Senate Judiciary Committee

Thank you. Thank you. All right. The Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. First, a few administrative announcements. Today, just like every other hearing, we will proceed as follows. that on each bill that's called, there'll be two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition. Each of those witnesses will be accorded two minutes. In other words, four minutes for each side. After the support side testifies, then those who are in support wish to express their point of view. They should approach the microphone, give us their name, their affiliation, and their position, whether you support or oppose the bill. Then we'll do the same thing with opposition. Two witnesses, two minutes each, and then those who are in opposition, approach the microphone, give us your name, your affiliation, and your position. Today we have a couple bills on the consent calendar. We have file item number 6, SB 1267 by Senator Allen, and file item number 9, SB 880 by Senator Wahab. Are they as amended? No. No. And then this one was pulled off of consent. And file item number four was formally on consent but is no longer on consent. And that's file item number four, SB 1364. We do not have a quorum, but I would invite members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to present themselves in room 2100. So we're going to proceed as a subcommittee. And I see we have two authors here. First, Senator Blakesphere, SB 1088. Also, one other administrative note. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. All right. So as I've noted before, we currently have 50% of the Republican contingent to Senate Judiciary, and we have about 20% of the Democratic contingent. All right, Senator Blakespeare, the floor is yours.

Arnie, thank you, doctor. The floor is yours.

All right. Thank you, Doctor. Next witness, please. Seeing no other witnesses approaching the microphone, and as primary witnesses, if you support SB1088, please approach the microphone. Give us your name, your affiliation, and your position. I'm going to set short on behalf of the Alliance of Catholic Healthcare in support. Thank you. Others in support. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB1088, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice, seeing no one approaching. All right, let's bring it back to committee. for questions by committee members, questions, comments by committee members. There are none at the appropriate time. I expect there will be a motion and a vote. We don't have a quorum yet, but we will. All right. Oh, would you like to close?

All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Let's turn now to Senator Choi. Senator Choi's bill, which is file item number 2, SB 1242.

All righty. Thank you. The floor is yours.

Other witnesses in support? Hello, and thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak today. Senator Joy, Honorable Chairman and Senators. I volunteer with Treatment Advocacy Center and some other groups, including locally Sacramento's Family Advocates for Individuals with Serious Mental Illness. I'm also a care petitioner, a family care petitioner. Today I'm sharing my family's experience because it reflects what families like mine across the state live with every day when our loved ones do not receive adequate treatment and support services for their serious mental illnesses involving psychosis. For 14 years, our daughter tried different treatments, therapies, and community supports for her symptoms of schizophrenia and psychosis. When her illness is undertreated, her perception and judgment are distorted. Like many people with psychosis, she experiences anisognosia, where she cannot recognize she is ill or needs treatment. During untreated psychosis, she became justice-involved. Inmate psychiatric care did not fully stabilize her, and she refused all reentry services and was released to the streets of Sacramento, where her condition worsened. Family provided much support and filed a care petition as a hopeful path to prevent continued deterioration. At the initial care hearing, the petition was allowed a brief update but then removed from further input. When our daughter reported continued housing and health care and progress in SSI application, information she truly believed to be true, family had zero avenue to present their observations that housing was actually ending. She had no health care, and her SSI application was stalled. She was not being dishonest. She was describing her reality. The care petition was dismissed. Within weeks, she was unhoused, deteriorating, and cycling through acute psych hospitals, which continues seven months later. It's important for you to know that during a time of stability, my daughter publicly supported the CARE Act and gave an interview to San Francisco Chronicle. Yet, when she most needed CARE Act services, she fell through an unintended gap. SB 1242 makes a narrow balance improvement. It allows family petitioners to participate. Thank you, ma'am, and thank you for your work in this space. I know that this is a passion of yours, and we appreciate that. I appreciate all your work. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Others in support of SB 1242, please approach.

Thank you. Thank you.

Support. Thank you.

David Bullock, SFV Alliance, in support.

Allison Monroe, co-founder of Families Educating for the Seriously Mentally Ill, which is based in Alameda County, and I support.

Lawrence Abbott, Lathrop, California. Strong support.

Ann Donnelly, I support this bill and I think if my son had this program, it might have saved his life. He passed away last June because of the lack of participation that we were allowed in his full service partnership Thank you These are trite words but I sorry for your loss and thank you for coming to advocate in his honor

Hi, my name is Jane Dixon, and I'm also a member of the Advocates and a mom and in support of 1242 so that we as caretakers, moms, dads, even a grandparent, it could even be a spouse, is able to parallel their person as they suffer through psychosis and the demonstration of anarchy.

This is definitely an aye vote.

Thank you, Chair and members. Samuel Jan with Disability Rights California. We are here in opposition of SB 1242, which would allow some family members to participate in confidential care court proceedings, even if the respondent objects. Care court already allows family members to participate in care court proceedings, either as a voluntary supporter or as a petitioner with the respondent's consent. The only thing that this bill does is remove the consent requirement. I want to acknowledge that family members are a very important factor in mental health recovery, A loving and supportive family can be the difference between an individual getting the help they need in the community and becoming institutionalized. Unfortunately, not all families or family members are supportive. One in four children experience abuse or neglect. One in 15 children experience sexual abuse from a family member. Some families are not abusive but dysfunctional to the point their involvement negatively impacts health and recovery. SB 1242's safeguard to this is that the court can limit a family member's involvement in care proceedings if detrimental to the respondent. This operates under the assumption that the court can accurately determine if a family member's involvement is detrimental. It puts the burden on the respondent to detail their issues with the family member's involvement, which they may struggle to communicate, particularly in the midst of a mental health crisis. Allowing a family member to participate in care proceedings against the wishes of a respondent is at best coercive and trust eroding, and at worst severely damaging to their mental and emotional health. Proponents of this bill have said that this change is important for family members to provide insight for care teams into the respondent's condition. Family members and third parties can already provide information in one direction to county behavioral health, including care teams. The only change that this bill makes is to allow family members a patient does not want to participate or receive information about their care proceedings. Thank you very much. To participate and receive information about their care proceedings. For these reasons, we ask for your no vote.

Here. Umberg here.

Nilo here. Allen?

Alvarado Gill?

Ashby? Caballero? Durazo?

Laird? Reyes?

Stern? Wahab? Weber Pearson?

Wiener? You have a quorum. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Questions? Questions or comments by committee members, Senator DeRosso and Dr. Weber Pearson and, okay, Senator Reyes. So let's start with Senator DeRosso and Senator Weber Pearson.

Sure.

Yes, Senator, that's a good question.

Okay. All right. Senator Weber Pearson and Senator Riz.

this bill preserves the full judicial discretion to limit or exclude the participation should the court determines that such participation would be harmful to the respondent's treatment or well-being. So when family is the primary cause for the mental illness, the judicial court will have a full right to exclude them. So I would like to refer to Dr. Fidler for further explanation.

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

You do.

Thank you. Senator Reyes.

Correct. And that means that they are, without this program, they are unlikely to survive in the community safely. What this bill is to address is the fact that requesting and requiring that person who is currently suffering from psychosis and impaired insight to be able to understand that consent, which means weighing the benefits and the consequences of having a family member who's a petitioner to simply provide ongoing information and assist where they can. This is a partnership. It's not taking away any particular rights. No other consent is required from that respondent for any other action of care court. So this is providing that partnership and understanding that affirmative consent really means understanding what they're consenting to. And until that occurs, we're bringing in family support, providing that information. Currently, there is not that ability. Once a respondent is deemed to say that there's no participation from the original petitioner, they are completely excluded. There's no communication. There's no one-way communication even. And that leads to fragmented care. That leads to the gaps that we're seeing and the repeated hospitalizations, deterioration, and self-neglect. I will tell you through the chair that it presumes healthy family relationships. And you have great, great evidence here of that. But sometimes it is those family members from what I've experienced. For some of those cases, it's the family relationship that is causing a lot of the problems. And again, trying to find that balance. And so my concern is this process for the judge to make that decision.

I can. And so this language with judicial discretion is currently in the law as of July of 2025 There judicial discretion to not provide notice to the original petitioner as far as any hearing So right now there is that language in judicial discretion. We're looking at a situation where we need the family to provide that help. If it's not helpful, then that's fine. We have most of the work is outside the court. It's with the social workers, the psychiatrists, the nurses, the whole team that's there to support that individual, which also requires information, where that person is, what their condition is. It's to provide that whole care coordination for the purpose of assisting that severely mentally or person who will not be able to safely survive in the community.

Sure.

we should understand that care court is voluntary. So the respondent can withdraw from care court, number one. Number two, respondent has counsel. So it's not just someone with schizophrenia who's trying to advance their own cause. It's someone who has counsel and also has a supporter. Thirdly, is that family members are often, in fact, almost always the person or persons who actually have that information and provide the day-to-day observation and support. So fourthly, and all of us draw our own experiences when we legislate, having lived experience in this space, Those with schizophrenia sometimes are quite lucid and sometimes are not lucid. Some days they like their family. Some days they don't like their family. And so to the extent that you happen to find a day when they don't like their family, they also have counsel there, by the way, to help them. I'm talking about the respondent. And they exclude their family. What will happen oftentimes is without that information, without that support, is that they are going to deteriorate. And so I think the protections that are built into CARECORT with again the voluntary nature of your participation number two your counsel and number three judicial discretion That allows the family members to continue to provide input to continue to provide support and at the same time being mindful. And I recognize there is a clash of certain values that still provides the individual with agency and still provides the individual with the ability to, when they're lucid, to make informed decisions. But excluding the family members is really not in the best interest of 99.9% of those who are engaged. And so to the extent that there happens to be a very rare circumstance where a family member, wants their family member to be engaged in care court, and they want them to be engaged and then engage in nefarious, I suppose, activities. I think that's an incredibly rare circumstance.

I just wanted to say to Senator Choi, I am barely, I mean barely, convinced to support the bill today. We knew when we passed CARE Court that it was going to be an inch by inch. What can we do to strengthen the CARE Court concept and actions? We knew we had to do something. We knew we had to do something dramatically different, and that's what ultimately, without all the details, we said, okay, we're willing to try it. But I will continue to talk to the opposition. I'm not sure I'll get through to the floor vote, but I just want you to know, as you know, this is very difficult. It's very difficult emotionally for a lot of us. You know, many of us have friends or family who are in this situation, and, you know, you keep picturing that individual. So I will be supportive for now, but appreciate what you're trying to do.

I move the bill.

Thank you. Everybody making contributions to the discussion. I know unfortunate situations like this with the family member with the mental illness. 99% of the time, the family will care of that family member who is right now in this situation of suffering mental illness. But the rare cases when family member is a contributor to the patient who happens to be such as abuse of the child in different forms, those cases, by hearing the judge, Judicial court has had that information already known to the person. That's the reason, as I stated a second time, judicial court will reserve a full right to exclude family members. So that's the reason this bill is, I believe, will be safe for the family member and the patient who is suffering mental illness. So therefore, I strongly encourage an aye vote so we can assure that individuals with mental illness get the support they need.

Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye.

Nilo, aye. Allen?

Alvarado Gill? Aye.

7-0. 7-0. We'll put that on call. Thank you. All right. I see Senator Menjivar is here. So the lineup would be Senator Menjivar, Senator Perez, then we'll turn to committee members.

pocketbooks. And before I dive into the details, I want to acknowledge that in the previous committee, I committed to amending the bill on different levels to address some of the concerns that I was hearing both from my colleagues and from the opposition. As I was waiting to hear back from Committee on Potential Committee Amendments, I passed the deadline to provide author amendments. And I was thinking I would address all the concerns as a lump sum when that happened and when that didn't. Unfortunately, I am now presenting the same bill that I presented in housing committee. I've already spoken to the opposition. I have recommitted in ensuring that what I shared with them is correct still today, and we will be continuing conversations, and we've already established a new meeting hopefully for next week to do something before I present on the floor. We have not landed the plane just yet. We've had conversations already on what we're looking for. It's continuing to push and give, but I am in good faith conversation and negotiating with them till this day. So, the cap that exists right now was established in 1987, that increased it from a 10 cap to a 20 cap And you can imagine which is why we are in ongoing negotiations because this has been in place for a long time So SB 1007 is attempting to tackle the extensive increases in HOA fees in three ways. First, as homeowners are paying their monthly fees, they should have the right to know how much of their money is being used for third-party management companies to assist with operations. And like I mentioned, I intend to amend the bill to try to provide more clarity than what is currently in print. The visual aid requirement will be clarified to require HOA boards to provide a comparison breakdown of anticipated expenditures versus actual expenditures for the current fiscal year. I've already shared with the opposition that I don't intend to add more work. I don't want another piece of paper that's going to be buried in the report. How can we just remove some duplication and put it more visible for people who can see in the front? It's about more information. It's not about more information. about where that information can be placed. Second, if a homeowner is being accused of a violation and being charged a penalty, we also want to make sure that if and only if the HOA has evidence, whether it's a video, whether it's photos, whether it's a recording, that they provide said evidence they use to come up with that violation to the person that is being accused of the violation. Homeowners should have the right, already have the right to contest an alleged violation at a board meeting, so this provision on access to available evidence It's really about fairness and transparency. And lastly, the bread and butter of this bill is around limiting how much HOAs can raise regular fees without a homeowner's vote. Current law allows for a regular assessment fee up to 20%, which is incredibly too high. Your salary, my salary, unfortunately, does not get increased by 20% every single year to adjust to the increases of stuff. We want to make sure that HOAs are better managing the amount of money they have, whether it's in their reserves, whether they're planning ahead, so that people are not assessed a 20% regular assessment fee and a special fee on top of that and an emergency fee on top of that, because that's what we've seen. For example, ABC recently showed and talked about in Yorba Linda, a community where homeowners were assessed 20% in regular assessment fees. Then they were hit with a special assessment and an emergency assessment at the same time that amounted to $60,000 in the next four years. Some residents had to make the hard decision to sell their home and move out. And one homeowner was quoted saying, we're going to have to move out with my parents. There's just no way we can afford that much money. This is just one example of some poor planning and massive hikes that cover HOA obligations. And we must find a way to allow associations to operate, be solvent, but also not continue to increase in such dramatic ways. Another recent article by Wall Street Journal shared a piece earlier that surging fees are a major reason that the condo market has been the weakest in more than a decade. I gave another example here in Walnut Creek where residence fees had more than doubled since 2015 to $1,500. He now pays more in his fees alone than he does on his principal and interest of his mortgage. So let's be clear. This does not mean the HOAs cannot raise assessments beyond the cap. HOAs can still go to their homeowners, but they have to put it for a vote. I get it. That's difficult to put it up for a vote. But I want to make sure you are made aware that if you're going to pay more, that you should have made that decision. yourself and that you're able to plan. And to quote the analysis on page 7 from this committee, this ultimately puts the power in the hands of the HOA membership and increases the accountability of the board to make to the members that they elect So Mr Chair and I would like to turn over to I have one witness here with me in support of this bill All righty Thank you Good afternoon Mr Chair and members Robert Harrell I the Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California We are a co-sponsor of the bill along with the Center for California Homeowner Association Law. 14 million people in California, 50,000 of these HOAs. That's quite a bit. That's about a third of the population of the state, a little more. There's much, as you heard from the author, that is not disagreed on, at least not on a major level. Escalation and evidence when you fine. Some of these HOAs have been extremely aggressive in fining some of their members, and some of those HOA boards begin to look like kangaroo courts. Transparency, increasing it, especially with the opaqueness of budget and budget-related documents, which is really the core thing that an HOA should be doing, is coming up with the ways in which they raise and spend that money. And visual aid or other ways in which members of the HOA can actually understand where their money is going. Some of that is quite opaque for far too many of the 50,000 HOAs. The heart of the bill, however, is this 20% increase. It doesn't limit your special assessments. It doesn't limit your emergency assessments. I think there's a lot of those happening, some for good reasons, some for less than optimal reasons. The analysis, which I think is quite thorough and does a very good job, talks about examples on page six. In San Jose, in Modesto, you already heard from the author about the example in Yorba Linda, so I won't be redundant. These are increases without a vote of the members of the HOA. There is nothing stopping an HOA board from going to their HOA members and saying, here's the crisis we're facing or here's the situation and let's have a vote. But I think many of them don't want to do it. And I think in some of those cases, it's because there's less than optimal management or the management company is pushing them or some combination thereof. So we think this bill, SB 1007, is a reasonable step to put some guardrails in this. And as the author noted, negotiations, good faith negotiations, continue on this matter. And happy to answer any questions, but urge you to support the bill today. Thank you very much. Thank you. Other witnesses in support of SB 1007? Please approach the microphone. Megan Varvey with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the California Low Income Consumers Coalition in support. Thank you. Others in support. Seeing no one else approaching. Let's turn to the opposition if you're opposed to SB1007. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute. Thank you to the author for the words in the opening statement about us continuing to talk. We have had a meeting and look forward to additional meetings on the issue. The point I principally want to talk about is the cap on assessments. as you've heard. If you look at the Davis Sterling Act, associations are only allowed to budget for their operating expenses. And as we've seen across the state, those operating expenses have gone up extraordinarily over the years. We actually did a census of some of our association manager members and asked them for examples of assessment increases over the last few years and the rationale behind those Of those associations that are reported back anyone who is raising assessments between 15 to 20 percent raised them primarily because of insurance which we have no control over, but most governing documents require an association to be fully insured. We've seen, especially for condominium associations anywhere near a potential fire area, insurance premiums going up five, six, seven hundred percent. And some insurance companies will not provide you full insurance. So now you're looking at multiple policies, trying to piece them together because your association documents require you to be fully insured. So associations aren't just raising assessments for the purposes of raising assessments. We've also seen increases due to balcony inspections, which is a state mandate for any condominium with wooden structures to have to actually inspect those wooden structures on a regular basis and then replace them. The cost of labor has gone up. The cost of inspections have gone up. And so this is why we've seen these issues with assessments being increased. The last thing a board member that's elected by their neighbors wants to do is increase assessments. In fact, that's one of the leading causes of recall elections. And I bet you're going to tell us to vote no. I'm going to ask you to vote no, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to working with the author. All righty. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, members, Jennifer Wad on behalf of the California Association of Community Managers. We also appreciate the author's willingness to work with us. We look forward to working with her as well. We are currently opposed to 1007. We do believe, as Mr. Brown stated, that it would undermine the ability for associations to fund critical operations, like insurance, utilities, maintenance, all of which are increasing in cost. Also, we don't think getting a membership vote is that simple and straightforward. Any of you in associations may know that. This very committee has actually looked at many bills trying to increase or address the issue of lack of voter engagement. That problem continues, and it is pervasive. In the end, I guess I would ask, with this bill and its current version, if the members were not to approve increasing assessments and the costs exceed the rate of inflation, what then? How is the association supposed to fulfill its obligation to actually fund the things that the members in that community deserve and are owed? Thank you. Thank you. Others who are opposed to SB 1007, please give us your Me Too testimony. Hello. Good afternoon. Jasmine Vi on behalf of California Building Industry Association with a respectful opposed and less amended position. We look forward to continuing to work with the author. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else opposed? Mr. Chair, I do apologize. You're not opposed, are you? I am one of the co-sponsors. I am authorized today to also note for the committee that the California Association of Realtors are in support but could not be in attendance today. Thank you. All right. Anyone else? Seeing no one else either supporting or opposing, let's bring it back. committee. Questions by committee members? Senator Reyes. Then Senator Nielo. Senator DeRosa and Senator Cavillero.

All right. Thank you. Senator Nielo and Senator DeRossin and Senator Caballero.

All right. Thank you. Senator Rosso. Then Senator Caballero.

I definitely, I was gonna respond in my closing, but I appreciate you opening the door for me on that Current law exists now and I not touching this part of current law that if something exceeds what the regular assessments can pay for they can assess a special assessment That exists in current law right now. Up to 5% increase. I'm not touching that. They still can do that without a vote. That can cover a roof. That can cover a change in the middle of the fiscal or calendar year of insurance premiums that they didn't know about six months ago when they assessed the regular assessment. That is in law right now. So if anything exceeds for a major change, a major construction repair, they can assess a special assessment, like I mentioned, above 5% to cover that. So regardless of what SB 1007 is saying, they're still going to have the ability to come to the homeowners without requesting a vote if something comes up that they did not know or they did not know was going to happen in the middle of the year.

A one-time special assessment. They can also do an emergency assessment.

And then there's the Consumer Price Index. Yeah, so my – and I said this in my opening. The bread and butter of this is what's really being negotiated. Currently right now it does say that they cannot increase it past the cost of inflation. We are trying to land where we're going to be on the actual increase. We haven't landed yet. We've thrown numbers back at each other. Slow pitch, not thrown. But we've given numbers back to each other on where we want to land. We just haven't gotten to the right number that we both were going to be okay. and, yeah, to move forward with. Thank you. All righty, thank you. Senator Caballero.

So I think you answered it.

The only vote requirement would be on the regular assessment that should be planned ahead, ahead of time of what the costs are going to be, because these are regular ongoing things they need to cover. Now, if they need to go above, as right now, I'll just talk to what's in print right now. They need to go above the cost of inflation. then they'll need to come to the homeowners for a vote on that, just on the regular assessments. I understand on the operational that we should all have a good understanding for what that year cost is going to be. If a lot of these HOAs are paying a large amount of homeowner fees to a third-party management company that are professionals, then they should be able to, for the year, calculate how much it's going to cost for the year that isn't outside of an extraordinary event. So we're asking for better planning in that sense. And if somehow they miss something and they need to increase the regular assessments, then yes, come to the people for a vote.

They might vote no because they don't want to increase it. But now the HOA has no responsibility to mow the lawn because the homeowner said no. They made a decision that this month we don't want the lawn to be mown because I don't want to pay in excess of $150 more. You put the onus on now the homeowners to decide, are we going to belt tighten, all of us right now, or are we going to give no opportunity to belt tighten given that everything is costing a lot of money right now? Okay, and so the public health and safety?

I am not touching whatsoever in this bill.

Thank you, Senator. I just hadn't seen any change in it. Right. So anyway. Thank you, Senator. And I know. And I appreciated what you said at the beginning because that was really helpful. All righty. Senator Laird, Professor Laird.

Thank you very much. Other questions or comments? Seeing none. Is there a motion? I'm sorry.

All right. Would you like to close, Senator Mindvar? Thank you so much. I appreciate the robust conversations and questions. They're all the same questions and conversations that I've been having with my team and the opposition. Senator Laird, I think that's the first comment I've heard around that flexibility. I've jotted it down on some language on that. I recognize that maybe it's difficult to come to vote, but apathy for voting shouldn't be a reason why we shouldn't put the onus on the homeowners. So still working on that. I am sympathetic to some things that we're dealing with statewide that it is out of our control. Insurance, premiums, and costs, it's out of our controls. The opposition knows how I feel specifically on that issue, and we're going to continue to have conversations with that. By you allowing me out of this committee, I'll be able to do that, so respectfully asking for an aye vote. All right. Thank you very much. All right. There's been a motion. Committee supporter, please call the roll. This is file item number 3, SB 1007. The motion is due pass. Umberg?

Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Allen.

Alvarado Gill, no.

Caballero. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Durazo, aye. Laird. Laird, aye.

Reyes, aye.

Wahab. Weber Pearson.

Weber Pearson, aye.

6-1. 6-1. We'll put that on call. and I'd forgotten that your other bill has been pulled from consent. So file on number 4, SB 1364.

In addition to providing survivors with the means to protect themselves and their child with these changes, survivors of sexual assault could now receive additional support because the law would meet the requirements for increased funding for federal formula grants under the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act. So this, in fact, brings more money to the state. With that, I respectfully asking for an aye vote. I do not have any witnesses. All righty, thank you very much. Just in case, if you're in support of SB 1364, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice. All right, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1364, please approach the microphone. Good afternoon. David Pollock with the SFV Alliance. We appreciate the amendments that have been added. We as adults must always do what is hard so that children do not have to. In this case, that is honoring the natural rights of the child in the face of this legislation. It is every child's rights to know who their natural mother and father is and also to be loved and cared for by those children. Mom and dad are not optional for the child but mandatory. Each parent plays their own role that are complementary to each other. Without one or the other, the child misses out. This legislation is a blanket no for the child. to not have a father because of the conviction of the father's non-consensual sex with the mother. While our mind goes to the worst-case scenario, the worst-case scenario is not always the situation. While every conviction was a result of harmful, wrong action, the result of this legislation will be that the child will have to suffer the consequences of not having a father in their lives. I ask you to put the child before the adult The child is innocent of how he or she was created They came out of the womb with no knowledge of how they were conceived Years of study has proven the child to be better off with both their natural parents We are not an organization and are fans of the family court, but in this case, we think it's a better option for the well-being of the child than to completely ban the father from the child's life. A child without both parents will always question who they are, where they come from. By keeping the child with the parents, that question is already answered. I do know the majority of this committee has demonstrated they believe in rehabilitation and redemption. This legislation, without the permission of the mother, will squash that redemption. We should be working towards the goals of the children's natural right to their mother and father and not against them, no matter how difficult it is for us adults. Senator Umber, I'm not going to ask you to vote no. I'm going to ask you to vote for what you all feel is best for the child and their long-term interest. Thank you. Thank you very much. Others opposed to SB 1364. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members? Seeing none, is there a motion? Senator Caballero has moved the bill. All right.

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

All right. I guessed right. Okay. Okay. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, would you like to close? Yes. You know, respectfully, I can't give energy or air to the opposition's really hateful kind of rhetoric. And in the language I was chosen to talk about the kids and the parents, I believe that nobody should be forced to have contact with someone that raped them. And with the amendments for the committee, we are protecting the best interests of the child at the same time and protecting the adult who went through that situation. With that, respectfully asking for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you for working with the committee, by the way, to actually elevate the best interest of the child. Thank you. All right. With that, Chief Counsel Estrada, please call the roll. This is file item number 4, SB 1364, by Senator Menjavar. The motion is do pass as amended to the floor. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo. Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen.

Ashby. Caballero, aye. Durazo, aye. Laird, aye. Reyes, aye. Stern. Wahab. Weber Pearson, aye. Weiner. You have 8-0 with members missing. Call Senator Caballero. And then, because Senator Perez is presenting in another committee, otherwise she would be up after Senator Caballero, then Senator Perez, then Senator Dorosso. We have not done the consent calendar, but that's a good idea. Senator Reyes moves the consent calendar. Chief Counsel Estrada, please call the roll on the consent calendar. The motion is that the consent calendar be adopted. Burke I'm Berg I Nilo I Nilo I Allen Alvarado Gill Alvarado Gill I Ashby Caballero I Caballero I do Russell I did Laird Aye Laird aye Reyes Aye Reyes aye Stern Aye Wahab Weber Pearson Aye Weber Pearson aye And Wiener There's 8-0 members missing. 8-0. We'll put that on call. Senator Caballero, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, let me thank the committee for their input, and I will be accepting the amendments. the Committee Amendments. So thank you for the opportunity to present SB 997, which would address a narrow but important enforcement gap for the North Fork Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, or SGMA, established a framework for long-term groundwater sustainability and authorized the GSAs to be formed either through a joint powers agreement or special legislation. All GSAs have minimum enforcement authority under SGMA, which includes the ability to impose penalties that are only enforceable through a civil action. GSAs formed through JPAs have additional enforcement authority, such as the authority to impose liens to collect money owed, which is derived from the GSA's member agencies like Irrigation District. North Fork Kings was created via special legislation rather than as a JPA. This has restricted their ability to under SGMA, and they lack the ability to impose liens and leave civil litigation as a primary enforcement tool. North Fork King's GSA has developed a groundwater sustainability plan for 27-28 that includes limits on groundwater pumping and fees for noncompliance. To implement their authority efficiently and to avoid being tied up in lengthy litigation, North Fork needs the ability to impose and collect fines to ensure compliance with their sustainability plan. SB 997 simply grants lean authority to the North Fork Kings, which ensures that GSA can efficiently implement its groundwater sustainability plan. With me today to testify in support is Justin Mendez, the General Manager for North Fork Kings GSA. Thank you. The floor is yours. Thank you, Senator. Members of the committee, Justin Mendez, General Manager of North Fork Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency. We thank the Senator for sponsoring this and we thank the committee for their comments that we're going to accept their amendments. This would simply just allow us to be like the other GSAs to be able to enforce the fees to hopefully curtail overdraft and to keep us sustainable during our time frame. We are currently an approved GSA with approval and this will help us maintain that status. All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of SB 997, please approach the microphone. All right. Testing one, two, three. There we go. Thank you, Chair Umberg and Vice Chair Nilo and members. Danny Merkley with the Gawker Group on behalf of Kings River Interest and then also on behalf of California Farm Bureau in support. Thank you. Others in support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Charles Delgado representing California State Association of Counties in support of the bill. Thank you. Anyone else in support? No one else approaching? Let's turn to the opposition. If you opposed to SB 997 now your opportunity Going once going twice All right Let bring it back to committee Questions by Senator Reyes Thank you for bringing this. I learned so much about GSAs and SGMAs and the meaning of all of this. My poor team, they worked overtime just trying to brief me so that I could understand something that was so important in other communities. I had one question. Can you still become a JPA or is this better for you? Well, I mean, we probably should have made it a lot simpler. Yeah, it's one of those situations where in retrospect we probably should have made it all the same so that they share the ability to actually have the GSA work. because if you don't establish the fees and if you don't have a way to collect the money, then you become insolvent and the state takes over, which is the whole point of setting up these GSAs, we're to have it locally controlled. We could have made it apply to all of the GSAs that needed that enforcement, but frankly some of them wanted it, some of them did not. And so rather than kind of step into that morass, we just took the one that wanted the change, and we're working on it. I just – lots to learn here. At the appropriate time, I will move the bill. All right. It's appropriate time. So Senator Reyes has moved the bill. Other questions or comments? Senator Laird, you've seen your head no. All right. Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. All right. Senator Reyes has moved the bill. Chief Counsel Estrada, please call the roll. This is file item number 7, SB 997. The motion is do pass as amended to the floor. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo. Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Alvarado, Gill.

Ashby. Caballero. Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern. Wahab. Weber Pearson. Weber Pearson aye. Weiner. That's 9-0 with members missing. 9-0. We're going to put that on call. Next, we have Senator DeRosso and then our final bill by Senator Perez. Close your Senator DeRosso. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. SB 1296 enhances transparency regarding pet policies in rental units, specifically requires landlords to disclose their established pet policies or pet addendum on rental applications, on physical or electronic applications, and the property's Internet website, if they exist, or any digital advertisement for the property under the control of the landlord. Landlords do not allow pets shall clearly disclose their no pet policy. Allows an application fee to be returned within five business days to an applicant upon their request if an application fee is charged prior to the disclosure. For many Californians, finding housing units welcome their pets is already difficult. Renters are facing rising rental costs, restrictive pet policies, the flat-out prohibition of pets, among other challenges. One report finds that 74% of renters say pet-friendly housing is difficult to find. The lack of pet policy disclosure further exacerbates an already challenging process pet owners experience when searching for a rental unit. For example, while pets may be allowed in a rental unit, there may be additional restrictions such as breed, size, or number of pets that prospective renters do not find out until applicants are already well into the application process and have paid for application fees. This forces renters to choose between securing a stable home without their pets or continuing a costly and time-consuming search for housing that accepts their entire family. In some unfortunate cases, having already paid application fees, prospective tenants may even feel forced to settle for a housing unit that doesn't meet their needs and relinquish their pets. Easing the rental search process for Californians with pets is important because pets are companions and beloved members of the family. Pets also provide health benefits to many people and are fundamental sources of emotional support. 77% of my constituents are renters. In a state with about 17 million renters and with such a large share of these renters owning pets, pet policies are common and a highly relevant part of the housing search process. To ensure people with pets find stable housing during California's housing crisis, supporting pet owners during the rental search process is an urgent priority. And I just want to say on a personal basis, it wasn't until after, I think primarily around the time of the pandemic, that we were having pet fairs, pet resources fairs, just over and over. And the number of people who lined up in communities like East L.A. and Boyle Heights was really surprising to me. And I would talk to everybody one by one, say, why are you here? What are you doing? And overwhelmingly, it was because of the emotional support that the pets provide to the family. So that's really what led me to try to do something more for those families. With us today, we have Ross Barker, policy advisor with the Michelson Center for Public Policy and program director for the Pet Inclusive Housing Initiative, and Juliana Tetlo, senior government relations with the San Diego Humane Society. and Mr. Barker is available for technical questions. Thank you very much. The floor is yours. Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to testify here. My name is Ross Barker. I'm here in the capacity as policy advisor for the Michelson Center for Public Policy. I also serve as director for the Pet Inclusive Housing Initiative, a national effort working to expand access to rental housing for people with pets. Our initiative has been a leading voice in this space, focus on advancing balanced practical policies that work for both renters and housing providers. Its work is grounded in the belief that keeping people and their pets together is not just a pet issue or a housing issue, but also an equity issue that affects family stability, financial security, and community well-being. In a recent survey, we examined the housing search experiences of more than 1,100 California renters. And the findings were clear. A lack of transparency around pet policies is creating widespread and avoidable barriers. 82% of renters reported encountering pet-related restrictions or fees. 72% experienced negative consequences due to unclear or incomplete information. But most notably 51 of renters reported paying an application fee for even enough information to determine whether a pet would be allowed This bill is not about whether properties allow pets or not Renters are not asking to change the rules They simply asking that the rules be shared with them before they apply and pay application fees Today, that information is often missing or only disclosed late in the process, forcing renters to contact multiple properties, repeat the same questions, and incur unnecessary costs. This creates costly inefficiencies not only for renters but also housing providers who must respond to repeated inquiries and process applications that were never a good fit. SB 1296 addresses this directly by requiring clear, upfront disclosures of policies and practices before a renter applies. It's a common sense transparency measure that reduces avoidable costs, improves efficiency, and supports better housing outcomes. For these reasons, the Michelson Center is proud to sponsor SB 1296. We respectfully urge an aye vote. I'm available to answer any technical questions. Thank you. All righty. Thank you very much. Others in support? Hello. Good afternoon, Chair and members. I am Juliana Tetlow, Senior Director of Government Relations for San Diego Humane Society. We're serving 14 cities as the contracted animal care, animal control services provider, and the entire county and beyond as a safety net. My perspective on this issue is shaped both by that professional experience and by personal experience navigating the rental market as a pet owner, as well as a landlord owner of two properties. I moved my family back to Sacramento in November, and I would characterize the process of securing housing as a tenant like borderline predatory. I have seen firsthand how difficult it can be to find clear, reliable information about pet policies in rental housing. When that information is limited or inconsistent, it increases the time, cost, and uncertainty for pet-owning households. When those barriers become insurmountable, the consequences don't stop with the renter. They show up in our shelters. Housing-related pet relinquishment is a significant driver of preventable intake that places ongoing pressure on shelter space, staffing, and resources. And when the shelters are operating under that kind of sustained pressure, we are forced to prioritize immediate response over prevention. Resources that could go to be used to support pet owners and stabilize housing situations instead go towards intake and crisis management. That limits our ability to intervene early and keep pets with their families. This bill addresses a key point in that cycle. By ensuring earlier access to clear pet policy information, it allows renters to identify viable housing options before applying. This means fewer wasted applications that usually cost hundreds of dollars each, fewer disruptions, and more informed decision-making. Importantly, it also has a direct subsequent impact. When housing-related relinquishment is reduced, shelters can shift limited resources back to the community. From both my professional and personal experience, this is a practical upstream solution that will make a meaningful difference. Thank you. And you want us to vote aye? We do. Okay, thank you. Respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. Others in support? Good afternoon, Chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of both the Animal Legal Defense Fund and PowerCA Action, both requesting an aye vote. Thank you. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Humane World for Animals as well as the California Animal Welfare Association, both in support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Bella Kern on behalf of the Michelson Center for Public Policy, sponsor of this bill, in support. Thank you. Anyone else in support? Please approach the microphone. All right. Seeing no one, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB 1296, Mr. Moran. Mr Chair and members Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association First let me say we appreciate the amendments taken by the author They go a long way in taking care of a lot of our issues We just still have a couple of outstanding questions With regard to advertisement, if you don't allow pets, I mean, it's pretty clear that no pets, no pets. Now we have to include some information regarding service animals and whatnot. It's impractical. It's not going to fit on the sign. I drove here, the signs are about this big. You say apartment for rent. Fine, we have to put no pets. That's not a problem. But then we have to put an ADA-compliant statement on there. It's impractical. I was down in your district a couple weeks ago, driving on the freeway, saw what looked to be a new apartment. It says for lease. Then you have to put no pets, and you have to include the ADA requirements on there. No one would be able to read it, depending on what font it's in. Our other issue is with regard to the vaccination requires that we include the vaccination requirements. Our pet agreements say please attach a document for a qualified veterinarian indicating the animal has met all vaccination inoculation requirements in the area. does this mean that we now have to include what those requirements are or can we refer back to the like san diego animal shelter or or whatever requirements are uh in that area whether it's escondido san diego city san diego county you think it's impractical that we have to include all the types of inoculations that are required you have to show proof um that your pet is vaccinated, and we think that should be sufficient for us to comply with this. Thank you, Mr. Rand. All right. Others in opposition? Mr. Chair, members, Mark Smith on behalf of the California Rental Housing Association and our affiliates, and if you'll indulge me, I'll just rattle them off. The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, the Apartment Association of Orange County, the Berkeley Property Owners Association, the East Bay Rental Housing Association, the NorCal Rental Property Association, North Valley Property Owners Association, Santa Barbara Rental Property Association, and the small property owners of San Francisco, all in opposition for the reasons stated by Mr. Moran. Thank you for the amendments. We think there's more work to do on this bill. All right. Thank you very much. Others in opposition to SB 1296? All right. Seeing no one. Questions by committee members? Senator Caballero has a question. Senator Reyes has a question. So let me just say thank you to the author for bringing this forward. I had no clue that this, I hadn't even thought about the challenges of trying to find a rental unit with an animal. And the move to require a deposit in order to make an application, it becomes very expensive. If you're making a bunch of applications, you need to find some place to move to, and you have an animal there, it's limited, limited opportunities. And my question is, are you committed to continue working with the opposition? Because I think it has to make sense. But this bill is really important because you need a place from which to start from. And maybe it a symbol where you an emoji of some kind that gets used to describe that it a pet rental unit But I think that they raised some important issues about how it should work And you've made it very clear that it's not to penalize anybody, it's to get information out. And I do appreciate that. So as long as you're willing to continue having conversations, I'm going to support it today because I think it's going in the right direction. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I'll make the motion when it's appropriate. All righty. Thank you very much. Okay. Senator Reyes. Thank you. There are lots of landlords who simply say no pets allowed. That's sufficient. That's sufficient. And the only penalty then is a refund of your application fee if they don't disclose that. Is that right? Yes, I think so. get to that point, right? I mean, our hope is that this, you know, this allows property owners to post their, what their policies are up front. But yes, the only, I mean, it's the application fee that we're really starting with at this point, right? It's, yeah, nothing's going to happen until the application process. That's the only remedy that's in the bill. Is, as you go through this, perhaps to consider the renter or the proposed renter, also can ask the question, are pets allowed? Because if they ask the question, they're told, yes, they're allowed, but there are certain restrictions. It has to be a service dog or it can only be a small dog. But for the renter to also ask, because we have different kinds of landlords. We have small landlords, and then we have, you know, big apartment complexes. The big apartment complexes, yes, they can put everything in through their application to whatever it is that's going to be done. But for the small apartment owners, which is the majority of them, perhaps they do want to allow pets, but it has to be a small pet. And to have to put all of that in, they're just simply going to say no pets allowed, as opposed to having to say service dogs are okay. if it's a small dog. The other thing, my actual question has to do with the deposit. Is a deposit, can they still request an additional deposit if there's going to be a pet? I'm sorry, it's a question again. If a renter is – can the landlord tell the renter you can have your pet but you have to pay an additional deposit? Would that still be allowed under this bill? I think that would still be allowed. Nothing changes in the policies around deposits or monthly pet rents or any of those things with this bill. It's not requiring anything. It's not requiring any changes about you have to love pets. or not allow pets to use, whatever the existing laws would still be in play. Whatever the policy is, that's what it is. We're not suggesting changes in any way. Okay. All right. I thank you very much. Thank you. Other questions? Senator Niello. It appears the bill will get out. I have concerns with regard to the opposition's points, particularly with regard to small landlords. I think it would be very difficult for them to meet the requirements that you have, and they'd be caught in a violation. It's merely because of their size and ability to comply. So I can't support the bill as it is, but hopefully we'll continue to work with them. Yes. All righty, thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, Senator Reyes moves the bill. Senator Reyes moves the bill. Would you like to close? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. All we're looking for here is the transparency that pet owners need when they're looking for a place to live. and I do make the commitment that we will continue to work with folks in the opposition. All we want is information. That's all the renters want. So with all of that, thank you very much for your comments and questions. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll. This is file item number 8, SB 1296. The motion is due pass. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Allen? Aye. Allen, aye. Alvarado-Gill. Ashby. Caballero. Caballero, aye. Durazo, aye. Durazo, aye. Laird, aye. Reyes, aye. Reyes, aye. Stern, aye. Stern, aye. Wahab. Weber-Pearson, aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Weiner. 8-0. 8-0. We'll put that on call. Thank you, Senator Rosso. Next is Senator Perez. This is the last bill for today. So if you're within earshot of my voice, now would be a good time to present yourself. All right. Senator Perez. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Before I begin, I will be accepting the committee amendments reflected on page 5 and outlined on pages 11 and 12 of the committee analysis. I appreciate the work of committee staff in collaborating with my office to define what an unsolicited offer is. SB 1090 would impose a five-year prohibition on any individual or entity that owns 75 or more single-family properties for making unsolicited offers to purchase real property in areas affected by a wildfire disaster when an emergency has been declared. In January 2025, the Eaton and Palisades Fire ravaged the Los Angeles metropolitan region, claiming at least 31 lives, forcing over 200,000 residents to evacuate, and destroying more than 18,000 homes and structures. Among the challenges that have emerged during the rebuilding and recovery process is the increased presence of investors aggressively pursuing disaster-impacted properties at below market prices. This dynamic is often described as disaster capitalism and has occurred in several post-disaster communities. In response to these threats, executive actions have been taken to establish temporary protections, including out-of-state in Nashville for 2020 tornadoes, after the 2023 Maui fires, and in Florida following Hurricane Ian. In that same spirit, Governor Newsom signed Executive Order N-725 on January 14, 2025, to temporarily protect disaster-impacted residents from predatory real estate speculators through July 1, 2025. The order emphasized the need to protect those especially vulnerable to exploitative practices of inscrupulous individuals who seek to profit from this disaster As residents continue to navigate the rebuilding process reports indicate that investors continue to approach Altadena residents to dissuade residents from rebuilding, instead urging them to accept low-cash offers. Local constituents have even reported investor representatives seeking out survivors at FEMA recovery workshops. Property purchase trends in Altadena before and after the Eaton Fire show a significant increase in investor activity following the disaster. While investor ownership existed prior to the fire, investors' purchasing lots has surged after. One report found that investors purchased close to 49% of properties from February to July 2025 compared to about 10% during the same time span in 2024. Similar trends were observed following the Palisades Fire. Predatory real estate speculation can have a ripple effect on impacted communities, driving up housing costs, permanently displacing fire victims, and destabilizing neighborhoods through gentrification. In Altadena, these concerns have led to increased community advocacy, particularly among residents worried about potential displacement of the area's historic black community. As the community struggles to rebuild, long-term protections against disaster capitalism are necessary. Recovery from the Eaton Fire is already following patterns in past disasters, where rebuilding took many years and in some cases remains incomplete. As California communities continue to face disasters, SB 1090 establishes long-term protections for disaster-impacted residents, both in the immediate aftermath and through the rebuilding period, by creating a five-year prohibition on unsolicited purchase offers from large-scale property owners. SB 1090 will provide disaster-impacted survivors with the insurance and stability they need to focus on rebuilding their lives without being pressured or harassed to sell their property at an inopportune time. They will sell when and if they want to. Joining me to provide testimony and support for this bill is Iris Craig, Assistant Director of Policy and Research on Land Use and Equitable Development and Corporate Landlords from Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, or SAGE. Hi, good afternoon. Thank you. My name is Iris Craig. I'm the Assistant Director of Policy and Research for Land Use and Corporate Landlords with SAGE. I'm here in strong support of SB 1090 and its goal of protecting communities after disasters. After the Eaton fire, we've heard from many Altadena residents who began receiving unsolicited calls and text messages asking if they're willing to sell their homes, sometimes within days of being displaced. These calls are often framed as offers to help, like remediation services or insurance assistance, but quickly turn into attempts to purchase fire victims' property. We've heard directly from residents experiencing this pressure. After losing her home, one resident began receiving repeated unsolicited calls. In one case, a caller insisted at the beginning of the call the outreach was not a solicitation, but of course by the end of the call was making her an offer on her home, and he would take it in its current condition for cash. The calls became persistent, and she has received over a dozen unsolicited offers. These offers have also been extended to her family members who do not live or never lived in the home. Um in another case a real estate developer called um claiming with a very compelling story of a family looking to build their dream home on this person lot She described this as deeply distressing as her own dream home had just burned to the ground These stories represent just a fraction of the harassment experienced by fire victims who are being pressured to sell while they're still trying to rebuild and consider their options. The data reflects how widespread this pressure has become. In the year before the fire, about 8% of purchases were made by corporate entities. Within a year of the fire, after the fire, up to January 2026, that figure rose to about 60%, reflecting more than a seven-fold increase. This is not a normal market. It is a distressed market shaped by displacement and uncertainty where homeowners are being approached at a moment of crisis. Without intervention, residents risk being pushed into decisions about selling their homes under pressure rather than through a voluntary, informed choice. Targeting large-scale investors is important, but ownership is fragmented across multiple entities, allowing actors to operate below fixed thresholds. That's why focusing on the behavior of unsolicited offers... Thank you very much. You urge and I vote. Thank you. All right. All right. Others in support of SB 1090. Going once, going twice. All right. Opposition, if you're opposed to SB 1090, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone. All right. Let's bring it back to committee. Questions by... We are a tweener. Okay, you're a tweener. Okay, go ahead. I think this guy is too. Thank you, Anna Buck. On behalf of the California Association of Realtors, we submitted a joint concern letter with the California Land Title Association on this bill. We appreciate the thoughtful analysis by the committee consultant and thank him for raising important operational and implementation concerns. We share those concerns while supporting the bill's consumer protection objectives and hope to have the opportunity to work with the author going forward. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Mr. Chairman and members, John Norwood on behalf of the California Land Title Association. I just want to reiterate the concerns expressed in the analysis about the lack of enforcement mechanisms in this bill. I mean, basically, fails in these zip codes, legitimate or not, are going to garner a lot more scrutiny from the real estate transactions, the title insurance, et cetera, without clarifications in this bill down the line. I look forward to working with the author. Thank you very much. Thank you. Jasmine Valle on behalf of California Building Industry Association in respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else opposed to SB 1090? Please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members? Seeing Senator Weber Pearson. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Senator, so much for bringing this bill forward. I'm not sure if you know the answer, but do you know if the victims of the Palisade fires were harassed as much as those? that dealt with in the Eaton fire? I don't represent the Palisades, so I don't hear quite as much from those folks, although they do sometimes reach out to our office. We've certainly heard that they've experienced some of this as well, but it has been very significant in the Altadena community. And it has disproportionately, at least based off of the complaints we've received from our community members targeted mostly black and Latino residents Yeah I figured that Just one of my questions is where did you come up with the five years So we actually had a discussion with my office This bill is based off of Senator Adam Schiff bill that he brought forward within the U Senate His bill, I believe, supplies a two-year, six-month moratorium following a fire. And so what we did is we looked at the time period that it takes for the rebuild process typically. And rebuilding in a community that's been devastated by a fire typically takes about five to eight years. And so that's why we chose five years and we picked that number because we know that this rebuilding process is not one that's going to happen in six months. It's not going to happen in a year or even two years. It's going to take time. And so unfortunately, this constant barrage of harassment that my constituents are facing and the constant advertising that even I experience is not going to end anytime soon. From a legal standpoint, how does this or does this impact the First Amendment right for speech? You're asking the chair? I'm asking anyone who's a lawyer. Well, why don't we ask the proponents if they have a response to that. Is that Ms. Craig or Senator Perez? Certainly. So I'm going to point to the committee's analysis in AB 851, which is a bill that was passed last year, I believe, by Assemblymember Tina McKinner that addressed this same issue. It actually codified the executive order that Governor Newsom had brought forward. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects an individual's freedom of speech. Under the First Amendment, any restrictions on speech that is based on the content of the speech is presumptively unconstitutional and subject to strict scrutiny. This bill does not impact the ability of an investor to speak on housing and their viewpoints. This bill is focused on commercial speech, which is viewed differently under the spirit of the law. So when the speech involved is commercial speech, which the bill is when we are talking about the ability for investors to seek to purchase properties, and it solely relates to the economic interest of the speaker and its audiences, commercial speech is less protected than other forms of speech. In addition to that, we are not completely banning an investor's ability to be able to make an offer. It's just when that offer is unsolicited. So if a homeowner chooses that they want to put their home up for sale and they're seeking those types of offers, then they're welcome to do so. But I think there is a desire from my community members for them to not continue to receive these very aggressive, lowball, unsolicited cash offers. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Senator Niello and Senator Stern. You kind of raised a concern that I have about this, and that is that they could put their home up for sale. First of all, I understand in the immediate time after the disaster is a confusing time for a homeowner. As I've mentioned before, I had a house burned down, and it is an experience that I do not recommend. I'm so sorry, Senator Milo. It's very unsettling. And so I can understand, as an example, the governor's executive order. And I also understand that it takes a while when the entire community experiences the same disaster. It takes longer. And we were out of our house for a year and a quarter, and it was just our house. So I can understand that it takes much longer, and it has in other areas where similar disasters have happened. But a homeowner, after getting through the initial shock, however long that is, it's not five years, you begin to assess your options. That's right. And to completely eliminate the opportunity for someone to say, do you want to sell your house, seems to me to cut off an option to a homeowner. And the bill assumes that the homeowner is not able to make a rational decision. Now, I know why, because of the disaster, and it takes a long time. But I'm just saying, after the initial adjustment period and then deciding to rebuild your house, stay there or not stay there, I think people become able to objectively assess offers that might come to them by an institutional investor, by a real estate agent, by whomever, and to then make this a blanket law throughout the state any time such a disaster happens, I think is unfair ultimately to the people that you're trying to help. I appreciate your comments, Senator Nilo. And, you know, I'd say this bill does nothing to prohibit one's ability, a property owner's ability to make that determination and to be able to sell their home to whoever they want to, right? This is about unsolicited offers when those offers are not welcome and you have not put up your home for sale. I would never want to interfere with my constituents' ability to be able to make a decision that is best for their family. But what my constituents have been going through, which feels like this constant barrage of harassment and people seeking to take advantage of the most devastating thing that's ever happened to them in their lifetimes, has been deeply upsetting and frustrating for them. And to be quite honest, even with the governor's executive order, as you just heard described, there were many folks that shared with our office that people were not following the law even during that time period. And that is part of the reason why we've introduced this. So I can appreciate your standpoint, especially given that you faced a disaster like this yourself and have gone through that recovery process and understand how difficult it is, but was very mindful to not interfere with that very personal process that somebody has to go through in terms of selling their home. Senator Stern? Yeah, thank you. I really appreciate you following through on the McKenna work from last year, and I'm just trying to, because we're in judiciary, get ahead of some of these constitutional assertions that will be made and just get really clear on the amendments that you've made, because I think that it should strengthen the bill from a legal standpoint. And maybe this is for you or maybe it's for your supporters, but the definition of an unsolicited offer it not as if they can put up you couldn put say a general advertisement out there to say you interested in you know you see these on the side of the freeway right Cash for homes. Yes. So it's a particular offer to a particular homeowner, not a sort of generic advertisement. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And then, so general advertisements are okay. and it seems like even if I were, say, on Redfin as a homeowner who had lost in your area and were looking for homes, and a lot of times you get the pop-up ad when you're on Redfin to say, are you interested in selling? If you're looking to buy, it'll pop you up that ad, or it'll sort of do that within whatever all these many platforms are we have now to look for real estate. I feel like that falls under this idea of a public indication that an owner is willing to sell a property, but I'm not totally sure. Does it, those kind of circumstances where you're out there looking for properties and then it pops an ad back to you, is that, do you feel like covered here, that it would be allowed or do you think that wouldn't be permissible? Do you have a sense of that one? What we tried to cover is basically the point when a property owner chooses that they want to sell their home. At that point, they've made it clear that they're interested in accepting offers on their home. So the conversation. So not so much the shopping. I'm trying to understand that but you're describing in terms of this process like on Redfin. I think I know what you're talking about in terms of like these pop-up ads that come through. I don't know if this would apply here necessarily because the bill is very specific and talking about investors making offers and investors that specifically own over 75 or more single-family property units. And so if Redfin is then sending you an automated request, that's, I think, a different scenario than what we're kind of discussing here in this bill. Okay. Yeah, it seemed like it, and it seemed like that just by shopping for a home on one of these platforms and creating a profile and saying I'm looking to buy, sometimes they're going to say, what does that mean you're looking to sell as well? And so it didn't feel like the kind of particular offer that you're trying to get after. I just – it would be – I wouldn't want to chill any ability for people to go shopping for new places, too. Yeah. So – but I think you're on – I think you're on good track. I'm just raising the issue for you to think about going forward as you all tighten up and try to get this in shape so we can resist any legal challenges. And happy to move the bill at the appropriate time. Appreciate you bringing it forward. Thank you, Senator Stein. Senator Reyes. Senator Reyes. Thank you for bringing this. your constituents really look to you to find ways to protect them. They've come to you with the issues that are affecting them, and as good legislators, we just try to look at what the problem is and try to figure out a way to solve it. To continue on the questions that my colleague has asked, it does specifically say by any person, by text, email, phone, phone call, mail, but it also says other means of communication. So perhaps maybe to tighten that up a little bit, figure out ways to tighten that up. The other is on the five years that was asked by some of my colleagues, I understand the reason you came up with the five years, and perhaps that's something that also could be looked at to determine if that is the appropriate time. and maybe it is, but compared to what has been done in the past, it's much more time, but maybe it is the appropriate just something else to look at Thank you Thank you Thank you Other questions or comments Seeing none A couple questions to follow on with Senator Stern. The other means of communication, would that include a sign on a telephone pole that says, we will buy your home? Would that be an unsolicited communication? In terms of advertising, we have plenty of these signs around Altadena, so I know exactly what you're talking about. that's not something that I've discussed with my team, nor have I discussed with Sage, but that's certainly a conversation that we can have around what we would like to do in regards to that specific kind of advertising. So let me just ask Ms. Craig, if you don't mind. So four years out, if I'm driving and I see a sign that says, we will buy your home, in your mind, is that a violation of the code? I'm not sure. Yeah. That may illustrate a point here. I'm sorry, go ahead. It does seem like it's unsolicited if it's targeted to be in Altadena. I mean, if you're driving around Altadena and people are specifically starting to say, let's put these signs up because we know that there's burndown lots, that feels a bit targeted in my opinion. I guess it would depend on the level of recovery at the time, But without, I mean, four years out, I don't see, foresee Altadena being up and running the way it once was. So that would be a violation, a COG sign, just sign on a telephone pole that says, we will buy your home? I mean, I think, and I do want to say, Senator Umberg, I think that that's a conversation I need to have with my constituents more than anything to discuss what their thoughts are about something like that. this kind of advertising that you're describing, this is the constant barrage of advertising that we receive all the time. If you were in Pasadena right now, you'd open up your phone and you'd be receiving advertisements to participate in litigation, to tap into the wildfire fund, or to purchase your burnt down lot for a full cash offer. So what we were discussing and focused on as we worked on this bill was some of the direct phone calls and communications that folks were receiving, people that were literally in mourning at the lot where their home once was and being approached by investors. But we have not had a conversation around some of this either digital advertising, as Senator Stern was referring to, or posted advertising. But I'm happy to have that conversation with my residents. I guess the same question would be, if you put in a newspaper, we will buy, four years out, we will buy your home, that would be a violation as well if you put it in the local newspaper? It seems like a conversation that needs to be had with constituents. I'm not sure that that would count as a violation. If it's pointed in Altadena, I think it's definitely worth discussing and considering. If it's an Altadena newspaper for Altadenas and local in that way, perhaps it is, but I definitely think it's worth more discussion. So if somebody puts flyers around your neighborhood, well, let me give you a specific example. Someone says, we will buy your home for $500,000, and someone says, we will buy your home for $400,000. The seller, if the $500,000 offer comes from an institutional investor, the seller would have to take the $400,000 offer. Is that right? Are you saying that the event if the offer is from a smaller Right from a smaller entity so the seller would be compelled to take the offer I think that the way it written now I mean my recommendation in the comment that I was giving is that I think it should be a blanket ban despite owner amount You mean even if your next-door neighbor says, I'll buy your house for $500,000. Well, let me strike that. So you get two offers. You get a piece of paper on your porch that says, I'll buy your house for $500,000. It comes from an institutional investor, and you get another offer from the person next door that says $400,000. You would suggest both those unsolicited offers should be banned? I think that we're getting at predatory and undercutting the community. I don't necessarily know that your neighbor, who is perhaps also a victim of the fire, I don't know that that's the same thing that we're getting at. It's also, yeah, I'm not sure if you want to go to that. To me, it would seem that the $500,000 offer would be banned, the $400,000 would not be banned, and thus the seller would be compelled to take the $400,000 offer. Is that how it would work? I think it would be up ultimately to the homeowner on if they wanted to begin opening up and accepting offers, right? Because it's up to the homeowner at the end of the day to choose to put their home for sale, and that's what we're getting at ultimately, Senator. I'm just assuming four years out, your home's not for sale. We get these offers all the time. Will you sell your home? Sometimes there's a price, sometimes there's not. I'm just wondering, my next question would be whether it would be a fund. For example, the seller then is basically losing $100,000. If someone offers me $500,000 and the law says you may not accept that $500,000 offer, I don't care that you're 75 years old, you want to retire, you may not accept that offer. You must accept another offer that's $100,000 less. Are you contemplating a fund to cover basically the cost to that seller? No, I've not contemplated a fund because this is not supposed to force the hand of the property owner on which types of offers that they're supposed to be accepting. This is ultimately about my constituents not being harassed post a fire, being constantly offered low-bulk cash offers by investors that see an opportunity to take advantage of fire survivors. And so what a homeowner chooses to accept as an offer, whether or not they would like to put their home for sale, that is a choice I want for them to be able to make on their own, and that is a very personal decision. I know folks that have chosen to accept less because they want to offer their home to a family that's looking to build and they don't want to sell to an investor. Other folks have made other decisions. That's not up to me. That is up to them. What we're trying to get at is the harassment that's occurring here. But by law, we're precluding a particular offer, right? In other words, we're saying the state of California says you may not sell your home to an investor, an industrial investor. No. The way that I see this bill and the way that we've been talking with our residents about it and what they have requested of us is that those that are investors that own more than 75 single-family homes are not able to continue with their barrage of offers to black and brown families that have been victims of the fire. Not that the homeowner cannot then put their home for sale and accept an offer. Okay. So in that, I'm going to support the bill, but the There's no enforcement mechanism. If there should ever be an enforcement mechanism that's incorporated in the bill, I'm hoping you'll bring it back here for us to have a further discussion. Certainly. And I appreciate that as well. And, you know, I would be happy to discuss that with you too, Senator Umber, because we continue to navigate this. It's been a very challenging situation for my constituents who feel, I mean, frankly fed up. But, yeah. Okay, I'm sorry. Senator Allen, you have a question? Yeah. I mean, this certainly is a phenomenon that's happening in the Palisades as well. I don't believe to the extent as in Altadena, but it's certainly happening. It seems to me that we should put in some language about the solicitation going directly to the homeowner. because this kind of general advertising seems to go much further than what you're trying to address. And, you know, quite frankly, there are a lot of our constituents who do want to leave and sell. Obviously, they wouldn't have ever chosen to do that if the fire hadn't happened. But there are people who want to get out and have made that – that's something they want to do. And I understand you want to make sure people aren't getting harassed with all these phone calls, especially as you mentioned. But it would seem to me that the general advertising that has been described – I'm not sure we want – I don't know. That feels different to me than the direct solicitation to the homeowner. So that's what I'm going to say. Senator Reyes and Senator Weber Pearson. I just wanted to say that after that cross-examination by our chair. I apologize then if that's how it felt. I felt like I was in court. But I was going to say that if they receive an unsolicited offer that is $500,000, to use that example, and one from somebody that doesn't qualify as owning 75 homes at $400,000, the homeowner simply says, now I'm willing to sell my house. And then they can accept any offer they want, whether it's from the institution or from the other. And obviously they're going to choose the one that provides, at that point, they're willing to sell, they'll pick the best offer. Just, I don't want to, let me ask Ms. Craig, because if I've, that's the tone, I want to change the tone. But to use Senator Reyes' example, I would think that the initial $500,000 offer is a violation, and thus you would not be able to, even if you now say, I want to put my home up for sale, because of that violation, that initial violation, you could not sell at that point. Is that your understanding of how it works? No, my understanding is that we are not trying to prohibit anyone from selling their home if they want to. I mean, I listed that 60% of homes have been sold to corporate entities, and while that's a shame to some extent, you know, we want people to feel empowered to make decisions they have to make. There no judgment for any constituent or person or fire victim for the decisions they have to make to take care of their own family So my understanding is to not prevent them from making sales if they need to It to prevent them from being harassed Right Again since there not an enforcement mechanism there no penalty I guess as to the institutional purchaser So it sort of no harm no foul at this point. But if there should be an enforcement mechanism, it would seem that the initial violation of law then precludes you from actually ever consummating the sale. But we'll We'll leave that for future reference. Senator Weber-Pearson. Yes, thank you, Chair. So your line of questioning made me think of something, because the $500,000 offer or opportunity, I won't say offer, opportunity, the homeowner may not never know about it under this particular bill, because if I am prohibited from even coming to you because I own 75 or more single family properties, then you have no idea that you could have gotten $100,000 more. If I own 25 and I can come to you and say, hey, I'll give you $400,000 for your house, you may not have thought at the time like, oh, I'll sell my house, but you may think, oh, this is a great offer, not knowing that you would have just lost out on $100,000. That's really what I was hearing when you were having that conversation. So I know that you are in constant communication with your constituents. I think that, you know, you might want to have this conversation with them, especially with the five year ban, because they could be potentially shorting themselves on money that they could be receiving because they're not able to actually see all of the potential offers out there, especially if they were not thinking, I want to sell my house, and then someone comes and says, I'll give you X amount of money, and you're like, okay, that's great, sure, without knowing that you could have gotten $100,000, $50,000, $200,000 more from a corporation that was able to provide more for your house. So I would just suggest that maybe you have that conversation with them and just see how they feel about it. But thank you. Is that it? Okay. Senator Reyes has moved the bill. Oh, I'm sorry. Senator Stern has moved the bill. Senator Stern has moved the bill. Would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. All right. Give me to Assistant Porter. Please call the roll. This is file item number five, SB 1090. The motion is do pass as amended. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Allen, aye. Alvarado Gill?

Ashby? Ashby, aye. Caballero? Caballero, aye. Durazo? Durazo, aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Reyes. Reyes, aye. Stern. Stern, aye. Wahab. Weber Pearson. Aye. Weber Pearson, aye. Wiener. Wiener, aye. 10 to 2. 10 to 2. Is that everyone voting? No. Okay, we'll put that on call. Thank you very much. Okay, let's start at the top then. All right community supporter let start at the top On the consent calendar chair voting aye Allen Allen, aye. Ashby? Ashby, aye. Stern? Stern, aye. Wahab? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 12 to 0. 12 to 0. Put that back on call. File item number 1, SB 1088. This needs a motion. Move by Senator Weber Pearson. The motion is due pass. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye. Allen? Allen, aye.

Aye. Alvarado Gill, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird? Aye. Stern. Stern, aye. Wahab. Weber-Pearson. Aye. Weber-Pearson, aye. Wiener. Wiener, aye. 11-0. 11-0. Put that back on call. File item number 2, SB 1242. Chair voting aye. Ashby. Ashby, aye. Laird. Laird, aye. Stern. Stern, aye. Wahab. Weber-Pearson. Wiener. Wiener, aye. 11-0. 11-0. We'll put that back on call. Thank you. File item number 3, SB1007. Chair voting aye. Nilo. Allen. Allen, aye. Ashby. Aye. Ashby, aye. Stern. Wahab. Wiener. 8-2-1. 8-1. Put that on call. File item number 4, SB 1364. Chair voting aye. Allen. Aye. Allen, aye. Ashby. Aye. Ashby, aye. Stern. Stern, aye. Wahab. Wiener. Wiener, aye. 12-0. 12-0. Put that back on call. File item number 5, SB 1090. Chair voting aye. Wahab. Okay. What is the vote again? Sorry. 10 to 2. 10 to 2. Put that on call. File item number 7, SB 997. Chair voting aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby aye. Stern? Aye. Stern aye. Wahab? Wiener? Aye. Wiener aye. 12 to 0. 12 to 0. Put that on call. File Item Number 8, SB 1296. Chair voting aye. Nilo, Alvarado Gill, Ashby. Aye. Ashby, aye. Wahab, Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. 10-0. 10 put that on call All right we going to basically be in recess until 4 At that time we open the roll for those who have not voted Back in business. So, Community Assistant Porter, please call the roll. On the consent calendar, Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bill is out. Or, excuse me, consent calendar is adopted. File item number 1, SB 1088. Chair voting aye. Reyes, Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. 12-0. 12-0. Bill is out. File item number 2 SB 1242 chair voting aye Wahab Aye Wahab aye Weber Pearson 12-0 12-0 bills out File item number 3 SB 1007 chair voting aye Nilo Stern Wahab Aye Wahab aye Wiener 9-1. 9-1. Bills out. File Item 4, SB 1364. Chair voting aye. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. 13-0. 13-0. Bills out. File Item 5, SB 1090. Chair voting aye. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. 11-2. 11-2. Bills out. File item number 7, SB997, chair voting aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. 13-0. 13-0, bill is out. File item number 8, SB1296, chair voting aye. Nilo, Alvarado-Gill, Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. 11 to 0 11 to 0 that bill is out Now I feel badly. All right, Senator Jishri is adjourned until call of the chair. Thank you. Thank you.