of the accumulation of changes that we do is that within a, you know, the years are starting to blend together. I know we passed legislation that that that prohibits homeowner associations from limiting the number of renters, the number of people that can rent a unit.

And one of the challenges with that is that an owner has a different lens on things than a renter does many times because a renter wants the cheapest rate right now and a homeowner is thinking long term.

I need to protect the asset and to make sure that things don't start deteriorating around the units. And my biggest concern has to do with big costs that you need to plan for and what happens when there's a health and safety issue. The balconies is a real good example.

You may not notice that a balcony is has got some weaknesses in it but it may have been the long term design of the way the balconies were built or it could be that the weather has contributed to the balcony or stair failures.

So I wanna make sure that in the instance where you have a health and safety issue, that there's the ability to, collect revenue, obviously, over time, that will provide an opportunity to be able to do those kinds of repairs along with the roof, the streets, maybe a pool or a rec center.

All of those are things that you need to keep up as a responsible homeowner. But if you have to go to a vote every time, that becomes a bit challenging. People wanna be able to say no, but they don't wanna sit on the board. So that's the challenge is different interests. So I think you answered it.

A little bit. Yes. But I can definitely. So things like pool maintenance, that's a monthly occurrence.

Not maintenance. There's a crack in the pool and they need to

That can be assessed and covered with a special assessment.

Okay.

Now if a tree fell on that pool and it cracked it, that's an emergency, and they can still assess an emergency assessment or levy an emergency assessment without a vote. Both those things, they can still do because I'm not touching those parts without a vote. The only vote requirement would be on the regular assessment that should be planned ahead of time of what the costs are gonna be because these are regular ongoing things they need to cover.

Now if they need to go above as right now, I'll just talk to what's in print right now. They need to go above the cost of inflation, then they'll need to come to the homeowners for a vote on that just on the regular assessments.

I understand, on the operational. That we should all have a good understanding for what that year cost is gonna be. If we are doing, if a lot of these HOAs are paying a large amount of homeowner fees to a third party management company that are professionals, then they should be able to, for the year calculate how much it's going to cost for the year that isn't outside of an extraordinary event. So we're asking for better planning in that sense.

And if somehow they miss something and they need to increase the regular assessments, then yes, come to the people for a vote. You're right. They might vote no because they don't want to increase it, but now the HOA has no responsibility to mow the lawn because the homeowner said no. That was they made a decision that this month, we don't want the lawn to be mowed because I don't wanna pay an excess of $150 more.

It if you put the onus, now the homeowners to decide, are we gonna belt tighten all of us right now, or are we gonna give no opportunity to belt tighten given that everything is costing a lot of money right now?

Okay. And so the public health and safety

That would be under the special assessment. That, I am not touching whatsoever in this bill.

Okay. I'm confident you're gonna be able to work something out, so I'll support it today. Thank you, Senator. I just hadn't seen any change in it.

Thank you, Senator. I know, yeah.

And I appreciated what you said at the beginning, because that was really helpful.

Alrighty. Senator Laird. Professor Laird.

Thank you very much, mister chair. I was just going to echo in a different way some of the comments because I did in the assembly some of the legislation that reflects on this. There were times when all only new residents of complexes were built for improvements. The long term ones, they really did it to the new ones. And we had to have two pieces of legislation.

One that said that it need to be equal to all members of the complex. And then some complexes form nonprofits where the nonprofits just assessed it to the new members. And we had to have a follow-up bill that said nonprofits can't do it because there's still that equity. And I did the bill that requires annual financial reports because that is provided to everyone.

And there were another bill was that complexes were prohibiting individual people from putting solar on the things that they owned, and we had to do a build that allowed individual residents if they were on a discrete electrical system to be able to do that.

And then as a resident of a complex of block from here, I have seen this implemented. The renter thing that the chair mentioned, you used to not be able to rent in my complex. And now that's the reason I have two of our colleagues living over me as renters in the complex. And when the complex had to implement the water meter bill, that one was crazy. It's the only time I went to a meeting and there's a reason people won't serve on those boards.

Because I said, no. I was a co author of this bill. This was the does. And they said, we really don't care. We're gonna do it another way.

You know? And so the interesting thing about all this is, it means that in you doing what you're doing with this bill, you have to have some flexibility on how it applies on the ground. And that is what I heard from you, that you are still working on and I will support the bill. But I will be looking to see how you do that because some of this stuff becomes impossible.

And one of the problems is, and it happened in my complex, you don't have a quorum of people that you can get to vote.

And so the last assessment was passing overwhelmingly, but was too short of having the appropriate quorum. And they had to redo it. They had to personally seek out people. And so having the flexibility that meets the goal you're trying to do and make sure it doesn't kick all these things into place. What I would just look for you to do as you move the bill along.

Thank you, mister chair.

Oh, thank you very much. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, is there a motion?

Move the bill.

I'm sorry. Senator Reyes, move the bill. Alright. Would you like to close, Senator Menjivar?

Thank you so much. I appreciate the robust conversations and questions. They're all the same questions and conversations that I've been having with my team and the opposition. Senator Laird, I think that's the first comment I've heard around that flexibility of jotted it down on some language on that. I recognize, that maybe it's difficult to come to vote, but apathy for voting shouldn't be a reason why we shouldn't put the onus on the home on the homeowners.

So still working on that. I am sympathetic to some things that we're dealing with statewide that we it is out of our control. Insurance, premiums, and costs, it's out of our controls. And the opposition knows where, you know, how I feel specifically on that issue, and we're gonna continue to have conversations with that. With by you allowing me out of this committee, I'll be able to do that.

So respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Alright. There's been a motion. Committee's supporter, please call the roll.

Umberg, Aye.

Aye.

This is file item number three, SB 1007. The motion is to pass. Umberg?

Nilo? Allen? Alvarado-Gil? Alvarado-Gil, no. Ashby?

Caballero? Caballero, Aye. Durazo. Durazo, Aye. Laird, Aye.

Reyes. Reyes, Aye. Stern. Wahab. Weber Pierson.

Aye.

Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner. Six to one.

Six one. We'll put that on call. And I'd forgotten that your other bill has Been pulled from consent. So file on number four, SB 1364.

Yes, Senator. I almost did not have to present this, but late opposition, I am here, to present SB 1364. And I will be accepting the committee's amendments as described on page 13 of the analysis. No survivor should be forced to forced to cooperate with the person who raped them. However, in California that often is a case when a conviction of non consensual sexual conduct is required before a court can prohibit custody or visitation of the child who was conceived from that.

But but when research shows that less than two percent of rapists are actually convicted it makes it likely that a survivor will be forced to deal with the ongoing abuse, abuse, harassment while sharing custody. It is time for California to catch up to the almost 20 other states who put survivors first by removing a uniquely high burden of proof from survivors to protect their well-being and child after a traumatic event.

So 1364 accomplishes this by removing the current burden of proof used for criminal conviction and replacing it with the clear and convincing standard language normally used in the family code. If victims can prove that a child was conceived through a sexual assault, the perpetrator would not be awarded parental rights and the courts can prohibit that person from being granted custody or visitation of a child conceived from that sexual assault.

However, with the now with the amendments, we want we will make sure that if there was voluntary co parenting with the parent, with those individuals, then there is no conclusive presumption that the father is unfit to care for that child.

In addition to providing survivors with the means to protect themselves and their child with these changes, survivors of sexual assault could now receive additional support because the law would meet the requirements for increased funding for federal formula grants under the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act. So this in fact brings more money to the state. With that, respectfully asking for an Ivo, I do not have any witnesses.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Just in case, if you're in support of SB 1364, please approach the microphone going once, going twice. Alright. Let's turn to the opposition.

If you're opposed to SB 1364, please approach the microphone.

Good afternoon. David Bullock with the SFV Alliance. We appreciate the amendments have been added. We as adults must always do what is hard so the children do not have to. In this case, that is honoring the natural rights of the child in the face of this legislation.

It is every child's rights to know who their natural mother and father is, and also to be loved and cared for by those children. Mom and dad are not optional for the child, but mandatory. Each parent plays their own role that are complementary to each other. Without one or the other, the child misses out. This legislation is a blanket no for the child.

To not have a father because of the conviction of the father's nonconsensual sex with the mother. While our mind goes to the worst case scenario, the worst case scenario is not always the situation. While every conviction was a result of harmful, wrong action, the result of this legislation will be that the child will have to suffer the consequences of not having a father in their lives. I ask you to put the child before the adult. The child is innocent of how he or she was created.

They came out of the womb with no knowledge of how they were conceived. Years of study has proven the child to be better off with both their natural parents. We are not an organization that are fans of the family court, but in this case, we think it's a better option for the well-being of the child than to completely ban the father from the child's life. A child without both parents will always question who they are, where they come from.

By keeping the child with the parents, that question is already answered.

I do know the majority of this committee has demonstrated they believe in rehabilitation and redemption. This legislation without the permission of the mother will squash that redemption. We should be working towards the goals of the children's natural right to their mother and father and not against them, no matter how difficult it is for us adults. Senator Umber, I'm not going to ask you to vote no.

I'm going to ask you to vote for which you all feel is best for the child and their long term interest.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Others opposed to SB 1364? Seeing no one approaching, let's bring back committee. Questions by committee members? Seeing none, is there a motion?

Senator Caballero has moved the bill. Alright.

No. I think she has a.

Oh. Oh, you had a question. Oh, I'm sorry.

I just I just have a statement because this bill doesn't limit the ability of a child to have a relationship with a father. What it says is you can't can't be the primary caretaker. And so I I really appreciate what you're doing with this bill. I think it's the right thing to do. And a child may decide not to have a relationship, and we have to respect that as well.

So thank you for bringing the bill, and I I move the bill.

Alright. I guessed right. Okay. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, would you like to close?

Yes. You know, respectfully, I can't give energy or air to the opposition's really hateful kind of rhetoric in in the language that was chosen to talk about the kids and the parents. I I believe that nobody should be forced to have contact with someone that raped them. And in with the amendments for the committee, we are protecting the best interest of the child at the same time and protecting the adult who went through that situation. With that respect, we're asking for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you for working with the committee, by the way, to actually elevate the best interest of the child. Thank you. Alright. With that, Chief Counsel Estrada, please call the roll.

This file item number 4, SB 1364 by Senator Mangivar. The motion is do pass as amended to the floor. {Roll Call} You have eight to zero with members missing.

Thank you.

Call the Senator Caballero and then, because Senator Perez is presenting in another committee, otherwise, she would be up. After Senator Caballero, then, Senator Perez, then Senator Durazo. We have not done the consent calendar, but that's a good idea. As Senator Reyes moves the consent calendar. Chief counsel Estrada, please call the roll on the consent calendar.

The motion is that the consent calendar be adopted. {Roll Call} There's eight to zero members missing.

Eight zero. We'll put that on call. Senator Caballero, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister Chair. First, let me thank the committee for their input, and I will be accepting the amendments, the committee amendments. So thank you for the opportunity to present SB 997, which would address a narrow but important enforcement gap for the North Fork Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act or SGMA established a framework for long term groundwater sustainability and authorized the GSAs to be formed either through a joint powers agreement or special legislation.

All GSAs have minimum enforcement authority under Sigma, which includes the ability to impose penalties that are only enforceable through a civil action.

GSAs formed through JPAs have additional enforcement authority, such as the authority to impose liens and to collect money owed, which is derived from the GSAs member agencies like irrigation district. Norfolk Kings was created via special legislation rather than as a JPA. This has restricted their ability, to under Sigma, and they lack the ability to impose liens and leave civil litigation as a primary enforcement tool.

North Fork, King's GSA, has developed a groundwater sustainability plan for twenty seven twenty eight that includes limits on groundwater pumping and fees for noncompliance. To implement the their authority efficiently and to avoid being tied up in lengthy litigation, North Fork needs the ability to impose and collect fines to ensure compliance with their sustainability plan.

SB 997 simply grants lean authority to the North Fork Kings, which ensures that GSA can efficiently implement its groundwater sustainability plan. With me today to testify in support is Justin Mendez, the general manager for North Fork Kings GSA.

Thank you. Floor's yours. Thank you, Senator. Members of the committee, Justin Mendez, general manager of North Fork Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency. We thank the Senator for sponsoring this, and we thank the committee for their comments that we're we're going to accept their amendments.

This would simply just allow us to be like the other GSAs to be able to enforce the fees to hopefully curtail overdraft and to keep us sustainable during our time frame. We are currently an approved GSA with approval, and this will help us maintain that that status.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of SB 997, please approach microphone. Alright. Testing one, two, three.

There we go.

Thank you, Chair Umberg and Vice Chair Niello and Members. Danny Merkley with the Galco Group on behalf of Kings River Interests and then also on behalf of California Farm Bureau in support.

Thank you. Others in support?

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Charles Delgado representing California State Association of Counties in support of the bill.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 997, now's your opportunity. Going once, going twice.

Alright. Let's bring it back to committee. Questions by Senator Reyes.

Thank you for bringing this. I learned so much about, GSA's and SGMA's and the meaning of all of this. I my poor team, I they worked overtime just trying to brief me so that I could understand something that was so important in other communities. I had one question. Can you still become a JPA?

Or is this better for for you?

Well, I mean, it we probably should have made it a lot Historical. Alerts. Yeah. It's it's one of those those situations where in retrospect, we probably should have made it all the same so that it it was they share the ability to actually have the the GSA work.

Because if you don't establish the fees and if you don't have a way to collect the money, then you become insolvent and the state takes over, which is the whole point of setting up the these GSAs were to have it locally controlled.

We could have made it apply to all of the the the GSAs that needed that enforcement, but frankly, some of them wanted it, some of them did not. And so rather than kinda step into that morass, we just took took the one that wanted the change and we we're working on it.

I just a lot lots to learn here. At the appropriate time, I will move the bill.

Alright. It's appropriate time. So Senator Reyes has moved the bill. Other questions or comments? Senator Laird, you're shaking your head no.

Alright. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Alright. Senator Reyes has moved the bill. Chief counsel Estrada, please call the roll.

This is file item number seven. SB 997. The motion is do pass as amended to the floor. Umberg? Aye.

Umberg, aye. Niello? Aye. Niello, aye. Allen?

Aye. Allen, aye. Alvarado-Gil? Aye. Alvarado-Gil, aye.

Ashby. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird.

Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern.

Wahab. Weber Pierson. Aye. Weber Pierson, aye. Weiner.

That's nine to zero with members missing.

Nine zero. We're gonna put that on call. Next, we have Senator Durazo and then our final bill by Senator, Perez.

I'm not sure.

Yeah. So that that that may illustrate a point here. So if I'm sorry. Go ahead.

It does seem like it's unsolicited if it's targeted to be in Altadena. I mean

Right.

If you're driving around Altadena and people are specifically starting to say, let's put these signs up because we know that there's burned down lots that feels a bit targeted in my opinion.

Right.

I guess it would depend on the level of recovery at the time, but without any four years out, I don't see foresee Altadena being up and running the way it once was.

So you would that would be a violation. A COG sign? Just sign on a telephone pole that says, we will buy your home.

I mean, I I think and I I do wanna say, Senator Umberg, I think that that's a conversation I need to have with my constituents more than anything to discuss what their thoughts are about something like that. This kind of advertising that you're describing, this is the constant barrage of advertising that we receive all the time.

If you were in Pasadena right now, you'd open up your phone and you'd be receiving advertisements to participate in litigation, to tap into the wildfire fund, or to purchase your burnt down lot for a full cash offer. So, what we were, discussing and focused on as we worked on this bill was some of the direct phone calls and communications that folks were receiving, people that were literally in mourning at the lot where their home once was and being approached by investors.

But we have not had a conversation around some of this either digital advertising as Senator Stern was post I'm referring to or posted advertising.

But I'm happy to have that conversation with my residents.

Right. I guess the same question would be if you put in a newspaper, we will buy four years out, we will buy your home. That would be a violation as well if you put in the local newspaper.

It seems like a conversation that needs to be had with constituents. I'm not sure that that would count as a violation. If it's pointed in Altadena, I think it's definitely worth discussing and considering, you know, if it's an Altadena newspaper for Altadena's and local in that way, perhaps it is. But I I definitely think it's worth more discussion.

So if so if somebody puts flyers around your neighborhood well, let me give you a specific example. Someone says, we will buy your home for $500,000, and someone says, we will buy your home for $400,000. The seller if the $500,000 offer comes from an institutional investor, the seller would have to take the $400,000 owner offer. Is that right?

Are you saying that's the event if the

The $400,000 offer's from a smaller...

Right. From from a smaller entity. So the the seller would be compelled to take the $400,000 offer.

I think that's the way it's written out. I mean, my recommendation in the comment that I was giving is that I think it should be a blanket band despite owner amount.

You you mean even if if your next door neighbor says I'll buy your house for for 500,000 doll well, let me strike that. So you get two offers. You get a piece of paper on your porch that says I'll buy your house for $500,000. It comes from an institutional investor and you get another offer from the person next door that says $400,000, you would suggest both those unsolicited offers should be banned.

I think that we're getting at predatory and undercutting Right. The community. I don't necessarily know that your neighbor who is perhaps also a victim of the fire. I don't know that that's the same thing that we're getting at. Right.

It's also yeah. I'm not sure if you wanna

It would seem to me, it would seem that the $500,000 offer would be banned. The $400,000 would not be banned, and thus, the seller would be compelled to take the $400,000 offer. Is that how it would work?

I think it would be up ultimately to the homeowner on if they wanted to begin opening up and accepting offers. Right? Right. Because it's up to the homeowner at the end of the day to choose to put their home for sale, and that's what we're getting at ultimately, Senator Hunter.

I'm just assuming four years out, your home's not for sale. I we get these offers all the time. But, you know, will you sell your home? Sometimes there's a price, sometimes there's not. I'm just wondering that my next question would be whether it'd be a fund.

For example, the the seller then is basically losing a $100,000. If someone offers me $500,000 and the law says you may not accept that $500,000 offer. I don't care that you're 75 years old. You wanna retire. You may not accept that offer.

You must accept another offer that's a $100,000 less. Will there are you contemplating a fund to to cover basically the cost to that seller?

No. I've not contemplated a fund because I this is not supposed to force the hand of the property owner to on which types of offers that they're supposed to be accepting. This is ultimately about my constituents not being harassed post a fire, being constantly offered lowball cash offers by investors that see an opportunity to take advantage of fire survivors.

And so what a homeowner chooses to accept as an offer, whether or not they would like to put their home for sale, that is a choice I want for them to be able to make on their own, and that is a very personal decision. I know folks that have chosen to accept less because they want to offer their home to a family that's looking to build, and they don't want to sell to an investor.

Other folks have made another other decisions. That's not up to me. That is up to them. What we're trying to get at is the harassment that's occurring here. So

But by law, we're precluding a a particular offer. Right? In other words, we're saying the state of California says you may not sell your home to an an investor, a industrial investor.

No. What the way that I'd see this bill and the way that we've been talking with our residents about it and what they have requested of us is that those that are investors that own more than 75 single family homes are not able to continue with their barrage of offers to black and brown families that have been victims of the fire. Not that the homeowner cannot then put their home for sale and accept an offer.

Okay. So in in that, I'm gonna support the bill, but but the fact that there's no enforcement mechanism, if there should ever be an enforcement mechanism that's incorporated in the bill, I'm hoping you'll bring it back here for us to have a further discussion.

Certainly. And I I appreciate that as well, and, you know, would be Aye, you know, I would be happy to discuss that with you too, Senator Umbert, because we continue to navigate this. It's been a very challenging situation, for my constituents who feel, I mean, frankly, fed up, but, yeah.

Right. Okay. I'm sorry. Senator Allen, you have a question?

Yeah. I mean, this, you know, I I this certainly is a phenomenon that's happening in the Palisades as well. Now I I don't believe to the extent as in Pal in Altadena, but it's not it's certainly happening. It seems to me that we should put in some language about about the solicitation going directly to to the homeowner. Because this kind of general advertising seems to go much further than what what you're trying to address.

And, you know, quite frankly, there are a lot of our constituents who do wanna leave and sell. They obviously, they wouldn't have ever chosen to do that if it if the fire hadn't happened, but but there are people who wanna get out and made that, you know, that that that's that's something they they wanna do. And, you know, I understand you you you wanna make sure people aren't getting harassed with all these, you know, phone calls, you know, especially as you mentioned.

But it would seem to me that the general advertising, that has been described I'm not sure we want it. I I don't know.

I that that feels different to me than the direct solicitation to the homeowner. So that's what I'm gonna say.

Senator Reyes then, Senator Weber Pearson. Right?

I just wanted to say that after that cross examination by our chair Oh.

I I didn't I apologize then if that's how it felt. Right?

I felt like I was in court. Oh. I was I was going to say that if they receive an unsolicited offer that is 500 to use that example, and one from from a somebody that doesn't qualify as 70 owning 75 homes at 400,000. The homeowner simply says, now I'm willing to sell my house and then they can accept any offer they want. Whether it's from the the the the institution or from the other.

And obviously, they're going to choose the one that provides at that point, they're willing to sell. They'll pick the the the the best offer.

Just I I don't wanna I'll let let me ask Miss Craig. Because if if I've that's the tone. I wanna change the tone. But to use Senator Reyes' example, I would think that the initial $500,000 offer is a violation. And thus, you would not be able to even if you sit now say, I wanna put my home up for sale because of that violation, that initial violation, you you could not sell at that point.

Is that your understanding how it works?

No. My understanding is that we are not trying to prohibit anyone from selling their home if they want to. I mean, I listed that 60% of homes have been sold to corporate entities. And while that's a shame to some extent, you know, we want people to feel empowered to make decisions they have to make. There's no judgment for any constituent or person or fire victim for the decisions they have to make to take care of their own family.

So my understanding is to not prevent them from making sales if they need to. It's to prevent them from being harassed.

Right. Again, since there's not an enforcement mechanism, there's no penalty, I guess, as to the as to the institutional purchaser. So it's sort of no harm, no foul at this point. But if there should be enforcement mechanism, it it would seem that the initial violation of law then precludes you from we'll leave that for future reference. Senator Weber Pierson.

Yes. Thank you, Chair. So, your line of questioning made me think of something because the $500,000 offer or opportunity, I won't say offer, opportunity may not the homeowner may not never know about it under this Yeah. Particular bill. Because if I am prohibited from even coming to you because I own 75 or more single family properties, then you have no idea that you could have gotten a $100,000 more.

If I, you know, if I own 25 and I can come to you and say, hey, I'll give you 400,000 for your house, you may not have thought at the time, like, oh, I'll sell my house, but you might think, oh, this is a great offer, not knowing that you will have just lost out on a $100,000. That's really what I was hearing, when you were having that conversation. So I know that you are in constant communication with your constituents.

I think that, you know, you might wanna have this conversation with them, especially with the five year, ban because they could be potentially shorting themselves on money that they could be receiving because they're not able to actually see all of the potential offers out there, especially if they were not thinking I want to sell my house. And then someone comes and says, I'll give you x amount of money, and you're like, okay, that's great.

Sure. Without knowing that you could have gotten a 100,000, 50,000, 200,000 more from a corporation that was able to provide more for your house. So just I would just suggest that maybe you have that conversation with them and just see how they feel about it. But thank you.

Is that it? Okay. Senator Reyes has moved the bill. Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Stern has moved the bill.

Senator Stern has moved the bill. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Alright. Committee assistant Porter, please call the roll.

This is file item number 5 SB 1090. The motion is do passes amended. {Roll Call}

Ten to two. Is that everyone voting? No. Okay. We'll put that on call.

Thank you very much. Okay. Let's start at the top then. Alright. Community support, let's start at the top.

[Roll Call]

11 to zero That bill is out. Alright. Senate Judiciary is adjourned until call of the chair. Thank you.