Assembly Judiciary Committee

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 primary witnesses will have approximately two minutes to testify in support of or 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 want to 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 talking or loud noises from the audience. As mentioned, public comment may be provided only at the designated time and must be limited to your name, organization, and support for opposition of a bill before the committee. I know it's 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 on 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 violations of these rules may subject you to remove from the hearing or other enforcement processes. We do have some members on the way. I'd like to wait for at least one other member to be here. And I believe there's someone here momentarily, and then we'll begin.

in file order. The only exception to file order is the chair of judiciary, Umberg. He gives me the deference when I show up to his committee. So I share that same deference with him when he shows up in this committee, although he is filed too on the order anyway. So, um, Senator Blakesby, if you want to take a seat to make sure you have that seat. 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 in route so you can get settled in at least for your item 1 SP 16

All right, we'll go ahead and begin with item one, SB 16, Senator Blakespear, and you have two items, SB 16 and SB 561, so you can begin whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Chair Calra, 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 5150 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 5150 designation. Others authorized 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 5150 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 5150 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 aye vote Thank you Is there anyone else here in support of SB 16

Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 16?

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 16? All right, bringing back the committee, any questions or comments?

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 disagree with that.

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 1991 realignment otherwise known as the Bronze and 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 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 really comes from tax-based increments and is not tied to population or needs and certainly not earmarked for LPS.

Well, thank you, Senator, for bringing it forward. I also am sensitive to the cost on counties. Whenever you go from permits to requires, it does add an additional burden. I do think that, as was mentioned, though, that counties do work with each other. So I think in terms of developing some of these procedures, they can share their work 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 will help offset some of the costs. But to the point of the law enforcement uses also counties, either Department of Corrections or sheriffs. So I think that 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 two, I see, you know, the interest of kind of creating that consistency is valuable. And, you know, I think we'll have to be sensitive to the counties when they come to us and say, hey, we need more resources. Would you like to close?

We're continuing to operate as a subcommittee, so we'll get to that when we can. Item five, SB 561.

Morning, Chair Caller. Members of the committee, Aaron Meyer, Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, speaking on behalf of the 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 timeframe has been reduced from more than 65 working days to approximately 25 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 30 days simply to learn whether a referral has been accepted. There have been cases in which An individual's condition, as Senator Blakespeare 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 aye vote.

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.

Well, I want to thank you, Senator, for working with us, working with the committee, I know, and for opposition working with us as well to ensure we got to a place of agreement. And I think the intentions of this legislation are absolutely noble, having folks waiting in limbo, not having any idea what's going on, but removing some of the little more constrictive timelines you had in the original attacks. I think there's a good balance where it will really open up communication, which is really what I think this bill aims to do, which I think is a lot of a goal.

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. Just kidding. All right. Item three, SB 381. All right.

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 exists 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 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 overseas have been released over several decades with no negative consequences. Please right this historical wrong and vote yes on SB 381. 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 name organization if there is any that you're affiliated with and your position on the bill.

Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 381? We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments? Okay. Senator Dixon.

this forward. I know that, and by the way, just, I know there's a lot of public interest on this bill. I'd mentioned earlier, I'm 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. Okay. And thank you to everyone for being so respectful of the rules and waving your hands in support. All right. Item 8, SB 880. Up next, Senator.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Jennifer Speck 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 home ownership 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 to 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 bill-to-rent developments, rent-to-own programs, large institution-to-institution transfers, elderly communities, and renovate to rent conversions of existing single homes provided the investor makes renovations equal to at least 15 of the property value Under U 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 clear 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 home ownership 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

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Jim Lights 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 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. 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 this bill does create some inconsistencies potentially with the federal bill, and for

Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 880?

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

Coriana Miller, the California Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition.

Skylar Wanacott on behalf of the California Business Properties Association and the California Business Roundtable, in respectful opposition.

Chair and members, Chris Scrogg with Cap Labs. He apologies for our late submission of our letter, but here on behalf of the American Investment Council in opposition.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the Senate 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 bill to rent and the MLS. I 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 we'd love to hear from the author as to what she thinks about it.

So first and foremost, this bill is about noticing. I just kind of 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 want to highlight that when you're referencing the MLS, our specific bill, we state our other equivalent system was in the bill. It is not mandated to be in MLS explicitly. It's an option. Got it.

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 want to understand your question.

Thank you. 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 So Fannie and Freddie the federal lenders that buy loans What we 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. I also want to 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.

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's when your requirement would still apply here. So that seems like that's not true.

Yeah, I'm saying we're not exempt from SB 880. May I also answer the member?

So let me, I just want to 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?

What did you say? Say it again then.

May I add one clarification? Thank you for the question, Assemblymember. 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 going to 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.

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.

Absolutely. And yeah okay That was not intended within the draft So an unintended consequence There an unintended consequence Correct At least one issue that opposition has that you committed to work that you committed to work on

And you agree that that's a difference. 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 violated federal law.

It doesn't stop them. And 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. They can take an offer from anyone they want. It's an even playing field. Okay.

They don't have to take it. Right.

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.

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.

And we have accepted it, yes.

Well, no, they haven't yet.

Okay, right. So it's not under author amendments, right? Because that's what you're accepting,

So I think that's what I understood was not being accepted today. So the question is

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

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

So I had many of the same issues that have been raised by Assemblymember Barkay and Herbidian, and in particular, the issues related to Bill Tourette. So are you committed to continue working on getting amendments that would exempt the bill to rent?

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?

That's a federal one.

Do you want me to answer the question?

You know, I'm nervous. 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 what's going to 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 to give people notice but a lot of these things seem onerous for sort of mom and pop landlord and I think the only way that get those people out is by the sort of a cross-reference to a definition in the federal bill that doesn't exist yet.

I think to your point, obviously we represent small mama 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 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.

I mean, I'm not sure where I am on this bill today. I mean, but the issues that I have are really clarifying issues with respect to bundle 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.

So I mean, I appreciate the mirroring point. I will say that it 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 want to 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.

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

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing it forward.

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?

Thank you. And then, finally, item 20, SB 1238.

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 Superior Court to enforce the law in Davis-Stirling, 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 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.

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Jennifer Speck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. More than one-third of Californians live in HOAs. Because most of you know housing is built within an HOA the governance of these associations is a central part of California housing system Yet our laws have not kept pace with the risks homeowners face In California there 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 homeowners cannot. As a result, even serious misconduct goes unchallenged most often. Recent examples include Lorden Management, which collapsed under a $14 million 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 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. SB 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?

Mr. 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 agent agreement under a contractual relationship between the board and the manager that should not and under case law 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 see as a result of this is just increased litigation against the board. Management companies will more than likely just ask the boards to indemnify in any of these actions that will happen. And so we're going to 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 and 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 remain opposed Seeing the analysis it states that the proponents and the author want to continue talking Always great to continue the conversation And for that matter, I think this will be my last time in opposition to a Senator Wahab bill. So I appreciate that and look forward to the continued conversation. Thank you.

Assemblymember Zabur? I'd like to move the bill at the 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? It was 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 was 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 basically protecting those middle-income folks that are just coming into homeownership, and we need to look out for those folks, too. So I really think it's a great bill, and we'll be supporting it. Thank you.

Would you like to close? Yeah. 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 a first-time homebuyer 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.

Senator Gonzalez, SB 423. Senator Gonzalez, SB 423.

Whenever you're ready.

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, journalists, 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 detained 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.

Good morning. Jenny Leroux with the First Amendment Coalition. Proud co-sponsor and in support.

Good morning, Danny Kando-Kaiser on behalf of the ACLU in support.

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

Good morning Carol Moon Goldberg on behalf of the League of Women Voters of California in support Thank you Cal is so with the California Community Foundation in support Thank you Lynn Revers, private citizen in support.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing forward this bill. I would like to be at it as a co-author, and I would like to close.

But on behalf of Ms. Gonzalez and Ms. Knox, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to be back. I know what we're going to do. If it's okay with the chair, do SB 28 first?

I want to 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 Eggman, to begin the process of creating and operating Care Courts. They've been in business now in the eight pilot counties for nearly three years. the Health and Human Services Secretary Mr. Mark Galley 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 the 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 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 participants. And if, unfortunately, under the circumstances, 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 Dr. Aaron Meyer, who's been an advisor 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 Dr. Meyer.

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 ombudsperson 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 17% 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.

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

Allison Monroe, Alameda County Families, advocating for the seriously mentally ill. I support SB 28.

Diana Burdick, a mother of a 52-year-old who's still homeless and care court the way it's written, they've not been able to help him. Thank you.

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

Good morning, Dr. Suzanne Fidler. I'm a physician, attorney, and original care petitioner.

Charles Contrabecki, intern, Stode Advocacy, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

I'm Dr. Lynn Rivas. I'm a person with bipolar I, 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 60 to 120 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 misallocates 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 the 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 in 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.

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

Good morning, Chair and 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. SB 28, 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 5150s in the last 120 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.

Samuel Jien on behalf of Disability Rights California and Mental Health America of California in opposition. Good morning, Lexa Lumia on behalf of Mental Health America of California and Project Return Peer Support Network in opposition.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members, Jean Hearst here today on behalf of the urban counties of California as well as the rural county representatives of California. Respectfully opposed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brenda McCarthy with the California State Association of Counties in opposition.

Assemblymember Bauakian. Jan? I just want to 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 want to 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've 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 want 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 happening. And I think that that is really going to lead to hopefully better outcomes for people who deserve our care. So I want to 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, Senator, for your continued work on this. And look, you know, as someone, as folks know, I worked in the county for 11 years prior to elected office. Regardless of whether county, you know, the counties are supportive or not, once they're in the courtroom, they're going to do whatever they can to make it successful. Like any other government agency, they get mandates or they get rules sent down from Sacramento. At the end of the day, they're going to try their best 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 going to be many, many more success stories. It's not a question 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 think that to some extent, you know, some of the concerns I've raised over the care court from the beginning, having to do with the voluntary aspect of it versus coercive nature of it, just having worked for so many years with this particular population, 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 more plans you put together or what have you I don know how many courts are actually going to even follow up 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. I thank you for accepting the amendments, and 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 to the best of their ability, particularly when it comes to the, I think, as the issue raised regarding the step down and any gaps that might occur there that gets the individuals out from the auspices of the county where they now will, you know, there might be a gap where we can't really get them back under care. And so, you know, I know that I'm 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 want to see it succeed. Just based upon my experience, I think that, you know, the counties have, and the folks on the ground and their concerns are oftentimes well-founded. And hopefully, you know, the continued work on this year after year will continue to fine tune it. But I would just continue to ask to continue to work with the folks on the ground, with the counties, the ones that are not only have to put the resources up, but care deeply about these same individuals as well.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I concur with your comments, is that it is an iterative process. And each year we've brought forth a bill to further improve the process. To the extent that there are gaps, that's exactly what we don't want to have. We want to make sure that individuals who have schizophrenia or bipolar disorder with psychotic features, 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 percent level or it means that for whatever reasons, 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 conventional wisdom that those with schizophrenia cannot get better. Those with schizophrenia cannot become productive citizens. And the proof is that through this process, and there are other processes as well, that they can become productive citizens. And last, I just want to thank Dr. Meyer for his continuing engagement in this. This has been 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. With that, I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Yes, SB 574. I want to thank Mr. Leitke again for all his help and support. What SB 574 does is it deals with the issue of artificial intelligence in 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 want to do is we want to become transparent as to how AI is implemented in the courts It requires lawyers and judges to basically disclose when AI is being used It a helpful tool but it not infallible And so because of that we need to have a human who responsible for whatever product is produced This bill does that. It also 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 ADR firm or participant. So, and thank you very much for being here. Good morning, Chair members. Sorry. Lori Speed on behalf of State Bar of California. We don't officially have a position on Senate Bill 574, 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 6173 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 6173 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 115 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 that State Bar would establish a limited exception to 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.

Good morning. Danny Kando-Kaiser on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Habitat for Humanity.

Morning, Mr. 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. I 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

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I know you're trying to make me cry. My original office 36 years ago was right across the hall. And I sat where you sit right now for many, many years. My service in the legislature began in 1990. I've had some breaks in service. I've been unelected a few times. But it has been a lifelong dream, and this is the culmination, actually, of a lifelong dream to participate in the policymaking 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.

All right. Well, good morning, chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 898 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 your phone, or you may need to sign out of apps on your fridge to make sure login information cannot be compromised. I also want to 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 want to focus on how SB 898 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 longstanding 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 is a longstanding law and has been used to enforce hundreds if not thousands of consumer protection policies. CL 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. Limiting enforcement to the AG means that consumers would have to petition all the way to Sacramento, bypassing all 58 district attorneys in hope that a violation of this bill would rise above challenges to federal policy, enforcing antitrust laws, seeking environmental justice, and the countless other laws that that is already tasked to the AG's department. Also, limiting enforcement to the AG also means that if he cannot take the case, then no one can take the case, creating an enforcement cliff. Limiting enforcement to the AG would significantly undermine this policy. And taking that approach would also be very concerning to the AG's office and is not something that they would support. Not only for the reasons I've already mentioned, but because of the significant cost associated with centralizing all possible legal efforts on the chief law enforcer of the state. I also want to clarify that private citizens cannot use the UCL to seek monetary damages or bring a claim if they are not personally impacted by those violations. They may only seek injunctive relief through court orders. Courts can order remedies to prevent unfair competition and restore victims, but not monetary damages. And more broadly, weakening the enforcement of this policy would send the wrong message for California consumer protection laws. We should follow strong established precedent than to stray to a weaker framework that can be used as an example or model to weaken future policies. This is why this bill, SB 898, strikes a thoughtful balance on relying on the UCL and clearly defining expectations for manufacturers. The UCL is the appropriate enforcement mechanism for this bill, and I'd like to quickly touch on the language required within the disclosure and notice requirements. These requirements are narrowly tailored to include specific information consumers need to help making informed decisions when they're purchasing an item. This is aligned with the government's broader interest in protecting consumers, avoiding negative economic repercussions, and discouraging misleading activities. For the end-of-life notices specifically, the bill requires that manufacturers include, one, actions that a consumer can take for continued safe use, and two, a list of features lost, security risk, reduced compatibility, or any other changes that could result as a result of the end-of-life. Importantly, it does not require manufacturers to actually use the term end-of-life when sending out the notices if they prefer to use an alternative language. With that, today I have Becca Kramer with the Consumer Reports and Jen Ekstrom with the Public Interest Research Group as my lead witnesses in support.

Becca Kramer on behalf of Consumer Reports in support. SB898 requires the makers of connected devices to tell consumers how long they plan to support these devices. Consumers are purchasing more devices that connect to the internet in the form of our smart TVs smart home products and even large appliances But over time manufacturers stop updating the software in those connected products which can affect their security and also their features. For example, a connected TV that loses updates may not support certain apps like the latest version of Netflix. Recently, the FBI announced that a Russian group had hacked end of life consumer and small business routers to conduct attacks on websites, spy on passwords, and gather sensitive data. Some devices may even stop working altogether. These end-of-life devices pose a problem to consumers as well as for our cybersecurity. This lack of awareness around a device's end-of-life is also a consumer protection issue with many consumers not understanding that some types of connected devices, when the security updates end, will lose many of the useful features of their products. And the Federal Trade Commission researched 184 connected products to discover that only 21 disclosed the device's software support duration or end date on the product webpage. A December 2024 Consumer Reports survey found that 43% of connected device owners said that the last time they purchased a connected device, they were not aware that it might lose software support at some point. That same survey found that 68% of Americans believe that manufacturers should be required to disclose how long they will support their software in their devices. And for those who own connected devices, that number jumped up to 72%. The requirements in SB898 provide information that consumers can use to purchase connected devices that last longer and that stay secure. For these and other reasons, we support. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Kalra and members of the committee. My name is Jen Engstrom, and I'm the State Director of CalPIRC, the California Public Interest Research Group. We're an advocate for consumers with thousands of members across the state and are in strong support of SB898. Internet-connected devices need regular software updates from manufacturers to remain secure and functional. But right now, there isn't a way for consumers to know how long they can expect to use their device when it stops working and stops being secure. This is important information that consumers ought to have. When manufacturers see support for their products and render them unusable, it generates tons of electronic waste. We estimate 130 million pounds of e-waste have been created by expired software and canceled cloud services from 2014 to 2025. For example, in 2024, Spotify stopped supporting their CarThing music player less than three years after launching it, leaving consumers with an unusable device. And there are countless examples of this behavior, which we've documented in our catalog, the electronic waste graveyard. Transparency and minimum support timelines could avert waste and encourage longer support. Manufacturing devices has an ecological cost. If American laptops and desktops lasted just one year longer, the amount of pollution eliminated from not manufacturing replacements would be the equivalent of taking 250,000 cars off the road for a year. There are 20 billion internet-connected devices right now and growing. We need to prevent these devices from becoming a tidal wave of e-waste, a security problem, or both. We need to educate consumers about these issues so they can protect themselves and incentivize manufacturers to extend support and envision longer lifespans. This bill helps us to do both of those things. I strongly urge your aye vote. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 898? Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 898? Yeah just shift down one seat Thank you Good morning, Mr. Chair. Chris McKaley here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California and a respectful opposed unless amended. First, I want to state for the record, we appreciate Senator Dr. Weber Pearson, her staff, and your committee counsel for extensive discussions, not just with CJEC, but also other stakeholders. I heard Dr. Weber Pearson state clearly her position on the UCL. Two main issues I wanted to raise with you. The first is concern about enforcement and would like to see it limited. The Attorney General does have a Consumer Protection Division. It's easy for consumers to file claims or reports of alleged fraud or illegal activity, certainly by businesses. There's an online form, a mail-in, etc. We think that a statewide enforcement by the Attorney General would afford statewide consistency and not a litany of lawsuits if the perceived concerns are about all the potential work that the Attorney General, other public prosecutors might have under the UCL, would bolster, frankly, our position that we fear quite a bit of lawsuits under this law. The second thing is we've talked a lot about things like ordinary use in the recent definition there, which we believe remains overly broad. And also, we would support the committee's analysis suggestion about connected consumer products or those where the primary purpose relies on Internet connectivity. Again, we appreciate all the work of the author's office and your committee counsel and look forward to continuing to work with everybody on coming to some resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jack Giannis with Slotik and Jensen and Associates here on behalf of Consumer Technology Association in respectful opposition to SB 898. For a bit of background, CTA is North America's largest technology association, representing over 1,200 members. More than 80% are small businesses and startups, and many are based in California or make products used by Californians every day. I want to again thank the author, her staff, and committee staff for the continued engagement on this bill. We appreciate it and the ongoing dialogue. I want to also make clear that CTA continues to evaluate the language that came into print last week after the Assignment Privacy Committee hearing. Given the focus of this committee, I'll just briefly mention that CTA does continue to have some outstanding policy concerns with the bill, including the six-month advanced notice requirement and the on-product labeling requirement. I'll agree with my colleague from CJAC. With respect to legal implications of this bill, we were glad to see the committee analysis highlight some concerns with liability. From the manufacturer's perspective, we note the bill already recognizes that third-party dependencies beyond a manufacturer's control are a legitimate constraint, but only for one obligation, the limit on reducing a disclosed support time frame. That same protection doesn't extend to the bill's other duties, like the six-month requirement and the end-of-life notice requirement, all of which carry UCL exposure, regardless of whether the failure was caused by a manufacturer or a third party outside its control. We think that same logic that's included in parts of the bill is worth considering on the enforcement side more broadly. So, again, appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 898? Good morning. Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in an opposed unless amended position. Thank you. Elizabeth Esquivel of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association also in opposition I look forward to reviewing some additional language after this committee Thank you Kurt Augustine at the Alliance for Automotive Innovation respectfully oppose unless amended and endorse the concepts raised by the committee analysis on page 7 the second paragraph Thank you. Thank you. Sean Topekin on behalf of the Ford Motor Company and oppose unless amended. Thank you. Megan Allred on behalf of General Motors, oppose unless amended. Thank you. Robert Boykin with TechNet, oppose unless amended. Thank you. Good morning. Sherry McHugh, representing the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Opposed, unless amended. Thank you. Thank you. Sabrina Gleitz with Axiom Advisors on behalf of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Charles Contrabecki, intern, Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association. Respectful opposition. Thank you. All right, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Hirabadian? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the senator for the bill. And I do think the only question I had was the analysis that was brought up on page seven about whether the author intended to capture things like automobiles, where their core functionality isn't Internet connectivity. and I'm curious. I mean, I do think that was the one point brought up that if a car has some sort of application or any other kind of larger product that isn't really a consumer product, has an application that is an internet connected function, are you worried about that? And is that a primary purpose of the bill? Yeah, thank you so much for that question. We'll continue to have conversations with opposition and try to figure out a sweet spot But the reality is, is that vehicles are one of the largest investments that a consumer can make. You know, I just purchased a new vehicle a couple of days ago, and it is loaded with all types of various technology. And, for example, in 2022, AT&T shut down its 3G network, which was anticipated for several years. Despite having ample time to prepare, workaround, automakers continued to install that same thing that had already, that cheaper 3G modem to support software critical features. And so when the support was ultimately suspended, desired and critical features either disappeared or were very difficult for those who had purchased cars, a very large, expensive purchase, to be able to utilize. And so some of them lost all of their connected services from voice search to SOS and emergency call features. I mean, so even though it's not traditionally connected, we have a lot of devices now in our vehicles that have these technologies that if they were no longer being supported could be a huge security risk. And it could also impede on your ability to do some of the features that you had taken into consideration when you made that very large purchase. So we'll continue to have those conversations, but the reality is that the cars today are loaded with so much technology that we need to continue to support for some of its core features, but also for its security. Yeah, I agree. I do think that the opposition on that point should be able to take care of what you just described. And so hopefully that they can come to the table and we can work something out and happy to move the bill when it's time. But thank you for clarifying that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. I agree with my colleague. And the reality is that we have a lot of people who are going to be able to do that. is we are in a different time and place. You know, you get a refrigerator now, if all the tech, but there are screens and there's, you know, Wi-Fi that's, you know, what you need to buy from the grocery store. That all goes away. Fridge still works. But there's no doubt it's being marketed with all those other features. Same thing with more and more with vehicles right now. Yes, the car will still work without those features, but those features are heavily marketed in order to encourage consumers to buy those products. And so I agree that there's probably some sweet spot, some balance that can be there, but ultimately you can't have it both ways. And we want that technology. We want those features. And so it's not something that the consumers aren't asking for, but there should be some understanding of, okay, well, we're getting this with the software. There should be some expectations for support, expectations for upgrades on the software. And if that's not going to be the case, what are the guidelines so that the consumer is aware of when they're making that large purchase. Frankly, it doesn't even matter what the size of purchases. But to your point, Senator, obviously vehicles are one of the biggest purchases you're going to make, and they're just getting more and more expensive with some really cool features, too. And so I think the timeliness is right spot on with this. I do believe, I do agree with your contention that We have to have broader authority for enforcement beyond the AGs or public prosecutors just because it's so pervasive, these products across the whole spectrum of consumer products now, that it's just not realistic. I mean, obviously, there's egregious examples, what have you. The AG always has that authority to do their investigative work and prosecutorial work. But I think that given the pervasiveness of these products and it's just going to get more and more and more, which will be good for quality of life consumers. But at the same time, when things happen, you want to make sure they have access to justice as well. Would you like to close? Yes. Well, thank you, Chair. I want to thank the committee and allowing for us to present the bill and have this discussion. You know, the significant amendments that we took in this committee from privacy helped curve liability. We narrowed the scope of the manufacturers captured. We addressed unforeseen circumstances outside the manufacturer's control. We replaced the fixed five-year minimum for the support time frame and added flexibility for technical feasibility. And we also clarified how notice must be provided and what it should include. We will continue to work with opposition so that we can try to find that sweet spot, but also recognizing that everything that we do, whether it's the car that we drive, the toothbrushes that we use now, are all integrated in this technology. And, you know, the more technology you have, the more an individual spends on that. And so we should, as a consumer, know how long we should expect for these devices to work and be supported for not only our convenience, but also for security reasons as well. And with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 898. Thank you. Thank you so much. When we get the opportunity to do so, we'll take it up. Thank you. All right. Okay. Calling on senators, head on over. We're ready for you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. We have Senator Padilla here with SB 876 Whenever you're ready, Senator. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members. I'm pleased to present SB876, which represents a broad measure designed from hard experience out of the 14 destructive fires that burned from January 7th through the 31st of last year. Out of this pain and suffering of thousands and the increased propensity for severe wildfires on a scale in nature we've never seen, frankly, in this state's history, One thing has become abundantly clear, and that decades-old insurance laws and practices that govern our claims process have not kept pace. A year later, wildfire survivors continue to report ongoing problems with accessing their insurance benefits with delays, denials, and miscommunications from insurance companies. At the top of the list of consumer complaints filed with the department since those terrible incidents. This bill takes lessons learned from these experiences to reform the insurance claims process by cutting red tape, improving payouts, and ending delays. It requires a creation of a disaster response plan, doubles penalties during declared emergency for violations of insurance, fair claims practices, requires policies to pay restitution to policyholders, mandates offers of extended replacement costs, and additional living expenses, among other provisions. As chair of the Senate Insurance Committee, I'm committed to balancing the need for affordability and availability to ensure that policies keep pace with the needs of Californians across the state and most particularly in vulnerable areas. That's why I've engaged with a broad-based group of stakeholders and have been sensitive to cost implications for Californians in trying to shoot for both a workable and equitable reform package. After numerous meetings and amendments that address several concerns, the insurers have gone neutral. As a comprehensive piece of legislation, this bill fills critical gaps associated with this experience, protects homeowners at their most vulnerable moment. Obviously joining me today are Josephine Figueroa with the Department of Insurance, I think Joel Lochner, United Policyholders, and Tony Signorelli for tech questions. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Conger on members of the committee. Josephine Figaro, Deputy Commissioner and Legislative Director for the Department of Insurance under the leadership of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. Insurance Commissioner Lara is the proud sponsor of SBA 76. On behalf of the Insurance Commissioner, I want to thank Senator Padilla for authoring this important measure which directly addresses the widespread under-insurance delays and inconsistent claims handling that have hampered or harmed welfare survivors and slowed community recovery. across California. California has experienced disaster on a scale and frequency we have never seen before. While fire seasons are longer, more destructive, and more expensive, and each year thousands of families are forced from their homes. Too many of them only learn after losing everything that their insurance coverage is nowhere near enough to rebuild. Concession costs have surged, building codes have evolved, and the gap between policy limits and actual rebuilding costs have grown wider and more painful. Last year's fires in Los Angeles and San Diego counties illustrate the magnitude of this problem. Fourteen major wildfires swept through the region, with the Eaton Fire in Altadena and the Palisades Fire in Pacific Palisades, causing the most severe destructions. More than chop dogs in homes were damaged or Over a year later, many survivors are still struggling to access the benefits they paid for, reporting delays, denials, and persistent miscommunications from insurers. These experiences make clear that our current laws, many written decades ago, are no longer adequate for the realities of today's climate-driven disasters. SB 876 directly confronts these failures and is designed to break the cycle and restore confidence in the system that families depend on at the worst moments of their lives. SB 876 strengthens consumer protections by requiring insurance to provide accurate placement cost estimates, offer meaningful extended coverage options, improve building code upgrade coverage, and ensure continuity in claims handling, while also mandating pre-disaster emergency response plans so insurers are prepared before the next wildfire. On behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 876? Charles Conjure Becky in Turnstone Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Watchdog in support. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 876? Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Saren Taylor, Personal Insurance Federation of California. Not in opposition. Just wanted to confirm, as the Senator said, we have withdrawn our opposition and are neutral and are grateful for the work with the Senator and the committee and the department and all the stakeholders. So thank you. Good morning. Sherry McHugh, representing the Pacific Association of Domestic Insurance Companies, also here to state our neutrality on the bill and thank the author for all of his hard work and the sponsor for working with us to address our concerns. And we're looking forward to continuing to work on a few additional tweaks, but we are happy to be neutral on the bill. Thank you. Thank you. All right, bring it to the committee. Any questions or comments? Senator, thank you. Thank you for working with the opposition. I want to thank our insurance commissioner as well for his dedication on this issue. Would you like to close? Appreciate the work and the collaboration and respectfully ask for an IVA. Thank you. All right, we'll get to that when we can. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Well done as always. We have file item 11, SB 947, Senator McNerney. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Whenever you're ready, sir. Well, good. Almost noon. Don't remind me. Don't remind me. Chair Chalera and distinguished members of the committee. Today I'm here to present SB 947, the No Robo Bosses Act of 2026. I am taking clarifying amendments. and basically what this bill is about is that we need to decide what algorithms decide what decisions algorithms can make about our lives, about our jobs, about our well-beings. Technology, including AI, has a significant and important and potentially positive role to play. And with this bill we are starting to establish real guardrails on how it can be used in the workplace Algorithms are being used to make firing and disciplined decisions Humans should be making these decisions. They should be made by people who can apply judgment, context, and compassion. SB 947 is a common sense standard requiring a human review when an automated decision-making system assists in a discipline, termination, or deactivation decision, and it bans using predictive analysis, behavior analysis. No one should be punished for something they haven't even done yet. Too many working families are living paycheck to paycheck. We cannot leave their livelihoods to systems that can be biased or make hallucinations. California workers deserve dignity and a real person using judgment and compassion making the final call about their job. To me here today to testify is Ivan Fernandez from the California Federation of Labor Unions and Shane Guzman from the Teamsters. Thank you. Ivan. Hello, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Yvonne Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor Unions, a proud co-sponsor of SB947. This year, the Labor Fed is sponsoring a number of bills to establish worker technology rights for the 21st century. The No Robot Bosses Act serves as an integral part of this package. Since last year, a 2025 Resume Builder report indicated that about 60% of managers use AI systems to make critical employment-related decisions, such as wage determinations, layoffs, and even firings. The report also indicated that of those employers that use AI to impact the livelihood of a worker, about 20% allowed the AI system to make the final determination outright. So today, employers are still capable and clearly eager to automate managerial decisions. Yet automated management poses significant harms to workers. Algorithmic management has and often results in endless speed and efficiency increases, and workers are likely to become fatigued, leading to injuries and immense stress in the workplace. And this is seen in Amazon warehouses where their unpaid time system is used to flag workers who happen to pass their allotted time even by a few minutes. As the system flags workers, reports have indicated that firing paperwork is automatically generated to terminate that worker. And no worker should have their livelihood stripped away because an algorithm is incapable of understanding the nuances of everyday human life, and no employer should just be rubber stamping an ADS output. These issues, unfortunately, also exist beyond Amazon warehouses. In the healthcare space, a platform known as CareRev has forced nurses to sign up for shifts through an app and has created an environment where nurses could swiftly be dropped from a shift merely hours before their start time. And this is the landscape that workers have to deal with all across the state. As a senator described, SB 947 does not ban the use of ADS tools, but instead creates necessary guardrails to ensure there is meaningful human oversight. And for these reasons, I respectfully urge I vote at the appropriate time. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Shane Gusman on behalf of the Teamsters California, a proud sponsor of the bill. Also on behalf of the Amalgamated Transit Union, the Machinists Union, Unite Care, the Utility Workers Union of America, and the Engineers and Scientists of California all in support of the bill. As we have discussed on multiple bills in this committee, there is a very swift growth of the utilization of AI management tools and workplaces across almost every industry. At the same time, the public and workers are becoming increasingly uneasy with the unfettered use of this technology and its potential negative impact. It is in that context that we believe it is paramount for the government to step in and set appropriate guardrails to protect the public In this instance requiring human oversight in the most important management decisions is a best practice that should be uniform across all industries The technology that we have seen is not perfect. There can be erroneous inferences, discriminatory inferences, and just plain mistakes. It lacks professional and human judgment necessary in some of the most critical management decisions. There is, of course, a place for technological innovation, and we don't oppose innovation, but there needs to be innovation that's positive for the workforce and for the employers together. Here with SB 947, we have a real opportunity to ensure a level of humanity in the most important decisions affecting workers. We urge your aye vote. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 947? Mr. Chair, members, Mike Monaghan on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades in support. Thank you. Hello, Danny Kandel-Kaiser here on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Green Lining Institute, and Oakland Privacy in support. Thank you. Sarah Brennan with the Weidemann Group on behalf of NextGen California in support. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates, representing the Orange County Employees Association in support. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members, Jeanne O'Malley with AFSCME California in strong support. Thank you. Good morning, Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support. Thank you. Good morning, Nathneep Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you. Good morning, Matt Lajay with the SEIU California in support. Thank you. Good morning. Violet Swidler expressing support on behalf of Tech Equity Action and the California Employment Lawyers Association. Thank you. Thank you. Is everyone here in opposition? SB 947? SB 947? Good morning. I am Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition to SB 947. While we appreciate that the author has taken amendments to the private right of action, provisions related to use of customer service reading and use of ADS compensation for decisions. We still have concerns with the bill, including first SB 947 defines worker to include independent contractors. I want to again, reemphasize that independent contractors are not employees. They are not a part of the employer's workforce in the way this bill assumes and applying ADS restrictions to a contractual arm's length business relationship creates confusion about who owes what duty to whom. It also rewrites the terms of private contracts, the legislature was never a party to, relationships parties freely entered into and freely negotiated. Second, the independent corroboration language creates real compliance problems for employers, specifically the restriction for performance management purposes. And third, the data access provisions are overly broad. We hope to have continued discussions to address these outstanding concerns and critical issues with SB 947. And for these and other reasons, respectfully urge your no vote. Thank you. Morning, Mr. Chair. Chris McKaylee here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California and respectful opposition. First, I want to say to the senator and the sponsors that we thank them for taking out the private right of action In addition to the comments by Ms Lynch that we share in with a special emphasis on the definition of worker I wanted to raise two other items that we have in earlier committees. You heard it in labor and employment, Mr. Chair, so sorry for the repetition. The first is concerning preemption in Section 1526.2. We think that this policy, if adopted in SB 947, should have statewide applicability and that we shouldn't have a patchwork of local ordinances layered on top of that. So we're hopeful that we can eliminate that language and ensure statewide preemption. The second is more of a technical nature. In 1526.1, now in C, it was in the prior subdivision D. It includes the term transacts business, which we have concern could lead to, if you will, forum shopping, even with the public prosecutor in this case. With the PRA hopefully eliminated, it's less problematic, but we would prefer not to have the transact business. And I would note that a similar provision in another related bill with a PRA struck that language. So otherwise, we respectfully oppose unless amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 947? Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Matt Easley on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California, as well as the San Diego Chapter in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the California Grocers Association in opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the urban counties of California, the California Special Districts Association, the rural county representatives of California, and finally the California State Association of Counties, all in respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning, committee chair and members. Yereni Magallon on behalf of the Business Software Alliance. We're in an opposed unless amended position. Thank you. Isabel Meegan on behalf of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Ryan Alana on behalf of the California Retailers Association in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Kendra Bagley on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Parks Districts in respectful opposition. Thank you. Elizabeth Esquivel, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council and Chamber of Progress in respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Sherry McHugh representing California's credit unions in opposition to the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jason Schmelzer on behalf of PRISM and respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Robert Boykin with TechNet and respectful opposition. Thank you. I'm bringing back to committee for any questions and comments. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. I don't think anyone feels that we shouldn't be using this technology. I think it has great benefits to both employers and employees. However, I think asking for some human oversight isn't too much to ask. Employers have been doing that for centuries. I think to say that now it would be overly burdensome, I think, is simply focusing on ways for them to squeeze out human interaction for their own benefit. and I think that we need to have some human oversight in these critical decisions that are being made with employees. Otherwise, I think that this technology has the opportunity to create A lot of efficiencies and has been, and that's a good thing. Would you like to close? Well, again, I thank the chair. I thank the reporters and I thank the opposition for your work on this. I think one of the biggest issues is whether we should include private contractors, independent contractors. And independent contractors are folks that are working day to day without knowing what their future looks like. and adding that level of uncertainty, I think, makes their lives a lot more uncertain and difficult. They're the ones that are the most vulnerable, really. So I can't really see removing that part of the bill. And preemption, I appreciate the comment on the preemption, and we'll look at that.

All right. Thank you so much. We'll take that up when we can, when we can take a vote on it. Senator Caballero. As two items, item 10 SB 942 and item 15 SB 1091. All right, whenever you're ready, Senator SB 942.

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 942. CCIJ works alongside people detained in private detention facilities in our state, including individuals who are organizing to improve conditions, protect basic dignity, and ensure meaningful access to legal support. Through that work, we have seen again and again that private civil detention facilities routinely fail to meet even minimum standards for safety, health, and humane treatment. SB 942 is about addressing that gap. People in civil detention have not been sentenced to punishment, yet in privately operated locked facilities, they may be denied consistent access to medical care, legal counsel, communication with loved ones, language access, religious practice, and meaningful grievance procedures. SB 942 creates a civil detainee bill of rights so that people detained in private civil detention facilities know their rights, operators know their obligations, and California can ensure these facilities are not allowed to operate in the shadows. This protection is especially important for detained people who speak up about conditions. No one should face retaliation for seeking legal help, filing a complaint, or organizing with others to address unsafe or inhumane treatment. And I'll add, this isn't a theoretical risk. Nearly every day, my organization speaks with detained people who are in solitary confinement, denied legal or family visits, or even denied medical care as retaliation for speaking up about conditions. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote on SB 942. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Assembly members. My name is Regina Garza. I'm the Special Assistant Attorney General for Immigration at the California Department of Justice. On behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, I want to thank Senator Caballero for authoring this very important bill to extend individuals confined in state, county, local, and privately operated immigration detention facilities the same core protections already recognized for other involuntarily confined civil populations in the state. SB 942 is about fairness and consistency under California law. As amended, the bill would simply universalize civilly confined individuals' long-recognized rights relating to humane treatment, freedom from abuse and neglect, access to medical, dental, and mental health care, religious exercise, recreation, safe food and drinking water, and sanitary living conditions. These protections reflect the rights and responsibilities guaranteed under the U and California constitutions as well as federal and state law SB 942 also authorizes the Attorney General to enforce when violations occur to ensure meaningful protections and comparable accountability to individuals held in California civil immigration detention facilities. This enforcement mechanism reflects California's long-standing commitment to safeguarding and reinforcing its sovereign interest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of all people in the state. In short, SB 942 is a measured, common-sense bill that ensures basic standards of humane treatment apply consistently to civilly detained individuals in California at state, local, and privately operated facilities. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Osama Moukhaddam on behalf of the California Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations in strong support.

Jackie Gonzalez, immigrant defense advocate, proud co-sponsor in support.

Thank you. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association in support.

Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.

Well, Senator, thank you so much for bringing this bill forward for your continued advocacy on behalf of everyone, but especially as it applies to this. This is another example, Bill, we would hope we didn't need to do, but we do. I would like to be at it as a co-author, and my understanding is that you're asking for an amendment to add urgency.

That's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Here.

Barra Cahan?

Brian?

Connelly.

Dixon.

Herbedian.

Pappin.

Sanchez.

Here.

Okay.

I love it. Now I can make a motion. Yes, I wanted to thank both the Attorney General and the Senator for this. When I started reading this bill, I was like, didn't the Attorney General get rid of private prisons in California, was my recollection when he served alongside us. But obviously, these are not California facilities. And so I think this is just, I mean, again, we shouldn't need a bill for this, but I think this is really important work and it will ensure the safety of people, hopefully, here in California, but is doing everything we can to that end. So thank you, Senator. With that, I'll make a motion.

Thank you very much for those kind of comments. I've had a number of constituents that have been detained by ICE and placed in these detention facilities. And although they have been released because they were unlawfully detained, the conditions that they have experienced are way beneath what is appropriate in a civilized society. And so this is really important. It's really personal for me because I've had these conversations and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Pacheco. Pappin.

Pappin, aye. Sanchez.

Aye.

Zuber.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members for the opportunity to present SB 1091, an important bill to stabilize low-income families in their communities and to prevent tenant displacement through the acquisition and preservation or act rehab of existing affordable rental housing. The bill creates the Community Anti-Displacement and Preservation Act, or CAP, within HCD, and it will provide financial resources and technical capacity building for community organizations, nonprofit affordable housing developers, and local jurisdictions that wish to acquire unsubsidized, naturally affordable housing that currently exists and preserve them as affordable rental units. Basically, this is an opportunity to go out into the community using very important state resources to be able to acquire what is naturally occurring, fix it up, and keep the residents in the home or allow them to purchase the home so that we don't lose the affordable housing that we have that is naturally occurring in our communities. It's an important step to prevent displacement, homelessness and to finally stabilize families in the communities where they can afford. So with that, also last week we passed the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act, which includes $200 million to establish CAP. So with me to testify today is Andres Ramos with Public Advocates.

Is anyone else here? in support of SB 942.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 942? We'll bring it back to committee. Oh, 1091. Yeah. Anyone else, is anyone here in opposition to SB 1091? Bring it back to committee.

Thank you. And Senator, thank you. I think this is the last bill you'll be hearing before this committee. And I think it's representative of the kind of work and the people that you stand up for in our state. And so I want to thank you for your many years of dedication to the people of the state of California. Would you like to close?

Saying something. Well, thank you so much, Senators. Let's go ahead and get a vote on your bill. Motions do pass to appropriations. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Macedo? Farrah-Cahan? Aye. Farrah-Cahan, aye. Bryan? Aye. Bryan, aye. Connelly? Aye. Connelly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Herbedian? Pacheco? Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez? Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Zabir? Well, we're going to place your bill on call.

Thank you.

That's correct. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, item 13, SB 1032, Senator Reyes. Senator Ray has made an appropriate outfit change upon entering into the committee room. There are quite a few Bay Area members, Northern California members here.

It wasn Otani Jersey though so I give you that Anyway whenever you ready Thank you Thank you so much Mr Chair and members I like to present SB 1032 the Staffing Agency Fair Employment or Safe Act

Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1032?

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition, SB 1032? Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 1032?

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, bring it back to committee. Assemblymember Papin.

Thank you so much, Senator. Any other questions or comments?

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you. Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan?

for working with the committee, especially as in regards to showing up harm regarding the PRA Appreciate that Would you like to close I continue to work I do want to say that as we present this bill we had a number of

A motion and a second. Motions do pass to appropriations. Caller. Aye. Kalra, aye. Macedo, Barra-Kahan?

Barra-Kahan, aye. Brian, Connolly?

Connolly, aye. Dixon?

Dixon, no. Harabedian? Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye. Pappin?

Pappin, aye. Sanchez? Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye. Zabur?

Zabur, aye. Okay, that bill is out. Item 17, SB 1114, Cabaldon, Senator Cabaldon.

We'll do as much work as we can and then see you after lunch.

Thank you.

Sure.

Thank you so much. Item 18, SB 1159.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Amy Brown on behalf of the Big City Mayors Coalition in support.

Johnny Pena with the League of California Cities in support.

Thank you.

Thank you to the witness for highlighting our concerns.

Good afternoon, Kendra Bigley on behalf of a list of several people or several organizations in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1159? All right. Okay.

Thank you. All right, bring it back to committee. Do we have a motion? Motion and second. Any questions or comments? Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. being on local governments is hard enough. It's a big commitment, and we want to make sure when we're hearing from folks, we're actually hearing from our constituents, hearing from human beings. And so thank you. We'd like to close.

I would ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much. Thank you. Motions do pass the floor. Kalra?

Kalra, aye. Macedo, Barcahan, Brian, Connolly?

Connolly, aye. Dixon?

Dixon, aye. Herbedian, Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye. Pappin?

Pappin, aye. Sanchez?

That bill's out. Thank you. Let's keep going.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1114?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1114?

At San Jose State, a male athlete played on the women's volleyball team for three years.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 1114?

Thank you. Thank you. We'll bring it back to committee. Assemblymember Zabert, we have a motion.

Motion in a second. Assemblymember Zabert.

that I'm here to support the bill. All right. Thank you. Yes. Just add to the thanks, Senator. Would you like to close?

And the two youngest members of the committee aren't here. The rest of us know what a telephone book is. motions do pass to appropriations. Caller. All right. Caller. I Macedo,

I Brian Connelly,

I Dixon. Her beating Pacheco.

I Pappen. Pappen.

Stephanie.

I Zuber.

Senator, if we can quickly do your last one.

All right,

but thank you. Yeah.

All right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1315? Is there anyone here in opposition? SP 1315.

Thank you. Bring back to committee. We have motions, questions. We have a motion, a second. Any other questions or comments? I appreciate your recognition that we have to be gentle with the DMV whenever we approach them. Would you like to close? I ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Motions do pass to appropriations. Kalra?

Kalra, aye. Macedo? Bauer-Cahan?

Bauer-Cahan, aye. Brian? Connelly?

Connelly, aye. Dixon?

Dixon, aye. Harabedian? Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye. Pappin?

Pappin, aye. Sanchez? Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye. Zaber? Okay. That bill is out. Thank you. Thank you. Just a reminder, it's a LIPA violation to inform the caucus chair that I was here without. Okay, you know what? Do we have a motion on the consent calendar?

Motion includes SB 1129 Caballero, consent to the floor. Kalra?

Kalra, aye. Macedo? Barakahan?

Barakahan, aye. Brian? Connolly?

Connolly, aye. Dixon?

Dixon, aye. Harabedian? Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye. Pappin?

Pappin, aye. Sanchez? Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye. Zabur?

Okay, the bill's up. We will return back. Oh, do you want to do something? We'll get through 11. Okay. Is there a move to call on item 10, SB 942, Caballero? Macedo, Parabedian, Pacheco? This is 942. 942.

Pacheco, aye. Sanchez, Zabir. That bill is out. We have a motion on item one, SB 16, Blakespear. Motions do pass to appropriations. Kalra?

Kalra, aye. Macedo? Barcahan?

Barcahan, aye. Brian? Connelly?

Connelly, aye. Dixon?

Dixon, aye. Harabedian? Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye. Pappen?

Pappen, aye. Sanchez? Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye. Zabur? That bill is out. Motion on item two, SB 28, Umberg.

Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Calra?

Calra, aye. Macedo, Barra-Khan?

Barra-Khan, aye. Bryan, Connelly?

Connelly, aye.

Harabedian, Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye.

Sanchez Stephanie Aye Stephanie aye Zabur Good The bill out We have a motion on item 3 SB 381 will have Motions do pass to appropriations cholera Hi cholera I a Cito Barakhan Barakhan aye Brian Connelly Connelly I Dixon Dixon I her beating Pacheco checko I happen happen I Sanchez Stephanie Stephanie I's a burr that The bill is out. To the motion on item four, SB 423, Gonzalez. Gonzalez, we have a second. We have a motion in a second. Motions do pass to appropriations. Calra?

Calra, aye. Macedo, Barakahan? Barakahan, aye. Brian Connelly?

Connelly, aye. Dixon, no.

Aye.

Pappan, aye. Sanchez, Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye. Zabur? We'll place that on call. Motion on item five, SB 561, Blakespear. Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Kalra?

Kalra, aye. Macedo, Barra-Kahan?

Barra-Kahan, aye. Brian Connelly?

Connelly, aye. Dixon?

Dixon, aye. Herabadian, Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye. Pappin?

Pappin, aye. Sanchez, Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye. Zabur? That bill is out. Motion on item six, SB 574, Umberg.

Motion is due passed to Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. Kalra? Aye.

Macedo, Barrakehan? Aye. Barrakehan, aye.

Connelly, aye.

Dixon, aye. Harabadian, Pacheco? Aye.

Papin? Aye.

Sanchez, Stephanie? Aye.

Zabert? That bill is out. We have a motion on Item 7, SB876, Padilla.

Motion is due passed to Appropriations. Kalra? Aye.

Macedo? Barrakehan? Aye.

Brian Connelly.

Dixon.

Harabedian. Pacheco.

Pacheco, aye. Pappin.

Pappin, aye. Sanchez.

Padilla, aye.

Zabur. That bill's on call. Do we have a motion on item 8, SB 880, Wahab? Do we have a motion? Is there a second?

Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Kalra?

Kalra, aye. Macedo, Barakahan, Bryan, Connolly?

Connolly, aye. Dixon?

Dixon, no. Harabedian, Pacheco?

Papin?

Papin, aye. Sanchez, Stephanie, Zabur? On call. Item 9, SB898, Weber-Pearson. We'll just return. We still have quite a few to do. We'll be at the caucus. All right, let's go ahead and recess the caucus then. We're going to be in room 447 at 1.30 p.m. Thank you Thank you All right All right. We'll go ahead and reconvene our Assembly Judiciary Committee. We have with us a Senate author, Senator Choi, here, SB 1242. So whenever you're ready to go, you may proceed.

You almost made it. You almost made it this morning.

Good afternoon, Chair Kalra, members of the committee. My name is Suzanne Fidler. I'm appearing on behalf of the Conference of California Bar Association's, the sponsor of SB 1242. I'm a board-certified physician, attorney, and an original petitioner. As an original petitioner, I identified an important gap in the current law. Once a care petition is filed, the original petitioner has no meaningful way to provide ongoing current information to the care team without the respondent's consent. As a result, critical developments such as psychiatric deterioration, homelessness, hospitalization, incarceration, victimization, or escalating safety concerns may never reach the care team. SB 1242 closes that gap by creating a one-way communication process, allowing original petitioners to provide relevant contemporaneous information to the care team in court as circumstances change. The bill requires that information be received, reviewed, and documented, ensuring that decision makers have the most current information while preserving the independent clinical judgment of the care team. Equally important, the bill carefully respects respondents' rights. It does not confer party status. It does not permit access to protected health information. It does not authorize treatment decision making. It does not allow attendance and proceedings. The legislature has already determined that certain individuals, including family members, roommates, behavioral health professionals, first responders, and others are sufficiently knowledgeable and trustworthy to initiate the care process. This bill simply allows those same authorized petitioners to continue providing relevant information as circumstances change, preventing escalation, crisis, and psychiatric deterioration. Both medicine and law recognize that good decisions depend on complete, accurate, and timely information. No single source has the complete picture. SB 1242 ensures that relevant information from original petitioners is not missing from the care process and becomes part of the totality of the information available while preserving respondents' rights. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah, you can pull that over. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. Thank you for the chance to address you. My name is Elizabeth Kino-Hopper, and I saw you recently. Today, I'm sharing my family's experience of a communication gap in the CARE Act that SB 1242 addresses. For 14 years, our daughter tried different treatments, therapies, and community sports for her symptoms of schizophrenia with psychosis. When her illness is undertreated, her perception and judgment are distorted. She experiences anisognosia where she cannot recognize that she is ill or needs treatment, and she gives inaccurate self-reports that are not lies. They are her realities distorted by the untreated symptoms. In 2025, our family hoped that CARE Act would be the right level of care and filed a petition, and so did Adult Correctional Health. As soon as care outreach workers located my homeless daughter, they told me they could have no further contact with me. but I could contact them to share location changes. I asked about submitting AB 1424 legal documents for medical changes, and they said no, that's for involuntary care, and care court is voluntary. Then at the initial care hearing, the petitioner, me, was allowed to give a brief update before being removed from further input. When our daughter reported she had housing, she had health care, and she had progress on SSI, Information she believed to be true. Our family had no avenue to present their observation that her housing was actually ending, she was not in treatment, and her SSI was stalled. Again, she was not being dishonest. She was describing her reality. The workers in the courtroom did not check her facts. The care petition was dismissed. Within weeks, she was unhoused, deteriorating, and cycling through acute psychiatric hospitals. She deteriorated to a very low point and now is improving in inpatient care. Thank you.

Hello, Allison Monroe here with families advocating for the seriously mentally ill in Alameda County.

Hello, I'm Diana Burdick, and I am with this group as well. I am for 1242 so that I can help my son.

Hello again. Hi. I'm Dr. Lynn Rivas, a person with bipolar 1, and my diagnosis falls under the care court umbrella. I'm speaking here today as the executive director of the California Association of Mental Health Peer-Run Organizations. We oppose the inclusion of family input when it's against the client's wishes. Research shows that family members are often unreliable judges of a relative's mental health and daily activities. One major study measured how well individuals and their families agreed on daily behaviors. The results showed very low agreement on basic things like physical health and social habits, demonstrating that relatives cannot accurately track the frequency of critical behaviors. Furthermore, family members are not trained diagnostics experts. They cannot easily separate severe mental illness from trauma, medical crises, or substance use. In fact, studies show family assessments have a low diagnostic accuracy rate, as low as 31.7% for certain conditions. Research also proves that when family members are highly stressed, they tend to over-report and exaggerate their relative symptoms, meaning a family member's own panic can easily create a false medical picture in court. Relying on family surveillance also backfires by introducing coercion into the home. When people know their families are secretly monitoring them, household trust breaks down, driving vulnerable people into isolation where they hide their symptoms out of fear. Clients have a legal right to an independent medical evaluation and peer-reviewed research confirms that standardized clinical tools give vastly superior unbiased data compared to family opinions This is vital because roughly half of all family units are fractured by history bias or abuse meaning the state risks letting a dysfunctional relative weaponize the care court system Family involvement must require the client's clear consent, and we recommend certified peer support specialist training for the relative.

I'd like to move to support the bill. I also have a question. We mentioned respond, and thank you, Senator, for introducing this bill. Respondents' rights, just to clarify, because I think this is a point of disagreement. So if I understand the bill correctly, family members may attest to their child's patient's medical mental condition, but also working in conjunction with behavioral specialists. So how are you, is that protecting the rights of the individual? Or is there more that you're doing to ensure that their rights are protected as well as their health is protected?

Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 1174?

Thank you. We'll bring you back to committee for any questions or comments. Assemblymember Zabur.

Senator Dixon?

Sir, this is not a talking form.

Any other questions, comments? Do we have a motion?

Would you like to close?

Motions do pass to appropriations.

Okay. Place that on call.

Item 12, Senator Perez, SB 995.

Good afternoon. My name is Rhea Khan. Thank you, Senator Perez, committee members, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to speak on behalf of my mom today. When my mom was detained at the California City Detention Facility, a core civic-run facility, she was denied all of her medications, even for blood pressure and asthma. She suffered medical emergencies. She had shortness of breath, edema, bruised legs, swollen and painful feet, and she could barely speak. Her blood pressure was 169 over 101. They didn't care. She's 64, by the way. They threatened her. Sorry She ate insect bread inside and moldy sandwiches and drank dirty water They were all told to drink the dirty stinky brown water from the sinks above their toilets Rodents have been put inside their food. Several reports exist about these inhumane conditions at these facilities, including the ones recently released by the United Nations and Attorney General Bonta. He even wrote a letter regarding this to Kristi Noem earlier this year. My mom's experience is not an isolated event. Many individuals are being physically, psychologically, and sexually abused at these facilities, including children. They are living in these conditions that cannot be allowed. Just so these corporations can profit, that's not okay. They are torturing people and getting away with it. It's not negligence anymore when there is a pattern. Over 51 people have died at these facilities, and that is not counting the ones.

And that is not counting the ones who were denied critical medical care, like dialysis, for months and then deported. They died too. So far, these human beings are our families, our friends, neighbors, your neighbors, your constituents. We need state intervention, transparency, accountability, and consequences for these corporations. They must follow proper health, safety, and human rights standards. California cannot allow this to continue. My mom is not okay. She may never be the same again. So I'm asking you today to please vote yes on SB 995. They are all counting on you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Ronald Coleman Baeza here on behalf of CHIRLA. SB 995 is a straightforward exercise of California's core police powers. It only seeks to regulate one thing, health and safety conditions in large involuntary residential settings. This bill is constitutional for three reasons. First, it is neutral and generally applicable law. It applies to any facility that meets the objective criteria, regardless of who operates it or what individuals are there. It expressly includes multiple categories of non-criminal facilities, which is exactly the kind of comparative framework courts approve. In GEO Group Incorporated v. Inslee, the Ninth Circuit made clear that states may properly compare immigration detention to other civil non-punitive confinement settings when applying neutral laws like this one proposed. Second, it regulates conditions, not the federal government's operations. This bill is explicit. It does not regulate detention decisions, security procedures, or custody determinations. Instead, it focuses on traditional public health concerns, things like air quality, sanitation, fire safety, infectious diseases, and worker safety, areas where states have long exercised this authority. Lastly, it fully complies with the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. Enforcement runs along the operator, not against the government, and inspections must not unreasonably interfere with security functions. In GEO v. Inslee, the Ninth Circuit also found that states have greater authority to regulate private contractors than to regulate the federal government itself. And that's exactly what SB 995 does. For those reasons, we thank the author for her leadership. and encourage you all to vote aye. Thank you.

Thank you. Vanessa Cajina with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians here in support. Thank you. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists in support. Thank you. Thank you. Yvonne Fernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you. Simran Carr with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Thank you. Osama Muqaddam on behalf of the California Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations in support. Thank you. Cal Westo with the California Community Foundation in support. Thank you. Osama Yawad Policy and to Ms. Haveta the group here on behalf of Inclusive Action for the City in support. Thank you. Anayeli Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center in strong support. Thank you. Zini I. I. I. with ACLU Cal action in strong support. Thank you. Or Simran Gore with the United Sikh movement support. Thank you. Seth Namsing with the United Sikh movement in support. Thank you. Josh Gawker on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you. Kylie Lindeli on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California in support. Thank you. Simran Dillon with the United Sikh Movement in support. Thank you. Buneet Gaur on behalf of the Sikh Coalition in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Daniel Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California in respectful oppose unless amended to this bill. And I do want to be very clear that our opposition is based on a very discreet and specific issue as it relates to the inclusion of county governmental facilities within the definition of this bill. We began conversations early on with the author's office and certainly appreciated those conversations and offered amendments. amendments. When we started the conversations with the bill, it was in the findings and declarations. It talks about how this bill is not intended to regulate detention operations, security procedures. And so we subsequently saw that there were amendments taken in April to exclude state prison facilities and county jail facilities, both adult settings. Further amendments in May further exempted out some of our county juvenile facilities. So specifically juvenile halls, camps, and ranches, all administered by county probation departments, were exempted out. But what is expressly included and still remains in this bill are the secure youth treatment facilities, which are, again, county governmental facilities overseen by county probation departments and counties, similarly situated, and all have the same framework of inspections and regulations around them. And so the current version of the bill now excludes from the definition all governmental facilities, state and local, adult and juvenile, except for security treatment facilities, which again are under the same framework and header. These facilities, the SYTFs, are already subject to inspection by the Board of State and Community Corrections with oversight from local county public health, fire marshal and many, many others. There's a huge and extensive framework around how those inspections look what has to be reported for compliance And so what we are simply asking for is that there is not disparate treatment of one type of county governmental facility distinct from the other facilities So we're concerned about the layering of inspection processes that it actually would inadvertently undermine the very thing that's in place now to make sure that the youth in our care are best served.

Thank you. I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I'm just curious as to the facilities that opposition brought up. It seems like a lot of the other facilities were exempted out. I'm curious to hear what your thoughts are on these facilities. Yeah, so unlike traditional juvenile halls, camps, and ranches, SYTFs, or Secure Youth Treatment Facilities, house youth for extended periods of time in secure settings that are much closer to other long-term and voluntary residential facilities, which is what this bill is focused on and targeting. So including SYFTs is consistent with the bill's focus on enhanced health, safety, and accountability and oversight. So that's why those other facilities were removed, and we kept in SYTFs because they fall into that category of long-term and voluntary residential facilities. And the other ones do not involve long-term? They do not fall into the category and the definition that we've created, which is why SYTFs were captured, but the others are not. And just to get opposition's input on that. Yeah. So, I mean, a couple of things I certainly for if it's a discussion just on time, they're arguably state prisons would kind of fall under that same amount of time that somebody was in detention.

and I do have concerns about the different standards. I think it's a good bill and I will be supporting your bill today but I would like to see more conversations happening so that we maybe there's a way to exempt them out but I feel like it's going to be confusing but I think your bill is a good bill and so I am supporting your bill today but would love to see more conversation happen because I think there is a way to try to figure this out. So I would like to see the bill go forward and continue moving forward. There is language in amendments that we've already included telling CDPH to not duplicate standards. And so part of the reason why we created that amendment was to address the opposition concerns but they requested of us to remove SYTFs And because of the definition of involuntary long involuntary residential facilities we cannot exclude SYTFs

If you start to narrow too much, then there could be a legal claim as you're just targeting ICE facilities or you're just targeting this kind of facility or that kind of facility. The reality is any kind of facility that falls under that umbrella should have certain standards under health and safety that the state of California should be able to ensure are up to our values. Yes. And we've also heard from advocates, and we could certainly get into this, about concerns with SYTFs and their operations and what has been happening in those facilities as well. But that is why we made amendments to make sure that there was not a duplication of existing policies. So the Department of Public Health can take into account what's already happening in terms of oversight. Correct. Okay. I still will be supporting your bill. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay. I want to sort out my confusion. Now, a young woman who you brought as a witness with her mother's circumstance, Now, is this a typical person who's incarcerated and is her mother's experience and treatment and rodents in the food, is this typical? Are there inspections of public health? I mean, you said extensive maintenance and health assurances. I mean, is this a normal experience, I guess?

All right. Okay. So her mother was not in a county facility. It was in a non-governmental facility.

It was originally a state prison that was purchased by Geo Group, correct?

Okay, so you brought up your opposition, but your facility is not an example for that. They're separate, but you're just grouped into this, and that's what you're opposed to.

The same category.

You're representing the county.

Senator Zipper. I want to thank you for bringing the bill. I think this is really important. Make sure that these facilities are safe I mean it just appalling what your mother went through and of course it just emblematic of what a lot of people are going through so I would love to be added as a co to the bill and thank you for bringing it I do say I think that with respect to the I understand why you're trying to keep the bill as broadly as possible to make sure that is that it is something that is legally sound. I do think, though, that there's so much that's left in that to that. I would ask you to reconsider whether or not this one county portion of facilities is something that's that meaningful. I do think that with respect to these juvenile detention facilities that we actually probably should be looking at those generally for more than Just these kinds of inspections. I think there's a lot of problems with them So I understand why you've been not so inclined to leaving them out But I also think that it's it's it's difficult for the to have one sort of county Set of facilities and these to be treated a little bit differently. So I just ask that you reconsider that as you move forward

Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just appreciate the opportunity to be here and present and really just want to take a moment to recognize Rhea. My office became aware of what happened to Mismo because Rhea was such an active advocate for her mother and helping her mother gain release from detention and has just been nothing short of incredible and bringing attention to this issue, bringing attention to what's happening in California City. You know, her mom was willing to take the risk of wanting to name this bill after herself because she really takes it upon herself to want to fight for others. She has introduced me to other people that she's met while she's been in detention because she is so motivated to do something about this issue. I do want to highlight that this bill received unanimous bipartisan support on the Senate floor, which got me very emotional. It meant a lot to me because I think that at the end of the day, this should not be a partisan issue. What is happening in these facilities are human rights violations. And I do think it's incumbent upon each and every single one of us to take action and do something about this. So respectfully ask you for your aye vote. Thank you.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Kappen, aye.

Aye.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. Let me start by thanking the committee for its work on the bill. I will be accepting the committee amendments. As we've discussed at the previous committee hearing, we know that opportunities to preserve unsubsidized affordable housing are especially important today when the state's affordable housing funding is oversubscribed. Our existing housing stock is under increasing threat from climate and other related challenges. We know that mobile homes are the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the country and often provide important homeownership opportunities, housing opportunities for many Californians. We've seen a lot of our mobile home parks destroyed during recent fires from Paradise, where I think over 30 mobile home parks were destroyed, over to the recent fires in Los Angeles where Palisades Bowl, Teesan Terrace, other parks were destroyed. So this bill comes out of the experiences of my constituents in the aftermath of these disasters, but also experiences from tubs and campfire and more. So what does the bill do? The bill does three things. First of all, it requires consistent and transparent communication from the mobile home park owners after a disaster, until the park is rebuilt or until closure or change of use is approved. This requirement doesn't bind owners to pursue any specific path. Residents simply deserve not to be left in the dark without any understanding of what's happening and when, if ever, they may be able to return home. Second, the bill requires park owners to provide residents with timely access to the property after any evacuation orders are lifted or the region is approved for resident access. And this is coming out of direct experiences where people weren't even able to get back to their own properties to go through and see if there was any items that they could have recovered after the fire. That was a really important and poignant special experience that I was honored to be a part of for many of my constituents who went back to their homes after the fires. The folks in the mobile home park were not afforded that opportunity without the explicit permission of the landlord, who did not always grant it. And then in the meantime, we had people unauthorized on property, potentially engaging in looting. And then third the bill requires park owners to thoroughly consider the benefits costs and available resources for rebuilding and preserving the mobile home park and the equity that the mobile home park owners have invested in their properties So testifying with me in support of the bill today we have John Brown is a resident of the Pacific Palisades Mobile Home Estates Ryan Sears who the head of policy and research with that Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services, and I respectfully ask for my vote. Thank you. Chair members, hi, my name is John Brown. I am a resident of Palisades Bowl and a father and a husband. And, you know, I'm just, I'm not going to read this. I've been here now, this has been 18 months. I've been here now a bunch of times looking for some balance, I guess it is. You know, I tell my kids, say that's not fair. And I go, yeah, well, life's not fair. Exactly, right? but we try to do what we can to show up and have integrity. We want to show up and try to make our lives good while we are also making other people's lives good, which you guys have all obviously decided to do in your lives as service to our state. And frankly, it just doesn't feel like there's a lot of balance. we are still homeless to some extent, right? Not homeless in the traditional sense, but we are not in our homes. We are renting homes. We are floating around on couches. And I say we, the seven or 800 other residents between Palisades, Baltic, Eishin Terrace and the other mobile home park, because there just isn't enough direction for the mobile home park owners who decided to buy a mobile home park or build a mobile home park and provide housing, affordable housing, some of the last affordable housing on the coast, to people like us. And it just doesn't feel like they are keeping their end of the bargain. And most of that is because the law allows them to just sit there and do nothing. And so I'm asking you to support this bill on behalf of myself, my kids, my neighbors, not just me too tens of thousands of other Palisades residents who have to drive by this mobile home park still and see it it just got cleaned up recently I mean they didn't even clean it up you know quickly so I appreciate you guys hearing me out and uh hope you guys can vote in favor of it thank you thank you good afternoon chair and members my name is Ryan Sears as Senator Allen said I am the head of policy and research and neighborhood partnership housing Services. I am here today to give you all data. NPHS has entered into a collaboration with UC Berkeley, and our goal was to study the impact of the Palisades Fire on mobile home residents. And so a lot of pretty much everything that's in SB 1093 is rooted in data, is rooted in the lived experiences that we've been able to survey directly from residents. You know, 15 months after the fire, 93% of residents still don't know if their landowner will let them rebuild. 83% have heard from park management only once in six months. And many of them have not heard from their park management at all. And the financial toll is staggering for these folks. I mean, $1.3 million is the average assets lost, and insurance payouts and aid money is $280,000. So these folks are looking at a very uncertain future, and yet there is no requirement for clarity, for communication, for consistency. Overwhelmingly, we found that these homeowners are seniors and young families. 81% of respondents were on fixed incomes. Most have lived in their community for decades and so they asking for basic transparency about whether or not they will be able to return home With 1093 it also fixes the silence in the current law with regards to access to the property Just a basic legal safeguard that says, hey, going back to search through the ashes to make sure that you can maybe find a family heirloom or belonging, and you won't be signing away all your liability or all your right to sue should the park owner be liable, that's a basic protection, but it doesn't exist today. And so homeowners are notably terrified when trying to go back on the property. So what we're seeking is clarifications of basic rights to make sure that we respect private property rights of park owners, but we also make sure that we give some level of certainty to disaster victims. So, yeah. Thank you. I encourage an aye vote.

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

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members, Senator Allen, and John and Ryan. Good to see you all again. Chris Wysocki with WMA. And before I start, I really want to express my sincere appreciation for the committee on working so hard on this bill. Specifically, I know it's not common, but I'd like to point out the committee consultant for his work on this. He really dug his heels in, and we appreciate it. I also want to thank the author for agreeing to the committee amendments. We still have concerns about the measure, and we do remain opposed. But the work that has gone on to get us to this point is very much appreciated. One of the remaining concerns that we have is raised in the analysis, frankly, and we're hopeful the bill can further be amended in the Appropriations Committee should this bill move forward to remove a requirement for park management to be responsible for conducting soil sampling for destroyed parks that are proposed for a closure or change of use. Park owners whose property is destroyed in a disaster not caused by the park should not be required to pay for the soil sampling and be held responsible for making sure that the testing is done correctly. The state has the best expertise at doing that, and they should be the ones to bear the financial responsibility for paying for it and making sure that it's done correctly. Further, we continue to believe that the fines for inadvertent noncompliance with any part of this bill are excessive. Is it really appropriate to fine a park owner $2,500 per space per day if the notice is delayed for some reason or if the resident can't be located in a timely manner? We do believe that the remaining issues can be addressed if the bill moves forward, but we still request a no vote on this bill. So, again, thank you to the committee staff, the committee, the author, for working so hard on this. And we appreciate everybody for being willing to listen to our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you, members. Jason Eichert on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance. And I'd also start by thanking committee staff for very reasonable analysis of the bill and good suggested amendments. there are a few issues that remain and at the risk of being redundant, I'll echo Mr. Wysocki, that the discussion in the analysis on the environmental analysis is dead right. It's a little bit out of sync with what's in the bill. And it's a little bit hard to see why we are doing this environmental analysis when a decision has been made to close a park. Beyond that, we do have some issues that the bill still requires a feasibility analysis for relocation of a park within one mile following a disaster. As a fairly vague thing to be looking at, what is considered feasible in this case? If there are properties within a mile, multiple properties adjacent to each other, should you be, is it considered feasible to purchase those, et cetera? So we think some right sizing may be needed there as well. But the point I really want to hone in on is the point on civil penalties. In this bill, if you fail to provide a notice that is required, it is a $2,500 per person violation. So if you have 100 people living in a park, that is a quarter of a million dollars worth of a violation. Someone can check my math on that. There's a reason I do this for a living. But I believe it's correct. And I want to lay out a very realistic scenario, because as Mr. Wysocki said, that penalty applies even if your violation is not willful and it's inadvertent. and it's inadvertent, the campfire was raised. 30 parks were destroyed. An entire community was destroyed. It is not at all infeasible that an owner who lives in that community lost their homes, lost a loved one, and lost the park that they've owned and operated for decades. And they would be responsible for getting a notice out in the first week after a disaster to comply with this bill. And if they missed that, even if it was inadvertent, they would be facing those kinds of penalties. So for those reasons, we have to remain opposed to the bill. But again, do appreciate the work done in this committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. And I just really want to thank the author for this work, but honestly, for all the work you've done for your constituents since the catastrophic wildfires in your community, you have just been so fierce in your advocacy for the people of your district and making sure that as they hit roadblocks in returning to their lives, that you were there for them. And I just want to commend you for that because we've seen it. So thank you. Wish I'd been able to do more. I mean, don't we all every day? And then I want to thank you for being here. I mean, you know, I live in a high fire zone and this could have been any of us. And the way that you and your community have had to face roadblock after roadblock to just to return to your lives is unconscionable. And I know that you and your children just want to go back to school and be back in your home and put this in the rear view mirror. And the inability to do that, I'm sure, is just making the trauma last longer. And so, you know, thank you for your advocacy, for your neighbors, and thank you for being here. And I'm sorry that the Senator and all of us couldn't do more for you. But, you know, I think that's This bill is honestly very narrow, very small in what it is you need. So I'm happy to support it here today and want to thank the author for his advocacy and I'll move the bill.

So I also wanted, my colleague I think mentioned a lot of what I was going to say. I have witnessed the work that you have done to really represent your district. Palisades is in Senator Allen's district and right outside the border of my district. And so many of the folks that once lived in these mobile home communities are now my constituents in my assembly district. And so we hear a lot of the challenges that you face. Mr. Brown, thank you for being here. I know from calls that we've gotten into our office and that we refer them immediately to Senator Allen because he's really on top of these things. But, you know, Senator Allen, you've done a remarkable job really trying to deal with very difficult circumstances for this mobile home park. And, you know, frankly, what residents of this community have gone through should not happen anyplace. And, you know, it's it's I don't know what the motivations are of the owners of this park are, but they're clearly not the residents that once lived there and called this mobile home park home. So I think this is an important bill. It's one that I think is narrow. And frankly, with respect to the cleanup, I mean, who else should clean up the park? I mean, these are the owners of the park. They've got an asset there that has value. And if, frankly, there's contaminants on the park, at least understanding that they're there before it's potentially sold, I think is something that's an important part of the bill, and I would urge you to retain it. So with that, I'm happy to second this, and thank you for what you're doing for the community. I've seen it from a very short distance, and just want to thank both of you for the advocacy you've had for your community members and for the people you represent, Senator Allen.

Just a couple of brief comments. So to the author, I also want to say thank you. Thank you for being such a great advocate for the members in your community. Your community dealt with so much with the fires. I believe it's Brian? John. To John, I just want to thank you for being here. I know you've mentioned you've come several times. And so just know that here in the assembly, we appreciate you coming here and being an advocate for your community. And I know you've taken numerous amendments, and I'm sure conversations are going to continue to happen, but this is a very important bill. This is an important bill for your community, and I'm sure you're going to get there. Maybe not all – you can take all the amendments, but I am optimistic that you will do what is the best. And at the end of the day, it is what's best for your constituents and for your Senate district. So I appreciate you tremendously, and I will be supporting your bill today. So thank you.

I just had a couple questions. I agree with Ms. Bayer-Pahan that it seems maybe it's been amended a lot, so it's really come down to these few issues. I think the civil penalty does seem excessive. Given the adjudication of the whole fire is still pending. I'm concerned about that. I would hope that that could be narrowed or eliminated or maybe it's an insurance company issue. Also on the environmental the soil again that should be in my opinion an insurance company issue I think in the hope of resolving this I mean the property owner had certain devastation issues as well I mean the loss of the property the loss of the income the loss of determination of whether they go forward. There are a lot of victims in this fire. And John, I'm very sympathetic to you. I mean, there was a recent election from Mayor of Los census citing all the problems with the resolution of grievances on grievances related to the solving of this, the homes that are devastated, the families are uprooted, etc., etc. I think this is something that can be worked out. I don't think anyone is the bad guy here. Let's come to a peaceful understanding. So even if there is an understanding, I don't think you're able to be moving. Your home is burned down. Your insurance company is dealing with that. you're living somewhere temporarily. This land, the owner has to figure out what to do. I don't know if there's a liability assigned to the owner of the land. There are legal issues here. I don't even know why it takes the state legislature to resolve this. I would hope that people coming together to try to resolve this, smart people can resolve this. I just think the pointing fingers, liabilities, you're not at fault, John. I don't think the property owner's at fault. There is a fire. Neither one of you started that fire, and there are laws that protect from the insurance point of view. I'm not an insurance person, but it seems to me. So I hope that this can be resolved. I can't understand why you've been up here multiple times, how frustrating that must be, but I also am respectful of the rights of the property owner and what needs to be resolved with you, the tenant or the lessee of the property as well as the property owner. So it's a difficult situation. I hope we could come to some satisfactory conclusion. I think this bill is a little punitive to the property owner. That's my position.

Oh, you want to make a closing comment? Yeah, well, I would just, I appreciate the comments. I mean, I think, you know, I'm definitely happy, I think we're happy to look at reducing the fines. Because for us, it's not about being punitive. It's about compliance. It's about giving these folks, it's not about the fines, it's about making sure that there's transparent communication ability to access. So that's what I care about. So I'm happy to make the fines only apply when there's a willful failure, if there's no good faith effort to comply, something like, a standard like that. So that this is not about trying to, it's not about gotcha, it's about compliance and giving some relief to these people. I think you're getting close. Yeah, okay. I hope so. Yeah. So that, I think with, you know, we could, you know, bring it in line with existing MRL, you know, fine structures. So, so, you know, happy to work with your office, assembly member and others to get this to a reasonable place. But in the end of the day, again, this is about making sure that these folks have a little bit more, some, you know, some more, some more rights, you know. in a way that does not that I think is eminently reasonable after. It's not about blaming people. It's about making sure they get basic information and the right to go back to their properties and that their situation is given proper consideration. I think that's fair. I meant to mention the noticing requirements. People have gone away or moved away That puts that burden and then that that fine process that puts it on the property owner It seems like these are small issues I think they important to the property owners and the landowner, but to get punitive, I just don't understand the purpose. Yeah, well, we're not seeking to be punitive. We just want to make sure that they're being properly treated. Anyway, it's in that spirit. I just appreciate all the comments. This has been just a really rough experience for all of us in the community. Incredibly difficult for families like John's, who's had to relocate his whole life, and there's so many of these stories. It has lasting follow-on impacts. They've got little kids, and so we're just trying to inject a little bit of humanity into this very difficult and dark chapter in our region's history. and really appreciate the comments and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. The opportunity to present SB-1257. I want to thank the committee for their feedback. I will be accepting the committee's amendment. SB-1257 requires the Attorney General to publish annually a publicly available report that summarizes immigration enforcement incidents and activities that occur at sensitive locations in California and to submit that report to the governor and the legislature. This builds on legislation that this body passed last year, including SB 81 to protect our hospitals and health facilities from ICE enforcement, SB 98, and AB 49 to also protect our schools as well. Despite these laws, immigration enforcement continues to occur at these sensitive areas and creates an environment of fear for all Californians who need to go to school or get the medical care that they need. SB 1257 authorizes the AG to also request information directly from designated safe locations on immigration enforcement, and the Attorney General may take enforcement actions to ensure compliance with this bill. It's worth noting the Attorney General already collects information on immigration enforcement through its online portal and through information that's provided through its office, and this builds on that practice. A public report on immigration activity in California at sensitive areas, including our schools and health facilities, courthouses and other public locations, is critical to ensure accountability and transparency for the safety of all Californians. Transport reporting restores trust and helps hold entities responsible for adherence to these critical laws. We need to see how these laws are working in our state. This bill is proudly sponsored by the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California and Todek Legal Center And with me to testify is Alexandria Chavez Policy Manager for the Latino Coalition for Healthy California And Janine Leitzit from the TODEC Legal Center and a youth leader with that organization. So respectfully ask for an aye vote. All right. Would you like to speak? Your witness to speak. Thank you.

Your second speaker. All right.

speakers in support? Please come forward. Yeah, my name is Johnny Pineda on behalf of the Latino Coalition for Health California, Association of Immigrantes Guatemaltecos, the Central American Advocacy and Resource Center in support. Thank you.

Dr. Neen Karin Stout here on behalf of the UDUSUS in support. Thank you.

Simran Carr with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

There was a mayor of policy inter-wimps of the group here on behalf of CARESEN, Central American Resource Center, in support.

Yvonne Fernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

Yeah, any questions or comments from the committee? Do we have a motion? We do have a motion. Yeah. Of course, Senator Barber-Kahane. You're just moving so quickly to get us out of here, but I just wanted to thank you for being here and for telling your friend's story. It's really, really powerful, and you did an incredible job. And I wish we could make it all different for you and your community. And I want to thank the center for doing everything he can and wish we could do more, but the federal government is taking some really cool actions, but we had a small victory at the Supreme Court today. So we'll take that victory and run with it and be glad that people's citizenship is guaranteed. And with that, I'm glad we've moved the bill. Well, any other questions, comments? And vice chair. Just briefly, Mr. Chair, this is Ms. Dixon's last judiciary hearing with us, and I know she was a wonderful vice chair, and we just want to thank her for her service here, and we are certainly going to miss her next year. But just wanted to argue. It's just her last bill. It's all this fun. Thank you. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you for your service, Assemblyman. Motions do pass to appropriations. Caller? Aye. Caller, aye. Macedo? No. Macedo, no. Bauer-Cahan? Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Brian? Brian, aye. Connelly? Aye. Connelly, aye. Dixon? Dixon, no. Harabedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez? Sanchez, no. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Zabur? Aye. Zabur, aye. Okay. That bill is out. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have a lot to go through, and I also want to start by thanking Assemblymember Dixon for your years of service on this committee and in this House obviously your former services vice chair, but always being here, always being inquisitive, always paying attention, and always adding something to our hearing. So thank you. All right. Add on for consent calendar. For the consent calendar, Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Herbedian? Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Zabir? Aye. Zabir, aye. We're just going to go through. We still need motions on some, but we'll just go through. It'll be the easiest way. So add-ons for item one, SB 16, Blake Spear. Macedo. Aye. Macedo, aye. Brian. Brian, aye. Herbedian. Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez, aye. Zabur. Aye. Zabur, aye. All right. Add-ons for item two, SB 28, Humber. Macedo. Aye. Macedo, aye. Brian. Carabedian Sanchez Aye Sanchez aye Zabir Yeah Zabir aye Item or add to item three SB 381 Wahab Macedo. No. Macedo, no. Brian. Brian, aye. Herbedian, Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez, aye. Zabir. Zabir, aye. Move the call on item four, SB 423, Gonzalez. Macedo. No. Macedo, no. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Herbedian, Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Zabir? Aye. Zabir, aye. That bill is out. Add-ons for item 5, SB 561, Blake Spear. Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Herbedian, Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Zabir? Aye. Zabir, aye. Add-ons for item 6, SB 574, Umberg. Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Herbedian, Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Zabir? Aye. Zabir, aye. Move the call on item 7, SB 876, Padilla. Macedo? No. Macedo, no. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Herbedian, Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Zabir? Aye. Zabir, aye. That bill is out. Move the call on item 8, SB 886, Aidy Wahab. Macedo. No. Macedo, no. Bauer-Cahan. Bryan. Aye. Bryan, aye. Herbedian. Sanchez. No. Sanchez, no. Stephanie. DeVere. Okay, please have back on call. We need a motion on item 9, SB 898, Weber-Pearson. And we have a motion and a second. Motion is due pass to appropriations. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Macedo? No. Macedo, no. Barra-Kahan? Aye. Barra-Kahan, aye. Bryan? Aye. Bryan, aye. Connelly? Aye. Connelly, aye. Dixon? No. Dixon, no. Herabedian? Pacheco? Yeah, voting. Papin? Aye. Papin, aye. Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Zabur? Aye. Zabur, aye. That bill is out. Add-ons for item 10, SB 942, Caballero. Macedo. Macedo, no. Herbedian. Sanchez. No. Sanchez, no. Zabur. Zabur, aye. Yeah. Yeah, we have you. All right, we need a motion on item 11, SB 947, McNerney. Is there a second? Is there a second? Okay. Motions do pass as amended to appropriations. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Macedo? No. Macedo, no. Barra-Khan? Aye. Barra-Khan, aye. Bryan? Bryan, aye. Connelly? Aye. Connelly, aye. Dixon? Dixon, no. Harabedian? Pacheco? Papin? Papin, aye. Sanchez? Sanchez, no. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Zabur? Aye. Zabur, aye. Okay, that bill is out. We'll move the call on item 12, SB 995, Perez. Brian? Brian, aye. Connelly? Connelly, aye. Herbedian? Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie? Aye Stephanie aye That bill is out Add for item 13 SB 1032 Reyes Macedo Macedo no Bryan Aye Bryan, aye. Herbedian. Sanchez. No. Sanchez, no. Move the call on item 14, SB 1050, Ashby. Macedo. Macedo, aye. Bauer-Cahan. Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Bryan. Aye. Bryan, aye. Connelly. Aye. Connelly, aye. Tappan, aye. That bill is out. On that bill, yeah. Sanchez, not voting to no on SB 1050 Ashby. All right, item 15, SB 1091 Caballero, move the call. Macedo? No. Macedo, no. Herbedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Sanchez? Sanchez, no. Zabur? Zabur, aye. Dixon not voting to no. All right, that bill is out. All right, move the call on item 16, SB 1093, Allen.