Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary

All right. Thank you. Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. Good morning. We're holding this committee hearing in Room 2100 of the O Street Building. I ask that all members of the committee present themselves in Room 2100 so we can establish a quorum. I wanna note that File Item Number 67: AB 1406 by Assembly Member Ward has been pulled. There are now 70-- there are only 73 measures on our agenda today, 13 of which-- actually we-- we're down from over 80, 13 of which are on the Consent Calendar, which I will read now.

The following bills are on the Consent Calendar: File Item Number 15: AB 1749 by Assembly Member Dixon, File Item Number 18: AB 1939 by Assembly Member Flora, File Item Number 19: AB 395 by Assembly Member Gabriel with amendments, File Item Number 22: AB 2596 by Assembly Member Gipson, File Item Number 27: AB 1278 by Assembly Member Harabedian.

File Item Number 31: AB 2174 by Assembly Member Johnson, File Item Number 32: AB 2280 by Assembly Member Johnson with amendments, File Item Number 34: AB 1845 by Assembly Member Krell, File Item Number 36: AB 2598 by Assembly Member Krell, File Item Number 55: AB 1784 by Assembly Member Pellerin, File Item Number 57: AB 2785 by Assembly Elections Committee, File Item Number 64: AB 1956 by Assembly Member Valencia. Finally, File Item Number 72: AB 2788 by Assembly Member--excuse me--by the Assembly Transportation Committee. All right. So, we're going to proceed today just as we have in the past.

We're going to first call upon the author, then the proponents of a bill will testify. Each primary witness will be allotted two minutes, so in other words, two witnesses with two minutes each on the support side. The same goes to the opposition side: two witnesses with two minutes each. After the support side testifies, those who are in support may come up and offer what we call MeToo testimony, giving us their name, their affiliation, and their position on the bill.

After that, we'll do the opposition. Same thing. After opposition, MeToo testimony--name and your affiliation and your position on the bill. Today, we will break at noon for our respective caucuses and resume at 1:30. And of course, we'll go as late as it takes to finish up all the bills that are currently on calendar.

We are going in file order, and I see Assembly Member Addis here. And I see there's one other Assembly Member here who will go immediately after Assembly Member Addis if no one shows up who precedes that person in file order. So, Assembly Member Addis, you have AB 2393. We're going to go ahead and proceed as a subcommittee. If you would like, the floor is yours.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I'm gonna tighten up my remarks, given your incredibly lengthy agenda today. So, I'm here to present AB 2393 that would provide a clear path for victims of false arrest or imprisonment to obtain justice for the harm they suffered by establishing fixed statutory damages for specific harmful actions.

And we have seen numerous cases across our nation where people have been erroneously detained or arrested, falsely detained or arrested, and so this bill would provide accountability for those actions, discourage illegal behavior, and ensure victims have a true path to justice by allowing the prevailing plaintiff in a lawsuit for false arrest or imprisonment to choose a set payment when there's certain aggravating actions, including wearing a face covering.

So this is by the perpetrator--wearing a face covering, using restraints, forcibly transporting, or brandishing a firearm. We had a couple witnesses. I'm not sure if they're here in the room. They were having trouble getting in the building. And with that, I'll respectfully ask your aye vote when the time is right.

Thank you very much. I think you have one witness here. Yes. The microphone is yours.

Yes.

The floor is yours.

Good morning, Chair and members. Catalina Sanchez with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. For over 40 years, the Sierra Leone Foundation has advocated for farmworkers, low-wage workers, and mixed-status families. We provide high-quality legal assistance and outreach services on constitutional rights, family emergency planning, the naturalization process, and worker rights and workplace safety. Last year, the Department of Homeland Security's Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties was eliminated.

This office was responsible for investigating violations of constitutional rights of both immigrants and U.S. citizens. With the office closure, there were 550 pending complaints. Also last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that someone can be stopped and questioned solely on their race or ethnicity or for simply speaking Spanish or a non-English language to establish reasonable suspicion that someone, whether a U.S. citizen or an undocumented individual, may be breaking immigration law.

Over the last year, locations are growing where people are being wrongfully detained by federal agents. Add to the equation the coercive and intimidation tactics that are being utilized by federal agents acting outside of the law or by those impersonating law enforcement. This includes, as the Assembly Member said, wearing face coverings to conceal their identity, brandishing a weapon, or forcefully transporting a victim.

A bystander may or may not have filmed the incident, and even when there is clear evidence of false imprisonment, there are limited civil or criminal pathways towards accountability. The traumatizing circumstances make it extremely difficult for people to seek court justice for this harm. AB 2393 will be one step towards accountability, and we urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, AB 2393. If you're in support of AB 2393, please approach the microphone.

Thank you, Chair and members. Ashley Walker with Nossaman, on behalf of the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Thank you very much. All right. Others in support, please approach the microphone. Going once, going twice. If you're opposed to AB 2393, please come forward. If you're opposed, please come forward. Seeing no one coming forward, I'm gonna bring it back to committee for questions by committee members. Questions by committee members? Seeing no questions, I assume there'll be a motion at the appropriate time. And Assembly Member Addis, we've had conversation.

One of the things we focus on is making sure the Ninth Circuit is not bored, making sure that they have plenty of work to do. I expect that this will be tested at the Ninth Circuit, and a couple years from now, you're gonna let me know how it goes, I hope.

Absolutely.

All right.

Absolutely. We expect to prevail should we get there, but we'll absolutely keep you in the loop.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. All right. Assembly Member Caloza. Assembly Member Caloza. And for those of you in the audience here or those of you watching online, today is perhaps the busiest day in the California State Senate. I have eight bills I have to present over in the Assembly, and starting right now, so I'm gonna turn over to the Vice Chair, and we'll be back, I hope, shortly. So.

Your staff told me you had 15 bills.

Well.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Hi, vice Chair. Good morning, members. I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2050, the HOA Rainy Day Fund. I'd like to thank the committee consultant for all his hard work on this bill.

AB 2050 is a measured and thoughtful proposal aimed at promoting fairness and transparency in for California residents living in common interest developments. Today, more than 13,000,000 Californians live in 55,000 common interest developments, better known as HOAs. Condominiums continue to be an affordable option for many first time homebuyers. While we focus a considerable amount of the 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 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 condominiums, meaning many communities are managing aging buildings that require significant long term maintenance. Deferred maintenance can also create serious safety risks. 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 condominiums if associations have 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.

Additionally, for a veteran to use a VA loan in an HOA, the HOA has to prove its financial stability. If the HOA reserve fund isn't fully funded, then the VA will not authorize the loan. Current law requires associations to conduct reserve studies every three years to assess the cost of maintenance, repair, and replacement of major components like roofs, elevators, balconies, and other structural elements.

However, there is no requirement to reserve to to fund these reserves, which means that many associations are not prepared to address these issues when they do happen. The absence of a required formula to fund reserves penalizes homeowners because the only remaining option is to address these maintenance issues is through a special assessment, which is neither fair nor affordable.

Additionally, current law strengthens protections for HOA reserve funds by requiring dual authorization for withdrawals, and ensuring reserves are used only for their intended purpose, major repairs, maintenance, and related litigation. Any funds withdrawn must be paid back within a year. It also increases transparency by requiring homeowner notification and regular accounting when reserve funds are used for litigation related expenses, helping homeowners better understand how their association's funds are being managed.

AB 2,050 provides associations with a formula to achieve a sustainable level of funding and reserves and provides a ramp up of six years to help them get there. Lastly, I'd also like to thank the Consumer Federation and the Center for California Homeowner Association Law for sending my office amendments late last night.

My team is reviewing them and look forward to having more conversations throughout this process. With me today to testify in support is Stacy Donnelly, Chair of the Community Associations Institute Legislative Action Committee, an expert in the field, and if he has, been able to escape his other, witness testimony in another committee, Louis Brown, for the Community Associations Institute is my second witness.

The primary witness, come forward to the microphone. You may proceed. You may have two minutes.

Good morning, Mister vice Chair, members of the committee. I am Stacy Donnelly. Professionally, I am the is this okay?

You might lift it up, get it closer to your mouth. Yeah.

CFO of Condominium Financial Management located in Walnut Creek. We are sponsors of AB 2050 and wanna thank Assemblymember Colozer for authoring this bill. I want to reiterate the very important point that was made. Reserve studies are required currently in civil code to be conducted every three years. The missing requirement is to fund according to that study.

AB 20 fixes that by providing stable and gradual planned reserve funding over thirty years. Adequate funding helps protect affordability by spreading the cost of ownership equitably and avoiding avoiding disruptive and costly special assessments. I did an analysis of my client database, which is a 157 associations. 32 of them or 20% had special assessments in the last year. That represents 2,648 homes, and if you extrapolate that over California as a whole, we're looking at 2,600,000 homeowners that were surprised by special assessments in one year.

A couple of actual examples in real time, just this month alone, I have a 792 unit condo complex in Walnut Creek that just passed an emergency special assessment for $6,000,000 for balconies. That equates to about $7,600 per owner. Another one that we are setting up this month is a 12 unit condo in Oakland. They passed 900,000 special assessment, which is

study.

Insurance is another consideration. Assembly member Colosa brought up mortgages, very important. Insurance is also important. They look at deferred maintenance and inadequate inadequate funding as measures for premiums and rate increases. We need a solution for the sustainability of this housing model.

AB 2050 fixes that. It provides for that with the funding six year ramp up and thirty year equitable funding plan. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Perfect. Thank you very much. And, Mister Brown is here. No. A stand

Senator Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of Louis Brown who was actually stuck in the other committee. I'd like to thank the author for authoring this bill and of course to the committee staff and to the to the to the Chair for their work on this and ask for high vote when appropriate. Thank you.

Okay. Do we have others in the audience in favor of the bill to state your name, organization, and position? Seeing none come forward, yes.

My name is Marco Aguilar. I'm the executive director of a nonprofit and Assembly member of Carlos' district. We represent 12 acres of land that have been rematriated and reclaimed for the Gabrielino Shoshone Nation. And the total 12 acres are land that were left over from the city redevelopment agency of Los Angeles' development of about six condos that are now managed by HOAs. And I'll tell you that in our experience, we've seen that those condos are

Please interrupt you for a moment. I'm allowing him to be a second primary at this point since Mister Brown isn't here. So, you know, otherwise, this would just be me too.

This I'm speaking in favor of AB 2015. Yeah. Yeah. And so we've seen them occupied by tenants and not by homeowners. So I think requiring the HOAs to have this reserve fund will address some of the long standing and long long long concerns issues that need to be taken care of over a long period of time.

So thank you.

Thank you very much. Now, on to Me Too witnesses in favor and seeing none come forward. Is are you in favor? Yes. Name, organization, and position?

Okay.

Laura Galvin. I'm the Chair of the Southern Hill Nissan, and I'm in favor of the bll.

Okay. Thank you. Any others? And seeing none come forward. Now, onto the, opposition.

Primary witnesses opposed.

Good morning, Mister Chair members. Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California. Respectful opposition. Thank the author for working with us and, reviewing our amendments. We look forward to continue to do so.

We have concerns about the, mass the increases, the massive HOA increases that would have detrimental impacts to folks, who are in these houses. Thank you, sir.

Okay. Any other primary witnesses opposed? Now to the Me Too witnesses opposed. Others that are opposed to state your name, organization, and position on the bill, seeing none come forward. We will bring it back to the committee, such as it exists right now.

Yes.

Senator Laird. The one member would like to say something. When I was in the Assembly, I did a series of bills that are on point. The bill that requires annual reports so that each HOA knows what's there because as you said half of them are over 40 years old and deferred maintenance is the center of what they do.

Additionally, there was this horrible practice that went on because there was some discussion of special assessments and there was this practice that special assessments were only applied to the newest members in a condo complex even though it was a complex wide obligation.

And I did legislation to make sure that those special assessments were applied equally to all members, not just the newest ones because it was a a property wide thing. The I live in a condo complex a block away. I did have a flood in my condo last November. Senator Skinner who lived over me had a balcony that leaked into hers. The condo complex had to have enough money to be able to repair what was the result of common stuff.

And I think that's what this bill does is make sure. And I think the opposition witness says, oh, this will fall on the, the owners. Well, it's a question of what falls on the owners. The fact that there's these massive jobs with no no money to pay or adequate funding into the reserves to make sure that that they can be covered. That's what this bill does.

And at about 04:00 when we finally get a quorum, I will intend to move the bill. Thank you.

Well, when we have a quorum, we will have a motion and a vote. In the meantime, you may close.

Thank you so much, vice Chair. Thank you so much, Senator Laird, for your work. Look forward to working with you on this and learning more about some of the work that you've done around HOA so that we can ensure that we we protect them and plan properly for future reserve funding. So respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, next, Assemblyman Arons has, two bills. In what order would you like to present them?

Thank you, Senator. 1564 first, please.

Okay. Well, thank you when ready.

Thank you so much. When employees discuss workplace matters, such as a discipline or grievances with their union representatives, they often believe that these conversations are confidential. However, current state law does not explicitly prohibit employers from compelling employees or their union representatives to disclose what they discussed. 1564 makes communication between an employee and their union representative confidential, which is essential to fostering trust, ensuring effective representation. With me today is Randy Perry from PORAC and David Mastagni Jr., legal counsel with PORAC.

Good morning. David Mastagni, on behalf of PORAC. AB 1564 is a modest, balanced measure that codifies longstanding PERB precedent and making it an unfair labor practice for a public employer to question or compel disclosure of confidential communications between employees and their union representatives on matters within the scope of representation. Critics have suggested this creates a privilege or hinders investigations. It does neither.

It's not an evidentiary privilege under the Evidence Code. It applies only to public employers and is enforceable solely through PERB. It expressly exempts criminal investigations and does not supersede POBR protections under 3303 and limitations. Employers remain free to question any recipient witness about the facts of an incident, including union representatives. The bill protects only secondhand representational discussions that have no legitimate evidentiary value and serve only to chill protected activity and invade the representation relationship.

School administrators have claimed that this bill will hinder AB 218 investigations. This is also not true. AB 218 extends time for childhood sexual assault victims to sue. It doesn't mandate investigation tactics. Schools can question any witness about firsthand knowledge of an assault, ensuring that they can still conduct a robust investigation.

This bill only protects representation-related communications, like pre-interview advice, which lacks evidentiary value. Compelling union reps to disclose this type of secondhand information unlawfully commandeers them and impeaches-- to impeach their members and chill communications between members and their representatives. And the last point that I wanna make is, there's also been claims that this will have significant additional costs. That's also not true. As I said before, all this bill does is codify existing PERB case law.

If anything, it will reduce costs by clearly identifying the law so that disputes can be avoided or resolved at an early stage and not go to an unfair labor practice. It won't require any changing of handbooks or training or anything.

With that, if you could conclude?

Thank you.

Thank you. Next primary witness.

Thank you.

I think we're gonna waive the primary and--

Beg your pardon?

We're gonna waive the second.

Okay. So--

I see my colleague staring at me.

We will move to MeToo testimony. Those here in favor of the bill: name, organization, and position.

Mr. Chair and member, Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support. Thank you.

And seeing no one other-- no others come forward, moving to the opposition. Do we have primary witnesses opposed? You may have two minutes.

Good morning. Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California. We respectfully ask for a no vote on AB 1564. First, although the bill states that it's intended to be consistent with and not in conflict with William S. Hart Union High School District, the bill's restrictions go well beyond that decision.

The bill will forego the circumstantial analysis and balancing tests weighing the employees' and employers' interests and would categorically prohibits certain lines of questioning, exceeding the scope of that decision. AB 1564 replaces that balanced approach with a broad statutory prohibition on questioning of the same flexibility PERB currently has. The need for this change has not been established. There's no evidence that PERB is not appropriately protecting employee interests in regard to employer questioning.

Second, by preventing employer questioning of certain individuals with potentially relevant information, the bill will still function like a privilege in some context. For example, in two-party litigation between an employer and an employee, if an employer is prohibited by AB 1564 from requesting a court to compel certain testimony, that testimony may effectively be off limits to discovery, which is similar result to a privilege. However, unlike privileges in professional context, such as client and physician-patient, this bill does not contain safeguards. There's no third-party regulator like the California Bar or California Medical Association.

And there's no provisions for addressing conflict of interest and duties to multiple members of the bargaining unit, which are acutely concerning in the context where a union agent may receive information where two employees are adverse to each other and an employer has an obligation to investigate, like in a workplace violence prevention situation.

And unlike previous versions of the bill, like AB 2421, this bill does not contain an exception for circumstances where the representative was a witness or party to any of the events forming the basis of a potential administrative, disciplinary, or criminal investigation. Third, which will be covered by my colleague, regardless of whether the bill's provisions are characterized as a privilege or not, it will function to interfere with employers' investigation where relevant information may be shared with an employee representative. For these reasons, we ask for your no vote today.

Thank you. Second primary witness.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Dorothy Johnson of the Association of California School Administrators, echoing my colleague from the Rural Counties. Just wanna double down on our concerns that an employer may be contradicting what this law would require and not even know it.

Furthermore, this is consistent with our opposition on prior iterations of the bill that have come before this body, and we agree wholeheartedly with the prior veto message on a similar bill that says: this bill would compromise the ability of employers to conduct investigations into workplace safety, harassment, and other allegations stemming at the worksite. Just wanna double down and stress how important it is to have information for our administrative investigations that lead to criminal investigations often. And for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote when the time comes. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, others that are opposed, state your name, organization, and position.

Lucy Salcido Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education in respectful opposition.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts and the city of San Marcos, in respectful opposition.

Josh Gauger, on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, in opposition.

Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of my colleagues with the California Special Districts Association and the California Association of School Business Officials, in respectful opposition.

Eric Lawyer, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of Public Risk Innovation, Solutions, and Management, also known as PRISM, in opposition.

Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and senators. Connor Gusman, on behalf of Teamsters California. Apologies. In support. Just missed the--

Oh, you scared me for a second.

That was in support?

Yes.

Okay.

I love this bill.

Ben Golombek with the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition.

Others in opposition? Seeing none come forward, we will bring it back to the committee. Any questions or comments? When we achieve a quorum, which Senator Laird said it'll be somewhere around 4:00--I'm betting on midnight--but in any case, when we do, we'll have a motion and--

--take a vote. You may close.

Thank you.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you.

I don't wanna talk about that anymore. Okay.

I have one more bill. Number four, AB 2231.

Twenty two thirty one is a judicial streamlining bill. It's a critical two hospitals in the Bay Area and the heart of Silicon Valley in my district that is critically needed with me today is Joe Gregorich from Sutter Health to, be my primary witness. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Good morning, Chair and members. Joe Gregorich of Sutter Health here in member, here in support of AB 2231.

As the Assembly member stated, this is a a critical bill for us at Sutter Health, and we believe it's gonna help us build two generational hospital projects in the Bay Area, one in Emeryville, which will replace our Alta Bates Ashley campus that is, going to be required to cease operations in two thousand and thirty due to seismic standards, and then a net new hospital in Santa Clara in the Assemblymember's District, which will, be one of our our new flagship hospital in the South Bay, and will also serve to, create our teaching a hospital for our new medical school that we announced with Santa Clara University.

What this bill does is it creates a two seventy two hundred and seventy day streamlining for any litigation that's filed against those two projects, and and we believe this would help us, drastically, complete the projects on on time, on budget, and start serving our patients as soon as possible. So with that, we urge your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other primary witnesses or is is that your only primary witness? That's my only one. So others in the room that are in support, come forward to the microphone, state your name, organization, and position.

Valley Leadership Group in strong support. Thank you.

Ben Golombek on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support. Others in support? John McHale on behalf of Contra Costa County here in support. Thank you. And seeing no others, coming forward, move to the opposition.

Do we have primary witnesses opposed?

Good morning, senators. Richard Marcison on behalf of the Western Electrical Contractors Association. So WECA supports hospital construction and supports reasonable CEQA reform. What WECA opposes is using a CEQA bill to take away workers' legal rights. Current law allows workers who are underpaid the minimum wage to seek help from the labor commissioner or to pursue remedies provided by statute.

AB 2231 says that if a project is covered by a project labor agreement, those rights disappear. Workers are forced into private arbitration. The labor commissioner, in fact, is prohibited from enforcing wage and hour laws. Administrative complaints are barred, civil actions are barred, and even statutory remedies that are provided in the labor code against surety bonds are limited.

Now if the legislature believes that these are the right labor policies that replace state protection for injured workers should be pursued and be replaced by private arbitration, that should apply to every construction project in California, not just those that are protected a project labor agreement.

Workers should not have fewer legal remedies simply because their employer, or in this case, the client, insists that the employer sign a particular labor agreement. The committee has long protected access to legal remedies and consistent enforcement of California law. AB 2231 moves in the opposite direction. And for those reasons, we can is opposed. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other primary witness opposed? So the rest of the audience that might be opposed come to the microphone, state your name, organization, and position, and seeing no one come forward, bring it back to the committee. Senator Laird? Nothing?

Well, again, when we get the quorum, there'll be a motion, I'm sure. You may close. Thank you, Senator. Well, we used to build things in the in this country. And I'm hoping during my tenure that we can get back to that so we can deliver for the people of California. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Assembly member Dixon? No. We Avala Frias is here. But assuming some others don't show up, Assemblymember Dixon, you'll be next on deck, they say. So you are presenting 2689.

Correct. Yes.

You may proceed.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members. I'm pleased to present AB 2689. Millions of Californians struggle to find affordable housing. However, the demand far outweighs the supply.

According to the California Housing Partnership, low income housing households afford the average rent, in 18 California counties, while extremely low income households can't afford the average rent of any county. To make matters worse, low vacancies often force families to wait months and even years before the state subsidized units are available for them. Current law does not provide transition for tenants in state subsidized units who begin to earn significantly more than their annual income.

AB 2689 would establish a good cause for non renewal for households whose incomes exceed a 140% of the area medium income or at least two consecutive years. The bill also codifies requirements for managers to give ample notice to tenants of their income status and notice of non renewal.

In order to protect against tenant displacement, over income tenants would only have their leases non renewal if they could afford a fair market rate unit in the residing county or zip code. To be clear, this bill does not require affordable housing managers to transition over income tenants. It only provides a dignified metrics if they choose to do so. Nothing in this bill would require to for them to do so.

Overall, this bill looks to ensure that the deed restricted units are made available to low income tenants without displacing over income individuals in high cost markets.

This bill has received a bipartisan support, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any, witnesses in support?

I don't think so, Dean.

No. Are there any are there, witnesses here in support of the bill that would like to express your support, name organization and position, seeing none come forward? Move to the opposition. Do we have principal witnesses opposed to this bill, seeing none come forward? I've asked for others who are opposed to the bill, come to the microphone, and I see none.

Bring it back to the committee. Senator Laird, again, waiting for a quorum, at which time I'm sure there'll be a motion and a vote. In the meantime, you may close.

Thank you. I appreciate an aye vote. Thank you.

Excellent. Close. And now, since no one else ah, family member Banta.

Excellent. Close. And now, since no one else ah, family member Banta.

You are presenting AB 801, I believe.

I am. Thank you so much, Senator.

You may proceed.

Chair, I'm here on behalf of the beautiful people of Oakland, Alameda, and Emeryville to present AB 801, the California Fair Lending Examination Act. I want to start by thanking the Committee for working with my staff to accomplish our shared goals, and I'm happy to accept the Committee amendments.

AB 801 requires the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation to regularly examine every lender under its jurisdiction state chartered banks, credit unions, and independent mortgage companies for compliance with fair lending laws, so that a recent federal retreat from consumer protection laws does not translate into reduced accountability for California's lenders, particularly for communities of color who continue to face documented disparities in access to credit. Homeownership is the primary vehicle for intergenerational wealth in this country.

Californian's communities of color have been systematically cut out of it, first by law, then by lending practices that persisted long after the law changed.

The California Task Force for Study and Develop and Develop Reparation Proposals has called on the list this legislature to take structural action to address the continuing economic harm of housing discrimination. This is part of that response. Since 2015, black and Latino borrowers have received conventional mortgage loan originations at roughly half the rate of white borrowers in California. No meaningful improvement year over year. The homeownership gap between black and white Americans today is approximately what it was before the Fair Housing Act passed in 1968.

Federal enforcement has collapsed. In April of this year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized a rewrite of Regulation B that narrows and reduces accountability from the Equal Credit Opportunity Act for lenders. At HUD, the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ejected 65% of its staff and will be down to six Fair Housing lawyers by fall. DOJ dropped pending prosecutions of all pending redlining lawsuits. The CFPB has foregone 22 enforcement actions, including a $2,000,000,000 case against Capital One, representing over $3,500,000,000 in alleged consumer harm.

While federal oversight previously covered these fair lending obligations under this administration, it clearly no longer does. The agencies doing that work has been, work has been systematically dismantled. The argument that federal oversight is sufficient is an argument about a system that no longer exists. The state charter exists precisely so that California can state set standards that reflect our values and the needs of our communities, not simply track whatever the Federal Government does or doesn't do.

Deferring to federal oversight as the ceiling or of our ambition would mean letting the administration decide California's lending policy.

That is not a choice that this legislature has to make, and it is not one we should. California retains independent authority but state authority without an examination mechanism is authority we cannot exercise. Right now, GFPI has no obligation to conduct fair lending examinations on any schedule. That matters because of who dominates this market. Independentmortgageecom mortgage companies now originate the vast majority of government backed home loans in California, the loans that go disproportionately to borrowers of color.

A Bloomberg news analysis of 38,000,000 mortgages found that controlling for income, loan size, and credit worthiness, non bank borrowers paid roughly $300 more in upfront fees than comparable bank borrowers, with black borrowers paying a $150 more and Latino borrowers $230 more than comparable white borrowers. Those disparities were wild widest in California. AB 801 closes the structural gap by codifying an examination cycle. The bill is carefully designed to minimize burden on compliant institutions. Findings are confidential, consistent with federal supervisory practice.

Costs are borne by the institutions, not the public. With our amendments, should this bill advance today, I'm com committed to narrowing this bill to solely mortgage loans to tackle ensuring fair access to the American dream, as well as aligning examination timelines to ease burdens for institutions covered under this bill. I wanna thank the opposition for working so diligently with my team and look forward to continuing to collaborate with them, our departments, and committee to achieve our shared goal.

With me to testify is Max Vargas, president and CEO of Greenlining Institute.

Yep. Up to two minutes.

Thank you. Assemblymember Bonta, vice Chair and, committee member. My name is Max Vargas, CEO of the Greenlining Institute, where for over thirty years, we've been focused on combating the impacts of racist redlining practices, both past and present, and their lasting impacts. And for decades, Greenlining has analyzed Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data that consistently shows communities of color access homeownership at lower rates than white borrowers. And when they do, they end up paying significantly more to become homeowners.

In fact, an analysis of 37,000,000 mortgage applications submitted between 2018 and 2024 showed that black borrowers were especially hard hit and were 78% more likely than white borrowers to be denied at the final underwriting stage. Now this is all occurring at the same time the Federal Government is rapidly gutting fair lending, enforcement, leaving California borrowers unprotected and vulnerable.

For reference, in the last five years, DOJ has won back tens of millions for black and Latino families who are facing mortgage discrimination right here in California, but now that federal oversight is gone. Advocates and communities know that unequal outcomes don't happen by accident, and when a lending practice consistently locks specific groups of people out of opportunity, California has a responsibility to act. The need for AB 801 is urgent.

I would like to affirm that this bill, does not create a substantive obligation for a new substantive obligation for lenders. It aligns examinations with current cycles for lenders and gives commissioner the commissioner authority to exempt from examination or examine less frequently licensees that demonstrate full compliance with nondiscrimination laws. In short, it ensures that existing fair lending laws are actually examined. Without an examination structure, California's fair lending protections exist on paper, but not in practice.

Our families in California are already facing rising costs, growing financial instability, and fewer pathways to building wealth.

This is on top of federal deregulatory efforts. If California does not act, these gaps will grow and deepen. For these reasons, the Greenlining Institute is proud to sponsor AB 801, and I respectfully request your eye vote.

Thank you. Do you have another, primary witness?

No. Others, for, Me Too testimony, in favor of the bill.

No.

Good morning, Mister Chair members. Christopher Sanchez here on behalf of the Consumer Federation of Consumer Federation of California in support.

Good morning. Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Any others in support? Seeing none come forward, we'll move in support.

Yes. Yesenia Revancho with NCHL poverty in California in support.

We'll move now to the opposition. Primary witnesses opposed to the bill? Aye, yes.

Good morning, Mister Chair, member of the committee, Rob Wilson with California's Credit Unions here in respectful opposition to AB 801. I'd like to thank the author for all the work that's gone into the bill so far, and we continue to have great conversations. And, you know, we we share the same goal of preventing discrimination in housing and lending in California and look forward to landing the plan on the bill soon. Thank you.

Chris Schultz with the California Bankers Association. We do appreciate working with the author and the sponsors. Continue working on the impact to smaller institutions. We share the goal of generational wealth building through homeownership and, look forward to working with the author and the sponsors to refine the bill as it gets closer to the finish line. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support for Me Too testimony. Proceed to the microphone.

Thank you. Marissa Hagerman with Traton Price Consulting for Center for Responsible Lending in strong support.

Are there is there other Me Too testimony that is opposed to the bill? Seeing none come forward, we'll bring it back to the committee. Seeing no questions or comments, Assemblymember Bonta, you may close.

Thank you so much. California has always been willing to lead when the Federal Government will not. AB 801 says that every lender operating under our jurisdiction will be examined for fair lending compliance under our law. We've crafted a bill that seeks to not burden unduly DFPI or any smaller institutions, and I respectfully request your aye vote.

When we have a quorum, I'm sure there'll be a motion. We'll take a vote on the bill then. And let's see. Assemblymember Dixon, it looks like Assemblymember Carrillo snuck in ahead of you. Assembly member Carrillo, you are presenting AB 2721?

Yeah, Mister Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to present this bill.

I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 2721, a Latino caucus party bill to ensure workplace safety for hospitality workers and guests. I want to start by saying I accept the committee amendments. Thank you to the Chair and the committee staff for their work on this. AB 2,721 is a common sense balance bill simply directing hotels to disclose via notice when a hotel has actual knowledge of a reservation made with U. S.

Customs and Border Protection, as well as U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. From this bill, first committee referral to the present, it stated a balanced, piece of legislation by by doing two things, focusing on protecting our our hospitality workers and secondly, not expanding liability in any way for hotels. Compliance is materially and intentionally simple.

A printer, paper, tape, and open wall space visible to hospitality workers, hotels already post notices when elevators are out of service, or some elements on the premises require notification. This bill simply implies the same common sense principle of disclosure to activities affecting the safety of the workplace. This bill does not prohibit hotels from hosting federal agencies or undercut law enforcement operations to combat drug or human trafficking operations.

Federal agencies themselves use their massive budget increases to redirect thousands of unfortunate personnel away from drug and human trafficking operations to expand their operations targeting immigration enforcement. On that point, I want to add that ICE has embedded media outlets like Fox News and media figures with our operations, meaning the agency itself is sharing sensitive information publicly.

That undercuts the argument that their operations are too sensitive for a bill like this to become law. The bill does not seek to expand or expose hotels only for the liability. That's not the point here. In fact, we see disclosure and prioritizing the safety and workers as the best practice for those liability all around. Be honest about the situation on the premises and you give people the chance to be safe, safely, proactively.

The bill's intent is not to identify individuals, but to inform workers about operational conditions that may affect their safety. FAFSA rollout can ensure disclosures remain general and identify only the agencies without compromising anyone's security. This bill does not regulate the actions of the Federal Government or create long term burdens even if federal policy changes. The notice outlet is minimal and consistent with existing posting obligations.

California has a long history of requiring notice for safety purposes from Proposition 65 labels to real estate transactions that do not, like this bill, interfere with commerce.

This bill recently replies the precedent to balance everyone's needs. After the deaths of two Americans and 14 detainees, including some in my district, I sense the public's trust at this point for communities to feel safe in their presence. The Latino caucus respectfully ask for your vote on AB 2721. Thank you.

Do you have witnesses?

I do not have witnesses, sir.

Well, there's one witness ready to come forward. So

Oh, please come in.

In support, I'm presuming. Proceed to the microphone.

Honorable acting Chair Nilo, member. I'm Laura Strand representing Unite Here Local eleven. On behalf of more than 32,000 hospitality workers across Southern California and Arizona, we are proud to sponsor AB 2721 and respectfully urge your support for the bill. We are happy to accept the committee's amendments. Our union is largely made up of women, immigrants, and people of color.

Our members are the backbone of California's hospitality industry, welcoming millions of visitors each year, yet they are often the workers most directly impacted when federal immigration enforcement activity occurs in and around hotel properties. AB 2721 is a common sense measure. As amended, the bill requires hotels to provide notice when they have actual knowledge that they are hosting US Immigration and Customs Enforcement or US Customs and Border Patrol.

The bill does not regulate federal law enforcement activities, disclose personal information, or prohibit hotels from contracting with these agencies. It simply ensures that workers are informed when these agencies are present.

For our members, this issue is not abstract. Hotel workers have raised serious concerns about the presence presence of federal agents in hotels, including fear, uncertainty, and workplace safety concerns. Workers deserve to know the conditions of their workplace before they walk in. The amendments take significantly narrowed and clarified the bill. AB 2721 now applies only to ICE and CPB reservations, only where there is a, notice to the workers identifying the agency and the duration of its stay.

We appreciate these amendments and support the bill in its current form with committee amendments. They ensure the bill remains narrowly tailored while advancing its core purpose. For these reasons, Unite Here Local eleven respectfully urges an aye vote on AB 2721, and we sincerely thank Assemblymember Carrillo for his leadership on this issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have, another primary witness? Oh, okay. We'll move to Me Too then.

Mister Chair, member Sarah Flock, California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Others in support?

Connor Gussman on behalf of Team Street Oh, sorry. United here internationally in support.

Others in support? Seeing none come forward, move to the opposition. Primary witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, honorable vice Chair and member. My name is Alexander Resideo, and I'm here on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association. I would like to start by thanking the committee and the author for your work on this bill and this issue. There have been a lot of amendments which should significantly improve the bill from an operational implementation standpoint.

With the amendment that the author has indicated he will take with respect to the notice posting requirements as well as the previously discussed sunset, California Hotel and Lodging Association will be moving to a neutral position upon implementation of those amendments.

I wanna thank you again for your work on this bill.

Thank you. Primary witness in witness in opposition.

Thank you. Robert Wintree, California Chamber of Commerce. Good morning, Mister Chair and member. Echoing the appreciation and anticipating to moving neutral when the events are in print. Thank you.

Do we have others, for Me Too testimony in opposition to the bill?

Keith Miller with the Asian American Hotel Owners Association. We do appreciate the amendments. We're still opposed because it puts our hoteliers in the middle of a political fight. We still wanna protect our workers, obviously.

Thank you. Others opposed? Seeing none come forward, we will bring it back to our robust committee. No questions or comments. Waiting for a quorum, of course.

In the meantime, you may close.

Thank you, Mister Chair and, Senator. Appreciate your consideration from my report when the time is appropriate. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Well, Assemblymember Dixon, it looks like you survived another not having another sneak in ahead of you.

The competition is

He did? Oh. Uh-oh. Assemblymember Chen, will you allow Assemblymember Dixon to go ahead since she's standing there?

Thank you, Mister Chen.

Yeah.

She promises to be as quick as possible. Yeah.

This will be quick.

You may proceed.

Thank you, honorable Mr. Chair and member of the committee. It's a pleasure to be here with you this morning. I'm pleased to present Assembly Bill 2035, which would allow greater flexibility in updating CC&Rs for large HOAs, homeowner associations.

Under existing law, if a homeowners' association is unable to achieve quorum, the quorum requirement established by their covenants, conditions, and restrictions--CC&Rs--the HOA can petition their superior court for an order that reduces the percentage of affirmative votes necessary for an amendment by their declarations to 50% of all homeowners. The current statute exists due to the fact that many HOAs often struggle to meet quorum requirements in order to update their CC&Rs.

This struggle can happen for a multiple of reasons, including low voter engagement and high percentage of nonresident owners. One such HOA is Laguna Woods Village in my district which has been unable to update their CC&Rs since 1988. To put this in perspective, Mikhail Gorbachev was president of the Soviet Union and George H. W. Bush was president the last time their CC&Rs were amended. Since 2019, the HOA has spent over $140,000 trying to turn out the vote in two separate elections.

In addition, due to the large size of the HOA, which is over 6,000 interest, these elections have been conducted in partnership with industry professionals to ensure a fair and efficiently administered process. Despite all these efforts, they have been still unable to update their severely out-of-date CC&Rs.

To remedy this issue, AB 2035 creates an additional alternative vote reduction in California law. This reduction would allow an HOA to petition the court for approval of the amendments to their CC&Rs if 37% of all homeowners vote affirmatively. This legislation has been drafted extremely narrowly and would only apply to one HOA in the state, which is Laguna Woods Village.

This bill represents a balanced change that would allow Laguna Woods Village to update their CC&Rs while maintaining the already existing court approval process to ensure accuracy and fairness. This bill has also received unanimous bipartisan support throughout the process. I have with me today Kathy Van Osten, who will be speaking on behalf of Laguna Woods Village and can answer any technical questions. Thank you.

You may proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Senator Laird. Kathy Van Osten, on behalf of Third Laguna Hills Mutual. As the Assembly Member indicated, this bill is really narrowly defined to only address this particular HOA. We have verified that from multiple sources that this HOA is the only one impacted by this, and it really-- they have come to the legislature out of sheer frustration.

They have done everything possible to try to get people out to vote. They have a number of foreign owners that frankly just don't vote. They have a a number of sunbirds. Around 25% of their homeowners are snowbirds, so they come down but they tend to not vote. So they haven't even been able to get to 50% in order to achieve an affirmative vote to get to court for approval. The best they've ever been able to do is 47% voter turnout, which is not fabulous in our world but not bad in theirs.

Eighty-five percent of the homeowners supported the CC&R changes, but that still only got them to just under 40%. So we need this change in statute for this particular circumstance so they can get their CC&Rs updated. There have been well over 20 changes to the Davis-Stirling Act that we've not be able to reflect in the CC&Rs.

You've had new technologies come on board--EVs, EV chargers, solar, you know, just to name a few--and this is really their only opportunity to be able to update these documents, and once they get them up updated, obviously they can put a reasonable vote in, hopefully not have to come back for another opportunity. So respectfully--excuse me--ask for your aye vote and happy to answer any questions.

Any other principal witnesses in--

No.

Are there folks in the room that support this bill that would like to state so? I'm seeing no one come forward. Move to the possible opposition. Are there any primary witnesses opposed to the bill? Seeing none come forward. Any other people that are opposed wish to express their opinion? Seeing no one come forward. Bring this back to the committee. Senator Laird.

The author was on thin ice when she started saying everything that had happened in 1988.

I was still running a car dealership.

I was in my seventh year on the Santa Cruz City Council, so it's not that long ago. I was referencing earlier just to my own residency in HOA and what some of the issues are--it's a block from here--and we have had various elections where the turnout has just been a few votes short of the minimum and they've had to either redo it or try to extend the time for all the reasons that you've said. So I think that I will look forward to supporting this bill when we have a quorum.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, it sounds like you have a motion in waiting as we have a quorum in waiting. In the meantime, you may close.

Well, thank you, both the senators. I respectfully ask for an aye vote and would be honored. And as a resident of another HOA in Orange County, I sympathize with this problem because people are either absentee or uninterested, but getting changes to the CC&Rs is a problem. But this is very narrowly constructed, and I hope we could get a support from the committee. So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for letting me proceed, Assembly Member Chen.

Well, it was totally up to Assemblyman Chen.

I'm grateful.

But now is your time. AB 1827, I presume.

Mister Sherry, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. I wanna start off by saying that Senator Laird is the epitome that age is nothing but a number as you are a beautiful, beautiful human being. So with that, allow me to present AB 1827. The truth is Flattery will get

you everywhere.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I wanna thank you for the committee to help me throughout this process, and I thank you so much for the incredible staff for doing the incredible job they're doing to advocate for this bill. The small claims court was designed to provide a fast affordable way to resolve routine disputes. However, the current $6,250 limit for businesses has not kept up with the pace of inflation or stays business costs.

AB 1827 updates that limit by increasing the small claims jurisdictional limit for business

Excuse me, Assemblymember Chen. Could we, have those doors closed, please? There's a lot of noise out in the hallway that competes with, the speakers in here.

Excuse me, Assemblymember Chen. Could we, have those doors closed, please? There's a lot of noise out in the hallway that competes with, the speakers in here.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Mister Sherry, thank you very much for that. So AB 1827 updates that limit by increasing a small claims jurisdictional limit for businesses to $15,000 per case and allowing business to follow-up to three claims per year. The bill maintains all existing safeguards. Attorney representation remains prohibited. Procedures stay simple and accessible, and judges retain full oversight.

This will give small business a more practical way to recover legitimate debts and enforce contracts. Today, I have Cliff Byrd testifying on behalf of California's Association of Collectors.

Thank you, Mister Mister chairman. Cliff Byrd. Here on behalf of the California Association of Collectors, which we are the sponsors of AB 1827, which will modernize California small claims courts by updating the dollar limits and number of filings, particularly for small businesses. This update reflects today's economic realities in better service both small businesses and consumers. California has experienced a dramatic drop in small claims cases filed.

In 1982, we had 600,000 cases, and 2,325 cases, and in 2023, fewer than a 100,000. This dramatic decline reflects a significant problem in accessing the small claims court. This bill increases the small business small claims jurisdictional limit from 6,250 to 15,000 and allows small businesses up to three filings per year from the current limit of two filings, so an increase of one more per year while maintaining all existing procedural safeguards.

As the author has said, small claims is an important opportunity for small business and consumers to ensure that meaningful disputes can be resolved efficiently in the appropriate forum without fundamentally altering the structure of the small claims system. Unfortunately, today, small businesses are often confronted with the choice.

Can they afford to hire an attorney and go to limited civil, or can they take off a entire day to sit in small claims court for a very small dollar amount? By increasing the dollar limits and increasing the number of filings per year, we're giving an opportunity for many small businesses in essence to re recoup money that would otherwise be lost and get it back into the economy so that those businesses can hire and employ people and provides good goods and services.

Urge your aye vote on behalf of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have another primary witness? No, Mister Chair. Are there others in the room, in support of the bill? Come forward to the microphone, state your name, organization, position.

Mister Chair, member, Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in support.

Others in support. Proceed to the microphone. Seeing none come forward. Now, moving to the opposition. Do we have a primary witness opposed?

You may proceed.

Thank you, Mister Chair and member. Heather Reseteris with the Judicial Council of California. The Judicial Council is opposed to AB 1827 because this bill risks frustrating the purpose of small claims courts, which are intended to be places where average citizens representing themselves without lawyers can get their day in court as quickly and inexpensively as possible. The bill more than doubles the dollar amount of the money that can be sought in a small claims court, proceeding without any commensurate changes to the court filing fees.

It also, lastly, presents the real likelihood that our already packed small claim court calendars will be overtaken with debt collection activities, actions which can already be taken in Superior Court, which pushes out available hearing dates for Californians seeking resolution to their everyday problems like neighborly disputes, consumer fraud, injury accidents, and so on.

So for these reasons, we are opposed to the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there another primary witness in opposition? Seeing no one come forward. Do we have individuals in the room that would just like to state their position that are who are opposed to the bill? And seeing no one come forward, it is back to the committee again.

We appear to have no questions or comments. Again, waiting for the quorum. You may close.

I respect less than admiral, Mister Chair. Thank you. Thank you.

And, Assemblymember Bauer Kehan, yes. It's you. It's your time. You have, two bills to present.

I I think this might be the least number of bills I've ever had in Judith Sherry. Happy to start with AB 1577, Mister Trump?

Fifteen seventy seven it is.

Thank you. Good afternoon. No, morning. Still morning. Just feels like afternoon already.

Today, I'm proud to present AB 1577, the Data Center Energy Accountability Act. AB 1577 requires data centers to report various energy usage statistics to the Energy Commission on a regular basis and report estimates of the same information to local planning agencies during permitting. I wanna thank committee staff for their work on the bill.

I'm committed to continuing to work with this committee on the bill's data confidentiality provisions in order to protect trade secrets and the public's access to information pursuant to the Public Records Act. I know the Energy Commission has processes for trade secrets, and we're working with them closely to ensure this aligns with their current processes to protect trade secrets for California's data centers.

This bill is incredibly important because as we know, the data center industry is growing. We've seen right here in our own state where an energy provider in Lake Tahoe has left Lake Tahoe to provide energy solely to a data center in Nevada. So this is impacting our grid today.

And in order for us to plan for our grid and keep both the lights on for our constituents and the data centers, we need to have accurate information in order to plan long term for the future of California's energy and how we will get it to all of our constituents in an affordable and reliable way. With me today is Ethan Rarick, executive director of the Little Hoover Commission. Thank you very much, Mister Chair

and members. As you know, Mister One one moment, please. Do you accept the amendment?

I do.

Thank you very

Okay. Okay.

much. As you know, as a member, Mister Chair, the, Little Hoover Commission is a bipartisan independent organization charged in statute with recommending reforms to state policy. Earlier this year, we released a report on the growth of data centers and how the data centers should be, integrated into the state's electricity system, and especially how rates may be affected. As the member noted, the experts project massive growth in data center demand in the coming years.

And this growth has important implications for grid reliability, infrastructure planning, water use, community impacts, and other issues.

Our report identified four key principles. First, make sure that the financial burden of data centers falls on the centers, not on rate payers. Second, integrate data centers into the system in a way that ensures the reliability of the grid and does not add needless costs. Third, maintain the state's commitment to clean energy goals. And fourth, relevant to this bill, ensure that California regulators have access to relevant information such as how much power is used by the centers.

This bill addresses those needs for transparency and data access. Regulators currently rely largely on aggregated electricity consumption data, which can make it difficult to understand how an individual facility interacts with the grid or affects specific communities. Better data would allow the state to plan responsibly for the rapid expansion of data centers while protecting communities, the electrical grid, and rate payers.

We believe that AB 1577 implements our recommendation by establishing a structured reporting framework while balancing public transparency and privacy concerns, and therefore respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have another, primary witness?

It's all, sir.

Are there others in the room, in support that would like to express their support? Come to the microphone, give your name, organization, and position.

Thank you. Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities in support. Caitlin Leventhal with the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.

Hi. Lisa Bored with the Greenlining Institute in support.

Any others in support? Seeing none come forward. Are there primary witnesses, that are opposed to this bill?

Good morning, Chair and member. Shanti Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. We'd like to start by thanking the author for her continued work, in coordination with stakeholders on this bill. We are currently opposed to the bill in print, but very much encouraged by the amendments that are in the analysis and look forward to bringing those amendments and language back to our membership, and would just like to express that on the record. And thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Others opposed to the bill? Approach the microphone.

Good morning. Rana Gailami on behalf of Cal Jamer. I'll echo the comments of my colleague. We really appreciate the direction. We're also reviewing the amendments and appreciate the author.

Thank you.

Others opposed? Seeing, none. Bring it back to the committee. Questions, comments? Well, again, waiting for a quorum.

You may

close. Thank you, senators. This is really important to respond to our constituents' desires for us to get control of, our energy needs. And with that, when the time is appropriate, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And now, on to 2164.

Thank you, Senator. I wanna start by thanking the committee staff for their analysis on the bill. I'm presenting AB 2164, which is an important bill that will protect California health care providers from being extradited out of state for care that is fully legal here in California. Luckily, our current governor has taken a strong stance on protecting our providers and denied out-of-state expeditions even though we have seen such requests take place.

However, looking to the future, it's imperative that California providers are safe against threats of extradition rather than the case-by-case basis under which our current law deals with it.

17 other states have already have firm extradition clauses such as the one proposed in this bill. AB 2164 codifies current protections, ensuring that regardless of who the governor is, our brave health care providers are protected. The bill creates reciprocal protections for licensed providers who may be here and also didn't commit a crime while providing health care.

The bill has already been narrowed in scope, and we'll continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that the bill strengthens California shield laws in the most effective manner while also protecting patients. AB 2164 is sponsored by the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine and is supported by Planned Parenthood, Equality California, the OBGYNs, and our own legislative LGBTQ caucus.

With me today in support is Lizzie Hinkley, legal director with the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, and doctor Kelly Pfizer, founder and director of Aria Medical. Here. Maybe they're out in the crowd. There they are. Right at the microphone.

Okay.

You're okay.

The microphone there. Yes.

Thank you. My name is Lizzy Hinkley, and I am the legal director for the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine. ACT is an advocacy organization at the forefront of advancing comprehensive shield laws, enabling telemedicine abortion providers to meet the access needs of patients across the country. AB 2164 strengthens California's existing shield laws by prohibiting future governors from honoring extradition requests for individuals who provide or assist with reproductive or gender affirming care that is legal in California.

By removing discretionary authority, the bill ensures California health care providers cannot be extradited to states seeking to criminalize essential health care.

This legislation is urgently needed as states across the country seek to enforce abortion bans by criminally targeting abortion providers and increasingly patients themselves. This is not hypothetical. Two doctors providing abortion care pursuant to the shield law protections have already been indicted. In the years since Dobbs, shield laws enacted in California and across the country have protected these providers from being extradited to states that have criminalized abortion access.

Absent statutory protection, if left to the discretion of a different governor, those abortion providers would be sitting in jail awaiting criminal trial.

California providers should not have to practice under the uncertainty of shifting political winds. AB 2164 provides the stability and security necessary to ensure California remains a safe place for patients and providers. The abortion coalition for telemedicine is honored to be the lead sponsor of AB 2164. We thank Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan for championing this critical legislation and respectfully urge a yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support?

Yeah. Thank you so much. My name is doctor Kelly Peifer. I live in California. I'm a family doc, and I've been an abortion provider for over 25 years.

In 2023, I started a medication abortion clinic in Kansas to serve patients traveling from states like Texas that were criminalizing abortion care, and our team opened a location in Ohio last year. I also ran a practice that does telehealth abortions in California, Nevada, and Arizona. I know I'm taking some risk treating abortion patients. At any moment, an angry family member could try to prosecute me even though the care I provide is absolutely legal according to California law and in the states where I practice.

We're in a time of creative and escalating attacks.

My colleagues working in telehealth practices, mentioned by my colleague earlier are taking even more risk as their work allows people living in restricted states to receive pills by mail. We're all part of a system that assures people are not forced to continue a pregnancy just because of the state they live in, and we all are counting on California shield law. I live and work here because I believe California will always protect health care access.

However, without this bill, protection against an unjust prosecution by another state's officials for political reasons is not assured. And this bill strengthens existing shield laws that prohibits future governors from honoring extradition requests from per for providers who assist with health care that's legal in California.

It assures reciprocal protections, so abortion providers who visit California also are also are protected, and that our state is on record for supporting safe and legal care. Protecting us from prosecution should not depend on shifting political whims or a single person's decision. And by removing discretionary authority in these circumstances, this bill assures that California health care providers cannot be arrested or extradited to states seeking to criminalize care.

This is crucial protection, and I strongly urge you to support the passage of AB 2164 and thank you.

Thank you very much. That was just about exactly two minutes, I think. Others, in support, state your name, organization, and position.

My name is Katrina Cantrell. I'm the executive director of Women's Health Specialist. Women's Health Specialist is a 51 year organization that has served with reproductive rights and health care for the last 51years. I'm here in support of 2164. We have shepherded physicians.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Karen Stout here on behalf of the California Nurse Midwives Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support?

Jennifer Robles with Health Access California in support.

Martin Radosevich, on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California, in support.

Benjamin Henderson with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Kathy Van Osten, on behalf of the American Association of University Women, in support.

Good morning. Angela Pontes, on behalf of Planned Parenthood affiliates of California, in support.

Ryan Spencer behalf of the American College of OBGYN's District 9, in support.

Others in support, seeing none come forward. Do we have primary witnesses in opposition? Approach the microphone, please. You have two minutes.

Alright. Thank you. Matthew Ward. Members, this bill asked California to become a sanctuary, not for vulnerable children, but for the people who permanently altered children's bodies. Read the bill carefully.

It does not protect children. It protects the adult who perform irreversible medical interventions on children. AB 2164 extends California's legal shield to providers who remove healthy breasts or genitals from minors, suppress natural puberty, and administer cross sex hormones even when another state has determined those actions violate its laws. Think about what that means. A child can lose the ability to have biological children before ever becoming an adult.

A child can lose normal sexual function before ever understanding what was taken from them. A child can become a lifetime of hormone surgeries and medical dependence. And instead of asking whether that child was harmed, California answers it to shield the provider from accountability. I know many of you believe you are acting out of compassion. I do not question your intentions, but history is filled with well-intentioned people who were tragically wrong.

Good intentions do not restore fertility. Good intentions do not restore healthy organs. Good intentions do not reverse permanent medical interventions. This bill is also in, unconstitutional. The extradition clause does not permit a governor to refuse a facially valid extradition request simply because California disagrees with another state's laws, yet that is exactly what AB 2164 attempts to authorize.

And it strikes at one of our nation's oldest and most fundamental liberties, the right of parents to direct the medical care of their children. Instead of protecting families, this bill protects those who may have bypassed parental authority while making accountability harder to achieve. California should not be a refuge for those who profit from the bodies of other states' children. Ask yourself one question before you vote.

When history looks back at this moment, will California be remembered as the state that protected children or the state that protected people who permanently harmed them?

Thank you.

Chair and members, my name is Leandra Wells with the California Family Council in opposition to AB 2164, which builds a wall around two things. California refuses to look at honestly. First, what the bill calls gender affirming care, we call them sex rejecting procedures. Puberty blockers set cross sex hormones and surgeries on minors. This year, the US Department of Health and Human Services released a peer-reviewed evidence review, finding that the evidence for benefit is low and the evidence of harm is significant.

England, Sweden, Finland, and Norway have all pulled back for the same reasons. The human cost is in the courtroom. In January, a New York jury awarded 2 million dollars to a young woman whose doctors approved a double mastectomy at 16 without meeting the standard of care. Here in California, Chloe Cole is suing Kaiser over the same harm. AB 2164 extends legal cover to the very providers now being held liable.

Second, abortion. California no longer has an ultrasound requirement and has expanded mail-order chemical abortion with no in-person doctor appointment. An analysis of over 800,060 cases found a serious adverse event rate far higher than the label reports. So I have to ask plainly, why is safety never the thing we worry about here? Look at who you are sacrificing to protect abortion and transgender ideology.

Please consider that those who see themselves as heroes are the last to see the harm. Finally, this bill raises serious full faith and credit concerns. Your own analysis admits as much, but you are plowing ahead anyway, knowing you will be sued for violating the US Constitution. I encourage you to reconsider. Please oppose AB 2164.

Thank you.

Thank you. Others, opposed, that would like to state so, come to the microphone. Name, organization, and position.

Florentina de Janaro with Mom's Army, thousands of moms through California, also representing Freedom Coalition, and also representing Church of Lab Tidings in opposition.

Rochelle Conner, on behalf of Concerned Women for America, representing thousands of mothers and families in strong opposition.

Others opposed, come forward to the microphone. Seeing none, we will bring this back to the committee. Yes, Senator Laird.

I, I would just wanna thank the author for bringing the bill. And at 4 o'clock when we have the quorum, I will be moving the bill.

Thank you, Senator.

You are optimistic.

I'm hoping 4 o'clock is an optimist.

You, you may close.

Thank you. And when the time is right, I respectfully ask for the committee's aye vote.

Thank you. And Assemblymember Pacheco?

Krell is here and Johnson.

Oh, yes. Very patiently waiting, and it's your time. Assemblymember Krell.

No, Johnson.

Oh.

Let's start with John.

Yeah. Thank you.

Yes. Yes.

It's

Yes.

And, we have AB 2529.

We do.

How did I know? You may proceed.

Good morning, Mister Chair and committee members. AB 2529 addresses a narrow but significant gap in government claims act to ensure accountability when individuals seek monetary damages from public agencies. The claim presentation requirement is a vital gateway that gives public entities notice and an opportunity to settle legitimate grievances before costly litigation begins. Under existing law, claimants are encouraged to use standardized forms provided by the state or local agencies.

Most of these forms, like the forms from the Department of General Services, already require a signature under penalty of perjury or a declaration of truth.

However, courts have held that claimants are not actually required to use these forms. If a claimant chooses to draft their own letter instead of using an agency form, current statute only requires a simple signature. It does not require them to attest to the facts within the claim are actually true. AB 2529 simply requires that all claims, whether submitted via an agency form or an informal letter, must include declaration that the contents are true and correct to the best of the claimant's knowledge.

This creates a single uniform standard for all claimants seeking taxpayer funded payouts.

AB 2529 is supported by the California Contract Cities Association, the County Of Riverside, and supported by dozens of city across the state of California. It protects public resources from frivolous or exaggerated claims while preserving full access to justice that have valid grievances. While labor stakeholders were opposed prior to amendments taken in Assembly judiciary, they have not renewed their opposition as noted in the committee analysis. With me to testify, I think somewhere in here, maybe they're making their way through the hallway.

I'll announce them so they know they're being called to the principal's office.

David Quintana for on behalf of the City of Hidden Hills is a cosponsor, and Jason Gonzales on behalf of the city of Carson.

Still here.

And presumably, they're in the hallway?

It's kind of wild out there.

They are AWOL.

They are. I hope they're not AWOL. I hope they're just crowded.

The door is opening. That does not look like either one of them. Well, do we have others that are in support of this bill?

Kelly Brooks on behalf of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors here in support.

Thank you. Any others in support? Well, seeing none come forward, we'll move to a possible opposition. What are you doing with that Dodgers? Sure.

No. Go Giants. Do we have any opposition to the bill? Seeing none come forward on the other witnesses going once, going twice, appears that they are performing someplace else. That happens.

That happens. We will bring this back to the committee though. Any questions or comments? Seeing none, Senator Laird has said we'll have a quorum at 04:00. I think he's optimistic but there's Mister Quintana.

Yeah. I shoot it. Primary witness in favor to the microphone over there if you would.

Everybody's running around. Thank you. Thank you, chairman. Give me one second here. Okay. Catch your breath.

Yeah. Thanks. Thank you. Good morning, Mister chairman and committee members. AB 2529 David Quintana on behalf of the city of Hidden Hills.

A B 2529 intends to ensure accountability when individuals seek monetary damages from public agencies. The current claim presentation requirement allows cities notice and an opportunity to settle legitimate grievances before costly litigation begins. Currently, claimants are only encouraged to use standardized forms when currently, claimants are only encouraged to use standardized forms when seeking a claim against a public agency. They're free to draft the claim however they want.

Most of these standardized forms, like those from the Department of General Services, require signature under penalty of perjury or a declaration of truth.

However, if a claimant chooses not to use a standardized form, such as one provided by DGS, and instead submits a self drafted letter, current law requires only a signature. There's no requirement that the claimant attests that the information provided is true and correct to the best of their knowledge. All this bill does is require that every claim, regardless of how it is submitted, include an attestation that the information provided is true and correct, nothing more.

When settlements involve taxpayer funds, a simple declaration is a minimal safeguard to help ensure that the that only legitimate claims are brought forward. Thank you.

You

you did pretty well. Not too much, heavy breathing there. So we'll go with that as your, primary witness. And I don't think we have any questions. So, when we do reach a quorum, I'm sure there'll be a motion and we'll take a vote.

In the meantime, you may close.

Thank you. Just simply stated, the bill is about one thing, protecting taxpayer dollars from frivolous claim claims against public agencies. It's narrowly tailored and has been developed with direct input for stakeholders at the appropriate time. I would, requestly, request your aye vote. I did forget to mention in my opening that it has received broad or bipartisan support, and I thank you for the opportunity to present.

Thank you. And

so next next would be thank you very much. I'm I was surprised and a little disappointed that you all were still here when I came back. I thought that Senator Nielo would get that resolved, but apparently not. We moved perfectly as we said. Alright.

So Assemblymember Awahari, and then I see other Assemblymember's here. If no one who falls in the alphabet before the Assemblymember's that are here, you would go next. So keep your fingers crossed.

Alright. Remember, Krell has been very patient for

a long time. Now everybody above k knows that they should be running down here. So Alright. So Assembly member Awa Hari.

Morning, I think. I'm not sure. Good morning, Mister Chair and members. I am proud to present AB 2247, a bill that would establish the trauma healing and resilience investment for victimized and exposed youth act or the Thrive Act fast and responsive mental health services for people 25 impacted by gun violence, including victims and witnesses. In 2022 alone, nearly two thousand children and youth 25 were injured or killed by an act of gun violence.

While gun violence affects all communities, black and Latino youth, as well as youth in low income communities, are more likely to experience or witness gun violence, often with lasting mental health impacts. Existing systems that are supposed to act as safety nets to provide mental health services to survivors are riddled with red tape, can be a financial burden, and often difficult or impossible for youth to meaningfully access. Youth need access to timely and responsive mental health support in the wake of tragedy.

Trauma can lead to long term harm and cycles of continued violence. Research has shown that timely access to mental health care protects against these long term consequences.

Impacted children and young people endure while seeking help by reducing wait times, providing serve survivors with a list of mental health care providers or peer support specialists in their county, and establishing a mechanism to ensure survivors are not required to pay for these services out of pocket or wait to be reimbursed. When children and youth have experienced violence, who have experienced violence get the support they need in the immediate aftermath to heal, they are set up for a brighter future.

With me here today is Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice.

Thank you. Miss Walker, floor is yours.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair members. Capri Walker with CSJ. I will be reading, a statement on behalf of Bridget Montoya, who is a member of our sister organization, Crime Survivors Speak. Bridget was unable to make the hearing today, so I will be reading the testimony from her point of view.

My name is Bridget Montoya, and I am from the city of Pacoima. I am a mom of three, and I work for Champions in Service. On 10/01/2015, I was shot while I was walking in my neighborhood. I was in a coma for about a week and spent a month in the hospital. After I was released from the hospital is when the real recovery was supposed to start.

Not only was I physically injured, but also emotionally and mentally. It was really hard for me to even accept what had happened. At the time, I didn't think that what happened to me would affect me so much mentally. Living in the community I grew up in, violence is something that we normalize and something we're not supposed to talk about. After getting released from the hospital, I should have been offered mental health treatment.

I should have been able to talk to someone about what happened to me because it was very traumatizing. It was hard for me to speak to my friends and my family about the thoughts in my head because I felt like they didn't understand me. That is why passing the Thrive Act is so important. Survivors of any type of violence should have the access to mental health to help them in their recovery.

Having free mental health resources will help people begin to heal and have a safe outlet to discuss these types of things without feeling alone.

When a survivor doesn't receive opportunities to heal, violence will create more violence. I'm urging the legislature to support the Thrive Act today. Our communities now, more than ever, need to know it's okay to ask for help and that when we when they need it, they will be able to receive it without feeling that they can't pay for it or even have to sacrifice something looking for it. Please vote yes on AB 2247. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Other witnesses in support of AB 20247, now's a good time to come forward.

Good morning, Chair and members. Connor Gussman on behalf of prosecutors, Alliance Action in support.

Thank you.

Yesenia Robancho on behalf of End Child Poverty in California in proud support. Also, on behalf of myself as somebody who also benefited from these mental health services as survivor. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi there. Sarah Webber with the Drug Policy Alliance in support. Also on behalf of Community Burps in support.

Thank you. Others in support, please come forward. Going once, going twice, let's turn the opposition. If you're opposed to AB 2247, now's the time. Alright.

Seeing no one coming forward, let's bring it back to committee members. Questions by committee members? Seeing none, at the appropriate time, I would expect there'll be a motion. We have a I I I will recommend an aye vote. Would you like to close?

Yes. I was invited to the San Quentin prison, now rehabilitation center, a few months ago because the men inside mentioned how important this bill would have been for their own experiences, having not only been perpetrators of gun violence, but having witnessed it themselves. Those these mental health services would literally have changed their lives, and we wanna do that for our future. I respectfully ask for your eye vote at the appropriate time.

Alrighty. Thank you very much. Assemblymember Crowell, I think. Yes. You're a fleet of foot.

Good for you. Alright. Assemblymember Crowell. AB 1854, file name number 35.

Thanks very much. Good morning, Mister Chair and members. I'm pleased to present you with Assembly Bill 1854 this morning. This bill does two important things. It ensures that law enforcement in California will not arrest anyone who has not been who has not received a governor's extradition based on an action from another state for legally protected healthcare, reproductive rights here in California, and then it also expands our shield laws in California to make sure that we're protecting patients and providers from out of state actions.

This this shield law is important within the context of Roe versus Wade getting overturned with the Dobbs decision, of course, and states around the country, increasingly passing and attempting aggravated actions against our healthcare providers and patients when they access We have a good, strong framework already in place, but now is the time, with increasing actions from other states that we fortify this framework. This does so in a couple of simple ways.

This bill is sponsored by Attorney General Rob Bonta, supported by plan Planned Parenthood and many other reproductive rights, organizations. And I think with me here to testify is, Tiffany Brokaw from the Department of Justice.

Miss Brokaw, floor is yours.

Good morning, Chair members. Tiffany Brokaw here on behalf of attorney general Rob Bonta in the office of legislative affairs, and we are proud to cospons to sponsor AB 1854, and we'd like to thank Assemblymember Krell for her leadership on this important issue. AB 1854 clarifies and expands California shield laws to protect patients, health care providers, and others involved in reproductive health care and gender affirming care that is legal in California.

Since California shield laws took effect, anti abortion states have increased efforts to investigate and prosecute California providers, and some states have tried to extradite or take adverse legal actions against California doctors. AB 1854 addresses these issues by expanding shield law coverage to more California businesses and individuals who receive legal demands and clarifying that law enforcement cannot arrest someone if the governor refuses an extradition request.

As the legal landscape continues to shift nationwide, AB 1854 ensures that California will remain a safe haven for reproductive health care. And for these reasons, we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Others in support of AB 1854.

Martin Radosevich on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California in support. Thank you.

Burke Benetti in support on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Thank you. Others in support, seeing no one else coming forward, if you're opposed, AB 1854, please come forward.

Alright. Matthew Ward. I want to tell you about a child. She's taken across state lines. A telehealth provider in California prescribes her hormones, drugs that permanently alter her body before she is old enough to fully understand the lifelong consequences.

Her parents have no idea it is happening. Months later, they find out. They hire a lawyer. They seek the medical records needed to understand what happened to their daughter. Here's what AB 1854 does.

A California company holding those records must notify the attorney general. It must notify the provider whose records are being sought. Then the parents must wait thirty days before those records can be produced. Thirty days. Whether the records are ultimately produced or not, the bill deliberately delays parents who are trying to investigate what happened to their own child and give advance notice before disclosure.

That is a remarkable barrier to accountability. And if the company complies without following these requirements, California can impose a $10,000 civil penalty, $15,000 for subsequent violations, plus attorney's fees. The parents are simply trying to learn the truth about what happened to their child. Instead, California places procedural protections around the people and institutions involved. Those parents get nothing.

The provider who broke the law walks free, and California calls this health care protection. Recently, Herndon Graddick, the former executive director of GLAAD, said publicly, we should completely stop doing anything that might harm children even if it means we admit that we got something really wrong, and my understanding is that we have. The architect of the movement is confessing it harms children, and your answer is to build them a fortress. That is despicable. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Chair and members, my name is Leandra Wells with the California Family Council. AB 1854 turns California into a legal fortress for the abortion and gender transition industry, punishing any Californian who cooperates with another state's lawful investigation even when

the activity happened outside our borders. This is a sweeping attempt to export a culture of death while shielding those who harm children and then take innocent life. This bill doesn't protect, it punishes Any person or entity in California that complies with a lawful subpoena from another state could face fines of 10 to $15,000 from our own attorney general. That is not healthcare protections. It is compelled obstruction of justice.

And who pays the price? Families and children. A newly released finished study tracking more than 2,000 adolescents found that severe psychiatric problems were already high before these interventions, and it did not improve after medical gender treatments. In fact, mental health disorders remain elevated or worsened over time. These findings should give every member pause.

The evidence is increasingly clear. These sex rejecting procedures do not resolve underlying distress. They often deepen it. AB 1854 doubles down anyway anyway, shielding these interventions from scrutiny and accountability even across state lines. It tells providers no matter what harm is done, California will protect you.

And it tells parents in other states, California will obstruct your efforts to protect your own children. This bill also puts California organizations, including ministries, nonprofits, and businesses in an impossible position. Obey another state's lawful order and be punished here or refuse and face consequences there. That is coercion. Members, this bill is not about care.

It is about control. It elevates ideology above evidence, politics above parents, and power above the rule of law. For the sake of children, families, and true justice, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1854. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Yes. David Bullock on behalf of the LA County Moms for Liberty and the SFV Alliance, we are in opposition.

Thank you.

Rochelle Connor, on behalf of Concerned Women for America, strongly opposed, ask for a no vote.

Thank you.

Florentina DeGennaro with Moms Armies and Freedom Coalition and Church of Glad Tidings, strongly opposed.

Thank you.

Kara Martinson on behalf of the County Of Los Angeles in support. Sorry. I missed it earlier.

Okay. Thank you.

Chris Schultz with the California Bankers. We continue working with the author of the sponsor on some technical issues. Thank you.

Alrighty. Thank you. Anyone else in opposition, please come forward.

Mister Chair, I apologize for being late. I'm actually on the support side, just running from another committee. Tim Madden representing the California chapter of the Maryland College of Emergency Physicians in support.

Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else who wishes to provide me too testimony AB 1854 going once, going twice? Alright. Bring it back committee.

Senator Laird. I'm just gonna say, I appreciate the author bringing the bill and at a time when we have the quorum, I will be happy to move it.

Alright. Thank you very much. So noted. Other questions or comments? Seeing none, Assemblymember Crowell, would you like to close?

Thank you. Respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Okay. Thank you. Alright. Thank you, Assemblymember Crowell. Next would be Assemblymember Pacheco.

In alphabetical order appears. So Assemblymember Pacheco.

Thank you. And I will start off with file item number 49.

Alrighty.

Okay. Thank you. And I believe it's still kind of morning. Good morning or afternoon. Mister Chair and senators, I'm here to present AB 1821, which makes a modest change to help local agencies managing the increasing volume of public records requests.

I have amended the bill to align public records act response timelines with business days, creating more realistic and workable deadlines while preserving public access to records and response responding to feedback we have received. I wanna make clear that public access to government records is an essential part of our democracy. That principle does not change with this bill. What has changed is a surge in both the volume and complexity of public records requests.

Agencies across the state are experiencing a sharp increase in requests that are exceptionally broad, time-intensive, and costly to process.

In some cases, requests span years of records, require the review of hundreds of thousands of documents, and take months or longer to complete. My home city of Downey has seen a 73% increase in records requests since 2019. The city of Chula Vista spent more than 1,000 days processing a single request involving over 8,000 records that were never ex accessed. The City of Fontana received 112 complex requests from one individual who explicitly stated that their intent was to disrupt municipal operations due to a personal dispute.

In Donville, one request sought all emails sent to the public over a three-year period.

An estimated 350,000 emails requiring review review and production. In this example, the requester specified their intent was to gather data to train a large language model AI system. Similarly, other Bay Area agencies have received expansive public records request from gov DPT, a commercial platform focused on government contracting. One request sought five years of all external communications between members of a city council and the public, requiring the collection and review of a substantial amount of records.

Many online real estate companies use public records to update and add information on their websites using taxpayer funded staff times to support profit generating platforms.

Regardless of the intent, requests at this scale require significant time and resources to process. These kinds of requests slow down responses for everyone else, including journalists and community members using the system in good faith and pull public employees away from the core responsibilities that residents rely on. This surge has exposed a gap in current law. Currently, timelines are cal are calculated in calendar days, while the work of reviewing happens during business day hours.

When staff are facing review of 350,000 emails, the calendar day calculation creates a logistical mismatch that makes providing accurate timelines and communicating clearly with request requesters more difficult.

AB 1821 addresses this issue by calculating response timelines in business days rather than calendar days. While this bill now takes a much narrower approach, the underlying challenge remains. When agencies are overwhelmed by massive commercial or bad-faith requests, other requesters wait longer, and public employees are pulled away from their core responsibilities. And with me today to testify are Eric Lawyer on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and Johnnie, Johnnie Pinawith Cal Cities.

And they're also here to answer any technical questions and now we'll hand it over to my witnesses.

Alrighty. Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning, Chair members. Johnnie Pina. On behalf of the League of California Cities and strong support of AB 1821. A public agencies take the California Public Records Act very seriously. We are committed to transparency, and for most requests, records can be provided within hours, but the volume of and complexity of the requests have grown significantly over the years.

We are increasingly seeing large scale requests that were previously discussed that require substantial staff time. As it stands now, if a record is requested on a Friday afternoon, agencies only have a week to make the initial response unless they can justify an extension under narrow circumstances. And if the review period includes a holiday, even less time, even less time, since the weekends and holidays don't count towards the deadlines, even though the city of those, city offices are normally closed.

As requests grow more complex, this comprehensive this compressed timeline, rather, increases the risk, error, and liability. AB 1821 makes a narrow practical clarification by converting the CPRA timelines from calendar days to business days.

This aligns with the law, with how agencies actually operate, ensuring timelines reflect the actual work, when the staff are available to process the request. It does not reduce access to records or change what may disclose what must be disclosed. We appreciate the author's work and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.