Judiciary — 2026-04-28 (partial)

10 AB 2584, Assemblymember Flora. Well, good morning. Yeah, happy Judiciary Committee. It's a party. I just want to thank the chair and the member for being here. And obviously the committee staff. I know this bill was a challenge to kind of get to a place, and I taught the chair last night. We certainly understand this presentation only, but John came up, thankfully, to kind of testify on why we feel that this bill is important and why this bill needs maybe a little bit more work, a little bit more understanding, and certainly needs time. And so that's sort of what we want to do today is just sort of give our opinion on why we want to continue to work on this and look forward to reintroducing next year. Obviously, end of a two-year session, we'll start over again. But short version is AB 2584 amends the civil code section 50 to reinforce civil immunity for those who lawfully defend themselves. And honestly, I'm just going to turn over to John. He made John from the UFC here to kind of testify and just kind of give his thoughts. And quite frankly, we'd love to hear from you members on just kind of concerns. And maybe John can help kind of shed a little more light on this particular issue. So, John.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone else here in support of AB2584? We'll put a microphone there and feel free to identify yourself.

Okay, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some of you guys know me as the executive officer of the Athletic Commission. I'm not here in that capacity. But, you know, I was a former fighter and trained every day, trained last night. And I believe that this bill makes a lot of sense. And that's why I'm supportive of this bill, sir. Thank you. Appreciate it. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2584? Bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments? I'll just say, well, first of all, I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. And I did want to have the opportunity to have it presented and to have our witness who has great expertise to be able to share your thoughts. Because I think this is, you know, and this is something that went public safety, had some traumatic amends. And, of course, over the last three weeks, we've had pretty high volume of bills coming through here. And I think that we just at this point, I think I think it would benefit from more time for us to have more conversation, definitely to get more input from those that have expertise. And I will say this, at least in my experience and world experience, those that are highly trained are the least violent. They are the ones that will use violence in the last resort because they know what that means when they actually do use violence. And so I don I think that it is a precarious situation that we putting highly trained folks into when they are specially trained and yet have the right to defend themselves or their loved ones just like anyone else does And that I think part of where we were And we had a lot of conversation with our committee consultants on this. And part of the concern is that we do have very strong self-defense laws that have been in place for a century and a half. and there's a worry of creating confusion into that. And that was part of the reason why there was hesitance from my part on this bill. That being said, I do want the opportunity. We're going to have the opportunity, and I've worked with the Senator of Flora for many years now, and I know he takes the work very seriously. I think there will be opportunities for us to have further conversations. Okay, well, you've identified a population that is concerned. There's definitely folks that take advantage of that population as well. We've seen this happen in some instances. What can be done to recognize it and allow for them to be able to protect themselves? I, you know, sitting here today, think our self-defense laws, our civil laws are good enough. If they're not, let's have that conversation. If there are other things that need to be done, let's have that conversation. And that's something that we're fully open to. The committee staff is fully open to continuing those conversations. And, you know, I really appreciate you taking the time to be here and provide your input. But more importantly, further conversations will be had and want you to be part of those as well. Would you like to close? No, I appreciate that, Chair. And obviously, John comes with a tremendous amount of expertise. And coming out of the public safety world, you know, we have good Samaritan laws on the books. You know, if somebody's acting within their training, within their scope of practice, they can't be held liable for that. And I think there's a conversation that we could kind of extend that into this realm as well on personal protection. So I just appreciate the committee staff, yourself, and this continuous conversation. Because it is not an easy conversation. It's a little bit complicated. It's a little nuanced. But I think there is a pathway, especially if we kind of look at through the lens of good Samaritan laws. We don't want, and John said it, we don't need violence on the streets. That's not what we're advocating for at all. But we also need protections for those who lawfully defend themselves. So I appreciate the time, appreciate the committee, appreciate the members, and just, yeah, when the time's right, respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you so much. Thank you, Senator Flora. I appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Let me move on to file item 1, AB 1684, Assemblymember Ward. Well, thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1684, the HOE air conditioning access bill, and for your thoughtful engagement with this bill. AB 1684 prohibits a homeowners association from restricting a homeowner's ability to install, use, or replace a home cooling system, which complies with local laws and building codes. Today, as you know, heat waves are some of the deadliest kinds of extreme weather in the United States, with children, seniors, and people with respiratory illnesses being particularly vulnerable to heat-related illness and mortality. Studies have shown that working home air conditioning is the number one protective factor against heat-related mortality. Approximately 65% of Californians who are homeowners belong to an HOA, some of which restrict the kind of cooling system that a homeowner can install. This poses a concerning barrier to heat protection for the varied health and financial needs of California families Homeowners should not have to pursue legal action to secure the cooling system of their choice Now this idea for the bill originated from a constituent who faced an onerous process to install a system of his choice Because he was unable to travel from San Diego as a witness, he shared the following statement to read for you today. A member of my household is particularly susceptible to heat, which makes reliable cooling a health and safety necessity. My HOA initially allowed only the use of a portable air conditioner in my home. However, the available portable units did not properly fit my windows and were extremely energy inefficient. Compounding the issue, I was prohibited from modifying my windows to accommodate the equipment. Ultimately, I was required to retain legal counsel to obtain permission to install a mini-split air conditioning system so that my household's cooling needs could be safely met. The mini-split system is substantially more energy efficient, requires no window modification, and effectively maintains safe indoor temperatures. No family should be denied access to an air conditioning system that best meets their health, safety, and energy needs. And while it was ultimately able to secure professional installation and legal assistance, doing so required significant time, expense, and stress simply to install an efficient and reasonable cooling system. I hope my experience demonstrates why AB 1684 is an important step toward preventing other families from enduring similar hardship. And with that, Mr. Chair and members, I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1684? Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Vince Wartmanja with MC California's first CCA in support. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Freddy Quintana on behalf of the California Department Association in support. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1684? Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Louis Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute California Legislative Action Committee. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill and have been working with the author's office. A couple issues is that throughout the Davis-Sterling Act, there are a variety of examples where an owner can have access to the common area and the association is allowed to provide reasonable restrictions to that to cover the association. In this instance, what we're talking about is access to a window, access to a wall that the owner does not own. It's the association's property. And so we believe that working with the association, we should have some opportunity to work with those owners in order to get to the point where they can have access to an air conditioner. We do not disagree with the author that homeowners, condominium owners should have access to an air conditioning unit. But we we do believe there needs to be some opportunity for the association to have some say in how that looks so that we can address these issues and protect the property. In some of the buildings that we have in the state of California, one homeowner could possibly have the air conditioning unit they want. But if all of them have access to it, we may not have the power available or the wiring available to actually provide for that. And so we just think that there needs to be a little bit more opportunity for us to have a give and take on this, reasonable timeframes, all of that to be provided for, but just so that we're protecting the association as a whole while we're looking out for the best interests of our owner members. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1684? Hi, David Bolag at the SFB Alliance from San Fernando Valley. We actually in support of this bill Thank you Thank you All right bring it back to committee Any questions or comments Assemblymember Connolly Yeah I want to just say I appreciate the author work on this You may know I ran a similar bill in the mobile home park space. I think it's a really important issue. Sounds like there's some ongoing work. Would be happy to be at it as a co-author. Yeah. And I'll make a motion. Thank you. We don't quorum yet, but almost. Almost there. Thank you. But we have a lot of enthusiasm, apparently. Any other questions or comments? Yeah, I also do want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I think, unfortunately, having a cooling system now in many parts of California has become mandatory and has become a health and safety issue. and also unfortunately there are certainly occasions where HOAs can you know create some obstacles to be able to do things even if it's for logical reasons. I do think that there's up into the sounds of there's conversations going on, timelines, what have you, but I think that right now this is more important than ever and so certainly support it. I'd like to be out as a co-author, would you like to close? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And when the time is right, I really appreciate the offer for co-authorships. And you're absolutely right. I echo that. It is unfortunate. I think about 30 years ago that many of our communities, you just didn't need air conditioning because it was just something that, you know, we had the California breeze and all was well, but we have those extreme heat days right now pretty much across the entire state that really makes it a requirement for somebody to live safely and comfortably in their home, that they have this as an opportunity and any barriers that are in that way, We should be thoughtful to make sure we're not present. I would affirm as well that, you know, we have accepted amendments from CAI as well to make sure that a homeowner would be responsible for any damage that occurred to any kind of a common area through the installation or removal of such a system. And I want to thank the committee staff as well for your thoughtful improvements as well that are going to be able to help to make sure that we are, again, clarifying that we will, a homeowner would be in compliance with all state and local building codes. that should also take care of some of the electricity concerns and other permitting related issues. So to any extent, this is still a work in profit progress. My, of course, office door is open, but we think we are, you know, hitting the nail on the head pretty well here. And with that I respectfully request your aye vote. All right. Thank you. And we'll get to that as soon as we can. Thank you. Up next file item two, AB 1892, assembly member Davies. We're going through our run of HOA bills here. That's right. We'll call it HOA Tuesday. You're looking at a woman that served 10 years on her HOA, and the only way I got off was to run for assembly in 2020. Yes, much less painful being in the assembly than on HOA board. Every meeting, you know, when that door opens up, you know, they're not there to say, hey, great job. Senator Davis, before we start, I'd like to establish a quorum so we can actually have motions put forward. Kalra? Here. Barakahan? Here. Brian? Connolly? Here. Dixon? Herbedian? Here. Johnson? Here. Pacheco? Here. Pappin? Sanchez? Lee? The Burr? Here. All right. You may begin. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, today I'm here to present AB 1899. I would like to start off by thanking committee staff for working with my staff on this bill. Members, AB 1892 is a common sense measure meant to clarify three provisions of the Davis-Sterling Act related to HOAs. First, the bill clarifies it is the duty of the HOA to repair and replace utility services to a common area, including gas, heat, water, or electrical services when the interruption of service begins. Second, clarifies and aligns HOA election nomination notices with all of HOA notices of 30 days. Lastly, it requires those seeking to vote electronically in an HOA election get their ballots no less than 30 days before the election. That's it, members. That's the bill. It's essential. It's a technical cleanup measure and has no opposition. This is industry supported on both sides. With me here to testify on behalf of the sponsor is Louie Brown, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, Louie Brown on behalf of the Community Associations Institute. The author presented the bill very well. I'm here to answer any questions if you have them. Thank you. Thank you. And, Senator Davies, do you accept the amendments? I certainly do. Thank you so much. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1892? David Bullock, SFIA Alliance, in strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1892? Bring that to committee. Is there a motion? We have a motion, second. Any further question or comment? Thank you. Assemblymember, would you like to close? Respectfully ask an aye vote. Thank you. Motions do pass as amended. Caller? Aye. Caller, aye. Bauer-Cahan? Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Brian Connolly? Aye. Connelly, aye. Dixon. Hairbeating? Aye. Hairbeating, aye. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin, Sanchez, Lee, Zabir? Aye. Zabir, aye. All right. That bill's out. Thank you. Thank you very much. On to file item 3, AB 2050, Assemblymember Colosa, as long as we don't hear another HOA bill, as long as it has nothing to do with HOAs, we're good. So what's this one about? Um, well, put me in a tough spot, Mr. Chair. Um, that was a leading, leading comment. Um, and, uh, I guess this is, uh, Mr. Brown's favorite committee as well. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Good morning. I'm here to present AB, uh, 2050 today. Um, also to like to thank the committee consultants for their hard work on our bill. AB 2050 is a measured and thoughtful proposal aimed at promoting fairness and transparency for California residents living in common interest developments. See, I called it something different. Could also be known as HOAs. Today, more than 13 million Californians live in 55,000 common interest developments. condominiums continue to be an affordable option for the first time home buyers. While we focus a considerable amount of our time in the legislature on new housing and rightfully so, we also cannot forget about our existing housing stock and how it's aging. More than 50% of the condominium associations in California are 20 years or older. In my district alone, 70% of associations are more than 20 years old and 73 are condos meaning that many communities are managing aging buildings that require significant long maintenance Deferred maintenance can also create serious safety risk. Recent building failures across the country highlight the dangers of inadequate reserve funding and the importance of responsible long-term planning. Also, many lenders are now refusing to write mortgages for condos if the association has underfunded reserves. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac require an association to have a minimum of 10% in reserves and will increase that level to 15% starting in 2027. Current law requires associations to conduct reserve studies every three years to assess the cost of maintenance, repair, and replacement of the major components like roofs, elevators, balconies, and other structural elements. However, there is no requirement to fund for reserves, which means that many associations are not prepared to address these issues when they happen. The absence of a required formula to fund reserves penalizes homeowners because the only remaining option to address these maintenance issues is a special assessment, which is neither fair nor compassionate. AB 2050 provides associations with a formula to achieve a sustainable level of funding and reserves. It also provides a ramp up of six years for them to get there. Predictability and transparency are essential for a well-functioning marketplace by setting clear standards. AB 2050 reduces disputes and improves compliance. With me today to testify in support is Stacey Donnelly, chair of the Community Association's Institute California Legislative Action Committee. That was a mouthful. And an expert in the field, and Louie Brown, legislative advocate for the Community Associations Institute. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I am Stacey Donnelly. You can pull that. Yeah, let's go ahead and pull it towards you. Is that better? Nope. Okay. Professionally, I'm the CFO of Condominium Financial Management, low-dicated in Walnut Creek. We are sponsors of AB 2050 and thank Assemblymember Colosa for authoring this bill. I want to reiterate the important point that was already made, that in law, we already require that a reserve study is prepared every three years. What is missing from the requirement is anything that requires funding for the study. AB 2050 fixes that. Adequate funding helps protect affordability and spreads the cost of ownership more equitably. It provides for a stable and gradual planned reserve funding over 30 years rather than surprise special assessments anytime a project is needed. And I wanted to provide you a little snapshot of real numbers. So I reviewed my client financials last night, 157 of them, to let you know that of the 157 associations that we provide financial management services for, 32 of them had a special assessment in the year 2025. That's 20% of our client database. and that is a surprise special assessment for reserve projects that could have been planned for if they had funded according to their reserve studies. That represents 2,648 homes, and if you extrapolate that figure across the 13 million homeowners in California, that's 2.6 million homeowners. Assembly Member Coloza discussed the importance of this bill relative to mortgage underwriters. That is an important point. It bears repeating because the impact limits homeowners financing options Insurance is another consideration Insurance is a crisis in California as we already know Insurance companies are looking at deferred maintenance and reserve funding, inadequate funding of reserves as indicators of risk. We need a solution for the sustainability of this housing model. On behalf of our members and the millions of Californians who live in CIDs, including myself, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2050? Hi, Vanessa Lugo on behalf of California Bankers Association in support of this measure. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2050? All right. We have a motion and a second. Any other questions or comments? Assemblymember Zabert? I think it's a great bill. I'd love to be at it as a co-author. I mean, one of the things that I think this bill, I mean, this is clearly a consumer protection bill. I think a lot of times folks that are buying condominiums or first-time homebuyers, you know, they get a stack of documents when they're buying the condo. They, you know, they don't have a way of assessing budgets and understanding whether there's deferred maintenance that's built up and then they buy these homes and they get hit with an assessment and they don't have a lot of control over it because it's basically done by all of the homeowners and some of these homeowners have more capacity than others and you actually have folks that basically end up getting really squeezed. So I think this is something that is really important. It's really an important consumer protection provision and just want to thank you for bringing it. I would love to be added as a co-author. I'd like to move the bill if someone hasn't. We already have a motion. Thank you. Assemblymember Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is an important piece of legislation. I commend you for bringing it forward. Years ago, before I even was on our city council, I was on our homeowner association board. That was the first time I'd been on an HOA board. The CC&Rs and all these issues were new to me. One thing I was very pleased about is the mandatory by this own board's action reserve account fiduciary management to fiscally conservative fiduciarily responsible for making sure the money is there for the planned project. So I think this is responsible management for the HOAs and to make sure that any kind of unforeseen expense or even planned expenses are adequately reserved for it like any municipality would do by having a reserve account. So I commend you. I support it. I'd like to be a co-author. Thank you very much. A lot of our Republican colleagues served on HOA boards. That explains a lot. I'm kidding. Just kidding. Just kidding. Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this forward. Would you like to close? Thank you, Chair and Members. Be honored to have the additional co-authors from Assembly Member Dixon. and my seatmate, some of the members of Burr, I think appreciate all the additional comments about the fiduciary responsibility of HOA's consumer protections in here. And with that, I'll also add my last bit here for this bill. I like to call this the HOA Rainy Day Fund. And so respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Motions do pass. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Bauer-Cahan? Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Brian Connolly Aye Connolly aye Dixon Aye Dixon aye Harabedian Aye Harabedian aye Johnson Pacheco Aye Pacheco aye Papin Sanchez Lee Zabur Aye Zabur aye All right. That bill is out. Thank you. Don't go too far, Louie. This is Louie's day. On to item four, AB. Oh, yeah. Yeah, we can do a consent on the, yeah. In the meantime, I'll ask some member Patel to take a seat and get ready. And we can go ahead and do a motion on the consent calendar. There's a motion. Is there a second? Consent calendar includes AB 1817 Addis, AB 2007, Bauer-Kahan, two appropriations, AB 2035, Dixon, AB 2090, Macedo, AB 2262, Michelle Rodriguez, AB 2596, Gibson, AB 2692, Irwin, as amended, adding an urgency clause. and AB 2740 Macedo. Caller? Aye. Caller, aye. Barra Cahan? Aye. Barra Cahan, aye. Brian? Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian? Harabedian, aye. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papin? Sanchez? Lee? Zabur? Zabur, aye. Okay, consent calendar's up. By the way, we had two more HOA bills on the consent calendar, just throwing that out there. All right. And I apologize in advance, I was on an HOA board. I am here to present a non HOA bill. Good morning, chair and colleagues. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2106. I want to start by sharing that I accept the committee's amendments and really offer deep gratitude for the work with me and my team on this bill. Happy to accept those amendments. AB 2106 will provide additional protections to architects, professional engineers, and land surveyors. This bill modifies vetting requirements so that cases are properly reviewed before they can move forward in court. It requires that an impartial and qualified expert who understands California's unique standard of care diligently review each case. Current law requires what is known as a certificate of merit in order to file a lawsuit against a design professional. This certificate indicates that the filer has consulted with an independent professional to confirm the potential negligence, ensuring that the court's time and resources are used prudently. However, the certificate of merit does not require attorneys to consult with California licensed professionals. Right now, the law allows individuals who have no understanding of California's complex environmental regulations to advance weak or unfounded cases in California. These cases often impact jobs, small businesses, and can jeopardize reputations. California has a unique and complicated regulatory landscape, and only professionals licensed in California have the relevant experience and expertise required to understand any breach of our state's high standards. Additionally, 2106 will also extend the protections provided by the Certificate of Merit to landscape architects. For these reasons, I respectfully ask an aye vote. With me today to testify in support of the bill is Jerome Pandell, an attorney for the design professionals representing small businesses throughout California, as well as John Moffitt with the American Council of Engineering Companies of California. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jerome Pandell. As stated, I represent design professionals throughout the state of California. and I believe I actually represent firms in everything single members district on the committee. Not necessarily in disputes, thankfully. Most of the time it's reviewing contracts, things of that nature, but they're building roads, homes, schools, commercial buildings all throughout the state of California through their design work. And one of the things that I want to provide a brief anecdote about, a case I had right here in Sacramento County, thankfully all resolved, it involved just a minor car accident inside a new

members of the committee, John Moffitt on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies. I'll keep it short, just associate my comments with Mr. Pandell and ask for an aye vote and happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jason Eichert on behalf of the California Council of the American Society of Landscape Architects, very strong supporters of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Scott Terrell on behalf of the American Institute of Architects, California, in strong support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Annalee Augustine on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California in support.

Good morning. On behalf of the following, Parix Consultants, Verdantis, WMH Corporations, all in support.

I thought I was going to the microphone. I was a bit worried. Yeah. I thought she was.

Move the bill.

Yes. As the daughter of a civil engineer who worked in geotechnical engineering I understand the integrity and the level of commitment that engineers and folks that working in the public construction sector bring to the work that they conduct and want to make sure that the complex landscape of regulatory environment that is here in California is attested to by those licensed in California It's a no-brainer. I think this is a straight shot and really appreciate the committee's support and amendments and making sure that we could be where we are today. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2145, a bill that requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to conduct a study to assess the need and desire among seniors to downsize their homes. I want to thank the chair and committee staff for all the work on this bill, and I do accept the committee amendments. Some background, nearly 6 million older adults are currently living in homes that are larger than they need at this stage in life, while many growing families remain in smaller spaces, unable to find affordable larger options that meet their needs. Many seniors face rising property taxes, increasing maintenance costs, sharply higher insurance premiums given the ongoing insurance crisis, and escalating utility expenses. As of now, higher mortgage rates have effectively locked in many older homeowners, preventing them from downsizing even when their current homes no longer meet their needs. As a result, seniors remain in homes that are too large, costly, or difficult to maintain. Younger families have fewer opportunities to purchase larger family-sized homes, and housing inventory remains artificially constrained. As we all know, our state is in a housing shortage and has one of the largest concentrations of severely unaffordable housing in the nation. California is also on the cusp of an unprecedented demographic shift with projections indicating a dramatic increase in the older adult population by 2040. My bill allows the legislator to become aware of the needs of our growing population of seniors and take the necessary steps to make the process in downsizing homes easier. And as my primary witness, I have Mr. Harrison Linder from Leading Edge, California.

Good morning, Chair and members. I will say that Assemblymember Garcia presented that very well. He described the issues facing older adults very well, and that's essentially the same thing that I had written down in my testimony. So I'll go a little off the cuff here and just say that I think the result of this study will certainly be clear that financial barriers are a big part of what are preventing older adults who are living in overly large homes to downsize. downsize and make those available to young families who could use those homes more efficiently and safely frankly I think what important also to possibly include in this study is what are the levers that the state can pull to actually help older adults do that I know the original intent of the bill was to allow mortgages to be transferred between properties. Some of the business community gave some feedback that made it clear that that's not very feasible, but there's probably some other tools that are in the state's toolkit that could do this. So I would love to see that as part of this bill, have those business community members at the table. And I'm happy to answer any particular questions any of you have about older adults and their needs and the greater landscape of housing for older adults in California. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2145? Is there anyone here

Mr. Chair and members, Indira McDonald, on behalf of the California Mortgage Bankers Association, we want to thank the author and committee for the amendments noted in the analysis. We are pleased to remove opposition and move to a neutral position as proposed to be amended. However, moving forward, we would like to suggest to the author to consider adding an amendment to ensure that with regard to the HCD's evaluation of transferring existing mortgages or their interest rates to new homes, this evaluation should be informed by mortgage industry stakeholder input. So we'd like to see an amendment such as that added.

Vanessa Lugo on behalf of the California Bankers Association, echoing the previous statement and removing our opposition to neutral.

Good morning, Chair and members. Naomi Padron on behalf of California's credit unions. We would echo the previous comments, and with the recent amendments, we'll be removing our opposition.

Good morning, Chris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce. Echo the comments. Appreciate the amendments. We'll be removing opposition. Thank you.

Second.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your comments and also want to thank the committee as well as the opposition for bringing forward their concerns and their expertise. And so I thank everyone and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Aye.

Bauer-Cahan, aye.

Connolly, aye.

No voting.

Aye.

No.

Assemblymember Abubio,

and 7.

Yes.

And I want to point out that my children were quite impressed that my bills are number six and seven.

They are.

I would first like to say that I will be taking the committee amendments to instead focus the bill on deterring attorneys from pursuing meritless litigation against mobile home park owners. Nothing on this bill, nothing in this bill changes when or how a resident can sue the park owners. Instead, the bill places the responsibility of lawsuits merits in the hands of the attorneys. If a failure to maintain lawsuit that has no merit and the court dismisses the case, the attorney who filed it may be required to pay the park owner's legal fees in addition to a monetary penalty. I'd like to introduce Chris Wisaki from the Western Manufacturing Housing Communities Association and Jason Eichert on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance.

Chris Weisaku with WMA, and I want to thank the author for introducing AB 2238. Over the last several years, failure to maintain lawsuits have increasingly grown across the state. And first, I want to stress that AB 2238 was never meant to take away a resident's ability to file a lawsuit against an owner of a mobile home park who fails to maintain their facilities. The goal of this bill is to ensure that park owners can know why they are being sued and to provide an opportunity to fix the issues that have been identified. Unfortunately, a few legal firms in the state have developed an entire business model on the current FTM statute. Here's how it basically works. The law firm identifies a resident in the mobile home park who's willing to sign up for representation for the purposes of filing an FTM. The law firm then sends the park owner a form letter suggesting about 30 different topics to base a lawsuit on. Some of the things on the form letter that you can find if you Google how to sue your mobile home park owner include the park's electrical system provides inadequate power, streets and driveways have potholes and cracks, the water in the jacuzzi is cold, and others. Each of these instances have recently happened to WMA members. For the electrical system, the park is directly served by SMUD, and the park has nothing to do with the electricity in the park. For the residents having cracks in the park sidewalks, the park had no sidewalks. For the jacuzzi water being cold, the park didn't even have a hot tub or a jacuzzi. When the owner receives the letter, he turns it over to his attorney and contacts his insurance company. And more often than not, the insurance company takes the case and settles with the law firm to avoid a jury trial. After that, the insurance company either cancels the park's policy or increases premiums by over 300%. One park in Northern California received a letter with vague and ambiguous language making it impossible for the park to identify with any specificity. His rates went from $21,000 a year for $9 million of coverage to $106,000 a year for $2 million of coverage. And these and other measures are some of the reasons that we're asking for an aye vote on 2238.

Jason Ackerman on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance. The author and Mr. Wysocki have said it all very well, so I'm going to try hard not to say it all again and keep it brief. We've just, you know, we have seen in our membership the same thing that WMA has articulated. The use of frivolous lawsuits to force settlements is on the rise. And unfortunately, it's fruitful enough that people are continuing to do it. We support the bill in print. We think it's an excellent bill. We really appreciate the author bringing it forward. But with the amendments proposed in committee, we still think it's a very good bill. And we think it's a step in the right direction. You referred to meritless litigation. Assembly member. And I think when you read the amendments in this analysis, that's exactly what this is honed in on at this point. We're talking about physical improvements that are not actually present in a park, services that are not under control of park owners or park managers. That seems entirely appropriate when we respectfully urge an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Is there

Good morning, Chair and members. Brian Augusta on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and a number of other organizations that signed on to our letter. We're still evaluating the bill as amended by the committee. Appreciate your work in trying to wrangle in some of these issues. Listening to the sponsors talk about what the underlying issue is, it's very clear that what we're talking about is something that goes to the professional responsibility of attorneys. So we look forward to having continued conversations about how to narrow the bill in on that practice and whether there are other tools that we can use to rein that in while still maintaining the rights of homeowners to pursue meritorious litigation without risk to their financial well-being. And with that, we remain opposed but looking forward to talking to the author and sponsors as the bill moves.

I want to thank the author for bringing the bill. I think the bill is a good bill. It's sort of focusing on some of the root causes. I do say that one of the things we have to preserve is the ability for folks in the mobile home parks to bring meritorious claims. But it is an issue, I think, that you all have raised about whether or not the notices. I mean, I wouldn't have supported the bill if it was requiring extra notices and an extended time frame. So I think that's good about the amendments. But I think there was a valid issue about the notices that are being provided now that are, in the end, don't give a mobile home park the ability to understand really what a real claim is and fix it. I mean, the goal should be that we are getting real problems at these mobile home parks fixed. And if you end up getting a notice that has 50 things on them and they're all very vague, that's not something that actually leads to getting those things fixed. And in the long run, I think we have to think about these things as this is a housing option that is basically at the lower end of home ownership and it sort of a hybrid because people actually own their mobile homes but they actually renting and leasing the space So, you know, if we're actually, we have to, I think, focus on making sure that this is really affordable in the long run. And if what we're doing is we're actually having a bunch of frivolous lawsuits that result in increasing that lease portion of what people are paying, it makes it harder for us to have affordable housing in that realm. So I think the amendments were good, I think, in addressing, I think, some of the concerns that the opposition had. We definitely have to make sure that valid lawsuits can be brought and we're not extending the amount of time. But I do think that there's more work to be done in making notices more specific because I think that is something that is, you know, I think that's the core of what the problem is. So thank you very much.

Yeah, quick one. And also wanted to thank the author. I kind of concur with my colleagues' comments. It seems like it has been narrowed down. And in fact, I think going to the opposition's point that we just heard, It looks like under the amendments, it would actually be the attorney's responsibility to pay the fees as well. I think that actually addresses that issue and kind of strikes the right balance that we're trying to achieve here. So I think I am going to go forward and vote for this today.

Yes, thank you. Well, first, thank you to the committee for all of their work. And, you know, I'm not an attorney, but unfortunately, this reminds me, I had a lawsuit and we did what you all call anti-SLAPP, which has deterred a lot of folks, a lot of folks from suing. You know, even though I won the lawsuit, it still took some money to be able to fight it. But in this case, you know, it's not fair to the point that the committee or, you know, the amendments make that they're inscribable lawsuits. They just, you know, found a cash cow. And I think in the last 40 50 years we been changing a lot of these laws like a lot of the disability you know spaces laws and all that to come to a point where the people that are harmed have the ability to sue and the attorneys are not taking advantage of some folks by just filing the favoritless lawsuits. So with that, I just thank you for all of the work and

Number seven from the 6-7.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Vice Chair and committee members for giving me the opportunity to present AB 2439. Imagine paying your HOA dues. It is an HOA bill. On time. Only to find out later your HOA quietly changed, payment vendors never properly notified you, and now you're facing late fees and even a lien on your home. That's not hypothetical. That's exactly what happened to me. And I will let my, yes, my, I always forget, joint author, tell his story. But if this is happening to myself and to my joint author, it's happening all through California. And those folks don't have the ability that we do to elevate this issue to come before you and ask for some relief. HOA members are also dealing with confusing, inconsistent communications where basic information like when and how to pay is unclear if changes are made. And just as troubling, we've seen unequal enforcement of rules like being cited for parking in front of your own home on a public street while others are not. These situations don't just create frustration. They create financial harm, stress, and a breakdown of trust. And in the spirit of affordability, this makes it unaffordable or more stressful for homeowners. homeowners. This bill adds accountability where that doesn't happen and it makes clear that HOAs cannot overreach onto public streets where homeowners have the right to park. For most people, their home is their largest investment and their sense of stability. They should not have to worry about surprising fees, unclear rules, or arbitrary enforcement. This bill ensures homeowners are treated with the basic respect and clarity they deserve. AB 2439 is about protecting people from avoidable harm and restoring confidence in HOA governance. And with me today, I have my joint author, Mr. Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members.

So I think that a small fix is warranted here. If there are two assembly members going through this exact same pain and agony at the same time, that means there are countless in California undergoing the same thing. And the problem, Mr. Chair, members, is the amount of money that it takes to remedy this is a lot less than to litigate or to find other sort of remedy. And so what you have are Californians like us that just have to pay completely unnecessarily and without justice. And with that, I respectfully ask for it. And can I add to that? I didn't mention that a lien was placed on my house. And once we took care of the late fees, because I went to the HOA and they declined my hearing what I had to say. So we said, fine, let's just pay it. So we paid. And then we get a notice that they released the lien on my house. I was like, I didn't know I had a lien in my house in the first place. Right. So even that, you know, the lien process and the collections process, I think, has to be elevated because it's literally placing folks in a position where if I had no idea there was a lien on my house and then the Assemblymember Lowenthal had no idea he was sent to collections. Again, what do regular Californians have as a remedy, especially those that are living paycheck to paycheck trying to make ends meet? Who has $1,500, $2,000 extra to pay these fees? But with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2439? David Bullock makes a lot of sense in support. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2439? Louie's been up here like 10 times today. Good morning. Good morning. We're good. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Tom Frehley. I'm the CEO of the California Association of Community Managers. I fully support and have shared the support of notification to homeowners upon change of assessments with the two authors, and I fully support a small change or a small addition under statute would be necessary. However, we are still opposed to the bill unless it's amended specific. at least to the return receipt requirement. Return receipt requirement is not a necessity. Certified mail under the USPS, you can obtain a tracking number for the certified mail. USPS will also notify you when that mail is delivered. In speaking directly with the USPS, they have a very real concern on sending a community-wide return receipt request mailing. That will take at least a staff member at least one day, if not an entire week, depending on the size of the community, to knock on every single door seeking a return receipt signature twice. Because, as we all know, a lot of people don't sign return receipt requests, so they're going to have to do it twice. That's a massive amount of staffing need that USPS has a very real concern on. Not to mention, sending a certified letter is $5 compared to almost $9 for a return receipt. We simply ask that the bill be amended to remove the return receipt requirement. And I've asked for notification of their management companies so I can actually have a conversation with these people to try to educate them a little better on proper style of business. Nice way of putting it. Again, on my industry's behalf, I'm so sorry. Thank you all. Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Louie Brown here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute. How lucky are we to have this not happen to one member, but two members of the California State Assembly. But with that, we are having active conversations with the authors of the bill. I do agree with Mr. Freely and that and our association also agrees there needs to be noticed when this happens. And obviously, when Davis Sterling was written, we didn't have things like automatic payment. And so it is not covered in the code. It needs to be covered in the code. That is something that just happens on a more regular basis with an association change in a management company, a management company change in a bank. So, yes, we need to find a way to appropriately notice individuals of this change so that this does not happen going further. Our other concern is that the bill actually places personal liability on the board members if this happens. You can't find that anywhere else in the Davis-Sterling Act. It's the association that's held liable when there's a violation of the Davis-Sterling Act. And so we already have problems finding board members to serve on boards. This will increase costs of liability insurance. It will also discourage individuals from serving on a board knowing that they're personally liable for something that may be totally out of their control. So we like to address the civil liability piece. We want to fix the notice piece going forward. We look forward to it. We believe we can make this happen and hopefully not have to face two assembly members going forward that have issues with their association. So with that we look forward to working with the authors Thank you Thank you Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 2439 We bring it back to committee We do have a motion Assemblymember Pappin. Well, you got a third, just so you know. Likewise with the homeowners. Not as it related to changing where you pay your fees, but certainly a board that is penalty happy and you don't have a lot of rights. So I understand that you might not want to have the board be personally liable, but maybe we transfer that over perhaps to the management company that they're hiring because these boards can be pretty filled with zealots and you've got no rights. So in any event, I'm sorry you went through it, had similar experiences with other items, and that's why I moved the bell. Thank you. Asst. Mayor Barakahan. I just want to say that when you have three assembly members out of 80 that have experienced this, I think it should speak to the percent of the average Californian that has experienced this. I mean, it's not, we're just a sample size. And so I really appreciate you guys bringing this and using your own experience to make things better for consumers. Don't mess with these two. That should be one of the lessons coming out of this. But really, honestly, I'm glad you had this experience so you can make it better for other Californians. Although, of course, nobody should experience this. I just wanted to address the question about personal liability because I get what you're saying and I think it is a concern, but also the HOA could indemnify the board members, couldn't they? Why wouldn't that be a perfect solution? Yes, the HOA could indemnify the board members and we have insurance just like every other association. But I think once you start to create that personal liability, but these are volunteers that are coming forward to serve. And once they're made notice or they're given notice that providing their time, volunteering their time also potentially subjects them to personal liability, there's still activities you have to go through, even if you're indemnified by your HOA in getting defense and working with the indemnification. So there's just elements of it that we think are unnecessary, making the association actually liable for the action sends a pretty strong message, especially with the civil penalties and the levels that we're talking about in the bill. So that's why we think it's just important to not pursue the board members, leave it at the association. Got it. No, and I appreciate the comments about the return receipt. On the other hand, just where I'm sitting, the USPS is struggling. And so I thought they would appreciate the extra payments that come with that level of return receipts. So I don't know. I think it's a good business measure for the USPS, but maybe mine's disagree on that. So I think it's great that you guys are moving these consumer protections. The fact that we have an entire agenda full of HOA bills means there's more work to be done. So thank you for doing this. Thank you. Assemblymember Johnson. Thank you. I have a quick question for opposition. You said that the community-wide mailing was, they were not, they didn't like that. There was a problem with that. Can you tell me why that's a problem? I don't understand that. The USPS for return receipt, certified return receipt would be individual return receipt, not to a corporation. So the USPS would have to have somebody in the community knocking on every single door, asking them to sign the return receipt. I'm not an attorney for my colleagues, but I am a banker. And I will say that if you're going to put a lien on somebody's house, I think that that a part of an action that you shouldn consider as an inconvenience Oh I totally support that but that one homeowner and respectfully potentially one homeowner in a community What this bill is asking for the entire community, every single individually in the community, have a return receipt signed. So they're two different subject matters. Yeah, I don't think I'm in agreement with that, but thank you for the clarity. I appreciate the answer. Anyone else? Any questions or comments? Assembly member Pacheco. To the author and the joint author, thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. It's unfortunate that you had to deal with what you had to deal with in order to bring this to light because as both of you mentioned, if you both dealt with this, that means so many more Californians have been dealing with this. And I am new to the HOA now that I own property here in Sacramento. And so I feel for both of you. I'm glad that the opposition has some sympathy as to what happened to you. I do have concerns about the personal liability as well. Maybe there's a way to work around that, but this is a very, very important bill to protect individuals with OHOAs. And so I know there's a way to figure it out, but I would also love to be added as a co-author. So thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. well um former hoa board member dixon would never first of all and uh i you know i i have to admit that i've calmed down since last week my blood was boiling in housing when i heard this bill the first time um but i i just want to thank the authors for bringing this forward as i mentioned last week i mean there's a lot of common sense here as well You know, if you if you change your payment system and all of a sudden all these folks are not paying anymore that have paid for months or years, common sense would dictate, hey, why don't we call them up or knock on their door and say, hey, did you know? But no, instead, everything becomes so detached. Yes. And next thing you know, and, you know, this is someone's primary home and they have a lien on it. You know, that's where their family lives. It is extremely traumatic, even if they resolve it. It's still traumatic and can cost a whole lot of money. And if we were asked in the post office to do it voluntarily, but one thing, they're getting paid to do it. So there's a reason why it costs $9 because it is extra work. But I think to a submember Johnson's point, if you're talking about something that could eventually end in a lien or a lot of cost or fines or fees, I think it's better for everyone involved to pay that up front. Because ultimately that cost is going to be borne by a much broader group of folks or create a lot more tension in that community with the HOA, which you don't want. Let's find ways to actually relieve any of these issues from becoming an issue to begin with. And I think that's what this does. And it may have a short-term cost, but far less pain in the long term. I would also like to be added as a co-author. Thank you. Would you like to close? Yes, thank you. And I just want to address the issue of the community-wide certified mail. The postal worker goes to your house, at least you might, and they deliver the mail, right? And they're already there. It's not like you're hiring new people to do this. And I know that there's a way forward with this to try and resolve some of these issues. But I'll talk about the previous bill about shifting the burden to the attorney. If a board member realizes that they are on the hook for this then they might think twice about doing extra things to annoy the homeowners We all have heard of board members are upset with some of the tenants and they take it out based on the HOA rules I wanted to address this to Assemblymember Harabedian. And there's a community in the burnt area of Vietn who's charging the homeowners the dues and the home is burnt down. So I didn't want to get into that, but just wanted to point that out that, you know, there's so many different ways or so many different violations, if you will, or taking advantage of homeowners. And we can come to an agreement on how this works. But again, for me, the personal liability makes the board member think twice about overreaching or trying to. because I believe everyone on the board is trying to do the right thing. But if somebody has some, you know, some beef to settle with somebody and they're taking advantage, this would deter that part of it. And I think, you know, if everybody continues their, their membership on the board in good faith, I think they wouldn't run into any problems. But anyway, I appreciate you adding on as coauthors. And with that, I respectfully ask for an. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you so much. Thank you. Motions do pass. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Bauer-Cahan? Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Brian? Connelly? Aye. Connelly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, aye. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Lee? Zabur? Aye. Zabur, aye. All right, that bill is out. Thank you. Thank you. So all the six out of the 19 bills were HOA bills. They're completed now. Oh, sorry. One more. What am I thinking? Just when I thought we were out of it. Senator Petrie Norris, come on up. I knew there was one more. I don't know why I said that. So seven out of 19, that's not bad. So. All right. The Assembly Judiciary and HOA Committee. Exactly. We'll continue. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members, and happy HOA Day in Assembly Judiciary. So I'm pleased to join you this morning to present AB 2579, which is your final HOA measure of the morning. I want to begin by thanking the chair and committee staff for your work on this bill. Happy to accept the committee amendments. So last year, the legislature capped HOA fines at $100, with the exception of adverse health or safety impact violations. This cap has had some unintended consequences and weakened an HOA's ability to address legitimate and serious violations that threaten community safety, including harassment of residents and staff, fire hazards, short-term rental violations. And so this bill actually was brought to me by a couple of constituents who, as a result of their HOA no longer being able to assess fines for serious health and safety matters, the HOA has had no choice but to try to take these violations to court, which ends up actually creating a huge problem for all of the HOA residents because it's not just the board that then bears the cost of that litigation. It's all of the residents. So they were dealing with a situation where their HOA dues were being raised quite meaningfully as a result of this conundrum. And so they said, hey, let's try to find a little more balance. So they've. that we are taking with AB 2579 is to establish a public process that will determine a measured approach to allow HOAs to meaningfully enforce serious health and safety violations without penalizing honest mistakes or resulting in some of the bizarre situations that you've heard about in committee today. So pleased to be joined by Stacey Donnelly, who is the chairperson of the Community Association Institute, California Legislative Action Committee, and Louis Brown is also on hand to answer questions. It's Louis Brown Day in Assembly. It is. We have a motion and a second. Please. Go ahead. I should still go? Okay. You still got to go. Okay. Keep it brief. Okay. So, Stacey Donnelly, again, hello. Thank you for having me, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Just briefly, I'll just say a couple things about this overnight. As you know, many associations lost their ability to enforce rules. I will say that professionally I can tell you associations do not levy fines as revenue. They levy fines as a means of deterring violations. And so I understand that the Assembly Housing Committee changed the focus of the bill to require a process at the Department of Real Estate. So we'll see, you know, we'll explore that option, see how the bill moves forward. But AB 130 created an unworkable situation for most communities. AB 2579 attempts to provide a reasonable solution. So that is why we support AB 2579 and request your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2579? Morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Tom Frehley, CEO of California Association of Community Managers, in support, and congratulations on making it through HOA Louis Brown Day. Almost. Almost there. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association, in support. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2579? Bring it back to committee. We already have a motion. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Dixon? Thank you, Mr. Chair, since I'm an expert on it. Allegedly. I do remember when this was passed in the wee hours of the morning, this removing or establishing a maximum of a hundred dollar fine. I mean, I heard from so many of my constituents as well. Where did this come from? There was no committee hearing about this and changing the whole fee structure and penalty structure. So I was hoping this bill would go back to where it was. But I guess now there's a process to cure the alleged problem. But just speaking from my own experience currently, not even my past life, it's more than health and safety issues that affect the quality of life in an HOA. HOA. I mean, if you paint your house purple and the CCNRs don't like purple, it's not allowed, then you're going to go through a process. I've heard a lot of issues in my district, examples anecdotally, that HOAs typically don't allow, or maybe some do or some don't, but if they don't allow Airbnbs. And so if someone is allowing an Airbnb to operate in this HOA, then now there's a process. In the meantime there are people there doing Airbnb rentals and things like that So it broader than just health and safety I glad I mean I second the motion I going to support this But I would, unless there was a real issue that required there to be a maximum cap of $100, it just has opened. Anybody's willing to pay $100 to have an Airbnb or have a party to 4 a.m. It's meaningless. So I think that's an additional issue. I hope we can continue to see going back to the way it was just to preserve the CCNR structure instead of making there be no penalty for abusing the common rules of the organization. So I wholly support it. I just hope, wish it went further and back to where it was. Well, thank you for those comments. And I think we often pass legislation and then realize there's some unintended consequences and need to do some cleanup. So this is a step in that journey. So thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this forward. I think, look, you know, there's a reason why we had a lot of HOA bills. And this one, maybe the pendulum went a little far. We have to kind of bring that balance back in. But I think that that's what this is going to do is going to have the Department of Real Estate make that determination as to what qualifies within the health and safety parameters rather than us doing it or, you know, let them figure that out, come forward. And, you know, when they do that, we can agree with it. Or if we want to tweak it, we can always tweak it. But I think there needs to be some sense of a little more form to it in terms of not just simply saying you can't do fines and excess unless it's health and safety. Then there's going to be arguments that everything's health and safety. We don't want that either. And so this, I think, will really help us better to find what those parameters around these HOAs are. And, I mean, look, there are HOAs that have power chips and will do fines for everything as well. And so we have to kind of find that middle ground. And so I think this bill goes a long way in helping us try to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for those comments. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Motions do pass as amended. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Bauer-Cahan? Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, aye. Johnson? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Lee Zabur. Aye. Zabur, aye. Okay, the bill is out. Thank you. Thank you. With that, I'm done, Mr. Chairman. Enjoy your rest of the day, Luke. Go have a good lunch. Senator Smallwood Quayvas, this is, we have this and then one more bill after this one. Move the resolution. We have a motion. Is there a second? And a second from Senator O'Brien. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. So from HOA to civil rights, proper transition, proper transition. I want to thank you, Chair and members, and I'm proud to present Senate Concurrent Resolution 89, which reaffirms the California legislature's commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. DEI is fundamental. It's foundational to justice, fairness, and democratic participation. And very happy to say that the Senate overwhelmingly passed this resolution with some bipartisan support. At its core, SCR 89 reaffirms that DEI principles rooted in the Constitution and our civil rights legacy are essential to ensuring government serves all people, not just the powerful. Today we continue to see President Trump and his administration actively dismantling diversity equity and inclusion efforts across the country and particularly in California Ingrained in an anti-Black racism, this movement began by targeting scholarship shaped by critical race studies with the broader goal of tearing down the infrastructure of racial justice, gender justice, LGBTQ plus justice, and the overall inclusion of a society that reflects all of us. This notion, these movements were built by the Black Freedom Movements, and there were subsequent movements that followed, led by women, LGBTQ+, leaders, API community, Latino, Jewish, Muslim, veterans, people with disabilities. And here in California, we celebrate that. But because we know that difference actually brings us closer together. Diversity makes us stronger. But these are sustained attacks. And these attacks are on just about every program that was designed to advance communities of color, to address inequities, to bring low-income families into opportunity, and to close disparity gaps that have continued to expand since the civil rights movement. The U.S. Department of Education, for example, has shifted hundreds of millions of dollars away from minority-serving institutions disproportionately affecting California, where more than 171 colleges and universities serve significant minority populations. The University of California has eliminated diversity statements and faculty hiring, and more than $300 million in diversity and gender research funding connected to California has been stripped away. At the same time, environmental justice grants, fair housing contracts, and transportation investments, minority-owned enterprises, and small business contracts, once designed to support historically underserved communities, have all been scaled back. And fewer resources, fewer protections, we know means fewer pathways to opportunity. California has come too far to turn back, and this is what our legislature has said time and time again. And we must stand together now, and SCR89 is a commitment to resist this dismantling of programs, to resist this overreach that is hurting so many in our communities. It is a commitment to ensure that California continues to embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion. and we know that diversity means representation that reflects the people we serve. Equity means correcting disparities and outcomes, not just an intention, but put into real practice that creates real change, and we've seen that change. Inclusion means belonging and real access and real power for Californians. With me today to testify is Candace Pham with UC Student Association and Dr. Takoi Porter with the National Action Network. I enthusiastically ask for your I vote and support on this resolution. As we know that our state has been through so much, we see how our immigrant community is being brutalized and hurting. We see how so many of our programs are being dismantled, particularly those that have been focused on addressing disparities. And in California, where we have a people of color majority, we can't simply say we're going to turn our backs on diversity, equity, and inclusion. When we do that, we put our whole state at risk because as a people of color majority, where those communities go, so do the rest of the state. And we know that we passed Prop 209 many many years ago We understand what the law actually tells us in terms of implementing diversity and mandating diversity I think California saw DEI as an opportunity to still address those barriers that are stubborn and that exist, that keep so many communities in low-income opportunities and communities that don't get proper investments that they need to be able to see the opportunities that we want to see in every community in California. DEI was an opportunity to address some of that, whether it be housing, whether it be in education, whether it be in strengthening our nonprofit infrastructure. But as we see these federal attacks, many folks in California are just walking away because they are afraid of the legal blowback and the focus of this administration. What this resolution says is that we will stand with our communities of color, And we will defend them and we will fight for diversity, equity, inclusion because it's how California does business and it's how we can support everyone in our communities. And so I will turn it over to my witnesses and then take any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SCR 89?

Thank you.

Thank you. Go Gauchos.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SCR 89? We'll bring it back to committee. We already have a motion. Assembly members of BIRD. I want to thank the author and I also want to thank the witnesses for being here today and And especially want to thank the student who I know the attack on DEI has been felt so profoundly and acutely on our university campuses. It's also something that is, you know, think about what DEI means. I mean, it's diversity. It's understanding that that we bring the wealth and values of a diverse population. you know, equity, it's fairness, inclusion. It's, you know, I think as the, as the resolution says, I mean, these are essential foundations for achieving the American dream and the foundation of who we are as Americans. I mean, think about it. Our country is called the United States. That is DEI. That's what DEI is. It's about, it's about embracing all of us, making sure we're all treated fairly making sure that we tearing down that the American dream what we hold ourselves to the ideal and and recognizing that there been a gap over time because of institutional barriers and actually making a concerted effort to to address those things So you know it sad that we at a time where we got a federal government that is actually really trying to tear us apart rather than bring us all together. I want to thank the author. I would love to be at it as a co-author. It's important for communities of color. It's important for the LGBTQ community. It's important for communities of faith. I mean, really, for gender equality, you know, and this is something that is not just a statement of values. It basically is a pushback to sort of what this administration is trying to do to to harm people's housing, their ability to get employment, their ability to to to obtain a fair education, their ability to obtain health care. We're seeing this used to attack health care equity. So I just want to thank you and would love to be at it as a co-author. And if someone hasn't moved the bill already. Any other questions or comments? Yeah, I also want to thank the author. And look, I believe what we're seeing in the national landscape and the negativity isn't new. The anti-DEI movement at its core is an anti-black movement, just like the All Lives Matter response to the Black Lives Matter movement. and on and on. We can go generations and see time and again how whenever there's efforts for the black community and for black liberation. And as to the senator's point, it lifts everyone up. There wouldn't be an Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 without the Civil Rights Movement. And so I think that it is, to some members of Burr's point, really important for all of us to stand together and united in this effort. And so I really want to thank the Senator for coming forward, the witnesses for their profound words. I would also like to be added as a co-author. Would you like to close? Thank you so much. And thank you so much,

adopted to the floor. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Barra-Cahan? Aye. Barra-Cahan, aye. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Connelly? Aye. Connelly, aye. Dixon? No. Dixon, no. Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, aye. Johnson? No. Johnson, no. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappan? Aye. Pappan, aye. Sanchez? No. Sanchez, No. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Zabir? Aye. Zabir, aye. That bill is out. Thank you. Thank you And I go and present the final bill Mr. Chair, you may proceed when ready. Thank you. All right.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. As stated, my name is Haley McAllister, and I'm appearing on behalf of Legal Aid at Work, which is a statewide nonprofit that advocates for workplace rights, including through serving workers in legal clinics all across the state, and we are a proud co-sponsor of AB 2495. As stated, across the country and here in California, immigrant and undocumented communities are living under heightened fear of immigration enforcement. Over the past year, immigration enforcement actions have become more aggressive and more public as authorities target immigrant communities in their homes, in hospitals, on their way to school, and at work. In this political climate, undocumented workers must take real and significant risks to step forward to actively assert their workplace rights. And as a result, we're seeing many workers who are afraid to speak up, even when they're subjected to wage theft, unsafe working conditions, and discrimination. That fear doesn't just harm immigrant workers. It undermines enforcement of California's workplace protections for everybody. Bad faith employers are exploiting this fear, and we're seeing them weaponize immigration status not in response to worker complaints, but preemptively to silence workers before they can raise an issue or potentially even learn the full scope of their workplace rights. Advocates across California, including Legal Aid at Work, are seeing these scenarios regularly. For example, an employer announced at an all-hands meeting, hey, my best friend works for ICE, and he said, so long as there's no issues here, ICE won't come to our workplace. Or a manager tells workers that they should think about where they might hide when ICE does come and suggest that they jump out the window or hide in the trash. Another employer suggests that speaking to government enforcement agencies that enforce workplace protections might result in immigration consequences. In these situations, nobody has complained, but the message is clear. Stay silent or face deportation. This conduct is slipping through the gaps of existing law and AB 2495 seeks to close that gap We urge an aye vote Thank you Good morning Vice Chair and members My name is Sydney Fong and I the Policy Director for APIs for Civic Empowerment I here to speak as a proud co of AB 2495 We are a statewide

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Please come to the mic. State your name organization only.

Thank you.

Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no opposition. Do we have questions or comments from the committee? Okay, Chair, you may close.

Looking for a motion and a second? Oh, fantastic. All right. Motions do pass to appropriations. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Bauer-Cahan? Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Connelly? Aye. Connelly, aye. Dixon? Dixon, no. Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, aye. Johnson? No. Johnson, no. Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papin? Aye. Papin, aye. Sanchez? Sanchez, no. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Zabur? Aye. Zabur, aye. All right, that bill is out. And as we proceed, we're now done with the bills. I just want to, again, I'm a member Johnson and Lee for subbing in today. And I also want to thank our staff for this last month of very hard work and your staffs for working with our staff because I know there's a lot of bills to go through. They're very complicated. And so I want to thank everyone, all the committee members, for making it through. And now we'll go ahead and go through the bills and all the add-ons. We'll start with the consent calendar. Brian. Brian, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. On to item one, AB 1684, Ward. We need a motion. Okay, that's moved. Seconded. Motions do pass. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Bauer-Cahan? Bryan? Aye. Bryan, aye. Connelly? Aye. Connelly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian, aye. Johnson. Aye. Johnson, aye. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin. Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez. Aye. Sanchez, aye. Lee. Aye. Lee, aye. Zabir. Aye. Zabir, aye. Okay, the bill is out. Add-on for AB 1892, Davies. Bryan. Aye. Bryan, aye. Dixon. Aye. Dixon aye Pappin Aye Pappin aye Sanchez Aye Sanchez aye Lee No Lee no Add for item three AB 2050 Colosa Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Pappan? Aye. Pappan, aye. Sanchez? No. Sanchez, no. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Add-ons for AB 2106, Patel? Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Lee? Aye. Leah. addca danced for a b2145, Garcia Brian. Brian. I Sanchez Sanchez. I Sanchez. I lee lee. Add-on for a b2238 Yum. Brian. Ryan. I Sanchez Sanchez. I Lee Lee I I addisiaj. idle for a b24 39 Rubio. Brian. IronI Lee. Lee, I addons. Add-ons for item nine, AB 2579, Petrie Norris. Johnson? Aye. Johnson, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. And item 10 was a testimony only or presentation only, so I think we're all done. Did we get our can on item one? She's done. Oh. Yeah, she may have left. Thank you Thank you. I always feel weird using a gavel on it because I'm not a judge. All right, we're adjourned. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.