Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good morning. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. In order for us to complete our agenda and allow everyone equal time, the rules for witness testimony are that each side will be allowed two main witnesses each. Those main witnesses those those primary witnesses will have approximately two minutes to testify in support of our opposition to the bill.

Additional individuals should state only their names, organization, if any, and their position on the bill. As you proceed with witness and public comment, I wanna make sure everyone understands the committee has rules to ensure a fair and efficient hearing. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, the rules for today's hearings include no talk, no loud noise from the audience.

But as mentioned, public comment may be provided only the designated time and must be limited to your name, organization, and support or opposition of a bill before the committee. Comment I know this is tempting sometimes to try to add a bunch of stuff, but we have the primary witnesses to add context for support or opposition.

So comments from other issues from other folks will be ruled out of order and the microphone may be disconnected. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. And please be aware that violation of these rules may subject to remove from the hearing or other enforcement processes. We do have some members on the way. I mean, I'd like to wait for at least one of the member to be here and believe there's someone here momentarily, and then we'll begin.

We're gonna begin in a in a moment in file order. The only exception to file order is the Chair judiciary, Umberg. He gives me the deference if I when I show up to his committee, so I share that same deference with him when he shows up in this committee, although he has filed two on the order anyway. So seven place before I take a seat to make sure you have this. Yeah.

We'll be starting in a moment. So you can feel free to, yeah, feel free to go ahead and take a seat. And then we have members en route so you can get settled in at least for your, item one s p 16. Alright. We'll go ahead and begin with item one, SB 16, Senator Blake Spear.

And you have two items, SB 16, SB 561, so you can begin whenever begin whenever you're ready.

Okay. Thank you to the Chair, and committee staff for your work on this bill. SB 16 requires county behavioral health directors to put in place a process for authorizing mental health clinicians to initiate fifty one fifty involuntary holds. California is increasingly investing in traditional law enforcement responses for behavioral health emergencies, like mobile crisis teams. In some counties, such as Orange County, local law enforcement have shifted to diverting noncriminal behavioral health crisis calls to clinician led emergency response teams.

However, most communities across the state still rely extensively on police to respond to these situations. This is because we have a shortage of mental health Clinicians authorized to do the fifty one fifty holds. According to the Department of Health Care Access and Information, California faces nearly a 40% shortage of behavioral health Clinicians and needs approximately 72,000 more licensed professionals. At the same time, pathways for Clinicians to become authorized fifty one fifty evaluators vary significantly across the state. Some counties do have clear training standards.

Others have processes that are unclear or difficult to navigate. And in many counties, qualified professionals do not have any practical pathway at all. This inconsistency undermines the crisis response system that California is trying to build, moving away from law enforcement and and to yes. Sorry. And moving to I'll just go on here.

SB 16 fixes

this better. Yay. Alright.

I wanna use the right words and not Yeah. Yeah. Trip myself and other people in the room up. SB 16 fixes this by requiring counties to develop clear training pathways for authorizing Clinicians to conduct the fifty one fifty holds. Importantly, SB 16 gives county behavioral health agencies the discretion to design their authorization policies.

By requiring counties to maintain these pathways, SB 16 supports development of the workforce we need to improve access for people experiencing behavioral health crisis to the emergency care they need. With me to testify in support, I have doctor Aaron Meyer on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Palra, members of the committee. Aaron Meyer, associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, speaking on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, proud sponsor of Senate bill 16. When counties lack clear procedures for fifty one fifty designation and training, law enforcement often becomes the default professional authorized to initiate involuntary holds. California is working to move away from a law enforcement centered response to behavioral health crises, and this bill helps move us closer to that goal.

Our review found wide variation across counties.

Some clearly identified the professional disciplines eligible for fifty one fifty designation. Others authorize county staff to initiate holds without defining the qualifications required to exercise that authority. At least three counties appear to have no publicly available designation procedures at all. This bill requires every county to establish procedures identifying the professional disciplines, qualifications, and clinical experience necessary for fifty one fifty designation. For counties that currently authorize staff without defining who is eligible, the bill creates much needed transparency, consistency, and accountability.

The bill also promotes statewide consistency and practices. While the current legal standards for fifty one fifty detention are established in the LPS Act, county training requirements vary considerably. Some counties continue to require imminence for detention, while others exclude individuals with major neurocognitive disorders, both inconsistent with the LPS Act. SB 16 ensures counties establish clear procedures that align with California law. By requiring counties to establish clear designation and training procedures, this bill promotes transparency, accountability, and consistent standards for the professionals entrusted with this important authority.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 16?

Morning, Chair and members. Moira Tapp here on behalf of San Diego. Mayor Todd Gloria in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 16?

Good morning, Chair and members. Michelle Cabrera on behalf of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California. We respectfully remain opposed to this, bill. Part of what I wanna clarify is that when you expand the number of individuals who can place holds, you actually increase law enforcement involvement. Why is that?

Because a person still needs to be involuntarily detained and then transported to a facility for the purposes of evaluation. So the more Clinicians are empowered to place people on hold, they themselves are unlikely to move that person involuntarily to where they need to go. And when law enforcement does respond, that increases the possibility that a person can be charged on the basis of resisting arrest or detention, for example. So it actually increases the criminality for our population.

Furthermore, Clinicians are not inherently better at doing, fifty one fifty holds.

We've had numerous experiences where, we have to very closely monitor, physicians who work in general acute care hospital emergency departments because sometimes they will release the whole prematurely and not allow for that person to be evaluated, again, leading to very devastating outcomes when that person is released before they've been properly evaluated and treated. And counties are happy to do kind of more consistent practices.

In fact, our joint powers authority, CALMESA, has been doing a standardized test or a training for fifty one fifty designation, and they've currently trained 30 counties on exactly the same standards. It is for all of these reasons that we remain respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 16? Alright. Bringing it back. Committee, any other questions or comments?

Sure.

I came in late, but I get the gist of it. I appreciate what Senator Blake's parents doing. She's really trying to improve the treatment of people with behavioral health needs. So I commend you. I support the bill.

I do have a question in reading my backup on this is it is imposing the training costs on local counties. Where are they going to get the money to fund it? It's an unfunded mandate. Right?

All all of LPS is an unfunded mandate because when it was signed into law in 1967, the legislature said that no state or local funds would be applied to LPS because it's considered due process protections only.

And so I would I would disagree with that. Welfare institutions code fifty fourteen clearly says that, 1991 realignment funds, twenty eleven realignment funds, and behavioral health services act funds can be used for the LPS act.

Okay. Great. Alright. I'd like to be a co author. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry if I just may correct the record on that since I do speak on behalf of the county behavioral health directors who are responsible for the administration of LPS, while nineteen ninety one realignment, otherwise known as the Bronson McCorkadale Act, is considered, part of the safety net funding for county behavioral health overall. We primarily use that funding to pay for inpatient care for individuals

in need of

an of treatment. And that could be people who are both voluntary or involuntary. We have not received adjustments in that funding for a very long time. It's been pretty flat over the years since 1991. It doesn't adjust according to caseload or need, nor does 2011, nor does the BHSA.

So our funding is really comes from tax base increments and is not tied to population or needs and certainly not earmarked for LPS.

Alright. Thank you very much.

Any other questions or comments? Well, thank you, Senator, for bringing it forward. I also am, you know, sensitive to the the cost on on counties whenever you go from permits to requires. It does add an additional burden. I do think that, you know, as was mentioned, though, that their counties do work with each other.

So I think in terms of developing some of these procedures, they can share their work and and so they don't have to reinvent the wheel, especially for smaller counties. They can rely more on the larger counties. I think that'll help offset some of the cost. But to the point of, you know, the the law enforcement uses also counties, either department of corrections or sheriffs.

So I I think that there's I can understand why there's concerns that come from the counties with additional requirements, but I understand your desire to have create some kind of uniformity and some kind of consistency in the application.

So I see too I see I see, you know, the the the interest of kind of creating that consistency is is valuable. And, you know, I think we'll have to be sensitive to the counties when they come to us and that, hey. Say we need more resources. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. I think if the state's policy is to try to move away from the law enforcement response to a clinical response, we we have to invest in a consistent way to accomplish that. So in the absence of clear county procedures that vary across the state, we do have law enforcement as the default provider and responder for individuals who are experiencing a behavioral health crisis. So, you know, I I think part of this is to recognize where where do we want to go.

We need to do better in this way, and it is true that counties are the level of government that we want to be providing behavioral health responses. And so having counties, respond to that and the mandate and the obligation and the prioritization and to have that involvement and having clear processes across the state, You know, this is one small piece of that, but and there are many things that need attention.

But, you know, this does help move us in the right direction, which is away from that law enforcement response to the clinical response. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And we're tuned we're continuing to operate as a subcommittees, so we'll get to that when we can. Item five, SB 561.

Okay. Thank you. Now on to SB 561, I accept the committee amendments. Thank you to the Chair and the committee staff for your work on this bill. SB 561 improves accountability in the pre petition probate conservatorship investigation process.

That's a mouthful. So vulnerable adults who lack decision making capacity are not left waiting without a clear path to care. Probate conservatorships are used for adults who are unable to provide for their personal needs or manage their finances because of cognitive impairments like dementia, developmental disabilities, or traumatic brain injuries. In many cases, these individuals lack decision making capacity and do not have a family member or a friend who is qualified and willing to act on their behalf.

In those situations, county public guardians may be appointed by the courts to act as a public conservator and make decisions on that individual's behalf.

Entities like adult protective services, hospitals, and skilled nursing facilities often refer these individuals to the public guardian so that the public guardian can investigate and determine whether to petition the courts to be appointed as a conservator. Current law requires the public guardian to begin an investigation within two business days of receiving a referral, but current law does not give clear direction on when that investigation should reach a determination.

It also does not require the public guardian to provide basic status information to the person or to the agency that made the referral. That creates a real problem. After a referral is made, the referring agency does not have a path to find out the status or the outcome of the investigation.

For the vulnerable adult at the center of the case, that can mean being left in limbo. In practice, this delays access to medical care, financial decision-making assistance, and other basic support. In some cases, that delay can prove fatal. A Santa Clara County grand jury found that in one case, an individual with disabilities needing assistance who was in the public guardian investigation process died before the process was complete.

SB 561 addresses this issue by adding accountability requirements for the public guardians.

The bill requireSBublic guardians to acknowledge receipt of the referral and make a determination of whether a conservatorship is warranted within a reasonable time period, and it requires the public guardian to provide the referring party with a status update upon request. By establishing these accountability measures, SB 561 assures that when a vulnerable adult is referred for conservatorship review, that referral is acknowledged, reviewed, and brought to a determination in a timely manner.

And with me today in support, I have, again, Dr. Aaron Meyer on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists.

Thank you.

Morning, Chair caller, members of the committee. Aaron Meyer, associate clinical professor of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, speaking on behalf of California State Association of Psychiatrists, proud sponsor of Senate Bill 561. This bill establishes modest, practical, statewide expectations, requiring public guardians to acknowledge receipt of referrals, determine whether a temporary conservatorship should be pursued, provide status updates upon request, and complete investigations within a reasonable time frame.

The San Diego County civil grand jury recently wrote that the measure of public service is how well it protects those with no voice. Its investigation found no consolidated countywide process map or formal protocol governing public guardian conservatorship referrals.

The grand jury also found no consistent performance measures to evaluate public guardian operations. We also know improvement is possible. Los Angeles County partnered with the Hospital Association of Southern California to create the conservatorship access network. For participating hospitals, the average investigation time frame has been reduced from more than sixty five working days to approximately twenty five working days, a substantial improvement from the six month review periods reported two decades prior.

Current law requires public guardians to begin an investigation within two days, but it establishes no expectations for when that investigation must be completed.

In some counties, referring parties may wait thirty days simply to learn whether a referral has been accepted. There have been cases in which an individual's condition as Senator Blake Blake Spear alluded to deteriorated over several months and died before a conservatorship was established. SB 561 does not create a new conservatorship process. It brings greater transparency, accountability, and timeliness to an existing one, helping protect some of California's most vulnerable residents. I respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 561? Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 561? Any questions or comments from committee? Oh, there is someone. Okay.

Sorry. Actually, we're removing our opposition, so we just wanted to share that the California Association of Public Administrators, public guardians and public conservators with the amendments taken today. Thank you. We remove our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any any other questions or comments for anyone? Well, I wanna thank you, Senator, for working with us, working with the committee I know And and, you know, proposition working with us as well to ensure we got to a place, of agreement. And and, I I think your the intentions of this legislation, are are absolutely noble. Having folks waiting in limbo, not having any idea what's going on, but removing some of the the little more constrictive time timelines you had in the original attacks.

I think there's a good balance where, it'll really open up communication, which is really what I think this bill seem aims to do, which I think is a laudable goal. I would like to close.

Yes. Thank you. Just just to reiterate, what my lead witness said about this being basically modest reforms because there's not it's not actually even imposing a timeline. It's just saying a reasonable time and to acknowledge receipt, and to communicate about the status.

Because the reality is we do have some of our most most vulnerable people here in the state of California who are falling into this bureaucratic purgatory where there'sfor some reason, there's not an ownership of that person that's leading to an outcome where they can be cared for. And so, you know, trying to improve that system so that people are not falling into that is is what the goal of this bill is, and I think it will definitely help.

So with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote on SB 561. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll get to that as soon as we can. Thank you so much, Senator. Senator Wahab. Senator Wahab has three bills.

Three wonderful bills.

Alright. Item three, SB 381.

Just wanna wait for my witnesses real quick. Alright. Thank you, Chair and Members. You know, this bill is very important to me for a wide variety of reasons. But, you know, I think you guys will see when you guys hear testimony why it's so important. In California, adoptees do not have access to their own original birth certificate because the certificate is sealed at adoption, making it inaccessible to the adoptee.

Sealing original birth certificates for adoptees dates back nearly a century, 1935, literally during the Depression era, to protect adoptees and adoptive families from the societal stigma surrounding their status and not to protect birth parents. Preventing access to an original birth certificate has potential negative health implications, as an adoptee does not have access to information related to their birth family history. It can also lead to mental health and identity issues as it potentially prevents an adoptee from knowing their race, heritage, and cultural affiliation.

In fact, as I've described it before, it's a deep, dark black hole in a person's heart. To ensure adopted adults are treated equally under the law, SB 381 authorizes the disclosure of an original birth certificate to a California born adopted person or a descendant of a deceased adopted person.

This bill also establishes a process to request an original birth certificate from the state registrar and requires the state registrar to create a nonbinding contact preference form available to birth parents. If the birth parent completes the form, it will be attached to the original birth certificate and released with it if the original birth certificate is requested.

This allows a birth parent to give a heads up regarding contact preference and an opportunity they wouldn't have if reached by surprise through DNA testing, which we have seen is commonplace now. This bill also removes the ability to request an amended birth certificate that omits the city and county of birth or color and race of the parents.

17 other states have passed a law providing unrestricted access to original birth certificates to adoptees, with many of those happening in the last six years, including Virginia earlier this year, Georgia in 2025, South Dakota 2023, Vermont 2022, Massachusetts 2022, Louisiana 2022, Connecticut 2021, and New York in 2019.

As you can see, both red and blue states have passed bills to provide original birth certificates to adoptees with no determined negative consequences, and a number of those states have a similar contact preference form that is included in the legislation. I do wanna highlight that the contact preference form also has a couple of lines that are open where the birth parent can share any information that they would like. For example, they can share, please don't contact me. I'm in an abusive relationship.

You are a product of rape. Or a wide variety of things that they specifically would like to share with the child and therefore allow the child to understand what is happening. With me to testify in support of this measure is Wendy Turk with the California Alliance for Adoptee Rights and Gretchen Sisson, a research sociologist from the University of California, San Francisco.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Kalra, Members of the Committee. I'm Wendy Turk, California Alliance for Adoptee Rights. I found out just eight years ago that I was adopted and was stunned to learn that at age 56, I wasn't allowed to access my own identity through receiving my original birth certificate or OBC. It is a human right, a matter of dignity, to have access to one's OBC.

Adoptees are simply asking for their own birth record, a vital record that predates and is independent of adoption records that everyone but adoptees has access to. In balancing a concern for birth parents and adoptees, the legislature has already stated that adult adoptees should be favored when it comes to accessing one's OBC.

Health and safety code section 102705 requires that if a petition for access is brought by an adoptee who has reached the age of majority, this fact should be given great weight. Unfortunately, courts routinely ignore this mandate. SB 381 vindicates the existing legislative judgment in favor of adult adoptees by removing the judicial discretion that has frustrated the very interest the legislature has directed courts to credit.

At the same time, SB 381 takes into account concern for birth parents by providing for disclosure of identity in a far more private way than exist now. When adoptees are forced to turn to DNA testing due to lack of access, the adoption is exposed to an entire family. By contrast, SB 381 will disclose identity to exactly one person, the adoptee, or his or her descendant.

With the contact preference form to be attached to the OBC, SB 381 gives parents birth parents a way to state their preference regarding contact and to confidentially provide any information to their child that they want. A heads up they can't give now if their child reaches out to them through DNA testing.

All members of the adoption triad support this bill. Adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive parents, as do adoption professionals. There is no opposition on the record. Currently, 17 states allow unrestricted access. Hundreds of thousands of OBCs have been released over several decades with no negative consequences. Please right this historical wrong and vote yes on SB 381.

Thank you.

My name is Gretchen Sisson, and I am a sociologist with Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco. Over the last 16 years, I have studied experiences of relinquishing mothers from a reproductive health and justice lens.

I have compiled and analyzed quantitative data from over 8,000 private domestic adoptions of infants and collected in-depth data with over a 100 relinquishing parents. Often, adopted people are denied access to their birth certificates because of claims that are made about their birth mother's need or desire for privacy. These claims are largely unfounded.

Over the last 15 to 20 years, over 90% of all private domestic adoptions of infants are open, meaning that there is ongoing contact between the relinquishing parent and the adopted person after the adoption is finalized. Today, that number is as high as 95% of all adoptions. For mothers who are not in contact with their child, 97% reported wanting some contact, and 86% thought about establishing contact with their child quite a lot.

The overwhelming majority of relinquishing parents are already in continued contact with their children, and an even greater majority desire or are open to such contact. Among the 1-2% of mothers who preferred a closed adoption at the time of relinquishment, most of them changed their minds over time as they had greater stability and safety in their own lives.

Indeed, they viewed their child's ability to reach out to them directly not only as welcome, but as a matter of safety. Accordingly, privacy claims made on behalf of relinquishing parents do not reflect their own understanding of their adoptions or their hopes for their children. Opening records through SB 381 will only move California further from the history of adoption shrouded in secrecy, shame, and coercion, and toward policy grounded in the lived experiences of those most impacted.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 381? Yeah. You can go ahead and line up at the microphone single file. And just name, name, if you, name, organization, if you, if there is any that you're affiliated with, and your position on the bill.

Good morning. I am Lori Whisler Schultz. I am the co-founder of California Alliance for Adoptee Rights. I am an adult who was born as a child in California and adopted in 1960. I support SB 381.

Hello. My name is Jim Dunn. I am an adult adoptee, and I support SB 381.

Hi. My name is Paul Campbell. I'm a California born adoptee in favor SB 381.

Hello. My name is Bonnie McDonald Beevers. I'm a California born adult adoptee, and I support Senate Bill 381. Thank you.

I'm Jean Strauss. I was born in 1955, 71 years ago. In 2009, I headed an effort along with then Assembly Majority Whip Fiona Ma with a similar bill. It did not pass. 17 years later, I'm still waiting to get my original birth certificate. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Emily Bernhardt Troper. I'm a California born and raised adoptee and a voter, and I ask you to support this bill.

Hi. I'm Geneva Anderson from Sonoma County. I'm a California born adult adoptee. Please vote to accept SB 381.

Hi. My name is Pat Boyle, and I live in Sonoma County. I'm a California adoptee and the sole surviving member of my adoption. Thank you. Please support the bill.

Good morning. My name is Denise Castellucci. I'm from Marin County, and I am a California born adoptee in reunion for 32 years. Please support this bill.

Good morning. Nearly 60 years ago on July 4, I was born Baby Girl Thomas. I now go by the amended name of Pamela Wyville, and please support this SB 381. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jennifer Wallach from Concord. I am the daughter of an adoptee who passed away never receiving his birth certificate. Please support this bill.

Hi. My name is Tracy Palmer, born in 1971. I'm from Sonoma County, and I'm here to please ask you to support SB 381. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Ken Kalmer. I am a spouse of California adoptee and I'm here to support and try to get you to support SB 381. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Elizabeth Watson Simmons. I was born and adopted in 1945. The first time I came to the state capitol in hopes of seeing legislation that would open my birth original birth certificate was 1978. Please vote aye on this bill now.

Thank you.

I was born baby girl Gates, and my current name is Megan Leaney. I was born in 1962 and entered into a binding legal agreement without my consent, like all adoptees, in 1962. And I would urge you to please support this bill to right this historic wrong.

Thank you.

Good morning, Committee. My name is Ferro Moser, Kent of Canada. I am a California born adoptee, and I support SB38, 381

Is my right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Maya Mosley Katakanga. I'm a Oakland resident. I am a proud adoptive parent, and I strongly support SB381.

Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. My name is David Bobart, and I support 381. Thank you. My biological daughter.

Thank you.

My name is Ruthanna Barnett. I was born and adopted in California in 1969, and I urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Born Audrey becoming Tina Brown, interracially adopted from foster care. I support 381, SB381.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Dominique Muller Kimball, and I'm the wife of a California adoptee. Not only does this affect my husband, who's a wonderful adoptee, but it also affects our children, our grandchildren, and our descendants. So I really am asking you to please support SB381.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Jasmine Frost. I'm here to support this bill, SB381.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hi. My name is William McLeod. I was born in San Francisco. William McLeod is my third name. Please support this bill. I, my mother was sent across the country like so many people were back then.

Please support this thing.

Is there anyone here in opposition to SB381? We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments? Okay. Assemblymember Dixon.

What a beautiful bill. I commend you for doing this. I'm just curious. Why did it take so long since 1935?

You know, I'll be honest. I, I'm an adopted child myself. I grew up in foster care, and I think that many people here can share that foster care is and adoption is a taboo. Right? It is a societal taboo, and especially since 1935.

Right? We wanted to make sure that people could be able to, you know, give up their child and also hide the fact that they've done so. And it's a lot of privacy, but it's more about secrecy because societal norms then were very different than today. And so we want to right the wrongs of the past, and we also understand that we can't judge the standard, then.

But today's standard is very different, and we need to be open about it and also ensure that we give people their dignity.

And so what these individuals want, and I will highlight since our last testimony in the Senate, there were witnesses that were in their seventies and eighties that passed away without ever knowing who their birth parents are and without ever seeing their original birth certificate.

Well, I commend you, as I said, for this. It's really, it's a moral issue, really, and, and how to address this, who, how, how can I sit here and say what is best for all? But what I like about your bill, though, for those who may have reservations and that fear goes with them for decades is that you allow the birth parent to express themselves. And so that would be evident to the to the adopted child.

So I think that even if they're not alive, they would still know what their parents, birth parents wanted.

But I, it's a very difficult issue for everyone who testified. So I commend you for it, and I'll be supporting it. Thank you.

Can can I add one quick thing in response to this?

to this?

No. Not right. Yeah. No. That's yeah.

Any any other questions or comments? Yeah. Well, thank you for bringing this forward. I, I know that, and, and by the way, just I know there's a lot of public interest on this bill I mentioned earlier working as a subcommittee, but that basically means that we don't have a quorum yet. We haven't had a majority of the members here.

So when we don't vote on it, it's something we'll be doing later. But I know that since there's a lot of people from the public here, you may wonder, like, hey. Why aren't they voting on the bill? We have to wait for a few more members to show up because they're being pulled in different directions and different committees they have to present bills in front of. Anyway, I will allow, however, our, Senate author to close.

Thank you. You know, I, I just wanna be very clear that this is a very important bill. It's also very historic at how far this bill has come through the legislature this year. You have heard testimony of multiple different people at multiple different times trying to bring this different times trying to bring this bill forward. We are trying to restore the dignity of these individuals and make people's hearts whole.

That's really what this bill is about. This is a bipartisan bill. I'm very proud of the bill. It has received zero no votes and zero formal opposition, so I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

Okay. And thank you to everyone for being so respectful of the rules and waving your hands in support. Item Eight: SB 880. Up next, Senator.

Eyewitness. All right. Hello, Chair and members. Again, I really appreciate you guys working with us, and I first wanna state that I accept the committee amendments as described in the committee analysis and thank the chair and committee staff for working with us on this bill.

SB 880 expands homeownership opportunities by ensuring prospective homeowners, or prospective owner occupants and existing tenants, are given an opportunity to purchase a home if it is sold by institutional investors selling their properties in compliance with the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which is currently awaiting signature by the president, a bipartisan effort.

As of 2025, the homeownership rate in California is approximately 55%, with the median price of housing reaching a new all-time high of $930,000. In fact, I think in the chair's district as well as my own district, it's significantly higher. Listing prices on average increase about one and a half percent per month, creating environments where potential homebuyers experience higher entry costs year round. Higher home costs have led to an increase in investor-owned homes by around 19% according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

As of 2025, three out of seven households in California rent the home they live in. This is the highest level in at least five years. The breakthrough of institutional investors in the single-family home market has created real and profound effects on housing affordability, homeownership rates, and fragmented the composition of entire communities. To get homes back into the hands of actual families, the federal administration has passed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which seeks to establish some standard guardrails for institutional investors seeking to expand their investor portfolios and establish significant financial penalties for noncompliance with the act.

The federal legislation also requires institution investors to divest from single-family homes acquired in violation of federal law and must offer a first look to owner occupants. However, the federal law provides no details for how states must accomplish this requirement.

Should the federal bill be enacted, investors whose properties don't meet the exceptions laid out in the act may begin selling their properties. We need to ensure that California does all it can to make sure those properties find their way back into the hands of individuals and families, not just to another investor. With the help of the committee, we are mindful in achieving this objective because SB 880 follows several carefully negotiated policies that were enacted in California during the foreclosure crisis last decade, and as proposed to be amended in the committee analysis, the bill ensures that lenders and loan servicers are not included within California's definition of institutional investors.

SB 880 addresses the unfair landscape institutional investors have created by giving prospective owner occupants and other interested individuals that may be an existing tenant in the home advanced notification of the institutional investor's intention to sell the home. I wanna be clear: advanced notice. This simple notice gives the tenant an opportunity to assemble their finances and the ability to adequately prepare to be able to make an offer on the home they live in. More importantly, it gives prospective owner occupants the opportunity to submit an offer for consideration before an investor that often makes all-cash offers that are hard for families to compete with.

To be clear, contrary to the opposition arguments, SB 880 does not require the institution investor to sell the property, only to consider offers by owner occupants within the first 30 days of its listing in compliance with the requirements of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act if it is enacted at the federal level. With me to testify in support of this measure is Jennifer Svec, Vice President of Public Policy and Advocacy for the California Association of Realtors.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Jennifer Svec, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. Modeled on the federal First Look Program that California codified in 2022 through AB 2170, authored by now Senator Tim Grayson, it was approved by the legislature on its consent file.

SB 880 strengthens homeownership opportunities by ensuring that when institutional investors sell single-family homes in compliance with the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, families have a fair opportunity to make an offer during the first 30 days after the property is listed. SB 880 does not mandate investors to sell to a particular buyer, as stated by the opposition. SB 880 simply requires the institutional investor to sign an affidavit confirming compliance with California's notice requirements, and the affidavit would only be necessary if President Trump signs the federal act.

To be clear, the federal bill awaiting the president's signature explicitly references the federal First Look Program, which is codified in California, just to be abundantly clear. Making-- SB 880 is a logical and necessary first step toward implementation should that federal act become law. Further, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act includes several exemptions to avoid unintended consequences of forced divestment by existing institutional investor assets and applies only prospectively.

Those exemptions are unchanged in both the federal law and in SB 880 and include build-to-rent developments, rent-to-own programs, large institution-to-institution transfers, elderly communities, and renovate-to-rent conversions of existing single-family homes, provided the investor makes renovations equal to at least 15% of the property's value. Under U.S. law, a bill that has passed Congress becomes law after 10 business days. Because the bill was presented on June 24th, it may take effect on July 10th with or without presidential action.

Its status will be cleared to the legislature when we reconvene in August. To reiterate, because the Federal Housing Act is prospective, divestment is not likely to create market disruption. However, California must be prepared with a process that prioritizes families, preserves neighborhood stability, and expands homeownership opportunities. With that, we respectfully ask for an aye vote, and I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 880? Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 880?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Jim Lites, on behalf of the National Rental Home Council. We are in opposition to this bill. The bill contains a provision that bans bundled sales, and we think this represents a policy disconnect. Our state pension funds tend to fund build-to-rent developments, and those-- the investment requirements include a provision that you would sell the entire asset of that development once it is approximately 80% leased.

Typically, it is not an individual that could afford to buy an entire development. So if bundled sales are banned under this bill, which they're not under the pending federal bill, then it would dry up build-to-rent developments in the state of California. Also, the federal bill in its final version does not include a requirement for companies to sell homes. So it-- so this bill does create some inconsistencies potentially with the federal bill, and for those reasons, we're opposed.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Karim Drissi, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, here today in strong opposition to SB 880, which includes many provisions that are inconsistent with and go far beyond the pending federal legislation that this bill claims to implement. SB 880 reduces housing opportunities for the very renters that need the most. By creating new restrictions on the transfer or sale of single-family homes, including those in affordable housing developments, the bill makes it harder to finance, develop, and operate these critically needed housing projects.

Specifically, affordable housing developments are structured for specialized housing providers to own and manage them during the life of the project. By banning the sale or transfer of more than one home to the same housing provider, this bill makes it more difficult to build and preserve housing for seniors and working families and other Californians that are in dire need of affordable shelter.

I would also note that this bill requires specified properties to be listed on a multiple listing service, or MLS, and MLS is a privately owned real estate listing service, not a publicly available system. Mandating the use of a private listing service is unprecedented, and it creates serious public policy concerns, especially given recent antitrust litigation involving MLS rules and practices.

As an Arab American, a proud Arab American who grew up in affordable housing, we urge this committee to preserve the great work that they've done over the last 10 years to create housing opportunities for renters by voting no on SB 880, which puts prospective renters last. We urge a no vote. Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 880?

Morning, Chair and members. Freddie Quintana, on behalf of the California Apartment Association, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Pat Moran, representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Corianna Miller with the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Skyler Wonnacott, on behalf of the California Business Properties Association and the California Business Roundtable, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Chair and members, Chris Scroggin with Capitol Advocacy. Apologies for our late submission of our letter, but here on behalf of the American Investment Council in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members. Paul Bauer, on behalf of Heritage Development, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments? Assembly Member Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the senator for the bill, and I agree with the spirit and most of it and frankly just wanted to follow-up with a question on the build-to-rent and the MLS. Wasn't aware of the MLS point. So can you just clarify? And I don't know what the author wants to-- if she wants to respond to this, but what was your point that the homes would have to be listed on MLS as part of the bill and that is a problem because that's a proprietary site? Can you just explain that? And would love to hear from the author as to what she thinks about it.

Yes. So first and foremost, this bill is about noticing. It is-- I just kinda wanted to highlight this that California already has enacted various laws to prevent bundled sales. As noted by our support witness, investor-to-investor transfers are permitted under both the federal act and this bill. I also wanna highlight that, you know, when you're referencing the MLS, our specific bill, we state: or other equivalent system was in the bill. It is not mandated to be in MLS explicitly. It's an option.

Got it.

Great. Any-- Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan?

Hi. Good morning.

Hi, there.

Sorry I missed your adoption bill. I was listening. That was powerful. On this one-- okay. So, one of the amendments I understand that's being taken here today is that this bill only goes into effect if the federal law goes into effect. Is that correct? Okay. I wanted to make sure I had that right. So that throws me off a little bit because I think the provisions of the bill, there's a lot of overlap with the federal law. Is that correct? Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't wanna misstate the facts, Senator.

For the most part, yes. There is some overlap, and again, this is a noticing bill. You know, I can go through the amendments as well, but I just wanna understand your question.

Yeah, yeah. So I'm just trying to understand what, beyond what the federal law does, this bill now does given that amendment that I was trying to process that and--

Yes.

--would help to clarify.

Thank you.

At at the request of Senator Wahab, what the bill is seeking to do is simply provide a 90-day notice to tenants that may be displaced if a Wall Street investor violates the federal provisions, as well as allowing the First Look Program, which was codified in California and initially spurred by the GSEs during the foreclosure crisis to allow owner occupants to have a 30-day first opportunity to make an offer. However, the GSEs recently changed their rules and the First Look Program no longer exists within regulatory scheme on the federal level--

GSEs? I'm sorry.

Government-sponsored entities.

Thank you.

So Fannie and Freddie, the state-- the federal lenders that buy loans. What we're doing is taking the law that California codified in that rule that was in response to the foreclosure crisis and applying that in this space as well.

The federal legislation mentions the First Look Program but does not define what it is, and given that we have the historical reference in California that we adopted the program that it's referencing, it's necessary that SB 880 create the codification and clarification between the federal law that could be signed into law or enacted on July 10th and the law that we have in California with respect to how we dispose of real estate owned properties after post-foreclosure and notice for prospective owner occupants.

The other piece, with respect to tenancy displacement, that's simply a noticing requirement prior to eviction during the foreclosure process that was also done in legislation enacted in California specifically related to foreclosure prevention and noticing of tenants that was sponsored by the Attorney General at the time back in 2012.

Okay.

I also wanna highlight that instead of focusing on the purchase of a single-family residential property, properties by institutional investors as the federal bill does, ours is really the focus on the sale of single-family residential properties by institutional investors. So it's-- theirs is the action, ours is the response, if you will.

Okay. And then, Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, does the opposition have anything to add on what the differentials are here? I don't know if there's anything. Is that okay, Mr. Chair? Yeah? Okay.

For much of the discussion on the federal bill, there was a requirement to sell after seven years. That came out of the final bill, and so if you do certain things to support your tenants, such as a First Look Program, which all of our companies have done for years, if you provide financial assistance to the tenants, you know, then you are exempt from certain portions of the federal bill.

But you are not here, so that seven year requirement would still--

Correct.

--apply here. So that seems like--

That's not--

That's not true. We didn't draft the bill to create a separate exemption. The bill models federal law and then builds upon it. It does not force divestment.

Yeah. I'm saying we're not exempt from SB 880.

May I also answer the member?

Okay, wait. So let me-- I just wanna clarify. So what I'm hearing the opposition say is that they could not divest for seven years under this bill if they do those things. Is that correct?

Yeah.

No.

No. Okay, what did you say? Say it again, then, if I mis--

Yeah, there is no divestment requirement at all.

Correct.

May I add one clarification through the chair?

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you for the question, Assembly Member.

Way to confuse me.

I think our key challenge is that the bill bans the sale or transfer of more than one home to the same housing provider to the same entity, and so our challenge is that oftentimes you have affordable housing developments that are constructed and then transferred to another entity that's going to own and manage them during the life of the project.

And so our concern is that you're unable to build affordable housing developments and then transfer them to the entity that's gonna own and manage them because you're banned under this bill, which is not included in the federal piece of legislation. You can't sell more than one home or transfer more than one home to an institutional investor, which is broadly defined.

Okay. I heard the senator say that wasn't true, I thought, earlier.

For that particular purpose, that was not brought up previously. That's an easy thing that we can draft around in amendments on the floor.

Okay. So, now I--

So it sounds like you can work with opposition on that point.

Absolutely.

And-- yeah. Okay.

But that was not intended within the draft.

So an unintended consequence-- there's an unintended consequence of at least one issue that opposition has that you're committed to work-- that you're committed to work on.

Okay. And so-- but there is a difference in the federal law--according to the opposition--about the transfer to institutional investors, and you agree that that's a difference, yes?

Yes.

There is no noticing in the federal law as to how you dispose of the property should an institutional investor choose to divest because they've violated federal law.

Right. But you-- what I'm hearing-- I guess part of what I'm struggling with is, I came into this thinking this bill was more than a notice bill, having read the materials, and then you did your presentation--and I actually was listening on my phone prior to walking in, so I heard the whole thing--and you said it's a notice bill. I'm like, I love notice. But then I'm hearing the opposition say, no. It'll actually stop them from selling properties, which a notice provision should never do, and so I'm at a loss as to--

That's not the case.

It doesn't stop them. It only--

--pauses for the first 30 days where they can accept offers from buyers, but they do not have to take that offer.

Right. I--

They can take an offer from anyone they want.

It makes an even playing field.

Okay. So your position is that they just need to give notice and wait 30 days, or wait 30 days, right? Or hear an offer in those 30 days if one were to come in, but not accept it necessarily.

They don't have to take it.

Right. And then you're saying you can't sell institutional investor-to-institutional investor. Those are very different bills that are being described here. So maybe-- well, Mr. Harabedian, maybe you understand.

Well, it was my original question that I think the MLS point-- the MLS point was clarified, but the second point on the bundled sales wasn't. So I think the re-- I went back to look at the bill, and I think that the provision that is providing the confusion is there's just an outright ban on bundled sales. So what you said is institutional buyers can sell to-- or can buy from institutional sellers. That's correct on a one-off basis, I think, but the bill has a separate provision that says notwithstanding that, there is no bundled sales whatsoever, which would, to their point, mean that in a larger build-to-rent affordable housing project, you could never sell that as a bundled sale.

I don't think that the author or you are saying that you actually need that. There's actually provision-- there's an amendment in the analysis that would fix that, and I think all of us are just asking if the author--and I will ask the author, not necessarily the sponsor--if the author is willing to take that amendment because I think that clarifies at least-- I'm hearing the MLS point is actually not really a point because it allows for other avenues, and this bundled sale amendment, I think, would solve the other point. So I just wanna make sure that the author would be willing to take that amendment.

Yeah. No, we're happy to work with opposition on that, and also, again, 880 does not have a requirement to sell, so just being very clear about that. And I think that we've also kind of went over that California has already enacted numerous laws to prevent bundled sales as well, and it still can be sold investor-to-investor, but more specifically, give a heads up to the occupant to have a potential opportunity to purchase and compete against Wall Street.

Well, I just think-- on that last point, I do think, though, that provision-- and what is it? It's-- there's a specific provision in this bill. It's Subsection F of your bill that says, notwithstanding all of that, there are no bundled sales. So I just think that the proposed amendment in the analysis, which was great--congratulations, it was it was very helpful--would take care of that. So I--

And we have accepted it, yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Oh, you have accepted that amend--

No, they haven't yet.

Well, no.

It's-- right now, they're-- the commitments have been made by the author and sponsor to work with the opposition to deal with that issue.

They haven't yet.

Right. But is-- so, okay. So there's a difference between working to try to figure it out and the amendments in the analysis being accepted. So I guess I just need to understand--

Aren't the amendments in the analysis--

We've accepted the amendments in the analysis--

Okay.

--but I think this last minute point that they brought up--

Where in the analysis? Can you give us a page number?

Sure. Absolutely.

Okay. The--

Just so we're clear, it's been what we're voting on.

114. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So, page 12 is the proposed amendment, not the amendment being taken in committee here today.

Okay, right. So it's not under author amendments, right? Because that's what you're accepting, which is page 13, but under additional considerations on page 12. So I think that's what I understood was not being accepted today. So the question is...that.

That's fine. That's not a problem. Yeah.

She's accepting the author amendments on page 13.

There's two sets, I guess, right?

Yes.

It's right there.

No, that's fine.

Yeah. I think that we were fine with it, so we will continue-- we're gonna look into this, but I can assure you guys we are gonna address these concerns.

Okay. So we're voting on a bill that's being amended with just page 13 amendments, but not page 12? Just so I understand.

I think you're fine with--

I think what the author is saying is that the opposition has raised a concern. That concern has been-- is one of the concerns highlighted as suggested amendments. The author and the sponsor are committed to looking at those amendments, working with opposition to resolve that issue.

Yes.

Okay. So--

Okay. Like, we're not-- I'm not asking for other amendments to be taken on the floor.

Right. I just would like-- right. And Mr. Chair, I'm just asking what I'm voting for.

Yeah. Yeah, yeah.

So right. So it's the amendments on page 13, but not the amendments on page 12?

But with commitments to work on--

To work on what's on page 12. Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah.

And we are fully committed to getting this across the finish line and addressing some of the concerns that were raised. Yeah.

Assembly Member Zbur?

So I had many of the same issues that have been raised by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan and Harabedian, and in particular, the issues related to build-to-rent. So are you committed to continue working on getting amendments that would exempt the build-to-rent addition specifically?

Yeah.

Okay. And then, another set of considerations I had was, can you cover where things stand in the bill now in terms of the penalty structure?

Yeah. I think we have it here in one of the amendments. We're updating the civil penalty amounts for a violation of the certificate of compliance requirement.

Okay. So what were the law-- what's the-- I was concerned about sort of the million dollar penalties that were in an earlier version of the bill. Is that--

That's a federal one. We're mimicking that side.

Okay. So that's in the federal bill, and that would be-- and so what-- could you just cover what the enforcement?

Do you want me to answer the question?

Yeah, if you want to. Yeah.

You know, I'm nerve-- I mean, one of my nervousness about this bill is that we've got a federal bill that's moving along, and we also have some references to the federal bill in this bill that I don't know whether-- what's gonna end up in the federal bill. So, for example, the definition of institutional investor is basically one that if you actually did not have components in the federal bill, it could pick up mom-and-pop landlords. So that's another issue that I had with the bill.

And, obviously, we don't want someone who owns a fourplex to have to-- I mean, I actually think it's a good idea for it to give people notice, but a lot of these things seem onerous for sort of a mom-and-pop landlord, and I think the only way that you get those people out is by sort of a cross-reference to a definition in the federal bill that doesn't exist yet. So--

Yeah. I'm happy to respond with-- or lead witness.

Agreed. I think to your point, obviously, we represent small mom-and-pop landlords as well, specifically those that manage 16 units and less more often than not. To be clear, one of the amendments that was put into SB 880 that was vitally important to our members was to ensure that the natural person was not included in the definition of institutional investor that's put into the federal bill that is currently pending before the president.

So it's already been approved by Congress in a bipartisan vote, in both the Senate and Congress, and is awaiting signature. We will know when we come back in August whether or not the bill becomes law. If the bill doesn't become law, we're happy to abandon it, but we think that it's vitally important to have some clarifications since the measure goes into effect pretty swiftly over the summer.

And again, the goal of making sure that a family or a mom and pop or a retired individual that relies on rental income is exempt was one of the reasons that we partnered with Senator Wahab on drafting the bill to ensure, again, that natural persons are not included in the definition of institutional investor by way of the federal definition that sets the limit at 350 units and then has a couple of pieces on that.

I thought it was really important within the analysis and within the committee consultants as they pointed out sort of the differences as to what we were trying to get to, and the amendments that were suggested by committee really do make the bill a better bill and opined in spaces that maybe we were a little bit blind to as we were trying to draft this quickly in response to what's happening on the federal level.

Okay.

I do wanna also highlight that our commitment and my commitment has always been to small mom-and-pop landlords, right? We understand that that also builds equity for those families, especially immigrant communities. So our interest is not harming them at all. Our goal is to just give an even playing field to the potential buyer that is, you know, a normal human being.

Okay. I mean, I'm not sure where I am on this bill today. I mean-- but the issues that I had-- you know, that I have are really clarifying issues with respect to bundled sales, the right to build. I think the penalty structure-- frankly, I'm really nervous about having penalties at that level going up to a million dollars. I mean, I've just never seen anything like that in state law before, and then really sort of fine-tuning some of these things so that you don't have the bill so dependent on a bill that basically isn't finished yet. So those are the concerns I have about the bill.

Yeah. And again, the penalties largely mirror what's at the federal level.

Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan?

So-- I mean, I appreciate the mirroring point. I will say that then compounds, right, because you have state and federal penalties on what looks like similar activities, but that's less my concern than sort of the way you're talking about institutional investor because most mom-and-pop landlords who are individuals hold their real estate in a trust, and so it's one person, one trust. We're not talking hedge funds, and that's covered by institutional investors. So I think 99.9% of mom and pops and individuals would be covered by this bill.

So I just wanna clarify that the definition is incredibly broad and includes those trusts that help protect people's assets from liability that are fully legal and I don't know how they would be exempt from this.

Yeah. Because this bill obviously skipped our House and was a gut and amend, we're more than happy to address that and that concern again.

Okay. Okay. Yeah, I think I'm with-- I'm struggling because I didn't realize it was a gut and amend. That's helpful information, Senator, because I'm like, why are we the last committee even talking like this? It's stressing me out.

No, I will say that again, you know, just to address, our commitment is to the small mom and pops but also to the regular individual that would like to eventually purchase something one day. It is largely-- we are trying to prioritize, again, the notice, and that is the true essence of the bill plus, you know, the response from the federal level, right? So we are more than happy to draft, and I have-- you know, giving my commitment here right now to kind of address that in our next amendment.

Okay. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Any questions or comments? Thank you, Senator, for bringing it forward, and yes, I know this has been a quick response to what's happening at the federal level, so it's still a work in progress which isn't always the case when it's in the second House and going through policy, but I think it's a unique situation. So, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And then finally, Item 20: SB 1238.

Ivan, are you ready yet? Yeah.

Appreciate it again. I know you guys have had a long one. So first, again, I'd like to thank the committee. I also wanna state that we accept the committee amendments as described in the committee analysis, and we thank the Chair and committee staff for working with us on this bill.

The Department of Real Estate reports that 99% of all new housing construction create an HOA to offset long term infrastructure costs, but this also comes with long term effects as the HOA board and management companies have little to no accountability to the homeowners whose property they are responsible for maintaining.

Under current law, neither an HOA manager nor an HOA management company is subject to the licensing and oversight by any state agency. Homeowners seeking to hold an HOA management company accountable must file a court action in the spirit court to enforce the law in Davis Sterling, a very expensive and cumbersome process where homeowners are at a distinct disadvantage.

SB 1238 will protect homeowners who reside in communities with a homeowners association by requiring additional disclosures to the homeowner and ensuring HOA managers and board act in the homeowner's best interest. Specifically, SB 1238 will protect homeowners by requiring HOA managers provide a duty of care in the highest good faith effort to the HOA and its members. SB 1238 clarifies that HOA reserves are not expended on specific types of litigation that are not already authorized in existing law.

This ensures that HOA managers can no longer exploit a loophole in current law that allows that the HOA manager to use reserve funds that are intended for maintenance and upkeep of the community for their legal defense. Further, SB 1238 ensures the legal defense line item is in the general fund and not hidden from the homeowner or board.

Lastly, the bill will ensure that inspection ratings are transparent and understandable for the homeowner, HOA board, and an HOA manager who is responsible for ensuring buildings are habitable and compliant with the state's current health and safety standards. The bill will ensure property owners can obtain necessary information from the HOA to clarify the financial health of the association, which is particularly critical information homeowners need when selling a condo or a home within an HOA.

With me to testify in support of this measure is Jennifer Speck, vice president of public policy and advocacy for the California Association of Realtors.

Thank you.

Mister Chair, members of the committee, Jennifer Speck, on behalf of California Association of Realtors. More than one third of Californians live in HOAs. Because most do know housing is built within an HOA, the governance of these associations is a central part of California's housing system. Yet our laws have not kept pace with the risks homeless homeowners face. In California, there's no state agency overseeing HOA managers, no licensing requirement, and no administrative enforcement mechanisms.

When something goes wrong, the only remedy available to homeowners is costly civil litigation in superior court. HOAs can use reserve funds to defend themselves, but h but homeowners cannot. As a result, even serious misconduct goes on goes on challenged most often. Recent examples include Lord and management, which collapsed under a $14,000,000 judgment for its mismanagement of an HOA that destabilized an entire community in Southern California. Recently in San Diego, an HOA manager stole more than $500,000 from several associations.

Nationally, there are cases of managers misusing HOA funds for personal expenses. These failures are a possible failure of the individuals managing millions of dollars in homeowners assets because they have no statutory duty of care. Homeowners need assurance that the people managing their communities are held to basic standards of competence and good faith effort. To be clear, SB 1238 does not change the existing structure. California will continue to rely on self governance backed by homeowners' legal rights.

SB 1238 simply seeks to establish a clear, enforceable duty of care for HOA managers toward both the board and the homeowners who fund the HOA's offers operations and reserves. A duty of care to the board alone is not enough. Homeowners bear the financial risk, pay the assessments, and rely on accurate disclosures to protect their homes. Some have raised concerns about increased liability for management companies, but the greater risk lies in maintaining the status quo.

Weak standards have already produced cost of litigation, deferred maintenance, inconsistent disclosures, and financing barriers that depress property values.

S B 1238 supports responsible managers and ensures bad actors cannot hide behind contract clauses that hide them and shield them from accountability. SB 1238 strengthens transparency, supports responsible management, and gives homeowners the information they need to protect their greatest asset.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1238? Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1238?

Mister Chair, members of the committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute. We've worked out most of the issues that we've had on this bill. The one remaining issue we have is the new language added to the Davis Sterling Act that would require a duty of care extended to the managers.

We see this as an an agent agreement under a contractual relationship, between the board, and the manager, that should not end will not end under case law and and current statutory law is not extended to the members. Board members have certain protections in law, business judgment rule that they can use as defense in certain matters.

Managers do not. And so what we'll what we'll see as a result of this is just increased litigation against the board. Management companies will more than likely just ask the the boards to indemnify in any of these actions that'll happen. And so we're gonna see increased costs.

And a lot

of the issues that were raised by the proponents are simply issues of an association, that should and can be dealt with. We've added laws over the years dealing with, financial management disclosures, management of the association over the manager in those in those finances. So we believe that that duty of care is best between the manager and the association, reduce any conflicts, reduce potential litigation, and then allow if there are actions to be taken, those actions be taken against the board.

For those reasons, we we remain opposed. Seeing the analysis, it states that, the proponents and the author Wanna continue talking.

Always great Yeah.

To continue the the conversation. And, you know, for for that matter, I think this will be my last time in opposition to a sooner will hot bill. So I appreciate I appreciate that and look forward to the continued conversation.

We all have one. Right?

Thank you.

Is there anyone anyone else here in opposition to SB 1238? K. Any questions or comments? Senator Zabir.

I'd like to move the bill at your right time, so I'll do that, I guess, later. I think this is a great bill. Obviously, I lived in a very large condo complex at one point earlier on, and I sort of felt like dealing with the management company was like dealing with a really bad landlord. And so these are sort of middle income homeowners, and it was the management company. Right?

There's basically all of us who were the owners of property and actually had the responsibility. You know, none of us could really change the management company. There were too many you know, there's just this inertia that was there that, you know, took place because of the management company that was in place, and it took, like, a lot of, you know, a lot of organizing in order to change that, and most people don't have time to do that in their lives.

So I actually think, having these additional protections for homeowners is an important thing. We're we're basically we were protecting those middle income folks that are just coming into homeownership and and, you know, we need to look out to the for those folks too.

So I really think it's a great bill and we'll be supporting it.

Thank you. Alright.

Thank you. Senator, yeah, thank you for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

Yeah. I I really do appreciate all of the work that everyone's put in to help make this bill better. I will just say that our goal has always been to kind of help people, the most vulnerable people, whether they're, you know, first time home buyer or renter or tenant, and people that really struggle navigating the system. So a lot of the work that we do is transparency and just an opportunity to have a level playing field. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We'll take that on when we can. Thank you. Senator Gonzalez, SB 423. Senator Gonzalez, SB 423.

Hello. Back at it again.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you so much. Alright. Good morning, Mister Chair, members. I'm presenting SB 423, which will require local agencies to release audio recordings and other records related to calls for emergency services from private detention facilities. In the past two years, the population of private detention facilities in California has surged, and conditions at private private detention facilities are abysmal, and they're only getting worse.

Reports of expired food, dirty water, medical neglect, and sexual violence all underscore the need for greater transparency. And between 09/20/2025 and March 2026, there were six deaths and at two facilities, and ICE has lacked, of course, the appropriate transparency. This year, a CALmatters investigation found that there were 159 calls for service from the Otay Mesa facility in San Diego County. Twenty one twenty one of those calls were regarding incidents that fell under the scope of the Prison Rape Elimination Act and seven alleged rapes.

When the reporters attempted to obtain additional records about reported incidents through the public records act, the county sheriff's department denied their request.

The California pupper public records act provides that nine one one calls and records may be subject to disclosure, but grants broad discretion to local agencies for their release. SB 423 would make disclosure mandatory rather than discretionary for calls from private detention facilities, unless it would substantially interfere with an active investigation being conducted by the agency receiving the request. The bill is common sense, provides more transparency, and greater access to these records that journalists, lawmakers, and the public need to know.

With me to testify in support is Lisa Knox with the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice and Jackie Gonzales from Immigrant Defense Advocates. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Lisa Knox, and I'm here on behalf of the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice in strong support of SB 423. CCIJ works alongside people detained in immigration detention facilities, including individuals organizing to improve conditions, protect basic dignity, and ensure meaningful access to legal support. Through that work, we've heard disturbing reports about medical emergencies, unsafe conditions, and potential violations of California law inside private detention facilities.

Too often, the only outside record of these incidents comes from 911 calls or emergency responses. Because these facilities are privately operated, the public journalist and desperate families are left completely in the dark, forced to rely on the facility's own version of events when someone is harmed. This lack of transparency has real consequences. When someone is harmed or suffers a medical emergency in detention, impacted families are often left desperate for answers.

They turn to advocates or journalists to understand what happened, to share their stories, and to seek accountability.

And at that moment, access to documentation is critical. SB 423 provides a common sense transparency measure by ensuring access to 911 and calls for service records connected to private detention facilities. These records are essential for identifying patterns, protecting to obtain people, and holding private operators accountable when they fail to meet basic legal and humanitarian standards. California should not allow private detention facilities to operate in the shadows while people inside are at risk.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote on SB 423.

Thank you.

I'm just here for technical assistance and hoping to have some more co authors join us.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of SB 423?

Good morning. Jenny Leroux with the First Amendment Coalition, proud cosponsor and in support. I'm reading some support from CCNMA, Latino journalists of California, the Society of Professional Journalists National Organization, the Society of Professional Journalists of Northern California, the Society of Professional Journalists of San Diego Pro Chapter, Freedom of the Press Foundation, the Association of Alternative News Media Publishers, the Los Angeles Press Club, SBJ Los Angeles Greater Los Angeles chapter, Orange County Press Club, California News Publishers Association, and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists Bay Area.

And one more, Asian American Journalists Association of Los Angeles. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Danny Kando Kiser on behalf of the ACLU in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Chair and members. Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Carol Moon Goldberg on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California in support. Thank you. I'm

sorry. Kawaso with the California Community Foundation in support.

Thank you.

Lynn Rivas, private citizen in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 423? Right. Committee. Any questions or comments?

Thank you, Senator, for bringing forward this bill. I would like to be added as a coauthor, and I would like to close.

Thank you. I just wanna express my additional ask for additional coauthors

who I would like to.

But the on behalf of miss Gonzales and miss Knox, I I respect ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Alright. We'll get to that. Let me get our quorum. Chair Umberg has two items with us, SB 208 and s p 574.

Thank you, Mister Chair. It's good to be back. Know what we're gonna do. If it's okay with the Chair, do SB28 first.

Alright. I wanna thank you, Chair Kalra and Christian Wright, for their work on this bill. We will be accepting the committee amendments. CARE Court is a shift in paradigm, which was originated by the governor, but I was proud along with Senator Egmond to begin the process of creating and operating CARE Courts. They've been in business now in the Pilot Counties for nearly three years.

Sure.

The health and human services secretary, Mister Mark Galli, was instrumental in its original creation. CARE Court provides customized whatever it takes community based behavioral health services for our most vulnerable Californians experiencing bipolar disorder with psychotic features or schizophrenia. CARE Court uses the civil court system as opposed to criminal court system to move CARE Court participants to the front line for services and holds counties accountable for providing these services.

It allows specified individuals to petition the court to engage these CARE participants in a broad range of treatment services, and it also provides both CARE Court agreements as well as CARE Court plans. That's what this bill does.

This bill improves the process. Each year, we've carried a cleanup bill to continue to improve the CARE Court process. Among the features of this bill is that it moves folks from if if agreements cannot be fashioned to a CARE Court plan. It also increases the structure that supports a CARE Court participant so that, CARE Court participants can be involved in a continuum of care. So for example, gathering as much information as is possible to be able to effectively evaluate, potential CARE Court participant.

And if, unfortunately, on the circumstances, it it doesn't, seem to be working so that we can transition that person to other forms of support. And with me here to testify is doctor Aaron Meyer who's been an adviser and a operator here in this space for several years. And with that, I would ask for an aye vote and turn it over to doctor Meyer.

Thank you. Morning, Chair Kalra. Members of the Committee, Aaron Meyer, associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, speaking on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, proud supporter of Senate bill 28. This CARE Act cleanup legislation advances the goal of connecting individuals with the most severe mental illness to stabilizing treatment and services. The creation of a statewide CARE on bus person is an important step forward.

For too long, families and first responders had limited avenues to raise concerns when individuals with severe mental illness fall through the cracks of our behavioral health system. The ombudsperson creates a mechanism for accountability, transparency, and continuous improvement. We appreciate the committee amendments clarifying that respondents may also raise concerns with the ombudsperson. Effective oversight depends on hearing from everyone who experiences the CARE process. The need for this oversight is already apparent.

In Sacramento County, only seventeen percent of petitions resulted in a CARE agreement or CARE plan. In San Diego County, 77 petitions were dismissed because the individual was unable or unwilling to engage in treatment. The ombudsperson may also examine reports that some individuals are being dismissed before meaningful county engagement because they appear to require a higher level of care. These are exactly the kinds of systemic issues independent oversight should identify and help address before individuals experience further deterioration, hospitalization, incarceration, homelessness, or death.

CARE Court works best when it serves as a bridge to treatment, not a dead end.

People who need more support should receive more support, not simply be dismissed. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB28?

Hi. Elizabeth Kaino Hopper, CARE petitioner who experienced all the gaps that this would help. Thank you. In support.

Thank you.

Allison Monroe, Alameda County families advocating for the seriously mentally ill. I support SB28.

Thank you.

Diana Burdick, a mother and a 52 year old who's still homeless in CARE Court, the way it's written, has they've not been able to help him.

Thank you.

I support 28.

Thank you.

Good morning, Kendra Begley, on behalf of the City of Bakersfield in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Doctor Suzanne Fiddler. I'm a physician attorney and original CARE petitioner.

Thank you. Charles Contrebecky, Internist Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorney Association in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB28?

Thank you. I'm Doctor Lynn Rivas. I'm a person with bipolar one, and my diagnosis falls under the CARE Court umbrella. I'm here as the executive director of the California Association of Mental Health Peer Run Organizations. The proposed CARE Court legislation undermines fundamental patient rights, compromises medical privacy, and creates unnecessary legal uncertainty for vulnerable individuals.

It allows the courts to mandate CARE plans simply because they are a more effective alternative than dismissal. Furthermore, provisions that permit counties to disclose sensitive care records and protected health information to providers under the vague guise of necessary to assist with ongoing treatment effectively dismantle standard HIPAA privacy protections. Granting petitioners access to private care evaluations exposes personal medical histories to outside parties, inviting potential bias and misuse.

Doubling the timeline for admitting clinical evidence from sixty to a hundred and twenty days forces individuals to remain in limbo for four months without resolution, stretching out an already stressful process rather than delivering the immediate voluntary community support they need. The implementation of CARE Court misallocate public funds toward a complex legal system rather than accessible health care services.

By prioritizing judicial oversight over voluntary treatment, this framework ignores evidence based models recommended by this substance abuse and mental health services administration. These federal standards emphasize peer support, voluntary, and clinically validated therapies over coercive court mandates. For instance, cognitive remediation training, CRT, actively restores cognitive capacity and individuals experiencing psychosis, equipping them with the independent skills necessary to manage their lives, secure employment, and maintain stable housing without legal intervention.

Finally, while we do not support CARE Court, using the standards of proponents, we can look at existing examples of success. Can

you finish here?

Thank you. San Diego County's CARE Act program has surpassed over 200 voluntary CARE agreements, accounting for 20% of all agreements in California.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Michelle Cabrera on behalf of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California in respectful opposition. The CARE Act was designed as an intensive intervention with court oversight upstream of LPS conservatorship. Our County Behavioral Health Care Act teams, in their wisdom, also saw it as an opportunity to more safely step individuals down with additional supports from an LPS conservatorship.

SB28, as currently drafted, undermines that current existing successful practice by requiring us to wait until the person is deemed by a clinician no longer gravely disabled.

In practice, this will trigger the courts to require the individual to be immediately released from their LPS conservatorship before we're able to put in place the CARE Act safety net. This risks, the successful transition of this individual as a step down out of LPS into CARE and runs counter to our current efforts to use CARE as that intermediary support.

CBHDA has additional concerns with the expanded CARE criteria that will, slow down processes or apply criteria that are unrelated to the severity of an individual, such as the ability to file a petition on an individual who has had two fifty one fifties in the last one hundred and twenty days. We are aware of very many cases where on a single bad day, an individual may very easily cross that threshold regardless of how severe their condition is.

It is for these reasons that we remain opposed to this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 28?

Samuel Jain on behalf of Disability Rights California and Mental Health America of California in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Lex Salome on behalf of Mental Health America of California and Project Return peer support network in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chair members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the urban counties of California as well as the Rural County representatives of California. Respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Thank you,

Mister Chair. Brenda McCarthy with the California State Association of Counties in opposition.

Thank you. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan.

I just wanna first thank you for your work with the peers. As someone who's worked in the behavioral health continuum for a long time, the peers are such a critical, critical piece of our continuum, and, your leadership is so important. So I just wanted to start by thanking you for that. But I also wanna thank the author. I had the privilege of going to Contra Costa County and seeing our care court in action, and it was remarkable.

And I know not all counties are created equal, and this is being rolled out differently across the state. But Contra Costa, I think, is one of the success stories from what I hear across the board. And watching people who have been in the doom loop of the criminal justice system, and that's a generous term for what is happening right now for people with behavioral health concerns, getting support in an environment.

And in Contra Costa, I'll say this on the record, they have moved Care Court out of the courthouse. It is in a conference room.

It doesn't look like a courtroom. The judge doesn't wear a robe. It feels very different from what you and I have experienced in a courtroom. And people are wanting to they're graduating, and they're asking to stay in the program because for the first time, they're thriving. And they know that the support that they've gotten through Care Court is why they're thriving.

And that for people who have touched our system in ways that are so wrong for so long, I think is such an amazing thing. And so I just wanted to thank you for what I think in many places is a success story. We need to make sure that other counties are learning from our success stories, and they're doing what works and correcting those.

But I think your continued effort to get more people access in counties like mine, I think, will help more people be successful, get housed. I mean, housing is finally Harabedian.

And I think that that is really gonna lead to, hopefully, better outcomes for people who deserve our care. So I wanna thank you, and I'm happy to support it. And when the time is right and we actually get a quorum, I'll move the bill.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Yeah. Thank thank you, Senator, for your continued work on this. And, look, you know, as someone as as folks know, I worked in the county for eleven years prior to elected office.

Regardless of whether county, you know, the counties are supportive or not, once they're in the once they're in the courtroom, they're gonna do whatever they can to make it successful. Right? That like any other government agency, we they get mandates or they get rules sent down from Sacramento. They're at the end of the day, they're gonna try their best to to implement them for the best interest of those individuals before them.

So it's not surprising when I hear success stories and I think there's probably hopefully gonna be many, many more success stories.

It's not a question of of desire either from the author or from folks from the county that have concerns about implementation. I think we all want the same thing. And, you know, I I I I think that to some extent, you know, some of the concerns I've raised over Care Corp from the beginning having to do with the voluntary aspect voluntary aspect of it or versus course of nature nature of it.

Just having worked for so many years with this particular population, it's it's getting to an outcome that we want isn't always going to happen no matter how much we try and no matter how many how much how many more plans you put together or what have you. I don't know how many courts are actually gonna even follow-up with with alternative plans if an individual is just simply not interested in participating for whatever reason.

So I commend the author for continuing to find every avenue possible to get help to folks that are there. I I I thank you for accepting the amendments and for some some of the concerns that were raised are also noted in the analysis.

We just ask you to continue to work with concerns in the county that again are the ones that are on the ground that are seeing this program through the to the best of their ability, particularly when it comes to the the I think as the issue raised regarding the step down and and any gaps that might occur there that gets the individuals out from the auspices of the county where they where they now will you know, but might there might be a gap where we can't really get them back under care.

And so, you know, I I I know that I'm I'm, you know, typically been in the minority when it comes to care court, not because and I've said it time and again, not because I don't wanna see it succeed. Just upon just based upon my experience.

I think that, you know, the the counties have and the folks on the ground and and and their concerns are were oftentimes well founded. And and hopefully, you know, the continued work on this year after year will continue to fine tune it, but I I would just continue to ask to to continue to work with the folks on the ground with the counties. They're the ones that are not only have put the resources up, but care deeply about these same individuals as well.

Would you like to close?

Well, thank you, Mister Chair. And and I concur with with your comments is that it is an iterative process. And and each year, we brought forth a bill to further improve the process. To the extent that there are gaps, that's exactly what we don't wanna have. We we wanna make sure that individuals who have schizophrenia or bipolar disorder with psychotic features, When when they engage in the system, that there is a continuum of care and support.

There are continuing challenges. We built this system with the ability to, for example, have courts issue sanctions. So far as I know, there's not been a single sanction issued in the last three years. So either that means that everybody's complying at the 100% level or it means that for whatever reasons, we're we're not sort of pushing the envelope to provide the housing, provide the behavioral health professionals, provide the other things that are that are critically important.

But what this bill does is it flies in the face of of conventional wisdom as those with schizophrenia cannot get better.

Those with schizophrenia cannot become productive citizens. And the proof is that that through this process, and there are other processes as well, that they can become productive citizens. And last, I just wanna thank doctor Meyer for his continuing engagement in this. This has been a a challenging a challenging process, and I expect it will continue to be challenging. But I also expect that as we learn, we will continue to improve without an urgent eye vote.

Thank you. And we'll get to that as soon as we can. And Thank you. It's one more bill, Senator SB 574.

Thank you. Yes. SB 574. I wanna thank Mister Leitke again for all his help and support. What SB 574 does is it deals with the issue of artificial intelligence and the courts and artificial intelligence and the practice of law.

AI is permeating everything we do on a day to day basis. And so what we wanna do is we wanna, we wanna become transparent as to how AI is implemented in the courts, require lawyers and judges to basically disclose when AI AI is being used. It's a helpful tool, but it's not infallible. And so because of that, we need to have a human who's responsible for whatever product is produced. This bill does that.

It also, it requires that in the arbitration process that there be a human, that you can't use AI to make ultimate decisions with respect to arbitration. And it creates a process for the state bar to investigate complaints against an an ADR firmer participant. So and thank you very much for being here.

Good morning, Chair members.

Sorry.

Laura Speed on behalf of State Bar of California. We don't officially have a position on Senate Bill 5784, but we'll be taking it to our board of trustees in July. The State Bar requested the amendments to business and professions code section six one seven three to allow it or a professional organization that it approves to effectively address complaints that a certified alternative dispute resolution firm provider or practitioner failed to comply with applicable ethical standards or conduct. The proposed language does two things.

Current section six one seven three indicates that a certified firm provider or practitioner could possibly address complaints itself, creating a conflict of interest that would undermine the public protection purposes of the statute.

The ADR working group helping the state bar implement the program is tentatively recommending that the complaints be investigated and resolved by the state bar or an organization approved by the bar, and this proposed change would codify that requirement. Second, mediation confidentiality established in the evidence code section one one five is sequential, could potentially prevent the state bar from obtaining information necessary to resolve a complaint that a certified firm provider practitioner violated ethical standards, which again undermines the public protection purposes.

The amendment proposed by the state bar would establish a limited exception to mediation mediation confidentiality to allow members of the public to report ethical violations by a certified firm provider or practitioner and allow the state bar or an approved professional organization to obtain information necessary to investigate and resolve such complaints. The proposed amendment would also establish confidentiality of the complaint procedures so that the mediation communications would not be disclosed outside of the complaint procedure.

We believe this is necessary to ensure the appropriate review of complaints against alternative dispute resolution providers certified by the state bar.

Without the language that allows the bar to obtain mediation communications for this limited purposes, our hands could be tied. If any person asserted a mediation confidentiality as a basis to withhold information relevant to the complaint, the state bar would not be able to meaningfully review complaints against mediators, creating an imbalance on how arbitrators and mediators would be treated in complaint investigations. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 574?

Good morning. Danny Kando Keiser on behalf of Oakland privacy in support.

Thank you. Good morning, Mister chairman, members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Habitat for Humanity and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 574?

Morning, Mister chairman and members. Nick Brokaw here on behalf of the California Dispute Resolution Council, representing states, arbitrators, and mediators. We do not have an official position on this bill. Just wanted to state we're reviewing the most recent set of amendments, especially with respect to, the language around mediation confidentiality and look forward to working with the author and his staff. They always have an open door policy to work through that language.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. Alright. Any questions or comments from the members? Well, Chair Umberg, I think unless unless something else happens, you know, and we get some random bills, this is your last bill before us.

And so I just wanna thank you so much for your partnership as Chair of the Judiciary Committee and more importantly for your many, many years of dedicated work to the to the people of the state of California.

Well, thank you, Mister Chair. I know you're trying to make me cry. The my original office thirty six years ago was right across the hall, and I sat where you sit right now for many, many years. My service in legislature began in 1990. I've had some breaks in service.

I've been unelected a few times, But but it has been a lifelong dream, and this is the culmination of, actually, of a lifelong dream to participate in the policy making process, particularly in this space. And I've enjoyed the partnership I've had with you. So thank you all, and I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Mister Sharon. And we're not gonna give that to you right now. So so I have to wait for a quorum as you know how that goes. Thank you.

But thank you, Mister Sharon. Alright. Senator Weber Pearson, thank you for your patience. I know you've been popping in and out, waiting for a chance to present, so I appreciate that. SB 898.

Whenever you're ready.

Alright. Well, good morning, Chair and Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB898 today, which requires manufacturers to disclose the minimum amount of time they will support connected consumer products and to provide notice when a product is approaching and reaches its end of life. I thank the committee for their staff and working with our office on this bill. Millions of consumer products today are enhanced through the Internet connectivity.

We buy these smart products to enjoy the benefits they promise, and we expect continued software support, security updates, and full access to smart features, which we love about the product. Yet most consumers have no idea that support could end at all, let alone win. If necessary support ends, connected products can quickly become vulnerable to cybersecurity and privacy risk or risk significant loss in key functionality. This bill seeks to create reasonable and robust protections to address this transparency gap.

It also requires that consumers be notified when the manufacturer will absolutely no longer update and support the product on its own or, quote, end of life and how they can continue to use the product safely.

Now a product reaching its end of life as defined does not automatically mean that it will no longer work. For example, a refrigerator can continue to safely store food for many years after its end of life. You may not be able to check its temperature on its on your phone, or you may need to sign out of apps on your fridge to make sure login information cannot be compromised. I also wanna be clear about what this bill expects from manufacturers.

There is no need for manufacturers to be future tellers here.

They spend years building out teams, developing concepts, and investing in the products. And, therefore, at a minimum, they should have short term and long term plans that include what ongoing support looks like well before the product is released. And lastly, I'm gonna focus on how SB898 will be enforced. For virtually every law here in California, the unfair competition law or UCL can be used to enforce violations of that law.

It is a long standing law and has been used to enforce hundreds, if not thousands, of consumer protection policies.

It is not the flashiest of enforcement, but it is the cornerstone of consumer protection law. The UCL allows the attorney general, district attorney, public attorneys, and affected individuals to seek different forms of relief when unfair competition occurs, including unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices. We appreciate the ongoing discussions on enforcement and look forward to using this committee to dive deeper into this issue as any change or limitations on the UCL in this policy could present real concerns.