Senate Judiciary Committee
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Judiciary Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
Both prehospital DNRs and PULST are highly specific, standardized, and signed by a medical provider, making them binding medical orders that other health care providers are required to follow. SB ten eighty eight aligns the three planning tools and makes important modernization updates. First, in recognition that physician assistants and nurse practitioners can sign a POLST, it updates the name of POLST to portable orders listing scope of treatment, and allows those providers to also sign a prehospital DNR. It also clarifies that POLST and prehospital DNR forms are entirely voluntary, and that care can't be conditioned on completing one. It also clarifies who can sign a PULST on behalf of a patient.
It creates a presumption of validity for a PULST executed in another state. It allows electronic signatures to be used to facilitate electronic completion, storage, and retrieval of pulsed forms. These are modern and reasonable reforms that help people plan for the end of their lives. With me in support, I have Doctor. Carl Steinberg on behalf of the Coalition for Compassionate Care of California.
If you'd like to come to the microphone there, they'll take your testimony from there.
Speaker 22
Thanks, senator, and, thank you, mister chair and committee members. I'm Doctor. Carl Steinberg. I've been a hospice and nursing home medical director in San Diego County since 1995, I'm and here on behalf of the Coalition for Compassionate Care of California, which I'm a past chair of. The coalition introduced the POLST program and assisted then assembly member Lois Wolk with the original POLST legislation, AB 3,000, back in 2008, to help ensure people near the end of life get the treatments they want to get but don't have to endure treatments they don't want by way of portable medical orders.
Speaker 4
Since then, we've supported the program and sponsored several bills to improve access to PULST and develop a statewide electronic registry. And this bill, as the Senator says, seeks to make further improvements to the POLST process in California. It'll help clarify who and under what authority can sign a POLST or DNR on behalf of an incapacitated patient, and it will help providers correctly identify authorized surrogates and exclude those not authorized to sign. It'll change the name, as the Senator stated, and it will put into statute the longstanding principle that POLST is never mandatory, because we frequently hear that nursing homes are forcing all patients to complete a POLST form, despite lots of efforts by us, CDPH, and other industry organizations to educate them. California's Emergency Medical Services Authority, or EMSA, is currently developing a statewide electronic registry for POLST, as mandated in AB twelve thirty four.
Most health systems already use electronic health records, yet this the current statute doesn't define or authorize any type of electronic signature of the form, so we'd like to bring the law into alignment with current practice standards. And, finally, visitors and temporary residents in California should have confidence that orders reflecting their documented treatment preferences will be honored by our health care systems. Existing law already allows recognition of advanced health care directives from other states, and we believe the same should apply for POLST and prehospital DNR orders. Thanks for your attention. I'll be glad to field any questions, if I can.
Speaker 1
Thank you, doctor. Next witness, please. Seeing no other witnesses approaching the microphone, as primary witnesses, if you support SB ten eighty eight, please approach the microphone, give us your name, your affiliation, your position.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Others in support. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB ten eighty eight, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice, seeing no one approaching.
Alright, 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'll be a motion and a vote. We don't have a quorum yet, but we will.
All right.
Speaker 3
Yes, thank you. I appreciate the consideration and respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Let's turn now to Senator Choi. Senator Choi's bill, which is file item number two, s b twelve forty two.
Speaker 19
Good afternoon, chairman and the committee members. I'm here to present senate bill twelve forty two, which allows a family member as the original petitioner to participate in the care court program for the purposes of care coordination and providing relevant information to the court. The care act was enacted to provide court court supervised treatment for those with the untreated or un undertreated mental illness. The CARE Act pro promotes family centered centered care and community based services for people with serious mental illness. This is because family members are often the most familiar with the respondent's medical history, conditions, treatment needs, and risks.
Speaker 8
Unfortunately, current law limits family member petitioners' ability to participate beyond the initial hearing. Excluding family members from proceedings can reduce care court's effectiveness by depriving the court and the care team of critical information and the limiting family involvement in treatment planning, support, and the care coordination. This undermines the care act's main goals, which are community and family centered care. SB twelve forty two addresses this by allowing family members who are the original petitioners to participate in the care court program for the purpose of purpose of assisting in care coordination and providing relevant information to the care team. This bill also preserves the full judicial dis discretion to limit or exclude participate participation should the court determines that such participation would be harmful to the respondent's treatment or well-being.
Testifying in support of SB twelve forty two is Doctor. Suzanne Fiddler with the Conference of California Bar Association and Keanu Hopper, a Family Care Act, a petitioner and a volunteer with the Treatment Advocacy Center, Grave Disability Workgroups and NAMI, both advocates for individuals with serious mental illnesses. Thank you, and I would like to turn over to my main, witness.
Speaker 9
I'm Suzanne Fiddler, speaking on behalf of the Conference of California Bar Associations, the sponsor of SB twelve forty two. Today, original petitioners, as family members, can initiate care proceedings but are excluded from ongoing participation without the respondent's consent. Yet, meaningful consent requires the ability to weigh the benefits and consequences of excluding this critical support. The individuals this act is designed to serve are suffering from severe mental illness, which may impair insight, decision making, and their perception of reality. What may appear as refusal is often driven by the illness itself.
Family petitioners are the original source of information. They are involved in crises, recognize deterioration, and often know the status of their loved ones in real time. Yet, current law excludes these key partners, leading to gaps in information and fragmented care. Without coronation, individuals cycle through hospitalizations and deterioration, leading to homelessness, incarceration or self neglect. SB twelve forty two addresses this by allowing limited engagement of family petitioners to assist with care coordination and provide real time information with judicial oversight.
This bill does not replace the supporter role. It does not require court participation. It does not grant access to protected health information. It does not expand involuntary treatment or weaken due process protections. This bill does improve care coordination and prevents unnecessary isolation of respondents from family support.
This bill aligns with Welfare and Institutions Code 5,801, which recognizes that mental health services are best delivered in the community, with clients and families directly participating in decisions affecting their lives. SB1242 is a balanced, practical step that strengthens the CARE Act while preserving individual rights. I strongly urge your I
Speaker 15
Hello, and thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak today. Thank you, Senator Choi, honorable chairman, and senators. I volunteer with Treatment Advocacy Center and some other groups, including locally Sacramento's Family Advocates for Individuals with Serious Mental Illness. I'm also a care petitioner, a family care petitioner. Today, I'm sharing my family's experience because it reflects what families like mine across the state live with every day when our loved ones do not receive adequate treatment and support services for their serious mental illnesses involving psychosis.
Speaker 10
For fourteen 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 anosognosia, where she cannot recognize she is ill or needs treatment. During untreated psychosis, she became justice involved. Inmate psychiatric care did not fully stabilize her, and she refused all reentry services and was released to the streets of Sacramento, where 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.
SB1242 makes a narrow, balanced improvement. It allows family petitioners to participate. Thank
Speaker 1
you, ma'am. And thank you for your work in this space. Know that this is a passion of yours, and we appreciate that.
Speaker 7
Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, in support. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Mary Ann Bernard, I am a member of FASME, meaning I am a family member, of someone with severe mental illness. I am also a lawyer who used to represent mental hospitals in another state. This is a much needed
Speaker 15
Alison Monroe, co founder of Families Advocating for the Seriously Mental Ill, which is based in Alameda County, and I support.
Speaker 31
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.
Speaker 1
I'm I'm These are trite words, but I'm sorry for your loss, and and thank you for coming to advocate in his honor. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Hi, my name is Jane Dixon, and I'm also a member of the advocates, and a mom, in support of twelve forty two, 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 the demonstration of
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of SB twelve forty two? Let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB twelve forty two, please come forward.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Chair members. Samuel Jan with Disability Rights California. We are here in opposition of SB twelve forty two, 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 fifteen children experience sexual abuse from a family member.
Some families are not abusive but dysfunctional, to the point their involvement negatively impacts health and recovery. SB twelve forty two's safeguard to this is that the court can limit a family member's involvement in care proceedings if detrimental to the respondent. This operates under the assumption that the that the court can accurately determine if a family member's involvement is detrimental. It puts the burden on the respondent to detail their issues with the family member's involvement, which they may struggle to communicate, particularly in the midst of a mental health crisis. Allowing a family member to participate in care proceedings against the wishes of a respondent is at best coercive and trust eroding, and at worst severely damaging to their mental and emotional health.
Proponents of this bill have said that this change is important for family members to 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 All right. Thank you very much. To participate and receive information about their care proceedings.
For these reasons, we ask for your Novo.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Others who are opposed, SB1242, please approach the microphone. All right.
Seeing no one else yes?
Speaker 1
very much. Anyone else opposed to SB twelve forty two seeing no one approach, we're going to establish a quorum here, the ever ephemeral quorum. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the role for purposes of establishing quorum.
Speaker 6
Nilo, here. Allen? Here. Allen, here. Alvarado Gil?
Alvarado Gill, here. Ashby? Caballero? Duraso? Here.
Duraso, here. Laird? Reyes?
Speaker 1
All righty. Thank you very much. All right. Questions or comments by committee members? Senator D'Araso and doctor Weber Pearson and Okay.
Senator Reyes. So let's start with senator D'Araso, then senator Weber Pearson.
Speaker 20
I'm trying to understand better the role of family, what's allowed, what's not allowed, both currently and with this, and where's the downside? Where's the danger that we, you know?
Speaker 18
Yeah. Yes, Senator. That's a good question. And, you know, as the analysis details, this issue has came up repeatedly in multiple care court follow-up bills, and those bills have steadily increased family member involvement in care court. So where things stand today is that family members can be involved in care court proceedings as long as the respondent consents.
So the only thing that this bill does is it removes that consent requirement.
Speaker 20
And could you do you see any benefit to that in terms of what what we what was described as individuals respondents that are ill and how that fits into their illness fits into their capacity to make decisions, I guess, what it is.
Speaker 33
Yes, senator. So, you know, one of the things that the the author and the proponents said that, you know, it's important for family members to provide insight into the respondent's condition. You know, some family members and other individuals don't know this, but you can actually provide information to county behavioral health in one direction. It's just that that information, county behavioral health can then, cannot provide information in the other direction to the family member. So they can already call county behavioral health, which includes individuals on the care team, and provide information about the individual's condition, which can then be part of the CARECO proceedings.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Chair. And I guess my questions are aligned with the direction in which senator D'Arrazo was going. So senator Choi, is it to your understanding and your intent for the bill to remove the ability for the individual to be able to consent to having his or her family guardian, whoever participate?
Speaker 8
Okay. As I stated a while ago in my statement, this bill preserves a full judicial discretion to limit or exclude the participation should the court determines that such participation would be harmful to the 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 Doctor. Fiddler for further explanation.
Speaker 9
Yeah, I guess my question wasn't about judicial. My question was about the individual patient. So based on what you've just read, it sounds like it does remove patient consent and places that in the hands of a judge to make the decision as to whether or not the family being involved would be detrimental to that particular individual's case. Question, I guess, for the sponsors or supporters. As it stands right now, if I am undergoing a care court proceeding and I want someone from my family or whoever may have initiated it, can I request that?
I'm sorry, request that you find out who the Request that they be involved in the proceedings at this time. Because right now, you're this bill would allow the judge to decide. But I'm saying right now, if I'm going through this and I say, Hey, I want my mother to be able to participate in the proceedings, to have all of the information, am I Is that allowed right now? The respondent has the right to provide consent for the participation of the original petitioner as well as to name a supporter. So there's two different roles.
They So right now, if I am an individual and I want my family to participate in all of this, I do have the ability to do it at this point?
Speaker 9
You do. Ms. Okay. All right. I am concerned about the potential for having someone involved in the proceedings that the particular individual may not care to be there, whether it is extreme to the point where a judge would say, You are, you know, a true detriment or just for my own privacy, I don't want you there.
Understanding that they still can provide information that would be relevant to that particular individual's medical or behavioral health background, I do have some concerns about removing the consent from that particular individual to, state who and who they do not want, as a part of the proceedings. But thank you so much for bringing this forward, and thank you for answering my question.
Speaker 13
Thank you. I really appreciate all that we've been able to do through CARE Court. I think it's a new process, and I think that taking care of those with severe mental illness is extremely important, finding ways for treatment, finding ways for housing. This is all so important. And we have seen a number of bills, especially in this committee, that have to do with who is involved and who has the capacity to require that a family member be involved in Cal Court.
So we've gone through quite a few things. I want to, as a side, I do want to thank the family members who have come up to testify because I have spoken with many, since this began and even before as an attorney about how difficult it is to to be able to take care of a loved one, who who needs help, who doesn't know they need the help and can't make the decisions. I absolutely understand that. As an attorney, I also want to be sure that we protect the right of an individual to make the decisions as best they can. And something that was mentioned, and I'm glad that my colleagues talked about that, is under the proceedings now, a family member and a supporter can be involved in the care of the individual.
Speaker 27
And that is extremely important that that person can say, yes, I do want them involved, because we all know that you are loving families, but we all recognize that not every family and not every individual has a loving family. And sometimes it is those very same individuals that are causing the very harm that is now being treated. And trying to find that balance I think is the most difficult part of this, trying to make sure that what we are doing is the best that we can for that individual that most needs the help. The system as through the various iterations we are now at the point where that person who asked that the family member participate in family court, that person can be involved unless the person says, you know what, they cause me more harm than they do good and I don't want them involved. And that's an important part.
Speaker 13
That's something that that we we're we're at that point where that can happen. I I am as a lawyer, I'm concerned about how much time it would take to get a decision from a judge once you petition. Let's say that the person receiving the care says I don't want this family member involved. They then have to file a petition to have them removed. That petition goes to a judge.
I'm sure there is going to be a hearing. I'm sure there's going to be evidence presented. And when all of this is happening, all the while that person that the patient may feel is causing them more harm will remain in that person's life. There isn't a stay on their participation. These are details that I'm concerned with.
I want to be sure that we protect the right of that individual even if because the judge can decide they they cannot they don't have the capacity to decide whether or not somebody should be involved, And we're taking their right away to consent, as has been noted by my colleagues. That's a lot to take away from a human being. And I'd like to hear from from both if I through the chair.
Speaker 9
Absolutely. So I want to step back for just a moment about the CARE Act. The CARE Act is designed to help individuals suffering from severe mental illness. Correct. And that means that they are without this program, they are unlikely to survive in the community safely.
What this bill is to address is the fact that requesting and requiring that person who is currently suffering from psychosis and impaired insight to be able to understand that consent, which means weighing the benefits and the consequences of having a family member who's a petitioner to simply provide ongoing information and assist where they can. This is a partnership. It's not taking away any particular rights. No other consent is required from that from that respondent for any other action of of care court. So this is providing that partnership and understanding that affirmative consent really means understanding what they're consenting to.
And until that occurs, we're bringing in family support, providing that information. Currently, there is not that ability. Once a respondent is deemed to say that there's no participation from the original petitioner, they are completely excluded. There's no communication. There's no one way communication, even.
And that leads to fragmented care. That leads to the gaps that we're seeing and the repeated hospitalizations, deterioration and self neglect.
Speaker 13
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 trying to again, trying to find that balance. And so my concern is this process for for the judge to make that decision.
The judge has to decide that having that person involved would cause more harm to that person in care court than it would than they would that it causes harm to that person in care court. So from the time that person says, this person is causing it's more harmful. I don't want them involved. Then it goes to a judge. There has to be a hearing.
And during that whole process, that person remains involved. So those details, unless the author would like to those details about from the time there is a petition that is filed or who files a petition. Is it the mental health professional who says the family should not be involved? It's it's causing more problem? Or is it the the the the patient?
Who is it that's requesting this, and what is the process, and is there a stay on the the the the involvement of the family while this is being determined? And whose opinion is going to be weighed more. Is it the mental health professional? Is it going to be the patient? I'm concerned about those details.
I think it's well intended. I'm concerned about the details, and I don't know if someone can respond to those details.
Speaker 9
I can. So this language with judicial discretion is currently in in the law as of July 2025, there's judicial discretion to not provide notice to the original petitioner as far as any hearing. So, right now, there is that language in judicial discretion. We're looking at a situation where we need the family to provide that help. If it's not helpful, then that's fine.
We have it's most of the work is outside the court. It's with the social workers, the psychiatrists, the nurses, the whole team that's there to support that individual, which also requires information, where that person is, what their condition is. It's to provide that whole care coordination for the purpose of assisting that severely mentally ill person who will not be able to safely survive in the community.
Speaker 18
Thank you, senators. And I really appreciate raising these issues. I think that these are really serious issues with this specific bill. And I I think that that you're absolutely right, senator, that this would involve a judicial determination where there would be a hearing where the respondent would likely need to detail the issues that they have with the petitioner. And, you know, in response to what the proponents said, you know, these there are requirements for an individual to be subjected to care court.
However, these are not individuals who are eligible for involuntary treatment. So they're in a middle ground, where they, you know, are maybe too symptomatic for just regular outpatient treatment, but they're not quite symptomatic enough for involuntary treatment. So I think, yeah, our concerns are that putting the burden on the individual to communicate, you know, all of these different reasons, you know, why they object to the to the their family members' involvement is a really big concern.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Let me take a step back. So first, we should understand that care court is voluntary. So respondent can withdraw from care court. Number one.
Number two, respondent has counsel. So it's not just someone with schizophrenia who's trying to advance their own cause. It's someone who has counsel, and also has a supporter. Thirdly, is that family members are often, in 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 often times, is without that information, without that support, is that they are going to deteriorate. And so, I think the protections that are built into care court, 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. 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, rare circumstance. So other questions or comments? Yes. Senator DeRosso.
Speaker 20
I just wanted to say to senator Choi, I'm barely, I mean, barely convinced to support the bill today. We knew when we passed care court that it was gonna be an inch by inch. You know? What can we do to strengthen the care court concept and and and actions? We knew we had to do something.
We knew we had to do something dramatically different, and that's what ultimately, without all the details, we said, okay. We're willing to try it. But I will continue to talk to the opposition. I'm not sure I'll get through to the floor vote, but I just want you to know, as you know, this is very difficult. It's very difficult emotionally for a lot of us.
You know, many of us have friends or family who are in this situation, and, you know, you keep picturing that individual. So I will be supportive for now and but appreciate what you're trying to do.
Speaker 1
Alright. Other questions or comments? Move the Senator Niello moves the bill. All right. Senator Choi, would you like to close?
Speaker 8
Thank you, everybody, making contributions to the discussion. I know unfortunate situations like this with family member with a mental illness. Ninety nine percent of the time, the family will care of that family member who's right now in this situation of suffering a 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 for many in different forms. Those cases, by the hearing, the judge judicial court has had that information already known to the person.
That's the reason, as I stated a second time, judicial court will reserve 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 pay patient who's suffering the mental illness. So therefore, I strongly encourage an I vote so we can assure that the individuals with the mental illness get the support that they need. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Senator Choi. And just before we take a vote, just a final word to the family members, because I recognize several of you from this journey that began four years ago, four plus years ago. And I mentioned it to at least one of you, but I am grateful. And I know that some of your family members have fallen through the cracks, and I know that some of you have suffered mightily. I really appreciate the fact that you're doing what you can, in recognition of your loved ones, to continue to improve Care Court, because it is a work in progress, and it will continue long beyond my time here to take, I think, steps to close certain gaps, and I think this bill does close a particular gap.
So with that, committee assistant Porter, please call the roll.
Speaker 6
This is file item number two, SB twelve forty two. The motion is to pass. Umberg? Aye. Umberg I, Nilo?
Aye. Nilo I, Allen? Aye. Allen I, Alvarado Gil? Aye.
Alvarado Gil I, Ashby, Caballero? Caballero I, Duraso I, Laird, Reyes, Reyes I, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pearson, Weiner. Seven-zero.
Speaker 1
All right. I see Senator Menjivar is here. So, the the lineup would be senator Menjivar, senator Perez, then we'll turn to committee members. All right. Senator Mengibar.
Speaker 22
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, if you didn't know, approximately 40,000,000 people live in HOAs here in California. And while back in the 1980s, established the Davis Sterling Act, which prescribed the requirements around these HOAs. These associations largely operate outside of state oversight but hold tremendous power over their homeowners.
And these associations represent an ever growing share of California's housing stock, and membership is mandatory. In fact, nationwide, 64 of all new housing construction is now gonna fall under HOAs. And during a time when Californians are experiencing both a housing shortage and affordability crisis, it is imperative the state act. I've heard concerns. Well, a lot of you have heard concerns from constituents related to the lack of transparency that exists in HOA board operations and the need to protect their pocketbooks.
And before I dive into the details, I want to acknowledge that in the previous committee, I committed to amending the bill on different levels to address some of the concerns that I was hearing both from my colleagues and from the opposition. As I was waiting to hear back from committee on potential committee amendments, I passed the deadline to provide author amendments. I was thinking I would address all the concerns in the in as a lump sum when that happened. And when that didn't, unfortunately, I had we are 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, 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 imagine, which is why we are in ongoing negotiations because this has been in place for a long time. So SB ten o seven is looking to attempt the 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 comprehension 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 gonna be buried in the report, how can we just, remove some, duplication and put it more visible for people to see in the front? It's about more information.
It's not about it's it's not about more information. It's about where that information can be placed. Second, if a homeowner is being accused of a violation and being charged a penalty, we also wanna make sure that if and only if the HOA has evidence, whether it's a video, whether it's photos, whether it's a recording, that they provide said evidence they use to come up with that violation to the person that is being accused of the violation. Homeowners should have the right already have the right to contest an alleged violation at a board meeting, so this provision on access to available evidence is really about fairness and transparency. And lastly, the bread and butter of this bill is around limiting how much HOAs can raise regular fees without a homeowner's vote.
Speaker 13
Current law allows for a regular assessment fee up to 20%, which is incredibly too high. Your salary, my salary, unfortunately, does not get increased by 20% every single year to adjust to the increases of stuff. We wanna make sure that HOAs are better managing the amount of money they have, whether it's in the 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 usually recently showed and talked about in Yorba Linda community where homeowners were assessed 20% in regular assessment fees, then they were hit with a special assessment and an emergency assessment at the same time that amounted to $60,000 in the next four years. Some residents had to make the hard decision to sell their home and move out, and one homeowner was quoted saying, we're going to have to move out with my parents.
Speaker 22
There's just no way we can afford that much money. This is just one example of some poor planning and massive hikes that that cover HOA obligations. And we must find a way to allow associations to operate, be solvent, but also not continue to increase in such dramatic ways. Another recent article by Wall Street Journal shared a piece earlier that surging fees are a major reason that the condo market has been the weakest in more than a decade. It gave another example here in Walnut Creek where residents' fees had more than doubled since 2015 to a thousand five hundred.
He now pays more in his fees alone than he does, on his principal and interest of his mortgage. So let's be clear. This does not mean that HOAs cannot raise assessments beyond the cap. HOAs can still go to their homeowners, but they have to put it for a vote. I get it.
That's difficult to put it up for a vote, but I 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 seven 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, mister chair, now I like turn it over to I have one witness here with me in support of this bill.
Speaker 23
Robert Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Robert Harrell. I'm the Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California. We are a cosponsor of the bill, along with the Center for California Homeowner Association Law.
14,000,000 people in California, 50,000 of these HOAs that's quite a bit. That's about a third of the population of the state, 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 find 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.
Speaker 25
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.
Speaker 23
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 10,007, 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.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Other witnesses in support of SB 10,007, please approach the microphone.
Speaker 2
Megan Varvey with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the California Low Income Consumers Coalition in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Others in support. Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed, SB1007. Thank you, Mr.
Brown.
Speaker 9
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, Louie 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.
Speaker 24
If you look at the Davis Sterling Act, associations are only allowed to budget for their operating expenses. And as we've seen across the state, those operating expenses have gone up extraordinarily over the years. We actually did a census of some of our association manager members and asked them for examples of assessment increases over the last few years and the rationale behind those. Of those associations that reported back, anyone who was raising assessments between 15 to 20% raised them primarily because of insurance, which we have no control over, but most governing documents require an association to be fully insured. We've seen, especially for condominium associations anywhere near a potential fire area, insurance premiums going up five, six, 700%.
And some insurance companies will not provide you full insurance. So now you're looking at multiple policies trying to piece them together because your association documents require you to be fully insured. So associations aren't just raising assessments for the purposes of raising assessments. We've also seen increases due to balcony inspections, which is a state mandate for any condominium with wooden structures to have to actually inspect those wooden structures on a regular basis and then replace them. The cost of labor has gone up.
The cost of inspections have gone up. And so this is why we've seen these issues with assessments being increased. The last thing a board member that's elected by their neighbors wants to do is increase assessments. In fact, that's one of the leading causes of recall elections
Speaker 24
I'm going to ask you to vote no, Mr. Chairman. Okay. And look forward to working with the author.
Speaker 26
Mr. Chairman, members, Jennifer Wadda, on behalf of the California Association of Community Managers. We also appreciate the author's willingness to work with us. We look forward to working with her as well. We are currently opposed to 10.07.
Speaker 25
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 in its current version, if the members were not to approve the 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.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Others who oppose to SB-ten zero seven, please give us your Me Too testimony.
Speaker 5
Hello. Good afternoon. Jasmine Vye, on behalf of Building Industry Association, with a respectful opposed unless amended position. We look forward to continuing to work with the author. You.
Speaker 23
Mr. Chairman, I do apologize. You're not opposed, are you? 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.
Speaker 1
Thank you. All right. Anyone else? Seeing no one else either supporting or opposing. Let's bring it back.
Committee, questions by committee members? Seeing senator Reyes. Yes. And then senator Nielo. Okay.
Then senator D'Arraso, then senator Caballero.
Speaker 13
I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I think that something that the opposition said that was very important is that if they're capped and there are expenses beyond that, that becomes a problem. But as I understand the bill as written, and I understand that was true even before, is that the HOA can still take it to the homeowners, but now the homeowners are going to want evidence of what they want details. So the transparency part of this is also very important. So and I encourage you to continue to work with the opposition.
Sounds like you guys have had great conversations. It looks like it's headed in the right direction with all the details. So at the appropriate time, I will move the bill.
Speaker 1
Alrighty. Thank you. Senator Niello, Senator Drosso and Senator Caballero. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 19
Homeowners associations can be difficult. Just talk with our colleague Joe Patterson about that. That's an issue that rankles him a bit, so I get that. My concern is the cap on raising dues because it can cover operational expenses, but some homeowners associations have obligations beyond operating expenses, capital expenditures, replacing roofs and things like that. There are many homeowners associations that have that sort of responsibility.
That's not an operating expense. So that means when they're faced with that, they have to address that either by increasing annual expenditures for a reserve or a special assessment. And it becomes much more difficult when there's an, I'll say, artificially low cap on what the board can approve. And I say artificially because I don't think inflation is a good measure of that which homeowners associations have even as operating expenses, especially sort of from time to time, like insurance currently, as an example. So my concern about this is the limitation, not the rest of the issues make good sense.
And in some cases, the members of the homeowners association need to pay better attention to their organization, and if the ability to raise fees beyond what is needed is going to be reflected on the financial statements. If people are engaged, they're going to act on that. So I don't all of the other provisions are okay with me, but, the the the cap on on raising, fees, the monthly fees, I think is an issue.
Speaker 20
Thank you. I if you could explain a little bit better some of the things that I think others have been saying about where costs are involved. And then there's I'm so used to the nacho, HOAs. Is there profit profitability incentive here? I mean, what what happens if less than what's needed, you know, is given is pro you know, in terms of funding is provided?
I'm I'm just is it how won't it hurt the the association? If it hurts the association, does it hurt what the the tenants need for them to have the the kind of place they are looking for to feel comfortable.
Speaker 22
Thank you for that. I definitely I was gonna respond in my my closing, but I appreciate you opening the door for me on that. Current law exists now, and I'm not touching this part of current law, that if something exceeds what the regular assessments can pay for, they can assess a special assessment. That exists in current law right now. Up to 5% increase.
Speaker 22
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 10 SB 10 o seven is saying, they're still gonna have the ability to come to the homeowners without requesting a vote if they something comes up that they did not know or or didn't or they did not know was gonna happen in the middle of the year.
Speaker 22
Without a vote, up to 5% increase. Yes. A onetime special assessment. They can also do an emergency assessment. The fires that just happened, what if an an emergency happened and one of their homes or roads were burned down or a tree fell because of flooding or, Santa Ana winds?
They can also do an emergency assessment without a vote to cover the cost that came out of that emergency. Those are not being touched whatsoever from this bill in this bill.
Speaker 22
Yes. 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
Speaker 17
again, it's the cap that's the issue. The rest of it, I think, is good transparency issues. And the challenge with the kind of the accumulation of changes that we do is that within a, you know, the years are starting to blend together. I've I've I know we passed legislation that that prohibits homeowner associations from limiting the number of renters that can the number of people that can rent a unit. And one of the challenges with that is that an owner has a different lens on things than than a renter does many times because a renter wants the cheapest rate right now and a homeowner is thinking long term.
Speaker 28
I need to protect the asset and to make sure that things don't start deteriorating around the the the units. And my biggest concern has to do with big costs that you need to plan for and what happens when there's a health and safety issue. The balconies is a real good example. You may not notice that a balcony is has got some weaknesses in it, but but it may have been the long term design of the way the balconies would was the balconies were built, or it could be that that the weather has contributed to the balcony balcony or stair failures. So I wanna make sure that in the instance where you have a health and safety issue, that there's the ability to collect revenue, obviously over time, that will provide an opportunity to be able to do those kinds of repairs, along with the roof, the streets, maybe a pool or a rec center, all of those are things that you need to keep up as a responsible homeowner.
Speaker 17
But if you're gonna have if you have to go to a vote every time, that becomes a bit challenging. People wanna be able to say no, but they don't wanna sit on the board. So I I that's the challenge is is different interests. So I think you answered it.
Speaker 22
A little bit. Yes. But I can definitely. So things like pool maintenance, that's a monthly occurrence.
Speaker 22
Now, if a tree fell on that pool and it cracked it, that's an emergency. They can still assess an emergency assessment or levy an emergency assessment without a vote. Both those things, they can still do, because I'm not touching those parts, without a vote. The only vote requirement would be on the regular assessment that should be planned ahead, ahead of time of what the costs are gonna be because these are regular ongoing things they need to cover. Now if they need to go above, as right now I'll I'll 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 to the homeowners for a vote on that, just on the regular assessments. I understand Operational. On the operational, that we should all have a good understanding for what that year cost is gonna be. If we are doing if a lot of these HOAs are paying a large amount of homeowner fees to a third party management company that are professionals, then they should be able to, for the year, calculate how much it's going to cost for the year that isn't outside of an extraordinary event. So we're asking for better planning in that sense.
And if somehow they miss something and they need to increase the regular assessments, then yes, come to the people for a vote. You're right. They might vote no because they don't wanna increase it, but now the HOA has no responsibility to mow the lawn because the homeowner said no. That was they made a decision that this month, we don't want the lawn to be mowed because I don't wanna pay in excess of a $150 more. It if you put the onus on now the homeowners to decide, are we gonna belt tighten all of us right now, or are we gonna give no opportunity to belt tighten given that everything is costing a lot of money right now?
Speaker 22
That that would be under the special assessment. Mhmm. That I am not touching whatsoever in this bill.
Speaker 17
Okay. I I'm I'm confident you're gonna be able to work something out, so I'll support it today. Thank you, senator. I just hadn't seen any change in it. Right.
So Mhmm. Anyway.
Speaker 17
And I appreciated what you said at the beginning because that was really helpful.
Speaker 11
Thank you very much, mister chair. I was just going to echo in a different way some of the comments because I did in the Assembly some of the legislation that reflects on this. There were times when only new residents of complexes were built for improvements. The long term ones want they really did it to the new ones. And we had to have two pieces of legislation.
Speaker 4
One that said it needed to be equal to all members of the complex. And then some complexes form nonprofits where the nonprofits just assessed it to the new members. We had to have a follow-up bill that said nonprofits can't do it because there's still that equity. I did the bill that requires annual financial reports because that is provided to everyone. And there were another bill was that complexes were prohibiting individual people from putting solar on the things that they owned.
Speaker 11
We had to do a build that allowed individual residents if they were on a discrete electrical system to be able to do that. As a resident of a complex a block from here, I have seen this implemented. The renter thing that the chair mentioned, you used to not be able to rent in my complex. Now that's the reason I have two of our colleagues living over me as renters in complex. And when the complex had to implement the water meter bill, that one was crazy.
It's the only time I went to a meeting and there's a reason people won't serve on those boards. I said, no, I was a co author of this bill. This was a does. They said, we really don't care. We're going to do it another way.
The interesting thing about all this is it means that in you doing what you're doing with this bill, you have to have some flexibility on how it applies on the ground. That is what I heard from you that you are still working on. I will support the bill. I will be looking to see how you do that because some of this stuff becomes impossible. One of the problems you don't have a quorum of people that you can get to vote.
The last assessment was passing overwhelmingly but was too short of having the appropriate quorum. They had to redo it. They had to personally seek out people. Having the flexibility that meets the goal you're trying to do and make sure it doesn't kick all these things into play is what I would just look for you to do as you move the bill along. Thank you, Mr.
Chen.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Other questions or comments? Seeing none. Is there a motion? I'm sorry.
Senator Reyes, move the bill. Alright. Would you like to close, Senator Minervar?
Speaker 22
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 you're the that's the first comment I've heard around that flexibility of jotted it down on some language on that. I recognize that maybe it's difficult to come to vote.
But apathy for voting shouldn't be a reason why we shouldn't put the onus on 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 Nyevo.
Speaker 1
All right. Thank you very much. All right. There's been a motion. Committee is supported.
Please call the roll.
Speaker 6
This is file item number three, SB ten-seven. The motion is to pass. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye.
Nilo? Allen? Alvarado Gil? Alvarado Gil, no. Ashby?
Caballero? Caballero I. Duraso? Duraso I. Laird?
Laird, I. Reyes? Reyes, I. Stern? Wahab?
Weber Pearson? I. Weber Pearson, I. Weiner? Six to one.
Speaker 1
Six to one. We'll put that on call. And I'd forgotten that your other bill has been pulled from consent. So file on number four, SB thirteen sixty four. Floor?
Speaker 22
Yes, Senator. I almost did not have to present this, but late opposition. I am here to present SB thirteen sixty four. And I will be accepting the committee's amendments as described on page 13 of the analysis. No survivors should be forced to co parent with the person who raped them.
However, in California, that often is a case when a conviction of nonconsecual sexual conduct is required before a court can prohibit custody or visitation of the child who was conceived from that. But when research shows that less than two percent of rapists are actually convicted, it makes it likely that a survivor will be forced to deal with the ongoing abuse, harassment while sharing custody. It is time for California to catch up to the almost 20 other states who put survivors first by removing a uniquely high burden of proof on survivors to protect their well-being and child after a traumatic event. So thirteen sixty four accomplishes this by removing the current burden of proof used for criminal conviction and replacing it with the clearing convincing standard language normally used in the Family Code. If victims can prove that a child was conceived through a sexual assault, the perpetrator would not be awarded parental rights And the courts can prohibit that person from being granted custody or visitation of a child conceived from that sexual assault.
However, now with the amendments, we will make sure that if there was voluntary co parenting with the parent, with those individuals, then there is no conclusive presumption that the father is unfit to care for that child. In addition to providing survivors with the means to protect themselves and their child with these changes, survivors of sexual assault could now receive additional support because the law would meet the requirements for increased funding for federal formula grants under the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act. So this, in fact, brings more money to the state. With that, respectfully asking for NIBO, I do not have any witnesses.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Just in case, if you're in support of SB thirteen sixty four, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice. All right. Let's turn to the opposition.
If you're opposed to SB thirteen sixty four, please approach the microphone.
Speaker 14
Good afternoon. David Bolag 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 nonconsensual sex with the mother.
While our mind goes to the worst case scenario, the worst case scenario is not always the situation. While every conviction was a result of harmful wrong action, the result of this legislation will be that the child will have to suffer the consequences of not having a father in their lives. I ask you to put the child before the adult. The child is innocent of how he or she was created. They came out of the womb with no knowledge of how they were conceived.
Speaker 32
Years of study has proven the child to be better off with both their natural parents. We are not an organization that are fans of the family court, but in this case, we think it's a better option for the well-being of the child than to completely ban the father from the child's life. A child without both parents will always question who they are, where they come from. By keeping the child with the parents, that question is already answered. I do know the majority of this committee has demonstrated they believe in rehabilitation and redemption.
Speaker 14
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.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Others opposed to SB thirteen sixty four? Seeing no one approaching, let's bring back committee. Questions by committee members? Seeing none, is there a motion?
Senator Caballero has moved the bill. Alright.
Speaker 17
I I just I just have a statement because, this bill doesn't limit the ability of a child to have a relationship with a father. What it says is you can't can't be the primary caretaker. And so I I really appreciate what you're doing with this bill. I think it's the right thing to do. And a child may decide not to have a relationship, and we have to respect that as well.
So thank you for bringing the bill, and I I move the bill.
Speaker 1
Alright. I guessed right. Okay. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, would you like to close?
Speaker 22
Yes. You know, respectfully, I can't give energy or air to the opposition's really hateful rhetoric in the language that 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 from the committee, we are protecting the best interests of the child at the same time and protecting the adult who went through that situation, without respectfully asking for an eye vote.
Speaker 1
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.
Speaker 16
This is file item number four sixty four by Senator Menjivar. The motion is due pass as amended to the floor. Umberg. Aye. Umberg, aye.
Speaker 2
Nilo, aye. Allen. Alvarado Gil. Aye. Alvarado Gil.
Aye. Ashby. Caballero. Caballero eye. Duraso.
Duraso eye. Laird Laird eye. Reyes. Reyes eye. Stern.
Wahab. Weber Pearson. Weber Pearson eye. Weiner. You have eight to zero with members missing.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We're gonna put that on call. Next, 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 Drazo. We have not done the consent calendar, but that's a good idea.
As senator Reyes moves the consent calendar. Chief Counsel Estrada, please call the roll on the consent calendar.
Speaker 2
The motion is that the consent calendar be adopted. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye. Nilo, Nilo, aye.
Nilo, Alvarado Gil? Aye. Alvarado Gil, aye. Ashby? Cavello?
Aye. Cavello, aye. Duraso, Laird? Aye. Laird, aye.
Reyes? Aye. Reyes, aye. Stern? Wahab, Weber Pearson, Weber Pearson, aye.
And Weiner. There's eight to zero members missing.
Speaker 1
Eight to zero. We'll put that on call. Senator Caballero, the floor is yours.
Speaker 17
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 nine ninety seven, 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 GSAs member agencies like irrigation district. North Fork Fork Kings was created via special legislation rather than as a JPA. This has restricted their ability to under Sigma, and they lack the ability to impose liens and leave civil legit litigation as a primary enforcement tool. North Fork, Kings GSA has developed a groundwater sustainability plan for 2728 that includes limits on groundwater pumping and fees for noncompliance.
To implement the their authority efficiently and to avoid being tied up in lengthy litigation, North Fork needs the ability to impose and collect fines to ensure compliance with their sustainability plan. SB nine ninety seven 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.
Speaker 1
Thank you. The floor is yours.
Thank you, Senator. Members of the committee, Justin Mendez, General Manager of North Fort Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency. We thank the Senator for sponsoring this, and we thank the committee for their comments that we're, we're going to accept their amendments. This would simply just allow us to be, like the other GSAs, to be able to enforce, the fees, to hopefully curtail overdraft and to keep us sustainable during our time frame. We are currently an approved GSA with approval, and this will help us maintain that status.
All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of SB nine ninety seven, please approach the microphone. Alright. Testing one, two, three.
There we go.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Chair Umburg and Vice Chair Nilo and members. Danny Merkley with the Galko Group on behalf of Kings River Interest and then also on behalf of the California Farm Bureau in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Others in support? Charles Delgado, representing California State Association of Counties in support of the bill. Thank you. Anyone else in support?
Seeing no one else approaching, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to SB nine ninety seven, now's your opportunity. Going once, going twice. All right. Let's bring it back to committee.
Questions by Senator Reyes.
Speaker 13
Thank you for bringing this. I I learned so much about, GSAs and SGMAs and the meaning of all of this. I, my poor team, I they worked overtime just trying to brief me so that I could understand something that was so important in other communities. I had one question. Can you still become a j p a JPA?
Or is this better for for you?
Speaker 17
Well, I mean, we probably should have made it a lot Tutorial alert. Yeah, it's one of those situations where in retrospect we probably should have made it all the same so that it was they share the ability to actually have the the GSA work because if you don't establish the fees and if you don't have a way to collect the money, then you become insolvent and the state takes over, which is the whole point of setting up these GSAs were 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 were working on it.
Speaker 13
I just a lot lots to learn here. At the appropriate time, I will move the bill.
Speaker 1
Alright. It's appropriate time. So senator Reyes has moved the bill. Other questions or comments? Senator Laird, you're shaking your head no.
Alright. Would you like to close?
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Alright. Senator Reyes has moved the bill. Chief counsel Estado, please call the roll.
Speaker 2
This is file item number seven, SB nine ninety seven. The motion is to pass as amended to the floor. Umberg.
Speaker 2
Nilo, aye. Allen? Aye. Allen, Alvarado Gil, aye. Alvarado Gil, aye.
Ashby, Caballero, aye. Caballero, aye. Duraso, Laird, aye. Reyes, aye. Aye.
Stern, Wahab, Weber Pearson, Weiner. That's nine to zero with members missing.
Speaker 1
Nine zero, we're gonna put that on call. Next we have Senator de Raso and then our final bill by senator Perez. Flores here, senator D'Rasso.
Speaker 17
Thank you, mister chair and members. SB twelve ninety six enhances transparency regarding pet policies and 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 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.
Speaker 20
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 15 17,000,000 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 wanna 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 LA and Boyle Heights was really surprising to me, and I would talk to everybody one by one, say, why are you here? What are 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 adviser with the Michelson Center for Public Policy and program director for the Pet Inclusive Housing Initiative, and Juliana Tetlow, senior government relations with the San Diego Humane Society. Mr. Barker is available for technical questions.
Speaker 15
Mr. Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to testify here. My name is Ross Barker. I'm here in the capacity as policy adviser 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.
Speaker 23
Our initiative has been a leading voice in this space focused 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 experience of more than 1,100 California renters, and the findings were clear: a lack of transparency around pet policies is creating widespread unavoidable barriers. Eighty two percent of renters reported encountering pet related restrictions or fees, seventy two percent experienced negative consequences due to unclear or incomplete information, but most notably, fifty one percent 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.
Speaker 15
Renters are not asking to change the rules. They're 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 cost inefficiencies not only for renters but also housing providers who must respond to repeated inquiries and process applications that were never a good fit. SB1296 addresses this directly by requiring clear, upfront disclosures of pet policies and practices before a renter applies.
It's a common sense transparency measure that reduces avoidable costs, improves efficiency, supports better housing outcomes. For these reasons, the Michelson Center is proud to sponsor SB1296. We respectfully urge an I vote. I'm available to answer any technical questions.
Speaker 30
Hello. Good afternoon, chair and members. I am Julianna Tetlow, senior director of government relations for San Diego Humane Society. We're the 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.
Speaker 28
I moved my family back 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 right. Meaningful
Speaker 5
Karen Good afternoon, Chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of both the Animal Legal Defense Fund and Power CA Action, both requesting an I vote.
Speaker 7
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.
Speaker 6
Bella Kern, on behalf of the Michelson Center for Public Policy, sponsor of this bill, in support.
Speaker 1
John 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 SB1296, Mr. Moran.
Speaker 29
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 gonna fit on the sign. I mean, 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 a, you know, a ADA compliant, statement on there. It's impractical. I was down in your district. Couple weeks ago, was driving on the freeway, saw what looked to be a new apartment that says for lease. Then you'd have to put no pets, and you'd have to include the a d a ADA requirements on there.
Speaker 11
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 or whatever requirements are, in that area, whether it's Escondido, San Diego City, San Diego County. We think it's impractical that we have to include all the types of inoculations that are required.
Speaker 29
You have to show proof, that your, pet is vaccinated, and we think that should be sufficient for us, to comply with this.
Speaker 29
Mr. Chair and members, Mark Smith, on behalf of the California Rental Housing Association and our affiliates, and if you'll indulge me, 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.
Speaker 1
All right. Thank you very much. Others in opposition to SB twelve ninety six? All right. Seeing no one, questions by committee members.
Senator Caballero has a question. Senator Reyes has a question.
Speaker 17
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's a symbol where where you an emoji of some kind that gets used to describe that it's a pet friendly 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.
Speaker 13
Thank you. There are lots of landlords who simply say no pets allowed. That's sufficient.
Speaker 13
And the only penalty then is a refund of your application fee if they don't disclose that. Is that right?
Speaker 15
To get to that point, right? I mean, hope is that this, you know, this allows property owners to post their, what their policies are upfront. But yes, the only, I mean, it's the application fee that we're really starting with at this point, right? It's a, It's nothing's going to happen until we get the application processed. That's the only remedy that's in the bill.
Speaker 13
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 has to 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 be put everything in to to the application to to 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 gonna say no pets allowed, as opposed to having to say service dogs are okay, you know, if it's a small dog. The other thing had to my actual question has to do with the deposit. Is a deposit they still request an additional deposit if there's going to be a pet?
Speaker 13
If a renter is can the landlord tell the renter you can have your pet, but you have to pay an additional deposit? Is would that still be allowed under this?
Speaker 15
Nothing changes in the policies around deposits or monthly pet runs or any of those things with this bill, right?
Speaker 20
Okay. Whatever the policy is, that's what it is. We're not suggesting changes in any
Speaker 19
appears the bill will get out. I I have concerns with regard to the opposition's points, particularly with regard to small landlords. I think it'd be very difficult for them to meet the requirements that you have, and they'd be caught in a violation just 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.
Speaker 1
Yes. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, Senator Reyes moves the bill. Senator Reyes moves the bill.
Would you like to close?
Speaker 20
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 I vote.
Speaker 6
This is file item number eight, SB1296. The motion is to pass. Umberg? Aye. Umberg aye.
Nilo? Allen? Aye. Allen I. Alvarado Gill?
Ashby? Caballero? Aye. Caballero I. Duraso?
Aye. Duraso I. Laird? Aye. Laird I.
Reyes? Aye. Reyes I. Stern? Aye.
Stern I. Wahab? Weber Pearson?
Speaker 1
80. We'll put that on call. Thank you, Senator Raso. 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. Alright. Senator Perez.
Speaker 31
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Before I begin, I will be accepting the committee amendments reflected on page five and outlined on pages eleven and twelve of the committee analysis. I appreciate the work of committee staff in collaborating with my office to define what an unsolicited offer is. SB ten ninety 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 twenty twenty tornadoes after the twenty twenty three Maui fires and in Florida following Hurricane Ian. In that same spirit, governor Newsom signed executive order n seven twenty on 01/14/2025, to temporarily protect disaster impacted residents from predatory real estate speculators through 07/01/2025. The order emphasized the need to protect those especially vulnerable to exploitative practices of unscrupulous 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 investor purchases close to 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 cost, 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 ten ninety 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 ten ninety 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, Corporate Landlord Equitable Development and Corporate Landlords from Strategic Actions for a Just Economy, or SAGE.
Speaker 32
you. My name is Iris Craig. I'm the Assistant Director of Policy and Research for Land Use and Corporate Landlords, or SAGE. I'm here in strong support of SB ten ninety 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 turned 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.
Speaker 6
These offers have also been extended to her family members who do not live or never lived in the home. In another case, a real estate developer called, claiming with a very compelling story of a family looking to build their dream home on this person's 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.
Speaker 32
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 26, that figure rose to about 60%, reflecting more than a sevenfold 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
Speaker 1
Others in support of SB ten ninety. Going once, going twice. Opposition. If you're opposed to SB ten ninety, please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching the microphone.
All right. Let's bring it back to committee. Questions by
Speaker 33
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.
Speaker 10
Mr. Chairman and members, John Norwood, on behalf of the California Land Title Association, just want to reiterate the concerns expressed in the, analysis about the lack of enforcement mechanisms in this bill. I mean, basically, sales in these zip codes, legitimate or not, are going to garner a lot more scrutiny from, the real estate transactions, title insurance, etcetera, without clarifications in this bill down the line. I forward to working with the author.
Speaker 2
Jasmine Valle, on behalf of California Building Industry Association, in respect of opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Marty, thank you. Anyone else opposed to SB ten ninety? Please approach the microphone. Seeing no one approaching, let's bring it back to committee. Questions by committee members?
Seeing senator Weber Pearson.
Speaker 9
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 within the Eaton fire?
Speaker 31
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
Speaker 31
So, we actually had a discussion with my office. This bill is based off of senator Adam Schiff's bill that he's brought forward, within the US Senate. His bill, I believe, supplies a two year, one 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.
Speaker 9
I said, a legal standpoint, how does this or does this impact the first amendment right for speech?
Speaker 1
Well, let's let's Why don't we ask the proponents if they have a response to that? Is that Ms. Craig or Senator Perez?
Speaker 31
Certainly. So I'm going to point to the committee's analysis in AB eight fifty one, which is a bill that was passed last year, I believe, by Assembly Member Tina McKinnon, 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, in the speech involved as 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 for my community members for them to not continue to receive these very aggressive, low ball, unsolicited cash offers. Thank you.
Speaker 19
You've kind of raised the concern that I have about this, and that is 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. I've as I've mentioned before, I had a house burned down, and it is an experience that I do not recommend. So is sorry, Secretary Meehlou. It's very unsettling.
And so I can understand, as an example, the governor's executive order. But 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.
And to completely eliminate the opportunity for someone to say, Do you want to sell your house? Seems
Speaker 24
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 anytime such a disaster happens, I think is unfair ultimately to the people that you're trying to help.
Speaker 31
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 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 their 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.
Speaker 35
Senator Stern? Yes, 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 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's not as if they can't put up you couldn't put a, say, a general advertisement out there to say, you're interested in you see these on the side of the freeway, right? Cash for homes or Yes. So it's not it's a particular offer to a particular homeowner and
Speaker 7
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, a lot of times you get the pop up ad when you're on Redfin and say, are you interested in selling? Right? If you're looking to buy, it'll pop you up that ad or, you know, it'll sort of do that within, you know, whatever all these many platforms are we have now to look for real estate.
Speaker 35
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 have a sense of that one?
Speaker 31
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. Uh-huh. Yes. So, So, so
Speaker 31
I'm trying to understand that what 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 I 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, you know, request, that's, I think, a different scenario than what we're kind of discussing here in this bill.
Speaker 35
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 gonna say, does that mean you're looking to sell as well? And so, didn't feel like a the kind of particular offer that you're trying to get after. I just it it would be I wouldn't wanna chill any ability for people to go shopping for new places too.
Right? 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.
Speaker 13
Thank you for bringing this. Your 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, call phone call, mail, but it also says other means of communication. So perhaps maybe to tighten that up a little bit, to figure out ways to tighten that up.
The other is on the five years that was asked by some of my colleagues, understand the reason you came up with the five years, and perhaps that's something that also could be looked at to to determine if that is the appropriate time, and and maybe it is. But compared to what has been done in the past, it it's much more time. Certainly. But maybe it is the appropriate just something something else to look at. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Alrighty. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none.
A couple questions and and 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?
Speaker 31
And so in terms of advertising, and 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.
Speaker 1
So let me just ask miss 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?
Speaker 32
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 burned down lots, that feels a bit targeted, in my opinion.
Speaker 32
I guess it would depend on the level of recovery at the time, but without any four years out, I don't see foresee Altadena being up and running the way it once was.
Speaker 1
So you would that would be a violation? A cog sign? Just sign on a telephone pole that says, we will buy your home?
Speaker 21
I mean, I I think and I I do wanna say, senator Umberg, I think that that's a conversation I need to have with my constituents more than anything to discuss what their thoughts are about something like that. This kind of advertising that you're describing, this is the constant barrage of advertising that we receive all the time. If you were in Pasadena right now, you'd open up your phone and you'd be receiving advertisements to participate in litigation, to tap into the wildfire fund, or to purchase your burnt down lot for a full cash offer. So, what we were discussing and focused on as we worked on this bill 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.
Speaker 1
I guess the same question would be if you put in the 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?
Speaker 32
It seems like a conversation that needs to be had with constituents. I'm not sure that that would count as a violation. If it's pointed in Altadena, I think it's definitely worth discussing and considering, you know, if it's in Altadena newspaper for Altadenans and local in that way, perhaps it is, but I definitely think it's worth more discussion.
Speaker 1
So if so if somebody puts flyers around your neighborhood Well, let me give you a specific example. Someone says, we will buy your home for $500,000, and someone says, we will buy your home for $400,000. The seller, if the $500,000 offer comes from an institutional investor, the seller would have to take the $400,000 owner, offer. Is that right?
Speaker 32
Are you saying that's the event if the $400,000 offer is from a smaller
Speaker 1
Right, from a smaller entity, so the seller would be compelled to take the $400,000 offer?
Speaker 32
I think that's the way it's written out. I mean, my recommendation in the comment that I was giving is that I think it should be a blanket ban despite owner amount.
Speaker 1
You mean even if your next door neighbor says, I'll buy your house for 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.
Speaker 32
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
Speaker 1
to go 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?
Speaker 31
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
Speaker 1
just assuming four years out, your home's not for sale. I we get these offers all the time. But, you know, will you sell your home? Sometimes there's a price, sometimes there's not. I'm just wondering that my next question would be whether it'd be a fund.
For example, the the seller then is basically losing a $100,000. If someone offers me $500,000 and the law says, you may not accept that $500,000 offer. I don't care that you're 75 years old, you wanna retire. You may not accept that offer. You must accept another offer that's a $100,000 Will there Are you contemplating a fund to to cover basically the cost to that seller?
Speaker 31
No. I've not contemplated a fund because I This is not supposed to force the hand of the property owner to and which types of offers that they are supposed to be accepting. This is ultimately about my constituents not being harassed post a fire, being constantly offered lowball cash offers by investors that see an opportunity to take advantage of fire survivors. And so, what a homeowner chooses to accept as an offer whether or not they would like to put their home for sale, that is a choice I want for them to be able to make on their own. And that is a very personal decision.
I know folks that have chosen to accept less because they want to offer their home to a family that's looking to build and they don't want to sell to an investor. Other folks have made another other decisions. That's not up to me. That is up to them. What we're trying to get at is the harassment that's occurring here.
Speaker 1
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, a industrial investor.
Speaker 31
No. What the way that I'd see this bill and the way that we've been talking with our residents about it and what they have requested of us is that those that are investors that own more than 75 single family homes are not able to continue with their barrage of offers to black and brown families that have been victims of the fire. Not that the homeowner cannot then put their home for sale and accept an offer.
Speaker 1
Okay. So in that, I'm gonna support the bill, but the fact that there's no enforcement mechanism, if there should ever be an enforcement mechanism that's incorporated in the bill, I'm hoping you'll bring it back here for us to have a further discussion.
Speaker 31
Certainly. And I appreciate that as well. And you know, would be you know, I would be happy to discuss that with you too, Senator Umbard, as we continue to navigate this. It's been a very challenging situation for my constituents who feel, I mean frankly, fed up. Yeah.
Speaker 20
Yeah. This certainly is a phenomenon that's happening in the Palisades as well. I don't believe to the extent as in Al Tadena, 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.
Speaker 21
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. I understand you want to make sure people aren't getting harassed with all these phone calls, as you mentioned. But it would seem to me that the general advertising that has been described, I'm not sure we want it. I I don't know. I that that feels different to me than the direct solicitation to the homeowner.
So that's what I'm gonna say.
Speaker 13
I felt like I was in court. But I was I was going to say that if they receive an unsolicited offer that is 500, to use that example, and one from from a somebody that doesn't qualify as 75 owning 75 homes at 400,000, the homeowner simply says, now I'm willing to sell my house, and then they can accept any offer they want, whether it's from the the the the institution or from the other. And obviously, they're going to choose the one that provides at that point, they're willing to sell. They'll pick the the the best offer.
Speaker 1
Just I I suppose and I don't wanna I'll let let me ask miss Craig because if if I've that's the tone. I wanna change the tone. But to use senator Ray as an 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 wanna 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?
Speaker 32
No. My understanding is that we are not trying to prohibit anyone from selling their home if they want to. I mean, I listed that 60% of homes have been sold to corporate entities. And while that's a shame to some extent, you know, we want people to feel empowered to make decisions they have to make. There's no judgment for any constituent or person or fire victim for the decisions they have to make to take care of their own family.
My understanding is to not prevent them from making sales if they need to. It's to prevent them from being harassed.
Speaker 1
Right. Again, since there's not an enforcement mechanism, there's no penalty, I guess, as to the institutional purchaser. So it's 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 leave that for future reference.
Senator Weber Pearson.
Speaker 8
Yes, thank you, Chair. So your line of questioning made me think of something because the $500,000 offer or opportunity, I won't say offer, opportunity may not the homeowner may not never know about it under this particular bill if I am prohibited from even coming to you because I own 75 or more single family properties, then you have no idea that you could have gotten a $100,000 more. If I, you know, am 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, 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.
Speaker 9
Then someone comes and says I'll give you x amount of money and you're like okay, that's great. Sure. Without knowing that you could have gotten a 100,000, 50,000, 200,000 more from a corporation that was able to provide more for your house. So just I would just suggest that maybe you have that conversation with them and just see how they feel about it. But thank you.
Speaker 1
Is that it? Okay. Senator Reyes has moved the bill. Senator oh, I'm sorry. Senator Stern has moved the bill.
Senator Stern has moved the bill. Would you like to close?
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. All right. Committee Assistant Porter, please call the roll.
Speaker 6
This is file item number five, SB ten ninety. The motion is due pass as amended. Umberg? Aye. Umberg, aye.
Nilo? No. Nilo, no. Allen? Allen, aye.
Alvarado Gil? Alvarado Gil. Ashby. Ashby I. Caballero?
Caballero I. Duraso I. Laird. Laird I. Reyes.
Reyes I. Stern. Stern, I. Wahhab? Weber Pearson?
Weber Pearson, I. Weiner? Weiner, I. 10 to two.
Speaker 1
10 to two. Is that everyone voting? No. Okay. We'll put that on call.
Thank you very much. Okay. Let's start at the top then. All right. Committee support, let's start at the top.
Speaker 6
On the consent calendar, chair voting aye, Allen. Allen, aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye.
Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Wahhab, Weiner? Weiner, I.
12 to 0.
Speaker 6
Nilo, aye. Allen? Allen I. Alvarado Gil? Aye.
Alvarado Gil I. Ashby? Aye. Ashby I. Caballero?
Aye. Caballero I. Duraso? Aye. Duraso I.
Laird?
Speaker 6
Stern I. Wahhab? Weber Pearson I. Weber Pearson I. Weiner Weiner, aye.
110.
Speaker 6
File item number two, SB 12 42. Chair voting aye. Ashby? Ashby, aye. Laird?
Aye. Laird, aye. Stern? Aye. Stern, Wahhab?
Wepper, Pearson? Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye. Eleven-zero.
Speaker 12
File item number three, SB-ten-seven, chair voting aye. Nilo? Allen? Allen I, Ashby, Ashby I, Stern, Wahhab Weiner. Eight-two-one.
Speaker 6
File item number 4, SB1364. Chair voting aye. Allen? Allen, I. Ashby?
Ashby, I. Stern? Stern, I. Wahhab? Weiner?
Weiner, I. Twelve-zero? I'm sorry. Twelve-zero. Put
Speaker 6
File item number 7, SB997. Chair voting aye. Ashby? Aye. Ashby, aye.
Stern? Aye. Stern, aye. Wahhab? Weiner?
Aye. Weiner, aye. 120?
Speaker 6
File item number eight, SB 1296, chair voting aye. Nilo? Alvarado Gill? Ashby? Aye.
Ashby, aye. Wahhab? Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye.
10 to 0.
Speaker 1
10 to 0. Put that on call. All right, we're gonna basically be in recess till 04:10. At that time, we'll open the roll for those who have not voted. Is back in business.
So, committee assistant, Porter, please call the roll.
Speaker 6
File item number one, SB ten eighty eight. Chair voting aye. Reyes Wahhab. Aye. Wahhab, aye.
Speaker 6
File item number three, SB-ten-seven, chair voting aye. Milo, Stern, Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab, aye. Wahhab, Weiner?
Nine-one.
Speaker 6
File item number four, SB1364. Chair voting aye. Wahab? Aye. Wahab I.
13 to zero.
Speaker 6
File item number five, SB ten ninety, chair voting aye. Wahhab. Aye. Wahhab, aye. 11 to two.
Speaker 6
File item number seven, SB 997, chair voting aye. Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab, aye. Thirteen-zero.
Speaker 6
File item number eight, SB twelve ninety six, chair voting aye. Nilo? Alvarado Gill? Wahhab? Wahhab?
Wahhab, aye. Eleven-zero?
Speaker 34
Eleven-zero. That bill is out. Now I feel badly. All right. Senate judiciary is adjourned until call of chair.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.