Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

As we proceed with witness and public comment, I want to make sure everyone understands that the Committee has rules to ensure we maintain order to run a fair and efficient hearing in order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time. There are some rules for today's hearings. I won't go through all of them unless I have to. And so hopefully everyone will behave themselves.

And since we only have two of us here now, we'll start as a Subcommitee, and I do have a Committee Bill to present, so I'll just go ahead and start that and we can have our Vice Chair presiding.

We are doing AB 3281. Would you like to offer an opening statement as the author?

Thank you. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Assembly Bill 3281 is the Judiciary Committee civil Law Omnibus Bill. This Bill contains numerous minor updates to various code sections within the jurisdiction of the Committee, thus saving us from hearing at least a dozen other bills.

Among the provisions of this Bill, it renames the consumer law section of the consumer Protection section of the Department of Justice, clarifies jurisdictional issues related to divorce cases when parties move counties, clarifies several provisions of law to prohibit contractual waiver of important legislatively conferred rights, updates the administrative procedure for correcting minor errors and vital records, and it fixes two typos and existing law. I also accept the Committee amendments that I forced on myself to clarify that the Civil Rights Department can settle age related discrimination cases.

Again, all the changes in the Bill are fairly minor and generally clarifying in nature. I respectfully ask for an aye vote when? At the appropriate time, when we have a quorum.

Any witnesses with you today?

No. Thank you.

Anyone wishing to speak in support? Anyone speaking in opposition? And any questions from the Committee?

Yes. Is there any particular reason that nobody supports this Bill?

It may be an author problem.

I have a question, if you could please clarify for me. So do I understand this correctly, that the recommendation is not to permit recusals by the appellate judges when they're reviewing a case? Pardon me? zero, it's a different wrong Bill. I apologize. I apologize. All right. Where's my piece of paper? Do we have a motion and a second?

Not yet.

We're not doing that. So we can't call the rule? No. Would you like a closing statement?

Respectfully. Asteroid vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alrighty. So we'll move on to item two, AB 1950, Assembly Member Carrillo. And you may begin whenever you're ready.

Where is your Committee this morning, Mister chair?

Yeah, they must have a long night last night, I guess.

Well, again, thank you, Mister Chair and Committee Members. I'd like to begin by accepting the proposed Committee amendments. And I thank the Chair and the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. Today, I am very proud to present AB 1950. The Chavez Ravine Accountability Act. This Bill acknowledges the historical displacement of the communities of Palo Verde, La Loma, and Bishop. Known today as Chavez Ravine. This policy is sponsored by the California Department of Insurance and our Insurance Commissioner, Ricardo Lara.

AB 1950 is a critical step forward and aims to correct an injustice that displays families. And has lingered in the shadows of Los Angeles' east side history for far too long. Amid the 1950s, the vibrant communities of Palo Verde, La Loma, and Bishop, home to mostly Mexican-American families as well as Italian-American and Chinese-American, saw an upheaval as families were uprooted and displaced in the name of progress. Families were promised a return to better housing. But instead, they were left destitute.

The promise of housing was actually never fulfilled. During this time, the City of Los Angeles employed various tactics to pressure homeowners to sell their properties, including the use of eminent domain. Specifically, AB 1950 will result in historical accountability by creating a public and searchable database detailing events surrounding land acquisition. This will foster transparency and education on this pivotal moment. Reparative measures by proposing various forms of compensation, including offering city-owned real estate comparable to the original Chavez Ravine landowners.

And providing comparable to the original Chavez Ravine landowners. And providing fair market value compensation adjusted for inflation. And lastly, establishing a permanent memorial. This would require the construction of a memorial on Chavez Ravine or adjoining property. To honor the displaced residents and their legacy. For generations, Chavez Ravine stood as a beacon of hope and resilience. Embodying the dreams and aspirations of families who built their lives within its embrace.

With this legislation, we are addressing the past, giving voice to this injustice, acknowledging the pain and trauma of those displaced, offering reparative measures, nd ensuring that we honor and remember the legacy of the people of Palo Verde, La Loma, and Bishop. As we move forward, I urge you to lend your support as we establish the healing for all of the descendants.

Some of whom actually were young children, where they were displaced and are still alive today, one of whom is one of my mentors, Carol Hawkis, who is in her late eighties and was displaced as a young four-year-old girl viciously and violently taken out of her home. This Bill has no opposition. We are in really great communications with the City of Los Angeles acknowledging this history in our city that many people don't know about but has been talked about. There are books written about it.

But as we talked about and passed AB 101 ethnic studies for the State of California, we hope that the history of this community is included, as it is such a vibrant and important part of the Chicano and Mexican American identity in Los Angeles. With me to testify and support is Josephine Figueroa, the Deputy Commissioner in Policy and Legislation at the California Department of Insurance, and Alfred Fraijo, founder and CEO of the Somos Group.

Thank you so much. Up to two minutes each.

Thank you. Good morning, Mister Chair and Members of the Committee. Josephine Figueroa, Deputy Commissioner and Legislative Director for the Department of Insurance under the leadership of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. I first want to thank Assembly Member Carrillo for carrying this important and authoring this important piece of legislation. Throughout Insurance Commissioner Lara's career in public service, his focus has been on serving those that have been underserved, from the health, from healthcare to all, promoting environmental justice as part of the fight against climate climate change.

His goal has always been, and continues to be, to confront injustices, to build a fairer society for us all. What we are seeking with AB 1950 is knowledge, understanding, and healing. The Palo Verde, La Loma, and Bishop neighborhoods in the City of Los Angeles stood as some of the very few areas accessible to historically marginalized populations seeking housing security in the face of systematic discrimination. Why are we doing this now?

Because it is past time for the families who have not forgotten the trauma of being displaced to be acknowledged and redress this injustice. The longstanding residents of these communities were never adequately compensated for their property. Both landowner and tenant, some of who have lived there for decades were given no choice about leaving their homes, and many resisted, but eventually, all were forced to relocate. We have an opportunity to address this, and we should.

We believe this legislation would not only provide long overdue compensation for residents of these three committees, but it would also provide a vehicle for reconciliation and healing for all. AB 1950 paves the way for a more equitable Los Angeles by addressing past wrongs and promoting reconciliation. It will help educate Angelenos about what we now call Chavez Ravine's tue history forcing transparency and understanding. Nothing can bring back what they once had. We understand their anger and frustration.

AB 1950 is the next step in this journey of finding some measure of justice for these families. The only way to get there is to listen to all voices, listen with compassion and understanding. We aim to address this erasure of their homes and their identity from the land and write a new chapter in the history of Los Angeles. One that acknowledges this injustice, remembers their legacy with a memorial on the land they once called home. On behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good morning, honorable Chair and Committee Members. My name is Alfred Fraijo. I'm the CEO of Somos Group. I'm a land use lawyer and have lectured extensively on the subject of redlining and eminent domain laws that have their origin in systemic racism. My firm is assisting with community and technical support on this legislation. I'm here today in support of AB 1950 and to inform the public that this Bill is grounded in sound legal precedent.

Since the middle of the last century, there have been a number of governmental efforts for redressing some of the historic land seizures perpetrated against people of color and indigenous communities in this country. Those efforts, where there are few and far between, provide important precedent for the growing restorative land movement in California.

The Indian Claims Act of 1946, the Japanese American Claim Act of 1948, the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, and the Rosewood Compensation Bill passed by the State of Florida all sought to deal with some aspects of land that was illegally taken from people of color and indigenous populations. Most recently, through the support of this Legislature, the Bruce family in Manhattan Beach was able to receive their land back after an unjust governmental seizure.

And as we meet today, Palm Springs officials are considering a settlement with around 300 survivors and descendants of what is known as Palm Springs Section 14, where the city displaced and destroyed the homes of thousands of Latino and Black residents. We have handouts with more information on these legal precedents that inform the legal structure of this Bill.

AB 1950 takes the most effective aspects of these legal precedents and creates a framework for collecting and sharing data, mandates the formation of a task force to define and oversee compensation, and calls for a groundbreaking tool for public healing and education through the construction of a community-based memorial that recognizes the La Loma, Bishop, and Palo Verde neighborhoods as thriving communities inhabited by hard-working Californians.

I'm holding in my hand letters of support for this Bill from residents and their descendants whose lives were upended and whose humanity was disregarded. They're asking that you provide a measure of justice and public recognition of the wrongs done to them. We believe this Bill will begin that process of healing. Thank you. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you so much. Do we have any witnesses here in support of AB 1950?

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Christopher Sanchez with the Mesa Verde Group representing Inclusive Action for The City in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair Members. Jeronimo Aguilar here on behalf of All of Us or None, Todos o Nadia, Sacramento Chapter. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1950? We'll bring it back to the Committee. We don't have a quorum for a vote quite yet, but we do have open up for comments or questions. Assembly Member Bryan?

Yeah. Thank you. Alfred, it's good to see you. Inclusive Action. A lot of friends here. There's definitely precedent for trying to secure back what was taken through land takings. I'm thinking of Bruce's Beach. I'm thinking of Section 14. I think that the stories of Chavez Ravine have been echoed across Los Angeles for a very long time. And so this is really important. Happy to make a motion when we have a quorum.

I am a little bit curious, though, if there is like an insurance component here for the Department or if the Commissioner is just personally vested in doing what's right.

Thank you for the question. I'll say this. The Commission is always vested in doing what's right. Thank you, sir. Yeah. Historically, it's something that he has always been involved in, in righting wrongs and going after things that have been injustice historically, and continues to do so now as Insurance Commissioner. Thank you for the question.

He also represented the area when he served in the Senate, so we have overlapped in the jurisdiction.

Madam Vice Chair.

Thank you. Chair. I'm. I take your comments and the history and the recitation of the history, very heartfelt words, and I agree that this needs to be recognized. My question really is to follow up to Assembly Member Bryan's comment. For the state to be passing legislation or considering legislation. What are you looking for? Some reparation from the state or compensation from the state or just recognition in the form of support for your good efforts. What is the ultimate objective?

There is no language in the policy that demands that the state is responsible for any compensation. The wrongdoing was done by the City of Los Angeles. But the state does need to set the precedent for the nine-member task committee that will be established in the City of Los Angeles to move potential compensation forward. So there is no funding required from the state.

Okay, then that begs another question. Why wouldn't the Los Angeles City Council or the board of Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors initiate and create that task force? Why does it require the state? Or I'm just not familiar with the process, I guess. But why does the state need to create a task force?

It's a great question. Happy to answer. Alfred Fraijo for the record. We think it's important because this is a historic injustice that occurred, that there be a legal framework at the state level that grants authority to the City of LA to be able to proceed with the creation of the task force.

We see the local government, who has indicated support for the Bill and when we had discussions around it, how important it is to have this state tool to be able to proceed with these public meetings and the creation of the task force to investigate the governmental actions that were historic.

Okay, now in the summary, the background, so the voters of the City of Los Angeles approved efforts. I guess this was all about the Dodgers, the Brooklyn Dodgers coming and building Dodger Stadium. So that effort, obviously, none of us were there then. I know it was a major effort in the city historically to and the city voters approved that. And we know what today is. I mean, was there any recognition at that time of?

I mean, there was that transaction because it was supposed to be housing, and then it never happened, and then it became a baseball stadium. Any recognition by the city or County of Los Angeles to acknowledge those issues at the time? Because the voters did approve Dodger Stadium, and the rest is history.

I'm happy to send you some historical background information on state policies at the time related to housing that the City of Los Angeles used in an effort to actually use eminent domain. As well as we all know that elections have consequences. The local government in place when the initial conversations and actually the Truman's Administration federal support for the Elysian Valley Housing Project was already federally funded. So there was a housing project approved and had federal funds to actually move it forward.

It was during the McCarthy era, so there was a lot of fear related to social housing. An election happened. Elections have consequences. The new legislative body in the City of Los Angeles decided to undo the work that had already been done by the previous local administration by the Federal Government. And they decided to vote against a policy for housing that had already been approved, and in doing so, years later, brought in the Dodgers. So it's not as if it happened overnight.

It took many years for those families to be displaced. It took an election for the city to do something completely different than what it had originally promised. And in doing so, thousands of families were left in the dark.

And they were not compensated.

No.

It is a travesty. I totally agree with. I'm just concerned about the potential implications for the state, California being legally binding on a formation of a task force or a Committee, and then therefore the state is somehow going to be connected to the resolution of the dispute. Do you see that happening? Can you foresee that? Is that an ultimate objective?

Alfred again, for the record. The short answer is no. We saw through the leadership and the conscientious action that was taken by this body as it relates to the Bruce's family that what we needed was the legal mechanism to be able to create the proper documentation and the compensation. That's not currently a tool that's available.

What we have provided for in the provisions with the leadership of our Assembly Member is to ensure that the language is specific to that authority that would be imbued on the local task force as opposed to creating any legal mechanism to enforce the state in any way or create liability for the state in any way.

But we know that there's a gap in that administrative process, which is the technical authority that would be required for the local government to proceed with the proposed investigation and ultimate a proposal on compensation which doesn't exist.

Okay. All right, thank you very much.

Madam Secretary, if we can call the roll to establish quorum, please?

[Roll call]

All right, we have a quorum. Assembly Member Bryan, would you like to make the motion?

So moved.

We have a motion and a second. Any further comment or questions? Thank you so much, Senator Carrillo, for bringing this forward. Also thanks to the Insurance Commissioner as well. It's always interesting when we have these kind of walks through history that aren't always pleasant but are important. And so I personally like this trend of us going through the process of healing, of restoration, and ultimately justice. So thank you for bringing this Bill forward. Would you like to close?

Thank you Mister Chair, and appreciate the comments and questions on the policy. AB 1950, at the end of the day, aims to ultimately give voice and have the communities of La Loma, Palo Verde, and Bishop be seen. Those families and those photos that you see in historical archives of women being dragged out of their homes, of children crying because they're being displaced. They're all black and white archival photos, but those are not people that are abstract. Those are real human beings gthat live in the community that I represent now and who were unjustly displaced from their homes, never compensated.

And that action has robbed these families of generational wealth through homeownership. This is an incredible, valuable piece of land now in Los Angeles that wasn't always like that. And because of situations like red lining and the Housing Act of the 1960s, we have seen many changes since. But we have to go back and we have to make things right where we have failed families across the state.

This is a very important piece of history and legacy for my district and for the communities of Los Angeles and for the people of Los Angeles that were displaced. And this is one step forward in making sure that they feel heard, they feel seen, and we bring justice to something that was done to them. So with that, I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, can you roll call on AB 1950, please?

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

And that Bill is out. Thank you. Next in file order is file item three, AB 2125. Garcia, and you may begin whenever you're ready. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair, here to present AB 2125 related to appellate panels. This Bill. I'll start by accepting the amendments that have come out of the conversations with the Committee consultants, and really based out of some of the opposition that has been presented to us, those amendments focus specifically on a sunset and also looking at the California Law Revision Commission, specifically the judicial performance, looking at studying some of the recommended changes to be focused on the recusal and disqualification of judges.

This Bill fills a hole in the code of the Civil Procedure, ensuring that once the California Supreme Court reverses Court of Appeal decision, the appeal is decided by an unbiased appellate panel. Currently, the Code of Civil Procedure protects litigants from trial court judges who may be biased against a party who successfully appealed the judge's erroneous decision but fails to similarly protect against appellate court justices in the same circumstances. This legislation would reduce delays in the court system and benefit the litigants in the public.

The change will help restore public trust in the judicial system, which is noted in the Committee analysis at all time low. By eliminating the potential for bias appellate judges, the legislation also ensures that cases are not bounced around between three levels of courts, as has occurred in PICO Neighborhood Association versus City of Santa Monica, a case dealing with the California Voting Rights Act. I will defer now to our two witnesses, who will be brief and to the point.

And again, just thank you for the Committee analysis. Respectfully, we'll be asking for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mister Chairman, Members. Thank you for the opportunity to address you. I come before you this morning on behalf of both LULAC and the William Velazquez Institute, which have both filed letters in support of the Bill. Very quickly. For nearly 40 years in California State courts, a litigant who has successfully reversed a trial judge decision on appeal can have the rest of the case decided by a new judge.

That avoids the potential of having the case decided by a judge who is resentful of the litigant or who got a particular judge's decision reversed. This is a common sense approach. The rule has been applied to trial judges whose rulings have been reversed, but not the appellate judges. These are the most important cases that reach the California Supreme Court.

This Bill will only do what is applicable today at the trial level by ensuring that this problem gets resolved in a manner that is consistent with that of what is currently with our trial court system. We'd ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Yeah. Chair Members, Marvin Pineda, on behalf of the Asian Law alliance, in support of AB 2125. I'll skip the intro and paragraph about what the Asian law alliance is, but we respectfully request the support on AB 2125 as it was mentioned it ensures that there are no biases. I would like to. I think that the opposition has stated in their letters that there are no examples of this. There are several examples that exist, and that's, as mentioned.

PICO Neighborhood Association versus City of Santa Monica Judge John Wiley, the appellate judge, had decided not to follow the Supreme Court's direction. Clerk for Justice Powell, who was an anti voting rights act judge and voted against voting rights cases. The second judge in that panel is Elizabeth Grimes, who concurred with him, and she was a partner at Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, who is the law firm representing the City of Santa Monica.

So that while the current code of ethics does not specifically disqualify them, again, they don't have a financial interest. But the decision that they made to send that case back to that Superior Court and not follow the Supreme Court now will cost more money in having the case relitigated and back all the way up to the Supreme Court. We've, again, this is just a motion to petition they are disqualified. As far as the argument that this will cause for judge shopping.

Again, it's a panel of three. And again, if that panel decided to not follow the Supreme Court, they have to do more research and do all the work again. So if it's assigned to a different panel, again, that panel is going to be doing the work. We respectfully ask for the aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2125?

Yes. My name is Marco Lizárraga or Marco Lizarraga. I'm the Executive Director of La Cooperativa Campesina de California, a statewide organization serving the farmworkers. On behalf of my Members, Center for Employment and Training, Central Valley Opportunity Center, Projus, and on behalf of the Inland Coalition for Immigrants. We are all in support, strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Members, Alejandro Solis, on behalf of Los Amigos de la Comunidad, Asian Americans Advancing Justice and Lawyers, Committee for Civil Rights of California, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition of AB 2125? Feel free to come up here. There's still a couple seats up here.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Committee Members. My name is Lori Earle. I'm the administrative presiding justice of the third District Court of Appeal just across the street here. I was confirmed to that position in July of last year. The third district processes appeals from superior courts in 23 counties, from our neighbors in San Joaquin up to and including Modoc County at the Oregon border.

Prior to serving as an appellate justice, I served for 16 years as a trial judge on the Sacramento Superior Court, including two years as its presiding judge. And before that, long ago as a lawyer, I served as both a deputy public defender and a deputy District Attorney. Today I testify on behalf of both the Judicial Council of California and the administrative presiding justice of California's 6th district's court of appeal in opposition to AB 2125.

Having served as a judge for almost 20 years now and a lawyer for 16, I well understand the interest of parties in assuring that the judges and justices who hear their cases are impartial and unbiased. I also fully appreciate the need for prompt resolution of cases. But AB 2125 is not the answer. Contrary to the apparent intent of the Bill, the effect of AB 2125 would result in significant delays in appellate and trial court proceedings.

Appellate courts have historically been exempt from the disqualification provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, both because they play a different role than the trial courts in our legal process, and appellate courts are structured to abate judicial bias. Appellate courts serve a different role because, unlike trial courts, which are finders of fact, appellate courts, like the Supreme Court, are courts of review. Appellate courts do not decide contested issues of fact. We do not receive testimony or evidence.

We review the record of the trial court proceedings and are focused on whether the trial court correctly interpreted and applied the law and whether the trial court proceedings were fair in order to ensure our review of trial court decisions are fair and impartial. Appellate courts sit in three judge panels and require a majority to agree on any decision we reach. So the rationale that animates Section 170.6, namely avoiding individual bias, isn't present in the courts of appeal or appellate panels in superior courts.

Appellate courts also internally assess potential conflicts of interest on every case. Our courts maintain a non participation list for each of our judges, a list of parties, attorneys, law firms, or lower court judges who our judges have an existing or former relationship with and whose case they do not sit on. We are not like the United States Supreme Court. California has a code of judicial ethics for our judges.

That code requires a justice to disqualify themselves if they have a personal or financial interest in the case or believe they cannot be impartial.

Your honor, I really hate to cut you off, but we have to try to keep with the time limits here. So if you want to wrap up really quickly, appreciate it.

So I would just say that not only are we different than trial courts, but the implementing AB 2125 would lead to significant delays in terms of getting new judges assigned to those cases and delaying not only our proceedings, but the proceedings of other cases that are within our district.

Thank you so much.

Mister chair and Members Mike Bellot, speaking on behalf of the California Judges Association. I'll be quite brief. Here's what we're not talking about. We are not talking about shielding the judicial branch from bias. We should do everything we can to root out bias, and a lot has been done and more can be done. And we're all for a study of how to avoid bias in the appellate process.

But all lawyers in California who practice know that what section 170.6 challenges have become is a peremptory challenge of judges. The doctrine of separation of powers existing in California law, applicable here since 1938, requires a bias allegation. And every day in California, hundreds of times, lawyers are making bias allegations because they must when they know that no bias exists in the trial court judge. So this has become a simple peremptory challenge, a cause, a challenge for no cause.

Usually it exists for bias, but usually it is done for forum shopping to get a different judge. So I ask you this, what would happen here if a lobbyist got a free peremptory challenge of Members of the Committee per Bill? Each lobbyist can challenge one Member of the Committee. Obviously, there's a finite number of legislators in the building. There are finite number of judges in California, and there's a finite, even a more finite number of appellate justices. It wouldn't work.

So we are opposed to expenses expanding peremptory challenges to the appellate process. But we are for studying the issue with the California Law Revision Commission and bring in the Commission on Judicial Performance. And let's get down to the problem here, which is we've created a simple peremptory challenge of judges, and that's not right. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to AB 2125? We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments or motions? Senator Pacheco.

I have a couple of questions. My first question has to do with the amendments that are proposed to be taken. I believe the amendment is to have a sunset, correct? And I'm curious to hear from opposition to see what your thoughts are on these amendments, because I know there is a sunset to have a study done by the California Law Revision Commission.

Through the chair. Mister chair, please. We're fine with the study. We think that's a good idea. This has been a problem since 1938, but we're not fine with implementing this change while the study goes on. So do the study figure out how to address bias, root and branch, and then make the changes necessary. So if it was the study, we'd support the Bill.

And I'm curious to hear from the author or witnesses as to why not just do the study first instead of implementing this process.

Let me just clarify, mate. Yes. Thank you, Senator Pacheco, on that question. I think this process has really hurt the Voting Rights Act in California. So therefore, we are being measured in, and we agree with the Chair on the sunset, so that as other cases move through the process and potentially reach the Supreme Court, that this doesn't happen again, because again, it's five years, we think that voting rights act litigation will be solved.

We don't want to end up in the same place where an appellate judge decides to do the same thing where this, this case has been litigated for eight years, for an appellate judge to just send it back to the Superior Court, and now we have to start all over. And that, I think, sends the wrong message across California jurisdictions, that they don't have to have a majority minority district. So we think that the measure has been watered down and we request your support.

Okay. Thank you.

Assemblymember Reyes.

When I first read this, I thought, well, yes, we need to have somebody take a look with fresh eyes. But when I listen to the opposition about the cost and the time that's going to be involved in this, it causes great concern. It does sound like a peremptory challenge of a judge, and that causes concern. When you have smaller panels, that causes concern.

But I also recognize, and it's the fact that we have Latino organizations, Latino Legal aid, the Asian Law alliance, writing in favor of this and noting that the bias that they see, it also causes me to think that there are some groups that recognize that there is this bias, or this potential bias, or this perceived bias.

And the last thing that I want as an attorney is for anyone that's going through a litigation process to feel that they were not treated equally, they were not protected as everybody else was. But I will tell you, the concerns that are voiced by the opposite are real. They need to be addressed. And I don't think it's sufficient with the amendment that was taken.

I am going to vote in favor of this to get this through Committee today, but I do Reserve my right to revisit this. I do want something needs to be done. In the very least, there has to be a study, because if our minority groups are the ones that are feeling most oppressed or feel the bias of the justices who have been overturned and now are angry because now they have to start all over again, I want to know more about that. There's no question I just wanted to give, give that comment.

Any other. Yes.

Also, one more question. And it has to do with those, I know it wasn't mentioned by the opposition, but it, the letter with respect to the smaller courts, what is the author or the witnesses thoughts about causing delays because of smaller courts?

Yeah, Mister chair, if I may answer that question.

Yes.

Yeah, so to that question, assemblymember, we go back to PICO neighborhood Association and I'll get to your, to that question. But the delay that has been caused by these two judges is very significant. By not having something that disqualifies them for bias. As far as those small districts, that already happens right now, where if they don't have the capacity, some of those cases are sent to other districts.

Now, I wanna make it very clear, we're talking about a challenge, not at the Superior Court level, that goes on all the time. And I think that's where the abuse happens and that's where it needs to be fixed. We're talking about a Superior Court decision that overturns an appellate court judge, which is very limited.

And if we look at the decisions of the Supreme Court here in California, a lot of times those decisions are for people, they're for immigrants, they're for the environment, for the Voting Rights Act. So that's why we think that by not having this in place, it actually delays justice for all those folks.

Yes, sir. Mister Chairman, as the author of the California Voting Rights Act. I'm very familiar with this particular case, and I can tell you that when the Supreme Court ruled it, within 48 hours, it was the appellate court. The case was remanded to the appellate court. The appellate court, instead of looking at the instructions of what was to happen, they send it back to the trial court.

And if you talk about time and energy and resources, the current system, albeit I believe, is a system that needs, in this given point in time, of where we are as a society. Given all the question that goes on with regards to justice, this is a new element to a process that has not changed for decades. And as the witness, Marvin, mentioned, majority of these cases are coming and the support comes from civil rights organizations.

When this issue was being appealed to the Supreme Court, the Asian, Latino, African American Caucus sent a letter in support of having the case heard. And there is just an opportunity here to wipe clean a process that has, in the eyes of some, not work, in the eyes of others, has. And so we are simply asking that this Bill be supported. I think in these times it's needed. It's fair, it's just, it's not overburdening. The cases are limited. And then we would ask for an aye vote.

thank you. And with the amendments, it does allow for the study of the usage of the 170.6 challenges. I think people get some more information as to what may be done if there is abuse going on. I will say from personal experience, when I was in the public defender's office, we took deep care and analysis before there was ever even a thought of using a 170.6. And it was taken very seriously.

It was not treated like or like a peremptory challenge. It's not a peremptory challenge. It is a challenge that's incredibly important for the exercise of justice. And so I understand that there are some situations where it may be abused or oftentimes when a challenge is made, it's the judge is just switched because of the court process rather than the courts challenging it or diving deeper into it. It can be just easier, just, okay, we'll just move the case somewhere else.

But the suggestion that they're used simply for forum shopping is not, in my experience, accurate, although I know it does happen. And so I'm not going to suggest that there aren't situations. And that's why the study is going to be important for the overall system in terms of the usage of 170.6. But the suggestion that there are no reasons or justifications for having this as a tool available at the appellate level because there's no bias there. I don't buy that.

And so I think that this will give us an opportunity to really, we're hearing arguments from both sides. It will give us an opportunity to say, okay, well, let's see how it's used. Let's see how it's used at the trial level, the see how it's used at the appellate level, and then we'll come back and that's part of the reason why a sunset is put in there.

We'll come back and say, you know what, it's having certain impacts on workload, although I will say if it's a challenge that's there in order to exercise justice, workload by itself, if at all, should not be used as a reason not to do it. If that we need more resources, what have you, then that's an issue for us to deal with in terms of making sure we are bringing the resources to the court, the trial court and the appellate court level.

But it is still something that needs to be discussed if there is actual workload issue, no doubt whether it's a trial or appellate court level. So I, that's why I have an aye recommendation with the amendments that have been put forward. And, you know, I hope we'll be able to put the move this forward today and appreciate all the questions and comments. Are there any more questions or comments or a motion?

I just want to mention I will be supporting this Bill today, but I do Reserve my right to change my vote when it comes to the floor. I do have a couple of concerns, but what makes me more comfortable is that this study is being done and that there is a sunset. So I am more comfortable because of that.

But I feel like more conversations still need to be had between judicial counsel and the author to see if there's any else that can be done because I also have the same concerns, but I am more comfortable having that sunset, having that, that study being done as well. Thank you.

Thank you, madam Vice Chair.

Thank you. Chair. Just a quick question. So the study is in, has been amended?

Yes.

it will be.

Yes.

And the sunset is included. Okay. Thank you.

And just to clarify, and I'm reading from the wonderful staff analysis here, but the actual amendments are, that includes that the study shot, at a minimum include the effectiveness of 170.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure and limiting biased judicial proceedings and prevalence of judicial officers hearing matters in which the cannons judicial ethics should have warranted in recusal, the impact on case hearing times of judicial recusals and the cost of the courts and to litigants of judicial recusals.

So we will look at the impacts on the courts and workload as well as the efficacy of the actual challenges themselves.

Looking at this amendment 2027, I guess that's three years out. Does it take that long to do that?

I think it's pretty standard. Think about it. If this legislation goes through, won't go into effect till 25.

And so you need, I think, at least a couple years of some raw data to be able to come back and for them to have a study done over the next few months after that and come back to us in September. So basically two years of data do the study. I think that's cutting it. I think that's the bare minimum of what we probably be necessary to give us helpful information.

All right, thank you.

Is there any comments, questions, or any motions on this?

We have a motion and a second. All right, I've said enough. So I'll ask Senator Garcia if you'd like to close.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, colleagues, for the questions. I think the witnesses and the opposition really helps kind of shed light on what the challenge before us is, that there's questions that remain to be worked on. Look, I know we're talking about judicial procedure, but really at the core and what's triggered this conversation is the Voting Rights Act and a decision along the judicial process that's been questioned.

The Voting Rights Act is really something that we need to very take a serious look at the outcome of the Voting Rights Act in California. I think we can attribute to what has changed the political landscape of reflective representation at all levels of government. And if the change and the politicization of that in the court system is being kind of played with, then there has to be some type of work done in statute to address that.

And I think that's what's before us and before you in this Bill. We commit to continuing to work on this matter and appreciate your attention so respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, if you can take a roll call on the vote for AB 2125, please.

Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Alright, thank you. We'll place that vote on call. Thank you. And as summary, Rivas, you can make your way up to the desk here. In the meantime, is there a motion on the consent calendar? Motion. Second. Madam Secretary, if you take roll on the consent calendar, please.

[Roll Call]

So the consent calendar is out, and there's one less on the consent calendar today because I think Senator Rivas has to present twice to us so we get the pleasure of hearing two bills from a Senator Rivas. Which one are you starting with?

AB 2377.

Okay, item 16. Okay, great. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister chair and Members. I want to start by thanking your Committee staff for working with my office on this Bill. 2377 seeks to provide an accommodation for K-12 students practicing religious fasting by offering them a modified exercise regimen or providing them with academic assignments relating to physical education or PE. Specifically, this Bill requires written permission from parents for students under 18 to request PE accommodations.

Fasting is the act of refraining completely or partially from consuming anything of sustenance. During Ramadan, which we are currently in, Muslims fast every day for 30 days from sunrise to sunset as a spiritual discipline. People in the Jewish community who observe Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year in Judaism, practice a day-long fast and intensive prayer that requires full abstention from food and liquids. Additionally, several Christian denominations practice full or partial fasting on certain occasions, including Lent.

Other states have recognized the need to provide proper accommodations for students observing religious fasting, with Illinois passing House Bill 160, which permits students to avoid rigorous physical activity during periods of religious fasting. Currently, students from grades one through eight are required to complete 200 minutes every 10 school days, and students from grades nine through 12 are required 400 minutes every 10 school days to fulfill their PE requirements.

There are no guidelines within the school system that provide accommodations for students who are fasting during the PE portion of the day. The implications of fasting in summer days are even more dangerous as factors like sweltering heat can create dangerous situations for students, such as headaches and dehydration, which may lead to fainting during exercise.

Today I have with me to provide testimony Rosa Haidari, President of the Afghan Student Association from Laguna Creek High School, and Fazia Farouk, Policy and Advocacy Coordinator of Care of the Sacramento Valley.

Thank you. Two minutes each, please.

Thank you Chair, Vice Chair, and Members, my name is Rosa Haidari and I'm a student and the President of the Afghan Student Association and Vice President of the Muslim Student Association at Laguna Creek High School. As a student, AB 2377 is important to me because it allows me to feel included and valued. It amplifies school culture, making it known that who I am and appreciate who I am and my morals.

Being one of the top 20 most diverse high schools in the nation, with Laguna Creek specifically ranking number 19 and number one in the Elk Grove Unified School District, it is crucial to make sure that all people of different races, ethnicities, and religions are taken into account.

APB2377 allows us to be ensured that we aren't just a number, a part of a statistic, but we are, but rather we are acknowledged as individuals for obtaining different beliefs, morals, and values, making sure that we are heard and recognized, ensuring that we are involved in a part of a community where we know our perspective is esteemed, which promotes equity for students to be heard and valued for who they are, beliefs included.

AB 2377 allows students to be cognized and admired for their identity and beliefs, allowing there to be pride for having many of the most diverse schools here in California. I respect the Committee's yes vote and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you.

Thank you Chair, Vice Chair, and Members, my name is Fozia Farouk and currently, I serve as the Policy and Advocacy Coordinator at the Council on American Islamic Relations. Today, I am not only representing our organization, which proudly sponsors AB 2377 but I also stand before you as an engaged and concerned member of our community. Reflecting on my own educational journey, specifically, this Bill holds profound personal significance to me, stemming from a series of challenging scenarios I encountered during PE sessions.

One memory that really highlights why AB 2377 is so important happened back in my 6th grade PE class. Our curriculum required us to run miles regularly, something that became quite challenging for me during Ramadan. This is a month when I, along with many other Muslims, fast from dawn until dusk. Due to fasting, I found myself trailing behind my classmates, and it wasn't that I couldn't physically run.

The issue was that the fasting had left me thirsty and too tired to keep pushing myself just to meet the mile time. Moreover, I recall a particular arduous day when temperature soared and we were tasked with running pacers.

The combination of the heat and my thirst presented an almost unsurmountable challenge despite my commitment to both my faith and educational obligations, I found myself in a predicament that no child should have to navigate, the dilemma of honoring my spiritual practices while also trying to meet the physical educational standards set forth by my school.

It's crucial to note that while accommodations were available for students with health conditions, as evidenced by doctors' notes, there seemed to be a lack of understanding or provisions for those who of us who of those whose challenges stemmed from religious practices. This oversight not only impacted my physical well-being, but also placed undue stress on my educational experience.

In bringing these experiences to light, my aim is not merely to highlight personal hardships, but to underscore the broader implications and challenges faced by students who observe religious practices. AB 2377 represents a critical step forward in ensuring our educational environments are inclusive, accommodating, and respectful of all students' needs, regardless of their religious backgrounds. Therefore, I humbly request the Committee's support for AB 2377.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2377? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2377? We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments, or motions? Assembly Member Bryan.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this important Bill. For many years, I lived with one of my best friends, Rahim, and our lease always ended during Ramadan.

And we would move then, and he would always explain to me just how hard it was to move our furniture and move to a new apartment in the middle of fasting. I can't imagine what it's like for our young students being forced to participate in physical education while observing this religious practice. This is smart and common sense. Thank you for this, and happy to make a motion to move it

Is there a second? All right, we have a motion and a second. Any other questions? Yeah, Vice Chair.

I'm certainly inclined to support this because it seems like it is the right thing to do. Certainly one's religious liberty and how they perform. But doesn't the First Amendment already cover all this or why? I'm just surprised that freedom of religion doesn't permit and the U.S. Constitution doesn't allow you to experience fasting and therefore decline to participate in physical education activities, which is totally appropriate. So why do we need to do this?

Yeah, of course. I can answer that.

Okay.

For me, specifically, I had not been able to sit out for many of the activities growing up. So for pacers, for those mile runs, right on these very hot days, I'd ask the teachers, hey, can I please sit out? And they would say to me, no, you can just walk or walk like the rest of them. But we'll mark you down because of your mile time being slower than others.

So that reflected upon my grades and that in itself isn't something that, you know, reflects on me.

Well, I'm very sympathetic. I'm sorry that that happened, frankly. I mean, it violates the U.S. Constitution not to recognize your freedoms. I will support this, but it's just an example. Why do? Why? I'm sorry. And it needs to be corrected. I hope every teacher understands that they cannot do that kind of and affect your grades and participation level. Just unfortunate that we need a law to respect the U.S. Constitution. But anyway, I wish you good health and religious freedom.

I appreciate those comments. I mean, it makes it very clear, I think as the analysis indicates, you have to have a certain number of minutes for every like 10 days of instruction in PE to get credit. And so it's just making it very clear to give a very clear exemption for those that are fasting due to religious reasons that they're not going to get marked down because of it. And so I would hope that most teachers are already recognizing it.

But just in case we already know examples that there are some that aren't and so it just makes it very clear and codifies it in state law. And so I do appreciate the author bringing this forward. Thank you so much for coming up from Southern California to take the time. You're literally representing thousands of students by being here today. So thank you for taking the time to be here. Would you like to close?

Thank you Mister Chair and Members for providing comments in support of this Bill. I agree this is common sense, it should already be there. But there are situations where these young students are required to continue to participate in physical education during religious fasting days. I would also like to recognize that today is the last day of Ramadan. A month that my staff, Omar, which staffed me on this Bill and also which this Bill was his idea and he came up with this idea.

And like I said, this is the last day of Ramadan, and Muslims throughout California and the world have observed this month. So thank you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote

Ramadan Mubarak and I'd ask, Madam Secretary, if you'd take a roll call on AB 2377.

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

Okay, so that Bill is out. Thank you. And we'll allow you to rearrange the chairs there to allow your other witnesses up for item eight, which is AB 2738. And whenever you're ready.

Thank you Mister chair and Members, I'd like to start off by thanking your Committee staff for working with my team on this Bill. I took Committee amendments to address the privacy concerns raised by the Committee and the opposition. My staff and sponsor has also met with the opposition regarding their concerns over labor enforcement. AB 2738 increases enforcement of existing labor laws in several ways.

First, it makes small changes to a Bill from last year that granted local public prosecutors like city attorneys and county council, the authority to enforce state labor law. Second, it allows those local public prosecutors to also enforce the live event worker safety law authored by assemblymember Ward by expanding their authority to that section of that labor of the labor code.

Lastly, it increases the enforcement of the live event worker safety law by increasing the transparency of contract agreements between entertainment vendors and public venues to ensure that stage crews being hired are properly trained. Stage production workers who set up, operate and tear down live events face serious workplace hazards. They work with complex systems and all types of weather conditions. There's a history of accidents, injuries and even fatalities of workers performing such work, often due to a lack of training or knowledge of best safety practices.

The lack of safety training and enforcement is dangerous for workers and event attendees. In 2022, AB 1775 set an industry wide safety standard for staging and live events production by requiring entertainment vendors that produce events, such as concerts at state owned or operated facilities to certify that all entertainment workers have adequate and appropriate safety training. However, AB 1775 put the onus on entertainment vendors to certify that workers met the safety requirements.

The temporary nature of setting up live events like concerts make enforcement of the law challenging for statewide enforcement agencies that have thousands of workplaces to inspect. AB 2738 strengthens the enforcement to protect stage production workers by holding public venues accountable and increasing transparency in contracts to verify that production companies are using trained workers. Today, I have Sarah Flocks representing the California Labor Federation as my witness and support.

Thank you, thank you Mister chair Members. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation we're proud to co sponsor this Bill with the California AIATSe Council. We were both. We were also the sponsor of both of the bills referenced AB 1775, the live event Safety Bill and AB 594 that was authored by Mister Maienschein, which was a Bill that supplemented statewide labor law enforcement by allowing local governments to enforce provisions of the labor code through DA city attorneys and county councils.

I'm gonna focus on a small part of the Bill that's relevant to judiciary. And it's also a piece that the opposition is gonna come and talk about that we are in conversations with them about. And this is a very small change. It is a change from May to shall that court shall award attorney's fees to local public prosecutors. I just want to talk about why that is so important. It's one word, but it really makes all the difference.

First is that local county council, city attorneys, district attorneys have not been enforcing labor law. This is something new for them. They don't have the budget, they don't have the staff. So they need some assurance that they'll be able to have their costs covered. This is especially relevant because after 594 passed, City of Fresno announced that they are going to open an office to start doing this. They never have before. They need that security. Second, it's an equity issue.

We want to make sure that local governments are taking on all cases and not just the big dollar ones. We want to make sure that they're going for injunctive relief so that labor law violations are corrected. Because that the bottom line is we want the employers to follow the law and this is not uncommon. The labor Commissioner in many cases is awarded mandatory attorneys fees in Oakland and other jurisdictions. They are as well at the local level. So we would urge your support on this Bill.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2738?

Mister chair Members Matt Broad here on behalf of the California School Employees Association, Teamsters Unite here, Amalgamated Transit Union Engineers and Scientists of California and the Utility Workers Union in support. Thank you.

I'll be faster. Karen Lange on behalf of the San Francisco City Attorney David Chu in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2738.

Hi, good morning. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, I do want to thank the author's office and the sponsor and the Committee for Working on the language surrounding the Public Records Act request. Thank you for addressing our concerns. Yes, we are just opposed to the one provision in the Bill and I think from our perspective, you know, the current language in the Bill, which was from last year, does cover the situations that was raised by the sponsor.

Situations in which public prosecutors are with good motivation going after bad employers who are being bad actors. I think our concern is when you have a mandate on a court and it takes away the discretion regarding the ability to award attorney's fees and costs there then leads to some questions about accountability. We do know sometimes, for example, that prosecutors will contract these cases out to private firms and have concerns about some of the motivations there and that this could be used to leverage large settlements.

Really regardless of the merit, especially considering to be a prevailing party, it oftentimes means you just have to have a little bit of recovery. It doesn't necessarily mean you need to be completely prevail on every claim or recover a large amount. So that's really where our concern comes from. And again, yes, we are having conversations and happy to continue those. So thank you, thank you.

Anyone else here in opposition? AB 2738.

Thank you Mister chair. And Members Annalee Augustine, on behalf of the Family Business Association of California, echoing Cal chambers, thanks. And still respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Good morning. Bryan Little, California Farm Bureau for the reasons in opposition, for the reasons articulated by Cal Chamber.

Thank you, thank you. Bring it back to the Committee. Questions, comments, motions? Very quiet. Everyone's very quiet this morning. It's not a bad thing though. Sorry, Ricky.

See, you almost got away with me not saying anything. But as you guys know, most people know I love concerts and I love live events. And so it is extremely important for the workers to be safe and also the participants to be safe. You know, the enforcement is very difficult because after the live show is over, the show usually lasts a day or two and then everybody pack up and leaves right to go to their next gig. So enforcement is extremely, extremely important.

And thank you guys for making sure the shall comes in so that our local officials will be able to investigate and prosecute, because, as we know, a lot of our local municipalities are struggling financially as well. And so we want to make sure that the enforcement is there. And thank you for this Bill.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? We have a motion? A second. Thank you, Senator Rivas, for bringing this Bill forward. I think, as mentioned, the capacity issue from some of the local prosecutors is challenged because of fiscal restraints. So this gives them the ability to actually pursue some of these. These cases for the benefit of the public and public safety and worker safety. It's a good thing. So with that, would you like to close?

Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Madam Secretary, if you take roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll place that Bill on call. Thank you.

Yeah. Up next is item six, AB 2352, Irwin.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members, I am pleased to present AB 2352 which seeks to create a legal framework for psychiatric advanced directives, referred to as PADs, by amending provisions related to the advanced healthcare directives. In simple terms, pads are documents completed by individuals who have behavioral health challenges that allow them to communicate preferences about their care and interactions during a future behavioral health crisis in which they might not be able to make their own decisions.

Examples of information included in PAD in a PAD include preferred de-escalation techniques to avoid a more restrictive level of care and naming a trusted support person. A PAD, importantly, does not confer power of attorney like an advanced healthcare directive and is meant to better inform interactions and care decisions based on the individual's preference and not dictate specific outcomes.

This Bill has been crafted in collaboration with the project team behind the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission's innovation project on PADs, which involves six different counties and one regional mental health authority. The innovative the innovation project's goal is to expand the use of PADs in their jurisdiction, preserving individual self-determination and improving positive outcomes for people at risk of involuntary care.

The goal of this legislation is to create a statute which bolsters client confidence in PADs and ensures first responders and behavioral health professional professionals have access to PADs in the moment when they can make a difference in clients' care. I want to acknowledge the scope of this Bill as the Committee put it ambitious and far-reaching. Our intent is to ensure that PADs are widely recognized.

I remain open to feedback from stakeholders and will work to avoid any unintended impacts from the changes made by this Bill. As noted in the analysis, I've already accepted a number of changes and anticipate making more as opposed identify and explain to their concerns.

Now I would like to introduce my two primary witnesses, Kiran Sahota of Concepts Forward Consulting, the project lead for the PADS innovation project, and Toby Ewing, the Executive Director of the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, who is here to share information about the Commission's role within the innovation project.

Thank you.

Good morning Mister Chair and Members of the Committee. Again, my name is Kiran Sahota and I am the President of Concepts Forward Consulting and I am also the Lead Project Director for the Mental Health Services Act Multi-County Innovations Psychiatric Advance Directive Project. Traditionally, psychiatric advance directives or PADs have been hidden in the more common advanced healthcare directive and can only be enacted based on incapacity and include a power of attorney. PADs have remained a relatively unknown tool for behavioral health for decades.

The voices of our family members, peer community, first responders, and hospital staff participating in the PADs project seek to change how we view behavioral health crisis and recidivism in hospitals and jails. The project's digital platform will house involuntary excuse me, the project's platform will house voluntary PADs based on full consent, follow the individual, and be accessed only by authorized users in a crisis. The platform being developed is a product that is one of a kind anywhere, even globally.

AB 2352 seeks to reduce stigma by creating accessibility of a standalone PAD as a least restrictive document for all individuals, including housing insecure or those living with a co-occurring condition. A 19-year-old with their first psychotic break is not looking for an end-of-life document, but instead a document that will follow them throughout their lifespan. A trusted clinician or outreach worker or a peer support specialist may assist in facilitating this document.

These individuals should be allowed to be witness signatures as they are not attesting to capacity, but instead to whether the individual is who they say they are. We believe a PAD should be a least restrictive option and that is easy to use and access in a behavioral health crisis and to appoint an advocate for preferences in the moment of a crisis where a situation, a situation where an individual shouldn't have to wait for lost capacity to have their preferences followed.

We would like to thank Assemblywoman Irwin and her office for their support and efforts. On behalf of the project, we urge your support for AB 2352. Thank you for your time this morning.

Thank you.

Good morning Mister Chair and Members. Toby Ewing on behalf of the state's Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, soon to be Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, appreciate the chance to join you. The goals of this project are really simple and straightforward is the intent here was to capture the wishes and desires of an individual when they weren't in a crisis and to be respectful of those desires and wishes when someone is in a crisis.

As a strategy to reduce the likelihood of that crisis escalating, to reduce law enforcement involvement, and to speed the pace with which we can provide services that are tailored to individual needs. The Commission recently hosted a site visit to Napa State Hospital in partnership with the Department of State Hospitals to talk about the waitlist to get into those programs where most of those folks are there because of felony charges and an incompetent to stand trial designation.

The state has increased funding by more than $1.0 billion a year to deal with the backlog of folks who are justice-involved. The Commission saw an opportunity several years ago to work with counties to explore how psychiatric advance directives can really deescalate a crisis very early in the process as outlined by the Bill. Implementing that, sorry, by the analysis.

Implementing that relatively straightforward, simple goal is complicated, and we very much appreciate the analysis and the work that we Committee staff. Although the Commission was unable to take a formal position on the Bill because we were unable to meet last month, our chair has authorized us to ask the Committee to move the Bill forward so that we can work with the author and the opponents and ideally the Committee staff to address some of these issues.

What we really appreciate through the partnership with these multiple local behavioral health agencies is their willingness and to try something to recognize. What is a profoundly troubling problem in California is the large numbers of folks who do end up in our state psychiatric hospitals where that could have been prevented. And so we see this legislation as key to really putting in place strategies to improve outcomes for clients across the state.

And we are committed to working with the organizations that have concerns to help any way we can with respect to the author for her leadership on this today to make this happen.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2352? Anyone here in opposition to AB 2352?

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Karen Vaccari and I'm the Director of Public Policy for Mental Health America of California, or MHAC, a peer-run organization. I am a person with lived experience and both a parent and a family member of people with lived experience. MHAC was a proud cosponsor of AB 1029, which was last year's PADs Bill. We wholeheartedly support psychiatric advance directives. However, the reach of AB 2352 extends far beyond PADs.

While we have a number of concerns with the Bill, some of which DRC will address, our greatest concern at this point lies with the change within the Bill of the term mental health over to behavioral health throughout various code sections, including Involuntary Commitment Statute and Assisted Outpatient Treatment Statute or Laura's Law. The term behavioral health is a very broad term with a wide range of definitions.

While behavioral health generally refers to substance use disorder and or a mental health challenge, the American Medical Association says behavioral health refers to mental health, substance use, life stressors and crises, and stress-related physical symptoms. My point is that the term behavioral health is ill-defined and can be very broad or very narrow. In fact, AB 2352 within the 82 pages defines behavioral health three different ways, but they define it, behavioral health, as mental health. However, we know that behavioral health includes substance use challenges.

By changing the words mental health to behavioral health in assisted outpatient treatment, or Laura's Law Statute, the Bill makes expansive changes to AOT by opening AOT up to individuals with standalone substance use challenges. Laura's Law has gone through extensive public debate. Is my time up?

You can go ahead and wrap up.

Okay. Laura's Law has gone through extensive public debate and it has never included substance use. And I just want to say changes like that throughout involuntary treatment law are made in this Bill, which greatly changes current law. So with that, we respectfully ask for your no vote. We are opposed unless amended, but we would like to get to a point where we can support this Bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Mister Chair, Committee Members. Deb Roth with Disability Rights California. We are the state's federally mandated protection and advocacy agency. I work at DRC, but I am also a mental health peer and I work directly with many, many peers, some of whom have psychiatric advanced directives or are thinking about completing one. We want to thank the author and your staff for working with us, and I called you the sponsor.

I guess you're not formally the sponsor, but Kiran has done a lot of work on this topic and we appreciate being able to work with her. I am here in regretful opposition. Our two organizations, MHAC and DRC, sponsored AB 1029 last year to begin the conversation on how to increase the use of PADs to de-escalate a crisis with tools determined in advance of a crisis by the person in the crisis.

This may include medication allergies, information about what may be helpful, and especially about what may not be helpful. The supporters of the Bill are part of a seven-county innovation project to test a digital platform. The author said the Bill is ambitious and she is right. I'm just going to give you one example of a choice in the Bill with which we disagree. She mentioned that the changes will eliminate the right to give someone power of attorney.

Currently, a PAD provides that as an option for someone, same as an advanced healthcare directive for any kind of physical issues. And you can pick an agent or not pick an agent. We think it's a terrible choice, but even if it has merit, it shouldn't be dropped into this big, ambitious Bill that is testing an innovative approach. And at this time, we think the Bill should include just what it needs in order to do that testing.

So, for example, I've talked to people who completed a pad after an involuntary hospitalization, and they were angry that a family member was excluded. So the first thing they did was create a PAD to address that. Why do you want to make this document different from advanced healthcare directives? In so many ways, a PAD is a form of advanced healthcare directive.

The answer isn't to eliminate the agent, it's to make it optional, which is how current law works, and make sure protections are built in against abuse.

Thank you. If I wanted to do any wrapping comment, wrapping up wrap up comment.

I could go on and on. We're disappointed with how this Bill is developing. As it moves, we hope to form a collaborative relationship with the author and sponsor.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition? Okay, bring it back to Committee. Assembly Member Bryan.

Wanna thank the author and you know everyone who's come here for this robust conversation. I think how we continue to refine and build up our behavioral health and mental health systems require all impacted voices. I was one of the handful of people, less than a handful of people, including, I believe, the chair, who did not support CARE Court, even on the floor.

And so I have concerns that I think the opposition has raised as well. I'm encouraged by what it sounds like our conversations and a willingness to continue to have those conversations. So I'm willing to support my colleague here in this first Committee, but really hopeful that those conversations will continue.

Thank you. Vice Chair Dixon.

I sense and I have no expertise in behavioral mental health other than being a citizen of our state and communities, knowing that we have significant issues in our communities. I honestly couldn't tell you the right or wrong reasons to go from mental health to behavioral health and you mentioned about the drug addictions and that type of thing. I know that came forward in the CARE Court discussions and the debates over the last couple of years.

I can't evaluate which is better if the mental health communities feel that those patients are not being adequately served or if including behavioral weakens in any way. So I really, I guess I should look at you Assembly Member. I think the psychiatric advance directives, just like a healthcare directive, I think they're important. I certainly support the concept and I sense that this is really in important weeds of these issues to really fully understand the impact and ramifications.

Can you help me understand the benefits of consolidating mental health under behavioral and how that will change the delivery of mental health services in California?

Thank you for the question again. Toby Ewing with the soon-to-be-renamed Behavioral Health Commission. I think there are layers to your question and some of those layers come up into this question of legal interpretation of the difference. Addiction has been included under the term mental health for decades, but that doesn't necessarily in terms of definitional rules coming from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. But in practice we have often differentiated, and I think the opposition is raising fundamental concerns about clarity of intent here.

So there has been vagueness in what the law has allowed versus what the law has required or prohibited in terms of that intersection. From our perspective, the biggest challenge actually isn't statutory, it's practice. And we recognize that addiction is in the brain, as is depression. And so these distinctions sometimes are practice distinctions, sometimes they're not. We have local governments who actually integrate their behavioral, their substance use work, and their traditional mental health work. We have other local agencies that don't.

We have systems that only deal with addiction. The Administration, through reforms under Prop One, has really been pushing to actually do a better job of integrating. And so I don't think the concern is so much around the clarity of the term behavioral health and what it means in terms of the delivery system. My understanding, and we've committed to engage more, is are there some unintended consequences that could create negative impacts in terms of involuntary care. We think there's actually some straightforward ways to fix that.

So there could be, is that what you're saying, the potential could be unintended consequences? And are you all working together and talking together to see if you could get onto the same page of understanding?

One thing I did want to mention when we look at PADs for this project also is really looking at the whole person, and often an individual that is dealing with a mental health condition may also have a substance use disorder. And so really looking at that PAD to be able to answer both of those in that moment. But again, not, we do not want to have the implications that are inappropriate. So we are actually working and look forward to continuing our conversations together.

But in the practice of medicine, is it now we don't talk about mental health, we talk about behavioral health. Is that what's happening? Or why can't your new agency, if that's going to be the kind of the determinant factory or be called the behavioral and mental health such and such?

I look forward to spending lots of time with you to understand the history.

It's going to be a long conversation.

Yeah. So I think what you're hearing is sort of trends in the field, social trends, academic and research trends. In fact, there are trends that are even moving away from the term behavioral health because it often implies that behavior is the issue rather than the integration of classic mental health services and classic SUD services. What we're seeing in the service delivery side is that it is often inappropriate. Just like we wouldn't separate treatment of a heart condition from treatment of a lung condition.

We recognize that there needs to be an integrated strategy to address that. There are movements in this space who are actually talking about brain health because we want to recognize the intersection of developmental disorders and depression or anxiety, for example, and recognize that we've sort of divided the brain into these classic areas of study or work or services that isn't actually driven by the structure of the brain itself.

I think the law is catching up with conversations in the community while the conversations in the community actually continue to move.

So you're going to, excuse me for interrupting. So you'll get is your intent to get everyone to agree here on a path going forward? In definitional terms.

I just, yes they are very important stakeholders. Disability Rights has been part of the workgroup all along. We heard of these of the current opposition last week and adopted through the Committee staff, I think dealt with about half of the opposition or so. And we are certainly, we have to continue these conversations and get to a place where everybody's on the same page. They are critically important stakeholders.

I look forward to our future conversation. Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? We have a second? Okay, we have a motion and a second. Assembly Member Irwin, thank you for bringing this forward. I know how challenging and complicated but important it is, is, and I really appreciate the opposition for their comments. I am in agreement with much of what they have to say. However, I also know the way you operate in trying to bring everyone to the table.

And so I absolutely want the opportunity for everyone to continue to work together to deal with some of the remaining concerns. I think there's still time to do that. This is still earlier in the process, but as we know, time starts moving very quickly. And so I encourage everyone to. To continue to engage and resolve some of the outstanding issues to the best extent possible. And please keep the Committee staff apprised as those conversations are continuing. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, if you could take roll call on AB 2352?

Motion is do pass as amended to Health Committee. [Roll call]

So that Bill will be placed on call. Thank you. Can we get a motion on item 12, AB 3281? That's the Committee Bill. Is there a second? We have a motion in a second. The roll call on AB 3281, the Judiciary Committee Bill.

[Roll Call]

So that Bill will be on call, and I have to go present in business and professions as they're wrapping up very soon, I believe. And so I'm gonna hand the gavel over to the Vice Chair, and I think up next would then be Senator Haney, item. oh, Lee's. oh, Lee's here. My apologies. Assemblymember Lee and I'll be back.

You come back because then I go. I go back to the same place you're coming from.

All right. Item seven. Let me get my notes. Okay. Assemblymember Lee. This is AB 2584. Assemblymember Lee.

Yes. Thank you so much. Good morning, madam Vice Chair and Members. I'm just confirming that we have accepted amendments that are reflective in the Committee analysis. That, by the way, is an excellent Committee analysis. By the way. AB 2584 will protect the limited stock of homes for working families by banning large mega corporations that already own 1000 homes or more from purchasing additional single family houses. The State of California faces a severe housing shortage.

To meet the state's housing targets, California needs to be building around 300,000 homes per year. But at present, we barely build 100,000 homes a year. Prices reflect the shortage. In spite of the mortgage interest rates reaching multi decade highs, home prices continue to climb. A recent report from the California Associate of Realtors states that only 15% of Californians can afford to buy a home at the current costs.

So at a time when for sale homes have never been more scarce, it has never been more important to protect the supply of homes. Large real estate investment firms and hedge funds have gone on a buying spree amidst the shortage. Firms that can have that can be best described as housing shortage profiteers have taken advantage of the lack of new supply by buying single family homes in an effort to cash in on rising rents and their own investor reports, Invitation Homes has told their shareholders.

Invitation Homes, by the way, which owns 15,000 single family homes in California alone and is a spin off of Blackrock, has told shareholders that we operate in markets with strong demand drivers, high barriers entry and high rent growth potential. These firms aren't driving down costs, they're hoping to cash in on these costs.

And as the analysis point out on page six, these corporations tend to concentrate their purchases at the neighborhood level, primarily in low income, historically non white neighborhoods that have suffered from disinvestment, but where gentrification or real estate cycle dynamics predict medium term price increases and in support of Assembly Bill 1333 by Assemblymember Chris Ward that we passed out of the Assembly earlier this year, which does a very similar thing, which bans the same practice, but on new built homes.

So this Bill, my Bill, does on existing homes. The California Association of Realtors, they state it is almost impossible for families to compete with these large scale investors, and that these investors are a new threat to familial home ownership opportunities. As many markets, especially large metropolitan markets, there are as little available under $500,000. That's literally their words. AB 2584 will give homebuyers a fairer playing field and better opportunity for families to buy their first home, building the stability and generational wealth that ownership can provide.

Do you have any witnesses? Okay, anyone interested in support? Anyone wants to speak in support?

Good morning. Chair and Assemblymembers. Brian Miramontes with the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees in strong support.

Anyone else in support? Anyone in opposition, please come forward and state your name, please. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Jim Lites, on behalf of the National Rental Home Council that represents the national companies that own single family rental homes, appreciate the multiple conversations we've had with the author and his office about this Bill. But we think that perception doesn't quite meet reality. The analysis notes that the institutional presence in California is tiny and there's only two companies that we're aware of that have 1000 units or more that this Bill would apply to.

Those companies own collectively about 13,000 homes in California. That amounts to 0.15 of 1%, if I may repeat that, 0.15 of 1%. We don't think there's a market presence that actually is squeezing anyone out. There's eight and a half million single family homes in the state. The two companies that this Bill would apply to have purchased two homes, two existing homes in the State of California in the last two years. So we really think that the language in the Bill is legislating against a perception that does not actually meet the reality of the statistics of institutional ownership in the State of California.

Thank you. Did you want to make some comments?

Yeah. Nick Cammarota, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, our position is opposed unless amended. I think that the amendments that the author took today are helpful in moving in that direction for us. The only comment that I would make is that the addition of putting a time limit of five years after a builder, we represent the people who are trying to increase the supply of homes. We build new homes for California in a variety of places, sometimes acquiring existing housing units.

And unfortunately, in California, we can't get within five years. We can't get the approvals necessary, land use, environmental, in order to pull a building permit in that timeframe. And frankly, our sales pace right now isn't sufficient to get us to sell out of a project within that timeframe. But happy to continue the conversation and appreciate the direction that the amendments are moving us in.

Very good. Any comments in more opposition, please.

Thank you. Good morning. Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association in opposition.

Good morning. Karim Drissi, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Kate Bell, on behalf of the California Rental Housing Association and Apartment Association of greater LA, in opposition. Thanks.

Chair and Members Pat Marin with the Southern California Rental Housing Association in opposition. Thank you.

Natalie Boust, on behalf of the California Business Roundtable, in opposition.

Any more comments? In opposition? All right, bringing up to the Committee, any questions?

Yeah. A couple questions. One for the author. I was reading the Apartment Association's letter and they mentioned, you know, there might be a need to think about, also thinking about tenants for those giant companies who do own it, the opportunity to first ride of buying if they ever do decide to sell. Curious what your thoughts are on that. And then also for the opposition who mentioned that this isn't happening, then what is the problem putting guardrails to make sure that it doesn't happen.

I just, I find that to be an interesting argument to say that this, this is not necessary, and I get that. But if it is not necessary, then this seems preventative in case it ever should become necessary and shouldn't actually have any adverse effect on anything that's currently happening. Is that a fair interpretation?

I appreciate the comments Assemblymember Bryan, just to point out two things too, is, you know, I, as Members of the Renters Caucus, I would love to see the Apartment Association support of tenant opportunity first right to purchase. So that's great to see that kind of thing. I think that, of course, those policies are good to have, but we have to understand that this is a problem that operates in a larger scope. Right. 50% of Californians own zero homes.

So when a couple actors, couple companies can own 15,000 homes, single family homes, which are, you know, especially if you look at prices, my area average about $1.0 million a piece. That's 15,000 $1.0 million assets at one time. And yes, their purchasing power right now in California has been relatively small right now because of high prices and high interest rates, but they climbed to 15,000 in a very short time because of the housing crash in the recession in 2008.

So that's how they got here in the first place. And that's also to note too, is that the Bill is about corporations that own 1000 homes or more, not just in the State of California, because it's important that these corporations are also very interested in the sunbelts in Georgia, in the Carolinas right now, and they own a national portfolio of exerting that kind of influence.

So I just want to give some context in the numbers is, yes, it seems small when you take the independent slice, but when you look at the equity of owners across the state, most people have one home at best. A lot of people don't even have any. When a couple actors can own thousands and thousands, we have a problem.

So a couple of things. Assemblymember Bryan first, these companies have been net sellers of homes in California for the last seven years. They've reduced their holdings by about 28%, going from 18,000 down to about 13 between both companies. They also both have what we call first look programs. So if you're a resident, you are offered the first right of refusal to purchase a home if they decide to sell it.

One of the companies, if you have lived with them for five years, will give you a $5,000 payment towards your down payment, whether or not you buy their home or not. You could buy a home anywhere in the country and they give you the 5000. So they do things that the average landlord may not be able to support. They also do what Assemblymember Haney's Bill that's before you later today would also require, and that is they already report positive credit information to the credit bureaus. They do not report negative information.

Any other questions from the Committee? And I would just like to, when I hear about these housing shortages, affordable housing, there's just so many issues. But really the big issue is, you mentioned, sir, the environmental and other issues that really impede development and approvals and rapid permitting of development. There are thousands of units of homes under construction in California or planning to be under construction that cannot be built because of CEQA and other impediments to efficient construction processes. And that's the real problem. I will be voting against this because I think this is an artificial constraint on the marketplace. Would you like to offer a closing statement?

Absolutely. This is a national issue you're seeing, not just in California. California right now is in a very costly place to buy up houses and stuff. But if the market were to change and we had a structural housing bubble, once again we could be with Carolinas and Georgia and the Sun Belt are right now where you do see a monumental shift in buying. And even in the analysis as you see it, there was a big buying spree after the housing bubble in 2008.

During the pandemic, there was another buying bubble. And you're seeing this story play across the nation. That's why you have legislatures that are Republican and Democrat bringing this Bill types of bills forward and to just remind us that this House passed a Bill on new build housing. This is about the existing stock, right? So this is about making sure there's opportunity for hardworking families to compete.

As many folks already talked about, it's very hard for an average family to compete with a perhaps international hedge fund and trying to buy up the one house when they're trying to have their first home buying opportunity. So it's really important that we have these safeguards in here. Yes, their proportion might be small right now, but I don't want to be talking to you at a day when they own 50% of the single family home stock and they turn them all into rentals either.

So if I can borrow a phrase from the analysis on page 62 is in a zero sum housing environment, corporate winners mean individual losers. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, let's vote. Oh, I need a motion. And a second. And a second. Mister Haney okay.

Motions do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That's on call. So, thank you. So, who's next? Oh, Mister Lee. Oh, all right. All right. Who do we have next? Oh, Mister Assemblyman Alvarez, number one.

We're on number one.

Good morning. Still. Yes. It's still morning.

Thank you, madam Vice Chair and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 1811, the jury duty for all Bill. I also want to thank staff who work not only with my staff, but also the Chair and myself personally. We walk through this and you have a well written analysis with what I think is a very fair analysis of our proposal here. Every trial defendant has the right to be judged by a jury of their peers.

And by making legal permanent residents eligible to serve as juries, California can take one step closer towards an enshrining that goal. California is home to approximately 3 million legal permanent residents, which is about 8% of our state's population. They live among our community, work in our community, pay taxes, are subject to and enjoy the rights and the protections of all of our laws. Legal permanent residents are witnesses in courts. They work as attorneys and judges, and in other positions within the court itself.

The only role from which someone who is a legal permanent resident cannot serve in and are excluded from, is from being a juror, meaning that they have no role in resolving legal disputes. AB 1811 seeks to resolve this exclusion as it has no historical basis in law or logic. Again, as presented in your analysis before you.

According to Judicial Council, the courts mail out about 10 million jury summons on an annual basis, and 3 million of those are are not responded to or they fail to appear. Of the dozen different reasons individuals can be exempt from jury service, not being a citizen is one of the most - is the most frequent, with 500,000 or half a million of those using the exemption of not being a citizen as the exemption every year.

In passing AB 8 and 11 to make legal permanent residents eligible, we can improve the courts in meeting their jury needs while also improving the representation within our juries. I acknowledge the initial concerns highlighted by the Committee and have offered amendments that address those concerns.

AB 1811 is supported by the California Public Defenders Association, the California Federation of Teachers and Chinese for Affirmative Action, and I would like to introduce the Dean of the UC Davis School of Law, Dean Kevin Johnson, who can provide more details and historical context. As he's been working on this issue far longer than I have, he'll cherish his testimony now. Dean.

Thank you. Thank you Committee, for allowing me to be here and share some views today. As was mentioned, I'm the dean of UC Davis School of Law, but I also teach civil procedure, complex litigation and immigration laws. So I talk a lot about the jury system and how it represents the best in our democracy. AB 1811 would allow legal immigrants as well as us citizens to serve on juries.

In my view, it's a most appropriate change in the law in a society that seeks to have juries represent a cross section of the community, and it's more consistent with our Democratic values than the current system. AB 1811 would extend eligibility for jury service to lawful permanent residents, who the US immigration laws define to be immigrants lawfully admitted to the United States who may remain in the country indefinitely. The Bill would not authorize temporary visitors or undocumented immigrants to serve on juries.

As was mentioned by Assemblymember Alvarez, lawful permanent residents live and work in our communities. They pay taxes. They attend our schools. They attend our churches. They serve in the military. Many have lived in the United States for many years, if not decades. Many have children who are us citizens by virtue of birth in the United States. Many eventually naturalize under federal law and become US citizens. Put simply, lawful permanent residents are part of our communities, but current law denies them the opportunity to serve on juries.

Now, there's nothing in the US Constitution or in the California constitution that bars noncitizens from serving on juries. And historically, non citizens were permitted to serve on juries. They served on juries in England. The jury practice that was transported to the colonies allowed noncitizens to serve on juries in the colonies that later became the United States. Some states also allowed noncitizens to serve on juries as well. So non citizen jury service is not impressed in it.

I want to just conclude by saying immigrants comprise a large percent of our community, about 27% of the state's foreign born. I spoke sacrilege it appears. In about a third of Alameda, Los Angeles, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Santa Clara counties are foreign born as well. So this Bill would extend and make more democratic jury service and allow juries to better represent a cross section of the communities that they would serve. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition, please? Oh, does anybody want to come to the table?

No, you could just ask for other support.

Okay. Any witnesses in support? All right, please come forward to the microphone.

Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU, California, in support.

Charita Moore, on behalf of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in support.

Any other witnesses in support? Okay, now for witnesses in opposition, if you please come forward. Seeing None. All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Bryan.

I've never seen a testimony so good. It shut the lights out. I think it. We've. We've learned time and time again that when juries aren't representative of the people who are going through the criminal legal system. The impacts to those people are not justice, and they are not fair. They are not representative of even the best intentions of that process. So I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward, and happy to make a motion to move it.

Any second. Any other Committee comments? I just would like to, as Vice Chair, make a comment. I respect Assemblymember Alvarez, why you're bringing this forward, but I guess I do want to get back to some foundational principles. Our existing laws recognize trial by jury is a cherished constitutional right, as you say, and jury service is an obligation of citizenship. Lawful immigrants have every right, and we are grateful that they live and work and be part of our communities.

But there are certain rights and duties, such as voting and jury duty, that are rightfully reserved only for citizens. Even former Governor Jerry Brown recognized this in 2013 when he vetoed a similar Bill. He wrote jury, and he says it very excellent words that I agree with. Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship. This Bill would permit lawful permanent residents who are not citizens to serve on a jury. I don't think that's right. End quote.

And actually, another issue is that the Bill would confer a right on immigrants that us citizens do not enjoy. When a citizen is summoned for jury service, that is a duty of citizenship, and they are required to serve. And there are exceptions for health related reasons and other reasons that are granted unless the court excuses them for hardship. But the Committee's amendments for AB 1811 would allow immigrants to decline jury service for no reason at all, which gives them a right that citizens do not enjoy. And for these reasons, I cannot support this Bill. So we shall have a vote. Oh, closing comment. Excuse me, Assemblymember.

Thank you. I just want to recognize and certainly uplift the many millions of immigrants who live in California. Certainly my personal story is reflective of that. And I know that when my parents did have the opportunity to go from being undocumented individuals to becoming documented, thanks to the action that the Federal Government took now, almost 40 years ago, and it's been negligent in not taking immigration reform, they became legal permanent residents.

And I would say even before becoming legal permanent residents, even as undocumented individuals, they were fully participating members of our society, as stated, even in our military, serving to protect the rights and the privileges that we all enjoy from. And that is why I think it's important to recognize that, and that we recognize that by fully allowing them to participate in our justice system. And I respectfully ask your aye vote to allow them to do that. Thank you.

All right. Let's call for the vote.

Motions do pass, as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay. Place the - yeah, we'll place that on call. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister chair.

Assemblymember, Haney, he's been. He's been ready. He's been ready. Yeah. Right now, the 2216 household pets, tenancy.

Thank you, Mister chair and Members, we did not bring a dog or cat with us today, but they are here in spirit, as they should be.

AB 2216 will ensure access to housing for all California renters by prohibiting blanket pet bans and will require landlords to have reasonable justifications for not allowing pets in a rental unit. It will do a number of things that will help to ensure that all California renters can have access to housing. California has the second highest number of tenants in the country, and out of those 17 million families and individuals renting close to 12 million, nearly 70% of these renters are pet owners.

Unfortunately, only 30% of available rentals in any given city are pet-friendly. For example, if you look online, only 21% of the available rentals in San Francisco allow pets. Similarly, despite having close to 3 million pet-owning renters, including some folks who are here, only 26% of Los Angeles rentals allow pets. That means that the majority of rentals are inaccessible to the majority of renters who are pet owners.

Humans have owned pets for all recorded history, and most people consider pets to be part of their families. Like it or not, pet ownership is not going away anytime soon. One of the main strategies the state has used to address our housing crisis is to build more housing. But restrictive pet policies end up excluding millions of people across the state from this housing because they have a pet. Additionally, blanket pet policies, no-pet policies, are causing landlords to miss out on good tenants who get rejected without even having a chance to apply for a place to live.

The lack of pet-friendly housing is also causing more than 800,000 tenants to have pets in their units without the knowledge of their landlord. This leaves landlords without adequate coverage for potential damages that could be mitigated if they knew their tenants had a pet such as pet insurance or reasonable pet restrictions. When left without a choice, many tenants are being forced to surrender their pets in overcrowded and under-resourced shelters. A survey of 240 California-based shelters revealed that over 67,000 pets were surrendered by their owners, with a top reason being a lack of access to pet-friendly housing. AB 2216 makes sure a tenant is not denied solely for owning a pet and will require landlords to have reasonable justifications.

It also makes changes around deposits and pet rent to ensure that the burden on pet owners is not unduly heavy. I want to add that we have been in conversations with opposition and I really want to appreciate the dialogue that we've had with them. I do believe that they want to also help to address this issue. And of course, there are many landlords who do allow pets who want pets, who are pet owners, and we want to make that possible to them for them and have a balanced and fair policy that works to ensure access to housing for all and reflects the needs that landlords may have, particularly related to damage to their units. With me to testify in support of the bill, I have Jenny Berg from the Humane Society of the United States and Julie Liu, a Sacramento tenant and hopeful pet owner. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jenny Berg and I'm the California State Director for the Humane Society of the United States and we are proud to sponsor AB 2216. I would like to thank Assemblymember Haney for the opportunity to work with him on this important bill. The lack of pet-friendly housing poses a significant barrier for many in finding and securing rental units.

According to a 2021 study, 72% of residents surveyed said that pet-friendly housing is hard to find, and 59% say it's too expensive. The small percentage of rental properties that do allow pets impose arbitrary restrictions on breed or weight of the companion animal and charge exorbitant and non-refundable fees. On average, pet-owning residents pay an additional $864 in deposits, which includes security, pet, and one-time fees, plus an average of $600 over the course of the year in monthly pet fees, including pet rental.

These arbitrary costs add to the already high monthly rents in California, and this only further exacerbates the housing affordability crisis. Many of these policies are based on misinformation and myths rather than data. You will likely hear the belief that animals cause excessive damage to apartment units. A study conducted by the Michelson Found Animals Foundation discovered that less than 10% of pets cause any damage of any kind. The average dollar amount for repair of damages caused by pets is $210.

This is far less than the refundable security deposit of $625. Statistics show that only 2% of pets cause damage requiring security deposit deduction. California has taken some exceptional steps to protect the bond between a person and pet. We must do more to keep families with their pets. Thank you again for your consideration, and I respectfully request and aye vote.

Thank you.

All right. Hello, everyone. Thank you, chair and members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. My name is Julie Liu. I live in Sacramento and work as a pharmacist. As a responsible tenant sharing a rental home with roommates, I am here to support the proposed legislation advocating for the rights of renters to have pets in California. I've always loved animals and considered having a pet part of my future plans. I've also lived with my sister and her two rescue dogs for about two years.

One of them came from an abusive home, and I saw the positive impact from nourishing a bond with a pet. After getting involved in animal welfare, I saw the pressing need for an increase in fostering and adopting. The amount of stray and abandoned pets is staggering and shelters are at capacity, which means more euthanasia or strays left to fend for themselves, many of whom will starve or die due to a lack of survival skills from growing up domesticated.

When I asked my landlord if I can bring a pet in, I was denied despite being a good tenant who always pays on time and addresses issues with transparency. I've been unsuccessful in finding affordable housing options in my vicinity that allow pets. Apartments with adequate safety, I found, are over $2,000 per month, plus utilities which would force me to live paycheck to paycheck and severely limit my ability to save for a house and achieve residential independence, trapping myself in a renting loop.

This experience reflects a broader trend of tenants like myself who face limited housing options that accommodate our desire to provide a loving home for a pet while also meeting practical needs such as proximity to work. I've had to pass up many opportunities to foster and adopt due to landlord restrictions and many others share the same challenge. Many people have also had to give up their pets whom they consider family or risk being homeless. We need more rentals that allow pets, and I urge you to support this bill, which will have a huge impact for pet owners across the state. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2216?

Good morning. Brittany Benesi, on behalf of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in support of moving this bill forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Barbara Schmitz, on behalf of the San Francisco SPCA, and we're in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. David Ramirez, on behalf of the UC Student Association, in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2216?

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members. First of all, Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association. We're not here opposing pets, and I want to thank you, Mr. Haney, for listening to our concerns. I think the most important part of our concerns is about the security deposit. We know we're limited to one month's rent, and so I think we appreciate your considering changes to that. I'm a pet owner. I know what it means to have animals, and I love my animals.

But I as a homeowner have paid for changed carpets, the pets who have chewed up my baseboards, and chewed up the backyard plants. Love them still. But what we're looking for is at least some consideration that there is a cost and that currently, under our security deposit law, the tenant can use that one-month security to pay for the rent on the way out the door. That leaves us nothing for repairs to the unit. And I know that you can potentially sue the tenant in court, but you don't find them afterwards. So with that, we'd like to continue to work with Assemblymember Haney on amendments to the bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Karim Drissi, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors, in opposition to AB 2216. Unlike existing law, which allows domesticated animals in condos to be regulated so that there can be one domesticated animal per unit, AB 2216 will allow for multiple domesticated animals in rental units.

And under the bill, under AB 20216 unfortunately, there will be multiple domesticated animals in rental housing units, and housing providers will have to navigate a complex web of local ordinances in order to determine the number of pets they must allow in the rental units. So, for instance, in unincorporated Sacramento County, it's currently four dogs, four cats, one pig, among other animals, and that could potentially cause substantial damage to the dwelling unit.

And so, unfortunately, due to the author's bill from last year regarding security deposits, you can have an instance where the maximum allowable security deposit for a tenant with zero domesticated animals in the unit, and the maximum allowable security deposit for a tenant with nine domesticated animals in the unit, per the aforementioned example, the maximum allowable security deposit is the same and so unfortunately, the bill is currently drafted, is not respectfully, could be more thoughtful and does not take into account the needs of housing providers. And as a result, we do respectfully request a no vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to AB 2216?

Mr. Chair and members, Pat Moran with Aaron Read and Associates representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association, opposed to the bill for the reasons stated. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kate Bell, on behalf of Cal RHA and AAGLA, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Bring it back to committee. Assemblymember Reyes.

I too love my pets. I appreciate the conversation with Assemblymember Haney. The comments made by the opposition must be addressed if there is a limit on the amount that can be requested or required of a deposit. It is very different when there is a pet. And I appreciate that only 2% there's only 2% increase in damage. I forget what this statistic was, but I can tell you, landlords would tell you otherwise, but I don't have a statistic. But nonetheless, those are issues, serious issues. And I appreciate that there's still conversation happening, but they must be addressed. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Bryan.

Yeah. I want to thank the opposition and the author for coming today. And I think, as was mentioned by my colleague from the Inland Empire, I'm glad conversation is taking place. I think some of the things about addressing, you know, those concerns, it almost seems like we're talking after somebody is already in a place and we forget that this is actually a barrier to getting housing for so many.

I am the proud dog father of a great dane named Darius, who frequents the swing space and has been up here many times. And he's actually at home with my fiance right now, and we wouldn't live without Darius. We also are renters, tenants who have moved at least four times since I've been in office. Our most recent move, we're coming up on a year this April. We were turned down from over six different locations because of Darius.

My fiance is a trademark and copyright attorney, and at the time, I was the majority leader of the California State Assembly. And we were denied housing because we had an incredibly well-trained, sweet dog. In fact, in one instance, it felt like we were conditionally approved and then asked about, it wasn't like a formal approval process, but asked about Darius and how big he was, which is a funny question because everybody who owns dogs know it's the small ones that are the problem.

And after telling him he's a great Dane and he's trained and he's incredible. We were asked to pay a non-refundable one-time cleaning fee, an increase in rent, and a pet deposit. And we asked for a second to consider this. First to consider, is this legal for you to ask this? But also, you know, are we willing to? Something doesn't feel right. And before we could even respond, just asking for more time, they chose a different applicant. And that was kind of our experience.

It was actually. We got nervous at a certain point that we wouldn't be able to find a place because of Darius. Thankfully, we did and we signed a multi-year lease so that we wouldn't have to deal with this again. But I think it's those kinds of stories which are not unique to just tenants like me that likely inspired my colleague from San Francisco.

And so I'm glad that this bill is here, but I'm also glad that you're having thoughtful and pragmatic conversations about how to actually implement something like this properly. I don't think anybody should be prevented from having housing as a qualified applicant solely because they have an animal who they rely on very seriously. I mean, I couldn't imagine leaving my fiance at home while I'm up here without Darius to be with her. So I just want to thank the author. I want to thank everybody here. Happy to make a motion. Proud co-author of the bill and looking forward to seeing it progress.

Is there a second? Okay, so second. All right. And I've actually met Darius. He's very well-behaved. I thought he had a nine to five himself. Assemblymember Connolly.

Looking forward to meeting him. Yeah. No, I like the direction of the bill. I appreciate the author bringing it forward. I do not believe that pet ownership should be a barrier to securing housing. I find myself now in a situation. So in addition to my wife and two daughters, we have three female cats household as well.

That's a longer conversation we should have. Certainly underscores that, you know, there is a different dynamic in terms of possible physical issues with the premises and stuff. That having been said, I agree there should not necessarily be additional pet rent, but there should be flexibility around additional security deposit tied to actual damage, though. So it seems like you're heading in that direction. I would encourage those ongoing discussions.

Well, Assemblymember Connelly should have been there when I presented the cat neutering bill in BNP. Anyway, we'll bring it back over here. And I did speak with the author prior to the presentation and has indicated that there is ongoing conversations. And so this is the beginning, I think, of a process where we're going to be able to find a good landing spot for this that respects kind of both sides, the challenges from opposition, but also the importance of making sure that folks aren't limited because they happen to own a pet or want to own a pet. With that, would you like to close, Assemblymember Haney?

Yes. No, I appreciate all of the conversation and the feedback. You know, this is a real challenge for folks. If you have a companion animal, being able to find housing, keep housing. And I think where we are now, where so many people are either not disclosing they have an animal and hiding it is not a good thing. Giving up an animal, creating a crisis in our shelters and our streets is also not a good thing.

So I'm really glad that we're having this conversation and certainly on the deposit piece, I'm very open to that. And I think that that makes a lot of sense. And I just really want to appreciate the dialogue from the opposition. I'm also willing to clarify that this does not include pigs. That was news to me. But some of the pieces around. Happy to talk about that as well.

Certainly we want to continue to allow for reasonable restrictions, which could absolutely include the number of animals and shouldn't require anyone to accept nine animals. That's certainly not the intention. So happy to chat about that as well and appreciate everyone and appreciate the sponsors, and hopefully we'll be able to move something forward ultimately that increases some access for renters with pets and also is fair to, of course, the landlords who are allowing them with that. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Madam Secretary, if we can take the roll call for AB 2216?

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill will be placed on call. And, Senator Haney, if you could return to the dais for a moment. We have a Non Committee Member here to present a Bill, if that's okay with you. Yes. Thank you. That was entertaining. Darius, Assembly Member Calderon. Item 10, AB 2752. Really? We had an eclipse in the room when I was gone. All right. Item 10, AB 2752 whenever you're ready.

Thank you, chair and Members, I would like to start by thanking the Committee for working with my staff on this Bill, and I will be accepting the amendment, so appreciate all your hard work. Assembly Bill 2752 would require the juvenile court to set the frequency and duration of family visitation at the initial petition hearing when a child is first placed in the California welfare services system.

At subsequent hearings, the Bill requires a court to order unsupervised family visits unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation will harm the physical or emotional health of the child. With me in support of AB 2752 is Brooke Huley, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Dependency Lawyers, and Dave Shuster, a mentor program manager. Thank you.

Good morning chair and Members. I'm Brooke Huley, a supervising attorney for Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers where I've advocated for families for the last 20 years. I'm here today to discuss the importance of AB 2752 regarding family time and juvenile dependency cases. Many families come into the dependency system for circumstances related to poverty and generational struggle.

Placing a child in out of home care can cause extraordinary damage to the child and to the broader family unit and attachment science shows that emotional and psychological consequences of child removal occur, even if the removals are brief. For children in foster care, family time is critical in reducing the trauma caused by family separation as it provides opportunity to form and maintain positive, healthy relationships and facilitate healing.

Unfortunately, quality family time simply is not happening for many children in foster care in California because the court has almost no guidance in this area. This lack of guidance often leads courts to defaulting to orders for supervised visits, even when this is not necessary for the child's safety. In practice, supervised visits are incredibly difficult to schedule. Monitors for visits can be impossible to find and children are often forced to visit in small offices that make them very uncomfortable.

In 2020, the US Department of Health and Human Services Administration on Children, Youth and Families published an official guidance stating that it should be presumed that family time should be unsupervised, absent in identified present danger of harm for the benefit of millions of children. It's time for California law to follow this guidance and for these reasons, I respectfully request your aye vote on AB 2752 today.

Thank you.

Good morning honorable chair and Committee Members. My name is Dave Shuster. I'm a former parent in the dependency system and currently employed at Dependency Advocacy Center's mentor Parent program. I'm the manager of the program. I would like to discuss my personal experience with visitation and its impact on my family, which underscores why voting eye on AB 2752 is so important. We were told visits would be monitored for a time and for the safety of my daughter.

This was completely unwarranted and the trauma from this experience still haunts her. Our visits were done in an old office building with old broken toys and books with pages missing. We felt we couldn't complain. We were finally able to hug our child and didn't want to risk this in any way. Some of the offices had windows.

I'm not sure if this was a good thing because it was a constant reminder of what we used to do as a family and feared we would never be able to do again. I would visit with my seven year old daughter two times a week for 2 hours and the mother visited the same. Keeping a very active seven year old child occupied for 4 hours of visit was an unfair and ridiculous test of parenting, especially with the limited space and activities.

Not to mention whatever we brought to the visit was inspected and scrutinized. My daughter was most uncomfortable with the monitors of the visit. They would sit in the doorway with the computer typing every word that was said between us. This made my daughter uncomfortable and helped her to withdraw. She would whisper to me just to be told, you cannot whisper. You need to speak up. I never felt so powerless and shameful and riddled with guilt since we were there because of our actions and our addiction.

Ultimately, my child paid the price for this and continues today. Despite testing clean and complying with our case plan, supervised visits continued for seven months. At any point, my parents, whom my daughter was with, could have supervised our visits in their home or a nearby park. These suggestions were always disregarded and told the Department, it's not time. Let's change that. Vote yes on 2752 and protect our child's right to family time.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2752?

Hello, Chairman Members Jeronimo Aguilar, here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, a proud co sponsor of this Bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Julia Hanagan, policy Director for Dependency Legal Services, a proud co sponsor as well, and here in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2752?

Good morning Mister chair and Members Amanda Kirchner with CWDA. We are currently in opposition to the Bill is in print. Appreciate the author's amendments as identified in the analysis. Our legislative Committee will be taking a look at that next week. We think it's a step in the right direction, but maybe not quite there yet.

I do want to note for the Committee, we often use supervised visitation as a tool to evaluate parents both in their interactions with their children, but also to see how they're doing with their case plans and if they're benefiting from their services. Right. So are we able to see identified behaviors based on the parenting classes that they're doing better interactions with their kids? The other piece for the Bill that we do have concerns with is limiting the county use of buildings for supervised visitation.

Unfortunately, that does present a problem for a lot of our social workers. We do try and liberalize as much as possible to let third parties observe or, like a relative caregiver, be the person supervising.

Our social workers will also do visitations at parks and other places, but if it's necessary to make sure that we actually get the visit to happen, sometimes those county office buildings are the only places, and we work really hard to make sure their family friendly and child friendly visitation rooms with games and lots of stuff to do. So we just look forward to continuing to work with your office as the Bill moves forward.

Thank you. Yeah. And I want to express appreciation for opposition. I know the work that you do every day is so important for our state that the welfare of our children is foremost. And so I do appreciate certainly the work that's done every single day by the social workers that are part of your organization, and I think everybody does.

I also want to express my appreciation for the author and those that spoke in support and the author's willingness and engagement with our Committee in taking a lot of substantive amendments. I really appreciate that, and I think it really shows the willingness to try to find a balance here. I think ultimately the underlying intentions of the Bill are important and worthy of support.

And knowing the author and knowing the opposition, I know there'll be continued conversations on some of those other details, but I think that respecting the or finding a path towards unification and creating environments where there can actually be genuine moments of reunification is really important. And I think there are safeguards in here that allow for situations where there needs to be supervision and monitoring, and there definitely are situations where that is necessary. I think we can all agree with that as well.

And so I appreciate the Bill. I think with the amendments it's in a really good place and we just encourage continued dialogue on some of the outstanding items. Any comment or questions from my colleague? Is there a motion? I'll second the motion. And it's a very busy day. There's a lot of Committee hearings going on, so it's not for lack of interest. It's Members are going and voting and appearing in other committees. With that being said, Madam Secretary, can we take the roll? Oh, I apologize. Please. Assemblywoman Calderon, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Mister chair. And yes, we do look forward to continuing to work through this Bill and appreciate the opposition and support. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is on call. Thank you. We need Committee Members. The only authors left are Committee Members and I think Assemblymember Connolly, I think you voted on everything. If you haven't, let me know so we can get you caught up. We haven't done it yet, so we'll wait for everybody on that one. That's the only one that will. That's in addition to the other items to be heard. It lift the call on item AB 2584.

[Roll Call]

So we have Item Five: AB 2282: McKinnor. Whenever you're ready, you may proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. I am here to present AB 2282. Many parents in the family regulation system have suffered from the mass incarceration trend. The statistics show that 11.4 percent of African American children and 3.5 percent of Hispanic children have an incarcerated parent. It is not uncommon for parents in dependency court to have a conviction for offenses defined as a violent felony, which include robbery and carjacking. However, many times a parent's criminal history has not--has no current bearing on child safety or parenting ability.

I believe that after we sentence people to go to prison, they've paid their dues, they've served their time, and that is what--they're supposed to be rehabilitated. So when they get out of prison, we should enable them to go to the courts, go through the system, and try to get their children back. Last year, I passed AB 937, which gives a person 24 months to go through the system and to get their children back.

And so I think that we should allow people coming out of jails, coming out of prison, to go through the same system to get the 24 months to get their children back, and we should allow the judge to say if they can have their children back or not. We should not limit them from seeking their children. So AB 2282 would limit criminal convictions used to deny reunification services to families in the family regulation system.

It would amend the law to deny services only to the most serious and violent felons who've endangered children. This reflects the safeguards taken by almost every other state regarding reunification for a parent with a violent criminal history, preserving the safety of the child and the family unit. Here with me today is Julia Hanagan with Dependency Legal Services and Fidel Chagolla.

Thank you.

Honorable Chair and Committee Members, thank you for your time. My name is Julia Hanagan, and I am a Policy Director at Dependency Legal Services. We represent parents and children in child welfare proceedings in Northern and Central California. We are proud to support amending the felony bypass statute to encompass only violent felonies that involve a child. In terms of child welfare, the termination of parental rights is often described in case law as the death sentence for parents in dependency court.

And in that context, the bypass statutes often mandate that parents are swiftly sent to this death sentence without an opportunity to prove that they can safely create a home for their children. It means families are immediately put in a position to be permanently separated. This bill limits the families that will be forced into that predicament. It focuses on bypassing only parents who have convictions that involve a child. That would put California in line with what much of the country already does.

We believe in narrowing that focus makes sense in the child welfare system, which should only be focused on the risk of harm to the child. We do want to be clear: this bill does not mandate return to parents who are still a danger to their children, nor does it require immediate placement with parents with these serious convictions. Instead, it requires the court to give parents the opportunity to show that they can make a safe home for their families.

We believe this change benefits both our minor and our parent clients. It gives our child clients the full and fair opportunity to grow up in homes with their parents if it is safe to do so. It also allows our parent clients the chance to make the changes in their lives and become the parents that their children deserve. As a result, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Honorable Chair and Members. My name is Fidel Chagolla. I currently work with Starting Over, Inc. which is a nonprofit organization as an organizer for Riverside All of Us or None that works on helping formerly incarcerated people obtain housing, employment, and getting record expungements as well. I'm also a grad student at the University of Redlands in clinical mental health counseling finishing up my Master's program. I'm speaking with you today because I'm a formerly incarcerated person that has been out for already over 14 years.

I got a certificate of rehabilitation through my transition. My daughter Zoe was born in 2016 when I was 39 years old. At that time, I had been out of prison for six years and off parole for four years and had managed to find steady work, housing, and transportation. During childbirth, Zoe's mother tested positive for opiates that was prescribed for Tylenol with Codeine that a dentist prescribed her.

This triggered the involvement of San Bernardino's County's Children and Family Services, who looked at my past criminal record and said I should not have the opportunity to even reunify with my child due to Welfare Institution Code Section 361.5 B12, which is the bypass provisions. My parental rights were terminated, and in 2019, my daughter Zoe was adopted out with 119 other children in San Bernardino County.

Because of my prior criminal history had no bearing on whether I would be a good parent or not, if this change in law proposed by AB 2282 existed at the time of my case, I would have had a fair chance of reunifying with my daughter. I am here for you to consider making sure that parents like me, who have felonies unrelated to their ability to be a parent, and in many cases have paid their debt to society, a fair chance of getting their children back. For these reasons, I express my support for AB 2282. Thank you, Chair and Members.

Thank you. Is anyone else here in support of AB 2282?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Jeronimo Aguilar here, Policy Analyst with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, proud co-sponsor in support of this bill, also on behalf of All of Us or None, our statewide chapters. Much love, Brother Fidel. Thank you for this.

Thank you.

Brooke Huley, Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, proud cosponsor.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2282? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments, motions? We have a motion and a second. Vice Chair Dixon.

Thank you, Chair. I really hear your comments and have great sympathy and sadness for you. I just want to clarify--not just apart from the emotional, because it is very important--but will the judge still have--will the court still have discretion? Could you clarify that for me, please?

Yes, the judge will still have discretion and they will still have to go through what anyone else would have to go through to get their children back, and so they would have to go through the 24 months with the social worker and then they would have to go before the judge.

So they wouldn't just get their children back, but they would have the opportunity, because as we know, when we send people, this is what we're--what the law's saying and what we think in California and in this country as we send people to prison--we send them there to rehabilitate. When they come out, they should have the same opportunities as the rest of us have, and so this would only give them an opportunity to get their children back. They wouldn't be handed the children.

Okay, and did I read somewhere in the bill or in the analysis that when the child welfare--what is the position of the child welfare organization? Have they taken a position supportive? They're neutral? Yeah. I thought I read in some analysis that the reunification--during the reunification process and the interview process, that the meeting between the child and the parent cannot take place under supervision.

That was a prior bill, but yeah. That was the bill prior to this from Assembly Member Calderon. It's a different bill, yeah. They have similar ideas in there.

Okay, my apologies.

Yeah, no problem.

No more--no further questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. We have a motion on the floor, and I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. Actually, in a similar vein to the prior bill we heard, our goal should always be reunification and what's in the best interest of the child, as long as there are safeguards for when it's not appropriate, and that's what we have here. We have a judge that's going to make the ultimate determination.

But if we believe in healing, if we believe in restorative justice, if we believe that people aren't defined by the worst thing they may have done in their life, we should also appreciate that children are best off when they're with their parents. And parents should have the opportunity to at least make the case, especially under the same rules and under the same guidance and protections that all parents that are trying to reunify have to go through.

And so I really appreciate you, Assembly Member McKinnor, for bringing this forward. I think it's a bill that has the appropriate safeguards, but ultimately leads us where I think everyone that supports families should be, which is having children be with their parents. With that, would you like to close?

Yes. I would like to thank Fidel for sharing his story and let you know that we're so very proud of you. This will help formerly incarcerated parents retain the positive family relationship that reduces recidivism. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I apologize for the tears, but that's just me. Sorry.

I was once crying in Chambers when I was a public defender, and because a client of mine was going to get a pretty heavy sentence, and I was apologizing to the judge as I was trying to make the argument to the judge as to why that shouldn't be the case, and the judge said to me, 'you should never apologize for being human.'

Thank you.

Madam Secretary, if you can take roll on AB 2282?

Motion is 'do pass to Human Services.' [Roll Call].

Okay. All right. So that Bill is also on call. Thank you. Up next, Assemblymember Haney can return his triumphant return. Item nine, AB 2747.

All right, thank you, Mister Chair and Members, I want to thank you and your staff, and I want to accept the Committee's amendments. This Bill is pretty simple. All of us need to have a credit score if we want to buy things and qualify for things. And yet, there are some important indicators of credit that are currently not included in your credit score and should be included.

And especially for folks who may not have credit scores currently or may not have student loan payments or credit cards, this is an important way for them to build their credit score. It's something that you all are probably familiar with, because we have been doing this for a number of years. Senator Bradford had a Bill which now he's re-upping, which I fully support, which is having this practice be in place for housing that is affordable or subsidized housing.

This would extend the practice of landlords reporting on time rent payments to credit bureau agencies, to private housing as well. Unfortunately, there are one in 10 Americans who do not have a credit score at all. And for those who have credit scores, millions of them may have poor credit because only their secondary bills, like credit cards and student loan payments, are being reported. None of the on time rent payments that the 17 million renters in California prioritize every month are required to be reported.

There are now much more efficient and effective ways to report rent payments to credit scores, which are available to landlords and to renters. And we are now in a place where we can actually extend this opportunity to the large majority of renters in our state. This is only for positive rent reporting. So unfortunately, it is already the case that if you have missed payments or you have an eviction, these kind of things, these were already currently.

So the negative is already, in many cases, being reported to credit bureaus. But the positive, unfortunately, is not. This is something that we've been able to work also closely with the previous opposition, I think for, at least for some of the opposition that you may hear from today, because we've taken their amendments, they're now removing their opposition.

This is a good thing also, I will say for landlords, because it actually has a more accurate way of understanding what somebody's history is in terms of paying their rent, if it is included in their credit score, and if you're taking their credit score into consideration in qualifying an applicant. So this will help a lot of Californians, including young Californians, build their, their credit score. It certainly would have helped me over the years, and we have to testify in support of the Bill.

David Ramirez, who's the government relations Committee chair for the UC Student Association, where I used to be the Executive Director.

I don't know if he knows. Yes, please.

We're very proud of that. Good morning, Chair Kalra and Members of the Committee. As mentioned, I'm David Ramirez. I serve as a government relationship for the UC Student Association, which is the representative body for over 230,000 undergrads at the University of California. I'm also a student at UCLA, where the surrounding rental market is one of the most expensive in the entire country. And I know firsthand how difficult it is for students like myself when applying for housing.

I currently live in an off campus apartment and without a cosigner for my lease, I simply would not have been able to apply for it for any off campus units around my campus. My only other option would have been to commute over 3 hours every single day to campus to get to class. College students often have lower non existent credit scores and are denied housing due to their lack of rental history and credit scores. This is the most impactful.

This is most impactful for our most vulnerable students, like first generation, low income students who often cannot rely on their parents or guardians to serve as cosigners or guarantee or guarantors for their rental applications. For example, I could not afford my apartment without my scholarship because the rent is over half my yearly income. And yet I also could not have applied. Or yeah, I also could have not applied without my parents signature, despite having the funds to pay for it.

At the UC alone, we already have an alarming rate of homelessness and housing insecurity among our students. With 8% of UC undergrads currently experiencing homelessness and far more experiencing housing insecurity. We know these numbers pale in comparison to the students at the California community colleges and the California State universities. Additionally, many college students have no way to build their credit while in college other than their on time rental payments, which they are already making.

Due to their age and lack of credit history, college students tend to have lower credit scores, which are much more difficult to build. Many people do not take out their first credit card till after college due to the fear of ruining their credit history, but all their on time rent payments throughout their college experience are currently doing nothing to build their credit scores.

This is why UCSA is proud to support AB 2747 which would allow Californians, including college students, to build the credit score using payments they're likely already making and help college students access housing through those credit scores. On behalf of UC students, urge you to vote aye on AP 2747.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2747?

Jim Lights, former board Member of the UC Student Association. But here today on behalf of the National Rental Home Council, we do not have an official position yet, but we can kind of like this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Cassie Mancini, on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you. So anyone here in opposition to AB 2747.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members again, Kareem Dreesi on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. Based on the amendments contained in the analysis, we do anticipate removing our opposition once those amendments are in print and really want to commend the author for his leadership on this measurement, which expands existing law while preserving key aspects of the negotiated agreement that was reached on SB 1157 back in 2020. And wish to also thank the Committee for their Diligent work on the Bill as well.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Debra Carlton with the California Apartment Association. We also appreciate Assemblymember Haney taking these amendments. And with that, we will be moving to a neutral position. Just so you know, we are talking with the Assembly Member about a delayed implementation. If the Governor signs this, we have to get forms ready and all that fun stuff. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to Committee. Is a motion or comments second? We have a motion and we have a second. Vice Chair Dixon.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Not to go back into ancient history and my life, but when I was in college and after college and I lived in Westwood and attended some classes at UCLA, postgraduate and I had four roommates, that brought the rent down.

In those types of situations, which are very common, I mean, that happens across all generations, how would that reporting system take place for all of the rent payers of the Department because that's what made it affordable for me to live in Westwood and walk to campus. So I just wonder how that circumstance. Because it is very common. How would that work?

That is a good question. I would assume that it would be from the person who's on the lease and who's making the payments. So. Yeah, that's a good question. I guess if all four people were on the lease and were making payments directly to the landlord and it was arranged that way, then they all could benefit from this. But it would be whoever's. Whoever's name the payments are being made in.

There's certainly some landlords may allow that kind of splitting up and direct payments to them which would then allow them all to pay.

Maybe this is something that could be looked at. I think that's very common. I mean, my daughter has lived with roommates through her college years as well. I mean, and that lowers the rent. I was very pleased about that because she was working and we were helping with the rent, but she had three other roommates and that helps.

Yeah, no, it's.

She was living in Berkeley, so in the UC system, so everybody shares apartments and lowers the rent to make it more affordable. So I would look at that because that would be an enhancement to help young people build their credit.

No, it's great. And I'll definitely talk with some of the folks here about that and how we could clarify that if they are making payments directly, they should benefit from this as well. And hopefully that opportunity is given to them.

Absolutely.

Thank you. Thank you Assemblymember Haney for bringing this forward. I know that a couple of you here are Members of the renters caucus and we know that rent can be more than a mortgage these days. So getting some recognition to be able to build credit is critically important. So would you like to close?

Yes. I think this is a win win and really appreciate the former opposition who worked with us on this and want to acknowledge Senator Bradford, who's led on this and this is an extension, certainly, of his work and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call on AB 2747.

Motions do pass as amended. [Roll Call]

Yeah. Okay, that Bill is out. And then our final Bill to be heard will be item 11, AB 3013 Maienschein. And we will have one additional item for vote only that after that. And then we'll go through all the bills whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much, Mister chair and Members, I'd like to begin by accepting the amendments as proposed in the analysis. AB 3013 authorizes a one year pilot program in 11 counties to study the use of remote court reporting. Accurate court records are critical to the judicial system, yet there is a growing shortage of court reporters.

While many court proceedings have been allowed to take place remotely, court reporters are required to be physically present in the courtroom in order to have the technology needed to produce an accurate record. AB 3013 allows courts to study the use of remote court reporting and report findings back to the Legislature to inform future policy decisions. Thank you. And I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister chair and Member Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California, we are the sponsors of this Bill and I'd like to thank Assembly Member Maienschein for authoring. I want to reiterate that the current procedures for remote proceedings allow for parties to appear remotely, but official court reporters must be physically present in court. This pilot program will would allow for official court reporters to take the record remotely in specified instances.

Our goal is to ensure that accurate, verbatim transcripts can be maintained remotely to hopefully inform a statewide model that would provide courts and employees more scheduling flexibility. I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of AB 3013.

Mister chair Members. Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, also in support.

Thank you, Mister chair Members. Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and associates representing the Orange County Employees Association and support.

Thank you. Is everyone here in opposition to AB 3013? Bring it back to Committee. Senator Reyes

I just appreciate that those who are actually doing the work are here in support of the Bill. In fact, sponsoring it. It makes a difference. It means that you're putting together legislation that protects our workers, too. Thank you. With that, I would move the Bill.

Okay, we have a motion a second. Yes. And thank you, Simon, for bringing this forward. I know that over the years, sponsors have kind of been guarding the sanctity, for lack of a better way of putting it, of the records and the courts.

And so the fact that they were venturing in and doing it in a cautious way, I think is absolutely appropriate, and we'll have the opportunity now to take a look at it and see what the results are while ensuring that the court record is credible and protected. With that, would you like to close? Yeah.

Thank you very much. And I would respectfully request, and I vote thank you.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

We are adjourned.