Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

So we are going to announce the bills that are on the consent calendar. And I'm going to note that file item number four, AB 2898 by Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo, has been pulled from the consent calendar and will actually be heard today. So the following 14 bills are on the consent calendar. They are as follows.

File item number one, AB 1880, by Assemblymember Alanis. File item number two, AB 2011, by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan. File item number three, AB 2484, by Assemblymember Bryan. File item number five, AB 375, by Assemblymember Davies. File item number six, AB 1966, by Assemblymember Davies.

File item number seven, AB 1879, by Assemblymember Gipson. File item number eight, AB 1903, by Assemblymember Maienschein. File number nine, AB 1916, by Assemblymember Maienschein, with amendments. File number 10, AB 2397, by Assemblymember Maienschein. File number 11, AB 1852, by Assemblymember Pacheco. File item number 12, AB 2024, by Assemblymember Pacheco.

File item number 13, AB 661, by Assemblymember Joe Patterson. File item number 14, AB 1974, by Assemblymember Petrie-Norris. File number 17, AB 1824, by Assemblymember Valencia. That concludes the-- Let me see if that concludes. That concludes the items that are on the consent calendar.

We do encourage folks to appear here as quickly as they can, but we're going to proceed as a-- If we have an author, we're going to proceed as a Subcommittee. I'm sorry.

Lacking members of the Assembly, I'm going to present SB 3072 by Assemblymember Petrie-Norris. And I want to--

Oh, here we have one, Assemblymember Carrillo. And I also want to welcome Senator Roth here. Senator Roth, we're pleased to have you here once again. Okay, Assemblymember Carrillo, you have file item number four, AB 2898. That was previously on the consent counter. It no longer is. Thank you for being here. Floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm proud to present Assembly Bill 28 to 98. My priorities in my legislative packets have always included affordable housing and climate justice as key pillars. AB 2898 is a governor's office requested bill making a minority technical change to AB 1317, the unbundling parking law from last year that was signed into law. AB 1317 requires owners of new multifamily properties of 16 units or more in 10 counties to lease parking as separate and optional expenses to their tenants.

This bill exempts any residential unit leased to a tenant who received a federal housing choice voucher, including a federal veterans affordable affairs supportive housing voucher from the unbundling parking law. After AB 1317 passed the Legislature, the governor's office highlighted the need to exempt voucher holders giving federal regulations. Public housing authorities determine a payment standard, the amount generally needed to rent a moderately priced dwelling in the local housing market. The payment standard determines how much assistance a federal housing choice voucher receives.

PHAs don't include unbundled costs in the payment standard, so voucher holders pay for these expenses out of pocket. This additional expense is an issue for federal housing choice voucher recipients who are especially financially strained and whose parking costs would otherwise be covered by their voucher. Unbundled parking lot already exempts various affordable housing types to avoid complicating affordable housing financing.

We are working with our sponsors from last year, Streets for All and SPUR additionally Livable California, the only remaining opposition to AB 1317 when the bill passed out of the Legislature, supports this policy, AB 2898. Respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Witnesses as well, let me go over the preliminary issues here before we get to the witnesses in support and in opposition. We're going to use the usual procedure here in Senate Judiciary Committee whereby we have two witnesses who will testify, if so desired, in support, two primary witnesses. Each will be afforded two minutes.

After the primary witness in support testify, I'll invite other supporters to state their name, their affiliation, and their position. And that's it. Name, affiliation, position, and we'll do the same thing for the opposition. Each of the two primary witnesses in opposition, we'll have two minutes to testify, and then we'll take others who may state their name in their position, in their affiliation, in what we term as me-too testimony.

If you wish to provide further information on any Bill, you can submit it to the Committee using one of the methods described on the Judiciary Committee's website. All right, now let's turn to witnesses on Assemblymember Carrillo's AB 2898. If you're a witness in support, please approach the microphone. I see no one approaching the microphone.

If you are a witness or you wish to testify in opposition, please approach the microphone. I see no one approaching the microphone. All right, let's bring it back to committee. And, oh, by the way, we're just lacking one member to form a quorum. We have 100% of the Republicans here, by the way. Yes. All right.

I'll vote twice if you want.

Let me run that by the committee. So. All right, thank you, Senator Niello. Senator Ashby is present. So I apologize, Senator Carrillo. We're going to go ahead and form a quorum here, establish a quorum before we turn it over to the committee. Madam.

[Roll Call]

All right, we have a quorum. Thank you, Miss Buxton. We have a quorum. Senator Ashby.

Thank you. And sorry I'm a little out of breath. Tried to run. Appreciate it. Assemblywoman, you made the best effort ever to try to get in touch with me before this, so I'm sorry we're having this conversation from the dais. We tried. I'll give us both an A plus for effort on trying.

The original, this bill in front of us today is an easy. Yes, the original bill that this bill today is helping to clarify. I had concerns with, and the reason I have concerns is because it is a bill that takes 10 counties and creates one set of rules and regulations for them and leaves the other 48 with something different.

The reason I think this is problematic is because either your bill is going to be brilliant and work swimmingly for those 10 counties, and then 48 counties are going to be left out of that, or it's not going to work, and the 10 counties are going to have higher rates than the other 48 counties.

Either way, I want your bill to be reviewed, because if it's working great for the 10 counties, then I want all 58 counties to benefit. And if it's not working for the 10 counties, which includes all million of my constituents, then I don't want it to stick with them and have a benefit be to the other 48 counties.

And so I talked to you a little bit about this last year, but it was really late in the process, and what I would like to ask you to do. Obviously, there's nothing you can do on this committee here, but I'd like to ask you to consider, and I think it would be in your own best interest, that when this goes to appropriations next, that you ask that an audit be done on your bill in a couple years out so that they can review whether or not it's working.

Because if it is working, it ought to be statewide policy. And if it is not working. We should not be handicapping thusly making rents higher in 10 counties because of a policy that's in place. So I'm asking you, I'm going to vote for your bill today, no matter what you do, but I'm going to ask you to please consider making that author amendment in appropriations. And I'd be happy to help with you in any way. I am on appropriations. I'd be happy to talk, talk to you about it there, too. Thank you.

All right, so, Assemblymember Carrillo, would you like to respond now or in your close?

I can respond to my close is fine.

All right, thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing no other questions or comments, is there? All right, Senator Wilk moves the bill. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members;. And Senator, appreciate our due diligence in trying to connect with each other given the short notice. We considered in AB 1317, which was already signed into law, which related to this policy, but not this policy entirely, about a statewide opportunity to do this bill statewide.

In fact, it's actually what the California Apartment Association had talked to us about as well. And we also discussed the opportunity for a census or a study policy related to looking at this Bill. And we decided to move forward in a very different direction on AB 1317. So unfortunately, we'll not be considering that opportunity.

And appropriations, especially given the budget situation that the state finds itself in looking at a study, will potentially incur incredible cost to AB 1317 that I think right now, unfortunately, the state may not be in a opportunity to be able to move forward. So. And the only reason why I say that not at this time, is because the bill that you have in front of you is not the policy for AB 1317.

The bill that you have in front of you is related to helping ensure that individuals with vouchers have an opportunity to receive the help and support they need and that veterans aren't having to double pay for parking in situations where unbundled parking has already been established. So totally appreciate the conversation and support.

I think as we move forward and we look at other policies related to parking, maybe there's some other efforts that can be made, but want to be transparent in our process and what was negotiated in AB 1317, which was already signed into law, so respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, there's been a motion by Senator Wilk. You've closed. So, madam. Miss Buxton, will you call the roll, please?

[Roll Call]

Six zero. We'll put that on call. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other members of the Assembly here, I'm going to present AB 3072, authored by Assemblymember Petrie-Norris, who could not be here today. Turn the gavel over to the Vice Chair. Thank you, Senator Wilk.

Okay. Up next is item 15, AB 3072, by Assemblywoman Petrie-Norris. It's going to be presented by our esteemed chair and with the recommendation of due pass as amended. Senator, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 3072 on behalf of Assemblymember Petrie-Norris, to help keep kids safe during custody battles. The author would like to accept the Committee's amendments and illustrate under current law, generally, limits exist when a court can make an ex parte custody order, except for when the child where it's been demonstrated that there's an immediate risk of harm to the child. AB 3072 does two things.

First, it simply requires that when a court is determining if there's a risk of immediate harm, they should consider a parent's illegal access to firearms. Second, the bill authorizes the court to consider whether the best interests of the child are better served by limiting or suspending visitation, by requiring virtual visitation.

This will help prevent violence and keep children safe during custody battles. With me here is Ms. Minor on behalf of Giffords.

Erin Niemela actually, today, on behalf of Giffords, we're a national gun violence protection organization. And basically, as Mister Chair said, during ex parte custody orders, there's always the risk that there is domestic violence. And so what this bill does is it requires a court to consider a parent's illegal access to firearms.

In addition to that, it authorizes a court to consider whether limiting or suspending visitation or requiring virtual visitation is better for the child safety.

Thank you. Anybody else in the room that wants to provide me-too testimony? Come on up, state your name, organization, if any, and that you strongly support the bill.

Melissa Knight-Fine, Legislative Coalition to Prevent Child Abuse, and we're in strong support.

Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing no one else in the room. Anyone here in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, pull back to Committee for questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none, I do have one question. So in your opening, you didn't mention about how hard the Judiciary Committee staff worked on this bill, so.

The answer to that question is that judiciary staff always works very hard on every bill.

Okay, very good. So with that, go ahead and-- go ahead and close.

I urge an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. With that, can we call the roll? Oh, we don't even have a motion yet. Senator Ashby, thank you. I know we don't have Senator Archuleta here to help us, so.

Item number 15, measure AB 3072, due pass as amended. [Roll Call]

Okay, that's six to zero, and we will leave it open for members to add on. With that, happily turn the gavel back over to the Chair.

So moved by Wilk.

All right, Senator Wilk moves the consent calendar. Secretary, would you call the roll?

Consent calendar to be adopted. [Roll call]

All right, what's the vote? 6-0, we'll put that on call. Okay, we have two more bills. One by Assemblymember Rendon, item number 16. And another by Assemblymember Weber, item number 18, AB 1815.

Senator Laird, thank you for your graciousness in accepting the role of presenter on item number 16, AB 2399, authored by Assembly Member Rendon. So thank you, Senator Laird. I know you've had a good 12 seconds to prepare. Go ahead.

I was going to say, after lengthy contemplation, I am pleased to present AB 2399 that would increase awareness about the mobile home protection, the Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program by requiring that mobile home tenants receive an annual notice outlining the legal services available.

Mobile home residents often do not know what rights they have under this and what exists to protect them against things like rent increases without notice and illegal eviction. And the irony is, now that I am contemplating this bill, I wrote the latest bill that was enacted into law relating to the mobile home rent control restrictions. And this all is despite the program being funded by contributions from mobile home tenants themselves. Every year, an annual notice is issued to mobile home tenants outlining their rights, the responsibility of the park owners.

This would add a provision to that annual notice explaining what the Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program is, how it protects the rights of mobile home tenants, and information on how to utilize the program. Here to speak in support of the bill is Michelle... I believe it's Manning... With the Golden State Manufactured Homeowners League. And at the appropriate time, I would ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon. Michelle Moning... Close though... With the Golden State Mobile Home Manufacturers Owners League in support. The Department of Housing and Community Development released their annual report in March of 2023. That report included data on the Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program that was required to be published under the law that we worked with Governor Brown on back in 2018. The MRLPP is a program that we pay for to protect ourselves from park owners who violate the Mobilehome Residency Law.

The 2023 HCD report highlighted the need for outreach to mobile homeowners regarding the Mobilehome Residency Law Protection Program. Ensuring that mobile home residents receive notice of the MRLPP is a critical first step to this outreach. The annual notice would be distributed along with other annual notices already required by existing law. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Others in support of AB 2399? Seeing no one approaching. Now, let's turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2399, please come forward. Thank you, Mr. Govenar. Floor is yours.

Andrew Govenar on behalf of WMA, respectfully oppose the measure. We created the top 10 list with Senator, actually, Assemblywoman Toni Atkins to provide abbreviated lists for residents to understand what their rights are under the MRL. We did that to create a top 10, so you have a succinct list by adding another one.

We'd actually have other ideas that we'd like to add to the list, and the whole point was not to continue to grow it. We already have to notice the MLRPP when we charge residents for the $10. And just so you know, over 95% of the complaints received have proved to be invalidated.

By HCD's own standards, the program is 95% below expectations. They've received 5000 complaints over the past three years. They expected to actually receive over 4000 complaints to refer on to an LSP. Furthermore, one third of the complaints listed are actually from the top 10 list. So we believe that this bill is actually unnecessary at this point.

And as a matter of fact, we believe the program should be sunsetted in two years. And then finally, why are we adding something to a list for a bill that's actually sunsetting in two years, for which, if the program's not renewed, we'll simply then have to redo the list and remove the point. So for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your opposition. Thank you.

All right, anyone else in opposition? Let me ask a quick question, Mr. Govenar. Mr. Govenar, is the entire bill sunsetting in two years? The entire law.

The MLRPP program is. They just did a three year extension. So the entire program goes away.

Thank you. Okay. Questions by Committee Members? Yes, Senator Niello.

Because Senator Laird was just pressed into duty, I'm not going to ask probing questions, but it just seems to me, the arguments that the proposal is really not needed and effective as things stand now for only a year, it's just an example of a bill that really doesn't need to be imposed.

Senator Laird, would you like to respond or would you like your witness to respond, or would you like to just...

I'll handle it in the close.

All right, thank you. Okay, other questions or comments? Seeing no other questions or comments, is there a motion? Senator Wahab moves the bill. All right, would you like to close?

Thank you. And I would say to my mispronunciation of my own witness's name, the way her name is pronounced is the way Senator Monning's name was mispronounced for eight years. So I appreciate the circular part of that discussion. And one very flip way to respond to one of the things is the author is terming out, and he won't be here in the next two years, and he's going to get this done before he leaves. And I think that's a very significant point.

And Mr. Govenar, who I've had very friendly exchanges with on my mobile home bills, he very carefully didn't say the number of claims that were disallowed or the complaints were disallowed because 5% were allowed. And that is a very significant number when you look at the number as a raw number. And so I think that the author will be more than willing to continue the discussions with the opponent. This is a needed bill, and I would ask for an aye vote.

All righty. Thank you. There has been a motion by Senator Wahab. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is item number 16, AB 2399, do pass. [Roll Call]

Five to one, we'll put that on call. All right, thank you. And I see Dr. Assembly Member Weber here for our final bill. So if you are listening or you're in another committee, this would be a good time to present yourself to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

All right. Dr. Weber.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Committee. First, I want to start by thanking the Committee Chair and staff for all of your work. I am here to present AB 1815, the expansion of the original CROWN Act of 2019.

We all remember that CROWN stands for Creating a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair. The CROWN Act prohibited hair discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Education Code. It was truly groundbreaking, as it was the first law in this nation to prohibit such discrimination.

AB 1815 will expand this law to include competitive sports from sports clubs or other organizations, ensuring that athletes in California will not be subject to discrimination and exclusion based on their natural hair.

Stories have unfortunately come to light from all over the nation, ranging from student athletes to employees within a professional setting being asked to change their natural hair. These are incredibly dehumanizing experiences.

Our hair is a symbol of who we are, and people deserve to show up at school, workplace, a Supreme Court, or even a state Legislature, or a young athlete at a sporting event as their whole selves.

These cases that we've seen from around the country are exactly why the California Reparations Task Force made this expansion one of their policy recommendations for the Legislature to extend the reach of the original CROWN Act to explicitly include competitive sports within California.

Specifically, 1815 will accomplish this by amending the Unruh Act in the same way, FIA and the Education Code were amended to include this definition of race, making sure that this is applied to all businesses, nonprofits, or non business organizations that are open to members of the public.

This bill is sponsored by the Western Center on Law and Poverty and supported by the California Federation of Teachers, Black Equity Collective, NAACP and others. With me here to speak and support is Brandon Greene from The Western Center on Law and Poverty. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Brandon Greene, Director of Policy Advocacy at The Western Center on Law and Poverty. We're in strong support of this bill, obviously, we are sponsors. Clearly, I'm a person with a natural hairstyle.

This bill is important because most kids are playing sports outside of the school context, including my own children who play competitive soccer and gymnastics. Kids at an early age get various messages about their identity, about their hair, et cetera. And so placing something in law that will protect them from discrimination is very important.

The current social, political climate that we're in, under which various things are under attack, render this bill both timely and necessary, and we ask for your vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, others in support?

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. Sam Nasher, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education, in support.

Alicia Benavidez, on behalf of ACLU California Action, in strong support.

On behalf of the Greater Sacramento Urban League, in strong support.

Thank you. Others in support? Seeing no one else approaching the microphone, let's now turn to the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 1815, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice, seeing no one approaching. All right, let's bring it back to Committee. Senator Ashby has moved the bill. Okay. Discussion questions? Oh, yes, Senator Caballero.

I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I had the opportunity to see some videos posted online of some kids so that-- young kids that were vilified for their hair and made to cut it in ways that were really humiliating, and I think it's outrageous.

And so I will support the bill, but also say that there's some education that has to happen, and maybe that's what the biggest benefit of the bill would be that education process.

I agree. Thank you.

Thank you. Others? Seeing no one else. All right. The bill's been moved by Senator Ashby, would you like to close?

Yes. Again, I want to thank the Committee for all of your work and for allowing us to present the bill today. This bill is a black caucus priority, and it's also very personal to me.

I do also have two young boys who are very active in sports, and my oldest is growing his hair out so he can loc it like mine. So, you know, whether you have braids or locs or twists or curls, all forms of natural hair belong in all spaces without any alteration to meet anyone else's comfort level.

And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is item number 18, AB 1815, due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

All right, we're going to-- It's 8-0, we're going to put that on call. We're missing some members. In a moment, we're going to call the roll for a final time. I see Assemblymembers Bryan here and Jones-Sawyer. Thank you for joining us today. Are you here for moral support? Okay. All right.

Well, we all feel supported, so thank you. All right, we're going to wait just a moment or two. We are missing members who are in other committees. Actually, you know what? Let's do this. Let's call the roll right now for those that are here, and then we'll wait again.

All right, so, Madam Secretary, please call the roll on the bills that are currently on call.

Starting with consent calendar to be adopted. [Roll call]

10-0, missing one member. We'll put that back on call. All right, next bill.

Item number four, AB 2898, due pass. [Roll call]

10-0, we'll put that back on call.

Item number 15, AB 3072, due pass as amended. Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

10-0, we're gonna put that back on call.

Item number 16, AB 2399, due pass. Chair voting aye. [Roll call]

Okay, let's do this again. Well, let's call the roll one more time on this bill.

Okay, item number 16, AB 2399. [Roll call]

Eight to one, we're going to put that back on call. All right. All right, last bill.

Item number 18, AB 1815, action due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

All right, 9-0, we're going to put that back on call. I think that concludes our business. We're waiting for one more member. Thank you, members. All right, thank you. We're awaiting just one more member.

We're going to open the roll.

Item number 16, AB 2399, due pass. [Roll call]

Eight to two, we're going to put that back on call. I think that concludes-- Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, go ahead. Item number 18.

Item number 18, AB 1815, due pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

10-0. Okay, we're putting that back on call. So we're going to take a brief break here, and then we will reconvene when the final member of the Committee has an opportunity to present themselves.

All right, let's open up the roll here and call the roll one final time.

All right, consent calendar to be adopted. [Roll call]

11-0, the consent calendar is adopted.

Item number four, AB 2898, due pass. [Roll call]

11-0, bill's out.

Item number 15, AB 3072, due pass as amended. [Roll call]

11-0, bill's out.

Item number 16, AB 2399, due pass. [Roll call]

9-2, bill's out.

Item number 18, AB 1815, due pass to the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

11-0, bill is out. Okay, we are done. We are concluded today. We'll reconvene next week for a little lengthier hearing. So, all right. Thank you. Adjourned.