Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Assembly Judiciary Committee. We will go ahead and start as a Subcommittee. I'd like to start off by noting that AB 2282 has been pulled from this morning's hearing. The rules for witness testimony are that each side will be allowed two main witnesses each, and witnesses will have up to two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to the bill. Additional witnesses should state their names, organization, if any, and their position.

As you proceed with witnesses in public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands the Committee has rules to ensure we maintain order to run a fair and efficient hearing and in order to facilitate the goal of a hearing--of hearing as much as the public within the limits of our time, will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. Let's go ahead and begin with Item One: AB 1899, Assembly Member Cervantes.

Good morning.

Okay. Yeah, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Little lights this morning. I want to thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1899, which will make juror questionnaires in California more inclusive of our LGBTQ plus community. I want to begin by accepting the Committee's suggested amendments on page 7 and 8 of the Committee analysis, and I want to thank the Committee staff for the diligent work on this particular Bill.

For most Californians, the primary way of interacting with their state's court system is through the jury summon process. While their jury selection process varies considerably across jurisdictions, prospective jurors are commonly asked to complete several juror questionnaires, including upon intake and being selected for the jury selection process. They may also be asked to complete additional questionnaires with inquiries that are specific to the case before the court.

Unfortunately, many current jury questionnaires are gendered or heteronormative language that can potentially cause discomfort or alienation for Members of our LGBTQ plus community during the jury selection process, especially gender nonconforming or non binary individuals. This includes asking prospective jurors to choose from gendered salutations such as Mr. Or Miss. This lack of inclusivity is incredibly unfortunate as these individuals are merely trying to fulfill one of their legal obligations as citizens of the United States.

Unfortunately, the LGBTQ community has too often been othered by the rest of society. This Bill will help make juror questionnaires more inclusive of our LGBTQ plus community by requiring superior courts to ask prospective jurors for their pronouns in an open ended format and prohibit the use of gendered salutations. This Bill will provide three options for prospective jurors to indicate to the court and court personnel about how they would like to be addressed.

The options would be juror number only or last name only or preferred first name followed by last name. It would also require that if questions about gender are asked of prospective jurors, the question is asked in an open ended manner rather than providing a list of options. AB 1899 would require that any questions about a prospective juror's family or personal relationship, including spouse, parents, or children, are asked using gender neutral language.

Furthermore, this Bill required the Judicial Council to publish a template juror questionnaire that will be inclusive of our LGBTQ plus community. By meeting all of these requirements, I know that the Judicial Council shared some logical concerns about this Bill, logistical concerns about this Bill, specifically the implementation date, and my team and I do look forward to working with them and having conversations with them to address those concerns as this Bill moves forward.

Members, the notion that the Members of the LGBTQ community deserve proper representation, respect, and acknowledgment is a foundational principle of our California values. Therefore, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on 1899.

Thank you. Do you have any witnesses this morning? All right, is there anyone in the audience that would like to come forward and express support for AB 1899?

Craig Pulser, on behalf of Equality California in support. Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition to AB 1899? Okay, are there any questions or comments? Assembly Bauer Cahan.

Good morning. I just want to thank the author for this. Having been involved in jury selection in my past, it is so critically important that our jurors represent California, and every jury has to. And if we alienate people in the process, then that's less likely to happen. And so both for the reasons you mentioned of inclusion, but also so that everybody has a fair trial, this is critically important work you're doing.

So I just want to thank you, and I look forward to supporting it when everybody else shows up.

Thank you. Yes, we'll take it up at the appropriate time. But I agree with our colleague also, having been involved with a lot of different jury selections, I think that there'll be an adjustment period. I think that it's appropriate, I think, when we want to make sure that, to your point, that everyone's included and everyone's represented, and especially in such an important process, the last thing we need to do is alienate even more people from wanting to do jury selection.

I think this will be an opportunity for us to really move the courts in the right direction. So I appreciate you and thank you for bringing this forward. Would you like to make any closing comments?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

All right. We can move on to Item Three: AB 2193. Assembly Member Holden, whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Appreciate the opportunity to present today on Assembly Bill 2193 dealing with hazing accountability. I would like to start by saying that as a Legislator and a former athlete in a state that takes hazing seriously, I'm very proud to be here today to present this bill. As many of you know, California already codified laws in 2006 that make engaging in hazing unlawful. Despite this, we continue to see hazing incidents occur around educational institutions, oftentimes proving to be fatal.

It is clear that our laws are overlooking a key player when outlining responsible parties: the educational institutions themselves. How is it that these institutions can provide and profit from students participating in certain extracurricular activities, but not share the responsibility when tragedy occurs? AB 2193 addresses this by incentivizing educational institutions to be more proactive in addressing hazing incidents before they happen.

This bill allows for a civil action to be brought against an educational institution that knew or should have known of the dangerous hazing practices of an affiliate organization. Additionally, it allows courts to take consideration if the institution had responsible anti-hazing prevention procedures in place prior to hazing incident. It's time we hold all parties involved responsible for these tragedies in the hope that we can--sorry about that.

It is time that we hold all parties involved responsible for these tragedies in the hope that we can come together to prevent them in the future. Here with me to testify in support of AB 2193 our attorney at law, Christa Ramey, along with family members of a victim of hazing, Myeasha Kimble and Tyler Hilliard. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member Holden. If you can pause for one moment, we'll go ahead and take quorum so we can actually start voting on some of these bills, including your important bill.

[Roll Call].

Thank you very much, and we typically allow two witnesses up to two minutes each, but I know you gave us advance notice that you would like the opportunity for both parent witnesses to testify, so all three of you will be given permission to speak up to two minutes and go ahead and begin whenever you're ready.

Good morning. First of all, I'd like to thank you guys for allowing me to speak. Sorry, this is just very hard. Our son, Tyler Hilliard, he would have turned 26 years old on March 26th. He loves spending time with family and friends. He loved dancing. He started playing--he loved baseball, and he started playing baseball at the age of seven. We sent our son to--sorry. I'm so sorry.

It's okay.

Our son had a passion for learning. We sent our son to UC Riverside to get an education, and only two years into his college education, who would have known we'd had to lay our son to rest? When Tyler discovered that one of his role models, Dr. Martin Luther King, was an Alpha, he enthusiastically sought out to become a Member of the Alphas. The thought of losing a child is just heart-wrenching.

The treatment that he received from an organization that he held so dear to his heart is just sometimes unbearable. We are forced to relive the nightmare every time we see a young man dancing, playing baseball, holidays like Christmas, Thanksgiving, Father's Day, Mother's Day, his birthday, even when looking at our youngest son. It is a gut-wrenching pain of a nightmare that I can't wake up from.

The pain is just that much more unbearable because this could have all been prevented, and this bill would help accomplish that. The regents will say they don't have a duty towards our son and the fraternity, they won't take responsibility either. Who's looking out for our children?

Imagine sitting at the side of your child's hospital bed while he or she is attached to a ventilator, unresponsive, feeling helpless, begging, pleading, and negotiating with God to save your child and to take you instead because you know without a second thought you would trade places. We had to make the decision to remove our child from life-support because there was nothing else that could be done.

We recognize that, and we beg you today, in the name of Tyler and others before him, to please pass this bill so that no other family would have to lose a child as a result of hazing. Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a strict policy never to let anyone cry alone in my presence. You're fine. Don't apologize. Good morning, and thank you all for allowing me the opportunity to speak on behalf of AB 2193. My name is Christa Ramey, and I'm here on behalf of Consumer Attorneys of California. I'm a trial lawyer, and I represent children who are the victims of hazing, abuse, sexual assault, and bullying.

People call me when schools fail their children, and my heart breaks when I hear stories like Myeasha Kimble and William Hilliard's. Their case--the regents have stated that they owed no duty to protect their son when he was engaged in off-campus activities involving his fraternity. While fraternities exist mainly off-campus, they find their members and recruit on campus. They have the school support in doing so. It's not their responsibility just to teach our kids, but to keep them safe.

We believe that we made the necessary changes to address the Governor's concerns when it comes to making sure that it's clear when liability will attach. The bill uses more standard language of known or should have known standard, which is common in all government liability cases, and this is codified in numerous laws and is in the jury instructions. The idea if the law would pass some sort of floodgates of litigation would occur is not accurate.

None of these items would impose any more of a burden on universities as they already have for the uniform complaint procedure or Title IX, for instance, in investigating things that occur on their campuses. If these steps that are outlined in the legislation are not followed in a reasonable manner, then a fact cannot hold them responsible if they do everything that the law provides.

So I would say no safe harbor is needed because all they need to do is follow what the guidelines are, and in that case, there's no liability that would attach. We recognize that lawsuits can only make up for the harm. They don't put you back into the position you were before the harm.

But we also recognize that lawsuits also help hold accountable people that cause harm, and they also create changes to help make sure that our schools are safer for our children and there doesn't need to be any more Tyler Hilliards. So thank you very much, Chairman Kalra, for your time.

Thank you. We'll go ahead then to the public. Is there anyone? I wasn't sure if the gentleman wanted to also, but if you'd like to, please.

Well, we're both honored and both saddened to be seated here before you today, and we're honored that we're celebrating our son Tyler's--and celebrating his memory, and we're also saddened because we have to bring light to the senseless hazing of children in school. And our heartfelt prayers are going out to any parents that have may experience a child going through the hazing processes and dying and anyone that's probably endured the tragic loss of a family member due to that.

Basically, we're just here to shed light on hazing, and unfortunately, we are hoping that we'll have stricter sanctions and hopefully we'll be able to stop the hazing processes and save lives. Collectively speaking, the students should be embarking on a new life and enjoying challenges ahead of them, but here they are, untimely on demise, so we just hope that this bill pass. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in the audience in support of AB 2193? Name, organization, and your position, please.

Yes, James DeSimone. I'm with Consumer Attorneys of California, and we're here in support.

Toni Harmnia, in here in support.

Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition to AB 2193? A motion and a second.

Questions, actually, if it's okay if we have the couple sitting in the audience, and we can always have them come back up if anyone has any questions for them. And so we'll up to three minutes each, since the four testimony was six minutes. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning. I appreciate that, but I'll be very brief this morning. I'm Maggie White with the California State University. While I'm here today in an opposed, unless amended position, I want to be clear that the CSU shares the author's goal to wipe out these practices and protect our students. Our universities provide training and orientations for student organizations and student leaders outlining the consequences for violations of the student code of conduct.

The CSU is not opposed to the strategies that are proposed in this Bill as we believe they strengthen our existing policies. As noted in the analysis, we have offered some technical amendments which we believe would provide certainty in the eyes of the court by stating that a University shall be deemed to have acted reasonably if it adheres to the requirements outlined in the Bill.

We intend to continue working in partnership with the author's office to find language that would be agreeable and come to the middle, at which time we will be very glad to remove our opposition. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good morning. Alex Graves, the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, representing 90 of our state's private, nonprofit colleges. I would strongly align our comments and perspective with my colleague from the CSU and also affirm our commitment to working with the author's office to ensure that the policies and practices and trainings on our campuses are as strong as they can be in ensuring we are eliminating and preventing as many of these instances as we can.

As noted in the analysis, though, we, similar to last year's Bill, continue to be concerned that the scope of liability under the Bill is broad, given that this is not just about Greek organizations. There's also hazing that occurs with athletic teams and other student organizations, what have you. And so, in talking with my General counsels at some of our institutions, that concern remains.

Certainly there's a concern about, if implemented, what that would mean for the formal recognition that some of our universities grant to Greek organizations, given the scope of liability, and the fact that it's, at least in our view, unclear if these claims would be covered by our General liability insurance policies. And so we are very supportive and appreciative of the CSU for the language that they have put forward and look forward to continuing that discussion on how to strike the appropriate balance.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 2193.

Nona Grape, on behalf of the community College League of California, in respectful opposition due to the inclusion of community colleges in the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll bring it back to the dice. Senator Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you. I want to start by thanking Tyler's parents for being here. It is every parent's nightmare. So the bravery it takes to come and tell your story, we're so grateful. I want to go back to something that was said earlier, which I agree with on the part of the consumer attorneys, which is the reasonableness standard in the Bill, is fairly standard practice in courts. And generally speaking, we leave it to courts to do fact specific analysis to decide whether an entity, a person acted reasonably.

And so the request on your part for us as a Legislature to define the reasonableness standard with some particularity feels novel and questionable because we cannot, as sort of stated in your testimony, anticipate every factual scenario that would rise under this Bill. And so I just am curious as to why you think it appropriate to do something different here than we do in most standard liability practice.

Sure. Thank you for the question.

I guess what I would say is, admittedly non attorney, is that we're trying to work with the author's office to find what we think is an appropriate balance between the expectations in terms of, like I said, what are the practices universities can reasonably be expected to carry out, to educate, have training, have reporting, and certainly to respond to reporting once it is put forward, while also trying to have at least some stronger language that's more clearly, I guess, defining what that delineation is if things do move forward.

I know in last year's, I believe, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and I believe it's not in the analysis, too. Something else that was discussed was this idea of, I think it's a rebuttable presumption, which we'd also, I think, be interested in discussing. Yeah.

Well, I will just say I'm going to be supporting the Bill because when we as a state take these students into our care and we sanction organizations or dorms or whatever the case may be, I actually believe we have an obligation to keep people's children safe. And so, again, I think you can't predict everything that's going to happen. So I think a reasonable standard makes sense to me as long as you're acting reasonably and protecting the students, and I think you won't be held liable.

But I do think that we expect our universities to act reasonably in preventing these acts that are killing California students.

Thank you, Senator Marias. Thank you. I also want to thank Tyler's parents for sharing their story. I remember when the Bill came up last time, I also supported it. And I think the governor's message is clear that he wants to do something against hazing and wants to find some other fine details.

But you've provided them, and I appreciate so much that lots of extra effort was done to give the standard, as my colleague said, of knew or should have known, and then you provide the three steps that a University can take. I would also have the same question, but you've already answered it. My question, though, is why are community colleges included?

I appreciate the question. Thank you. Community colleges, while don't have typical Greek life on campuses, they still do have athletics and other organizations that are student organized that do have hazing practices. So I think fraternities are just the biggest thing that we think of, or athletics. We think of college football and hazing practices that occur. We think cases like modern day and other cases that are really well known in the media. But that's not to say these practices don't exist on community colleges campuses.

And while I appreciate the opposition of the community colleges, I would also say that they're probably doing things right because there's not a big spotlight on them showing that they're doing a lot of things wrong. So I think that we need to include them all, because if a college is negligent and does something wrong in the care and custody of our children and that harm could have been prevented, they should be held accountable, just like anyone else is accountable when they cause that harm.

So, fortunately, we don't see as many problems there. But if there are, they should not get a pass.

Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Senator Pacheco?

Thank you. And to Tyler's parents, thank you for being here. I know it's really tough sharing your story, but we all really appreciate you both being here. And I know all of us are saddened by the death of your son. So thank you so much for being here. And I do have a couple of questions. I know I didn't support this Bill last year because of concerns that I had, but I was just curious, what is the difference between last year's Bill and this Bill?

I know it has to do with liability. Do you know offhand, what specific language is the difference?

Sure. So specific languages dropped from last year's legislation, particularly with respect to failing to reasonably stop hazing practices so that language is no longer included. We also added a test of reasonableness before policies and investigations. What the intent is, is that if you follow what is outlined in subsection C of the proposed changes to the education code, which clearly outline all of the things that should be done. If those are done, this is a summary judgment granted on behalf of the University.

If they don't, or if it's unreasonable, if they're just giving lip service to these policies. So that's why we added that language in there that gives that standard that everyone else is held accountable to. If you look at what is being asked of universities with respect to this legislation, it really is no different.

And one of the reasons why I mentioned the uniform complaint Procedure act and also the Title IX, each of these laws have requirements that you fulfill all of these things, and if you don't, then a school can be held accountable. It's imposing a mandatory duty on the school to do these things. And I think that sometimes mandatory duties are necessary in order to make sure that that change occurs.

And so it's some of those subtle changes that were made to the legislation to hopefully provide a little bit more clarity and making it more simple. It just knew, or should have known. Now, it's not a bunch of other unnecessary language, and I believe the opposition.

Did have some, and I could be wrong, but I think it was mentioned right now that there was language that was submitted. Was I incorrect in hearing that?

That's correct, ma'am. And it's related to the safe harbor provision. Alex, I don't know if you want to go into more detail.

It's always awkward when.

Sorry.

Behind you.

Yeah. So, again, I know that the CSU had worked with their council, is my understanding, on some amendment language. It did have, I think, the provision that my colleague mentioned. But I think there were also several other proposed amendments that I think we would characterize as kind of technical clarification, which we did work on. Several iterations of amendments on last year's Bill that were also some technical amendments.

I think some of those in the redrafting, some of that language that we had worked on last year, I think we kind of backtracked on a few of those technical issues. So we'd like to clean that up again to try and tighten up the language and make it more year.

Okay. And if I remember correctly, last year it was a stronger opposition. It seems like this year there's more dialogue happening with respect to amendments being proposed, and I'm just curious if the author is still willing to accept more amendments to this Bill.

Well, we're prepared to continue to have conversations. I think we are also recognizing in the Committee analysis a suggestion and expectation, which we are clearly prepared to do, is to have continued conversation. I think the safe harbor provision is probably a bridge too far, but I think that there may be, based on the current language in the Bill, opportunity to have conversation about what a middle ground could look like.

So we're remaining open to having those conversations and evaluating the language and seeing what it does to the basic intent of the Bill. If it's safe harbor light, then I'm not sure. But I think that we understand what the concerns are.

But at the same time, we want to make sure that if the universities or if the community colleges or any educational institution that has the care of young people under its jurisdiction and there are affiliates that are involved in particular activities that create hazing and put a child's risk at a life at risk, we want to make sure that the institution has more than just, well, we put up a sign.

We want to know that they have done more, and if they've done more, then that can be under consideration from the court, and the judge can look at that and say, okay, you've done about as much as you can to address the issue based on your understanding, your knowledge of what was going on. So, long answer, short answer is that we'll continue to have conversations.

Thank you. And I'll continue to keep my stance from last year. I won't be voting for the Bill today, but I think this is important. And I appreciate that you're still bringing this up this year because this dialogue is important. We need to keep our kids safe. And so as the Bill moves along, I'm willing to change my vote, and I would be excited to do so.

But since I didn't vote for this Bill last year, I'm going to go ahead and keep my stance like last year. But I appreciate you very much. And it looks like the community colleges and universities are working with you. And so I appreciate this and thank you very much.

And I think just I'll make this part of my close. If there's no other questions. If there are, I'll make this my close. I think that we are being very cognizant of the fact that the Governor appreciated the direction the Bill was going in, but there still needed to be some additional changes, as has already been outlined in the presentation and also by recognition of the Members of the Committee that we have made some movement in that direction to be responsive to the governor's concerns.

But we also want to make sure that this is a robust and intentional effort on behalf of the educational institutions to address it in a more urgent way. And I think that's what we're looking to accomplish.

Thank you, Summer Kenner.

I'd like to also thank Tyler's parents for coming and testifying today. I have a son that went to play sports in college. He went to Menlo Park. And that's the scariest thing, just to have the guts to just send them off to college because you're very terrified of things that can happen. And so I'm sorry about what happened to your son and to the author. I want to thank you for this Bill. I would like to be a co author, please. Thank you.

Thank you for bringing this up. And this is important, guys. This is an important vote, because we do have the responsibility to keep our kids safe when we send them off to college. Like I said, it's the hardest thing for a parent to do, and it's the institution's responsibility to help keep our kids safe. So I will be supporting this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Any other Members? Well, I also want to thank the author. We know that if there's dialogue occurring that summer Holden is always one that's always willing to come to the table and continue that dialogue. I would say that, with all due respect, the opposition, that safe harbor goes a little further than a technical amendment. It's a big distinction in terms of legal liability and the ability for individuals to seek recourse in the courts.

Ultimately, like many other issues that we face, this comes down to who's in the best position to take on the burden when there is a tragedy. Is it the students and their families? Is the University? And that's part of why these issues come forward. And frankly, I think one of the most important responsibilities we have as Legislature is when tragedies like this happen in our community to take action and to try to prevent it from happening in future.

That only happens when you have the courage of a family like Tyler's parents, that are willing to relive that trauma in order to hope that other families don't go through that. It's an incredible amount of courage to be able to do that. And it takes the courage of a Legislator that's willing to be persistent, not give up and keep fighting. And I think that defines you, sir. And so we do have a motion on the table. Would you like to close?

I think you did a better job than I can do. But I do want to highlight Tyler's parents. There are other parents who are probably watching today and cheering them on and hoping that this legislative body can move this issue forward in a meaningful way that really goes to the heart of why they're suffering now. And so I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Call the roll on the vote. Motion is do passed to higher education. [Roll Call] Okay, thank you so much. That Bill is out and we'll keep the roll open for absent Members. And let's move on to item one. Ayes there a motion on AB 1899 we have a motion on Cervantes.

Is there a second motion? And a second we can call the roll, please? On AB 1899, motions do pass as amended to public safety. [Roll Call] Aye.

That Bill is out. And we can get a motion on the consent calendar. Have a motion in a second. Hold the roll on the consent calendar, please. Okay, we've got AB 2011 Bauer. Keehan. Do pass to appropriations consent AB 2067 Dixon do pass to appropriations consent AB 225 Rodriguez do pass consent. AB 2287 Chen do pass consent. AB 236 Mathis Dupas is amended to military and Veterans affairs consent.

AB 2484 Brian do pass consent and AB 2988 Mccarthy do pass appropriations consent.[Roll Call] Thank you. Up next in order is item six, AB 234. Lee, begin whenever you're ready. All right.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and colleagues. Under current law, when a landlord takes tenant into the eviction process, the court record is masked unless the landlord prevails within 60 days. If the tenant prevails or the case is withdrawn, then the record remains masked. If the landlord prevails, then the record may be released and the tenant will likely end up with a mark on their credit score that may prevent them from future home rentals or other housing opportunities.

But as I said, if the tenant prevails, then the record remains masked because simply being pulled into the eviction process should not prejudice future rental opportunities. That is the protection under current law. Unless the amount of money exceeds $35,000, then the law offers no protection for the tenant, regardless of whether the tenant is in the right. Normally, not too many evictions are going to involve that sump of money.

But with these delayed evictions coming out of the pandemic, more cases are being filed as unlimited civil cases with no record masking. So AB 234 extends this tenant protection to all eviction cases so that tenant is not in the wrong as a tenant that is not in the wrong is not damaged by a court record that only shows that eviction was filed. Finding a home to rent can be difficult enough for people.

We don't need to make it harder when the person hasn't done anything to warrant being put on a tenant blacklist. With me in support is Tina Rosales Torres with the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Thank you. Thank you. Up to two minutes.

Good morning, Chairman, Members. My name is Tina Rosales Torres. I use she her pronouns and I'm with Western center on law and poverty. We are proud co sponsors of this Bill. I just want to frame that. I am an attorney and I've practiced in Los Angeles County where this is a very frequent occurrence.

So what we're doing is we're just applying the law equally to all tenants as it was originally intended, and we are preventing abuse of the court system, which happens frequently in Los Angeles alone. There are landlord attorneys who teach how to and advise to file unlimited civil cases because they know that it is a way to get around the masking statute and force tenants into unreasonable negotiations.

And I also just want to say that when we're talking about the amount in controversy for unlimited civil cases, these are just allegations. That doesn't mean the tenant actually owns that amount. The landlord or the landlord's attorney just has to allege that that amount is in fact owed. So while the tenant is fighting this case, their information is out there. And as the Assembly Member said, they are potentially blacklisted for at least seven years, which prevents them from accessing housing.

And I'll just tell you a story about a case that was in Santa Ana from one of the legal services attorneys that we work with where the landlord filed an unlimited civil case alleging that the tenant owed 25K. So this was last year before the increase, and all of that was COVID debt, which the tenant had paid.

So the landlord used it because this was a rent controlled tenant and wanted to get the tenant out of the unit fortunately, they were able to negotiate, but even during settlements, the landlord refused to seal the case. The way that the law is written is that if a landlord wins or if there is a settlement in favor of the landlord, then the cases will be unsealed. But until that time, the tenant has the opportunity to fight their case, knowing that their information will be protected.

And if they win, they will not have fear of being blacklisted and potentially not accessing any housing. This is a common sense law. It's just extending the law, as we've already wrote it, to ensure that all tenants are protected and knowing that they can have their privacy while fighting for their case. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair. Morning, chair. And Members, Brian Augusta, on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance foundation, one of the co sponsors of the measure, just want to put a fine point on one issue that's come up. Been alluded to here. The policy in the State of California right now is not changed by this Bill. And that policy is that if the landlord files an eviction action and wins within 60 days against the defendants, that case is unsealed. If not, it remains sealed.

And that has a very important public policy purpose, which is, as my colleague has alluded to or illustrated, protecting tenants from being essentially blacklisted, from renting a new unit. We're not changing that policy. What we are doing is saying there is an anomalous situation in which certain tenants, because of the nature of the case that was filed or because of the way in which the place in which they live, they are not afforded those same protections.

This Bill would extend those protections to this well settled policy. And so, for those reasons, we would urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Is anyone else here in support of AB 2304?. Anyone here in opposition to AB 2304?

And unfortunately, small rental property owners face unethical attorneys who represent tenants in court, delaying the eviction for long as they can so that there is an increased amount of dollars that the small rental property owner has to pay. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote today.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to AB 2304?

Good morning, Mr. Chair. And Members Kareem Driesy, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, in opposition, respectfully request a no vote. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We'll bring it back to the Members.

Senator Barricahan, I just have a clarifying question, which is, as I read the Bill, if for these over $35,000 cases, if the landlord prevails after 60 days, it will not be sealed. That's how I read it. So I'm a little bit confused by what's been said here, because you're saying that if the landlord prevails, it's always unsealed. But that is not what I believe.

The Bill. Well, let me just say what the law is. What you said is correct. It's an automatic thing because the courts want it to be a bright line. So at 60 days, what is the outcome of the case? Has it been resolved in favor of the landlord unsealed, if not remain sealed?

Thank you. So the Bill does two things, which is extends the protections to those in mobile homes? I believe it is, which I think is absolutely fair. I don't think the nature of the dwelling that you're renting should matter as to the protections you receive. I actually do think, though, that if someone prevails in an over $35,000 case, that is information that perhaps should be available. That is a lot of money. And we talk about big landlords who can absorb that.

But there are also small landlords who will be foreclosed on if they can't pay the mortgage. And $35,000, it's a lot of money. So, I mean, I would support a much narrower Bill, but if the landlord prevails, I do think that information should be available.

Any other questions? Comments? Senator Pacheco.

I also have concerns about this Bill. I used to do landlord tenancy and used to represent small mom and pop landlords. And so I am concerned that this Bill would impact small mom and pop landlords.

A lot of my clients were Spanish speaking clients who maybe had saved up to buy two properties and were renting one and were using that income to survive because they had limited means, and they would sometimes even have to borrow from their children, especially during times when they had a tenant that didn't pay their rent. So I've seen the burden that it had on small mom and pop landlords. And so because of that, I won't be able to support this Bill. And I agree.

I've seen tenants attorneys who, they teach other attorneys how to kind of milk the system to help other tenants. I'm not saying that landlords don't do the same thing, but I've seen that on the tenants'attorneys, as well. So I appreciate the author bringing this forward, but unfortunately, I won't be able to support it because of the impact that it would place on small mom and pop landlords.

Senator Reyes.

As a landlord, I think that there do have to be measures that protect our tenants. And although there are some valuable comments that are being made, this is the beginning. This is the First Committee, and I think that clearly having mobile home residents included in the protections is extremely important. And I think the masking is something that if we don't do the masking, then the moment 60 days have arrived, we have many tenants who will not find housing.

And that's part of what the argument has been, and I think that is absolutely true. There are delays caused by many reasons, but I think the Bill is very important, and I would move the Bill to have it continue forward and continue the conversations.

Motions are a second question. Senator Bryan. Yeah. That $35,000 judgment, when was that put into law?

Last year. And it became in effect this year. zero, yes. Sorry. Math is hard.

I'm just curious, does it go up 5% a year? Because my rent certainly does. And so the value of that 35 also has a diminishing value year after year. So something to consider as well. If there are more conversations about this Bill, 35 sounds like a lot. As one of the two renters up here, that's not a year. That's a little over six months for me. And I live on Crenshaw. And so there are a lot of reasons tenants can't pay their bills.

There's a lot of reasons that these situations happen. It's unfortunate for mom and pop landlords absolutely. It's unfortunate for those tenants, and I also think setting marks on folks'records that make it harder for them to then become housed should their economic situation change is a difficult paradigm, especially when one of the number one reasons that we're all gathering in this building is to address the homelessness crisis across our state. Right. These things are interconnected.

And so, as was mentioned by my colleague from San Bernardino, this is the First Committee. This is the start of a conversation, and I'm happy to second the motion.

Thank you. No other questions? Comments? Yeah, no, I appreciate the dialogue here. Again, this is the first policy Committee.

As someone that's been a renter, been a son and pop landlord and have represented tenants in landlord tenant court, let's not forget that there is a balance of power here that's shifted in favor of the landlord, whether they're a mom and pop or a corporate or institutional. And that's why these protections are in place for the tenants.

And any suggestion that lawyers that represent tenants are doing things that are unethical because they're fighting hard for their clients within the scope of the law, I won't accept, just like I wouldn't accept the contention that a landlord's attorney is doing something that's improper because they're working within the scope of the law. Tenants attorneys fight very hard because if they lose, their tenants are on the street. That being said, I hope that we have the opportunity to move this Bill forward so dialogue can continue.

Sounds like there's more conversation that can certainly, that this Bill can benefit from. But I think at this point it's an important Bill to extend the protections, and I'll certainly be supporting it. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your high recommendation for this Bill. I think it is an important Bill for several different reasons.

And first, thing I want to say is that I welcome any conversation about suggestions or feedback to the Bill, too, as it moves along the process. I think that's important. And as we go along the process, since the First Committee would welcome any feedback that makes it more palatable in that sense. But I want to say that this Bill is about, there's two different issues that have been played and talked about this Committee.

There's the issue of a landlord recovering their rents, and there is the black mark on a tenant. Those two things are adjacent to one another in this Bill, but this still does not prevent a landlord from being victorious in court, does not prevent them from settling, does not prevent them from getting back the debt that they are supposedly rightfully owed. This is about the allegation. So right now there are tenants being sued by their landlords, allegedly for over $35,000.

And one way or the other, whether they are innocent or found to be wrong in that sense, and they owe the money, they will have a black mark. And enduring the housing crisis, we want to make sure there are people who have the right opportunity, who have opportunities to housing.

And right you're saying is today, if we do not close that black mark, is that people who are totally innocent, who have just been wrongfully alleged and sued for over $35,000 of damages, even if they totally paid it off, and that's not the case, they could still have that black mark. And especially for folks who are renters, and speaking as a renter, as one of the few renters in the Assembly right here, we're all here right now except for one. Almost.

Except for one, is that that could be game over for you. Once you have that black mark, the options are probably the street or you have to go, hopefully find a friend or a family. That's really what we're talking about right here. And there is a power dynamic at play here. And so when we want to talk about that, it's about protecting the records of people who are innocent, who have been alleged to be sued doesn't mean that they actually are wrong in the wrong here.

So let the courts decide who's in the wrong and let's figure out who actually should or should not have black mark on the record. Because I would argue the people that did everything right and are just wrongfully sued, they don't deserve that mark at all and they deserve to go find housing as much as possible. So I welcome the feedback moving forward, but respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you. Thank you. Adam. Century roll call vote on AB 23.

Four motions do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is on call. Thank you. In file order, item four, AB 2257 Wilson. Whenever you're ready.

Wonderful, thank you, Mr. Chair, Assembly Members. Today I'm here to discuss the critical importance of AB 2257 a Bill designed to enhance the transparency, efficiency, and fairness of the rate-setting process for water and sewer services in California. At its core, AB 2257 is about fostering a constructive dialogue between public agencies and the people they serve by promoting early and meaningful dialogue between public agencies and ratepayers. This Bill lays the groundwork for more equitable and effective water and sewer rates in California.

Our state's water and sewer agencies are at a critical juncture. The challenges posed by climate change require substantial investments in our water and sewer infrastructure. To ensure that public agencies can make these necessary investments, it's essential that they have a stable and predictable revenue stream. Under existing law, Proposition 218 requires public agencies to provide advanced notice to property owners, a public hearing for protest, and restricts the imposition of fees unless they represent the actual cost of services.

However, the increase in Proposition 218 litigation challenges local agencies' ability to set fair rates to cover operational and investment costs. Often, these legal challenges come without prior objections being raised during the public comment period, leading to costly and unforeseen lawsuits that strain the financial resources of these agencies. For this reason, AB 2257 establishes an exhaustion of administrative remedies procedure.

This means that for someone to challenge the court a fees in court, they must first raise their concerns through the process provided by the public agency. This requirement aims to resolve disputes early and reduce the frequency of litigation, which can be costly and time-consuming for both parties. This proactive engagement facilitates informed decision-making, enhanced transparency, and ultimately fosters trust between agencies and the communities they serve.

Moreover, it mandates public agencies to respond in writing to all comments received, fostering a transparent and informed dialogue between agencies and the public they serve. Importantly, this Bill still protects the right to litigate against ongoing failures by an agency to implement rates in compliance with the substantive requirements of Proposition 218. This ensures that agencies cannot misuse fees for purposes other than those explicitly stated.

I have heard that folks have reached out to our office regarding the minimum 40-day notice period for ratepayers to review a proposed fee or assessment and filing an objection. To be clear, this Bill maintains Prop 218's 45-day minimum timelines. However, we are always open to clarifying this section if it is necessary. AB 2257 represents a balanced approach to rate setting. This Bill is about more than just procedural adjustments.

It's about ensuring our public agencies and our communities can work together to effectively tackle the challenges we face. Thank you for considering my testimony on this important matter. With me today, I have two witnesses I would like to introduce. First, we have Christopher Anderson Esquire, the Senior State Relations Advocate at the Association of California Water Agencies, affectionately known as ACWA, and Kaitlin Bursey, attorney at Baker, Manock, and Jensen. PC.

Thank you. Up to two minutes each, please.

Great. Good morning Mr. Chair and Members Chris Anderson on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies. We're the proud sponsor of AB 2257. Public water and sewer agencies provide essential government services for the benefit of communities, agriculture, industries, and the environment. These agencies are responsible for ensuring a consistent and reliable water supply, safeguarding the quality of drinking water, planning, constructing, maintaining essential infrastructure, and much more.

With climate change presenting unprecedented challenges, these agencies must also adapt and enhance aging infrastructure to mitigate impacts of increasingly frequent, severe climate-related events. Billions of dollars of infrastructure investments are necessary to ensure water supply reliability for future generations. Prop 218 places strict limitations on how agencies can raise revenue and as a result, public agencies that predominantly rely on service rate revenue, and assessments to finance their essential government functions. While these agencies require financial stability to meet increasing demands, a rise in Prop. 218 Litigation is making it increasingly difficult to ensure agencies can pass fair and reasonable rates to cover the cost of operations and investments

Oftentimes, these suits are filed without first having raised the concerns during the rate-making process. And these surprise lawsuits prevent public agencies from endeavoring to resolve disputes and avoiding litigation. They also have the potential to undermine an agency's ability to maintain stable budgets necessary to operate effectively.

AB 2257 would bolster existing rate-making process in order to enhance dialogue and transparency between public agencies and their customers. The goal of this legislation is to shine sunlight on potential objections to proposed rates and assessments when agencies actually have an opportunity to respond and address those concerns. As the Committee analysis notes, other administrative agency actions have similar processes, including CEQA. We are trying to foster better informed administrative decisions, allowing agencies to develop more defensible rates, build rapport, and build rapport and trust with their ratepayers.

AB 2257 also promotes financial stability necessary for agencies to operate effectively and prepare for climate change. Thank you and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you, chair and Members. My name is Kaitlin Bursey and I'm an attorney with the Fresno-based law firm of Baker Manock & Jensen. Among other things, I represent water and public agencies in the Proposition 218 rate-making process. Proposition 218 imposes both procedural limitations and substantive requirements on public agencies when they are adopting fees or assessments for water service. Public agencies are already at a steep disadvantage if they find themselves in court defending their rates or fees for a few reasons.

First, once a plaintiff files a lawsuit to challenge a rate or fee in court, the burden automatically shifts to the public agency to demonstrate how its rates comply with Proposition 218. Second, in reviewing an agency's rate-making decision, a trial court will apply a de novo or independent review standard, meaning the agency's decision is not entitled to deference.

And third, in litigation, in demonstrating how its rates comply with Proposition 218, the agency's evidentiary universe is limited to the administrative record, which is the record that was before the governing body while it was making its decision. If a ratepayer does not raise the issue it has with rates during the rate-making decision, it makes it even more difficult for a public agency to demonstrate how its rates comply with Proposition 218 or defend those rates in litigation.

Now, the goal here is to bolster public participation, develop sound and well-informed rates or assessments, and promote financial stability for agencies. And AB 2257 will help public agencies achieve that goal. Happy to answer any questions and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Assembly Member Wilson, do you accept the Committee amendments?

Yes, I do. Thank you for doing that.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2257? Name, organization, and your position, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Julee Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the Contra Costa Water District, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kristi Foy here on behalf of Three Valleys Municipal Water District in strong support.

Thank you.

Raquel Ayala with Reeb Government Relations, on behalf of El Dorado Irrigation District, in support.

Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of South San Joaquin Irrigation District, in support.

Thank you.

Pilar Onate-Quintana here for Irvine Ranch Water District and East Valley Water District, in support.

Thank you.

Nicolas Schneider with Georgetown Divide Public Utility District in strong support.

Thank you.

Alyssa Silhi on behalf of the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Santa Rosa, in support.

Thank you.

Eric Lawyer on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, representing all fifty-eight counties, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dennis Mayo from McKinleyville Community Services District just north of Eureka, California. I'm also the Vice President of Region 1 Association of California Water agencies from Santa Rosa to the Oregon border, and we're in total support of this necessary change to the 218 process.

I didn't know there was something north of Eureka, but thank you. I didn't know there was something north of Eureka, but appreciate it.

Well, everything south of that is Southern California. I know that.

Carolyn Jensen on behalf of Western Municipal Water District, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Dawn Keopke on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, CCEEB, in support.

Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition to AB 2257?

Scott Kaufman, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Combating climate change is a laudable goal, but climate change does not excuse overcharges or illegal water rates, and it certainly does not require closing the door on legitimate refund claims. Expenditures required to replace or update water and sewer infrastructure are already permitted under Proposition 218. This Bill is not about climate change. It is about denying access to the courts.

Under AB 2257, even if a refund claim were based on an indefensible mathematical mistake, ratepayers would never get their day in court. Proponents argue that after a series of court cases in recent years, ratepayers are unhappy with their water rates and can file suit to challenge the legality of a rate structure even if the rates have been in place for years. But there is no recent court decision on that issue.

It's simply a matter of due process and the time honor doctrine of for every right there is a legal remedy, and Civil Code 3523 says for every wrong there is a remedy. This Bill flies in the face of that principle. There is no evidence that legal uncertainty is making it nearly impossible for local agencies to market the government-backed bonds needed to finance infrastructure.

In fact, the new 120-day statute of limitations, which essentially requires that administrative claims must be filed within 75 days of implementation, makes it nearly impossible for ratepayers to evaluate highly technical rate studies or engage legal counsel. This means that the certainty of revenue needed to back bonds has never been stronger. Yet this Bill would go even further by demanding detailed objections, presumably based on errors in a rate study, even before the rate study is available for public review.

Unlike the notice period required under Proposition 218, which is 45 days to mail a letter, check a box, and send it back, very different than mounting a legal challenge, this Bill would require only published notice provided in the legal section of a newspaper by the time actual Proposition 218 notices are mailed, the time period in which to submit objections under this Bill may have already closed.

Given that there is no independent cause of action related to the adequacy of an agency's written response to objections under this Bill, that response can be limited to just a few words or sentences that do not meanfully address objections, no matter how carefully these objections are framed. In other words, no transparency is required on the part of the water agency, which does not even have to make its rate study available for public evaluation during the time when its objections are allowed.

Lastly, it is only an optional process from the agency's perspective, and we are opposed and ask you to vote No. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members Karim Drissi on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. We are in a tweener position and wish to sincerely thank the author and her staff, as well as the Committee and Committee staff, for working through the concerns that we have with the Bill in print.

We're reviewing the Committee amendments and look forward to fully resolving our concerns. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wants to identify in opposition to AB 2257? Name, organization, and position?

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Preston Young from the California Chamber of Commerce. To be clear, we are not in opposition, but this is a Bill that is of concern to us, so we'll continue to work with the author and sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments, motions? Assembly Member Reyes.

I did have some concerns. One of the things was mentioned that even if a lawsuit can be filed, even if the rates have been in place for years, is there no statute of limitations?

There is currently a 120-day statute of limitations that was adopted by the Legislature a few years back for challenges to water and sewer rates. So 120 days after the rates take effect.

Okay. So if the rates have been in place for years, that would be inaccurate then?

Again, the lawsuit can only be filed within the 120 days of the effective date of the rates or assessments.

Because it just seemed kind of wrong. Something that was mentioned is about surprise lawsuits. How often are there surprise lawsuits where there hasn't been any notice before?

We can certainly provide you a list. We have identified upwards of 20 cases in recent years in which no notice has been given to the ratemaking agency during the rate-making process. This issue has gone all the way up to the California Supreme Court as recently as just the last few years, 2019, 2020. Sometime around then. So the issue was important enough to be considered and addressed by the California Supreme Court recently.

Thank you. And one of the comments that was made is about due process, and I absolutely agree on the need for due process. But having said that, I think that this first Committee and I think that the Bill deserves an opportunity to move forward to continue with the conversation. But I think these are serious concerns that I think should be addressed, and it sounds like they're being addressed.

I called one of my local water agencies that was listed, and one of my other ones is here, too. So we want to be able to provide protections for our water agencies, but also want to protect the rights of the ratepayers, who, in the end, are the ones we're paying. And to remove any form of due process is a serious problem for me. But nonetheless, with those concerns, knowing that there will be continued dialogue, I would move the Bill.

Okay.

Absolutely.

We have a motion. Is there a second? Okay. Motion and a second. Any other comments or questions? Would you like to close Assembly Member Wilson?

Thank you. I appreciate my witnesses in support, and them providing greater clarity to Members of the Committee. And I also appreciate the concerns that we've heard from various associations as well as Members, and seeking to address and clarify those through the language. I think what's extremely important is that we don't want to weaponize the process that allows people to submit lawsuits, to delay when they could have brought those concerns in the beginning when the agency had a time to address those particular issues.

And that's what we're solving to avoid. We're not trying to take away any of our ratepayers' rights or interfere with due process or allow them not to be able to share their concerns or to address issues when you have an agency that is doing something inappropriate or in contrary to their Prop 218 notice. And so with that, I appreciate the time of this Committee for considering this Bill and respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, could you take the roll call on AB 2257?

Motion is do pass as amended to Local Government. [Roll call].

Okay, we'll place that bill on call. Thank you. File item seven. AB 2493. Assemblymember Pellerin.

Move the Bill.

A motion and a second. Reyes. Mckinnor.

Moving like a slug today.

Thank you. Thank you for your patience. I know that you've been sitting there and people show up right before you.

You always hope, but this is fine. Thank you so much for your patience. Great to see you all. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present AB 2493. While many landlords are running above the board businesses, California's housing supply crisis, coupled with a lack of knowledge about tenants rights among the average renter, presents the perfect window for bad actors.

AB 2493 would prevent landlords or property management companies from charging a rental applicant a screening and application fee more than once if the applicant has applied to rent more than one property owned by that landlord or property management company. There is no business reason to duplicate this process if the applicants were all submitted around the same period of time. Furthermore, repeatedly pulling credit checks can harm prospective tenants credit, making it harder for them to pass credit screenings.

AB 2493 will also prevent a landlord or property management company from charging a potential applicant a fee to be entered onto a waiting list for a rental unit if no rental unit is available at the time or will be available in a reasonable amount of time. By prohibiting such fees, the bill ensures transparency and prevents applicants from being financially exploited when there is no immediate prospect of securing a rental unit.

Many waitlists only serve to notify waitlist members that the unit is not available and almost never result in a guarantee of the tenancy. Once the unit becomes available, the prospective tenants on the waitlist may be expected to pay another application fee to be screened only adding to the financial burden of securing new rental housing. Overall, AB 2493 aims to protect the rights of rental applicants, prevent them from being subjected to unnecessary financial burdens, and promote fairness and transparency in the rental housing market.

I am currently working with the opposition and I hope to continue working with them to address their concerns. I would like to have my two witnesses, Ana Luz Acevedo and Carlos Romero, from Communities Organized for Relational Power in Action, COPA, testify in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Hi everybody. My name is Ana Luz Acevedo and I am a leader with COPA at Our Lady of Refuge Catholic Church in Castroville the central part of California by the Coast. COPA is a broad based organization of 27 labor, faith based and nonprofit organizations in Santa Cruz and Monterey County. Today, I am here to speak in favor of AB 2493. As a young professional, application fees were something I spent a lot of time thinking about.

I remember when I had just graduated from college and I was moving into a new place and taken over somebody else's lease, and thank god, let me tell you that they left the mattress in the apartment, otherwise I would have been sleeping on the floor, because at that point I had no money and no income until I got my first paycheck.

So for me, the only option was to take over somebody else's lease because I couldn't afford to pay a security deposit, first month's rent and application fees. And this story is common among my peers. In fact, because young professionals move around so much, I know that I've spent well over $500 in application fees. Ultimately, what we'd like to see is the elimination of application fees. But we think this is a major step in the right direction towards helping people get over barriers in search of housing. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hello. Good morning. My name is Carlos Romero. I'm leader with COPA at Holy Cross Catholic Church in Santa Cruz. I am here to let you know the stories of many members of my church who shared with me again and again about how expensive it is to apply to an apartment.

Elizabeth Cruz had to pay $2,400 just in application fees, including three times to one company for each unit she applied for under the same management company. Flora Sellies told me that her rent went up by $1,200 more per month. Now she's thinking about moving and she's worried about where she is going to get the money and will likely face the same experience of Elizabeth. Even if you have a good job and are highly educated, the application process is a big challenge.

My friend Kim Kendall is a hospital administrator. She paid a fee to be on a waiting list and then she realized that she was number 30 on the list. Maria Lopez, who lives by the boardwalk, saw a house for rent that was listed for rent for over five months. They were charging $200 for every adult just to apply. Over five months that is a lot of money to collect without providing housing for anyone.

These stories of my parish community represent the unjust practices of some landlords that must be stopped. COPA asks you to vote yes on AB 2493. Thank you Assemblymember Pellerin, for your leadership.

Thank you. Is anyone else here in support of AB 2493?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Karen Stout here on behalf of PowerCA Action. We are in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Barbara Meister, also from Santa Cruz County, in COPA in support of AB 2493.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Philippe Morales. From Our Lady of Refugee Castroville. I support this.

Thank you.

Eli Holiday, organizing with COPA and speaking for our other 25 member institutions. All in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition to AB 2493?

Hello again, Mr. Chairman and Members. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. First I want to say to the author, we very much appreciate what you're trying to do with this Bill and what you're trying to resolve. And we agree with it. To be clear, we were okay with the Bill as originally introduced that would prohibit a rental property owner or management company from charge, charging an applicant to be on a waiting list. We believe that the law never intended that.

As for the amended version of the Bill, that would prohibit property owners or management companies from charging a fee if they already did at their other building. We don't believe that that resolves the issue for all tenants. Out of respect, we've asked the author if she would consider the following proposal, and that is that landlords, and this is a common practice in ethical owners in the industry, that they accept applications on a first come, first qualified basis.

That means the people behind them are not charged because you don't charge for someone that you have not run a screen for or that you accept a reusable screening fee that's being worked on and has been worked on already in the industry. This would ensure that applicants are not charged over and over again. And we agree with you on that concept. And for those reasons, we'd like to continue to work with Assemblymember Pellerin on this legislation.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition? AB 2493.

Good morning, chair and Members. Kate Bell, on behalf of the California Rental Housing Association, apologies. We just took a position on Friday, but look forward to working with you to resolve our position. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion. Are there any other questions or comments? Senator Pacheco, thank you.

And I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. This is important. People shouldn't be charged an application fee to be put on the waitlist. It's already expensive enough as it is, and I'm glad to hear those conversations happening. I will be supporting the Bill, but of course, I'll be tracking it to see what amendments are made. But I think having these discussions are very important, and I appreciate you bringing this forward, and I know you'll continue working with opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, Madam Vice Chair.

I'm glad I am hearing both sides to this. I'm glad you're working Assembly Member, I'm glad you're working with both sides because I think there's a solution there somewhere that can benefit both parties. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Also, just thank the author and opposition for working together. And it looks like there's an opportunity here to continue that dialogue, which is what we always encourage. Would you like to close?

Yes. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With 17 million Californians constituting 44% of our state's populations that rent their homes, this is absolutely a common sense measure. So thank you.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call. Vote.

[Roll Call]

So that Bill will be placed on call. Thank you. The final items, item two, AB 2095, Senator Maienschein.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members. For more than 100 years, public notices have served as vital channels for transparency and accountability in our legal system, informing citizens about crucial events shaping our communities. Public notices have traditionally been published in paper newspapers. However, as the digital age is here, it's crucial we ensure equal access to this information for all citizens, regardless of their preferred medium.

AB 2095 seeks to achieve this by establishing standardized publication protocols across print and online platforms, eliminating any additional charges to access public notices online. This Bill would require legal notices to be published in print on the newspaper's website and on a statewide website maintained as the clearinghouse for notices by California newspapers. This ensures every citizen can stay informed about important events, whether they rely on newspapers or digital sources. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And with me here to testify in support is Brittany Barsati from the California Newspapers Association. I do want to address real quickly, there was a very late, I guess, some kind of opposition letter received. It was dated March 13. We took amendments on March 13 that I believe addresses to the extent it did not. We'll continue to work on it, but I think it's been handled. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Brittany Barsati with the California News Publishers Association, proud sponsors of this Bill. Public notice has been something that's been incredibly important to communities for decades. They cover everything from foreclosure notices to fictitious business names and everything in between. There are over 1700 statutes that deal with this issue.

For the last several years, our Association has maintained a website, the CA publicnotice.com, where any Member of the public can access for free and see the different notices that are posted on it. Recognizing the importance of digital age, we have also recently required our Members to publish on their own websites and to the central website as well. So that way, whether you are a print person or a digital individual. You can access these notices for free.

Our website is searchable, so if, for example, you're interested in environmental justice issues or criminal justice issues, whatever it be, you can search by topic, and we're very proud to have that as an option. So we are simply asking to do what 12 other states have done, which is create a system so that way these notices may preserve print, but also expand to those who are in need of digital access. So thank you. Respectfully urge aye vote.

Thank you. Is anyone else here in support of AB 2095? Is anyone here in opposition to 2095?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Matthew Siverling, on behalf of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials acknowledge that our letter did come in late and we apologize for that, sir. And we plan on sitting down with CNPA and the Member to discuss our concerns. We are opposed unless amended at this time, principally because of the mandate to include a link to a private sector resource on a public website. We have a standing policy in most counties against this practice and would just like to discuss that with the author and sponsors moving forward. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Alyssa Silhi, on behalf of the City Clerks Association of. California. To be clear, we don't have a formal letter in of opposition, but we have been working with the author's office and have some concerns that very much mirror what my colleague just referenced and very much look forward to continued conversations and hope that we can get there. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members. Michael Belote. On behalf of the United Trustees Association, I want to be clear. We are not opposed to the Bill. We are concerned that there could be inadvertent upward pressure on publication fees. A substantial percentage of publication in California is foreclosure notices, as Ms. Barsati noted. And the way the system works now, there is radical differences in publication costs around the state for the same notice. These are notices that are paid for ultimately by homeowners who are trying to keep their homes.

So it's important that we maintain this balance between the importance of public notice and the cost of public notice for our people. It is a pass through. This is not a profit issue. But we are concerned about the variations in publication costs around the state, and we want to make sure that this doesn't inadvertently raise costs. We trust Mr. Maienschein, we're talking to him and the sponsors, and trust that the issue will be resolved going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions, comments or motions? A motion and a second. Any other comments for anyone? Well, it sounds like there's some gentle and kind opposition that looks like there's plenty of opportunity to work on going forward. I would like to close.

Yeah. And on that note, we'll continue to work with them, specifically to Mr. Beloat's point. Agreed. It's not trying to be a funny issue. It's really just acknowledging that we're no longer in an era where people take the newspaper only via hard copy. Obviously, many more people tend to take their news online. And so this is to address new technology. And with that, I respectfully request an I vote.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call vote on AB 2095.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so that Bill is out, we'll allow others to add on. And so let's go to a consent calendar. I believe summary Member Maienschein and Mckinnor, I believe, need to add on to the consent calendar, if they so choose, for consent.

[Roll Call]

And we'll go through the order file. Item one, AB 1899.

Maienschein. Item one, AB 1899. Cervantes. Maienschein, aye.

They're not here. Item three, AB 2193.

Maienschein. Maienschein, aye.

Item four, lift the call on item four.

Barrichan, Brian. Haney. Haney, aye. Maienschein. Maienschein aye Waldron.

That Bill is out and we'll keep the roll open. Item six, AB 234 move the call.

Bauer. Cahan. Maienschein. Waldron.

Okay, so we'll place that back on call and then item seven, it'd be 2493 Pellerin. Lift the call.

Barrack. Cahan, Brian. Haney. Haney. I Waldron.

So that Bill is out. So everyone we need votes from is not here. So we'll just wait a few more minutes. [chatter] Where's everybody?

[chatter]

Four bills add on. So starting with item two, AB 2095.

Maienschein. Baeur Kahan, aye.

Item four, AB 2257. Wilson.

Not voting.

Item six, AB 23. Four.

Lee, not voting.

Item 782493. Peller.

Pellerin aye. Bareur Kahan. aye

Um. So item six, AB 234 fails. Would you like it?

Request for consideration?

Yeah. Okay. For reconsideration. And we'll go ahead and do that. All right, thank you. We are adjourned.