Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Alright. We'll go ahead and begin as a subcommittee, starting with presentation only on file item 10, AB 2584, Assembly Member Flora.

Well, good morning. Yeah. Happy Judicial Committee. 0 900. It's a party. So I just wanna thank the Chair and the Member for being here. And obviously, the committee staff. I know this bill was a challenge to kind of get to a place. And I've talked to Chair last night. We certainly understand this presentation only.

But John came up, thankfully, to kinda testify on why we feel that this bill is important and why this bill needs maybe a little bit more work, a little bit more understanding, and certainly needs time. And so that's sort of what we wanna do today is just sort of give our opinion on why we wanna continue to work on this and look forward to reintroducing next year. Obviously, end of a two year session, we'll start over again.

But short version is AB 2584 amends the Civil Code Section 50 to reinforce civil immunity for those who lawfully defend themselves. And honestly, I'm just gonna turn over to John. You may know John from the UFC. Here to kinda testify and just kinda get his thoughts. And quite frankly, we'd love to hear from you, Members, on just kind of concerns, and maybe John can help kind of shed a little more light on this particular issue. So, John?

Well, first off, I wanna introduce myself. My name is John McCarthy, and I am part of the mixed martial arts world. I've been part of that since the very beginning. But I was also a police officer in Los Angeles for 23 years, and I was an instructor in Los Angeles. And when I when I read the bill 2584, there's a lot of things in here that I learned by being the instructor.

I taught deadly force. I taught use of force for the Los Angeles Police Department. And one of the things that you learn is the way people actually look and do things. A lot of it's based upon their background and the way they were raised, the way they came up. But a lot of it is an uncertainty of can I do that or am I gonna get in trouble?

You're gonna have situations where all of us have family members that, you know, are out in public at times and things have happened. You know, good things, bad things. But I always want you to put yourself in the position of one of your family members, your mother, your father, your wife, your son, your daughter is in a position where someone has decided that they're gonna be their abuser. They're gonna be their attacker. They're gonna be, they're gonna make them the victim.

What is it that you want the average citizen to do? Do you want them to stand there and watch? Do you want them to stand there and do nothing? I'm gonna tell you right now just based upon my experience in the martial arts world and training to do things, there's about 10 to 15% of the people that it does not matter what law you make. They're gonna do what they think is right.

They're gonna protect that person. They're gonna do something to stop the aggressor because in their heart that's the way that they believe is the right thing for them to do. You're gonna have about 75% that are gonna be concerned about, am I gonna get in trouble? Is this gonna cause a negative effect on my life? And with that, you have hesitation.

And with hesitation, you can have people get seriously hurt. You're also gonna have about 10 to 15%, it doesn't matter what law we give them to establish that they are safe in this situation. They're not gonna do anything. But that 75% that you're dealing with is huge.

You want people to understand that the state of California wants them to do what's right for their fellow citizens. And simply by, and this is only civil. Simply by taking a civil liability away, if they do the right thing and it's established that they follow the law and do the right thing, that they cannot civilly be, you know, gone after, let's say. It's the right thing to do. We want our citizens.

I want I want someone if my daughter's out there, my son's out there, I want them to step up for him. I don't want them to pick up their phone and start filming. This is a simple bill. This is the right bill. It's the right thing that we want the citizens of California to do.

And I look at it with all of my background in martial arts and fighting and stuff. I don't believe in violence. I believe in sport, but violence on the street has no place. But we do want our people to do something if they see it.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2584? We'll put a microphone there and you can feel free to identify yourself.

Well, Mr. Chairman, some of you know me as the executive officer...

Is the microphone on? Okay. Get a little closer up here.

Okay, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some of you guys know me as the executive officer of the Athletic Commission. I'm not here in that capacity. But, you know, I was a former fighter and trained every day, trained last night. And I believe that this bill makes a lot of sense, and that's why I'm supportive of this bill, sir.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2584? Bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments? I would just say, well, first of all, I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward, and I did want to have the opportunity to have the have it presented and to have our witness who has great expertise to be able to share your thoughts. Because I think this is, you know, and this is something that, you know, went to Public Safety, had some dramatic amends.

And, of course, over the last few weeks, we've had pretty high volume of bills coming through here. And I think that we just at this point, I think I think it would benefit from more time for us to have more conversation, definitely to get more input from those that have expertise. And I'll and I will say this, at least in my experience and world experience, those that are highly trained are the least violent.

And it when, you know, they are the ones that will use violence as a last resort because they know what that means when they actually do use violence. And so I don't... I think that it is a precarious situation that we're putting highly trained folks into when they are especially trained and yet have the right to defend themselves or their loved ones just like anyone else does.

And that is and that's I think part of where we're and we had a lot of conversation with our committee consultants on this. And part of the concern is that we do have very strong self defense laws that have been in place for a century and a half. And there's a worry of of creating confusion into that, and that was part of the reason why there was hesitance from my part on this bill.

That being said, I do want the opportunity. You know, we're gonna have the opportunity, and I've worked with the Assembly Member Flora for many years now. And I know he takes, you know, the work very seriously. I think there'll be opportunities for us to have further conversations. Okay.

Well, you've identified a population that is concerned. There's definitely folks that take advantage of of that population as well. We've seen this happen in some instances. You know, what can be done to recognize it and allow for them to be able to protect themselves. I, you know, sitting here today, think our self defense laws, our civil laws are good enough.

If they're not, let's have that conversation. If there are other things that need to be done, let's have that conversation. And that's something that we're fully open to. The committee staff is fully open to continuing those conversations. And, you know, I really appreciate you taking the time to be here and provide your input. But more importantly, further conversations will be had, and want you to be part of those as well. Would you like to close?

No. I appreciate that, Chair. Obviously, John comes with a tremendous amount of expertise in coming out of the public safety world. You know, we have good samaritan laws on the books. You know, that if somebody's acting within their training, within their scope of practice, they can't be held liable for that.

And I think there's a conversation that we could kind of extend that into this realm as well on personal protection. So I just appreciate the committee staff, yourself, and this, you know, continuous conversation because it is. It is not an easy conversation. It's little bit complicated. It's a little nuanced. But I think there is a pathway, especially if we kinda look at it through the lens of good samaritan laws.

We don't want, and John said it, we don't need violence on the streets. That's not what we're advocating for at all. But we also need protections for those who lawfully defend themselves. So I appreciate the time, appreciate the committee, appreciate the Members, and just yeah. When the time is right, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Assembly Member Flora. I appreciate it. Thank you, sir. But we'll move on to file item one, AB 1684, Assembly Member Ward.

Well, thank you, and, good morning, mister Chair and Members.

I wanna thank you for the opportunity to present AB1684, the HOA air conditioning access, bill, and for your thoughtful engagement with this bill. AB1684 prohibits a homeowners association from restricting a homeowner's ability to install, use, or replace a home cooling system which complies with local laws and building codes.

Today, as you know, heat waves are some of the deadliest kinds of extreme weather in The United States with children, seniors, and people with respiratory illnesses being particularly vulnerable to heat related illness and mortality. Studies have shown that working home air conditioning is the number one protective factor against heat related mortality. Approximately sixty five percent of Californians, who are homeowners belong to an HOA, some of which restrict the kind of cooling system that a homeowner can install.

This poses a concerning barrier to heat protection for the varied health and financial needs of California families. Homeowners should not have to pursue legal action to secure the cooling system of their choice. Now Now, this idea for the bill originated from a constituent who faced an onerous process to install a system of his choice. Because he was unable to travel from San Diego as a witness, he shared the following statement to read for you today.

A member of my household is particularly susceptible to heat, which makes reliable cooling a health and safety necessity.

My HOA initially allowed only the use of a portable air conditioner in my home. However, the available portable units did not properly fit my windows and were extremely energy inefficient. Compounding the issue, I was prohibited from modifying my windows to accommodate the equipment. Ultimately, I was required to retain legal counsel to obtain permission to install a mini split air conditioning system so that my household's cooling needs could be safely met.

The mini split system is substantially more energy efficient, requires no window modification, and effectively maintains safe indoor temperatures.

No family should be denied access to an air conditioning system that best meets their health, safety, and energy needs. And while I was ultimately able to secure professional installation and legal assistance, doing so required significant time, expense, and stress simply to install an efficient and reasonable cooling system. I hope my experience demonstrates why AB1684 is an important step toward preventing other families from enduring similar hardship. And with that, mister chair and members, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB1684?

Good morning, mister Chair and Members. Vince Wertmaja with FC California's first CCN support.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. Freddy Quintana on behalf of the California Partner Association in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB1684?

Good morning, mister Chair, Members of the Committee. Louis Brown here today on behalf of Community Associations Institute, California Legislative Action Committee. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill and have been working with the author's office. A couple issues is that throughout the Davis Sterling Act, there are a variety of examples where an owner can have access to the common area and the association is allowed to provide reasonable restrictions to that to cover the association.

In this instance, what we're talking about is access to a window or access to a wall that the owner does not own.

It's the association's property. And so we believe that working with the association, we should have some opportunity to work with those owners in order to get to the point where they can have access to an air conditioner. We do not disagree with the the author that homeowners, condominium owners should have access to an air conditioning unit.

But we do believe there needs to be some opportunity for the association to have some say in how that looks so that we can address these issues and protect the property. In some of the buildings that we have in the state of California, one homeowner could possibly have the air conditioning unit they want.

But if all of them have access to it, we may not have the power available or the wiring available to actually provide for that. And so we just think that there needs to be a little bit more, opportunity for us to have a give and take on this reasonable time frames, all of that to be provided for, but just so that we're protecting the association as a whole while we're looking out for the best interest of our owner man members. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB1684?

Hi. David Bullock of the SSP Alliance from San Fernando Valley. We are actually in support of this bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Bring it back to committee. Any questions or comments?

Assembly member Connolly.

Yeah. I want to just say, appreciate the author's work on this. You may know I ran a similar bill in the mobile home park space. I think it's a really important issue. Sounds like there's some ongoing work.

Would be happy to be added as a co author. Yeah. And I'll make a motion.

Thank you. We don't form yet, but almost almost it. Thank you. But we have a lot of enthusiasm apparently. Any other questions or comments?

Yeah. I also do wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I think, unfortunately, having a cooling system now in in many parts of California has become mandatory and has become a health and safety issue. And also, unfortunately, there are certainly occasions where HOAs can, you know, create some obstacles to be able to do things even if it's where logical reasons. I do think that there's up end of the sounds that there's conversations going on, timelines, what have you.

But I think that right now, this is more important than ever. And so certainly support it. I'd like to add as a co author. Would you like to close?

Thank you, mister Chair. And when the time is right, I really appreciate the offer for co authorships. And you're absolutely right. I put that. It is unfortunate.

I think about thirty years ago that many of our communities, you just didn't need air conditioning because it was just something that, you know, we had California breeze and all was well. That we have those extreme heat days right now pretty much across the entire state, that really makes it a requirement for somebody to live safely and comfortably in their home, that they have this as an opportunity.

And any barriers that are in that way, we should be thoughtful, to make sure are not present. I would affirm as well that, you know, we have accepted amendments from CAI as well to make sure that a homeowner would be responsible for any damage that incurred to any kind of a common area through the installation or removal of such of a system.

And I wanna thank the committee staff as well for your thoughtful, improvements as well that are gonna, be able to help, to make sure that we are, again, clarifying that homeowner would be, in compliance with all state and local building codes.

That should also take care of some of the electricity concerns and other permitting related issues. So to any extent, this is still a work in profit progress. My office door is open, but we think we are, you know, hitting the the nail on the head pretty well here. And with that, I respectfully request your eye vote. Vote. Alright. Thank you. And we'll get to that as soon as we can. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. And we'll get to that as soon as we can. Thank you. And we'll get to that as soon as we can. Thank you.

Up next, File Item Two: AB 1892: Assembly Member Davies. We're going through our run of HOA bills here.

Yeah, that's right.

So, we'll call it HOA Tuesday.

You're looking at a woman that served 10 years on her HOA, and the only way I got off was to run for Assembly in 2020.

Yes. Much far-- much less painful being in the Assembly than on HOA Board.

I've been to every meeting. You know, when that door opens up, you know they're not there to say, hey, great job.

Assembly Member Davies, before we start it, can we-- I'd like to establish a quorum so we can actually have motions put forward.

[Roll call].

All right. You may begin.

Alright. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Today, I'm here to present AB 1892. We'd like to start off by thanking committee staff for working with my staff on this bill. Members, AB 1892 is a common sense measure meant to clarify three provisions, the Davis Sterling Act related to HOAs.

First, the bill clarifies it is the duty of the HOA to repair and replace utility services to a common area, including gas, heat, water, or electrical services when the interruption of service begins. Second, clarifies and aligns HOA election nomination notices with all of HOA notices of thirty days. Lastly, it requires those seeking to vote electronically in an HOA election get their ballots no less than thirty days before the election. That's it, members. That's the bill.

It's essential. It's a technical cleanup measure and has no opposition. This is industry supported on both sides. With me here to testify on behalf of the sponsors is Louis Brown, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Louis Brown on behalf of Community Associations Institute. The author presented the bill very well. I'm here to answer any questions if you have them.

Thank you.

Thank you. And Assemblymember Davies, do you accept the amendments?

I certainly do.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1892?

David Bolog, SFA Alliance, and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition AB 1892? Bring back to committee. Is there a motion?

We have a motion second. Any further question or comment? Thank you, Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Respectfully, ask an aye vote.

Thank you.

Motion is do pass as amended. [Roll Call]

Alright. That bill is out. Thank you.

Very much.

On to File Item Three: AB 2050: Assembly Member Caloza. As long as we don't hear another HOA bill. As long as it has nothing to do with HOAs, we're good. So what's this one about?

Well, put me in a tough spot, Mr. Chair. That was a leading comment. And I guess this is Mr. Brown's favorite committee as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Good morning. I'm here to present AB 2050 today. Also, I'd like to thank the committee consultants for their hard work on our bill. AB 2050 is a measured and thoughtful proposal aimed at promoting fairness and transparency for California residents living in common interest developments. See, I called it something different. Could also be known as HOAs.

Today, more than 13 million Californians live in 55,000 common interest developments. Condominiums continue to be an affordable option for first-time homebuyers. While we focus a considerable amount of our time in the Legislature on new housing, and rightfully so, we also cannot forget about our existing housing stock and how it's aging. More than 50% of the condominium associations in California are 20 years or older.

In my district alone, 70% of associations are more than 20 years old and 73% are condos, meaning that many communities are managing aging buildings that require significant, long-term maintenance.

Deferred maintenance can also create serious safety risk. Recent building failures across the country highlight the dangers of inadequate reserve funding and the importance of responsible long-term planning. Also, many lenders are now refusing to write mortgages for condos if the association has underfunded reserves. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac require an association to have a minimum of 10% in reserves and will increase that level to 15%, starting in 2027.

Current law requires associations to conduct reserve studies every three years to assess the cost of maintenance, repair, and replacement of the major components like roofs, elevators, balconies, and other structural elements.

However, there is no requirement to fund for reserves, which means that many associations are not prepared to address these issues when they happen. The absence of a required formula to fund reserves penalizes homeowners because the only remaining option to address these maintenance issues is a special assessment, which is neither fair nor compassionate. AB 2050 provides associations with a formula to achieve a sustainable level of funding and reserves. It also provides a ramp up of six years for them to get there.

Predictability and transparency are essential for a well-functioning marketplace by setting clear standards. AB 2050 reduces disputes and improves compliance. With me today to testify in support is Stacie Donnelly, Chair of the Community Associations Institute California Legislative Action Committee--that was a mouthful--and an expert in the field, and Louie Brown, Legislative Advocate for the Community Associations Institute.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I am Stacie Donnelly.

You can pull that-- yes. Go ahead and pull it towards you.

Is that better?

Yep.

Okay. Professionally, I'm the CFO of Condominium Financial Management located in Walnut Creek. We are sponsors of AB 2050 and thank Assembly Member Caloza for authoring this bill.

I wanna reiterate the important point that was already made that in law, we already require that a reserve study is prepared every three years. What is missing from the requirement is anything that requires funding for the study. AB 2050 fixes that. Adequate funding helps protect affordability and spreads the cost of ownership more equitably. It provides for a stable and gradual planned reserve funding over 30 years rather than surprise special assessments anytime a project is needed.

And I wanted to provide you a little snapshot of real numbers. So I reviewed my client financials last night, 157 of them, to let you know that of the 157 associations that we provide financial management services for, 32 of them had a special assessment in the year 2025. That's 20% of our client database, and that is a surprise special assessment for reserve projects that could have been planned for if they had funded according to their reserve studies. That represents 2,648 homes, and if you extrapolate that figure across the 13 million homeowners in California, that's 2.6 million homeowners.

Assembly Member Caloza discussed the importance of this bill relative to mortgage underwriters. That is an important point. It bears repeating because the impact limits homeowners' financing options. Insurance is another consideration. Insurance is a crisis in California, as we already know.

Insurance companies are looking at deferred maintenance and reserve funding-- inadequate funding of reserves as indicators of risk. We need a solution for the sustainability of this housing model. On behalf of our members and the millions of Californians who live in CIDs, including myself, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2050?

Hi. Vanessa Lugo, on behalf of California Bankers Association, in support of this measure.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2050? All right. We have a motion and a second. Any other questions or comments? Assembly Member Zbur.

I think it's a great bill. I'd love to be added as a co-author. I mean, one of the things that I think this bill-- I mean, this is clearly a consumer protection bill. I think a lot of times, folks that are buying condominiums or first-time homebuyers, you know, they get a stack of documents when they're buying the condo. So they-- you know, they don't have a way of assessing budgets and understanding whether there's deferred maintenance that's built up.

And then they buy these homes and they get hit with an assessment, and they don't have a lot of control over it because it's basically done by, you know, all of the homeowners, and some of these homeowners have more capacity than others, and you actually have folks that basically end up getting really squeezed. So I think this is something that is really important. It's really an important consumer protection provision, and just wanna thank you for bringing it. I would love to be added as a co-author. And I'd like to move the bill if someone hasn't done--

Do we already have a motion? Yeah. Thank you. Assembly Member Dixon?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is an important piece of legislation. I commend you for bringing it forward. I-- years ago, before I even was on their city council, I was on our Homeowner Association Board, and that was first time I'd been on an HOA Board, and the CC&Rs and all these issues were new to me.

But one thing I was very pleased about is the mandatory--by this own board's action--reserve account, fiduciary management to-- fiscally conservative fiduciary responsible for making sure the money is there for the planned project. So I think this is responsible management for the HOAs and to make sure that any kind of unforeseen expense or even planned expenses are adequately reserved for it, like any municipality would do by having a reserve account. So I commend you. I support it. I'd like to be a co-author. Thank you very much.

A lot of our Republican colleagues served on HOA Boards. That explains a lot. I'm just kidding. Just kidding. Just kidding. Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Chair and members. Be honored to have the additional co-authors from Assembly Member Dixon and my seatmate, Assembly Member Zbur. I think-- appreciate all the additional comments about the fiduciary responsibility of HOAs, the consumer protections in here, and with that-- also, my last bit here for this bill, I like to call this the HOA Rainy Day Fund. And so, respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Motion's do pass. [Roll call].

All right. That bill is out. Thank you. Don't go too far, Louie. This is Louie's day.

I am here to present a non-HOA bill. Good morning, chair and colleagues. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2106. I wanna start by sharing that I accept the committee's amendments and really offer deep gratitude for the work with me and my team on this bill. Happy to accept those amendments.

AB 2106 will provide additional protections to architects, professional engineers, and land surveyors. This bill modifies vetting requirements so that cases are properly reviewed before they can move forward in court. It requires that an impartial and qualified expert who understands California's unique standard of care diligently review each case. Current law requires what is known as a certificate of merit in order to file a lawsuit against a design professional.

This certificate indicates that the filer has consulted with an independent professional to confirm the potential negligence, ensuring that the court's time and resources are used prudently.

However, the certificate of merit does not require attorneys to consult with California-licensed professionals.

Right now, the law allows individuals who have no understanding of California's complex environmental regulations to advance weak or unfounded cases in California. These cases often impact jobs, small businesses, and can jeopardize reputations. California has a unique and complicated regulatory landscape, and only professionals licensed in California have the relevant experience and expertise required to understand any breach of our state's high standards. Additionally, 2106 will also extend the protections provided by the certificate of merit to landscape architects.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask a rec—an aye vote.

With me today to testify in support of the bill is Jerome Pandell, an attorney for the Design Professionals representing small businesses throughout California, as well as John Moffatt with the American Council of Engineering Companies of California.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jerome Pandell. As stated, I represent design professionals throughout the state of California, and I believe I actually represent firms in every single member's district on the committee. Not necessarily in disputes, thankfully. Most of the time, it's reviewing contracts, things of that nature, but they're building roads, homes, schools, commercial buildings all throughout the state of California and their—through their design work.

I want to provide a brief anecdote about a case I had right here in Sacramento County, thankfully all resolved. It involved just a minor car accident inside a new housing development. And in that particular case, after some negotiation with the plaintiff's attorney, who was actually representing the injured parties, they actually fully dismissed my civil engineering client, believing that there was no liability from a design perspective.

There was strong evidence that, in fact, the change made by a contractor during the construction phase is what may have contributed to the accident, to the extent there was any issue in the roadway at all. And, nonetheless, due to some out of state transportation engineer providing a certificate of merit to another party in the case, my client was dragged into that case for a total of three years before finally someone could reach a settlement.

And one of the things with architects and engineers, as you may be aware, we don't ask for a cap on damages. We don't ask for a shorter statute of limitations time. In fact, if we settle a case, that is resolve it and acknowledge any kind of negligence or liability, we actually have to report that to the state boards that police our profession. I'd like to say, unlike lawyers, architects, engineers, and landscape architects are willing to admit when they made a mistake or an error.

Wait a second. He's not—I change my recommend, I change my recommendation. That's stricken from the record.

Okay. Go ahead.

But I will say that they're the first ones to admit when they made a mistake and know they've done something wrong. And the, that humility is why it's important that we have licensed professionals when they're consulting on these cases to bring them in the first place, actually provide that information ahead of time so that they know ahead of time what liability they're likely to face.

So, with that, I would respectfully ask for the committee's support and happy to respond to any questions or comments about the litigation landscape.

Thank you. Yeah.

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

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2106?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Jason Ikerd on behalf of the California Council of the American Society of Landscape Architects. Very strong supporters of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Good morning. Valak Tang, on behalf of the following: Parex Consultants, Verdonis, WMH corporations, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2106? I thought, I thought Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan was coming to the microphone.

I was a bit worried myself.

Yeah. I thought she was. Okay. We'll bring it back to the committee for any questions, comments, or questions.

We have a motion and a second. And see, Assemblymember Patel, how fun we, we lawyers have in this committee?

You guys are having a really good time.

Would you like to close?

Yes. As the daughter of a civil engineer who worked in geotechnical engineering, I understand the integrity and the level of commitment that engineers and folks that working in the public construction sector bring to the work that they that they conduct, and wanna make sure that the complex landscape of regulatory environment that are that is here in California is attested to by those licensed in California. It's a no brainer.

I think this is a straight shot and really appreciate the committee's support and amendments and making sure that we could be where we are today. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Alright. That bill's out. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Garcia, that's file item five, AB 2145.

Right? Whenever whenever you're ready.

Alrighty.

Good morning, Mister chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2145, a bill that requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to conduct a study to assess the need and desire among seniors to downsize their homes. I want to thank the chair and committee, staff for all the work on this bill, and I do accept the committee amendments.

Some background, nearly 6,000,000 older adults are currently living in homes that are larger than they need at this stage in life, while many growing families remain in smaller spaces unable to find affordable larger options that meet their needs. Many seniors face rising property taxes, increasing maintenance costs, sharply higher insurance premiums given the ongoing insurance crisis, and escalating utility expenses.

As of now, higher mortgage rates have effective effectively locked in many older homeowners, preventing them from downsizing even when their current homes no longer meet their needs. As a result, seniors remain in homes that are too large, costly, or difficult to maintain. Younger families have fewer opportunities to purchase larger family sized homes, and housing inventory remains artificially constrained.

As we all know, our state is in a housing shortage and one of the largest has one of the largest concentrations of severely unaffordable housing in the nation. California is also on the cusp of an unprecedented demographic shift with projections indicating a dramatic increase in the older adult population by 2040.

My bill allows the legislator to become aware of the needs of our growing population of seniors and take the necessary steps to make the process and downsizing homes easier. And as my primary witness, I have Mister Harrison Linder from Leading Edge California.

Good morning, Chair and members. I will say that, Assembly member Garcia presented that very well. He described the issues facing older adults very well, and that's essentially the same thing that I had written down in my testimony.

So I'll go a little off the cuff here and just say that I think the result of this study will certainly be clear that financial barriers are a big part of what are preventing older adults who are living in overly large homes to downsize and make those available to young families who could use those homes more efficiently and safely, frankly.

I think it what's important also to possibly include in this study is what are the levers that the state can pull to actually help older adults do that?

I know the original intent of the bill was to allow mortgages to be transferred between properties. Some of the business community gave some feedback that was made it clear that that's not very feasible, but there's probably some other tools that are in the state's toolkit that could do this. So I would love to see that as part of this bill, have those business community members at the table.

And I'm happy to answer any particular questions any of you have about older adults and their needs and the greater landscape of housing for older adults in California.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2145? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2145?

Mister chair, members. Indira McDonald on behalf of the California Mortgage Bankers Association, We wanna thank the author and committee for the amendments noted in the analysis. We are pleased to remove opposition and move to a neutral position as proposed to be amended.

However, moving forward, we would like to suggest to the author to consider adding an amendment to ensure that with regard to the HCDs evaluation of transferring existing mortgages or their interest rates to new homes, this evaluation should be informed by mortgage industry stakeholder input. So we'd like to see amendment such as that added. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Naomi Padron on behalf of California's Credit Unions. We would echo the previous comments and with the recent amendments, we'll be removing our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. Alright. We'll bring it back to committee.

We already have a motion. Oh, we don't have a motion. So we have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

In the second, any questions or comments? Alright. Thank you, Assemblymember, we're working with our staff and with the opposition. I think, you know, this is a really important study.

I think that we all can recognize that there are a lot of folks. Some are our parents or grandparents or maybe some some of us one of these days soon are in these homes that, you know, it's hard to say they're stuck with because, you know, these are you know, they've gained a lot of property value, what have you, but it doesn't necessarily make financial or physical sense for them to move out of that home.

And so I think we do need to be creative because a lot of those homes are homes that they raise families in and could clearly be made available for a younger generation to do the same. And so I think that we do need to I think this study will be really helpful in us being more creative and figuring out what options might be available out there for us to think about. We always talk about creating new housing stock.

We gotta be creative and think about what our existing housing stock is and, you know, how suitable that is for the current folks living in it. And a lot of them live in it because they have no choice. Let's find out if we can begin more choices, especially to our seniors, that may appreciate that. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Mister chair. I appreciate your comments. And also wanna thank the committee as well as the opposition for bringing forward their concerns and and their expertise. And so I thank everyone, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Motions do pass as amended. Kalra?

Aye.

Kalra, aye. Bauer Kahan?

Aye.

Bauer Kahan, aye. Bryan? Connolly?

Aye.

Connolly, aye. Dixon?

No voting.

Harabedian?

Aye.

Harabedian, aye. Johnson?

No.

Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye. Papan?

Aye.

Aye.

Papan, aye. Sanchez? Lee? Zbur?

Aye.

Alright. That bill is out. Thank you.

Zbur, aye.

Up next, file item 6, AB2238, assembly member of Rubio who has two bills,6 and 7. As long as neither of them are HOA related, we're good. You weren't here earlier. You weren't here earlier.

Thanks so much.

It was a little running. We have a running joke going on here.

Yes. I was walking down. Yes. So thank you, mister Chair, madam Vice Chair, and Committee Members for giving me the opportunity to present AB2238. One of my 2 bills today.

And I want to point out that my children were quite impressed that my bills are number 6 and 7 on file. Very good. They are yes. 6, 7. I would first like to say that I will be taking the committee amendments to instead focus the bill on deterring attorneys from pursuing meritless litigation against mobile home park owners.

Nothing in this bill changes when or how a resident can sue the park owners. Instead, the bill places the responsibility of lawsuits, merits in the hands of the attorneys. If a failure to maintain lawsuit that has not that has no merit and the court dismisses the case, the attorney who filed filed it may be required to pay the park owner's legal fees in addition to a monetary penalty.

I'd like to introduce Chris Wysocki from the Western Manufacturing Housing Communities Association and Jason Eichert on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. Chris Wysocki with WMA, and I wanna thank the author for introducing AB2238. Over the last several years, failure to maintain lawsuits have increasingly grown across the state. And first, I wanna stress that AB2238 was never meant to take away a resident's ability to file a lawsuit against an owner of a mobile home park who fails to maintain their facilities.

The goal of this bill is to ensure the park owners can know why they are being sued and to provide an opportunity to fix the issues that have been identified.

Unfortunately, a few legal firms in the state have developed an entire business model on the current FTM statute. Here's how it basically works. The law firm identifies resident in the mobile home park who's willing to sign up for representation for the purposes of filing an FTM. The law firm then sends the park owner a form letter suggesting about 30 different topics to base a lawsuit on.

Some of the things on the form letter that you can find if you Google how to sue your mobile home park owner include the park's electrical system provides inadequate power, streets and driveways and pot have potholes and cracks.

The water in the jacuzzi is cold than others. Each of these instances have recently happened to WMA members. For the electrical system, the park is directly served by SMUD, and the park has nothing to do with the electricity in the park. For the residents having cracks in the park sidewalks, the park had no sidewalks. For the jacuzzi water being cold, the park didn't even have a hot tub or jacuzzi.

When the owner receives the letter, he turns it over to his attorney and contacts his insurance company. And more often than not, the insurance company takes the case and settles with a law firm to avoid a jury trial. After that, the insurance company either cancels the park's policy or increases premiums by over 300%. One park in Northern California received a letter with vague and ambiguous language making it impossible for the park to identify with any specificity.

His rates went from 21,000 to a year for 9,000,000 of coverage to a 106,000 a year for two millions of coverage.

And these and other mesh measures are some of the reasons that we're asking for an aye vote on 2238. Thank you, mister chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. Jason ikerd on behalf of the California Mobile Home Park Owners Alliance. The author and Mister Wysocki have said it all very well, so I'm gonna try hard not to say it all again, and.

Keep it brief. Just, you know, we have seen in our membership the same thing that WMA has articulated. The use of frivolous lawsuits to force settlements is on the rise, and, unfortunately, it's fruitful enough that people are continuing to do it. We support the bill in print. We think it's an excellent bill.

We really appreciate the author bringing it forward. But with the amendments proposed in committee, we we still think it's a very good bill, and we think it's a step in the right direction. You you you referred to meritless Litigation Assembly member, and I think when you read the amendments in this analysis, that's exactly what this is honed in on at this point.

We're talking about physical improvements that are not actually present in the park, services that are not under control of park owners or park managers, that seems entirely appropriate, and we respectfully urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB2238? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB2238?

Good morning, chair members. Brian Augusta on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and a number of other organizations that signed on to our letter. We're still evaluating the bill as amended by the committee. Appreciate your work in trying to wrangle in some of these issues. Listening to the sponsors talk about what the underlying issue is.

It's very clear that what we're talking about is something that goes to the professional responsibility of attorneys.

So we look forward to having continued conversations about how to narrow the bill in on that practice and whether there are other tools that we can use to rein that in while still maintaining the rights of homeowners to pursue meritorious litigation without risk to their financial well-being. And with that, we remain opposed, but looking forward to talking to the author, and sponsors as the bill moves. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB2238? We'll bring it back to the committee. Any, we have a motion and a second. Assemblymember Zbur.

I wanna thank the author for bringing the bill. I think the bill is a good bill and sort of focusing on, you know, on some of the root causes. I do say that, you know, one of the things we have to preserve is the ability for folks in the mobile home parks to To bring matory meritorious claims.

But it is an issue, I think, that you that you all have raised about whether or not the notices I mean, I you know, wouldn't have supported the bill if it was requiring extra notices and an extended time frame. So I think that's good about the amendments.

But I think there was a, you know, a valid issue about the notices that are being provided now that are, you know, in the end, don't give a mobile home park the ability to understand really what a real claim is and fix it. I mean, the goal should be that we are getting, you know, real problems at these mobile home parks fixed.

Yes.

And, you know, if you end up getting a notice that has 50 things on them and they're all very vague, you know, that's not something that actually leads to sort of getting these things fixed.

And in the long run, I think we have to think about these things as, you know, this is a housing option that is basically sort of at the lower end of sort of sort of home ownership, and it's sort of a hybrid because people actually own their mobile homes, but they're actually renting and leasing the space. So you know, if we're actually we have to I think, focus on making sure that this is really affordable in the long run.

And if what we're doing is we're actually having a bunch of frivolous lawsuits that result in, you know, increasing that least portion of what people are paying. It makes it harder for us to have affordable housing in that realm.

So, I think the amendments were good, I think, in addressing, I think, some of the concerns that the opposition had, we definitely have to make sure that valid lawsuits can be brought and we're not extending the amount of time. But I do think that there should be more work to be done in making notices more specific because I think that is something that is, you know, I think that's the core of what the problem is. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or Assemblymember Connolly?

Yeah. Quick one. And also wanted to thank the author. I kinda concur with my colleague's comments. It seems like it has been narrowed down.

And in fact, I think going to the opposition's point that we just heard, it looks like under the amendments, it would actually be the attorney's responsibility to pay the Right. Fees as well. I think that actually addresses that issue and kinda strikes the right balance that we're trying to achieve here. So I think I am gonna go forward and vote for this today. Thanks.

Any questions or comments? Yeah. And as I've said many times in mobile homes, it's a some of the members of Burrows Point, you know, mobile homes, in many cases, have become de facto affordable housing, especially for seniors. A lot of our kind of rebuilding days that we go to mobile home parks and it's an elderly couple or individual that's living in a mobile home park because they don't have the money to repair it.

That being said, I really wanna thank the author and her staff as well as the sponsors for really shifting the bill.

More certainly more so than narrowing it. I think some of the issues that were raised were untenable or at least uncomfortable for a lot of folks and I don't think it's the author's intent or the sponsor's intent to remove the ability for actual legitimate Claims from from mobile home residents.

And so that allowed the conversation to shift towards focusing on something that as Senator Zbur, myself, chair Umberg, have worked a lot on last couple years, which is reining in unscrupulous lawyers and non legitimate claims. And this, I think, falls right into that kind of package of bills now where we're focusing on the conduct of the lawyers that are just doing these mass filings. And so I think that and, you know, this has been shifted very recently.

And so if there is further commentary from opposition or from members as we move forward on the on the language and and tightening up or cleaning up the language, you know, this is we're just kind of getting going on that, but I think it's in a really good place right now. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. Well, first, thank you to the committee for all of their work. And, you know, I'm not an attorney, but, unfortunately, this reminds me I had a lawsuit, and we did what y'all call anti slap, which has deterred a lot of folks from suing. You know, even though I won the lawsuit, it still took some money to be able to fight it.

But in this case, you know, it's not fair to the point that the committee or, you know, the amendments make that they're unscrupulous lawsuits. They just, you know, found a cash cow.

And I think in the last 40, 50 years, we've been changing a lot of these laws, like a lot of the the disability, you know, spaces laws and all that to come to a point where the people that are harmed have the ability to sue and the ones and the attorneys are not taking advantage of some folks by just filing the frivolous lawsuit. So with that, I just thank you for all of the work and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Motions do pass as amended. Cora? Aye. Cora, Aye. Bara Kayhan?

Bara Kayhan, Aye. Brian Connolly? Yes. Connolly, Aye. Dixon?

Aye. Dixon, Aye. Harabedian? Hairabedian, Aye. Johnson?

Johnson, Aye. Pacheco. Aye.

Pacheco, Aye. Papan. Aye. Papan, Aye. Sanchez.

Lee, Ziburr. Aye. Ziburr, Aye.

Right. That goes out.

Thank you.

And then AB2439.

Number 7 from the 67.

Number 7. I have Excuse me.

I got a kick out of that, by the way.

Here we go. Here we go. And the the Ruby your hip, by the way.

Which one's 6 and which ones 7 out of the 2 of you? The Ruby alone fall partnership. There's a powerful tag team right here. Alright. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister chairman, Madam vice chair, and committee members for giving me the opportunity to present AB 2439. Imagine paying your HOA dues, it is an HOA bill, on time only to find out later your HOA quietly changed payment vendors never properly notified you and now you're facing late fees and even a lien on your home. That's not hypothetical. That's exactly what happened to me, and I will let my, yes, my co I always forget joint author, tell his story.

But if this is happening to myself and to my joint author, it's happening all through California.

And those folks don't have the ability that we do to elevate this issue to come before you and ask for some some relief. HOA members are also dealing with confusing, inconsistent, communications where basic information like, when and how to pay is unclear if changes are made. And just as troubling, we've seen unequal enforcement of rules like being cited for parking in front of your own home on a public street while others are not. These situations don't just create frustration.

They create financial harm, stress, and a breakdown of trust.

And in the spirit of affordability, this makes it unaffordable or more stressful for homeowners. If this bill adds accountability where that doesn't happen and it makes clear that HOAs cannot overreach onto public streets where homeowners have the right to park. For most people, their home is their largest investment and their sense of stability. They should not have to worry about surprising fees, unclear rules, or arbitrary enforcement. This bill ensures homeowners are treated with the basic respect and clarity they deserve.

AB 2439 is about protecting people from avoidable harm and restoring confidence in HOA governance. And with me today, I have my joint author, Mister Assembly member Josh Lowenthal.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister chair and and members. It gives me no joy to be here with my colleague, but at the same time, she's you know, hit the nail on the head. We're very fortunate to be in a position to elevate this issue that we're both going through right now. And in my case, this is for my home here in Sacramento.

Belong to an HOA, and I have my payment set up on autopay because as we all have such busy lives, we can't focus on all these monthly payments.

And as a matter of fact, that's what autopay is for. So we don't have to worry about those things. And I pride myself in making sure I have a top credit score, making sure everything is done. But I received in the mail a registered mail about a month ago, and the registered mail was from a collections agency.

And the collections agency had added on a few thousand dollars onto fees of an HOA that hadn't been paid since January 2025, which coincides with the exact time that the HOA switched to a different, autopay payment processor precisely.

That you would they would have seen my perfect payment record up until that moment and all of a sudden falling off. I received zero notification. I did receive a notification that went to my spam. I had found it later, announcing that they were gonna make the change, but I didn't receive it at the time. And subsequent to that, I've contacted the HOA management.

I insisted that they provide me with some sort of history of these notifications alerting me. They said that there were emails and letters sent. I asked for receipts of those things. They're they've produced zero emails. They have three letters that never were received, so I don't know how they're generating this mail into The US mail.

All of this would have been remedied if they had simply provided registered mail notifying us or made any, decent attempt to reach out to us and say, 'Hey we've made this switch. We see that your payments haven't gone through. Let's figure this out together'. And as a matter of fact, I even reached out to the HOA president who refused to have a conversation and will only have a hearing.

So I think that a small fix is warranted here if there are two assembly members going through this exact same pain and agony at the same time. That means there are countless in California undergoing the same thing. And the problem, mister chair members, is the amount of money that it takes to remedy this is a lot less than to litigate or to find other sort of remedy. And so what you have are Californians like us that just have to pay completely unnecessarily and without justice.

And with that, I respectfully ask for your ate vote.

And can I add to that? I did mention that a Lien was placed on my house. And once we took care of the late fees because I went to the HOA and they declined my, you know, hearing what I had to say. So we said, fine. Let's just pay it. So we paid, and then we get a notice that they released the lien on my house.

I was like, I didn't know I had a lien in my house in the first place. Right?

So even that, you know the the lien process and the collections process, I think, has to be elevated because it's literally placing folks in a position. Where if I had no idea there was a lien on my house and then the Assembly member, Lowenthal, had no idea he was sent to collections, again, what do regular Californians have, as a remedy especially those that are living paycheck to paycheck trying to make ends meet, who has $1,500, $2,000 extra to pay, you know, pay these fees.

But with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2439?

David Bullock makes a lot of sense in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2439?

Louie's been up here, like, 10 times today.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Doing well.

How are you guys?

We're good.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Tom Freeley. I'm the CEO of the California Association of Community Managers. I fully support and have shared the support of notification to homeowners upon change of assessments with the two authors, and I fully support-- a small change or a small addition under statute would be necessary.

However, we are still opposed to the bill unless it's amended specific at least to the return receipt requirement. Return receipt requirement is not a necessity. Certified mail under the USPS, you can obtain a tracking number for the certified mail. USPS will also notify you when that mail is delivered. And speaking directly with USPS, they have a very real concern on sending a community-wide return receipt request mailing.

That will take at least a super-- a staff member at least one day, if not entire week, depending on the size of the community to knock on every single door seeking a return receipt signature twice because, as we all know, a lot of people don't sign return receipt requests, so they're gonna have to do it twice. That's a massive amount of staffing need that the USPS has a very real concern on.

Not to mention, sending a certified letter is $5 compared to almost $9 for a return receipt. We simply ask that the bill be amended to remove the return receipt requirement, and I've asked for notification of their management companies so I can actually have a conversation with these people to try to educate them a little better on proper style of business.

Nice way of putting it.

Again, on my industry's behalf-- I'm so sorry. Thank you all.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, Louie Brown, here today on behalf of the Community Associations Institute. How lucky are we to have this not happen to one member, but two members of the California State Assembly.

And-- but with that, we are having active conversations with the authors of the bill. I do agree with Mr. Freeley in that-- and our association also agrees there needs to be notice when this happens. And obviously, when Davis-Stirling was written, we didn't have things like automatic payment, and so it is not covered in the code. It needs to be covered in the code.

That is something that just happens on a more regular basis with an association change in a management company, a management company change in a bank. So, yes, we need to find a way to appropriately notice individuals of this change so that this does not happen going further. Our other concern is that the bill actually places personal liability on the board members, if this happens. You can't find that anywhere else in the Davis-Stirling Act.

It's the association that's held liable when there's a violation of the Davis-Stirling Act. And so we already have problems finding board members to serve on boards. This will increase cost of liability insurance. It'll also discourage individuals from serving on a board knowing that they're personally liable for something that may be totally out of their control. So we'd like to address the civil liability piece. We wanna fix the notice piece going forward.

We look forward to it. We believe we can make this happen and hopefully not have to face two Assembly members going forward that have issues with their-- or with their association. So with that, we look forward to working with the authors. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 2439? We'll bring it back to committee. We do have a motion. Assembly Member Papan?

Well, you got a third, just so you know. Likewise, with the homeowners, not as it related to changing where you pay your fees, but certainly a board that is penalty-happy and you don't have a lot of rights. So I understand that you might not wanna have the board be personally liable, but maybe we transfer that over perhaps to the management company that they're hiring because these boards can be pretty-- filled with zealots, and it-- you got no rights. So, in any event, I'm sorry you went through it, had similar experiences with other items, and that's why I move the bill.

Thank you. Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan?

I just wanna say that when you have three Assembly members out of 80 that have experienced this, I think it should speak to the percent of the average Californian that has experienced this. I mean, it's not-- we're just a sample size, and so, I really appreciate you guys bringing this and using your own experience to make things better for consumers. Don't mess with these two.

That should be one of the lessons coming out of this. But, really, honestly, I'm glad you had this experience so you can make it better for other Californians. Although, of course, nobody should experience this. I just wanted to address the question about personal liability because I get what you're saying, and I think it is a concern. But, also, the HOA could indemnify the board members, couldn't they? Why wouldn't that be a perfect solution?

Yes. The HOA could indemnify the board members, and we have insurance just like every other association, but I think once you start to create that personal liability, well, these are volunteers that are coming forward to serve, and once they're made notice or they're given notice that providing their time, volunteering their time also potentially subjects them to personal liability, there's still activities you have to go through, even if you're indemnified by your HOA in getting defense and working with the indemnification. So there's just elements of it that we think are unnecessary.

Okay.

Making the association actually liable for the action sends a pretty strong message, especially with the civil penalties and levels that we're talking about in the bill. So that's just important to not pursue the board members. Leave it at the association.

Got it. No, and I appreciate the comments about the return receipt. On the other hand, just where I'm sitting, the USPS is struggling, and so I thought they would appreciate the extra payments that come with that level of return receipts, so I don't know.

I think it's a good business measure for the USPS, but maybe minds disagree on that. So I think it's great that you guys are moving these consumer protections. The fact that we have an entire agenda full of HOA bills means there's more work to be done. So thank you for doing this.

Thank you. Assembly Member Johnson?

Thank you. I have a quick question for opposition. You said that the community-wide mailing was-- they were not-- they didn't like that. There was a problem with that. Can you tell me why that's a problem?

So the United States--

I don't understand that.

The USPS for return receipt-- certified return receipt would be individual return receipt, not to anyone per-- not to a corporation. So the USPS would have to have somebody in the community knocking on every single door asking them to sign the return receipt.

I just-- not an attorney, for my colleagues, but I am a banker, and I will say that, if you're gonna put a lien on somebody's house, I think that that's a part of an action that you shouldn't consider as an inconvenience.

Oh, I totally support that, but that's one homeowner and-- respectfully, one-- potentially one homeowner in a community. What this bill is asking for, the entire community, every single individually in the community have a return receipt signed. So there are two different subject matters.

Yeah. I don't think I'm in agreement with that, but thank you for the clarity. I appreciate the answer.

Anyone else? Any questions or comments? Assembly Member Pacheco?

To the author and the joint author, thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. It's so unfortunate that you had to deal with what you had to deal with in order to bring this to light, because as both of you mentioned, if you both dealt with this, that means so many more Californians have been dealing with this. And I am new to the HOA now that I own a property here in Sacramento, and so I feel for both of you.

I'm glad that the opposition has some sympathy as to what happened to you. I do have concerns about the personal liability as well. Maybe there's a way to work around that, but this is a very, very important bill to protect individuals with HOAs, and so I know there's a way to figure it out, but I would also love to be added as a co-author. So thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Well, former HOA Board Member Dixon would never, first of all. And I-- you know, I have to admit that I've calmed down since last week. My blood was boiling in Housing when I heard this bill the first time, but I just wanna thank the authors for bringing this forward, as I mentioned last week. I mean, there's a lot of common sense here as well.

Yes.

You know, if you saw-- if you change your payment system and all of a sudden all these folks are not paying anymore that have paid for months or years, common sense would dictate, hey, why don't we call them up or, you know, knock on their doors and say, hey, did you know-- but no. Instead, everything becomes so detached.

And next thing you know-- and, you know, this is someone's primary home and they have a lien on it. You know, that's where their family lives. It is extremely traumatic. Even if they resolve it, it's still traumatic and can cost a whole lot of money. And if we were asking the post office to do it voluntarily, for one thing, they're getting paid to do it. So I-- you know, there's a reason why it costs $9 because it is extra work.

But, I think to Assembly Member Johnson's point, if you're talking about something that could eventually end in a lien, or a lot of cost, or fines, or fees, I think it's better for everyone involved to pay that upfront because ultimately that cost is gonna be borne by a much broader group of folks or create a lot more tension in that community with the HOA, which you don't want.

Let's find ways to actually believe any of these issues from becoming an issue to begin with, and I think that's what this does. And it may have a short-term cost, but far less pain in the long-term. I would also like to be added as a co-author. Would you like to close?

Yes, thank you. And I just wanna address the issue of the community-wide certified mail. The post-- you know, the postal worker goes to your house, at least to my-- and they deliver the mail, right? And they're already there. It's not like you're hiring new people, you know, to do this.

And I know that there's a way forward with this, you know, to try and resolve some of these issues, but the previous-- I'll talk about the previous bill about shifting the burden to the attorney. This should-- if a board member realizes that they are on the hook for this, then they might think twice about, you know, doing extra things to annoy the homeowners.

We all have heard-- we all have heard of, you know, board members that are upset with their-- you know, some of the tenants, and they take it out on, you know, based on the HOA rules. I wanted to address this to Assembly Member Harabedian. There's a community in the burnt area of Eaton who's charging the homeowners the dues, and the home is burnt down.

So I didn't wanna get into that, but just wanted to point that out that, you know, there's so many different ways or so many different violations, if you will, or taking advantage of homeowners, and we can come to an agreement on how this works, but again, for me, the personal liability makes the board member think twice about overreaching or trying to-- because I believe everyone on the board is trying to do the right thing.

But if somebody has some, you know, some beef to settle with somebody and they're taking advantage, this would deter that part of it, and I think, you know, if everybody continues their membership on the board in good faith, I think they wouldn't run into any problems. But, anyway, I appreciate you adding on as co-authors, and with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Yeah. Thank you so much.

Motion's do pass. [Roll call].

All right. That bill is out. Thank you. So all the-- out of the-- six out of the 19 bills were HOA bills. They are completed now.

Not yet. One more.

Oh, sorry. One more. What am I think-- just when I thought we were out of it. Assembly Member Petrie-Norris, come on up. I knew there was one more. I don't know why I said that. So seven out of 19. That's not bad. So--

All right.

The Assembly Judiciary and HOA Committee--

Exactly.

--will continue.

Good morning. Good morning, Mister chair and committee members, and happy HOA day in Assembly Judiciary. So I'm pleased to join you this morning, to present AB 2579, which is your final HOA measure of the morning. Wanna begin by, thanking the chair and, committee staff for your work on this bill. Happy to accept the committee amendments.

So last year, the legislature capped HOA fines at a $100 with the exception of adverse health or safety impact violations. This cap has had some unintended consequences and weakened an HOA's ability to address legitimate and serious violations that threaten community safety, including harassment of residents and staff, fire hazards, short term rental violations. And so this bill actually was brought to me by a couple of constituents who, as a result of their HOA, no longer being able to assess fines for serious health and safety matters.

The HOA has had no choice but to try to take these violations to court, which ends up actually creating a huge problem for all of the HOA residents because it's not just the board that then bears the cost of that litigation. It's all of the residents.

So they were dealing with the situation where their HOA dues were being raised quite meaningfully as a result of this conundrum. And so they said, 'hey, let's you know, try to find a little more balance'.

So the approach that we are are taking with AB 2579 is to establish a public process that will determine a measured approach to allow HOAs to meaningfully enforce serious health and safety violations without penalizing honest mistakes or, you know resulting in some of the bizarre situations that you've heard about in committee today. So pleased to be joined by Stacie Donnelly who is the Chairperson of the Community Association Institute, California Legislative Action Committee, and Louis Brown is also on hand, to answer questions.

It's Louis Brown Day and Assembly Judiciary.

We have a motion and a second. Please. Go ahead.

I should still go? Okay.

Yeah. You still get to go.

Okay. Keep it brief.

Okay. So Stacie Donnelly again. Hello. Thank you, for having me, Mister chair, members of the committee. Just briefly, I'll just say a couple things about this overnight. As you know, many associations lost their ability to enforce rules. I will say that professionally, I can tell you associations do not levy fines as revenue. They levy fines as a means of deterring violations.

And so I understand that the Assembly Housing Committee changed the focus of the bill to require a process at the Department of Real Estate. So we'll see, you know, we'll explore that option, see how the bill moves forward. But AB 130 created an unworkable situation for most communities. AB 2579 attempts to provide a reasonable solution. So that is why we support AB 2579 and request your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 2579?

Morning, Mister chair, members of the committee. My name is Tom Freeley. I'm the CEO of California Association of Community Managers in support, and congratulations on making you through HOA Louis Brown Day.

Almost. Almost there. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 2579? Bring it back to committee. We already have a motion.

Any questions or comments? Assembly member Dixon.

Thank you, Mister chair, since I'm an expert on agents.

Allegedly.

I do remember when this was passed in the wee hours of the morning, this removing or establishing a maximum of a $100 fine. I mean, I heard from so many of my constituents as well. Where did this come from? There was no committee hearing about this and changing the whole fee structure and penalty structure. So I was hoping this bill would go back to where it was, but I guess it's now there's a process to cure the alleged problem.

But just speaking from my own experience, currently not even my past life, it's more than health and the safety issues that affect the quality of life in an HOA. I mean, if you paint your house purple and the CC&Rs don't like purple, it's not allowed, then you're going to go through a process. I've heard a lot of issues in my district, examples anecdotally, that HOAs typically don't allow or maybe some do or some don't, but if they don't allow Airbnbs.

And so if someone is is allowing an Airbnb to operate in this HOA, then now there's a a process. In the meantime, there are people there doing Airbnb rentals and things like that.

So it's broader than just health and safety. I'm glad I mean, I'll second I second the motion. I'm gonna going to support this, but I would unless there was a real issue that required there to be a maximum cap of $100 for an it just has opened anybody's willing to pay a $100 to have an Airbnb or have a party to 4AM. It's meaningless. So I think that's an additional issue.

I hope we could continue to see going back to the way it was just to preserve the CC&Rs structure instead of making there be no penalty for abusing the common rules of the organization. So I wholly support it. I just hope we should work went further and back to where it was.

Well, thank you for those comments. And I think we often pass legislation and then realize there's some unintended consequences and need to do some cleanup. So this is a step in that in that journey. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this forward. I think, look, you know, there's a reason why we had a lot of HOA bills. And this one, maybe the pendulum went a little far.

We have to kinda bring that balance back in. But I think that that's what this is gonna do. It's gonna have the Department of Real Estate make that determination as to what qualifies within the health and safety parameters rather than us doing it or, you know, let them figure that out, come forward. And, you know, when they do that, we can agree with it. Or if you wanna tweak it, we can always tweak it.

But I think there needs to be some some sense of a little more form to it in terms of not just simply saying you can't do fines and excess instead of unless it's health and safety, then there's gonna be arguments that everything's health and safety. We don't want that either. Right? We wanna and so this, I think, will really help us better defined what those parameters around these HOAs are.

And and I mean, look, there are, you know, HOAs that have power trips and will do fines for everything as well.

And so we have to that we have to kind of find that middle ground. And so I think this bill goes a long way in helping us try to do that. Would you like to vote?

Thank you, Mister chair, for those comments. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Motions do pass as amended. Kalra?

Aye.

Kalra, aye. Bauer Kahan?

Bauer Kahan, aye. Bryan?

Aye.

Bryan, aye. Connolly?

Aye.

Connolly, aye. Dixon?

Aye.

Aye.

Dixon, aye. Harabedian?

Aye.

Harabedian, aye. Johnson? Pacheco?

Aye.

Pacheco, aye. Papan?

Aye.

Papan, aye. Sanchez?

Aye.

Sanchez, aye. Lee? Zbur?

Aye.

Zbur, aye.

The bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, I'm done, Mister chairman.

Enjoy your rest of the day, Louis. Go have a good lunch. Senator Smallwood Cuevas. This is a we have this and then one more bill after this one. We have a motion.

Is there a second? And a second from a Senator Bryan.

Thank you so much, Mister chair. So from HOA to civil rights, proper transition. Proper transition. I wanna thank you, chair and members, and I'm proud to present Senate Concurrent Resolution 89, which reaffirms the California Legislature's commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion. DI is fundamental.

Thank you. Alright. Thank you, Madam chair and members. AB 2495 expands the scope of prohibited unfair immigration related practices that employers use to intimidate and dissuade workers from asserting their workplace rights. Anti immigrant, national rhetoric has emboldened bad faith employers to increasingly deter immigrant workers from complaining about violations of their workplace rights by making bail threats, chilling statements, or implicit warnings about immigration consequences.

When such employer coercion succeeds, unlawful conduct goes unreported, workplace standards erode, and law abiding law abiding employers are undercut. AB 2495 simply amends existing labor protections to establish that all immigration related threats are unlawful. With me to provide supporting testimony is Haley McAllister, Senior Staff Attorney with Legal Aid at Work, and Sydney Fang, Policy Director with AAPIs for Civic Empowerment.

Good morning, Mister chair and committee members. As stated, my name is Haley McAllister, and I'm appearing on behalf of Legal Aid at Work, which is a statewide nonprofit that advocates for workplace rights, including through serving workers in legal clinics all across the state, and we are a proud cosponsor of AB 2495. As stated across the country and here in California, immigrant and undocumented communities are living under heightened fear of immigration enforcement.

Over the past year, immigration enforcement actions have become more aggressive and more public as authorities target immigrant communities in their homes, in hospitals, on their way to school, and at work. In this political climate, undocumented workers must take real and significant risks to step forward to actively assert their workplace rights.

And as a result, we're seeing many workers who are afraid to speak up, even when they're subjected to wage theft, unsafe working conditions, and discrimination. That fear doesn't just harm immigrant workers. It undermines enforcement of California's workplace protections for everybody. Bad faith employers are exploiting this fear and we're seeing them weaponize immigration status not in response to worker complaints, but preemptively to silence workers before they can raise an issue or potentially even learn the full scope of their workplace rights.

Advocates across California, including Legal Aid at Work, are seeing employers are seeing these scenarios regularly regularly.

For example, an employer announced at an all hands meeting, "hey, my best friend works for ICE and he said so long as there's no issues here, ICE won't come to our workplace". Or a manager tells workers that they should think about where they might hide when ICE does come and suggest that they jump out the window or hide in the trash. Another employer suggests that speaking to government enforcement agencies that enforce workplace protections might result in immigration consequences.

These sit in these situations, nobody has complained, but the the message is clear. Stay silent or face deportation.

This conduct is slipping through the gaps of existing law, and AB 2495 seeks to close that gap. We urge an aye vote vote. Thank you.

Good morning, vice chair and members. My name is Sydney Fong, and I'm the Policy Director for AAPIs for Civic Empowerment. I'm here to speak as a proud cosponsor of AB 2495. We are a statewide network of workers AAPI workers, tenants, youth, and elders, and our network organizations have seen and experienced the harms that ICE has committed against immigrant and refugee communities. This impact has been especially felt in the workplace.

According to UC Merced analysis from 2025, private sector employment has in California declined significantly after the onslaught of ICE abductions last summer. ICE presence across the state has created a profound climate of fear among our communities in every aspect of public life. And scrupulous employers have exploited this fear by intimidating workers through silence- into silence through references to immigration enforcement. An immigrant worker who sought a support from Filipino Workers Center experience this firsthand and while working for Care home in Southern California. As a caregiver with tenuous immigration status, he was forced to work fourteen hour days for only $130 a day.

His boss spoke frequently about immigration rates and suggested he avoid sharing about his immigration status with anyone in order to prevent authorities from investigating the care home. On at least one occasion, his boss explicitly threatened to call immigration enforcement, after a mistake was made at work.

No workers should be subjected to such a climate. Yet, this member's story is too common among immigrant and refugee workers.

And that is why we must strengthen our labor laws to protect workers against abusive employer practices AB 2495 build upon our existing protections in our labor code to cover preemptive threats that coerce workers into silence.

AAPI Force is proud to cosponsor this legislation, and we urge you to vote aye on AB 2495. Thank you.

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

Good morning. Brian Miramontes with the California Teachers Association in support.

Good morning. Erin Evans on behalf of the County Of Santa Clara in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Ken Wang on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association and Equal Rights Advocates proud cosponsors and support. Thank you.

Good morning, Monica Madrid, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Proud cosponsor, also on behalf of Western Center for Law and Poverty and support. Thank you.

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

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. For a motion and a second.

She already had one.

Oh, fantastic. Alright.

Motions do pass to appropriations. Kalra?

Aye.

Kalra, aye. Bauer Kahan?

Aye.

Bauer Kahan, aye. Bryan?

Aye.

Bryan, aye. Connolly?

Aye.

Connolly, aye. Dixon?

Dixon, no. Harabedian?

Aye.

Harabedian, aye. Johnson?

Johnson, no. Pacheco?

No.

Aye.

Pacheco, aye. Papan?

Aye.

Papan, aye.

Sanchez? Sanchez, no. Lee?

Aye.

Lee, aye. Zbur?

Aye.

Zbur, aye. That's out.

Alright. That bill is out. And as we proceed, we're now done with the bills. I just wanna, again, thank Assemblymember Johnson, Johnson and Lee for subbing in today. And I also wanna thank our staff for this last month, a very hard work.

And your staffs we're working with our staff because I know there's a lot of bills to go through. They're very complicated, and so I wanna thank everyone, all the committee members for making it through. And now we'll go ahead and go through the through the bills and all the add ons. We'll start with the consent calendar.

Bryan?

Aye.

Bryan, aye. Papan?

Aye.

Papan, aye. Sanchez?

Aye.

Sanchez, aye. Lee?

Aye.

Lee, aye.

Onto item one, AB 1684, Ward. We need a motion. Okay. That's moved. Seconded.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bill is out. Add on for AB 1892, Davies.

[Roll Call]

Add ons for item three, AB 2050, Caloza.

[Roll Call]

Add ons for AB 2106, Patel.

[Roll Call]

Add ons for AB 2145, Garcia.

[Roll Call]

Add ons for AB 2238, Rubio.

[Roll Call]

Add ons for AB 2439, Rubio.

[Roll Call]

Lee, Aye.

Add ons for item nine, AB 2579, Petrie-Norris.

[Roll Call]

And item 10 was a testimony only or presentation only. So, I think we're all done.

Oh. I always feel weird using a gap one because I'm not a judge. Alright. We're adjourned.