GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO THE
ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.
AND IN ORDER FOR US TO COMPLETE
OUR AGENDA, ALLOW EVERYONE EQUAL
TIME, THE RULES FOR WITNESS
TESTIMONY ARE THAT EACH SIDE
WILL BE ALLOWED TWO MAIN
WITNESSES. WITNESSES WILL HAVE
UP TO TWO MINUTES TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF OR OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
SHOULD STATE ONLY THEIR NAMES,
ORGANIZATION, IF ANY, AND THEIR
POSITION ON THE BILL. AND AS WE
PROCEED WITH WITNESS AND PUBLIC
COMMENT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE
UNDERSTAND THIS COMMITTEE HAS
RULES TO ENSURE A FAIR AND
EFFICIENT HEARING IN ORDER TO
FACILITATE THE GOAL OF THE
HEARING AS MUCH. THE GOAL OF
HEARING AS MUCH OF THE PUBLIC
WITHIN THE LIMITS OF OUR TIME.
THE RULES FOR TODAY'S HEARING
INCLUDE NO TALKING OR LOUD NOISE
FROM THE AUDIENCE. PUBLIC
COMMENT MAY BE PROVIDED ONLY AT
THE DESIGNATED TIME. MUST BE
LIMITED TO YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION, AND SUPPORT OR
OPPOSITION OF A BILL BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE. COMMENTS ON OTHER
ISSUES WILL BE RULED OUT OF
ORDER, AND THE MICROPHONE MAY BE
DISCONNECTED. AND THERE ARE
OTHER RULES LIKE DON'T ENGAGE IN
CONDUCT THAT DISRUPTS, DISTURBS
AND SO ON. BUT I THINK
EVERYONE'S GOING TO BE VERY WELL
BEHAVED TODAY. AND SO LET'S GO
AHEAD AND START AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE AS WE AWAIT A
QUORUM. SINCE WE DO HAVE AN
AUTHOR THAT CAME HERE ON TIME.
AND WE APPRECIATE THAT. FILE
ITEM TWO AB 316. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CARROLL.
AND YOU CAN BEGIN WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. AND WHENEVER YOUR
WITNESSES ARE SET UP, YOU CAN
FEEL FREE AND GO AHEAD AND BEGIN
AGAIN. THIS IS AB 316. GOOD TO
SEE YOU. HOW ARE YOU? I'M SORRY.
HI. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. FIRST
OF ALL, I JUST WANT TO SAY
THANKS TO THE CHAIR AND TO THE
COMMITTEE STAFF FOR DOING SUCH A
THOROUGH ANALYSIS ON THIS BILL.
THIS IS A VERY SIMPLE,
STRAIGHTFORWARD BILL. AB 316.
IT'S A MODEST PROPOSAL THAT BY
PROVIDING GUIDANCE TO OUR
COURTS, WILL HELP BOTH
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FULFILL
ITS POTENTIAL FOR BEING A
POSITIVE FORCE IN OUR STATE AND
ALSO PREVENT UNNECESSARY
LITIGATION. AS THE ANALYSIS
AFFIRMS, THIS BILL DOESN'T IN
ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM CHANGE.
YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T. IT DOESN'T
CHANGE CURRENT LAW IN ANY WAY.
IT DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT THE
BURDEN OF PROOF WOULD BE FOR A
PLAINTIFF. IT DOESN'T CREATE ANY
NEW THEORIES OF LIABILITY,
DOESN'T CREATE ANY NEW DEFENSES.
IT'S SIMPLY A RAIL GUARD TO
PREVENT TO PREVENT A USER OR A
COMPANY THAT CREATES AI FROM
THEN BEING ABLE TO BLAME THE AI
FOR AUTONOMOUSLY CAUSING HARM.
WHILE THE LEGISLATURE HAS TRIED
TO DO MORE TO REGULATE AI, AND
YOU KNOW, PERHAPS WE SHOULD,
THIS PROPOSAL IS JUST A BASIC
MINIMUM GUARDRAIL THAT WOULD
GOVERN FUTURE CASES. AS THE
BROOKING INSTITUTE OBSERVED, IF
COMPANIES WANT TO REAP THE
BENEFITS OF INTELLIGENT
ALGORITHMS, THEY ALSO NEED TO BE
WILLING TO ACCEPT THE ATTENDANT
RISKS. THAT'S ALL THIS BILL
DOES. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE, AND I'D LIKE TO
INTRODUCE YOU TO THE EXPERT
WITNESSES WE HAVE HERE TODAY.
MARK BERMAN, WHO IS THE CEO FROM
THE ORGANIZATION FOR SOCIAL
MEDIA SAFETY, AN ORGANIZATION
THAT I'VE HAD THE PLEASURE OF
SERVING ON THE ADVISORY BOARD
FOR IN THE PAST. AND THEN ALSO
LEORA GERSHENSON, WHO SOME OF
YOU KNOW, WHO IS A POLICY
DIRECTOR FOR THE CALIFORNIA
INITIATIVE FOR TECHNOLOGY AND
DEMOCRACY. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CHAIR, VICE CHAIR,
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
MARK BERKMAN. I AM THE CEO OF
THE ORGANIZATION FOR SOCIAL
MEDIA SAFETY, A NATIONAL
CONSUMER PROTECTION ORGANIZATION
FOCUSED EXCLUSIVELY ON SOCIAL
MEDIA. WE'RE PROUD TO CO-SPONSOR
ASSEMBLYMEMBER CARELS AB 316.
PART OF OUR MISSION HAS ALWAYS
BEEN PREEMPTING EMERGING AND
EVOLVING SOCIAL MEDIA RELATED
HARMS. WE TESTIFIED IN THIS
CHAMBER NEARLY SEVEN YEARS AGO,
WARNING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL
HARMS OF AI PRODUCED MALICIOUS,
PORNOGRAPHIC DEEPFAKES. TODAY,
EVEN MORE RISKS FROM AI
TECHNOLOGY CONTINUE TO REVEAL
THEMSELVES. THIS DANGER IS
ESPECIALLY APPARENT IN THE FORM
OF SO-CALLED CHAT BOTS THAT
ENABLE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN
USERS AND AN AI POWERED PROGRAM.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN 2024, CHARACTER
AI'S CHAT BOT ENCOURAGED A 14
YEAR OLD BOY TO TAKE HIS OWN
LIFE. THE BOY SUBSEQUENTLY DID.
BIG SOCIAL HAS EAGERLY ADOPTED
AI TECHNOLOGY, QUICKLY PROVIDING
NEW FEATURES TO USERS INCLUDING
CHILDREN. HERE'S WHAT A
WASHINGTON POST REPORTER RELAYED
AFTER SNAPCHAT RELEASED MY AI,
ITS OWN VERSION OF A CHAT BOT.
AFTER I TOLD MY AI I WAS 15 AND
WANTED TO HAVE AN EPIC BIRTHDAY
PARTY, IT GAVE ME ADVICE ON HOW
TO MASK THE SMELL OF ALCOHOL AND
POT. IN ANOTHER CONVERSATION
WITH A SUPPOSED 13 YEAR OLD. MY.
I EVEN OFFERED ADVICE ABOUT
HAVING SEX FOR THE FIRST TIME
WITH A PARTNER WHO IS 31. I
THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THIS IS
DANGEROUS. THAT'S WHY
RESPONSIBLE POLICY MAKING TO
PROTECT FAMILIES IS IMPERATIVE.
AB 316 IS A SIMPLE BILL STATING
THAT NO COMPANY CAN RELY ON AI
AND AI POWERED FEATURES, ALLEGED
AUTONOMY OR INDEPENDENT DECISION
MAKING AS A DEFENSE IN A CIVIL
CASE, AS THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS
CORRECTLY OBSERVES, NOTHING IN
AB 316 ADDRESSES WHETHER STRICT
LIABILITY SHOULD APPLY. THAT
ISSUE REMAINS TO BE DECIDED BY
THE COURTS. IN FACT, NOTHING IN
AB 316 CHANGES ANYTHING AT ALL
IN CALIFORNIA'S CURRENT
JURISPRUDENCE. AGAIN, IT SIMPLY
STATES WHAT WE ALL KNOW TO BE
BASIC COMMON SENSE. IF YOU BUILD
AN AI POWERED FEATURE, IF YOU
DEPLOY AN AI POWERED FEATURE AND
IT CAUSES HARM, YOU SHOULD NOT
BE ABLE TO CLAIM THAT I CAUSED
THE HARM, NOT YOU. IF WE LEARN
ONE THING ABOUT SOCIAL MEDIA
SAFETY OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS,
IT'S THAT WE NEED TO GET AHEAD
OF THE RISKS. LET'S NOT SPEND
YEARS ENABLING BIG SOCIAL TO
LITIGATE A NOVEL LEGAL THEORY
THAT ALL OF US KNOW MAKES NO
POLICY SENSE, AND WOULD LEAVE
CALIFORNIA FAMILIES WITH NO
PROTECTION. BIG SOCIAL NEEDS TO
BE PUT ON NOTICE NOW THAT MOVING
FAST AND BREAKING THINGS WITH AI
SHOULD NO LONGER INCLUDE OUR
CHILDREN, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS LAURA GERSHENSON
WITH CITED THE CALIFORNIA
INITIATIVE FOR TECHNOLOGY AND
DEMOCRACY, A PROJECT OF
CALIFORNIA COMMON CAUSE. WE ARE
PROUD TO SUPPORT AB 316, WHICH
SEEKS TO DO ONE RATHER SMALL
THING, WHICH IS TO STOP
DEVELOPERS AND DEPLOYERS OF AI
THAT ACTUALLY CAUSE HARM FROM
TURNING AROUND AND SAYING THE AI
AUTONOMOUSLY DID THIS. THIS
WASN'T OUR FAULT. IMAGINE, FOR
THOSE OF YOU OLD ENOUGH TO
REMEMBER WHEN FORD PINTOS BLEW
UP BECAUSE OF FAULTY GAS TANKS,
IMAGINE IF FORD HAD SAID, WHOA,
THE GAS TANK DID THAT. WE DIDN'T
DO THAT. OF COURSE THAT DIDN'T
HAPPEN. OF COURSE, FORD WAS HELD
RESPONSIBLE, AND THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT CHANGED HOW IT
OVERSAW AUTO SAFETY AS A RESULT.
THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE IF IT'S
TESLA DRIVING ON AUTOPILOT THAT
CRASHES INTO A WALL, OR AS THE
VERY SAD CASE MENTIONED, OR IF
IT'S A CHAT BOT THAT TELLS AN
IMPRESSIONABLE AND DEPRESSED
CHILD TO KILL THEMSELVES AND
THEN TELLS THEM EXACTLY HOW TO
DO IT. THE AI DIDN'T DO THESE
THINGS. THE AI WAS CREATED, WAS
DEPLOYED, WAS USED BY AN ENTITY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT HARM. AND
ALL THIS BILL DOES IS ONE VERY
SMALL THING WHICH SAYS YOU CAN'T
HIDE BEHIND THE EYE AND SAID,
WHOA, WE DON'T KNOW HOW THAT
HAPPENED. WE HAD NOTHING TO DO
WITH IT. TO THOSE THAT ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CAUSING OF
THE HARM, AS THE ANALYSIS POINTS
OUT, AS THE AUTHOR STATED VERY
CLEARLY, THIS BILL DOES NOT
CHANGE THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE IN
CHIEF AT ALL. THE PLAINTIFF
STILL HAS THE EXACT SAME BURDEN
OF PROOF, WHETHER IT'S STRICT
LIABILITY OR NEGLIGENCE,
FORESEEABILITY, BREACH OF A
DUTY, CAUSATION, FORESEEABILITY.
ALL OF THAT REMAINS THE SAME,
AND IT WILL BE UP TO A COURT OR
FUTURE LEGISLATION TO DEAL WITH
THAT. WE THINK MUCH MORE NEEDS
TO BE DONE, BECAUSE MORE NEEDS
TO BE DONE TO PROTECT US FROM
HARMS THAT I MAY CAUSE. BUT THIS
IS A GREAT FIRST STEP AND WE
URGE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN SUPPORT OF AB 316? NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION ON THE
BILL, PLEASE. GOOD MORNING.
EXCUSE ME, NANCY PAVARINI, ON
BEHALF OF THE CONSUMER ATTORNEYS
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. ED HOWARD,
SENIOR COUNSEL AT THE CHILDREN'S
ADVOCACY INSTITUTE AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO SCHOOL
OF LAW. PLEASED TO CO-SPONSOR
THIS IMPORTANT MEASURE AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MISTER
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, IVONNE FERNANDEZ WITH
THE CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF
LABOR UNIONS IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. JENNIFER
TOVAR OF THREE STRANDS GLOBAL
FOUNDATION. WE ARE A CO-SPONSOR
AND WE SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS, JEFF
HANNA WITH THE CALIFORNIA NURSES
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 316? REAL
BRIEF. GOOD MORNING. CHAIR
MEMBERS ROBERT BOYKIN WITH
TECHNET CURRENTLY IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO AB 316. DUE TO OUR
CONCERNS WITH THE STRICT
LIABILITY THAT THIS BILL MAY
CAUSE, WE ARE IN CONVERSATION
WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND WE
HOPE, YOU KNOW, TO CONTINUE THAT
DISCUSSION AS THE BILL MOVES
FORWARD TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 316? CATHERINE
CHARLES, ON BEHALF OF THE
CHAMBER OF PROGRESS AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. BACK TO
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS?
ASSEMBLYMEMBER STEPHANIE? THANK
YOU. CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD AND TO THE
WITNESSES FOR YOUR TESTIMONY
TODAY. I MEAN, THIS IS A COMMON
SENSE, BILL, IN MY OPINION, AND
I AM IN FULL SUPPORT AS A MOTHER
OF TWO CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY A 15
YEAR OLD TEENAGE GIRL, TO SEE
THE EFFECTS OF SOCIAL MEDIA ON
HER AND HER FRIENDS AND THE
DAMAGE THAT CAN BE DONE. I THINK
THIS BILL, LIKE I SAID, IS
STRAIGHTFORWARD AND COMMON
SENSE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE
THE BILL. WE'LL HAVE TO, YEAH,
WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT TILL WE HAVE
A QUORUM. BUT I'LL NOTE THAT
WHEN WE DO GO TO QUORUM, MADAM
VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. I DO AGREE THIS IS A
COMMON SENSE, BILL, NOT ONLY TO
BE OVERLY SIMPLIFIED, BUT AS WE
MOVE FORWARD, PARTICULARLY IN
OTHER COMMITTEES LIKE THE
PRIVACY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE, I THINK THIS IS
IMPORTANT, FOUNDATIONAL WORK TO
ESTABLISH THE LIABILITY. AND
WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING
UNFORTUNATE OUTCOMES, ESPECIALLY
WITH CHILDREN. SO THANK YOU FOR
DOING THIS I APPRECIATE IT.
THANKS. THANK YOU. I AGREE, I
THINK ALTHOUGH I MAY BE
COMPLICATED, I THINK IT'S A
PRETTY SIMPLE PROPOSITION TO
CREATE A FOUNDATION THAT WE CAN
BUILD UPON AS WE DELVE INTO THE
MORE COMPLICATED ISSUES OF AI.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. AND WHEN WE GET A QUORUM,
WE CAN TAKE UP A VOTE ON THAT.
I'M HERE. YOU ARE HERE. I KNOW
THAT WOULD BE SHORT LIVED.
HOPEFULLY NOT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
OUR NEXT BILL IS ASSEMBLY BILL
251. MR. COLORADO. PLEASE
PROCEED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MADAM CHAIR. AB 251 GIVES A
JUDGE DISCRETION TO APPLY THE
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
STANDARD AS THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
IF THE COURT FINDS INTENTIONAL
DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE BY A
DEFENDANT, SKILLED NURSING
FACILITY OR RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY, OR FOR THE ELDERLY.
ALSO KNOWN AS REYES IN RELATION
TO A CIVIL CASE UNDER THE ELDER
ABUSE AND DEPENDENT ADULT CIVIL
PROTECTION ACT. THIS NARROW BUT
IMPORTANT ISSUE WILL ALLOW
ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF
ELDER ABUSE AND WILL DETER
AGAINST SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE.
THE BILL ALSO ADDRESSES THE
GOVERNOR'S VETO BY ALLOWING
JUDGES TO APPLY THE LOWER
STANDARD OR NOT. AFTER
DETERMINATION THAT SPOLIATION OF
MATERIAL EVIDENCE OCCURRED.
ADDITIONALLY, MOST RECENT
AMENDMENTS WERE WORKED OUT WITH
THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF
HEALTH FACILITIES TO CLARIFY
WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED
SPOLIATION IF PART OF A RECORD
RETENTION POLICY AND SUBJECT TO
A LITIGATION HOLD, AND AS A
RESULT, ARE NEUTRAL ON THE BILL.
FOR THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND,
YOU WILL NOTE THAT CHF HAS BEEN
THE PRIMARY OPPOSITION ON THIS
BILL OVER THE YEARS, AND OPPOSED
IT LAST YEAR ALL THE WAY TO THE
GOVERNOR'S DESK. AND SO FOR THEM
TO GO NEUTRAL, I'M VERY GRATEFUL
FOR THEIR WORK ON THIS WITH US.
AND I THINK THAT'S A REALLY
INCREDIBLE BREAKTHROUGH ON THIS
LEGISLATION. OFTEN ELDER ABUSE
VICTIMS ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE
TESTIMONY DUE TO SICKNESS OR
DEATH, AND THE UNUSUALLY HIGH
BURDEN OF PROOF IN THE ACT CAN
MAKE IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO
JUSTIFY A CLAIM. THIS DIFFICULTY
IS COMPOUNDED WHEN THERE IS
INTENTIONAL AND WILLFUL
DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE RELEVANT
TO THE CASE WITH ME TO PROVIDE
SUPPORT. TESTIMONY. TESTIMONY IS
TONY CHICOTEL, STAFF ATTORNEY
WITH CALIFORNIA ADVOCATES FOR
NURSING HOME REFORM, AND NANCY
PAVARINI, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
WITH THE CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF
CALIFORNIA. GOOD MORNING. THANKS
FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY
ON BEHALF OF AB 251. FOR OVER 40
YEARS, MY ORGANIZATION CAN OR
CALIFORNIA ADVOCATES FOR NURSING
HOME REFORM HAS OPERATED A STATE
BAR CERTIFIED LAWYER REFERRAL
SERVICE FOR VICTIMS OF ABUSE AND
NEGLECT IN LONG TERM CARE
FACILITIES. AND WE GET CALLS
PRETTY MUCH EVERY DAY DESCRIBING
ABUSE AND NEGLECT IN THESE
FACILITIES. BUT WE ONLY REFER A
VERY LOW PERCENTAGE OF THESE
CASES, MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE
BURDEN OF PROOF. IT'S JUST SO
DIFFICULT TO HAVE ONE OF THESE
CASES. YOU CAN'T TAKE A WIENER
CASE. IT'S GOT TO BE PRETTY MUCH
A SLAM DUNK. AND IN ELDER ABUSE
CASES, THE QUALITY OF THE
EVIDENCE IS REALLY IMPORTANT,
OBVIOUSLY, BUT VERY VULNERABLE
TO SPOLIATION BECAUSE THE
VICTIMS COULD BE DEAD OR HAVE
COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT.
EYEWITNESSES ARE FEW AND FAR
BETWEEN. SPOLIATION, WE THINK,
IS ON THE RISE BECAUSE OF THE
ADVANCE OF ELECTRONIC HEALTH
RECORDS. IT'S REALLY EASY TO
ALTER RECORDS IN THE ELECTRONIC
HEALTH RECORD IN VERY DIFFICULT
AND EXPENSIVE TO PROVE THAT THAT
SPOLIATION HAPPENED. SO WE NEED
BETTER DETERRENCE. AND AB 251
PROVIDES IT. THERE ARE SANCTIONS
FOR SPOLIATION, BUT NONE OF THEM
IS TAILORED SPECIFICALLY FOR
ELDER ABUSE CASES WHERE THE
SCALES OF JUSTICE HAVE BEEN
TIPPED BY FALSIFIED EVIDENCE. AB
251 ALLOWS A JUDGE TO TIP THEM
BACK BY LOWERING THE STANDARD OF
PROOF. WE THINK IT'S A GOOD
BILL. WE'VE SATISFIED THE
GOVERNOR'S CONCERN AND WE ASK
THAT YOU PLEASE VOTE YES TODAY.
THANK YOU. OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO SPEAK, PLEASE? YES. GOOD.
EXCUSE ME. GOOD MORNING, NANCY
PAVARINI, ON BEHALF OF THE
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF
CALIFORNIA, A CO-SPONSOR OF THE
BILL. THIS BILL IS EXTREMELY
NARROW, BUT EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
AND WE URGE YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY
OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT?
PLEASE COME FORWARD TO THE
MICROPHONE. MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, PAT MORAN WITH AARON
REED AND ASSOCIATES,
REPRESENTING THE RETIRED PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. DAVID
FEINBERG REPRESENTING AARP. WE
ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL. ANY
OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT?
SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD? THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR CHRIS MICHELI, ON
BEHALF OF THE CIVIL JUSTICE
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION, SORRY TO
HAVE MY BACK TO SOME OF THE
MEMBERS. WE APPRECIATE, AS
ALWAYS, ASSEMBLY MEMBER KALRA
AND HIS STAFF'S ENGAGEMENT ON
IMPORTANT ISSUES SUCH AS THIS.
KJAC HAS A FUNDAMENTAL CONCERN
WITH ALLOWING A LOWER STANDARD,
A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
IN THESE TYPES OF CASES FOR TWO
FUNDAMENTAL REASONS RATHER THAN
SOLELY THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING
EVIDENCE STANDARD. THE FIRST IS
WE BELIEVE IT WILL RESULT IN
LIKELY INCREASED LITIGATION,
WHICH WILL RESULT IN COSTS NOT
ONLY TO THESE TYPES OF
FACILITIES, BUT ALSO OUR STATE
COURT SYSTEM. ULTIMATELY, THOSE
COSTS COULD BE BORNE BY THE
ELDERLY AND IN REDUCED SERVICES
OR INCREASED COSTS. THE SECOND
REASON WE HAVE THAT CONCERN IS
WE BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE
ADEQUATE REMEDIES AT LAW. THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ALLOWS
MONETARY SANCTIONS AND PENALTIES
TO BE ASSESSED. OUR JURY
INSTRUCTIONS ALLOW JURIES TO
TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THIS
TYPE OF CONDUCT. AND OF COURSE,
JUDGES HAVE SIGNIFICANT
DISCRETION TO ASSESS ALL KINDS
OF PENALTIES, INCLUDING
TERMINATING SANCTIONS AND EVEN
DIRECTED VERDICTS. SO FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE
THE MEASURE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
SEEING NONE, I'LL BRING IT BACK
UP TO THE DÍAS. ANY COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS, OR DO YOU WANT TO GO
FOR THE QUORUM RIGHT NOW? SURE.
YEAH. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO HALT,
JUST FOR A MOMENT WHILE WE VOTE.
ADDRESS THE QUORUM CALL HERE.
DIXON HERE. B¢O. BAUER-KAHAN
BRIAN CONNELLY HERE. SALLY
HAIRABEDIAN HERE. PACHECO. PAPIN
HERE. SANCHEZ. STEPHANIE ZUBER
HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
QUESTIONS FROM THE DÍAS. I'LL
SECOND ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A
QUESTION, MR. KALRA, TO ADDRESS
THE COMMENTS FROM THE WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION, THE EXISTING
SANCTIONS AND THE CREATION OF
MORE SUITS AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE,
BUT THAT THERE ARE EXISTING
SANCTIONS AND EXISTING LAW AND
IT WOULD INCREASE LITIGATION.
WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS IN
RESPONSE TO THAT? I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE THE CASE.
AND WE HAVE TO REMEMBER, THIS IS
VERY NARROW IN SITUATIONS WHERE
THERE'S INTENTIONAL DESTRUCTION
OF EVIDENCE. I BELIEVE, FIRST OF
ALL, IT WILL REDUCE THE
INCIDENCE OF INTENTIONAL
DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE BECAUSE
THOSE FACILITIES WILL NOW ADJUST
THE LAW WITH THE RISK OF HAVING
A LOWER STANDARD. SECONDLY, IT
MAY FACILITATE SETTLING IN
SITUATIONS WHERE THESE
FACILITIES MAY HAVE ENGAGED IN
SUCH CONDUCT. AND THIRD, WE HAVE
TO REMEMBER THAT THE RULING THE
IS ON WHETHER THERE'S SPOLIATION
DOESN'T EVEN OCCUR UNTIL POST
FILING. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN UNTIL
MUCH LATER IN THE CASE. SO THESE
CASES ARE ALREADY BEING FILED.
WHAT THIS WILL DO IS HELP
FACILITATE A SETTLEMENT BEFORE
THEIR CONCLUSION BY ONCE A
JUDGE, AGAIN GIVING JUDGES
DISCRETION. IF A JUDGE JUDGE
DETERMINED THAT SPOLIATION DID
OCCUR. NOW THAT CAN HELP
FACILITATE A SETTLEMENT. SO IT
ACTUALLY COULD HAVE THE RESULT
OF CASES EITHER NOT BEING
BROUGHT AND BEING SETTLED PRIOR
TO COMING TO COURT, OR IN THE
MIDST OF THE PROCEEDINGS TO HAVE
A SETTLEMENT. ONCE THERE'S A
DETERMINATION, THERE'LL BE A
LOWER STANDARD. SO I THINK IT
WILL HAVE THE OPPOSITE EFFECT.
HONESTLY, IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT
OF CASES BEING BROUGHT, AS WELL
AS HOW LONG THOSE CASES ARE
GOING TO LAST IN THE PROCESS.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY COMMENT,
MISS MR. SPITZER? I JUST WANT TO
THANK MR. CHAIRMAN FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL. I JUST WENT THROUGH A
PERIOD OF TIME TAKING CARE OF AN
ELDERLY PARENT WHO PASSED AWAY
IN NOVEMBER, AND PART OF THAT AT
ONE POINT WAS REALLY LOOKING AT
IT WAS DURING COVID WHEN SHE WAS
IN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AND
ACTUALLY MOVING INTO A
POTENTIALLY WAS TOLD BY THE
ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY THAT
SHE NEEDED TO BE INTO IN A
NURSING HOME. I ULTIMATELY
BROUGHT HER INTO MY HOME
INSTEAD, BUT I REMEMBER LOOKING
AT NURSING CARE FACILITIES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE, AND ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT WAS, I THINK
JUST REALLY SALIENT TO ME IS HOW
MANY PEOPLE ARE IN NURSING CARE
FACILITIES, IN MANY CASES
WITHOUT FAMILIES TO LOOK AFTER
THEM. AND SOMETIMES THE ONLY
THINGS THAT ARE OUT THERE ARE
THE RECORDS THAT THE FACILITIES
HAVE THEMSELVES. SO IF THERE IS
ABUSE TAKING PLACE IN THE
FACILITIES AND PEOPLE ARE NOT
BEING CARED FOR, THE ONLY
EVIDENCE THAT'S OUT THERE IS, IS
ACTUALLY THE EVIDENCE THAT THE
FACILITY HAS. AND THEY HAVE
INCENTIVES TO NOT EITHER PRODUCE
IT OR TO GET RID OF IT. AND
THAT'S WHY THIS BILL IS SO
IMPORTANT. AND I JUST WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT. I
THINK IT'S REALLY THIS IS ABOUT
CARING FOR OUR MOST VULNERABLE
PEOPLE. AND SO I JUST WANT TO
THANK YOU. I'M IN FULL SUPPORT
OF THE BILL. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
YES. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO
CONCUR. WHILE THIS IS UNUSUAL TO
BE LOWERING THE BURDEN OF PROOF,
THE PARTICULARLY VULNERABILITY
OF THE PLAINTIFFS, I THINK
REALLY NECESSITATES IT. AND I
KNOW YOU'VE BEEN AT IT A LONG
TIME. I THANK YOU FOR BEING
REASONABLE. LET'S GET IT DONE.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
SEEING NONE. CLOSING STATEMENT I
WILL TAKE MY COLLEAGUE'S
COMMENTS AS MY CLOSE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. MOTION IS DUE. PASS
CHOLERA. WE DID HAVE A SECOND.
OH, YEAH. IT WAS OKAY. THANK
YOU. CHOLERA I. DIXON, NÓ DIXON.
NØ. BAUER. KHN BRIAN. CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY I IS SALLY HAIRABEDIAN.
HAIRABEDIAN. AYE. PACHECO.
PAPIN. PAPIN. AYE. SANCHEZ.
STEPHANIE. HI, STEPHANIE. AYE.
ZEBRA. ZEBRA. HI. NEEDS ONE
MORE. OH. THE VOTE WILL STAY ON
CALL. NEED ONE MORE? THANK YOU.
ANY CHAIR IS COMING BACK. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. IS THERE, IS
THERE? YOU WANT ME TO GO? YES.
YOU HAVE NO ONE HERE BUT YOU'RE
READY FOR. I THINK JACKSON'S ON
THE HALL. JACKSON. YEAH, OKAY. I
THINK WE'RE OKAY. I THINK, I
THINK, JERRY. YEAH. I JUST DON'T
KNOW IF MY WITNESSES ARE HERE.
HE'S NOT READY. OKAY, WELL, LET
ME SEE. LET ME FIND OUT IF WE
CAN. WHAT ELSE WE GOT? CORA
AGAIN. YOU KNOW, YOU TOOK THAT
OFF, MR. C¯. OKAY, IF WE CAN
HAVE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. AND SO WE HAVE A
MOTION SECOND, THAT'S. YEAH.
OKAY, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND LIST
IT OUT AND THEN TAKE A VOTE ON
THAT. CONSENT INCLUDES AB 418
WILSON TO APPROPRIATIONS AB 498
MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ AB 540
CONNOLLY AB 561 QUIRK-SILVA TO
APPROPRIATIONS AB, 565 DIXON, AS
AMENDED AB 708, VALENCIA, AS
AMENDED AB 1170 DIXON AND AB
1297 STEPHANIE. CARA A CARA I
DIXON DIXON I BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I SALLY
HAIRABEDIAN. HAIRABEDIAN I
PACHECO. PEPIN, PEPIN I SANCHEZ,
STEPHANIE I, STEPHANIE I ZEBRA.
ZEBRA. ALL RIGHT. CONSENT
CALENDAR IS OUT. DO WE HAVE A
MOTION ON ITEM TWO AB 316.
CARROLL. OKAY, OKAY. I'LL
SECOND. SO STEPHANIE IS MOVING
THE BILL. CORRECT. AND THEN
SOLOMON IS A SECOND. SO CAN WE
GET A ROLL CALL? VOTE ON THAT
PLEASE. MOTION IS DUE. PASS TO
PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
COMMITTEE. KALRA A CARA I DIXON
I DIXON I BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I SALLY
HAIRABEDIAN. HAIRABEDIAN I
PACHECO. PAPIN. PAPIN I SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ. I STEPHANIE. HI,
STEPHANIE. I ZUBER I ZUBER I.
ALL RIGHT. THAT BILL IS OUT.
OKAY? OKAY. ASSEMBLY MEMBER WARD
IS HERE FILED. ITEM FIVE AB 474.
SO WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, MR.
WARD, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND
PROCEED. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN
AND MEMBERS. I'LL ASK MY SUPPORT
WITNESSES TO COME UP. AND. GOOD
MORNING. I'M HERE TO PRESENT AB
474. THIS BILL REALLY, TRULY
SEEKS TO EXPAND SOME HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW INCOME
CALIFORNIANS, PARTICULARLY
OLDER. AND IT HELPS TO SIMPLIFY
AND INCENTIVIZE THE PROCESS OF
RENTING OUT YOUR ROOM FOR
AVAILABLE BEDROOMS THROUGH A
NONPROFIT HOME SHARE PROGRAM
MODEL THAT ALREADY EXISTS. AB
474 INCENTIVIZES NONPROFIT HOME
SHARING BY A FEW WAYS ONE
EXEMPTING RENTAL INCOME EARNED
BY LOW INCOME HOME OWNERS FROM
STATE INCOME TAX, AND BY
ENSURING THAT THAT ADDITIONAL
INCOME EARNED THROUGH ANY HOME
SHARING DOES NOT DISQUALIFY THEM
FROM OTHER ESSENTIAL SOCIAL
WELFARE PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THEY
ALREADY QUALIFY. SECOND, AS WAS
WELL STATED IN THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS, THANK YOU. AB 474
EXTENDS AN EXISTING COMMON SENSE
EXEMPTION TO STATE HOUSING LAW,
IN WHICH A PERSON RENTING A ROOM
IN AN OWNER OCCUPIED HOME CAN
LEGALLY CHOOSE WHOM THEY RENT
TO, DESPITE STATE DISCRIMINATION
LAW. AND FINALLY, AB 474
IMPROVES SOME TENANT PROTECTIONS
BY REMOVING THE LODGER LAW.
ALBEIT I KNOW THAT THIS IS CON
RECEIVED SOME POINTS OF
OPPOSITION AND THIS IS AN AREA I
WANT TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON
RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE LODGER LAW
WE RECOGNIZE IN PRACTICE, WHILE
WELL INTENDED, HAS BEEN VAGUE
AND INCONSISTENTLY ENFORCED. LAW
ENFORCEMENT TYPICALLY REFUSES TO
EVEN REMOVE RESIDENTS WITHOUT AN
OFFICIAL COURT ORDER, DESPITE
THE LAW'S INTENT. AND SO, WHEN
SUCCESSFULLY USED AS IT'S, WE
SEE IT ACTUALLY AS SERVING A
LOOPHOLE FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO
CIRCUMVENT SOME OF CALIFORNIA'S
STRONG TENANT PROTECTION LAWS.
AND IN FACT, THE INTENTION OF
INCLUDING IT IN THIS BILL IS TO
MAKE SURE THAT TENANTS WHO
OTHERWISE WOULD WANT TO BE ABLE
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS NEW
HOME SHARING OPPORTUNITY WOULD
BE ABLE TO HAVE BETTER
ASSURANCES THAT THEIR TENANCY
WOULD BE SECURED BY USING MORE
TRADITIONAL LEASE MODEL
EXAMPLES. IT'S AN AREA I DO WANT
TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON, BECAUSE
I KNOW A NUMBER OF COMMITTEE
MEMBERS DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
THIS AS WELL. CHAIR MEMBERS, WE
KNOW THAT WE HAVE A HOUSING
CRISIS AND OUR OLDER ADULT
POPULATION IS DISPROPORTIONATELY
AFFECTED. THIS BILL, AB 474,
WILL HELP TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF
THE BURDEN OF THE HOUSING CRISIS
ON OUR OLDER POPULATION BY
INCENTIVIZING INCREASING ACCESS
TO NONPROFIT HOME SHARING
PROGRAMS. WE BELIEVE IT'S WELL
SUITED FOR PARTICULARLY OLDER
ADULTS, AS MANY LIVE ALONE IN
LARGE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. BUT
THEY STRUGGLE TO PAY THEIR
MORTGAGE, PROPERTY TAXES AND
OTHER BASIC LIVING EXPENSES. AND
SO THIS ACTUALLY SERVES MULTIPLE
PURPOSES MULTIPLE WINS FOR
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT. I HAVE
LUKE BARNESMORE, THE DIRECTOR OF
STRATEGY WITH HOME MATCH, FRONT
PORCH COMMUNITY SERVICES, AND
DOCTOR ANGIE PERON, THE DIRECTOR
OF CENTER FOR ADVANCED STUDY OF
AGING AND SERVICES, SCHOOL OF
SOCIAL WELFARE AT UC BERKELEY.
WE ALSO HAVE WITH US HARRISON
LINDER, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
OF HOUSING POLICY WITH
LEADINGAGE, TO ANSWER ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. GREAT. GOOD
MORNING. MEMBERS OF THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. I AM DOCTOR
ANGELA PERONE, DIRECTOR OF THE
CENTER FOR ADVANCED STUDY OF
AGING SERVICES AND ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY SCHOOL OF
SOCIAL WELFARE. MY COMMENTS MADE
TODAY ARE IN MY PERSONAL
CAPACITY AND DO NOT REPRESENT
THE VIEWS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA. I'M HERE TODAY TO
PROVIDE EXPERT TESTIMONY ON AB
474. OLDER ADULTS COMPRISE THE
FASTEST GROWING GROUP OF PEOPLE
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS IN THE
UNITED STATES, REPRESENTING HALF
OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE UNHOUSED.
AMONG UNHOUSED ADULTS 50 AND
OLDER IN CALIFORNIA, ABOUT 41%
EXPERIENCED HOMELESSNESS FOR THE
FIRST TIME AT THE AGE OF 51ST
TIME. HOMELESSNESS IS NOT
LIMITED TO OLDER RENTERS, LOW
INCOME OLDER ADULTS WHO OWN
THEIR HOME MAY BE ONE MORTGAGE
PAYMENT, ONE TAX BILL, OR ONE
HEALTH CARE BILL AWAY FROM
LOSING THEIR HOMES. NONPROFIT
HOME SHARE PROGRAMS HELP TO
MITIGATE SOME OF THESE
CHALLENGES. I'M CO-LEADING A
STUDY ON HOME SHARING PROGRAMS
IN CALIFORNIA WITH DOCTOR MOLLY
CALHOUN FROM CAL STATE CHICO AND
DOCTOR SUSANNA CURRY FROM CAL
STATE SACRAMENTO. OUR RESEARCH
BUILDS ON PRIOR PRIOR STUDIES
HIGHLIGHTING POTENTIAL BENEFITS
OF HOME SHARING FOR HOME
PROVIDERS AND HOME SEEKERS,
INCLUDING A STRONGER SENSE OF
SAFETY AND SECURITY. HELP WITH
TASKS TO AGE IN PLACE, AND
REDUCED LONELINESS AND SOCIAL
ISOLATION. FOR EXAMPLE. MARY.
THESE ARE PSEUDONYMS, OF COURSE,
MARY, A 76 YEAR OLD WIDOWED HOME
PROVIDER, TOLD US THIS I WAS
LONELY, IT WAS EERIE. I ALWAYS
LIKED THE TENANTS FOR COMPANY.
CARMEN, A 68 YEAR OLD HOME
SEEKER, TOLD US THAT HER HOME
PROVIDER STRUGGLES WITH HER
MORTGAGE AND CARMEN'S. CARMEN'S
RENT HELPS. BOTH OF THEM ARE
OLDER ADULTS. TANIT, AN OLDER,
DIVORCED WOMAN, TOLD US THAT SHE
WAS TWO STEPS AWAY FROM SLEEPING
IN HER CAR BEFORE THE HOME SHARE
PROGRAM AGAIN, AN OLDER ADULT IN
REGIONS AFFECTED BY WILDFIRES,
HOME SHARE PROGRAMS HAVE OFFERED
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR OLDER
ADULTS AND OTHERS WHO HAVE LOST
THEIR HOMES, INCLUDING OLDER
ADULTS. ULTIMATELY, AB 474 CAN
HELP CURB RISING RATES OF
HOMELESSNESS, PARTICULARLY AMONG
LOW INCOME OLDER ADULTS. THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS
LUKE BARNESMORE AND I'M THE
DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY FOR FRONT
PORCHES HOME MATCH PROGRAM.
FRONT PORCH IS A 50 PLUS YEAR
NONPROFIT THAT PROVIDES HOUSING
AND SERVICES FOR OLDER PEOPLE
ACROSS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
HOME MATCH CONNECTS OLDER PEOPLE
WITH AN EXTRA ROOM IN THEIR HOME
OR APARTMENT, OR AN ADDITIONAL
UNIT ON THEIR PROPERTY, LIKE AN
ADU, WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS
SEEKING MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
OPTIONS, ALL AT NO COST TO
PARTICIPANTS. AT PRESENT, HOME
MATCH OPERATES IN FOUR BAY AREA
COUNTIES, WITH PLANS TO EXPAND
IN THE COMING YEARS. WE PROVIDE
SUPPORT WITH ROOM READINESS,
VETTING OF PARTICIPANTS,
INTRODUCTIONS BASED ON
COMPATIBILITY, FACILITATED
AGREEMENTS ON SHARED USE OF
SPACE, AND ONGOING SUPPORT
THROUGHOUT THE TIME THAT
PARTICIPANTS ARE LIVING
TOGETHER. SHARED HOUSING
PROGRAMS LEVERAGE EXISTING
HOUSING STOCK TO MEET A RANGE OF
NEEDS, FROM INCREASED ACCESS TO
TRULY AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS
FOR TENANTS THROUGH INCREASED
FINANCIAL AND SOCIAL SUPPORT FOR
OLDER HOME PROVIDERS. OUR
PROVIDERS ARE A DIVERSE GROUP OF
PEOPLE, BUT THE AVERAGE PROVIDER
IS 70 YEARS OLD. FEMALE
IDENTIFYING, LIVING AT HOME
ALONE AND SEEKING A BLEND OF
FINANCIAL AND SOCIAL SUPPORT
THROUGH PARTICIPATION IN THE
PROGRAM. FINANCIAL SUPPORT COMES
VIA RENT PAID BY THE TENANT AND
SOCIAL SUPPORT COMES IN THE FORM
OF COMPANIONSHIP AND IN SOME
CASES, A TASK EXCHANGE WHERE THE
TENANT PROVIDES UP TO TEN HOURS
A WEEK OF SUPPORT WITH HOUSEHOLD
TASKS OR ERRANDS IN EXCHANGE FOR
REDUCED RENT. WE WORK WITH AN
EVEN MORE DIVERSE RANGE OF HOME
SEEKERS, BUT THERE ARE TWO
PRIMARY GROUPS. FIRST, OTHER
OLDER PEOPLE, OFTEN BETWEEN 55
AND 70, WHO ARE LIVING ON LOW
FIXED INCOME AND LEFT WITH
RENTING A BEDROOM AS THE ONLY
ALTERNATIVE TO DISPLACEMENT OR
HOMELESSNESS. SECOND, YOUNGER
PEOPLE BETWEEN 25 AND 35 WHO
WORK IN LOCAL RESTAURANTS,
SCHOOLS AND THE LIKE. IN ANOTHER
GENERATION, THESE YOUNGER PEOPLE
WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO AFFORD A
STUDIO OR A ONE BEDROOM. BUT
GIVEN THE AFFORDABILITY HOUSES
AND THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS IN
THE BAY AREA, THEY ARE LEFT WITH
THE CHOICE BETWEEN RENTING A
BEDROOM AND A COMMUTE OF 2 OR 3
HOURS OR MORE. A B-47 FOUR WILL
INCENTIVIZE PROVIDERS TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM AND
ENSURE BASIC TENANT PROTECTIONS
FOR OUR HOME SEEKERS, WHO,
AGAIN, ARE VERY OFTEN AT RISK OF
HOMELESSNESS AND OR DISPLACEMENT
IF THEY ARE KICKED OUT OF THEIR
HOMES IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 474?
HELLO, HARRISON LINDER WITH
LEADINGAGE CALIFORNIA. WE'RE
PROUD TO BE SPONSORING THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. CATHERINE
CHARLES, ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSING ACTION COALITION IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
474? STAIRS AND DOGS? YOU CAN
TAKE YOUR PICK. YOU CAN STAY UP
THERE. COME HERE WHEREVER IT
FEELS COMFORTABLE. I'LL JUST
STAND HERE IF THAT'S OKAY. FIRST
OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR AGREEING TO WORK WITH
US ON THE LARGER LANGUAGE. AND I
WANT TO THANK THE SUPPORTERS.
YOU DO GREAT WORK. I THINK OUR
THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION, AND I'M DEBORAH
CARLTON WITH THE CALIFORNIA
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION, STILL HAS
CONCERNS ABOUT STRIKING THE
LARGER LANGUAGE THAT THAT
LANGUAGE WAS WRITTEN TO HELP THE
INDIVIDUALS WHO BRING IN
SOMEBODY INTO THEIR HOME WITHOUT
AND THE SENIORS WHO AGREE TO
BRING SOMEBODY INTO THEIR HOME.
IT WOULD BE REALLY UNFORTUNATE
IF THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH THE
VERY LONG EVICTION PROCESS
SOMETIMES TAKES SIX MONTHS OR
LONGER. UNDER THE CURRENT
STATUTE, THEY CAN CALL LOCAL
ENFORCEMENT TO HELP THEM REMOVE
SOMEBODY WHO IS THREATENING TO
THEM OR MAKING THEM FEEL
UNCOMFORTABLE IN THEIR HOME.
GRANTED, SOME LOCAL ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS WON'T DO IT, BUT SOME
WILL. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO
WORK WITH THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER TO
CONTINUE TO CLARIFY THAT STATUTE
AND MAKE SURE THAT THE SENIORS
FEEL SAFE IN THEIR HOME WHEN
THEY INVITE SOMEBODY TO LIVE IN
A ROOM. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE
IN OPPOSITION OR WITH CONCERNS
ON AB 474? I'LL BRING IT BACK TO
THE DAIS. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
CONNELLY THANK YOU. CHAIR. GOOD
MORNING EVERYONE. REALLY
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD. I FULLY
UNDERSTAND THE INTENT. IT'S
GREAT TO HAVE GROUPS LIKE HOME
MATCH, DOING THE GOOD WORK OUT
THERE AND CERTAINLY LOOKING AT
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS TO OUR
HOUSING CRISIS MATCHING FOLKS
WHO MAY HAVE ROOM IN THEIR HOMES
WITH THOSE WHO NEED A PLACE TO
LIVE, INCLUDING OUR HOMELESS
POPULATION. I DO HAVE CONCERNS,
THOUGH, ABOUT THE LARGER
LANGUAGE. I THINK OPPOSITION
KIND OF STATED THOSE. BUT JUST
TO REITERATE MY UNDERSTANDING,
IF I'M CORRECT, IS YOU'RE
COMPLETELY ELIMINATING THAT
LANGUAGE IN THE CURRENT DRAFT.
YOU CITE THE GOAL OF THAT. WE
WANT TENANTS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF THIS LAW. I WOULD SUBMIT THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN IS WE
WANT FOLKS WHO MAY BE DEBATING
WHETHER TO ALLOW A STRANGER INTO
THEIR HOMES, MAY ALSO BE
THINKING ABOUT WHETHER IT'S
WORTH THEIR WHILE, IF IT'S GOING
TO BE WAY MORE OF A BURDEN, IF
THE TENANT TURNS OUT TO BE A
PROBLEM TO CORRECT THAT ISSUE,
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT. I
THINK THERE'S PROBABLY A BALANCE
HERE. IT SOUNDS LIKE, AND MAYBE
YOU CAN REAFFIRM, YOU'D BE
WILLING TO CONTINUE TO WORK
THROUGH THAT ISSUE, I THINK. BUT
I THINK COMPLETELY ELIMINATING
THAT PROTECTION IS PROBABLY NOT
THE WAY TO GO. I'M WILLING TO
SUPPORT IT TODAY WITH AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT CONVERSATIONS
ARE CONTINUING IN THAT REGARD.
THANK YOU, SENATOR MCCONNELL.
YES, THE COMMITMENT IS THERE FOR
EVERYBODY ELSE INTERESTED THAT
WE WILL CONTINUE THOSE
CONVERSATIONS. I DO I JUST
WANTED TO STATE HAVE ONE OF THE
RARE PRIVILEGES OF HAVING A
TRIPLE REFERRED BILL. SO THIS
WILL RECEIVE SHOULD IT MOVE
FORWARD, PLENTY OF CONVERSATIONS
AND OPPORTUNITIES TO CHECK THE
WORK THAT WE ARE DOING AND HOW
THOSE CONVERSATIONS ARE GOING.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THE BILL NEEDS A
LARGER LAW IN THE LEGISLATURE.
YEAH, IT'S WE'RE GOING TO BE
LOOKING AT THINGS THROUGH
MULTIPLE LENSES. I THINK, AGAIN,
LIKE IF I CAN REITERATE, THERE
ARE A LOT OF GOOD REASONS THAT
MISS CARLTON WITH THE APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION AND YOU AND OTHERS
ARE RAISING AS WELL ABOUT THE
INTENTION OF THE LARGER LAW AND
WHAT WE WANT TO DO FROM THE
HOMEOWNERS PERSPECTIVE. WE ALSO
RECOGNIZE THAT AS CLUNKY AS ITS
IMPLEMENTATION HAS BEEN IN
PRACTICE, THAT IT MIGHT
OTHERWISE BE SERVING AS A
BARRIER TO SOME OF THESE MATCH
OPPORTUNITIES. AND I WOULD ONLY
HIGHLIGHT THAT IN SITUATIONS
LIKE THIS, UNDER APPLICATION OF
THIS BILL, IT'S FOR THOSE THAT
ARE WORKING THROUGH A HOME
PROFIT, A NONPROFIT HOME SHARING
MODEL PROGRAM THAT REALLY SEEKS
TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE GOOD
MATCHES. SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT
OF CHECK IN PLACE. THIS ISN'T
JUST LIKE CRAIGSLIST ADS THAT
ARE GOING UP AND LIKE THAT'S NOT
GOING TO WORK OUT. BUT I SEE
YOUR POINT VERY STRONGLY AND
SINCERELY, AND I WANT TO
CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT. AND I AS
WELL, I SEE YOURS AROUND THE
AMBIGUITY OF THE CURRENT
SITUATION. SO IT COULD BE
TIGHTENED UP ONE WAY OR THE
OTHER. SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
ZUBIATE. I THINK ASSEMBLYMEMBERS
CONNELLY PRETTY MUCH SAID WHAT I
ARTICULATED, THE CONCERNS I HAD,
AND I APPRECIATED THE
CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD
YESTERDAY, AND I KNOW THAT
ASSEMBLY MEMBER WARD COMMITTED
TO CONTINUE WORKING ON THIS
ISSUE. I THINK JUST ADDING A
LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, WHEN I
LOOK AT SORT OF THE EQUITIES
HERE AND JUST I THINK JUST SORT
OF BEING IN THE REALM OF HAVING
SO MANY MEMBERS OF MY FAMILY NOW
AND SORT OF REALLY ELDERLY AGES,
I THINK EXPECTING WHEN YOU LOOK
AT THE EQUITIES OUT THERE,
EXPECTING SOMEONE WHO IS A
SENIOR TO SORT OF GO THROUGH A
COMPLICATED EVICTION PROCESS IS
SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS BOTH
GOING TO PREVENT FOLKS FROM
DOING THIS IF THEY UNDERSTAND IT
AND IF THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND IT,
I JUST, YOU KNOW, IT SORT OF
BREAKS MY HEART TO SORT OF SEE
SOMEONE WHERE THEY ACTUALLY ARE
IN THEIR OWN HOME. I THINK IT'S
A DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE. AND
WHEN YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A
TENDENCY IN AN APARTMENT WHERE
YOU'RE LIVING ALONE BUT IN THEIR
OWN HOME, THEY'RE FEELING
UNSAFE, THEY IT JUST ISN'T
WORKING. AND THEN THEY HAVE TO
GO THROUGH A VERY LONG PROCESS
OUT THERE. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE
YOU TO, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS THIS
ISSUE. I THINK IT REALLY IS AN
IMPORTANT ONE. AND WITH THAT
SAID, I THINK THIS BILL IS GREAT
AND SO WE'LL BE SUPPORTING IT
TODAY. THANKS. APPRECIATE THE
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. I WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR AS WELL FOR BRINGING THE
BILL. I THINK IT'S REALLY
INNOVATIVE AND APPRECIATE THE
CONVERSATION WE HAD AND YOUR
ABILITY TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH
THE LARGER LAW CONCERNS, WHICH I
SHARE WITH MY COLLEAGUES. MY
QUESTION, AND IT REALLY IS A
QUESTION THAT I HOPE WE CAN WE
CAN ADDRESS. WHY ARE WE LIMITING
THIS TO LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS?
SO TO ME, I THINK IT'S A GREAT
IDEA BECAUSE I THINK IT DOES
INCENTIVIZE MORE PEOPLE TO GET
HOUSING. AND I THINK IT DOES
MATCH A LOT OF KIND OF DEMAND
WITH SUPPLY. I WOULD HATE TO
LIMIT IT TO ONLY HOUSEHOLDS
UNDER A CERTAIN INCOME IN
CERTAIN AREAS. I MEAN, THIS
COULD BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR
ANYONE. SO WHY WHY LIMIT IT TO
ONLY LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS?
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. A
COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE, YOU KNOW,
THIS BILL WOULD APPLY TO THOSE
THAT ARE UTILIZING A NONPROFIT
HOME SHARING MODEL. AND A LOT OF
THE I GUESS, CLIENTS THAT ARE
SERVED RIGHT NOW ARE FOCUSED ON
SOME OF THE MORE VULNERABLE
POPULATIONS THAT WE HAVE, AND
THAT IS OUR LOW INCOME SENIORS.
SO BY BY, BY REFERENCE, BY
DEFERENCE THERE, THAT IS SORT OF
THE CLIENT BASE THAT WE ARE
WORKING ON. SECONDLY, YOU KNOW,
THE ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT THE
JURISDICTION OF THIS COMMITTEE,
THE TAX BENEFITS THAT WE PROPOSE
THROUGH THIS MODEL HERE ARE
GEARED TOWARDS LOWER INCOME
CALIFORNIANS. TO ONE, MAKE SURE
THAT WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW,
BURDENING THEM WITH EXTRA THE
TAX IMPLICATIONS OF EXTRA
INCOME. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY,
THEY'RE NOT DISQUALIFYING THEM
FOR BENEFITS THAT THEY'RE
ALREADY OBTAINING RIGHT NOW.
SHOULD THEY QUALIFY FOR, SAY,
CALFRESH OR SOME GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM? THAT'S A FALSE CHOICE,
RENTING OUT YOUR ROOM OR FALLING
OFF THE ROLLS, RIGHT. WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THESE FALSE
CHOICES AREN'T CREATING A
BARRIER. SO THESE SORT OF MORE
DIRECTLY AFFECT LOW INCOME
CALIFORNIANS JUST BECAUSE OF THE
SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF THIS
BILL. YEAH, IF I COULD. YEAH. GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU. HARRISON
LINDER WITH LEADING EDGE
CALIFORNIA. WE'RE SPONSORING THE
BILL. JUST TO CLARIFY, THE ONLY
PIECE OF THE BILL THAT IS
LIMITED TO LOW INCOME PEOPLE IS
THE TAX EXEMPTION, THE INCOME
EXEMPTION. SO ANYONE CAN
PARTICIPATE IN A NONPROFIT HOME
SHARING PROGRAM, FOR THE MOST
PART, THE ONLY PIECE OF THE BILL
THAT WE'RE PUTTING THIS LOW
INCOME SORT OF GUARDRAIL IN IS
ON THE TAX EXEMPTION, BECAUSE WE
DON'T NECESSARILY BELIEVE THAT
SOMEONE WHO'S GOT A HIGH INCOME
NEEDS A TAX EXEMPTION. YEAH.
APPRECIATE THAT. APPRECIATE THE
RESPONSES. I JUST THINK WE'RE
LEAVING A LOT ON THE TABLE. AND
I THINK THAT YOU WILL
INCENTIVIZE MORE PEOPLE TO DO IT
BY ACTUALLY GIVING THE TAX
BENEFIT TO ANY HOUSEHOLD. AND
I'M THINKING ABOUT THE TENANTS.
I'M THINKING ABOUT FOLKS WHO,
ESPECIALLY IN MY DISTRICT NOW
WITH SO MANY PEOPLE BEING
DISPLACED WHO ARE JUST LOOKING
FOR A ROOM. AND I WILL TELL YOU,
MOST PEOPLE WILL BE, I THINK,
HESITANT TO DO THIS. YOU KNOW,
IT'S HARD JUST TO BRING SOMEONE
INTO YOUR HOUSE, SHARE KITCHEN
AND EVERYTHING ELSE UNLESS YOU
HAVE SOME, SOME INCENTIVE. SO I
THINK THAT WE CAN THINK BIGGER.
I THINK THIS IS A GREAT BILL.
I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT WITH THE
LARGER LAW ISSUE BEING WORKED
OUT, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE
WE'RE LIMITING IT TO LOWER
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. SO I WILL
MOVE THE BILL. BUT SOMETHING TO
THINK ABOUT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. AS A MEMBER OF BAUER-KAHAN.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. AND THANK YOU, MR.
WARD, FOR OUR CONVERSATION AS
WELL. I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
YOU SAID THAT THE LODGER LAW WAS
ONLY BEING REPEALED FOR PEOPLE
IN THIS PROGRAM. AS I READ THE
BILL, IT'S REPEALING THE LODGER
LAW WRIT LARGE. SO I WANT TO
CLARIFY THAT THAT IS ACCURATE.
IT WOULD CLARIFY. BUT AGAIN
THESE ARE THE AREAS THAT WE WANT
TO WORK OUT. IT COULD BE ONE
OUTCOME OF THIS, AGAIN WITH, YOU
KNOW, MEETING, YOU KNOW, THE
INTERESTS OF SOME OF THE
OPPOSING VIEWS IS THAT THERE
COULD BE A NARROW EXEMPTION. I
WANT TO LEAVE EVERYTHING ON THE
TABLE. GOT IT. BUT IT WOULD
GREAT IF FOR THIS TO BE SIGNED
INTO LAW, IT WOULD FULLY REPEAL
THE LODGER LAW. RIGHT. SO I JUST
WHEN YOU DID YOUR OPENING
REMARKS AND I KNOW I WASN'T
HERE, BUT I WAS LISTENING ON
LINE, YOU SAID THAT YOUR INTENT
AND I THINK YOU SAID IT AGAIN
WAS TO MAKE IT HARDER TO REMOVE
SOMEONE WHO IS IN THE ROOM. I
MEAN, I THINK THAT'S WHAT I
HEARD YOU SAY, BECAUSE YOU DO
WANT TO PROTECT THOSE
INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE RENTING. I
GUESS THAT'S MY CONCERN WITH THE
LODGER LAW, IS THAT I DO THINK
IT IS DIFFERENT THAN SOMEONE WHO
IS LIVING IN AN INDEPENDENT
UNIT, THAN SOMEONE WHO IS LIVING
IN YOUR HOME. ONE OF MY MOM'S
BEST FRIEND, WHEN HER SPOUSE
DIED, RENTED HER ROOM FOR A LOT
OF REASONS ONE TO BRING IN THE
INCOME. ONE. IT ALSO MADE HER
FEEL SAFER, TO BE HONEST, TO NOT
BE ALONE. SO THERE'S ACTUALLY
GOING TO BE BENEFITS THAT MAKE
SOMEONE FEEL SAFER. ON THE OTHER
HAND, I KNOW THAT AS A SENIOR
WOMAN LIVING ALONE, IF THAT
PERSON WOULD HAVE BECOME A
THREAT OR SHE WOULD HAVE FELT
THREATENED BY THAT PERSON, THE
LAST THING I WOULD HAVE WANTED
WAS FOR HER TO HAVE TO GO
THROUGH THE VERY, VERY LENGTHY
AND DIFFICULT EVICTION PROCESS
BECAUSE IT IS A DIFFERENT
SITUATION THAN IF SOMEONE IS IN
A UNIT BY THEMSELVES. THERE IS
NO SAFETY RISK, YOU KNOW, IF
SOMEONE IS HARASSING SOMEONE. I
JUST SO I THINK I'M CONCERNED
THAT WE HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF
OPINION. I ACTUALLY DON'T WANT
IT TO BE AS HARD TO EVICT THESE
INDIVIDUALS. SO I GUESS I WANT
TO UNDERSTAND FROM YOU, AS YOU
SAY, YOU'RE WORKING ON THIS. I
KNOW WE DON'T HAVE THE LANGUAGE,
BUT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
YOUR GOAL THAT YOU'RE GOING TO
GET TO IN THE LODGER LAW IS
LIKE, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO
ACHIEVE? THE GOAL THERE IS TO
MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE RULES
OF UNDERSTANDING, SO THAT IF
SOMEBODY WANTS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF A HOME SHARING PROGRAM RIGHT
NOW, THAT THEY KNOW THAT THEY
WILL ALSO BE SECURE. AND I GET
THAT THE THERE'S TWO PARTIES
HERE AS WELL, THE OWNER AND THE
RENTER. WE DO WANT TO CONTINUE
TO WORK ON THAT. AND I MIGHT
ACTUALLY TURN THIS MAYBE TO OUR
WITNESSES ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCE
RUNNING THESE MODELS AND WHY
THIS WOULD BE OF INTEREST TO THE
TENANTS THAT DON'T NECESSARILY
UNDERCUT THE INTEREST OF THE
HOMEOWNER. PLEASE. SO I JUST
WANT TO START BY SAYING THAT WE
SUPPORT ALL OF THE REASONABLE
EXEMPTIONS THAT EXIST FOR
SOMEONE WHO'S RENTING A BEDROOM
IN A SINGLE FAMILY OWNER
OCCUPIED HOME, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU
DON'T NEED TO PROVIDE JUST CAUSE
TO TERMINATE A LEASE. AND ALL OF
THE COUNTIES WHERE WE RUN OUR
PROGRAM. LODGER LAW IS NOT
ENFORCEABLE, AND WE DO HAVE
OLDER FOLKS COMING TO US SAYING,
WELL, AN ATTORNEY TOLD ME THAT
THIS IS ON THE BOOKS AND I CAN
JUST USE A LICENSING AGREEMENT
AND THEN I WON'T HAVE TO GO
THROUGH AN EVICTION PROCESS. AND
THE REALITY IS THAT AS PRESENTLY
ENFORCED IN MARIN, SAN
FRANCISCO, ALAMEDA AND MOST
PARTS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, IF
THEY WERE TO TRY AND CALL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND HAVE SOMEONE
REMOVED AS A TRESPASSER BECAUSE
THEY HAD RECLASSIFIED THEM AS A
LODGER RATHER THAN A TENANT,
THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO. SO I
THINK WE'RE HAVING A
CONVERSATION HERE ABOUT A
PROTECTION THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY
IN PLACE FOR OUR HOME PROVIDERS,
AND WE BELIEVE THAT A SHARED
HOUSING PROGRAM, WHICH VETS
PARTICIPANTS, WHICH ENSURES THAT
THERE ARE EXPECTATIONS ON THE
TABLE BEFORE MOVE IN AND WHICH
PROVIDES ONGOING SUPPORT. WE'VE
ONLY HAD ONE UNLAWFUL DETAINER
FILED OVER HUNDREDS OF MATCHES
IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, AND THAT
WAS ONLY IN SAN FRANCISCO, WHERE
THE LANDLORD TENANT POLICIES ARE
UNIQUE COMPARED TO OTHER
JURISDICTIONS IN TERMS OF HOW
THEY'RE ENFORCED. SHE WOULD
AGREE WITH YOU, I'M SURE. SO I
GUESS SO WE AGREE THAT THERE
SHOULD BE REASONABLE EXEMPTIONS
FOR OLDER PEOPLE WHO ARE RENTING
A BEDROOM IN THEIR HOME, BUT WE
DON'T THINK THAT THE PROPER
REMEDY IS TO SAY TO A TENANT WHO
HAS A LANDLORD THAT'S TRYING TO
ILLEGALLY RAISE THEIR RENT, AND
THEY PUSH BACK ON THAT ILLEGAL
RAISE OF THE RENT, AND THEN THE
LANDLORD ISSUES NOTICE THAT
THERE SHOULD BE SOME SORT OF
RECOURSE FOR A TENANT. AND WE
BELIEVE THAT WITHOUT THE ABILITY
TO GO THROUGH AN EVICTION
PROCESS, YOU'RE PUTTING OLDER
PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING ALSO ON A
LOW FIXED INCOME. THE 7080 YEAR
OLD HOME SEEKER IN A POSITION
WHERE THEY COULD BE REMOVED IN
SEVEN DAYS AND BECOME HOMELESS.
SO I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A
REMEDY HERE. AND I THINK THAT
FREE LEGAL SERVICES FOR LOW
INCOME OLDER LANDLORDS, THAT
HOME SHARING PROGRAMS THAT
PROVIDE ONGOING SUPPORT TO FOLKS
WHO ARE IN THESE MATCHES, REAL
WAYS OF MITIGATING THE RISK ARE
MORE IMPORTANT THAN A STATUE
THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY ENFORCED.
THAT GIVES PEOPLE A FALSE SENSE
OF THE KIND OF RECOURSE THEY
MIGHT HAVE, AND ACTUALLY MIGHT
LEAD SOMEONE WHO WOULD OTHERWISE
BE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH ENTERING
INTO SHARED HOUSING TO CREATE A
MATCH UNDER FALSE PRETENSES. SO
I GUESS WHAT I'M THROWN OFF BY
IS THAT THE LANDLORDS DO THINK
IT'S WORKING. SO THEY I MEAN,
THEIR REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE
SAYING THAT THEY BELIEVE. AND I
MEAN, I THINK SHE DID SAY NOT
EVERY JURISDICTION. I KNOW IT'S
HARD FOR HER TO MOVE, SO I DON'T
WANT HER TO HAVE TO COME UP
AGAIN. BUT I'M TRYING NOT TO
MISSPEAK. SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW,
THEY ARE FEELING LIKE IT IS
WORKING IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND, AND PART OF MY HESITATION
HERE AND I, I ACTUALLY WANT TO
SAY I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH MY
COLLEAGUE THAT THE CARROTS IN
THIS BILL ARE FANTASTIC. I THINK
THE CALWORKS PIECE IN AND OF
ITSELF IS BRILLIANT. LIKE, I
THINK WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE IS
INCENTIVIZING PEOPLE TO SHARE
THEIR HOMES IN A STATE WHERE WE
KNOW THAT WOULD BE A REAL
SOLUTION FOR PEOPLE AND FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARE SUFFERING
HOMELESSNESS. BUT I ALSO AGREE
WITH THE OTHER SIDE THAT IF I'M
A VULNERABLE PERSON AND I DON'T
THINK THERE'S A WAY OUT, THEN
I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT. AND I
NEED TO MAKE SURE THOSE FOLKS
ARE SAFE. SO BOTH OF THOSE
THINGS ARE TRUE FOR ME. AND WHAT
I'M HEARING FROM YOU IS YOU
DON'T AGREE WITH ME. SO YOU'RE
YOU'RE WILLING TO CONTINUE
WORKING ON THE LODGER EXEMPTION,
BUT THE OUTCOME OF THAT, IN YOUR
EYES, IS TO PROVIDE THEM WITH
FREE LEGAL COUNSEL, WHICH DOES
NOT FEEL LIKE AN OUTCOME THAT
WOULD FEEL SUFFICIENT TO ME. SO
I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND IS, I MEAN, YOU
DON'T WANT TO MAKE ANY
COMMITMENTS AND I, I UNDERSTAND
THAT, BUT I'M HEARING, YOU KNOW,
IN THIS SITUATION, NONPROFITS
ARE INVOLVED. I ACTUALLY THINK
THAT IS SIGNIFICANT. I AGREE
WITH YOU. THE PROBLEM IS THAT'S
NOT WHAT THE BILL DOES. THE BILL
DOESN'T LIMIT LOSING THE LODGER
EXEMPTION TO JUST THOSE THAT ARE
WORKING NONPROFITS. SO AND I
DON'T REALLY HEAR FROM YOU WHERE
YOU FEEL LIKE THE LODGER
EXEMPTION IS APPROPRIATE. AND I
DO FEEL LIKE IT'S APPROPRIATE IN
A LOT OF CIRCUMSTANCES. SO I'M
STRUGGLING, I APOLOGIZE. OKAY.
SO I HAVE MADE A COMMITMENT TO
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS
STRONGLY AND RECOGNIZE THAT WE
ARE INTERESTED IN MAKING SURE
THAT THROUGH THE OUTCOME OF THIS
BILL, THAT THERE ARE
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ABILITY FOR
HOME SHARING MODELS TO WORK AND
FOR MORE PEOPLE TO BE HOUSED
THROUGH THIS MODEL. SO IF THAT
MEANS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE
CONVERSATION THAT NEEDS TO
HAPPEN AROUND THE IMPACT AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LODGER LAW
IS BOGGING DOWN THE OTHER
BENEFITS THAT ARE IN THIS BILL,
THEN THAT WILL BE THE OUTCOME
AND IT COULD BE REMOVED. BUT I
THINK IT'S AN AREA OF STUDY THAT
NEEDS TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON
BECAUSE IN SOME CASES, AGAIN, IN
THE WORLD OF THE PERFECT, THE
LODGER LAW HAS A HOPEFUL
INTENDED OUTCOME THAT'S ACTUALLY
NOT WORKING WELL IN PRACTICE IN
SOME AREAS RIGHT NOW. SO MY
POINT THAT I HOPE WE CAN ALL
APPRECIATE IS THAT THIS IS
OPENING UP A CONVERSATION WHERE
WE UNDERSTAND AND AGREE ON THE
OUTCOMES THAT WE WANT TO HAVE,
TO MAKE SURE THAT AWKWARD
MATCHES, OR WORSE, ARE
IMMEDIATELY AS CLOSE TO
IMMEDIATELY AS RESOLVED AS
POSSIBLE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THAT
HOMEOWNER. WE AGREE. OKAY. AND
SO WE WANT TO FIGURE OUT IF
THERE ARE MODIFICATIONS TO THE
LODGER LAW, IF THERE ARE OTHER
MODELS THROUGH TENANT LEGAL
SERVICES OR TENANTS RIGHTS THAT
ARE BETTER APPLIED HERE, JUST
LAY EVERYTHING ON THE TABLE AND
SO WE CAN TRY TO BE ABLE TO MAKE
SURE ALL PARTIES INTERESTS ARE
SATISFIED. OKAY, I APPRECIATE
THAT BECAUSE NOW WHAT I'M
HEARING YOU SAY IS THAT YOU DO
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
PERSON WHO IS RENTING OUT THE
ROOM IS PROTECTED AND IS ABLE TO
REMOVE SOMEONE FASTER THAN IN AN
EVICTION IF IT'S NOT SAFE OR
OTHERWISE, WHICH IS WHAT I KIND
OF NEEDED TO KNOW TODAY. SO
OKAY, I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK
YOU. MR. I'LL SECOND. MADAM VICE
CHAIR. SURE. I JUST A KIND OF A
OUT OF THE BOX THOUGHT IN THIS
INDUSTRY, WHICH I AGREE HAS A
NOBLE PURPOSE TO HELP ANYBODY
HAVE A BEDROOM OR A ROOF OVER
THEIR HEAD. IS PRIVATE INDUSTRY
INVOLVED IN THIS? I MEAN, I'M
JUST HEARING THE PROTECTIONS FOR
THE RENTER OR THE LANDLORD. BOTH
SIDES OF THE DEAL, IF IT WERE
THROUGH AIRBNB OR ONE OF THOSE,
I MEAN, THE COMPETITIVE PRICING,
THE LANDLORD, THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY WOULD STILL GET THEIR
LOW INCOME TAX CREDIT. BUT THE
PROTECTIONS FOR THE LANDLORD
WOULD BE THAT IF THE PERSON
BECOMES AN A PROBLEM, THEN THE
LANDLORD GOES TO AIRBNB OR VRBO
OR ANY ONE OF THESE MANY, MANY
NOW IN THE MARKETPLACE, PRIVATE
RENTERS, VACATION RENTERS, OR
LONG TERM RENTERS, YOU COULD
HAVE A LONG TERM CONTRACT AND
THEN YOU GET LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
INVOLVED BECAUSE OF IT'S
PRESUMABLY A LONGER TERM
CONTRACT, WHICH IS TYPICALLY
AFTER 30 DAYS. THEN YOU HAVE YOU
DO HAVE ENFORCEMENT
OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE THERE NEEDS
TO BE A PERMIT OR A LICENSE TO
RENT FOR A LONG TERM
ARRANGEMENT. SO I JUST WONDER IF
PRIVATE INDUSTRY IS I DON'T KNOW
THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, AND
I'M NOT SO CHALLENGING, BUT DID
YOU SEE THIS IN THE DISCOVERY OF
YOUR WORK INSTEAD OF THE
COMPLICATIONS OF HOW TO. AND I
DO SUPPORT THE LARGER
PROTECTIONS, FRANKLY. BUT I'M
THINKING, CAN THEY BE AVOIDED IF
IT IS THROUGH AN AIRBNB WHERE
THE AIRBNB OR THE SERVICE
PROVIDER PLATFORM WOULD TAKE
CARE OF THAT PROBLEM TENANT? I'M
I'M ATTEMPTING TO FOLLOW YOUR
QUESTION, BUT IF I UNDERSTAND,
CAN I PARAPHRASE, ARE YOU ASKING
IF A PLATFORM LIKE AN AIRBNB IS
A MODEL TO BE ABLE TO FACILITATE
THESE KINDS OF MATCHES? I MEAN,
OR IF IT DOES, IT HAPPEN NOW IN
THE EXISTING MODEL? TO MY TO MY
KNOWLEDGE, AT THE MOMENT, NO,
BUT WE THAT'S WHY WE ENLIST THE
HELP OF ORGANIZATIONS WHOSE
MISSION IT IS TO REALLY CUT
THROUGH Ã, TO BE ABLE TO STUDY
A LOT OF THE INFORMATION, TO
MAKE SURE THAT A MATCH IS
HEALTHY. WELL, I DO KNOW OF
CASES INDIVIDUALLY, ONE OFF AND
I ACKNOWLEDGE THEY ARE A PRIVATE
NONPROFIT CORPORATION. AND I
WOULD JUST SAY THAT IF YOU WERE
TO DO A RENTAL THROUGH AIRBNB,
YOU WOULD GET NO SUPPORT WITH
GETTING YOUR ROOM READY TO RENT.
THERE'D BE NO VETTING OF THE TWO
SIDES THROUGH IN-DEPTH
INTERVIEWS, THERE WOULDN'T BE
MATCHING OF THE TWO PARTIES
BASED ON SHARED COMMUNICATION
STYLES. THERE WOULDN'T BE A
FACILITATED AGREEMENT ABOUT HOW
THE SPACE IS GOING TO BE SHARED,
TO GET ALL OF THE EXPECTATIONS
ON THE TABLE BEFOREHAND, AND
THERE SURELY WOULDN'T BE ANY
DEGREE OF CASE MANAGEMENT
ONGOING TO PROVIDE HOUSING
SUPPORT SERVICES FOR BOTH THE
LOW INCOME LANDLORD AND THE LOW
INCOME TENANT. SO WHAT THE
NONPROFIT IS DOING IS REALLY
MITIGATING THE RISK OF THESE
NEGATIVE OUTCOMES BY ACTUALLY
SUPPORTING VULNERABLE PEOPLE
THROUGH THE PROCESS. WHAT WE'VE
SEEN FROM FOR PROFIT ATTEMPTS AT
SHARED HOUSING IS TO REMOVE ALL
OF THE HUMAN SERVICES SIDE IN
ANY OF THAT ONGOING SUPPORT THAT
HAPPENS, WHICH I THINK WOULD PUT
BOTH OUR OLDER HOME PROVIDERS
AND OUR OLDER TENANTS IN A VERY
TOUGH SITUATION IN TERMS OF
MAINTAINING HOUSING STABILITY.
IF THINGS COME UP, THE FACT THAT
WE'RE THERE TO CALL APPS IF NEED
BE, TO CALL THE POLICE IF NEED
BE, BUT ALSO USUALLY JUST TO DO
SOME SIMPLE PROBLEM SOLVING AND
SAY, HEY, HERE'S A REALLY
PRACTICAL SOLUTION TO THIS
PROBLEM THAT WE'VE SEEN BEFORE
TO DISSOLVE A PRACTICAL ISSUE,
BECOME BEFORE IT BECOMES THE
KIND OF EMOTIONALLY INVESTED
ISSUE THAT TYPICALLY THEN
DEVOLVES INTO THE KIND OF
TROUBLING SITUATIONS THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO AVOID HERE. OKAY, JUST
ONE OTHER SOMEWHAT RELATED. SO
IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, MANY
COMMUNITIES HAVE OR SHARE SENIOR
COMMUNITY CENTERS WITH OTHER
COMMUNITIES, OR THEY HAVE
SUFFICIENT POPULATION, ELDER
POPULATION, THAT THEY HAVE A
SENIOR COMMUNITY CENTER. AND I'M
AWARE THAT IN MANY CITIES IN
ORANGE COUNTY THAT THESE KINDS
OF REMEDY FINDING OPPORTUNITIES
THAT SOMEBODY COULD BE CALLING
THEIR SENIOR COMMUNITY CENTER
AND SAY, HELP, I'VE GOT THIS
PROBLEM. CAN YOU HELP REMOVE
THIS TENANT? AND HE HAS A
PROBLEM. AND THERE THERE ARE
SERVICES TO DO THAT. MAYBE
YOU'RE INVOLVED WITH THOSE
COMMUNITY CENTERS AND YOU
PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES. I JUST
WONDER IF THAT'S AVAILABLE TO
THE PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL AS
THE TENANT. SO THIS IS ANOTHER
PROBLEM THAT I THINK IS A REAL
GAP IN OUR SYSTEM IN MOST
JURISDICTIONS. IF YOU WERE TO
CALL THE LEGAL AID PROVIDER OR
YOU WERE TO CALL THE SENIOR
LEGAL AID PROVIDER, THEY WOULD
ALMOST ALWAYS TELL YOU, WE DON'T
SERVE LANDLORDS, WE ONLY SERVE
TENANTS. AND THIS IS A VERY
SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE,
WHERE IF YOU'RE MAKING $30,000 A
YEAR ON A FIXED INCOME AND
YOU'RE A LANDLORD, YOU DON'T
HAVE A RIGHT TO THE SAME KIND OF
LEGAL DEFENSE AS SOMEONE WHO'S
MAKING A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND
DOLLARS A YEAR AND WORKING AT A
TECH COMPANY SIMPLY BECAUSE
THEY'RE A TENANT AND YOU'RE A
LANDLORD. SO THIS ISN'T THE BILL
TO ADDRESS THAT PROBLEM. BUT I
WOULD SAY IN MOST CASES, NØ
WITHOUT A NONPROFIT SHARED
HOUSING PROGRAM THERE TO PROVIDE
SOME DEGREE OF SUPPORT, A LOW
INCOME LANDLORD WOULD HAVE VERY
LITTLE TO NO RECOURSE FROM ANY
OF THE RELEVANT LEGAL SERVICES
PROVIDERS IN THE COMMUNITY.
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
THAT EXTENDED RESPONSE, I
APPRECIATE IT. WELL, THANK THANK
YOU, EVERYONE FOR THE ROBUST
CONVERSATION. I DO THINK THAT WE
HAVE TO HAVE ALL OPTIONS ON THE
TABLE. THIS IS A VERY CREATIVE
ONE THAT I THINK IS AN EXCELLENT
OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS. AND AS THE NOT
JUST COLLEAGUES, BUT THE
ANALYSIS, YOU KNOW, DOES DIVE
INTO THE LARGER LAW. AND AS TO
ITS INCLUSION IN THIS. AND SO I
KNOW WITH THE AUTHOR AS WELL AS
THE COOPERATIVE OPPOSITION
THAT'S WILLING TO COME TO THE
TABLE AND CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT
IT, THAT WILL FIND SOME WAY OF
EITHER NARROWING IT OR FINDING
SOME PATH FORWARD ON IT. AND
VERY GRATEFUL TO THE NONPROFITS,
BOTH THE FINANCIAL, SOCIAL AND
OTHER BENEFITS ARE DEFINITELY
EXTRAORDINARY. SO APPRECIATE
YOUR WORK IN THIS SPACE. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. I KNOW YOU HAVE A
BUSY AGENDA THIS MORNING AND SO
I APPRECIATE THE EXTRA
CONSIDERATION. I WANT TO THANK
STAFF AS WELL FOR THE VERY
HELPFUL AND THOROUGH ANALYSIS
THAT I THINK IS HELPING TO OPEN
UP THIS CONVERSATION SO THAT WE
GET THIS RIGHT, BECAUSE AT THE
END OF THE DAY, IT'S ABOUT
MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE MAKING
THESE MATCHES HAPPEN. WE'RE
DOING A BETTER JOB OF USING
EXISTING EMPTY BEDROOMS THAT ARE
OUT THERE WITHOUT EVEN BUILDING
A WHOLE NEW UNIT OF HOUSING,
WHICH WE ALSO NEED TO DO
CREATIVE SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS
THIS PROBLEM. AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU.
MOTIONS DO PASS TO HUMAN
SERVICES. CALL I CHOLERA I DIXON.
NO. DIXON. NÓ BAUER-KAHAN I
BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY I SALLY GARABEDIAN.
GARABEDIAN I PACHECO. MØT.
PAPIN. SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. NO.
STEPHANIE. HI, STEPHANIE. I
ZUBER. ZUBER I OKAY. AND SO
WE'LL PLACE THAT ON CALL. ONE
MORE VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
MR. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE ASSEMBLY
JACKSON AB 449.
AND IF I COULD JUST REMIND THE
COMMITTEE WE HAVE ABOUT 2.5
HOURS. WE HAVE 15 MORE BILLS TO
GO THROUGH. SO JUST A REMINDER
TO FOLKS. AND I WILL DO MY PART
FOR THE SPEEDY WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. PRESENTING AB 449, WHICH
WOULD EMPOWER THE CALIFORNIA
CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT TO
CREATE AND CARRY OUT STATEWIDE
MEDIA CAMPAIGNS TO DISCOURAGE
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST
INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS BASED ON
IMMUTABLE CHARACTERISTICS. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF AB 449? CRAIG
PULSIFER ON BEHALF OF EQUALITY
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 449? WE'LL
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
YEP. THE MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. ASSEMBLY MEMBER, WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THAT'S FANTASTIC. ALL
RIGHT. HERE WE GO. LET'S DO A
ROLL CALL. VOTE ON THAT. DO PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS. KALRA I
KALRA. AYE. DIXON. BAUER-KAHAN
BRIAN. CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. AYE.
IS SALLY HAIRABEDIAN.
HAIRABEDIAN. AYE. PACHECO. AYE.
PACHECO. AYE. PAPIN. SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ. AYE. STEPHANIE. HI,
STEPHANIE. AYE. ZABIR. ZABIR.
AYE. GETS OUT. ALL RIGHT. THAT
BILL IS OUT. NEXT. BILL. AND
ITEM 16. AB 1201. WE'RE GOING TO
GO FIRST.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR. I WANT TO
THANK YOU AND COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR WORKING ON ALL THESE
AMENDMENTS IN WHICH I WILL BE
ACCEPTING TODAY. THE REUNION ACT
SERVES AS AN ESSENTIAL TOOL IN
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM TO ENSURE
THAT FAMILY REUNIFICATION
SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE FOR MORE
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN SHUT
OUT OF THE COURT SYSTEM FOR TOO
LONG. CURRENTLY, IF A PARENT IS
CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT FELONY,
THEY ARE INELIGIBLE FOR FAMILY
REUNIFICATION SERVICES. THIS IS
A BLANKET RULING, REGARDLESS OF
WHETHER THE PARENT CURRENTLY
POSES A DANGER TO THEIR
CHILDREN, THEIR CHILD, OR
CHILDREN. AB 1201 JUST SIMPLY
GIVES THE COURT THE OPPORTUNITY
TO MAKE INDIVIDUALIZED DECISIONS
AND ASSESSMENTS ON WHETHER A
FAMILY CAN BE REUNITED. PARENTS
WOULD NOT, HOWEVER, WOULD NOT BE
ELIGIBLE IF BOTH OF BOTH OF THE
FOLLOWING ARE TRUE ABOUT THEIR
CONVICTION. NUMBER ONE, THE
PARENT OR GUARDIAN PERSONALLY
USED A FORCE OF CREATE. USED A
WEAPON, OR TWO THE CHILD OR
ANOTHER CHILD WAS THE VICTIM. I
REALLY URGE THE SUPPORT OF THE
REUNION ACT. IT'S PRACTICAL,
IT'S DATA DRIVEN, AND IT MAKES
OUR COURT ENGINES OF HEALING AND
NOT JUST A SEPARATION. WITH ME
TODAY IS YOUR CALLS AND FADEL
CHAGOYA WITH STARTING OVER
STRONG, STRONG TO TELL THE
COMMITTEE ABOUT THEIR LIVED
EXPERIENCES WITH THIS ISSUE. AND
WE'LL START OFF WITH FIDEL. GOOD
MORNING. HONORABLE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS FIDEL
CHAGOYA AND I'M CURRENTLY AN
ORGANIZER WITH RIVERSIDE. ALL OF
US OR NONE AT STARTING OVER,
INC. STARTING OVER, INC. IS A
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION DEDICATED
TO HELPING. FORMERLY
INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS SECURE
HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT, AND A
RECORD EXPUNGEMENT. I HOLD A
CERTIFICATE OF REHABILITATION.
AND A MASTER'S DEGREE IN
CLINICAL MENTAL HEALTH
COUNSELING FROM THE UNIVERSITY
OF REDLANDS. I AM SPEAKING TO
YOU TODAY BECAUSE I AM A
FORMERLY INCARCERATED PARENT WHO
LOST MY RIGHTS AS A PARENT. MY
DAUGHTER, ZOE, MY FIRST AND ONLY
CHILD, WAS BORN IN 2016 WHEN I
WAS 39 YEARS OLD. BY THEN, I HAD
BEEN OUT OF PRISON FOR SIX YEARS
AND OFF PAROLE FOR FOUR. I HAD
WORKED TIRELESSLY TO CREATE A
STABLE LIFE, SECURING STEADY
EMPLOYMENT, STABLE HOUSING AND
RELIABLE TRANSPORTATION DURING
CHILDBIRTH. ZOE'S MOTHER TESTED
POSITIVE FOR OPIATES BECAUSE OF
TYLENOL, WITH CODEINE THAT WAS
PRESCRIBED BY A DENTIST, AND
HAVING PREVIOUSLY LOST PARENTAL
RIGHTS TO HER OTHER CHILDREN.
THIS TRIGGERED THE INVOLVEMENT
OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY'S
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
AND LOOKED AT MY PAST CRIMINAL
RECORD AND SAID I SHOULD NOT
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVEN
REUNIFY WITH MY CHILD DUE TO
WELFARE. INSTITUTION CODE
SECTION 360 1.5 B 12 THE BYPASS
PROVISION. MY PARENTAL RIGHTS
WERE TERMINATED AND IN 2019 ZOE
WAS ADOPTED OUT WITH 100. AND 19
CHILDREN IN SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY. EVEN THOUGH MY PRIOR
CRIMINAL HISTORY HAD NO BEARING
ON WHETHER I WOULD BE A GOOD
PARENT OR NOT. IF THIS CHANGE IN
LAW PROPOSED BY AB 1201 EXISTED
AT THE TIME OF MY CASE, I WOULD
HAVE HAD A FAIR CHANCE OF
REUNIFYING WITH MY DAUGHTER. I
AM HERE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER
MAKING SURE THAT PARENTS LIKE
ME, WHO HAVE FELONIES UNRELATED
TO THEIR ABILITY TO BE A PARENT
AND IN MANY CASES HAVE PAID
THEIR DEBT TO SOCIETY A FAIR
CHANCE AT GETTING THEIR CHILDREN
BACK. FOR THESE REASONS, I
EXPRESS MY SUPPORT FOR AB 1201.
THANK YOU CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
SHARING. I COMMEND YOU ON
TURNING YOUR LIFE AROUND AND
SORRY FOR THE EXPERIENCE YOU
WENT THROUGH WITH YOUR DAUGHTER.
GREETINGS HONORABLE MEMBERS OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE
AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS VANESSA QUARLES AND I'M
THE CO-FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR OF
STARTING OVER, INC. WE PROVIDE
REENTRY SERVICES TO THE
REENTERING POPULATION. WE'VE
BEEN DOING THAT FOR ABOUT 16
YEARS. ABOUT SEVEN YEARS AGO, IT
IT THIS ISSUE SURFACED WHERE
MANY OF OUR PARTICIPANTS WERE
FACING PERMANENT FAMILY
SEPARATION AND NO ACCESS TO
FAMILY REUNIFICATION SERVICES.
BECAUSE OF OUR REENTRY WORK, WE
WITNESSED FIRSTHAND THE
DEVASTATING IMPACT OF THE
AUTOMATIC BYPASS OF FAMILY
REUNIFICATION SERVICES UNDER
WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE
360 1.5, SECTION 12 FOR PARENTS
WITH PAST VIOLENT CONVICTIONS,
CONVICTIONS THAT ARE OFTEN
UNRELATED TO HARMING A CHILD.
THIS POLICY NEEDLESSLY KEEPS
CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE LONGER,
SOMETIMES UNTIL THEY AGE OUT OF
THE SYSTEM. IT INFLICTS LASTING
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND EMOTIONAL HARM
ON BOTH PARENTS AND CHILDREN. I
SPEAK FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCES
AS WELL. AS A CHILD, I WAS
REMOVED FROM MY FAMILY AND
PLACED IN FOSTER CARE FOR
SEVERAL YEARS LATER, SOME OF MY
OWN CHILDREN WERE REMOVED FROM
MY CUSTODY. THEY WERE ADOPTED
OUT, AND YEARS LATER, I HAD TO
FIGHT TO BRING TWO OF MY OWN
GRANDCHILDREN OUT OF THE SYSTEM.
I'M A PRACTICING ATTORNEY.
TODAY. I HAVE A PARDON FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IT TOOK
ME ALMOST A YEAR TO NAVIGATE THE
CPS SYSTEM BECAUSE OF 25 YEAR
OLD FELONY CONVICTIONS THAT
WEREN'T EVEN VIOLENT. SO WHEN WE
GOT THE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE
THE FAMILY REUNIFICATION, EQUITY
AND EMPOWERMENT PROJECT, WE FELT
THAT WE WERE OBLIGATED TO DO SO.
THIS DOESN'T GIVE PARENTS A FREE
A FREE SHOT AT GETTING THEIR
CHILDREN. IT JUST GIVES THEM TO
FIDEL'S POINT A FAIR CHANCE, A
FAIR CHANCE AND INVESTMENT TO
SAY THAT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BELIEVES IN FAMILY
REUNIFICATION. THANK YOU. I ALSO
WANT TO THANK YOU FOR SHARING
AND FOR YOUR INCREDIBLE STORY OF
PERSEVERANCE AND ACCOMPLISHMENT.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF AB 1201? JOHN
VASQUEZ, ON BEHALF OF
COMMUNITIES UNITED FOR
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE, STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ANNIE THOMAS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF CHILD AND
FAMILY SERVICES AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ZECHARIAH CAÑADA,
SENIOR POLICY ATTORNEY WITH THE
ALLIANCE FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS,
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
1201? WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
DÍAS FOR ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS
OR MOTIONS. ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BRIAN, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU
BOTH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY, AND I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS MEASURE FORWARD.
WE'VE BEEN FIGHTING TO GET THIS
THROUGH FOR SOME YEARS NOW. IN
FACT, I WOULD I WOULD ACTUALLY
BE OKAY WITH SWITCHING THE
PRESUMPTION, BUT I THINK THIS IS
A MORE THAN MEASURED APPROACH,
AND I'D LIKE TO MOVE THE BILL TO
A SECOND. ASSEMBLY MEMBER,
BARBARA KHN. THANK YOU, MR.
JACKSON, AND THANK YOU BOTH FOR
BEING HERE. AND I THINK THIS IS
SUCH AN IMPORTANT BILL. AND AS
SOMEONE WHO REPRESENTED
INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE CONVICTED
OF FELONIES, WHO WERE INCREDIBLE
PARENTS AND THEIR CONVICTIONS
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR
CHILDREN, AND THEY NEVER IN A
MILLION YEARS WOULD HAVE HARMED
THEIR CHILD IN ANY WAY. I KNEW
THESE HUMANS. AND SO, YOU KNOW,
I DO THINK THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT
REUNIFICATION IS THE BEST THING
FOR EVERYBODY. IN THOSE CASES. I
DID HAVE ONE QUESTION, AND IT
MAY BE ADDRESSED ALREADY BY THE
QUESTION THAT IS POSED ABOUT THE
HARM TO THE CHILD AND
ENDANGERING THEM IF THEY'RE
REUNIFIED, WHICH I THINK IS
IMPORTANT. YOU PUT IN HERE,
BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT THE
PROTECTING KIDS, AND I KNOW WE
ALL AGREE ON THIS IS ALWAYS
SHOULD BE FIRST AND FOREMOST.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VAST
MAJORITY OF SITUATIONS WHERE
THAT'S NOT EVEN A QUESTION, BUT
THERE ARE THE SMALL TIMES WHEN
THERE IS. AND YOU DID INCLUDE IN
THE BILL THAT WHEN THE CHILD WAS
THE VICTIM, THAT THERE CAN BE A
PRESUMPTION AGAINST
REUNIFICATION. I WANTED TO ASK
ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
FELONIES WRIT LARGE, BECAUSE I
GUESS I AM CONCERNED THAT WHERE
SOMEONE HAS, YOU KNOW, DONE
SERIOUS HARM TO THEIR SPOUSE,
THAT THAT IS A SITUATION WHERE
THE KID MIGHT BE IN DANGER AND
THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE BILL.
AND AGAIN, MAYBE IT'S IT WOULD
BE FALL UNDER BE WHERE THE, YOU
KNOW, THEY LOOK AT WHETHER THE
CHILD IS AT RISK AND THAT WOULD
BE COVERED. BUT I JUST WANTED I
FELT LIKE THAT WAS MISSING HERE
AND I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IT.
ABSOLUTELY. DO YOU WOULD YOU
LIKE TO COVER THAT? WE SEE A LOT
OF THAT. SO THE FAMILY
REUNIFICATION EQUITY AND
EMPOWERMENT PROJECT, THEY MEET
WEEKLY. WE HAVE CLUB MEETINGS
WITH SYSTEM IMPACTED FAMILIES.
OFTENTIMES IT IS MOTHERS WHO
HAVE LOST THEIR THEIR CHILDREN
BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO PROTECT.
AND SO THOSE ARE SOMETIMES
ISSUES AROUND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
FOR SEVERAL REASONS, WE HAVE
DECIDED NOT TO INCLUDE DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE IN THIS BECAUSE THE
PARENTS TELL US HOW HARMFUL THE
INCARCERATION PROCESS, THE LACK
OF TREATMENT, AND THAT DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE IS BETTER ERADICATED
AND ADDRESSED THE WAY WE ADDRESS
OTHER SOCIAL AND MENTAL HEALTH
PROBLEMS, AND THAT IS THROUGH
THERAPY SERVICES. SO BECAUSE A
MOTHER HAS EXPERIENCED OR THEIR
FAMILY HAS EXPERIENCED, DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE DOESN'T NECESSARILY
NECESSITATE REMOVAL OF ACCESS TO
FAMILY REUNIFICATION SERVICES,
NOR DO WE BELIEVE THAT IT
SHOULD. WAIT. I THINK YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT THE SPOUSE BEING
THE SURVIVOR OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE. AM I HEARING YOU
CORRECTLY? I THINK THAT'S WHAT
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. OR THE
PARENT EITHER. EITHER ONE. WHEN
IT COMES TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
IT'S A FAMILY ISSUE. THE WAY
THAT WE HEAR IT AND SEE IT, IT'S
A FAMILY ISSUE. AND WHEN SOMEONE
IS ARRESTED AND OFTENTIMES
THEY'LL BOTH BE ARRESTED OR THEY
SAY THE WRONG PERSON WAS
ARRESTED. SO WE DON'T KNOW. AND
SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY WE
DIDN'T INCLUDE IT IN THIS BILL.
WE ARE SIMPLY ASKING WITH THIS
BILL THAT FAMILY REUNIFICATION
SERVICES DO NOT BE DENIED
BECAUSE OF A VIOLENT FELONY
CONVICTION, NOR DO WE THINK IF A
PERSON HAS A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
THAT THEY SHOULD BE PRECLUDED
FROM RECEIVING THOSE SERVICES IN
THE BILL FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
CHILD, THE CHILD CAN'T MAKE A
DETERMINATION ABOUT WHO'S RIGHT
OR WHO'S WRONG IN A DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE SITUATION, ACCORDING TO
THE SCIENCE. THEY BLAME
THEMSELVES FOR MUCH OF WHAT
HAPPENS TO THEM AND AROUND THEM.
SO FAMILY REUNIFICATION IS A WAY
TO ADDRESS THOSE KINDS OF
CONCERNS. AND I'M NOT LOOKING AT
A CARVE OUT I DON'T WANT I
HAVEN'T TALKED TO THE MEMBER
ABOUT THIS, SO I'M NOT SURE IF
THE AUTHOR WOULD BE. BUT AS FAR
AS OUR WORK, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO
ADD AN ADDITIONAL CARVE OUT TO
DENY FAMILY REUNIFICATION
SERVICES. WE'RE TRYING TO ENSURE
THAT MORE FAMILIES GET THEM,
ESPECIALLY VULNERABLE FAMILIES.
GOT IT. SO, I MEAN, I HAVE TO
SAY, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT
THE SURVIVOR OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE SHOULD ALWAYS BE. I
DON'T EVEN THINK THIS SHOULD
APPLY TO THEM IN ANY WAY, SHAPE
OR FORM. SO LET ME JUST START
THERE. I DO THINK THAT FIRST AND
FOREMOST, WE SHOULD BE MAKING
SURE KIDS ARE IN SAFE
ENVIRONMENTS ALWAYS. AND SO I
DON'T KNOW THAT DATA. I'D BE
INTERESTED TO SEE THAT DATA, YOU
KNOW, AND MAYBE AND I'M NOT
SOMEBODY WHO HAS STUDIED THIS BY
ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION,
BUT IN MY UNDERSTANDING, A HOUSE
WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS
SOMEWHERE THAT ISN'T SAFE FOR
ANY OF THE SURVIVORS, THE
CHILDREN OR THE SPOUSE WHO'S
BEEN THE SUBJECT OF THAT. AND WE
NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT
PUTTING PEOPLE INTO A SITUATION
WHERE THEY WILL BE ENDANGERED
AGAIN. I FEEL BETTER BY, YOU
KNOW, THIS QUESTION THAT IS
POSED TO THE COURT ABOUT
REUNIFICATION AND WHETHER IT'S
LIKELY TO ENDANGER OR CAUSE HARM
OR TRAUMA TO THE CHILD, BECAUSE
I THINK THAT I HOPE JUDGES WILL
TAKE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTO
ACCOUNT THERE WHEN DECIDING
WHETHER THE CHILD WILL BE
TRAUMATIZED OR HARMED. I THINK
IT IS REALLY RELEVANT TO THE
QUESTION OF WHETHER THEY ARE
SAFE, AND IT'S APPROPRIATE PLACE
FOR THEM TO BE, BUT, YOU KNOW, I
DO THINK IT IS SOMETHING WE
SHOULD LOOK AT BECAUSE THE LAST
THING WE WANT IS TO PUT CHILDREN
INTO SITUATIONS WHERE THEY ARE
UNSAFE. THANK YOU. AND ALSO,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER, I THINK ALSO TO
THE QUESTION TO ME ON THAT ISSUE
IS. IF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A
PART OF THAT CRIMINAL HISTORY,
DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY SHOULD
NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED OR NOT?
YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? YEAH.
THE IDEA IS, IS THAT IF WE IF WE
ADD IT, THEN THAT MEANS THAT.
YOU CAN'T DIVE DEEPER INTO,
WELL, IT'S HAPPENED OVER A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME RIGHT
NOW. IF IT WAS JUST LAST WEEK,
WE GOT SOME WE GOT SOME ISSUES.
WE STILL NEED TO WORK OUT.
MYSELF HAVE GROWN UP IN A
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATION
BEFORE AND I STILL HAVE THOSE
TRIGGERS. AND WHICH IS WHY MY
SCHOOL WAS MY SAFE PLACE. THUS
THE GLASSES. AND SO I THINK THAT
YOU CAN SEE. CAUSAL RELATION.
ALL RIGHT. I'LL, I'LL LET YOU
DECIDE THAT. BUT I THINK THE
IDEA IS, IS THAT HOW DO WE I
STILL WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS
FURTHER WITH YOU BECAUSE I
THINK, YOU KNOW, AS WE CONTINUE
TO COMB THROUGH THE RESEARCH AND
THE DATA RELATING TO IT, BECAUSE
YOU'RE RIGHT, THERE ARE SOME
TRAUMATIC THINGS THAT CAN HAVE
LASTING EFFECTS THAT COULD START
CYCLES. HOWEVER, WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT ALSO WE ELIMINATE AS
MANY JUST BLANKET RIGHT. THERE'S
NO DISCUSSIONS TO BE HAD.
THERE'S NO THERE'S NO HELP TO BE
HAD. AND HOW DO WE CREATE A
SYSTEM IN WHICH IT'S NOT JUST
RESPONSIBLE FOR SEPARATION, BUT
RESPONSIBLE FOR REUNITING AND
CREATING HEALTHY AND STABLE
ENVIRONMENTS? YEAH, I APPRECIATE
THAT. AND I KNOW THAT OUR HEARTS
ARE ABSOLUTELY IN THE SAME
PLACE, WHICH IS MAKING SURE KIDS
ARE IN SAFE AND HEALTHY
ENVIRONMENTS AND THAT THEY
THRIVE AND THAT WE END, OH,
ABSOLUTELY, CYCLES OF VIOLENCE.
BUT YOU HAVE MY COMMENT TO
CONTINUE TO RUN. I APPRECIATE
THAT AND I DO THAT. I DO THINK
THAT THIS ANALYSIS SHOULD COVER
IT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO RAISE
IT BECAUSE I THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT. OH, ABSOLUTELY. THANK
YOU. ABSOLUTELY. MADAM VICE
CHAIR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I
JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ON EXISTING
LAW. SO DOES THE COURT HAVE
DISCRETION TO MAKE THE DECISION
WHETHER THE UNIFICATION SHOULD.
SO THERE STILL IS DISCRETION
INVOLVED BY THE JUDGE IN, IN
MATTERS SUCH AS THESE FROM THE
LAWS THAT WE ARE CHANGING RIGHT
HERE. NO, THERE IS NO
DISCRETION. IT'S JUST A BLANKET.
COURTS CAN'T EVEN DECIDE. THE
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL EXISTING LAW
PROVIDES THAT REUNIFICATION
SERVICES DO NOT NEED TO BE
PROVIDED TO A PARENT OR
GUARDIAN. GUARDIAN WHEN THE
COURT FINDS. SO THAT SEEMS TO ME
THERE'S SOME DISCRETION THERE. I
GO. YEAH. YOU CAN. THERE ARE 58
COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA AND IT
VARIES FROM COUNTY TO COUNTY. WE
ARE THE ONLY STATE, AS FAR AS I
KNOW, IN THE COUNTRY, THAT HAS
AN AUTOMATIC BYPASS OF FAMILY
REUNIFICATION FOR VIOLENT
CONVICTIONS, AND SO THEY MIGHT
NOT HAVE TO, BUT IT HAPPENS
EVERY DAY IN COURT, MA'AM. THEY
THEY BYPASS FAMILY REUNIFICATION
SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WITH FELONY
CONVICTIONS. YOU KNOW, JUST
LISTENING TO YOUR DISCUSSION AND
THE GENTLEMAN'S PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE AND YOURS AS WELL, MY
HEART GOES OUT TO YOU, AND I AM
APPRECIATIVE OF THE SERVICES YOU
PROVIDE FOR SAN BERNARDINO,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY. I THINK THAT
IS EXEMPLARY. TO YOUR POINT,
ABOUT 58 COUNTIES. I HAVE NO
IDEA WHAT IF YOUR KINDS OF
ORGANIZATION OPERATE STATEWIDE,
BUT I THINK YOU DO BRING
CERTAINLY A LEVEL OF SCRUTINY TO
MAKE THAT DETERMINATION AND
VOUCH FOR THE REHABILITATION OF
FORMERLY VIOLENT INCARCERATED
INDIVIDUAL. BUT IT GIVES ME
GREAT PAUSE THAT YOUR CASE HAS
MERIT AND YOUR EXPERIENCE GIVES
ME MERIT. IT GIVES MERIT TO THIS
SITUATION. BUT I THE LAW WAS
CREATED TO PROTECT CHILDREN. I'M
SURE YOU ALL READ THE HORRIFIC
STORY THAT OCCURRED IN ORANGE
COUNTY AND WITHIN EYESIGHT OF
DISNEYLAND LAST WEEK, THAT A
MOTHER MURDERED HER NINE YEAR
OLD SON AFTER SPENDING THREE
DAYS AT DISNEYLAND AND IN A
CUSTODY DISPUTE. AND VIOLENCE IS
PART OF THE FAMILY DYNAMIC. THAT
YOUNG BOY IS NOT ALIVE. HE WAS
STABBED BY HIS MOTHER. KILLED?
THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW. A
LIVE CASE IN ORANGE COUNTY AND
THE FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES. I
DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE IDENTICAL.
CERTAINLY I CAN'T MAKE THAT
STATEMENT, BUT IT GIVES ME GREAT
PAUSE WHEN THE COURT IS INVOLVED
IN ADJUDICATING, CONSIDERING,
ANALYZING THE SAFETY OF A CHILD.
THAT TO ME IS IT'S A CRITICAL
COMPONENT OF OUR LAW. SO I WON'T
BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS. I'M SO
GRATEFUL FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
IT'S IMPORTANT AND I UNDERSTAND.
I REMEMBER YOU FROM LAST YEAR.
YOU WERE HERE. I MY HEART BLEEDS
FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. I
BELIEVE YOU ARE A GOOD PERSON,
BUT I CAN'T MAKE THAT STATEMENT
FOR OTHERS THAT COME BEFORE THE
COURT. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR
STATEMENT TODAY. SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. OH, SORRY.
SUMMARY OF SALLY CO CHAIR. OKAY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO WE ARE
IN AGREEMENT THOUGH, THAT
EXISTING LAW DOES PROVIDE THE
COURTS DISCRETION TO PROVIDE
REUNIFICATION SERVICES. IS THAT
THAT'S NOT CORRECT? THE EXISTING
LAW IS AN AUTOMATIC BYPASS. IF
SOMEONE HAS A FELONY CONVICTION.
THAT'S WHY THIS IS ACTUALLY
PROVIDING DISCRETION WITH WITH
WITH THE WITH THE GUARDRAILS IN
THERE. AS NOTED IN THE ANALYSIS,
THE AUTHORS AMENDMENTS THAT NOT
ONLY IS THE DEPARTMENT THAT'S
RESPONSIBLE FOR REUNIFICATION
HAS MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO
DEMONSTRATE WHY IT WOULDN'T BE
APPROPRIATE. ULTIMATELY, THE
COURT, BY THE LOW STANDARD OF
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, CAN
MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT IT'S
NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE
CHILD. OKAY, WELL, I WOULD
SUPPORT GIVING THE JUDGES
DISCRETION. IF THERE'S A BLANKET
BAR, I WOULD SUPPORT GIVING THE
JUDGES DISCRETION. I GUESS WHAT
I'M WORRIED ABOUT HERE IS, ARE
WE GOING TOO FAR THE OTHER WAY,
WHERE WE'RE BASICALLY ORDERING
REUNIFICATION UNLESS SPECIFIC
CONDITIONS ARE MET? ONE THAT THE
CRIME INVOLVED FORCE OR A WEAPON
AGAINST THIS CHILD, OR TWO BASED
ON PREPONDERANCE OF THE
ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE THE
REUNIFICATION SERVICE IS LIKELY
TO ENDANGER OR CAUSE ADDITIONAL
HARM OR TRAUMA TO THE CHILD. SO
MY QUESTION TO YOU IS IF A MAN
MURDERS HIS WIFE, IS THE COURT
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
REUNIFICATION SERVICES TO HIM?
NO, I ACTUALLY ASSEMBLY MEMBER.
THIS IS WHY I THINK THIS IS A
BALANCED APPROACH BECAUSE
CURRENT LAW SAYS YOU HAVE TO DO
ONE THING. AND SO WE'RE NOT
TRYING TO REPLACE IT WITH
ANOTHER MANDATE TO DO THE
OPPOSITE THING. RIGHT. IT PUTS
THE DISCRETION WITHIN THE
COURT'S HANDS TO MAKE AN
ASSESSMENT TO, TO ASK FOR ANY
INFORMATION THAT THEY MAY NEED
TO MAKE AN EDUCATED ASSESSMENT
ABOUT IT. SO, NO, IT DOES NOT
FORCE IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. IT
GIVES THE DISCRETION TO THE
COURTS. SO IN MY HYPOTHETICAL,
WOULD THAT FALL INTO THE SECOND?
I MEAN, WHY WOULD THE COURT NOT
BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
REUNIFICATION SERVICES BECAUSE
THE CRIME WASN'T AGAINST THE
CHILD. SO WHAT WOULD THE JUDGE
DO? THERE ARE TWO OTHER THERE.
SO IT COULD YEAH, THERE'S TWO
OTHER ITEMS LISTED BELOW THAT
ONE. SO EVEN IF IT DOESN'T
INVOLVE A CHILD, EVEN IF THE
PERSON DIDN'T USE FORCE
THEMSELVES, WHICH IS A PRONG. SO
IF THEY USE FORCE TO KILL A
SPOUSE OR ANYONE ELSE, THAT
WOULD MEET ONE OF THOSE PRONGS.
AND THEN THERE'S TWO OTHER ITEMS
BELOW THAT, WHICH IS ALMOST LIKE
A CATCH. ALL THAT WOULD WOULD
GIVE THE COURTS, YOU KNOW, WHAT
THEY NEEDED TO EXERCISE
DISCRETION. SO JUST WITH MY
HYPOTHETICAL, WHICH PRONG WOULD
THE JUDGE USE TO DENY
REUNIFICATION SERVICES? I DON'T
HAVE THE BILL LANGUAGE IN FRONT
OF ME. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU DO OR
NOT, I DO. IT SAYS THE ONLY ONE
I COULD SEE IS WHETHER, BASED ON
PREPONDERANCE OF ADMISSIBLE
EVIDENCE, REUNIFICATION SERVICES
IS LIKELY TO ENDANGER OR CAUSE
ADDITIONAL HARM OR TRAUMA TO THE
CHILD. SO WOULD THE CRIME IN OF
ITSELF BE ENOUGH TO DENY
REUNIFICATION SERVICES? THAT
WOULD BE UP TO THE JUDGE. AND I
WOULD PROBABLY SAY THE JUDGE IS
PROBABLY GOING TO SAY NO. IN
THAT CASE, I'M JUST TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND. SO, YEAH, JUST BASED
ON THE CRIME ITSELF, THE JUDGE
COULD EXERCISE HIS DISCRETION
THAT, YOU KNOW, A PARTICULAR
CRIME WAS SO VIOLENT OR SO BAD
THAT IT'S TOO DANGEROUS TO KEEP
THE CHILD THERE. THAT'S STILL
THE JUDGE IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO
DO THAT. THE JUDGE IS FINALLY
GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT
BECAUSE ACCORDING TO CURRENT
CALIFORNIA STATE LAW, THE JUDGES
DON'T HAVE THE DISCRETION TO
MAKE DECISIONS BASED UPON THE
TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
OH. ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS? IT'S
A LITTLE CONFUSING.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN, DID YOU HAVE
ANOTHER QUESTION? NO. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS? MADAM CO-CHAIR, I
JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THIS
BILL DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO
WITH PLACING OR RETURNING THE
CHILD TO THE CUSTODY OF A PARENT
OR GUARDIAN. IT ONLY HAS TO SAY
YOU WILL NOW BE GIVEN FAMILY
REUNIFICATION SERVICES. THE
FAMILY STILL HAVE TO TAKE THE
STEPS TO SATISFY THE FAMILY
REUNIFICATION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COURT.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. SHOULD WE CALL THE VOTE OR
DO WE. OH, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE
YOUR CLOSING STATEMENT? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. LET'S CALL THE VOTE. DO WE
HAVE A MOTION? YEAH. WE DID.
OKAY. THANK YOU. MOTIONS DO PASS
AS AMENDED TO HUMAN SERVICES.
KARA. DIXON. NO. DIXON. NO.
BAUER-KAHAN. BAUER-KAHAN. AYE.
BRIAN. BRYAN I. CONNELLY.
CONNELLY. I SALLY. NO. SALLY.
NO. HAIRABEDIAN. HAIRABEDIAN I
PACHECO. PACHECO. I PAPAN.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. NO. STEPHANIE.
HI, STEPHANIE. I ZEBRA A ZEBRA
I. THAT'S OUT. IT'S OUT. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S AGUIAR-CURRY.
LET ME GET TO MY. JUST FOR AB
464. IF YOU WOULD COME FORWARD,
PLEASE. MR. ASESORÍA. GOOD
MORNING, GOOD MORNING, GOOD
MORNING. YOU MAY PROCEED WHEN
YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU. GREAT.
THANK YOU. I'LL MOVE THE BILL.
SECOND. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK
THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE
STAFF FOR THEIR THOUGHTFUL WORK
ON THIS BILL. MEMBERS, WE HAVE A
CRISIS TAKING PLACE IN OUR
PRISONS AND CALIFORNIA STATE
PRISONS. THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE
ZERO TOLERANCE. EXCUSE ME? ZERO
TOLERANCE POLICY FOR RAPE AND
SEXUAL ASSAULT. HOWEVER, THERE
CONTINUES TO BE REPORTS OF
SEXUAL ABUSE BY PRISON STAFF.
THIS IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE.
AND TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE,
SURVIVORS WHO REPORT ABUSE OFTEN
FACE RETALIATION, INCLUDING
INCREASED STRIP SEARCHES,
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, FORCED
TRANSFERS, AND ADDITIONAL
DUTIES. IN 2023, THE LEGISLATURE
EMPOWERED THE COMMUNITY BASED
ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING
SPONSORS OF THIS BILL, TO DO
RESEARCH, COMMUNICATE WITH
SURVIVORS, AND PRODUCE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF HOW WE SHOULD
ADDRESS SEXUAL ASSAULTS IN OUR
PRISONS. ABX464 WILL CODIFY
RECOMMENDATIONS COMING FROM THAT
RESEARCH AND THE EXTENSIVE WORK
DONE BY THE WOMEN'S CAUCUS.
ABX464 IS AN ACCOUNTABILITY AND
ANTI-RETALIATION BILL THAT HAS
FOUR MAIN PARTS. FIRST, THIS
BILL GIVES SURVIVORS WHO HAVE
BEEN ASSAULTED BY CDCR STAFF
MORE TIME TO REPORT THE ASSAULT,
SPECIFICALLY UP TO FOUR YEARS
AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN RELEASED.
SECOND, IT PROVIDES ENHANCED
MONITORING OF INCARCERATED
INDIVIDUALS WHO REPORT OR
EXPERIENCE AN ASSAULT FOR 90
DAYS TO PREVENT RETALIATION
AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWERS AND
SURVIVORS. THIRD, ABX464 MAKES
SURE THAT CDCR STAFF WHO WERE
TERMINATED FOR CONFIRMED, LET'S
SAY, CONFIRMED SEXUAL ABUSE
CANNOT BE REHIRED IN THE PRISON
SYSTEM. AND FINALLY, THIS BILL
REQUIRES MORE ROBUST REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS AND
ANTI-RETALIATION MEASURES TO
PROTECT THOSE WHO EXPERIENCE
SEXUAL ASSAULT AND
WHISTLEBLOWERS. MY LEAD
WITNESSES TODAY ARE KIANA
ALDRICH, WHO IS A SURVIVOR, AND
APRIL GRAYSON, WHO WILL BE
READING WRITTEN TESTIMONY FROM
NIKKI CARROLL, WHO IS ALSO A
SURVIVOR. EXCUSE ME,
ASSEMBLYWOMAN, HAVE YOU ACCEPTED
THE AMENDMENTS THAT YES, WE DID.
OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.
PLEASE. GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS KIANA ALDRICH AND I'M
SHARING MY EXPERIENCE IN SUPPORT
OF AB 464, IN THE HOPES THAT IT
WILL HELP PREVENT WHAT HAPPENED
TO ME WHEN I REPORTED SEXUAL
ABUSE BY STAFF WHILE I WAS
INCARCERATED AS A CHILD, I WAS
MOLESTED BY MY DAD AND TESTIFIED
AGAINST HIM WHEN I WAS FIVE,
RESULTING IN HIS CONVICTION. MY
MOM WAS IN A SERIES OF ABUSIVE
RELATIONSHIPS, WHICH LED ME TO
THE LIFE ON THE STREETS AND
EVENTUALLY INTO THE HANDS OF SEX
TRAFFICKERS. I SPENT MY TEENAGE
YEARS FORCED INTO PROSTITUTION,
AND AT 17 YEARS OLD, I WAS
PROSECUTED AS AN ADULT FOR A
CRIME THAT WAS DIRECTLY RELATED
TO MY SEXUAL EXPLOITATION.
MEANWHILE, THE TWO MEN WHO
SOLICITED SEX FROM ME AS A TEEN
WERE NEVER PROSECUTED. IN
PRISON. I KNEW THAT I WAS
TARGETED FOR SEXUAL ABUSE BY
PREDATORY STAFF BECAUSE THEY
ALWAYS SEEM TO KNOW ABOUT MY
CRIMINAL HISTORY IN THE SEX
INDUSTRY. OVER A PERIOD OF ONE
AND A HALF YEARS, I WAS SEXUALLY
ABUSED BY FOUR DIFFERENT PRISON
STAFF AT CIW. I WAS TERRIFIED TO
REPORT THE ABUSE BECAUSE IT IS A
KNOWN FACT THAT ANYONE WHO
REPORTS STAFF FOR SEXUAL ABUSE
WILL FACE RETALIATION. THAT WILL
EXTEND YOUR TIME IN PRISON AND
RESULT IN MORE SUFFERING. FOR
EXAMPLE, SURVIVORS WHO REPORT
STAFF SEXUAL ABUSE WILL
TYPICALLY GET LOCKED UP IN
SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, LOSE THEIR
VISITING PRIVILEGES AND ABILITY
TO PROGRAM AND REHABILITATE AND
SUBJECT THEMSELVES TO HARASSING
CELL SEARCHES AND CONFISCATION
OF THEIR PROPERTY. AND IN 2018,
I REPORTED TO CIW THAT I WAS
BEING SEXUALLY ABUSED BY MY WORK
SUPERVISORS AT MY JOB WORKING IN
THE PRISON HOSPITAL. ALTHOUGH I
EARNED ONLY $0.45 AN HOUR, THAT
WAS MONEY THAT I RELIED ON TO
BUY MYSELF BASIC NEEDS SUCH AS
WATER, FOOD, AND HYGIENE. AFTER
I REPORTED, I WAS IMMEDIATELY
FIRED FROM MY JOB AND WAS NOT
ALLOWED TO WORK ANYWHERE ELSE.
MEANWHILE, ONE OF THE
SUPERVISORS WHO SEXUALLY ABUSED
ME WAS ALLOWED TO RETURN BACK TO
HIS JOB, WHERE HE CONTINUED TO
SUPERVISE INCARCERATED WORKERS.
IN 2019, A CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
AT CIW WAS BRINGING ME FOOD AND
JEWELRY IN EXCHANGE FOR SEXUAL
ACTS WHEN HE KNEW HE WAS ABOUT
TO GET CAUGHT, C SANCHEZ TURNED
HIMSELF IN FOR SEXUAL
MISCONDUCT, BUT CLAIMED THAT HE
WAS THE VICTIM EVEN THOUGH HE
HELD ALL THE POWER. ONCE AGAIN,
I WAS TREATED AS THE AGGRESSOR.
CIW CHARGED ME WITH A
DISCIPLINARY VIOLATION FOR
EXTORTION, REFERRED ME TO THE
DA'S OFFICE FOR PROSECUTION OF
CRIMINAL CHARGES, LOCKED ME UP
IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, AND
ISOLATED ME FROM THE OUTSIDE
WORLD, INCLUDING MY ATTORNEYS.
MEANWHILE, CDCR TOOK A YEAR TO
INVESTIGATE SANCHEZ, WHO
RECEIVED HIS FULL SALARY SALARY
WHILE ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE
AFTER THE INVESTIGATION, FOUND
THAT SANCHEZ SEXUALLY ABUSED ME.
HE WAS ALLOWED TO RESIGN FROM
CDCR. HE WAS NEVER CRIMINALLY
CHARGED FOR HIS ADMITTED SEXUAL
ABUSE OF ME, AND HE REMAINS
ELIGIBLE TO WORK FOR CDCR. AT
THE SAME TIME, CDCR FOUND ME
GUILTY OF EXTORTION WITH SANCHEZ
AS THE VICTIM. I LOST SIX MONTHS
OF CREDIT OFF MY SENTENCE AND
WAS LOCKED IN SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT FOR SEVEN MONTHS,
DURING WHICH TIME I TWICE
ATTEMPTED SUICIDE. YEAH. GO
AHEAD. THIS BILL WOULD PROTECT
SURVIVORS FROM SUFFERING SEVERE
RETALIATION. LIKE WHAT HAPPENED
TO ME WHEN I WAS FORCED TO
REPORT PRISON STAFF FOR SEXUAL
ABUSE WHILE I WAS STILL
INCARCERATED AND SUBJECT TO
THEIR AUTHORITY AND CONTROL TO
ENSURE THAT SURVIVORS OF PRISON
SEXUAL ABUSE CAN SAFELY REPORT
THEIR ABUSES. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
THAT YOU SUPPORT AB 464. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS APRIL GRAYSON. I'M THE
POLITICAL DIRECTOR FOR SISTER,
WAS ALSO PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF
THIS BILL. I WILL BE READING THE
TESTIMONY OF A SURVIVOR OF
SEXUAL ASSAULT AND A SURVIVOR OF
RETALIATION OF CDCR STAFF. I'M
NIKKI CARROLL, AND AT THE AGE OF
17, I WAS SENTENCED TO PRISON
AND SERVED 20 YEARS AS A SCARED
AND NAIVE TEENAGER. I BELIEVED
OFFICERS WERE THERE TO HELP US,
BUT I QUICKLY LEARNED HOW WRONG
THAT WAS. AN OFFICER I TRUSTED
GROOMED ME, AND HIS KINDNESS
TURNED INTO REPEATED SEXUAL
ASSAULTS. WHEN THE ABUSE CAME TO
LIGHT, I WASN'T HELPED, I WAS
BLAMED, THE STAFF INTERROGATED
ME, RECORDED ME ON CAMERA AND
OFFERED NO SUPPORT. IT WAS ALL
MALE STAFF AND I WASN'T GIVEN
ANY MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING. NO
MATTER WHAT I DID, COOPERATE OR
NOT, I KNEW I WOULD FACE
RETALIATION. AND THAT'S EXACTLY
WHAT HAPPENED. I WAS ISOLATED,
SHIPPED FARTHER FROM MY FAMILY,
AND SILENCED. WORSE, THEY
ALLOWED MY ABUSER TO CONTINUE
WORKING, PUTTING MANY MORE WOMEN
IN DANGER. THEY TREATED ME LIKE
THE PROBLEM, NOT HIM. THE CYCLE
OF ABUSE, BLAME AND RETALIATION
IS BUILT INTO CDCR'S CULTURE. I
HAVE NO TRUST IN THEIR
INVESTIGATION PROCESS BECAUSE IT
PROTECTS ABUSERS, NOT VICTIMS.
WARDENS HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON
INVESTIGATIONS, WHICH MEANS
THERE'S NO REAL ACCOUNTABILITY,
ONLY SELF-PRESERVATION. EVEN
WHEN THE VICTIMS APPEAL TO CDCR
SACRAMENTO, THE SAME BROKEN
SYSTEM INVESTIGATES ITSELF.
VICTIMS ARE DEHUMANIZED, TOLD US
OUR FAULT, AND LEFT TERRIFIED TO
SPEAK OUT. MEANWHILE, OUR
ABUSERS FACE NO REAL
CONSEQUENCES. ABX464 ADDRESSES
SOME OF THE CRITICAL FAILURES
VICTIMS LIKE ME. EXPERIENCE IS
PROTECTIONS ARE DESPERATELY
NEEDED. THIS BILL WILL MAKE IT
IMPOSSIBLE FOR CONFIRMED ABUSERS
TO REMAIN EMPLOYED BY CDCR OR
START WORKING THERE AGAIN, A
SAFEGUARD LONG OVERDUE. RIGHT
NOW, STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR
SEXUAL ABUSE CAN KEEP THEIR JOBS
LIKE MY ABUSER DID. SURVIVORS
DESERVE BETTER. ABX464 ALSO AIMS
TO ELIMINATE RETALIATION AND
SUPPORT VICTIMS DURING
INVESTIGATIONS. THIS IS
ESSENTIAL. IF THIS LAW HAD BEEN
IN PLACE DURING MY ABUSE, I
WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SENT FAR FROM
MY FAMILY OR LEFT IN TERROR OF
EVERY MOVE I MADE BEING
PUNISHED. WITH THIS BILL,
SURVIVORS WILL BE MONITORED FOR
90 DAYS TO PREVENT RETALIATION.
IT ALSO MANDATES SUPPORTIVE
STEPS LIKE NOTIFYING FAMILIES OR
ADVOCATES OF SURVIVORS.
REQUESTED VICTIMS NEED PEOPLE IN
THEIR CORNER. WE CAN'T DO THIS
ALONE. ANOTHER CRITICAL ASPECT
OF 464 IS THIS TOLLING PROVISION
FOR LEGAL CLAIMS. SURVIVORS LIKE
ME OFTEN NEED YEARS TO PROCESS
WHAT HAPPENED, LET ALONE
NAVIGATE THE LEGAL SYSTEM. THIS
BILL GIVES US THAT TIME BY
TOLLING THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT
THROUGHOUT INCARCERATION FOR
FOUR YEARS AFTER RELEASE. IT'S A
RECOGNITION OF THE IMMENSE
BARRIERS WE FACE IN SEEKING
JUSTICE, WHILE INSIDE. IT ALSO
PROHIBITS TRANSFERRING VICTIMS
TO OTHER FACILITIES WITHOUT
THEIR CONSENT UNLESS THEIR
SAFETY IS AT RISK. FORCING ME TO
LEAVE MY SUPPORT SYSTEM ONLY
DEEPENED MY TRAUMA. THIS BILL
ENSURES SURVIVORS CAN STAY CLOSE
TO LOVED ONES AND ACCESS
ADVOCACY OR COUNSELING, WHICH
ARE CRITICAL TO HEALING. THE
CHANGES OUTLINED IN AB 464 ARE
NOT JUST NECESSARY, THEY'RE
URGENT. NOTHING ABOUT CDCR'S
CURRENT SYSTEM PROTECTS VICTIMS.
IN FACT, IT DOES THE OPPOSITE.
IT SILENCES US WHILE ENABLING
ABUSERS TO VICTIMIZE OTHERS.
THESE NEW PROTECTIONS WOULD MAKE
A REAL DIFFERENCE IN THE LIFE OF
SURVIVORS, AND HOLD CDCR
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE SAFETY AND
DIGNITY OF THOSE IN ITS CUSTODY.
I RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR SUPPORT
FOR AB 464. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF
AB 464? JOHN VASQUEZ, ON BEHALF
OF COMMUNITIES UNITED FOR
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SADIA KHAN WITH FAMILY VIOLENCE
LAW CENTER AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, GLEN
BACKUS FOR PROSECUTORS, ALLIANCE
ACTION PROUD CO-SPONSOR. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
GRACE GLAZER ON BEHALF OF VALOR
US PROUD CO-SPONSOR AND SUPPORT.
AND ALSO WOULD LIKE TO REGISTER
THE CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP TO
END DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND THE
ALLIANCE FOR BOYS AND MEN OF
COLOR IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, CAPRI
WALKER WITH CALIFORNIANS FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND CRIME
SURVIVORS FOR SAFETY AND JUSTICE
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 464? BRING IT
BACK TO THE COMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BAUER KHN, I
JUST WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES
FOR BEING HERE. IT IS NEVER EASY
AS A SURVIVOR TO TELL YOUR STORY
TO THIS MANY STRANGERS. BUT THE
POWER OF THE STORY YOU GUYS ARE
TELLING IS SO IMPORTANT, BECAUSE
I KNOW THAT YOU BOTH KNOW THERE
ARE PEOPLE BEING SILENCED INSIDE
RIGHT NOW, AND YOU ARE THE
VOICES FOR THEM AND THE CHANGE
THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. AND IT IS
AN HONOR TO BE HERE, TO BEAR
WITNESS TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING,
BUT ALSO TO HELP FIX IT FOR
OTHERS. SO WITH THAT, I'LL MOVE
THE BILL. THANK YOU. THAT
MOTION. OKAY. YEAH. WE HAVE WE
HAVE A MOTION. SO YOU'LL BE THE
THIRD GOOD. MADAM VICE CHAIR, I
JUST ECHO THAT IT'S SUCH
IMPORTANT LEGISLATION. PROPOSED
LEGISLATION. AND I'M SORRY THAT
YOU EVEN HAVE TO GO THROUGH
THIS, BUT YOU'RE COURAGEOUS AND
BRAVE TO BRING YOUR PERSONAL
EXPERIENCES AND THOSE YOU
REPRESENT FORWARD. A QUICK
QUESTION. I THINK THIS BILL
ENCOMPASSES AND COVERS ALL THE
VARIOUS ISSUES THAT INMATES IN
THIS SITUATION ENCOUNTER. I DO
HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT
THE 90 DAYS. IS THREE MONTHS
ENOUGH TO PROVIDE SUPERVISION? I
MEAN, I JUST I MEAN, THAT'S
GOING TO GO FAST. I JUST WONDER.
Ó. THANK YOU. IT'S BASED ON A
PRE FEDERAL GUIDELINES IS THE 90
DAYS I SEE. WELL IF THAT CHANGE
THAT TRUE. HOWEVER IS THERE SOME
REMEDY THAT I GUESS THEY CAN
CONTINUE TO REPORT IF THEY'RE IF
AFTER 90 DAYS THE CIRCUMSTANCES
CHANGE AGAIN. SO THERE IS A
METHOD TO DO THAT. THAT'S THE
PLAN OF THIS BILL. ABSOLUTELY.
OKAY. WELL THANK YOU FOR TAKING
THIS BILL. THAT'S VERY
IMPORTANT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BRYANT. YEAH, NO,
I REALLY WANT TO THANK THE
AUTHOR FOR COMING FORWARD WITH
THIS. AND JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR,
SEXUAL ASSAULTS HAPPEN IN ALL
PRISONS AND THEY'RE VIOLENT AND
TRAUMATIC AND TERRIBLE. BUT
SPECIFICALLY FOR THE WOMEN WHO
CAME AND TESTIFIED. THANK YOU.
AND THANK YOU, MISS GRAYSON, FOR
BRINGING ANOTHER VOICE INTO THE
ROOM WHO PHYSICALLY CAN'T BE IN
THE ROOM. WE KNOW ABOUT THE
REPORTING, I DON'T KNOW, LESS
THAN TEN DAYS AGO, 159 WOMEN IN
A SINGLE HOUSING UNIT IN
CHOWCHILLA. WE HEAR YOU. UNIT
513. AND WE'RE DOING THIS WORK.
AND YOU, MADAM MAJORITY LEADER,
ARE DOING THIS WORK. I WOULD
LOVE TO BE ADDED AS A COAUTHOR
IF YOU'LL HAVE ME. I WOULD LOVE
THAT YOU. THERE'S ANOTHER ONE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
I ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S STEPHANIE.
THANK YOU CHAIR, AND THANK YOU
TO THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD. SO IMPORTANT. AND
THANK YOU TO THE WITNESSES FOR
YOUR BRAVERY AND SHARING YOUR
STORIES WITH US AND REPRESENTING
ANOTHER VOICE. I HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TRAVEL TO
CHOWCHILLA WITH SOME MEMBERS
WHEN I WAS RUNNING FOR THIS JOB,
AND LISTENED TO A LOT OF STORIES
AND WHAT MY COLLEAGUE FROM OR
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BRIAN SAID. I
JUST IS ABSOLUTELY SO SHOCKING
TO ME THAT IT CONTINUES IN THE
VOLUMES THAT IT DOES. AND I
THINK THIS IS A BILL THAT WILL
HELP PUT AN END TO IT. AND I
AGAIN, I THANK THE AUTHOR AND
THE WITNESSES FOR BEING HERE AND
FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD. AND I
WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A
THANK YOU. YEAH, I'LL JUST AGREE
WITH SOME OF THE SENTIMENTS, MY
COLLEAGUES, THE COURAGE THAT'S
SHOWN BY THOSE THAT ARE STEPPING
FORWARD AND ALSO SPEAKING ON
BEHALF, ON BEHALF OF OTHER
SURVIVORS, I MEAN, TALK ABOUT A
CONSTITUENCY THAT NEEDS A VOICE.
AND I REALLY APPRECIATE OUR
MAJORITY LEADER FOR BEING THAT
VOICE FOR THIS CONSTITUENCY THAT
HAS SUFFERED FOR FAR TOO LONG
AND SO GRATEFUL FOR YOUR WORK ON
THIS. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BE
ADDED AS A COAUTHOR. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? I WANT TO THANK
BOTH OF YOU FOR BEING HERE
TODAY, BECAUSE I KNOW IT WAS
REALLY DIFFICULT, AND I'M REALLY
PROUD THAT YOU'VE LENDED THE
VOICES TO MY COLLEAGUES HERE TO
KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THIS BILL IS.
BUT FOR ALL THE MEN AND WOMEN
THAT ARE IN OUR PRISON SYSTEM
RIGHT NOW, THIS NEEDS TO BE
TAKEN CARE OF. WE NEED TO STOP
THIS. WE HAVE TO LIFT ALL OF YOU
UP, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT BEEN
LIFTED UP WHEN YOU SHOULD HAVE
BEEN LIFTED UP. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. MOTIONS DO
PASS, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS CALL, I CALL I.
DIXON. DIXON. AYE. BARRY.
BAUER-KAHAN. AYE. BRIAN. BRIAN.
AYE. CONNELLY. CONNELLY. AYE.
SALLY. SALLY. AYE. HAIRABEDIAN.
HAIRABEDIAN. AYE. PACHECO. AYE.
PACHECO. AYE. PAPIN. SANCHEZ.
SANCHEZ. AYE. STEPHANIE. HI.
STEPHANIE. AYE. ZUBIATE. AYE.
SAMURAI. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU. WE HAVE.
FILE ITEM 6AB6 14. LEE.
AMENDMENTS. RAMOS. THIS IS THE
BILL. WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE
A SECOND? SECOND. MOTION AND A
SECOND. ASSEMBLYMEMBER LEE MAY
BEGIN WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. ALL
RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
FOR THEIR WORK AND THOUGHTFUL
ANALYSIS OF THE BILL. AND I
WOULD ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS FOR AB 614 AB 614
ALIGNS THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS FOR ALL CASES UNDER
THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT TO ONE
YEAR, ENSURING THAT EVERYONE HAS
ADEQUATE TIME TO FILE THEIR
CLAIM AND HAS EQUAL ACCESS TO
JUSTICE. CURRENTLY, THE
GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT GIVES
DIFFERENT DEADLINES FOR FILING
THESE CLAIMS DEPENDING ON THE
TYPE OF HARM SUFFERED.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT IS THOSE WHO
SUFFER THE WORST BECAUSE OF A
GOVERNMENT ACTION THAT ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SHORTEST
DEADLINE. VICTIMS OF PERSONAL
INJURY, WRONGFUL DEATH OR
PROPERTY DAMAGE OR DAMAGE TO
THEIR CROPS MUST FILE WITHIN SIX
MONTHS, WHILE OTHER CLAIMS, SUCH
AS BREACH OF CONTRACT, HAVE A
FULL YEAR. FOR EXAMPLE, A PERSON
WHO IS INJURED BY A POLICE
OFFICER OR LOSES A LOVED ONE DUE
TO MISCONDUCT BY THE GOVERNMENT,
ONLY HAS SIX MONTHS TO FIGURE
OUT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS
PROCESS IS, OBTAIN A LAWYER AND
GATHER THE EVIDENCE. MEANWHILE,
IF A CONTRACTOR IS SUING FOR
CONTRACT VIOLATION OR LANDLORD
TO TRY TO OBTAIN REIMBURSEMENT
FOR DAMAGE TO THE RENTAL
PROPERTY, THEY HAVE ONE FULL
YEAR. IN SUMMARY, WHEN THE
VICTIMS ARE INDIVIDUALS, THEY
ONLY HAVE SIX MONTHS TO FILE.
BUT IF THE VICTIM IS USUALLY A
BUSINESS, THEY HAVE ONE YEAR TO
FILE. THE SIX MONTH PERIOD IS
OFTEN TOO SHORT FOR INDIVIDUALS
TO NAVIGATE THE LEGAL
COMPLEXITIES OF FILING
GOVERNMENT CLAIM. AND AS POINTED
OUT IN THE COMMITTEE ANALYSIS,
THIS RUSH TIMELINE ALSO AFFECTS
THE QUALITY OF THE CLAIMS BEING
BROUGHT, RESULTING IN CLAIMS
THAT ARE POORLY DRAFTED OR FILED
WITHOUT A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF
RELEVANT EVIDENCE. THIS RESULTS
IN DENIED CLAIMS, LOST LEGAL
RIGHTS. LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR GOVERNMENT ENTITIES. BY
SETTING A UNIFORM ONE YEAR
DEADLINE FOR ALL CLAIMS. THIS
BRINGS CONSISTENCY AND FAIRNESS
TO THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT.
I'M GOING TO RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS
IMPORTANT LEGISLATION AND WITH
ME IN SUPPORT, I HAVE TAI CLARK,
AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING PEOPLE
GOING THROUGH THE CLAIMS
PROCESS, AND HIS CLIENT, LESLIE
OVERFIELD. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND ASSEMBLY
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS TY CLARK.
I'M A CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY AT
POINTER AND BUELNA, LAWYERS FOR
THE PEOPLE. I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR ALLOWING ME THE PRIVILEGE TO
TESTIFY IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.
IN MY WORK, I'VE REPRESENTED
DOZENS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
HARMED BY GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT
AND FAMILY MEMBERS WHO HAVE LOST
LOVED ONES TO IT. I CAN TELL YOU,
THE VAST MAJORITY OF MY CLIENTS,
INCLUDING MRS. OVERFIELD, WHO
YOU HEAR FROM, HAD NO IDEA THAT
THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
EXISTS. AND WHILE THE LAW
CURRENTLY DOES ALLOW A
APPLICATION PROCESS FOR LEAVE TO
FILE A LATE CLAIM, THAT PROCESS
IS INSUFFICIENT AND
FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED, PRIMARILY
BECAUSE OF THE BASES ON WHICH IT
EXCLUDES PEOPLE FROM BRINGING
THESE LATE CLAIMS. I CAN TELL
YOU FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE,
FOR EXAMPLE, INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
GRIEVING THE LOSS OF A LOVED ONE
AND WHO HAVE NOT HAD TIME TO
THINK ABOUT THE LEGAL
RAMIFICATIONS WITHIN SIX MONTHS,
THEY ARE DENIED TO BE AT THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT A LATE
CLAIM. INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
GRIEVOUSLY INJURED AND ARE NOT
ABLE TO OBTAIN A LAWYER WITHIN
SIX MONTHS. THEY ARE SIMILARLY
DENIED. AND MOREOVER, WHILE THIS
IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND
NECESSARY FOR THESE VICTIMS,
IT'S ALSO NOT RADICAL OR
UNPRECEDENTED. IF YOU LOOK
ACROSS THE COUNTRY THROUGH MY
WORK, I CAN TELL YOU WORKING
WITH CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEYS, FOR
EXAMPLE, IN MISSISSIPPI, THE
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS ONE
YEAR. IN NORTH CAROLINA, IT'S
TWO YEARS IN FLORIDA FOR
WRONGFUL DEATH. IT'S TWO YEARS.
AND FOR OTHER BODILY INJURY,
IT'S THREE YEARS. SO WHILE THIS
CHANGE IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY,
IT'S NOT UNPRECEDENTED
NATIONWIDE. OUR OFFICE HAS HAD
APPROXIMATELY 1700 INTAKES THIS
CALENDAR YEAR ALONE. I WOULD
ESTIMATE APPROXIMATELY 30 TO 40%
OF THOSE COME TO US AFTER THE
SIX MONTHS. SO I STRONGLY
SUPPORT THIS BILL BECAUSE I
BELIEVE IT WILL FURTHER ENABLE
VICTIMS OF GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT
TO ACCESS TO CLAIMS THAT THEY
ARE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO. THANK
YOU. ANOTHER WITNESS IS LESLIE.
MY NAME IS LESLIE. THANK YOU. MY
NAME IS LESLIE OVERFIELD. I'M
FROM SOUTH LAKE TAHOE. MY SON
WAS NICHOLAS OVERFIELD. MY SON
NICK GOT. IF I CAN ASK MEMBERS
TO KEEP IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT SO
WE CAN HEAR THE WITNESS. THANK
YOU. SO SORRY. CONTINUE, MA'AM.
MY SON NICK GOT SICK IN JAIL.
THE JAIL TRANSPORTED HIM TO
BARTON HOSPITAL ON APRIL 23RD,
2022, IN CRITICAL CONDITION. HE
WAS THEN TRANSFERRED TO A
HOSPITAL THAT TREATS HIV. SUTTER
MEDICAL IN SAN FRANCISCO. NICK
PASSED AWAY ON JUNE 22ND, 2022
FROM HIV COMPLICATIONS. HE WAS
42 YEARS OLD. I OBVIOUSLY HAD
MANY QUESTIONS THAT NEEDED
ANSWERS WELL PAST THE MEDICAL
FACILITY, HAD SO MUCH PAPERWORK
AND HOOPS TO JUMP THROUGH. I
NEVER GOT THE MEDICAL RECORDS
THAT I REQUESTED. I WENT TO THE
JAIL TO TALK TO LIEUTENANT
KOSKI, WHO WAS AT THE JAIL. I
WENT BY SEVERAL TIMES, CALLED
LEFT MESSAGES. I HAD ABSOLUTELY
NO RESPONSE. I WENT TO THE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE AGAIN, I
CALLED, I WENT IN PERSON, I LEFT
MESSAGES. A FRIEND AND FORMER
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY COUNCIL
MEMBER. HE WROTE A LETTER TO THE
SHERIFF STATING MY SITUATION AND
ASKING IF HE COULD HELP ME
OBTAIN NICK'S MEDICAL RECORDS. I
HAD ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSE FROM
THE SHERIFF S OFFICE. I WAS NOT
ADVISED, NOT ADVISED OF ANY
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. DURING
MY SEARCH FOR ANSWERS OF WHAT
HAPPENED TO NICK, AND HAVE NEVER
HEARD FROM THE JAIL OR THE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE SINCE THAT. AND
IT'S BEEN ALMOST THREE YEARS. SO
I DECIDED TO REQUEST NICK'S
MEDICAL RECORDS FROM BARTON AT
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE. I PICKED THEM
UP WITHIN THREE DAYS. THAT'S
WHEN I LEARNED THAT NICK DID NOT
RECEIVE HIS HIV MEDICINE. FROM
MID-FEBRUARY TO APRIL 23RD, WHEN
HE WAS INCARCERATED. THE JOURNEY
GETTING INFORMATION WAS
DIFFICULT. I WAS BY MYSELF. NICK
WAS MY ONLY FAMILY. I WAS STILL
GRIEVING AND NOT KNOWING WHICH
WAY TO GO AND HOW TO HANDLE IT.
SO AND I WAS THIS WAS JUST ME
TRYING TO GET JUSTICE AND GET
THE INFORMATION OUT ABOUT MY
SON. AND ALSO I WORK FULL TIME
AND HAVE SUNDAY MONDAY OFF. SO
THE ONLY DAY I HAD TO WORK ON IT
WAS MONDAYS. AND I DID THIS ALL
BY MYSELF UNTIL I WAS ABLE TO
GET AN ATTORNEY TO BRING IT TO
COURT AND GET JUSTICE FOR MY
SON, BECAUSE HE SHOULD. HE
SHOULD STILL BE HERE TODAY.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU
FOR SHARING AND SO SORRY FOR
YOUR LOSS. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
HERE IN SUPPORT OF HB 614? JOHN
VASQUEZ, ON BEHALF OF
COMMUNITIES UNITED FOR JUSTICE,
PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF AB 614,
STRONG SUPPORT AND ALSO ON
BEHALF OF ACLU CALIFORNIA ACTION
COURAGE CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR
BOYS AND MEN OF COLOR AND ASIAN
PRISONER SUPPORT COMMITTEE.
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. SABINA TUCKER WITH THE
CONSUMER ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
614? I'M GOING TO MOVE YOUR
STUFF HERE. SO YOU. OKAY. GOOD
MORNING. CHAIR MEMBERS HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE RURAL COUNTY
REPRESENTATIVES OF CALIFORNIA,
ALONG WITH A COALITION OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSED
TO AB 614, EXTENDING THE TORT
CLAIM PROCESS TIMELINE FROM SIX
MONTHS TO A YEAR. CLAIM STATUTES
HAVE TWO PRINCIPAL PURPOSES.
FIRST, THEY GIVE THE GOVERNMENT
ENTITY AN OPPORTUNITY TO SETTLE
JUST CLAIMS BEFORE A SUIT IS
BROUGHT. SECOND, THEY PERMIT THE
ENTITY TO MAKE AN EARLY
INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS ON
WHICH A CLAIM IS BASED, THUS
ENABLING IT TO DEFEND ITSELF
AGAINST UNJUST CLAIMS AND
CORRECT THE CONDITIONS OR
PRACTICES WHICH GIVE RISE TO THE
CLAIM. THE NEED FOR PROMPT
CORRECTIVE ACTION IS CRITICAL IN
TORT MATTERS, WHERE DANGEROUS
PRACTICES OR PROPERTY CONDITIONS
MAY CONTINUE TO INJURE INJURE
OTHERS UNLESS QUICKLY REMEDIED.
THE TORT CLAIMS PROCESS EXISTS
IN PART TO PROVIDE PUBLIC
ENTITIES WITH NOTICE OF A
POTENTIAL CLAIM AND LAWSUITS, SO
THEY MAY CONDUCT THEIR OWN
INTERNAL INVESTIGATION, COLLECT
AND PRESERVE EVIDENCE, AND
RESOLVE CLAIMS IN SUITS MORE
QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY.
DELAYING THE START OF THE CLAIM
PROCESS PUTS EVIDENCE THAT IS
NECESSARY TO DEFEND A POTENTIAL
CLAIM OR SUIT AT RISK OF
BECOMING STALE. JUST AS
IMPORTANTLY, DELAYING THE
INITIAL CLAIM FILING HINDERS THE
PROMPT CORRECTION OF DANGEROUS
CONDITIONS. TO ADDRESS THE LATE
CLAIMS TO ADDRESS LATE CLAIMS,
THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT
OUTLINES THE PROCESS TO FILE
LATE CLAIMS WITHIN A YEAR OF THE
DATE OF INJURY. THESE PROVISIONS
ALLOW MORE LIBERAL TIME
ALLOWANCES FOR MINORS OR PERSONS
WHO FILE LATE DUE TO PHYSICAL OR
MENTAL DISABILITIES, AND FOR ANY
CLAIMANTS IN CASES WHERE THE
LATE FILING OF A CLAIM IS DUE TO
MISTAKE, INADVERTENT SURPRISE OR
EXCUSABLE NEGLECT, AND WE ARE
HAPPY TO HAVE FURTHER
CONVERSATIONS ON THAT PROCESS.
THE EXISTING STRUCTURES OF THE
CLAIM ACT HAVE EFFECTIVELY,
EFFECTIVELY BALANCED THE NEED
FOR PROMPT NOTICE AND ACTION ON
TORT CLAIMS, WITH THE NEED TO
PROVIDE SOME RELIEF FOR PERSONS
WHO COULD NOT REASONABLY HAVE
BEEN EXPECTED TO PRESENT A CLAIM
FOR OVER 60 YEARS. WE ARE
CONCERNED THAT THE DATA AND CASE
FOR DRAMATICALLY DESTABILIZING
THE WELL SETTLED BALANCE AT THE
AT THIS PRESENT TIME, AND FOR
THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. COMMITTEE
DYLAN HOFFMAN, ON BEHALF OF
PUBLIC RISK INNOVATION SOLUTIONS
AND MANAGEMENT, ALSO KNOWN AS
PRISM OR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTING ABOUT 2000 PUBLIC
ENTITIES. OUR MEMBERS INCLUDE
COUNTIES, CITIES, SCHOOL
DISTRICTS, AND MANY, MANY MORE.
JUST ADDING TO MY COLLEAGUE'S
COMMENTS, THE OTHER THING TO
CONSIDER WITH THESE TYPES OF
CLAIMS IS THAT THE MORE LEGAL
RISK THAT PUBLIC ENTITIES ARE
FACING AND INCREASING THE COST
OF LITIGATION IS GOING TO
INCREASE THEIR LIABILITY
INSURANCE PREMIUMS, A NUMBER OF
FACTORS IMPACT THE LIABILITY
INSURANCE PREMIUMS, INCLUDING
THE TIME IT TAKES TO RESOLVE
THESE CLAIMS. THE ULTIMATE COST
OF RETAINING LEGAL COUNSEL, AS
WELL AS WELL AS SETTLEMENTS
LIABILITY INSURERS ARE ALREADY
FACING PRETTY SIGNIFICANT COST
PRESSURES TO CONTINUE TO OFFER
COVERAGE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AND THESE PREMIUMS
ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTING MANY
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ABILITY TO
FUND DIRECT SERVICES. AND BY
EXTENDING THE CLAIM TIMELINE,
THIS BILL ONLY INCREASES THAT
PRESSURE. SO APPRECIATE YOU.
YOUR NO VOTE ON THIS BILL. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
614? GOOD MORNING I'M ERIC
LAWYER SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES, THE URBAN COUNTIES OF
CALIFORNIA AND THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BAUER-KAHAN, I
HAVE TO SAY, IN ALL MY YEARS OF
PRACTICING LAW, I NEVER SAW A
SIX MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATION.
THIS IS THE FIRST I'VE EVER
HEARD OF THAT. ARE THERE OTHER
EXAMPLES WHERE WE GIVE SOMEONE
LESS THAN A YEAR? I MEAN, MAYBE
THERE ARE. I ONLY LITIGATED FOR
SEVEN YEARS, SO MAYBE I DIDN'T.
I KNOW I DIDN'T SEE IT ALL, BUT
THAT SEEMS INCREDIBLY SHORT. I
MEAN, ONE YEAR WAS ALWAYS THE
SHORTEST I EVER SAW. AND SO TO
SAY THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE A FULL
YEAR AND TO SAY THAT'S NOT
PROMPT ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE, I THINK IS A GROSS
EXAGGERATION. THIS BILL IS
INCREDIBLY MODEST IN THAT IT
ONLY EXTENDS IT FROM SIX MONTHS
TO A YEAR. AND I DON'T KNOW. THE
AUTHOR ISN'T KNOWN FOR HIS
MODEST LEGISLATION, SO I FIND
THIS I FIND JUST THE OPPOSITION
KIND OF SHOCKING. I'LL BE FRANK
WITH YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU
WANT TO ADDRESS THAT, BUT I WANT
I MEAN, THIS WITNESS, I THINK,
IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF
SOMEONE WHO WAS WRONGED BY AN
ENTITY AND DESERVES JUSTICE AND
WAS DOING EVERYTHING IN HER
POWER TO BE AS EFFICIENT AS
POSSIBLE. BUT SIX MONTHS FROM
THE DAY OF HER GRIEVING IS NOT
IN JUDAISM. WE SAY IT TAKES AT
LEAST A YEAR TO GET BACK TO
NORMAL, SO A YEAR WOULDN'T EVEN
BE ENOUGH IN MY FAITH. BUT, AND
WE DON'T EVEN SAY IT GETS BACK
TO NORMAL. IT NEVER DOES WHEN
YOU LOSE A CHILD. LET ME JUST BE
CLEAR ABOUT THAT. SO I'M SO
SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS AND FOR I
MEAN, THERE'S JUST NO EXCUSE FOR
WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU. AND THE
ASK HERE FEELS INCREDIBLY
MODEST. AND SO TO SIT HERE AND
SAY, WE DON'T WANT OUR LIABILITY
INSURANCE TO GO UP BECAUSE WE'RE
GOING TO GIVE SIX MONTHS TO
SOMEONE TO FILE A CLAIM, FEELS
LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST
THIS CONVERSATION HAS PERPLEXED
ME. THANK YOU, ASSEMBLYMEMBER
HAIRABEDIAN. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. I APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR
BRINGING THIS BILL. I HAVE A
QUESTION, I GUESS, FOR THE
PANEL, WHOEVER CAN ANSWER IT, IF
YOU MISS THE SIX MONTH STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS, IF YOU MISSED
THE ONE YEAR, CAN YOU STILL
BRING 1983 CLAIMS FOR THE SAME
UNDERLYING VIOLATIONS, WHICH I
BELIEVE THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS? THERE IS TWO YEARS.
YOU ARE CORRECT. IT IS TWO YEARS
AND YOU CAN STILL BRING THEM.
BUT THERE ARE CRUCIAL
DIFFERENCES FOR QUALIFIED
IMMUNITY IN THE CONTEXT OF CIVIL
RIGHTS DOES NOT APPLY TO STATE
LAW CLAIMS. ALSO, NEGLIGENCE
SPECIFICALLY, AGAIN IN THE
CONTEXT OF CIVIL RIGHTS, ALLOWS
YOU TO BRING IN PRE USE OF FORCE
OFFICER TACTICS, WHEREAS THE
EXCESSIVE FORCE INQUIRY UNDER
1983 DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO DO
THAT. SO THERE ARE SPECIFIC
LEGAL INQUIRIES THAT ARE
NECESSARY PARTS OF THE STATE LAW
CLAIMS THAT ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE
UNDER 1983 CLAIMS. AND AM I
CORRECT THAT IT'S A TWO YEAR
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR 1983?
SO I THINK THAT I THINK THAT'S A
GOOD DATA POINT, THAT TO THE
EXTENT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE MORE
COMMITTEES, YOU SHOULD TALK
ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. SALLY. YES, I HAVE A
QUESTION. BY THE WAY I THIS I, I
DIDN'T KNOW WHICH BILL I WAS
SECONDING. I THOUGHT IT WAS THE
OTHER ONE. FOR THE OPPOSITION.
LIKE WHAT I HEAR YOU SAY IS THAT
THAT YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO
HAVE MORE FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS OR
THAT, YOU KNOW, MY CONCERN IS
YOUR OPPOSITION IS THIS THAT
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE MORE
SUCCESSFUL IN BRINGING CLAIMS
AGAINST GOVERNMENT ENTITIES,
WHICH IS GOING TO COST MORE
MONEY, BUT THAT'S ONLY IF THEY
HAVE MERIT. RIGHT? AND THAT'S
ONLY IF THE CLAIMS ARE VALID AND
HAVE MERIT, THAT IT WILL COST
THESE ENTITIES MORE MONEY. SO
WHY WHY SHOULDN'T PEOPLE BE ABLE
TO HAVE MORE TIME TO BRING THEIR
CASE FORWARD AGAINST A
GOVERNMENT ENTITY IF THEY'VE
BEEN HARMED? AND LET'S KEEP IN
MIND, NO OTHER PLAINTIFFS HAVE
THIS BENEFIT WHERE YOU HAVE TO
DO THIS, YOU KNOW, VERY
DRACONIAN PAPERWORK THING WITHIN
SIX MONTHS OR YOU'RE BARRED FROM
BRINGING A LAWSUIT. I DON'T HAVE
THAT. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SUE ME
OR OR ONE OF US HERE. SO WHY WHY
SHOULDN'T WE EXTEND IT TO A
YEAR? WHAT IS THE HARM? SO I'LL
TRY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. AS
BEST AS MY MICROPHONE IS OFF MY
QUESTION, FOR THE RECORD, IS
WHAT IS THE HARM? WHAT IS THE
HARM OF GOING FROM SIX MONTHS TO
A YEAR TO AN ENTITY? ARE YOU
SAYING YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE
ABLE TO COMPETENTLY CONDUCT AN
INVESTIGATION WITHIN A YEAR?
THERE ARE CERTAIN THERE ARE
CERTAIN CHALLENGES REGARDING THE
INVESTIGATION, ESPECIALLY NOW.
THIS COULD BE PERSONAL. INJURY
CAN BE A LOT OF DIFFERENT
THINGS. AND LOOKING BACK AT KIND
OF THE HISTORY OF THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CLAIMS
PROCESS AND THE INITIAL
RECOMMENDATION BY THE
LEGISLATURE FOR A SIX MONTHS,
THE 12 YEAR WAS ACTUALLY KIND OF
A WEIRD HISTORY AND REQUEST OF
THE AUDITORS WAY BACK WHEN. BUT
WE TALKED TO A NUMBER OF OUR
COUNSELS, ALL OF OUR RISK
MANAGERS, AND FIRST, THE COST
WILL GO UP REGARDLESS OF THEIR
VALID CLAIMS OR NOT. THE WAY
THAT YOU DO IT, THE WAY THAT THE
FORMULAS ARE WORKED FOR
INSURANCE. SO THERE WILL BE A
COST REGARDLESS IF THE CLAIM IS
VALID OR NOT. WE ALSO TALKED TO
A LOT OF OUR RISK MANAGERS,
TRYING TO ASK THEM FOR
INFORMATION ABOUT THE EXTENSION
PROCESS IF IT'S DIFFICULT, IF
THERE'S BEEN PROBLEMS AND SO FAR
WE JUST DON'T HAVE ANY ANY DATA
OR STUDIES OR, OR INFORMATION
SAYING THAT THERE IS THIS GREAT
NEED OR THE CURRENT PROCESS IS
NOT WORKING. AND SO WITHOUT SOME
OF THOSE ADDITIONAL ITEMS, WE'RE
CONCERNED ABOUT ESSENTIALLY THAT
EXTRA SIX MONTHS, OF COURSE IN
THE INVESTIGATION, THINGS GOING
STALE. THE COST OF THAT,
REGARDLESS OF THE CLAIM IS VALID
OR NOT. WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE
ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS AROUND
THE PROCESS FOR AN EXTENSION,
BUT BASED ON THE INFORMATION
WE'RE RECEIVING FROM THE RISK
MANAGERS THERE JUST FROM OUR
END, THERE HASN'T BEEN THERE
HASN'T BEEN DATA OR INFORMATION
THAT THE CURRENT PROCESS TO ASK
FOR AN EXTENSION IS NOT WORKING.
I JUST I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S A
GOOD LOOK WHEN INSURANCE PEOPLE
COME IN AND JUST SAY, THIS IS
GOING TO COST MORE MONEY. BUT
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS
PEOPLE BEING COMPENSATED FOR
BEING HARMED BY WRONGDOING,
ESPECIALLY BY A GOVERNMENT
ENTITY WHO HAS THE ABILITY TO DO
THE MOST HARM. SO, I MEAN, AS AN
ATTORNEY WHO'S ACTUALLY FILED
ONE OF THESE, I DID THINK SIX
MONTHS IS RIDICULOUS. I MEAN,
JUST TO GET A LAWYER, FIRST OF
ALL, JUST TO COMPREHEND WHAT
HAPPENED, GET YOUR THOUGHTS IN
ORDER HIRE AND RETAIN A LAWYER
AND PUT A, YOU KNOW, A DECENT
ARGUMENT TOGETHER AND EVALUATE
AND DECIDE WHICH CLAIMS YOU'RE
GOING TO BRING BECAUSE YOU HAVE
TO IDENTIFY THE CLAIMS IN THE IN
IN THE INITIAL PAPERWORK. IT'S
REALLY NOT A LONG TIME. SO I
DON'T KNOW. I JUST THINK THIS IS
A VERY NICE, CLEVER BENEFIT THAT
GOVERNMENT ENTITIES HAVE TO
PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM CLAIMS
TO BAR THEM AND THAT MOST
PLAINTIFFS DON'T HAVE THAT.
THERE'S STILL A STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS. YEARS IS NOT THAT
MUCH TIME. SO I WILL BE
SUPPORTING THIS. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? AND THERE
IS ALREADY A MOTION AND I YEAH,
I WOULD AGREE WITH THE WITH THE
COMMENTS FROM COLLEAGUES. I MEAN
LOOK ULTIMATELY IT WILL ADD MORE
RISK. IT WILL ADD MORE COST TO
PUBLIC ENTITIES. BUT THE
QUESTION THAT I OFTENTIMES ASK
HERE IS WHO'S IN THE BEST
POSITION TO ASSUME THOSE RISKS
AND COSTS? I THINK THAT THE FACT
THAT IT'S BEING INCREASED TO ONE
YEAR, IF IT WAS HIGHER, I THINK
YOU MIGHT GET SUPPORT FROM
MEMBERS FOR EVEN MORE THAN THAT.
BUT I THINK ONE YEAR IS
APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THERE IS AN
ADJUSTMENT THAT'S GOING TO HAVE
TO BE MADE TO GO FROM SIX MONTHS
TO A YEAR FOR THOSE PUBLIC
ENTITIES, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S
RECORD KEEPING, WHETHER IT'S,
YOU KNOW, THE OVERALL ADJUSTMENT
THAT THAT'S REQUIRED. AND WE CAN
ALWAYS REVISIT IF WHETHER THE
ONE YEAR IS WORKING OR NOT. BUT
IT CAN TAKE SIX MONTHS JUST TO
GET RECORDS, AS WE HEARD FROM
OUR WITNESS GETTING THE
RUNAROUND, I MEAN, FOR TWO,
THREE, FOUR MONTHS JUST TO GET
RECORDS. ON WHAT HAPPENED TO HER
SON. I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN
ANOMALY WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO
GET RECORDS FROM THE GOVERNMENT
SOMETIMES, ESPECIALLY IF YOU
MIGHT BE IN A RURAL COMMUNITIES
WHERE THE RECORDS MAY NOT BE
KEPT IN THE SAME LOCATION THERE
ARE OR JUST THE BUREAUCRACY GETS
IN THE WAY. SO I THINK SIX
MONTHS IS TOTALLY UNREASONABLE.
I THINK ONE YEAR DEFINITELY
PROVIDES AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO
DECIDE WHAT PATH INDIVIDUALS
WANT TO TAKE WHEN THEY THEY FEEL
THEY'VE BEEN WRONGED BY THE
GOVERNMENT. SO THAT BEING SAID,
THIS DOES HAVE AN I
RECOMMENDATION DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. WOULD YOU LIKE
TO CLOSE? YES, I WOULD LIKE TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE AND THE
CHAIR FOR MAKING SUCH STRONG
ARGUMENTS FOR THIS BILL. AND I
WOULD LIKE TO THANK LESLEY, OUR
WITNESS, FOR BEING A PRIME
EXAMPLE OF WHY WE JUST NEED SIX
MORE MONTHS. THAT'S IT, A MODEST
SIX MORE MONTHS, JUST SO THAT WE
CAN GET THE PAPERWORK IN ORDER.
SO RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU. MOTIONS DO
PASS, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR I CALL
I DIXON NOT VOTING B¢O
BAUER-KAHAN B¢O. BAUER-KAHAN.
AYE, BRIAN A BRIAN. AYE.
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. AYE. SALLY.
SALLY. AYE. HAIRABEDIAN.
HAIRABEDIAN. AYE. PACHECO. AYE.
PACHECO. AYE. PAPIN. PAPIN. AYE.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. AYE. STEPHANIE
I. STEPHANIE. AYE. ZEBRA. A
ZEBRA. AYE. ALL RIGHT. THAT BILL
IS OUT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LEE, YOU HAVE
ANOTHER BILL. AB 1240 AS FILED.
ITEM 17. OKAY. WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES, I AM
PRESENTING AB 1240. THIS WAS A
BILL THAT WAS PASSED BY THIS
COMMITTEE LAST YEAR. AFTER THE
BILL PASSED THE ASSEMBLY LAST
YEAR, WE AMENDED THE BILL TO
EXCLUDE BUILDERS SO THAT NEW
CONSTRUCTION IS NOT IMPEDED BY
THIS BILL. AS SUCH, THE BILL
BEFORE YOU TODAY REFLECTS THOSE
AMENDMENTS. AB 1240 WILL PROTECT
THE LIMITED STOCK OF HOMES FOR
WORKING FAMILIES BY BANNING
LARGE CORPORATIONS THAT OWN 1000
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR MORE FROM
PURCHASING ADDITIONAL SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES AND CONVERTING THEM
INTO RENTALS. THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA FACES A SEVERE
HOUSING SHORTAGE. TO MEET THE
STATE'S HOUSING TARGETS,
CALIFORNIA NEEDS TO BE BUILDING
AROUND 300,000 HOMES PER YEAR,
BUT AT PRESENT WE ARE BARELY
BUILDING 100,000 PER YEAR, AND
IN 2024, HOUSING PRODUCTION HAS
SLOWED. PRICES REFLECT THE
SHORTAGE AND IN SPITE OF
MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES REACHING
MULTI-DECADE HIGHS, HOME PRICES
CONTINUE TO CLIMB. A RECENT
REPORT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS STATES
THAT ONLY 15% OF CALIFORNIANS
CAN AFFORD TO BUY A HOME AT THE
CURRENT COST. I'M IN THE 85%, SO
I'M NOT IN THAT 50%. IN MY
DISTRICT, THE MEDIAN HOME PRICE.
IN MY DISTRICT, THE MEDIAN HOME
PRICE IS OVER $1.5 MILLION. I
MYSELF AM FAR FROM BEING ABLE TO
AFFORD A HOME WHERE I GREW UP.
SO AT A TIME WHEN FOR SALE HOMES
HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE SCARCE, IT
HAS NEVER BEEN MORE IMPORTANT TO
PROTECT THE SUPPLY OF FOR SALE
HOMES, FIRMS THAT CAN BE BEST
DESCRIBED AS HOUSING SHORTAGE
PROFITEERS HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE
OF THE LACK OF NEW SUPPLY BY
BUYING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN AN
EFFORT TO CASH IN ON RISING
RENTS IN THEIR OWN INVESTOR
REPORTS, INVITATION HOMES HAS
TOLD THEIR SHAREHOLDERS THAT WE
OPERATE IN MARKETS WITH STRONG
DEMAND DRIVERS, HIGH BARRIERS TO
ENTRY AND HIGH RENT GROWTH
POTENTIAL. THESE FIRMS AREN'T
DRIVING DOWN COSTS. THEY'RE
HOPING TO CASH IN ON THE CRISIS,
AND THESE COMPANIES ARE
TARGETING HOMES FOR WORKING
PEOPLE AND FIRST TIME HOME
BUYERS, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN
Q4 2024 REPORT, INVITATION HOMES
EXPECTS, EXPECTS TO AVERAGE
ACQUISITION PRICE IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA HOMES IS $540,000.
THE LA TIMES HOUSING TRACKER IN
FEBRUARY 2025 FOUND THE AVERAGE
HOME PRICE IN SOCAL IS OVER
$870,000. LAST YEAR, THE
CALIFORNIA RETAIL CALIFORNIA
REALTORS ASSOCIATION SUPPORT
LETTER FOR AB 1333, WHICH WAS A
SIMILAR BILL ABOUT REAL ESTATE
INVESTMENT FIRMS BUYING UP
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR BUYING
HOMES. THEY SAID IT IS ALMOST
IMPOSSIBLE FOR FAMILIES TO
COMPETE WITH THESE LARGE SCALE
INVESTORS, AND THAT THESE
INVESTORS ARE A NEW THREAT TO
FAMILIAR HOME OWNERSHIP
OPPORTUNITIES. MANY MARKETS,
ESPECIALLY LARGE METROPOLITAN
AREAS WHERE LITTLE IS AVAILABLE
UNDER $500,000. NOW, MEMBERS IN
THE OPPOSITION YOU'RE GOING TO
HEAR IS THAT THIS BEHAVIOR IS
CONSTRAINED TO A SMALL PERCENT
OF ACTORS OR SMALL PERCENT OF
THE HOME PURCHASES IN THE Q4
2024 REPORT, WHICH I HAVE RIGHT
HERE. SORRY, IT'S VERY, VERY
TINY FONT RIGHT HERE. BUT
INVITATION HOMES, WHICH IS A
COMPANY THAT OWNS OVER 10,000
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN
CALIFORNIA, IS PLANNING TO
ACQUIRE 55 HOUSES IN 2025, IN IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. NOW, YOU
MAY SAY 55 SOUNDS VERY LITTLE,
BUT WHAT MOM AND POP LANDLORD
CAN BUY 55 NEW OR 55 UNITS OF
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THEIR
CADRE? WHO HAS THE CAPITAL TO DO
THAT? AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, IN
THE SAME REPORT, BECAUSE THE
BEHAVIOR NOW AND THIS BEHAVIOR
STEMMED AND STARTED FROM THE
2008 HOUSING BUBBLE IS WHEN THEY
PURCHASED UP A LOT OF THESE
HOUSES, THEY GOT WENT FROM 0 TO
10,000 REALLY QUICKLY. THESE
PEOPLE THAT PREVIOUSLY LIVED IN
THESE HOUSES HAD TO BE
FORECLOSED ON, EVICTED, AND THEN
COMPANIES CAME IN AND BOUGHT
THOSE HOUSES AND TURNED THOSE
INTO RENTALS, MEANING PEOPLE
CAN'T BUY THOSE HOUSES ANYMORE.
THEY SPECIALIZE IN BUYING IN
EMERGING METRO AREAS WHERE HOME
PRICES FOR STARTER HOMES ARE
MORE ATTRACTIVE. SO JUST TO GIVE
YOU AN EXAMPLE, THEY ARE TRYING
TO BUY 400 HOUSES IN TAMPA,
475IN ORLANDO AND JACKSONVILLE,
85IN ATLANTA, ANOTHER 100. SO
THEY ARE TARGETING THE SECONDARY
METRO MARKETS WHERE PEOPLE MAY
BE TEMPTED TO MOVE FOR MORE
AFFORDABLE OPTIONS. BUT BUYING
THERE SO THAT THEY CAN
OUTCOMPETE STARTER HOME BIDDERS.
AND SO THIS IS A BIG ISSUE HERE,
ESPECIALLY WHEN JUST FOUR
COMPANIES IN CALIFORNIA CAN OWN
MORE THAN THIS ALLOTTED AMOUNT.
WHILE IT MAY SEEM SMALL, I WOULD
CONTEND VERY FEW INDIVIDUAL
PEOPLE CAN OWN 1000 SINGLE
FAMILY HOUSES. AND SO WE WANT TO
MITIGATE THIS PRACTICE AS MUCH
AS POSSIBLE AND CREATE A MORE
EVEN PLAYING FIELD SO THAT MORE
PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF CAN BUY A
HOME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, AM I ON?
YES. MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS RAND
MARTIN HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION. FOR
THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW, RF IS THE
LARGEST PROVIDER OF CARE AND
TREATMENT FOR PEOPLE WITH HIV IN
THE WORLD IN 47 COUNTRIES. BUT
WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW
IS THAT WE ARE ALSO A PROMINENT
IN A PROMINENT POSITION RELATIVE
TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
AND RENTERS RIGHTS, WHICH IS
WHAT BRINGS US TO THIS MODEST
BILL TODAY, AB, AB 1240. SO IN
THE LAST FEW MONTHS ESPECIALLY,
WE HAVE SEEN THE LEGISLATURE AND
OTHERS REALLY FOCUS ON THE LACK
OF HOUSING IN BEING DEVELOPED IN
THE STATE AND HOW IMPORTANT THAT
IS FOR ACCESS FOR PEOPLE TO
HOUSING. WELL, WE DON'T WANT TO
LOSE SIGHT OF. AT THE SAME TIME
THOUGH, IS HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY. AND WHILE WE'RE
IN THE PROCESS OF DOING
EVERYTHING WE CAN AS A
COMMUNITY, AS A LEGISLATURE, TO
TRY AND BUILD MORE HOUSING, WE
ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
HOUSING, ESPECIALLY FOR LOW
INCOME CALIFORNIANS, REMAINS
AFFORDABLE. ONE OF THE
CHALLENGES THAT'S BEING CREATED
BY ORGANIZATIONS, COMPANIES LIKE
INVITATION HOMES, IS CREATING A
SITUATION WHERE THE HOUSING
BECOMES MORE EXPENSIVE SIMPLY
BECAUSE THEY CREATE, AT LEAST IN
THAT LIMITED SPHERE, A MONOPOLY
ON ON HOUSING AVAILABILITY FOR
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THIS BILL
IS INTENDED TO TRY AND CONSTRAIN
THAT SO THAT THAT THAT DOES NOT
END UP BEING A MAJOR PROBLEM, AS
YOU'RE PROBABLY AWARE. BUT I'M
GOING TO STATE IT BECAUSE IT
DESERVES TO BE RESTATED, IS THAT
PEOPLE WHO ARE LOW INCOME, 50%
OF THEM ARE HOUSING BURDENED,
WHICH MEANS THAT THEY'RE
SPENDING 30% OR MORE OF THEIR OF
THEIR INCOME ON HOUSING, AND A
25% ARE ARE SEVERELY HOUSING
BURDEN, WHICH MEANS THEY'RE
SPENDING 50% OR MORE OF THEIR
INCOME. AS YOU KNOW, MR. LEE HAS
EXPRESSED SOME OF THE ISSUES
THAT WE WOULD WANT YOU ALL TO
LISTEN TO. BUT WE ALSO WANT TO
POINT OUT THAT THERE HAS BEEN
RESEARCH DONE ON THIS ISSUE
ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THE
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS
DID A STUDY JUST A COUPLE OF
YEARS AGO THAT POINTED TO THIS
ISSUE BEING A PROBLEM RELATIVE
TO RISING RENTS. WE'RE ALSO
SEEING SOME OF THESE SAME
COMPANIES USING WHAT YOU'RE
GOING TO BE HEARING IN OTHER
BILLS THIS YEAR RELATIVE TO
ALGORITHMIC RENT PRICE SETTING.
THEY'RE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF
TECHNOLOGY AND AI IN TERMS OF
SETTING RENTS THAT END UP BEING
HIGHER. SO WE THINK THIS IS
ACTUALLY LITERALLY A MODEST
EFFORT TO TRY AND CONSTRAIN
THAT. AND WE WOULD STRONGLY
ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS
BILL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN SUPPORT OF AB 1240? MR.
CHAIR, COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
BRYANT. MIA MONTES WITH THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE
COUNTY MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, ALANA
ALEXANDER ON BEHALF OF CHOOSE
YOUR PATH FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO AB 1240? GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
JIM LIGHTS, ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL RENTAL HOME COUNCIL,
THE NATIONAL COMPANIES THAT OWN
SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL HOMES.
WE'RE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL, BASICALLY BECAUSE THE
COMPANIES ARE NOT DOING WHAT THE
BILL EXPRESSES CONCERNS ABOUT
THE NUMBERS THAT THE AUTHOR
SHARED, I DON'T EVEN THINK RISE
TO A MODEST LEVEL OF PRESENCE IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
COLLECTIVELY, THERE ARE THREE
COMPANIES THAT THIS BILL
TARGETS. THEY OWN 0.2 OF 1% OF
THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE
STATE. THEY THERE ARE 8.5
MILLION SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND
THESE COMPANIES HAVE BEEN NET
SELLERS IN THE CALIFORNIA MARKET
FOR ALMOST A DECADE. THE CHART
THAT WAS PASSED OUT TO YOU, THE
DARK BLUE PORTION OF THE SMALL
BAR CHART, REFLECTS THE
COMPANIES THAT ARE IMPACTED BY
THIS BILL. THEIR ACQUISITIONS
HAVE BEEN VERY NOMINAL. THIS IS
A FOUR YEAR LOOK AT THEIR
ACQUISITIONS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. AND WHEN YOU FLIP
THAT OVER, IT'S A YEAR. IT GOES
BACK TO SHOW THEIR DISPOSITION
OF HOMES AND SHOWS THAT THEY
HAVE BEEN NET SELLERS IN THE
MARKETPLACE. ONE OF THE
COMPANIES BOUGHT ZERO HOMES IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN 2024,
WHILE THEY SOLD OVER 100. I'M
ANXIOUS TO SEE THE AMENDMENT
LANGUAGE THAT SHOWS HOW NEW
CONSTRUCTION IS HANDLED IN THE
BILL. HAVEN'T SEEN THAT LANGUAGE
YET. THAT CERTAINLY IS A
CONCERN. BUT THE AMENDMENTS MAY
ADDRESS THAT WILL WILL LOOK TO
SEE IT. LANGUAGE. THE LAST THING
I WANT TO MENTION IS WITH
RESPECT TO THE FIRES, THERE'S
BEEN SOME CONCERN THAT COMPANIES
WOULD GO IN AND SEEK TO BUY LAND
IN BURNED OUT AREAS. I AM FROM
ALTADENA. I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO
THE COMPANIES ON A WEEKLY BASIS
ABOUT HOW THEY CAN SUPPORT THE
COMMUNITY OF ALTADENA IN
PARTICULAR. NONE OF THAT
INCLUDES ACQUIRING LAND, AND SO
WE JUST DON'T THINK THAT THIS
BILL IS TOUCHING ON A REAL
PROBLEM IN CALIFORNIA. AND
INSTEAD, WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT
HOW WE CAN INCREASE THE HOUSING
STOCK, WHICH IS PART OF WHAT
THESE COMPANIES ARE WORKING ON.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. DEBORAH CARLTON WITH
THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION, NOT TO REPEAT ANY
OF THE TESTIMONY OF OUR FIRST
WITNESS, BUT I DO WANT TO SAY
IT'S IRONIC IF THIS BILL IS
ABOUT ENSURING THAT INDIVIDUALS
AND FAMILIES BUY HOMES, YOU'RE
STILL GIVING THE RIGHT TO
NON-PROFITS LIKE THE AIDS
HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION TO BUY
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. I WOULD
ARGUE IF THIS BILL IS GOING TO
MOVE FORWARD, YOU ENSURE THAT IF
YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW NONPROFITS
TO CONTINUE TO BUY HOMES, THAT
YOU ENSURE THAT THAT THEY HAVE
NOT HAD DANGEROUS CONDITIONS AT
THEIR PREVIOUS BUILDINGS THAT
ARE NOT CORRECTED IF THEY WANT
TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PURCHASE
OF PROPERTY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
1240? NAME. TITLE. NAME.
ORGANIZATION. POSITION. MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. PAT MORAN
WITH AARON REED AND ASSOCIATES
REPRESENTING THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA RENTAL HOUSING
ASSOCIATION, OPPOSED TO THE BILL
FOR THE REASONS PREVIOUSLY
STATED. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN.
MEMBERS. ORACIO GONZALEZ, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA'S BUSINESS
ROUNDTABLE, OPPOSED. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BRYANT. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR OF THIS BILL IS BACK
AGAIN. ALSO, UNDERSTANDING THERE
IS NO LOVE LOST BETWEEN THE AIDS
HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION AND THE
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION. FULLY UNDERSTAND
THAT WHAT WOULD PUSH BACK
AGAINST NON-PROFITS MORE
BROADLY, I THINK OF SHARE IN
CULVER CITY WHO BUYS SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES AND THEN PROVIDES
HOUSING FOR UNHOUSED FOLKS WHO
HAVE SMALL INCOMES AND ROOMMATE
SITUATIONS WHERE THEY'RE ABLE TO
GET MANY FOLKS OFF THE STREETS.
I THINK OF THE ANTI-RECIDIVISM
COALITION THAT BOUGHT HOUSES IN
K-TOWN FOR FOLKS WHO CAME HOME
FROM INCARCERATION. I THINK OF
SUSAN BURTON AND NEW WAY OF
LIFE. SO LET'S NOT PAINT WITH
TOO BROAD OF A BRUSH WHEN WE'RE
THINKING ABOUT THAT. I LOVE WHEN
WE DECIDE TO GO FROM PERCENTAGES
TO NOMINAL NUMBERS, DEPENDING ON
WHICH ONE MAKES OUR ARGUMENT
BETTER. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I SAID
THAT INSTITUTIONAL HOME
PURCHASING ACCOUNTED FOR 20,000
UNITS AND THEN STARTED
CONTRASTING THAT WITH UNHOUSED
POPULATIONS IN VARIOUS AREAS,
THAT MIGHT BE A COMPELLING
NARRATIVE ONE WAY, 0.02%, OR
WHATEVER WAS SAID BY MR. LIGHT
IS ALSO AN INTERESTING WAY TO
LOOK AT IT. I THINK ALSO THE
MOST COMPELLING THING I HEARD,
THOUGH, IS WHAT THE AUTHOR IS
SUGGESTING IS HAPPENING IS NOT
BEING DONE BY THESE COMPANIES.
THEN THERE IS NO HARM IN THIS
BILL IS WHAT I'M WHAT I'M
GETTING FROM THAT. AND WITH
THAT, MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO
MAKE A MOTION. IS THERE A
SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
LET'S GO DOWN THE LINE. SENATOR,
I THINK ALL OF YOU WANT TO GO
ONE AT A TIME. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR. THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR.
AND FROM BOTH SIDES OF
TESTIMONY, AND OBVIOUSLY SORRY
TO THAT. YOU'VE BEEN IMPACTED BY
THE ALTADENA FIRES AND
APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. A
QUESTION FOR THE AUTHOR. THEN I
WILL GO TO THE OPPOSITION. WHY
WHY DON'T WE ACTUALLY ADDRESS
THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING CORPORATE
PURCHASES THAT THEN REMAIN
VACANT AND NOT RENTED? I MEAN,
THE ANALYSIS, BY THE WAY, WHICH
IS GREAT, VERY, VERY GOOD READ
DOES BRING UP A GOOD POINT THAT
THIS MAY INCENTIVIZE CORPORATE
OWNERS TO ACTUALLY JUST BUY AND
NOT RENT OUT, WHICH THIS BILL, I
GUESS TECHNICALLY WOULD ALLOW,
WHICH WOULD BE EVEN WORSE IN MY
OPINION. SO WHY NOT ADDRESS THAT
PROBLEM? WELL, IT'S CERTAINLY
SOMETHING I WOULD BE HAPPY TO
LOOK AT. I MEAN, THAT MEASURE OF
VACANCY CONTROL MIGHT BE BETTER
DONE THROUGH SOMETHING THAT I'M
SURE THE OPPOSITION WOULD HATE
MORE IS VACANCY TAXES, BUT I DO
SOME. THAT IS SOMETHING OF
CONCERN THAT I WANT TO ADDRESS
AS WELL. BUT I WOULD JUST WANT
TO SAY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE
THIS BUSINESS MODEL IS ABOUT
CONVERTING SINGLE FAMILY FOR
PURCHASE HOMES INTO RENTAL
UNITS, RIGHT? AND EXTRACTING
RENTAL GROWTH AND EXTRACTING
RENT FROM THAT. RIGHT. IT WOULD
PROBABLY NOT BE A GREAT BUSINESS
PRACTICE TO BUY IT, JUST TO LET
IT VACANT AND NOT MAKE ANY MONEY
FROM IT. SO I WOULD JUST SAY
PROBABLY NOT THE MOST WISE IN
THAT SENSE, BUT THERE'S TAX
INCENTIVES TO DO THAT. SO IT
MIGHT BE. BUT I APPRECIATE THE
RESPONSE. AND I KNOW THAT WE ARE
IN A TIME CRUNCH. THE ONLY OTHER
ISSUE THAT I THINK WAS RAISED BY
THE ANALYSIS, WHICH I THINK IS A
GREAT POINT AS WELL, IS THIS
WOULD ALLOW AN ENTITY TO BUY
999, CREATE A SEPARATE CORPORATE
ENTITY UNDER THE SAME UMBRELLA,
POTENTIALLY BUY ANOTHER 999. SO
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE BILL
THAT THAT ACTUALLY TIES THE
PARENT CORPORATE STRUCTURE SO
THAT THAT CAN'T HAPPEN? YEAH,
THAT IS DEFINITELY AN ISSUE THAT
I WANT TO ALSO CONTINUE TO
EXPLORE WITH THE COMMITTEE AND
WITH LEGAL EXPERTS ON THIS
ISSUE. ONE THING THAT'S VERY
INTERESTING, ESPECIALLY WITH
INVITATION HOMES, WHICH VERY
PROUDLY DOES THIS ALL IN 1 TO 1
BRAND, IS THEY WANT TO BE ABLE
BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE ONE
LANDLORD, YOU ALSO WANT TO HAVE
THAT CORPORATE LANDLORD KIND OF
BRAND TO IT. SO THIS IS ALSO
GOING AFTER THAT VERY FACT OF
IT. BUT I DO DO AGREE THAT IT
COULD BE A PROBLEM OF
CIRCUMVENTING THAT IF THEY BREAK
THEM INTO DIFFERENT HOLDERS.
THIS IS A PROBLEM I DID WITH
ANOTHER BILL LIKE THAT TOO.
GOTCHA. THANK YOU. AND THEN JUST
ONE QUICK QUESTION ON THE
OPPOSITION. YOU HAD MENTIONED
THAT THE AT THE END OF YOUR
TESTIMONY THAT YOUR COALITION
AND CLIENTS ARE ACTUALLY DOING A
FAIR AMOUNT OF WORK IN ACTUALLY
HELPING ADD TO THE HOUSING
STOCK, ESPECIALLY IN PLACES LIKE
ALTADENA. HOW ARE YOU DOING
THAT? SO IT HASN'T BEGUN YET.
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING
IS TRYING TO LEASE PROPERTIES OF
WILLING LANDOWNERS. THERE'S NO
SOLICITATION AND BRINGING BACK
SOME RENTAL STOCK TO ALTADENA.
22% OF ALTADENA RESIDENTS WERE
RENTERS PRIOR TO THE FIRE, SO
LIKE EVERY HOUSING ECONOMY,
RENTING IS A COMPONENT OF IT.
AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE
EXAMINING DOING RIGHT NOW. GOT
IT. THANK YOU. AND AS WE MOVE
FORWARD, I JUST WANT TO DO A
TIME CHECK. WE'VE BEEN AT THIS
FOR WE'VE HEARD OUR FIRST BILL
TWO HOURS, 15 MINUTES AGO. WE'RE
ON OUR EIGHTH BILL. WE HAVE TEN
MORE BILLS TO GO. AND SO FEEL
FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS, WHAT HAVE
YOU. BUT JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BAUER CAN.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER PEPPIN, THANK
YOU. OKAY, SO I COME AT THE
AFFORDABILITY FROM A SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE HERE. SO
COMING OUT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND COMING FROM A COMMUNITY THAT
HAS A LOT OF UNDER-HOUSED FOLKS,
WHAT WE SAW WAS IN THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE
HOUSING, A LOT OF THE TAX
CREDITS CAME VERY EASILY WHEN IT
PERTAINED TO EITHER STUDIO
APARTMENTS OR ONE BEDROOM
APARTMENTS. THAT WAS A PROBLEM
FOR THE COMMUNITY I COME FROM
BECAUSE WE HAD A LOT OF SINGLE
PARENTS, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE
A CHILD OR TWO CHILDREN OF
DIFFERENT GENDERS, IT BECOMES
VERY PROBLEMATIC. AND I KNOW
FROM MY CITY WE WERE PROMISED A
LOT OF TWO AND THREE BEDROOM
UNITS AND SOME OF THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING WE DID ON FORMER
REDEVELOPMENT SITES, AND THEN
GOD BLESS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
DEVELOPERS. BUT THEY WOULD COME
BACK TO US AND SAY, WE WANT A
HORSE TRADE BECAUSE IT'S MUCH
EASIER TO GET TAX CREDITS. SO
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I'M
ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN SEEING
MORE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BEING
AVAILABLE TO RENT FOR SOMEBODY
THAT CANNOT COME UP WITH THE
DOWN PAYMENT. AND I SAW A LOT OF
FOLKS THAT, YOU KNOW, MY OUR
KIDS WENT TO SCHOOL WITH THAT
WERE LOOKING FOR THAT KIND OF
HOUSING. AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT
WE'RE TALKING FOR SUCH A SMALL
PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL HOUSING
THAT'S AVAILABLE, I STRUGGLE
WITH THE BILL BECAUSE I ACTUALLY
WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS KIND OF
INVENTORY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
MORE RENTALS THAT ARE AVAILABLE
FOR FAMILIES. AND IT GETS VERY,
VERY TRICKY. I, LIKE THE AUTHOR,
COME FROM AN AREA THAT IS VERY
DENSE. LAND IS A VERY TIGHT
COMMODITY. WE ARE LANDLOCKED OR
SURROUNDED BY WATER AND IT'S A
TOUGH DEAL. SO FOR ME, I
STRUGGLE BECAUSE I REALLY THINK
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET
OUT OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING FOR
FAMILIES, AND I WOULD REALLY
LIKE TO ACTUALLY SEE A BIT MORE.
SO I GUESS MY I HAVE A COMMENT
REALLY IN A QUESTION, WHY IS IT
IT'S JUST 1000 OR 9.99? I MEAN,
IN MY MIND, IT'S KIND OF LIKE
GIVING ALL OF THE SINGLE FAMILY
HOMES THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE
THAT MAY NOT BE RENTABLE AT THIS
POINT. WHY IS THAT A SMALL
PERCENTAGE? I KNOW THAT THIS WAS
THE PERCENTAGE LAST YEAR. I
MEAN, CAN WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT
IT IN THE ABSTRACT? IT SOUNDS
GREAT. I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT
I'VE EXPERIENCED. BOOTS ON THE
GROUND AND BOOTS ON THE GROUND
MEANT THAT THERE WAS
UNDER-HOUSED FOLKS THAT WERE
EITHER IN ESPECIALLY DURING
COVID. YOU KNOW, WE SAW A LOT OF
FOLKS THAT WERE LIVING ON TOP OF
EACH OTHER. IT DIDN'T DO WONDERS
FOR A PANDEMIC. SO IN MY MIND, I
WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE
OPPORTUNITIES. I HAVE TALKED TO
SOME OF THE OPPOSITION, NOT MR.
LIGHTS IN PARTICULAR, ABOUT,
WELL, SOME OF THEM WILL PROVIDE
RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL TO
PURCHASE OR HELP WITH A DOWN
PAYMENT SHOULD YOU WANT TO GET
INTO IT, AND MANY END UP WANTING
TO LIVE IN THE SINGLE FAMILY
NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THEY ARE
CURRENTLY RENTING. AND THIS
GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF
BREAK INTO THAT MARKET. SO I DO
LOOK AT THE AFFORDABILITY FROM
FROM A DIFFERENT AND I KNOW THAT
WE HAVE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA. AND IN
THE ABSTRACT, IT SOUNDS GREAT.
ANYWAY, I KNOW TIME IS LIMITED,
BUT THANKS FOR HEARING ME OUT.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PACHECO. THANK
YOU. SO I THINK MY QUESTIONS ARE
PRETTY MUCH IN LINE WITH THAT.
AS TO THE WHY 1000? BECAUSE THEN
BUSINESSES WILL END UP BUYING
999 HOMES. BUT I THINK ONE OF
THE MAJOR CONCERNS ARE AND WHAT
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, AND I DON'T
KNOW IF YOU CAN ANSWER THIS IS
WHY ARE WE WHY AREN'T WE HELPING
PEOPLE INTO HOMEOWNERSHIP? WHY
ISN'T THAT MORE OF THE EMPHASIS?
IS THERE A WAY TO AMEND THIS
BILL SO THAT WE CAN INCENTIVIZE
PEOPLE? AND I KNOW TWO DIFFERENT
THINGS, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE,
IF POSSIBLE, HOW WE CAN
INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO
HOMEOWNERSHIP. IS THIS A
PATHWAY? IS THERE A WAY WHERE
EVERYBODY CAN SIT DOWN AND
CREATE A PATHWAY? SO I WOULD
LOVE TO SEE THAT CONVERSATION
HAPPENING, AND I WOULD LOVE TO
HEAR FROM THE AUTHOR. YEAH. SO
JUST ON THE THOUSAND WHY WE DO
1000 OR MORE HOUSES THE URBAN
INSTITUTE DEEMS MEGA WHAT A MEGA
INVESTOR IS WHEN THEY OWN A
THOUSAND MORE PROPERTIES, THEY
ARE MEGA INVESTOR. AND TO THE
POINT ABOUT HOMEOWNERSHIP JUST
REMEMBERING AND I UNDERSTAND
THIS TO LOOK I RENT SINGLE
FAMILY HOME IN MY DISTRICT AND
IT IS. YES. AND I'M ALSO NOT
SUBJECT TO THE TENANT PROTECTION
ACT. SO THEY CAN ALSO JACK UP MY
RENT WAY MORE THAN 10% PER
CONTRACT TERM. SO THEY ARE ALSO
ABLE TO DO THAT. BUT I ALSO RENT
FROM THIS FAMILY THAT I KNOW
THEY DON'T LIVE IN. THEY LIVE IN
PLEASANTON NOW, BUT THEY DON'T
LIVE IN THAT AREA ANYMORE. AND I
KNOW THOSE PEOPLE, JUST SO YOU
KNOW, THAT PEOPLE CAN STILL, OF
COURSE, RENT SINGLE FAMILY
HOMES. AND THE MOST COMMON IS
FOR MOM AND POPS OR PEOPLE THAT
USED TO HAVE THAT HOUSE AND THEY
DON'T LIVE THERE ANYMORE. THAT
IS STILL AN OPTION. WHAT IS
HAPPENING HERE WITH INVITATION
HOMES OR THE CORPORATIONS IS
THERE IS A DEFINED SUBSET
UNIVERSE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
EXISTENCE AS COMPANIES BUY THEM
AND TURN THEM INTO RENTALS,
YOU'RE LOSING THE STOCK OF FOR
SALE HOUSING THAT IT'S 1 TO 1
REPLACEMENT ONE. WHEN YOU TURN
THAT HOUSE THAT WAS FOR SALE
INTO A RENTAL, YOU JUST LOST AN
OPPORTUNITY. AND THAT INCREASES
SCARCITY. SO IF I'M A FAMILY OUT
THERE TRYING TO BUY A HOUSE, AND
I GOT TO COMPETE WITH THESE
FOLKS FOR THE STARTER HOME
MARKET, I'M COMPETING WITH BIG
CORPORATION. AND AT THE SAME
TIME, IF I WANT TO BUY IN A
SIMILAR AREA WHERE THEY ALREADY
HAVE STRONG PRESENCE, YOU KNOW,
THERE IS A LIMITED AMOUNT OF FOR
SALE HOMES OUT THERE, RIGHT? AND
THAT'S THE PROBLEM. LIKE I WOULD
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH COMPANIES
AND THAT'S WHY THE FOR BUILDING
IS OKAY. IF THERE IS A COMPANY
OUT THERE BUYING UP A PROPERTY
AND THEY'RE GOING TO UPZONE IT,
TURN IT INTO FOUR UNITS INSTEAD
OF ONE UNIT, I HAVE NO PROBLEM
WITH THAT. BUT WHAT THEY'RE
DOING IS A 1 TO 1 CONVERSION
WHERE YOU LOSE THE FOR SALE AND
YOU TRADE IT TO A RENTAL, AND
THAT ACTUALLY DISCOURAGES
HOMEOWNERSHIP. YOU'RE HAVING
LESS LIKE NUMERICALLY LESS HOMES
FOR SALE, LIKE JUST TAKING THEM
OFF THE MARKET. AND THAT HURTS
HOMEOWNERSHIP. AND I WOULD SAY
TO ASSEMBLYMAN PACHECO'S POINT,
YOU KNOW, WE ARE WORKING IN THE
LEGISLATURE ON WELL, I MEAN,
DEPENDING ON HOW THE BUDGET
GOES, RIGHT, WE'RE TRYING TO DO
MORE FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS AND
PROGRAMS LIKE THAT, PROGRAMS
THAT I ALSO DON'T QUALIFY FOR,
FORTUNATELY RIGHT NOW. BUT WE
NEED TO ALSO FIX A LOT OF THOSE
THINGS. BUT IF WE TAKE AWAY THIS
ONE ONE CONVERSION, YOU'RE
TAKING AWAY A HOME
OPPORTUNITIES. AND SO EVEN IN
THE CASES OF AND I DON'T KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT COMPANIES ARE DOING
IN FIRE AREAS, BUT THIS BILL IS
ONLY TARGETING THAT CONVERSION
WHERE A COMPANY BUYS SINGLE
FAMILY HOME ONE AND CONVERTS IT
TO A RENTAL HOME ONE. IF IT'S A
LAND AND THEY'RE GOING TO
UPZONE, THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD
MORE STUFF. THIS HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH THAT. OKAY, SO I'LL JUST
CONCLUDE WITH JUST STATING THAT
I WILL BE VOTING FOR THIS BILL
TODAY, BUT I RESERVE MY VOTE ON
THE FLOOR. I MY POINT IS, THE
INVENTORY AVAILABLE FOR FOLKS
THAT WANT TO RENT A HOME. SO
WHILE YOU MAY BE TAKING IT OFF
FOR PURPOSES OF OWNERSHIP, MY
POINT IS, WHAT ARE YOU DOING
WITH THOSE FOLKS THAT CAN'T COME
UP WITH THE DOWN PAYMENT AND
DON'T GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO
LIVE IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME? SO
SORRY. THANK YOU.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BAUER-KAHAN. SO
I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR OF
THIS. I WILL NOTE THAT SOMETHING
CAME UP THAT SENATOR SKINNER HAD
TRIED TO ADDRESS YEARS AGO,
WHICH WAS SPECULATION OF HOMES
WHICH WAS HAPPENING IN HER
DISTRICT, I BELIEVE, IN
RICHMOND, WHERE BIG CORPORATIONS
WERE BUYING HOMES, LEAVING THEM
VACANT TO DRIVE UP THE COST AND
IN SOME CASES SELLING THEM. THIS
TELLS ME THAT WE DIDN'T SOLVE
THAT PROBLEM. SO MAYBE WE NEED
TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD
AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT
ALLOWING FOR HOME SPECULATION
FOR SALE, BECAUSE I DON'T FIND
THAT TO BE ANY BETTER THAN THIS.
I THINK THAT WHAT WE WANT IS FOR
CALIFORNIANS TO BE ABLE TO BUY
AND LEASE HOMES. I THINK THAT IS
THE GOAL THAT WE SHOULD HAVE. WE
SHOULD BE LOOKING OUT FOR
EVERYDAY CALIFORNIANS AND NOT
CORPORATIONS. AND SO I THINK
THAT'S THE GOAL OF THE BILL. MY
ONE QUESTION IS I APPRECIATED
THAT THE BILL DIDN'T APPLY TO
NEW BUILD. SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO
GO IN AND BUILD A NEW COMMUNITY,
THEN YOU CAN LEASE IT, WHICH I
THINK IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT TO STOP
THE PRODUCTION OF HOUSING. AND I
THINK THAT DOESN'T DO THIS. I
ACTUALLY DON'T. AND YOU TALKED
ABOUT IT AND THIS WAS MY
QUESTION, WHICH IS I DON'T READ
IT AS PROHIBITING SOMEONE LIKE,
IF I BUY A CURRENT HOME THAT
EXISTS THAT HAS A CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY, BUT THEN I DECIDE TO
BUILD FOUR HOMES ON THAT. I
ACTUALLY DON'T SEE THAT AS
ALLOWING THIS, BUT MAYBE I'M
MISREADING THE BILL, BUT THAT
APPEARS TO BE YOUR INTENT,
BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OTHER THING
THAT WOULD INCREASE STOCK. I
THINK OUR GOAL SHOULD BE TO
INCREASE STOCK. SO IF I COULD
GET CLARIFICATION, I'LL SUPPORT
THE BILL TODAY. BUT I THINK AS
LONG AS IT'S IN LINE WITH THAT,
I APPRECIATE IT BECAUSE I THINK
WE REALLY SHOULD BE PROMOTING
THE INCREASE IN HOUSING STOCK IN
OUR COMMUNITIES, WHICH I THINK
IS A SHARED GOAL, WHICH IS WHY
YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE NEW BUILD.
BUT I THINK THAT CONVERSION TO
MOORE, WHICH JUST HAPPENED
ACTUALLY IN MY COMMUNITY, WE HAD
A LARGE PROPERTY. THEY TORE THE
VERY OLD HOUSE DOWN AND BUILT
FOUR HOUSES ON THAT ONE LOT. WE
HAVE MORE HOUSES NOW. YAY! SO
AND I ASSUME THAT WAS A
DEVELOPER. I DON'T THINK
SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
AFFORD THAT. SO JUST WANTED TO
CLARIFY THAT. OKAY. AND I'LL
MAKE SURE MY STAFF SEND YOU THE
SENATE JUDICIARY LANGUAGE ABOUT
ADDITIVE HOUSING TO MAKE SURE
YOU SEE THAT. BUT IT WAS IN THE
COMMITTEE MINUTES. OH, IT WAS IN
THE MINUTES, MR. SALEH. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I'LL BE BRIEF.
I'M SORRY, SIR, WHICH WHO DO YOU
REPRESENT AGAIN? NATIONAL RENTAL
HOME COUNCIL. NATIONAL HOME
COUNCIL, YOU REFERRED TO THREE
COMPANIES. THIS BILL TARGETED.
WHICH THREE COMPANIES ARE THOSE
INVITATION HOMES? OKAY. TRICON
AMERICAN HOMES, WHICH IS
HEADQUARTERED IN SANTA ANA,
OKAY. AND AMERICAN COLONY HOMES.
AND DO THEY BUILD HOMES OR THEY
JUST PURCHASE HOMES AND RENT
THEM OUT? TWO OF THE THREE BUILD
HOMES IN CALIFORNIA. A HANDFUL
OF NEW HOUSING, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. AND YOU'RE
SAYING IT'S JUST IT'S NOT REALLY
A BIG PROBLEM IS WHAT YOUR
POSITION IS. WHAT I'M SAYING IS
THAT OUR Ó. WHAT I'M SAYING IS
THAT THE PRESENCE IN THE
CALIFORNIA MARKETPLACE IS NOT
VERY LARGE, AND THERE ARE YET NØ
IT'S GOING DOWN EVERY YEAR AND
HAS, FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS,
CONSISTENTLY. SO THEY'RE THEY'RE
NOT BUILDING MORE HOMES THAN
THEY ARE SELLING OVERALL. HOW
MANY HOMES THEY CURRENTLY OWN IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
APPROXIMATELY 13,000 BETWEEN THE
THREE COMPANIES OF THE 8.5
MILLION HOMES IN THE STATE.
OKAY, I LOOK, I, I DO NOT
BELIEVE IN UNFETTERED
CAPITALISM, I REALLY DON'T I
THINK HOUSING IS A SPECIAL
COMMODITY. IT IS A SPECIAL
COMMODITY. AND FOR ME, I DON'T
THINK THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE
COMPETING WITH LARGE
CORPORATIONS TO BE A HOME OWNER.
FRANKLY, I WOULD BAN FOREIGN
INVESTORS AS WELL. I THINK
AMERICAN HOMES SHOULD BE FOR
AMERICANS. PERSONALLY, THIS IS
PART OF THE AMERICAN DREAM, IS
TO GROW UP, GET A GOOD JOB AND
TO GET A HOME. THAT DREAM IS
BEING SQUASHED FOR MANY REASONS,
PARTLY BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE,
THE TAXES AND REGULATIONS,
EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT ALSO,
I THINK INVESTORS HAVE FIGURED
OUT THAT THEY CAN MAKE MORE
MONEY BY BUYING OR BUILDING
PROPERTY AND HOLDING ONTO IT,
AND THEN CONTINUOUSLY INCREASING
THE RENT YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER
YEAR. AND THEY MAKE A LOT MORE
MONEY DOING THAT THAN SELLING
IT. AND THAT'S REALLY MY BIG
FEAR IS WE'RE GOING TO TURN
AMERICANS INTO SERFS WHO JUST
WORK TO PAY THE RENT. RENT IN
ORANGE COUNTY IS LIKE $3,000 FOR
ONE BEDROOM, TWO, YOU KNOW,
APARTMENT. IT'S CRAZY. SO ENOUGH
IS ENOUGH. I DO NOT THINK THESE
CORPORATIONS NEED TO BE IN THE
RENTAL BUSINESS. I WISH I WILL
TELL YOU, I WAS SHOCKED WHEN I
SAW AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR A NEW
SINGLE HOME COMMUNITY AND IT
SAID RENT HERE. IT WAS LIKE THEY
BUILT A WHOLE COMMUNITY FOR
RENT. THIS IS WRONG. AMERICANS
NEED TO BE ABLE TO OWN PROPERTY.
THEY NEED TO INVEST IN
THEMSELVES. THEY NEED TO BUILD
WEALTH. AND WE ARE NOT. WE ARE
NOT GOING TO BE SERVED. SO I
WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS BILL.
AND I REALLY WISH MY REPUBLICAN
COLLEAGUES WOULD, YOU KNOW,
EMBRACE THIS ISSUE. WE SHOULD
NOT BE DOING THE BIDDING OF
LARGE CORPORATIONS LIKE THESE
WHO ARE JUST MAKING, YOU KNOW,
MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
IN PROFITS OFF OF HARD WORKING
AMERICANS WHO ARE JUST TRYING TO
SURVIVE AND LIVE. SO WITH THAT,
I THANK YOU, BERNIE. SENATOR.
YEAH. HEY, HEY, SOMETIMES BERNIE
AND TRUMP AGREE. SO. MR.
ZUBIATE, WOULD YOU HAVE A
QUESTION? YES. I THINK I HAVE A
LOT OF THE SAME KINDS OF
QUESTIONS THAT THAT ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PAPPIN HAS. I'M GOING TO
VOTE FOR THE BILL TODAY, IN PART
BECAUSE I HAVEN'T HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND TIME WITH
THE AUTHOR AND WITH THE
OPPONENTS TO UNDERSTAND THIS
BILL BETTER. YOU KNOW, I, I
REMEMBER BACK IN THE 2009 CRASH,
AND THIS IS REALLY WHERE SOME OF
MY CONCERNS COME FROM, WHERE WE
HAD, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPERS
LITERALLY GOING OUT OF BUSINESS
AND GOING INTO BANKRUPTCY AND
ACTUALLY TAKING LOTS OF, YOU
KNOW, LARGE NUMBERS OF HOMES.
AND THEN BASICALLY DURING THAT
PERIOD OF TIME, AS THEY WERE
WORKING OUT OF BANKRUPTCY,
LEASING THEM TO OTHER FOLKS. AND
I THINK WE WANT THAT TO HAPPEN
RATHER THAN PEOPLE TO NOT HOLD
ON TO THEM. SO FOR ME, THIS IS
SORT OF I'M INTERESTED IN THE IN
THE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE
NEW, TO THE NEW BUILDING. I'M
INTERESTED IN WHETHER OR NOT
THERE CAN BE ASPECTS TO THIS
THAT ARE THAT ALLOW PEOPLE TO
MOVE FROM RENTAL INTO HOME
OWNERSHIP, AND I JUST DON'T FEEL
LIKE I UNDERSTAND THIS BILL WELL
ENOUGH. BUT I'M GOING TO BECAUSE
OF MY RESPECT FOR THE AUTHOR,
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE
TO LET IT OUT TODAY AND ALLOW
HIM TO CONTINUE WORKING ON IT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, I
HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. I
APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION AND I
WILL NEED TO DISAGREE WITH MY
COLLEAGUE FROM CORONA. HAVING
SERVED IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, I
SHARE WHAT ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PAPIN'S COMMENTS WERE. AND AS
WE'VE SEEN SINCE THE RENA
HOUSING SITUATION AND THE
HOUSING ELEMENTS AND THE DEMAND
TO CREATE BUILD 3.3 MILLION
HOUSING UNITS IN CALIFORNIA OVER
THE LAST FIVE SOME YEARS, WHAT
IT'S DONE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND
COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN NOT
ENCOURAGED TO BUILD SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCES, IN FACT,
ENCOURAGED TO BUILD MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTS. AND THOSE ARE OKAY.
MY AND FOR THE BALANCE OF
RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND
COMMUNITIES, SINGLE FAMILY AND
MULTI-UNIT TO ME IS A PRIORITY.
WHAT I SEE MORE THAN ANYTHING
ELSE COMING FROM LOCAL
GOVERNMENT IS WE ARE NOT
BUILDING ENOUGH SINGLE FAMILY
HOMES. NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO,
WE ARE CREATING A STATE OF
PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN MULTI RENTAL,
MULTI UNIT RENTAL UNITS WHO WILL
NEVER HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO
CREATE FAMILY GENERATIONAL
WEALTH BY OWNING PROPERTY. AND
THAT IS A CONCERN. VERY BIG
CONCERN OF MINE WHEN I SEE THIS
ALL AROUND PEOPLE CHILDREN WANT
NEXT GENERATION WANT TO BE ABLE
TO AFFORD HOMES. I SEE THIS BILL
AS AN I. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH
BUSINESSES. THIS IS FREE
ENTERPRISE CAPITALISM TO BUY UP
HOMES, TO IMPROVE THOSE HOMES,
MAKE THEM LIVABLE AND RENTABLE,
AND ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO
ULTIMATELY THROUGH LEASE OPTION
TO BUY, OWN THOSE HOMES AND
PRESERVE. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE
LOSING IN OUR COMMUNITIES
THROUGH THE 3 MILLION. IF NOT,
WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE YET. A
MILLION AND A HALF RENTAL UNITS
ARE MULTI-FAMILY UNITS. TAKING
AWAY THE CONCEPT OF
NEIGHBORHOODS IN OUR IN OUR
COMMUNITIES. I SEE IT ALL OVER
ORANGE COUNTY, SO I APPLAUD
COMPANIES THAT ARE INVESTING TO
PRESERVE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
AS AN IMPORTANT RESIDENTIAL
OPTION IN OUR COMMUNITIES. AND
IF A COMPANY IN AMERICA WANTS TO
BUY UP A THOUSAND HOMES, IMPROVE
THOSE HOMES AND RENT THEM, AND
THEN ULTIMATELY SOMEBODY WOULD
HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUY THOSE
HOMES TO PRESERVE THE
NEIGHBORHOOD OPPORTUNITY. LIVING
IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, LIVING IN A
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A
FRONT YARD AND A BACKYARD AND
MAYBE A SWIMMING POOL AND A AND
A PLAY YARD. WHY NOT? AND WHY
NOT? WHY MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT?
AND ESPECIALLY WITH A PAGA
PENALTY HERE? $100,000, I ASSUME
PER UNIT. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST
TYPICAL CALIFORNIA REGULATION.
WE OVER REGULATE, OVER LITIGATE
AND OVERTAX. AND THIS IS JUST
ONE MORE STEP OF GETTING IN THE
WAY OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE WHERE
PEOPLE WANT TO ACQUIRE A HOME.
ULTIMATELY, IT'S SO DIFFICULT.
AND YOU'RE NOT SOLVING THIS IS
NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE HOUSING
CRISIS. THIS HOUSING CRISIS IS
CAUSED FROM THE COST OF HOUSING,
WHETHER IT'S MULTIFAMILY OR
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, BECAUSE
OF SEQUA AND ALL THE COSTS THAT
GO INTO THAT. SO CORPORATIONS
OWN MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT
BUILDINGS ALSO. SO NOT JUST
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. SO IF YOU
WANT TO GET RID OF ALL
CORPORATIONS, THAT'S ANOTHER
DISCUSSION. AND THAT'S A PILLAR
OF BUILDING OUR ECONOMIC, THE
ECONOMIC VITALITY OF OUR
COMMUNITIES. SO I WILL I'M NOT
GOING TO WAIT FOR AN AMENDMENT.
I WILL BE OPPOSING THIS ON
PRINCIPLE. I WANT TO JUST GO ON
RECORD AS WE NEED MORE SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES. AND IF A COMPANY
WANTS TO COME IN AND BUY THEM
AND IMPROVE THOSE PROPERTIES FOR
THE BENEFIT OF A FUTURE RENTER
AND HOME PURCHASER, I THINK
THAT'S A GREAT THING FOR AMERICA
TO PRESERVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
AND BALANCE OUR COMMUNITIES. SO
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WHY DON'T WE
CALL FOR THE QUESTION TO CLOSE?
YES. OKAY. WELL, I JUST WANTED
TO VICE CHAIR, JUST RESPECTFULLY
PUSH BACK ON TO THE MYTHS THAT I
THINK YOU'RE PERPETUATING IS
THAT THESE COMPANIES ARE NOT
ADDING ANY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
THEY ARE BUYING EXISTING HOMES
AND FLIPPING THEM INTO RENTALS.
YOU ARE TAKING THE LIMITED
AMOUNT OF UNIVERSE OF THE SAME
THING, WHERE A FAMILY WITH
CHILDREN MIGHT WANT TO BUY A
HOUSE WITH A BACKYARD FRONT
YARD, IN A POOL THAT IS NOT
GOING TO BE AVAILABLE FOR THEM
TO BUY. THEY ARE GOING TO NOW
UNFORTUNATELY HAVE TO RENT IN
THAT AREA INSTEAD. AND IF OUR
GOAL, IF THE AMERICAN WAY IS TO
GET MORE PEOPLE TO BECOME
HOMEOWNERS, ALLOWING
CORPORATIONS TO EAT INTO THE
EXISTING STOCK OF FOR SALE
HOMES, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES DOES
NOT CREATE A SINGLE NEW
ADDITIONAL HOME. THAT'S WHY MY
AMENDMENTS ARE OKAY. IF YOU'RE
BUILDING MORE HOMES OR BUILDING
MORE UNITS, THAT'S FINE. BUT
WHAT THIS BEHAVIOR IS, IS THE
CONVERSION. AND IF YOU'RE
CONVERTING HOMES, THAT MEANS
THERE'S LESS AVAILABLE FOR
SOMEONE ELSE. SO SURE, WE ARE
MAYBE ALLOWING MORE PEOPLE TO BE
RENTERS IN HOMES AT THE EXPENSE
OF PEOPLE BUYING THE HOUSE. I
WANT TO MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR. IT
IS A CLEAR TRADE OFF THAT YOU'RE
TRADING FOR SALE, HOME
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOMEONE TO
RENT. AND BY THE WAY, OF COURSE,
AS I ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE ARE
A MINUSCULE AMOUNT OF THE OF THE
OF THE HOMES OUT THERE. THERE
ARE ALSO LOTS OF MANY WAYS THAT
PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF RENT SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES, AND THAT'S FROM
MOM AND POP LANDLORDS. USUALLY
THAT DOES NOTHING TO TOUCH THAT
ASPECT. IN FACT, I WOULD LOVE TO
HAVE MORE MOM AND POP LANDLORDS
SPREAD OUT WITH DIFFUSE, SMALLER
PORTFOLIOS WHO CAN BE BETTER
STEWARDS FOR THEIR PROPERTIES
AND THEIR TENANTS, RATHER THAN
THE MYTH THAT ONLY BIG
CORPORATIONS ARE GOOD LANDLORDS,
AND THAT THEY SHOULD BE THE ONES
TO HOLD ALL THE HOUSING STOCK
OUT THERE. AND SO I WOULD AGREE
WITH THE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT THAT
IT IS IN A FORM OF MODERN
FEUDALISM. IT IS SERFDOM, AND
THAT IF WE BANK ALL OF OUR HOPE
INTO BECOMING A HOMEOWNER JUST
FROM OUR CORPORATE LANDLORD,
THAT'S NOT THE AMERICAN WAY. THE
AMERICAN WAY SHOULD BE ABLE TO
COMPETE AND BUY OUR OWN HOME.
AND THAT'S WHY THIS BILL, AS
NARROWLY TARGETED AS IT IS ABOUT
A SPECIFIC PHENOMENON OF
CORPORATIONS EATING INTO THE
EXISTING HOUSING STOCK AND
CONVERTING IT. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
OKAY, THANK YOU. VOTE MOTIONS DO
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. KARA
DIXON, NØ DIXON. NO. BARRY.
KHN. BRIAN. BRIAN I. CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY I IS SALLY. SALLY I
HAIRABEDIAN. PACHECO I PACHECO I
PAPAN. SANCHEZ. NOT VOTING.
STEPHANIE. HI. STEPHANIE I
ZUBIATE ZUBIATE I. IT'S UNCLEAR.
IT'S ON CALL. EXCUSE ME JUST A
MINUTE. IT'S GOING TO BE ON
CALL. SO WE'RE WAITING FOR A FEW
MORE PEOPLE. GO AHEAD. LET'S SEE
IF I COULD ADD AS A COAUTHOR IF
YOU WANT. YES. I TAKE THEM ALL.
I TAKE THEM ALL. THANK YOU.
YEAH, EXACTLY. ALL RIGHT. WHAT
SHOULD WE GO NEXT? WHAT DO WE
HAVE OUT HERE? DO WE HAVE ANY
AUTHORS IN THE AUDIENCE? CHEN,
IT'S MR. CHEN HERE. LET'S GO
WITH MR. CHEN. AB 711. OH OH.
WAIT A MINUTE. OKAY. MCKENNA,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. MCKENNA, ARE
YOU HERE? ALL RIGHT. PLEASE COME
FORWARD. KEEP IT WELL, KEEP IT
IN ORDER. AND THIS IS AB 628.
THANK YOU. HELLO. MY CHEN.
HELLO. HI. HOW WHAT NUMBER IS
IT? HOW ARE YOU? HI. THEY'RE
NOT. THEY'RE NOT IN MY ORDER. IN
MY BOOK. THAT'S A PROBLEM
BECAUSE THE NUMBERS CHANGED. SO
SIX, TWO, EIGHT. OKAY, 628I GOT
IT. OKAY. OKAY. MADAM
ASSEMBLYWOMAN. YES. YOU MAY
BEGIN. YES. I'M STILL. GOOD
MORNING. GOOD MORNING, MADAM
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS AB 628 WILL
REQUIRE NEW LEASES ON
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO
INCLUDE A REFRIGERATOR AND STOVE
IN GOOD WORKING ORDER. A WORKING
STOVE AND A WORKING REFRIGERATOR
ARE NOT A LUXURY. THEY ARE A
NECESSARY PART OF MODERN LIFE.
CALIFORNIA RENTALS HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS HAS GOTTEN
WORSE BY OUTDATED LAWS THAT DO
NOT CONSIDER BASIC HOUSEHOLD
APPLIANCES AS A NECESSARY PART
OF A RENTAL HOME. WHILE MANY
LANDLORDS DO INCLUDE A WORKING
REFRIGERATOR AND STOVE IN A
RESIDENTIAL LEASE, GROWING
NUMBER OF RENTAL PROPERTIES ARE
NOT CREATING SIGNIFICANT
FINANCIAL BURDENS ON TENANTS
SEEKING AN AFFORDABLE AND SAFE
PLACE TO LIVE. I APPRECIATE
APPRECIATE THE CONSTRUCTIVE
CONVERSATIONS WITH MY OFFICE, MY
OFFICE AND I HAVE HAD WITH
STAKEHOLDERS ON THIS BILL AND
REMAIN COMMITTED TO FINAL
LANGUAGE THAT PROTECTS TENANTS
AND ENGAGES LANDLORDS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS. WITH THE RENTS
AS HIGH AS THEY ARE. YOU KNOW,
SOME RENTS IN MY DISTRICT ARE 3
TO $4000 FOR A23 BEDROOMS. AND,
YOU KNOW, A PERSON THAT'S MOVING
IN HAS TO PAY LIKE $6,000. IT IS
REALLY EXPENSIVE TO PAY $6,000
AND THEN BE REQUIRED TO BUY A
STOVE AND REFRIGERATOR, WE
THINK, I THINK THAT A STOVE AND
REFRIGERATOR IS A NECESSITY AND
NOT AN AMENITY. ALSO, WE HAVE
AGREED TO TAKE AMENDMENTS TAKING
OUT THE TEN YEAR REFRIGERATOR,
BECAUSE WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT,
AS YOU KNOW, AND LOOKING AT OUR
ENVIRONMENT, WE DON'T WANT TO BE
WASTEFUL AND HAVE OWNERS GET RID
OF TEN YEAR OLD REFRIGERATORS IF
THEY WORK. AND ALSO THE TENANT
CAN BRING THE REFRIGERATOR WITH
THEM. HERE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
IS ANYA LAWLER, A POLICY
ADVOCATE FOR CALIFORNIA RURAL
LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND MR. MAHDI
MANJI, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY
FOR THE INNER CITY LAW CENTER.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MADAM
CHAIR, AND MEMBERS, ANDY LAWLER
HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION. I THINK
THE AUTHOR HAS COVERED IT VERY
WELL. CALIFORNIA'S LAWS ARE
PRETTY ANTIQUATED IN THIS
REGARD. WE'RE ONE OF THE FEW
STATES THAT DON'T REQUIRE A
STOVE AND A WORKING REFRIGERATOR
FOR A UNIT TO BE CONSIDERED
HABITABLE. OUR CLIENTS IN RURAL
AREAS, WHEN THEY ARE LOOKING FOR
A UNIT, ARE ALREADY EXPECTING
THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE PAYING
PROBABLY 50, 60, PERHAPS EVEN
70% OF THEIR INCOME IN RENT
BECAUSE THEY'RE EXTREMELY LOW
INCOME. AND WHEN THEY FIND A
UNIT, IT'S PRETTY CRUSHING TO
DISCOVER THAT THEY ALSO HAVE TO
IN ADDITION TO THE SECURITY
DEPOSIT AND IN ADDITION TO
SPENDING AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF
THEIR INCOME IN RENT, ARE ALSO
GOING TO HAVE TO PURCHASE A
STOVE AND A REFRIGERATOR. THOSE
THINGS ARE ACTUALLY NOT THAT
EXPENSIVE WHEN SPREAD OUT OVER
THE COURSE OF THEIR 10 TO 20
YEAR LIFESPAN, WHICH REALLY
SHOULD BE ENCOMPASSED IN RENT.
AND A STOVE, FRANKLY, OFTEN
REQUIRES ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO
THE UNIT, WHICH IS A STRANGE,
STRANGE THING TO LEAVE TO THE
TENANT. SO WE JUST THINK THIS IS
A COMMON SENSE UPDATE TO THE
LAW. IT WILL MAKE A BIG
DIFFERENCE IN LOW INCOME FOR LOW
INCOME TENANTS WHO ARE SEARCHING
FOR AN AFFORDABLE PLACE TO LIVE,
AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
CHAIR MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
MATTHEW MANJI WITH INNER CITY
LAW CENTER. WE ARE THE ONLY
NONPROFIT LEGAL SERVICES
PROVIDER BASED IN SKID ROW IN
DOWNTOWN LA, AND WE SERVE FOLKS
WHO ARE HOMELESS AND AT RISK OF
HOMELESSNESS THROUGHOUT LA
COUNTY. INNER CITY LAW CENTER
WAS FOUNDED 45 YEARS AGO INSIDE
A TRAILER BEHIND THE CATHOLIC
WORKER SOUP KITCHEN, AND WE'VE
BEEN FIGHTING FOR HABITABLE AND
DIGNIFIED LIVING CONDITIONS FOR
RESIDENTS OF SKID ROW AND LA
COUNTY SINCE THEN, WE LITIGATE
AGAINST SLUMLORDS TO ENSURE THAT
ANGELENOS HAVE A SAFE AND
HEALTHY PLACE TO LIVE. WE ALL
KNOW THAT FRIDGES AND STOVES ARE
ESSENTIAL. IT'S REALLY QUITE
ODD, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT THE
MANY HOMES AROUND CALIFORNIA,
ESPECIALLY IN LOS ANGELES, ARE
RENTED WITHOUT THESE ESSENTIAL
APPLIANCES THAT ALLOW US TO
STORE AND COOK FOOD. THERE'S
PLENTY OF LOCAL COVERAGE ON THE
DIFFICULTIES OF ANGELENOS
EXPERIENCE ACQUIRING FRIDGES AND
RENTING A HOME WITHOUT ONE, BUT
IF YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
MOVE A FRIDGE, YOU'LL KNOW THAT
APART FROM BEING QUITE HEAVY AND
QUITE DIFFICULT TO MOVE, FRIDGES
ARE OFTEN DIFFICULT TO MANEUVER.
NOT EVERY FRIDGE TO EVERY DOOR.
I'M SPEAKING AS SOMEONE WHO HAS
HAD TO BUY USED FRIDGES AND
CARRY THEM APARTMENT TO
APARTMENT. IT'S REALLY ONE OF
THE MOST DIFFICULT ASPECTS OF
MOVING. FRIDGES AND STOVES ARE
ESSENTIAL. WE ALL NEED THEM, AND
THIS IS AN AREA WHERE THE
LEGISLATURE CAN ACT TO ENSURE
THAT THEY ARE PROVIDED IN NEW
LEASES. THIS IS NOT THE BIGGEST
LAW IN THE WORLD, BUT IT WILL
MAKE A SMALL CHANGE THAT HELPS A
LOT OF PEOPLE. IT WILL MAKE IT
SLIGHTLY EASIER TO MOVE AND
ENSURE THAT FAMILIES CAN COOK
AND EAT. I WANT TO THANK MCENROE
FOR AUTHORING THIS BILL AND
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A VOTE.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANY
COMMENTS IN SUPPORT? PLEASE COME
FORWARD. MARK STIVERS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP.
I JUST WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
AND THE STAFF FOR WORKING SO
CLOSELY WITH US ON THE
AMENDMENTS AND WITH THE
AMENDMENTS. WE REMOVE OUR
OPPOSITION AND WE GO TO NEUTRAL.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, NATALIE
SPIVAK WITH HOUSING CALIFORNIA.
WE WERE PREVIOUSLY IN AND
OPPOSED AGAINST UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION. BUT APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR FOR WORKING WITH US ON
AMENDMENTS AND ARE NOW IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
ANY COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION
PLEASE COME FORWARD.
SORRY. TRAPPED. PAT MORAN,
REPRESENTING THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA RENTAL HOUSING
ASSOCIATION, GIVES ME NO
PLEASURE TO OPPOSE IT. AND
ASSEMBLY MEMBER SKINNER, WE'RE
USUALLY ON THE SAME SIDE OF
THINGS, SO I APOLOGIZE. WE DO
APPRECIATE THE AMENDMENTS, AND I
THINK WE JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF
MORE TWEAKS, AND WE LOOK FORWARD
TO WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR TO
GETTING TO A PLACE OF REMOVING
OUR OPPOSITION. APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING BRITAIN JIMENEZ KRIEGER
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION
OF REALTORS. WE ALSO WANT TO
THANK THE AUTHOR FOR THIS BILL.
HER OFFICE AND THE REALTORS HAVE
BEEN WORKING TOGETHER ON SOME
AMENDMENTS, AND WE APPRECIATE
THE ONES THAT SHE TOOK. WE ARE
STILL WORKING WITH SOME
ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT ARE
NEEDED, BUT WE BELIEVE WE'RE
GOING TO FIND A SOLUTION. AND WE
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
SPEAKERS? ONE MORE, DEBORAH
CARLTON WITH THE CALIFORNIA
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION. NOT IN
OPPOSITION, BUT I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR FOR TAKING OUR
AMENDMENTS, AND WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH HER TO
TIGHTEN EVERYTHING UP. SO THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.
SECOND, SECOND. AND I'LL BRING
IT BACK UP. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? NO, I'LL
BRING IT BACK UP HERE. ANY
QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. SEEING
NONE. WOULD YOU LIKE A CLOSING
STATEMENT PLEASE? I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. MOTIONS DO
PASS AS AMENDED. KARA DIXON NOT
VOTING BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN
CONNELLY. SALLY HAIRABEDIAN
PACHECO A, PACHECO I PAPIN.
PAPIN I SANCHEZ, STEPHANIE. I
STEPHANIE I ZEBRA. A ZEBRA GETS
A CALL. IT WILL REMAIN ON CALL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.
LOOKS LIKE MAYBE MR. CHEN WILL
BRING. OH, YOU HAVE ANOTHER
BILL. MY APOLOGIES. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. ITEM NINE. ITEM
NUMBER NINE, WHICH IS AB 851.
THANK YOU. MADAM CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS AB 851 WOULD CODIFY
GOVERNOR NEWSOM'S EXECUTIVE
ORDER TO EXTEND HOMEOWNER
PROTECTIONS FOR FAMILIES
IMPACTED BY JANUARY 2025. EATON
AND PALISADES FIRES FROM
UNSOLICITED BELOW MARKET OFFERS
ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES UNTIL
2027. ADDITIONALLY, AB 851 WOULD
ALLOW THE SELLER OF A
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE
EATON AND PALISADES DECLARED
DISASTER ZIP CODES TO RESCIND
THE SALE OF THEIR PROPERTY FOR
FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE CLOSE OF
ESCROW. MANY HOMEOWNERS IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY WHO WERE
DEVASTATED BY THE JANUARY 2025
FIRES HAVE REPORTED BEING
TARGETED BY UNSCRUPULOUS
BUSINESSES, SCAM ARTISTS AND
PREDATORY BUYERS. IN RESPONSE,
GOVERNOR NEWSOM ISSUED AN
EXECUTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING
UNSOLICITED BELOW MARKET OFFERS
ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN
AFFECTED LA COUNTY ZIP CODES.
THAT ORDER EXPIRES IN APRIL OF
THIS YEAR. LA COUNTY FIRE
SURVIVORS HAVE EXPERIENCED
UNIMAGINABLE TRAUMA AND NEED
ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AND TIME
TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION
WHETHER TO REBUILD OR SELL THEIR
PROPERTY. THIS LIMITED FOUR
MONTH RESCISSION WINDOW WILL
GIVE IMPACTED HOMEOWNERS TIME TO
SIMPLY BREATHE AND MAKE A
DECISION THAT IS IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF THEIR FAMILY. I AM
EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL DISPLACEMENT OF
FAMILIES FROM THE PALISADES AND
ALTADENA, ESPECIALLY THE
FAMILIES WITHIN THE HISTORICALLY
BLACK NEIGHBORHOODS OF ALTADENA
AND AB 851 PROVIDES IMPORTANT
PROTECTIONS TO ALL FAMILIES
IMPACTED BY EATON AND PALISADES
FIRE, AND IS AN IMPORTANT PART
OF LA COUNTY'S EFFORT TO REBUILD
FROM THIS DEVASTATING NATURAL
DISASTER. HERE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT ARE ZACHARY CALVIN,
RESIDENT OF ALTADENA AND
COMMUNITY ORGANIZER, AND TAMIKA
LA CRUZ. DID I SAY THAT
CORRECTLY? LA CLUSE, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF THE SACRAMENTO
COUNTY LAND TRUST. EXCUSE ME,
DID YOU ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS?
YES, THEY HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED.
OKAY. VERY GOOD. PLEASE PROCEED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR
DIXON AND MEMBERS, MY NAME IS
TAMIKA LA CLUSE. MY PRONOUNS ARE
SHE HER, AND I AM THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY
LAND TRUST. TODAY, MY REMARKS
REPRESENT THE ENTIRE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY LAND TRUST NETWORK WHO
ARE PROUD SPONSORS OF AB 851 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MCKENNA, THE
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY LAND TRUST
NETWORK HAS 34 ESTABLISHED CLTS
AND 16 EMERGING CLTS.
COLLECTIVELY, WE STEWARD 1700
PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR
THE BENEFIT OF OVER 3600
RESIDENTS ACROSS THE STATE. WE
HAVE IMPACTED COMMUNITY LAND
TRUST AFFILIATES IN THE FIRE
AREA, AND ONE OF OUR CLT BOARD
MEMBERS HAS LOST HER HOME IN THE
EATON FIRE. THE COMMUNITY LAND
TRUST MODEL IS TO REMOVE HOUSING
OFF THE SPECULATIVE MARKET AND
STEWARD IT IN IN PERPETUITY AND
PERPETUAL AFFORDABILITY FOR LOW
INCOME RESIDENTS WHO EITHER
LEASE OR OWN HOMES ON TOP OF CLT
LAND. OUR CORE VALUE IS TO
STABILIZE COMMUNITIES AND STOP
DISPLACEMENT. IT IS
UNCONSCIONABLE FOR US TO US THAT
A DEADLY NATURAL DISASTER WOULD
OCCUR, SUCH AS THE EATON
PALISADES FIRES, AND THEN WE
WOULD STAND BY AND WATCH A
COMPLETELY AVOIDABLE ECONOMIC
DISASTER UNFOLD TO FURTHER
DEVASTATE THESE COMMUNITIES.
WITH THIS BILL, WE ARE NOT
STANDING BY AND WATCHING AB 851
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER MCKENNA
EXTENDS THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE
ORDER PROHIBITING UNSOLICITED
OFFERS TO PURCHASE RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY UNTIL 2027. WE HAVE
AUGMENTED THE ENFORCEMENT OF
THIS IMPORTANT LAW BECAUSE, AS
MY COLLEAGUE WILL TESTIFY, THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN
HEEDED BY MANY BAD ACTORS
SEEKING TO PREY ON VULNERABLE
CALIFORNIANS. WE RESPECTFULLY
URGE YOUR AYE VOTE FOR AB 851.
PLEASE PROCEED. HONORABLE CHAIR
AND ESTEEMED MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS COACH ZAYA
CALVIN, REPRESENTING EXTREME
ALTA MEDIA OF ALTADENA. I'M A
THIRD GENERATION MEMBER OF THE
ALTADENA COMMUNITY. I'M A
SURVIVOR. I'M AN ADVOCATE,
PROPERTY OWNER, OWNER, AND A
COMMUNITY LEADER WHO TALKS TO
ALL THE CHURCHES AND EVERYBODY
INVOLVED. THE EATON FIRE TOOK
MANY THINGS FROM MY COMMUNITY
AND FROM ME PERSONALLY. I LOST
TWO HOMES, TWO CARS, AND MY
SISTER DIED IN THE FIRE. SINCE
THESE LOSSES, SPECULATIVE
INVESTORS HAVE SENT INDIVIDUALS
TO MY HOME AND HAVE WALKED UP TO
ME WITH VERBAL OFFERS AND LEFT
CARDS ON PROPERTY, DELUGED MY
PHONE WITH COLD CALLS, OFFERING
CASH AND EVEN ATTENDING FEMA
WORKSHOPS, AND INVADED COMMUNITY
MEMBERS SPACE AT THE FEMA
SHELTER ASKING IF SURVIVORS WANT
TO SELL. I WITNESSED THIS
PERSONALLY. THIS IS GOING ON.
AND TO GIVE CONTEXT, I KNOW
PERSONALLY ABOUT 2500 FAMILIES
IN MY COMMUNITY PERSONALLY.
MEANING CALL CAN CALL 2500
FAMILIES. SURVIVORS HAVE ALWAYS
PICKED UP TELEPHONE NUMBERS.
BECAUSE OF THAT. WE HAVE TO PICK
UP THE CALLS. BASICALLY, WHEN
WE'RE GETTING THESE COLD CALLS
TO GIVE, TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE,
BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY PROGRAMS
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO RECOVER
FROM, WE HAVE TO TAKE ALL OF
THESE COLD CALLS. SO WE GET
THESE COLD CALLS. THEY'D BE
LIKE, HEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO
SELL? AND THEN WHEN YOU SAY
SOMETHING, THEN THEY'LL HANG UP.
OR IF YOU ACT LIKE YOU'RE
INTERESTED, THEN THEY'LL GO
FURTHER. SO IT'S LITERALLY THIS
GAME THAT'S HAPPENING OVER AND
OVER AGAIN. I HAVE A COUSIN WHO
LITERALLY HIS PROPERTY THE DAY
AFTER IT BURNED DOWN, THE GROUND
WAS STILL SMOLDERING, AND HE
CAME UP AND ASKED, DID YOU WANT
TO SELL YOUR PROPERTY? THIS IS
HOW CRAZY IT IS. I'M SORRY. I
DON'T WANT TO GET OFF. SOMEBODY
ACTUALLY STOPPED LISTENING. I'M
SORRY. MY UNDERSTANDING OF
COMMUNITY IS THAT WE'RE HERE FOR
EACH OTHER, TO KEEP BAD ACTORS
FROM PREYING ON THE FOX DURING
THE HARDEST TIME THAT WE WILL
EVER FACE. THIS IS WHY MY
COMMUNITY AND I SUPPORT AB. 851
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER TINA MCKENNA.
PLEASE VOTE YES TO STOP THE
UNSOLICITED OFFERS. I ALSO JUST
WANT TO CONTINUE TO SAY WHEN
THAT GENTLEMAN SAID THAT THAT'S
NOT GOING ON. THAT WAS THE MOST
DISRESPECTFUL THING FOR MY
COMMUNITY. FOR HIM TO SAY HE'S
AN ALTADENA PERSON AND SAY THAT
THAT'S NOT GOING ON WHEN IT'S
GOING ON LIKE CRAZY. SO I JUST
WANT TO PUT THAT ON RECORD.
ALSO, WHEN I'M LISTENING TO THAT
AND I SPEAK FOR MY COMMUNITY AND
I MEAN CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES AND
THE ISLAMIC COMMUNITY THAT'S
THERE FOR MY WHOLE COMMUNITY, IT
IS GOING ON AND IT'S TERRIFYING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY
SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT IF YOU'D
COME FORWARD, PLEASE. SEEING
NONE. DO WE HAVE A SPEAKER IN
OPPOSITION? PLEASE COME FORWARD.
SEEING NONE. NO SPEAKERS IN
OPPOSITION. OKAY. WE'LL BRING IT
FORWARD. MR. ZUBIATE. SO FIRST
OF ALL, I WANT TO TELL YOU HOW
SORRY I AM TO HEAR ABOUT YOUR
LOSS. FRANKLY, UNTIL YOU SPOKE,
I DIDN'T I DIDN'T REALLY
UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON.
AND, YOU KNOW, MY FIRST REACTION
IS, WELL, WHY IS IT BAD IF
SOMEONE HAS AN OFFER THAT'S
ACTUALLY A REALLY GOOD OFFER,
RIGHT? BUT I THINK AFTER YOUR,
YOU KNOW, YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY,
IT MADE ME UNDERSTAND IN A WAY
THAT I DIDN'T BEFORE, REALLY
WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE
COMMUNITY. SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE
THE BILL AND THANK ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MCKINNON FOR BRINGING IT
TODAY. YES, MR. CHAPMAN, I WAS
IN THE SAME BOAT. I KIND OF I
WAS WORRIED ABOUT FREE SPEECH
AND A FEW OTHER THINGS, QUITE
FRANKLY. SO I WILL SECOND THE
MOTION BECAUSE I WAS NOT GOING
TO GO UP ON IT. I, I, I REALLY
FELT UNCOMFORTABLE. AND WHAT IF
A GOOD OFFER COMES ALONG AND ALL
THOSE GOOD THINGS. BUT THANK YOU
FOR YOUR COMPELLING TESTIMONY.
I'LL GO AHEAD. I'LL GO AHEAD AND
ADD UPON THAT AS WELL. I WAS
INITIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS
BILL AS WELL, BUT THEN I WAS
READING ALSO THAT IF A HOMEOWNER
WANTS TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY,
THEY'RE ABLE TO DO SO. SO THAT
MAKES ME FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE
ABOUT THIS BILL. AND I'M SO
SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS. I WILL SAY
THE SAME THING. I, I FELT IT WAS
IF SOMEONE WANTED TO REJECT THE
SOLICITATION AND UNWANTED
SOLICITATION, THEY JUST SAY NO.
BUT MAYBE THE PRESSURES ARE
INTENSE, GREATER THAN WHAT I
ANTICIPATED. AND I THOUGHT TO
PUT A FOUR MONTH COOLING OFF
PERIOD OR WAITING PERIOD WAS
UNREASONABLE. BUT YOU PUT AN
OVERALL LIMIT ON THIS UNTIL
2027. SO ABOUT TWO YEARS UNTIL
WE GET THROUGH THIS DIFFICULT
PERIOD. AND I'M SO SORRY FOR
YOUR LOSS. SO LET ME CLOSE.
CERTAINLY YOUR CLOSING
STATEMENT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU,
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING
HERE AND BEING SO BRAVE TO
TESTIFY. I REALLY APPRECIATE
THAT. YOU KNOW, THESE FOLKS ARE
DEVASTATED. THEY'VE LOST
EVERYTHING. AND, YOU KNOW, FOR
SOMEBODY TO PREY ON THEM, IT'S
JUST JUST HORRIBLE. AND SO IF
THE FOLKS WANT TO SELL, THEY CAN
CONTACT A REALTOR AND THEY COULD
SELL. WE JUST DON'T WANT PEOPLE
BUGGING THEM. SO AND WITH THAT,
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. VERY GOOD. MOTIONS DO
PASS, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. KARA. DIXON.
AYE. DIXON. AYE. BAUER-KAHAN.
BRIAN. CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. AYE.
IS SALLY. SALLY. AYE.
HAIRABEDIAN. PACHECO. AYE.
PACHECO. AYE. PAPIN. PAPIN. AYE.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. AYE.
STEPHANIE. HI, STEPHANIE. AYE.
BR. BR. AYE. THAT'S OUT. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. IT MEANS THE WORLD.
GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT,
MR. CHEN? AB SEVEN. PARDON ME.
YOU'VE BEEN VERY PATIENT. AB
711. WHAT NUMBER IS THAT? I'LL
MOVE IT SECOND. WE RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR A VOTE. THAT'S WHAT YOU
GET FOR WASTING MY TIME. I'M
GOING TO DEFER TO MY KEY
WITNESS. AND IN RESPECT TO THE
COMMITTEE, IN TERMS OF THEIR
LONG COMMITTEE HEARINGS, ALL
RIGHT. PLEASE PROCEED WITH GREAT
BREVITY. BREVITY IS HOW YOU
PRONOUNCE THAT, MADAM CHAIR.
MEMBERS. ED HOWARD, PLEASED TO
CO-SPONSOR THIS MEMBER FROM FROM
THE REPRESENTING THE DEPOSITION
REPORTERS ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA. AND RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR AYE VOTE AND PLEASE TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
THAT WAS EASY. ANY COMMENTS IN
SUPPORT? PLEASE COME FORWARD.
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS, PAT
MORAN, WITH AARON REED AND
ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING THE
ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION AND STRONG SUPPORT
OF THE BILL. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS NICK
BROKAW WITH SACRAMENTO ADVOCATES
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COURT REPORTERS ASSOCIATION, AS
A PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. SANDRA
BORRERO, ON BEHALF OF SEIU
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS IN
OPPOSITION? GOOD MORNING. MORE
OF A CONCERN POSITION, SABINA
TUCKER WITH THE CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS OF CALIFORNIA. WE
THANK THE AUTHORS, STAFF AND THE
CO-SPONSORS FOR MEETING WITH US
AND THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR
PUTTING OUR CONCERNS IN THE
ANALYSIS. IN GENERAL, WE'RE
CONCERNED THAT WHEN WE REPORTED
THIS TO OUR MEMBERS, THEY SEE
THEY SAY THIS RARELY OCCURS. AND
THE LARGER PICTURE IS THAT
THERE'S 1.5 MILLION HEARINGS
GOING WITHOUT A RECORD. SO WE
UNDERSTAND THERE'S A COURT
REPORTER CRISIS. HOWEVER, THIS
WON'T SOLVE THAT CRISIS ON THIS
BILL, ON THE PROCESS
SPECIFICALLY, THE BILL REQUIRES
THAT YOU STAY IN YOUR MEET AND
CONFER DECLARATION WHETHER OR
NOT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A COURT
REPORTER. THAT'S MUCH TOO EARLY
IN THE PROCESS, BECAUSE YOU
DON'T KNOW AT THAT POINT WHETHER
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A REPORTER
OR NOT. YOU DON'T KNOW IF THE
MOTION IS OPPOSED. YOU CAN'T
MAKE THAT DECISION SO EARLY. AND
THEN THIRD, IF YOU DO CHANGE
YOUR MIND OR YOU DON'T STATE
WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE HAVING A
COURT REPORTER, THIS BILL
DOESN'T EXPLAIN WHAT WOULD
HAPPEN IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE. AND
JUST GIVEN THE COST OF COURT
REPORTERS NOW, ESPECIALLY OUR
MEMBERS ARE VERY CONSCIOUS ABOUT
WHEN THEY ACTUALLY DO EMPLOY A
COURT REPORTER FOR CERTAIN
PROCEEDINGS. SO LOOKING FORWARD
TO WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR AND
SPONSORS. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION? ANY
COMMENTS ON THE DÍAS? OH YES.
MISS PACHECO, REALLY QUICK. I'D
LIKE TO ADD MYSELF AS A
COAUTHOR. THANK YOU, MR.
PACHECO. ANY MR. ZUBIATE? YEAH,
I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT
WE'VE GOT A COMMITMENT WITH THE
AUTHOR TO WORK WITH THE CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS AND ADDRESSING SOME OF
THEIR CONCERNS. THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S, FOR YOUR LINE
OF QUESTIONING. YOU HAVE MY
COMMITMENT THAT I'LL BE WORKING
CLOSELY WITH THE OPPOSITION.
THIS IS REALLY JUST TO ENSURE
THAT THERE'S NOT A DUPLICATION
OF SERVICES. WE'VE DONE SOME
FACT CHECKING IN TERMS OF SOME
COUNTIES AROUND MY AREA L.A.
COUNTY, ORANGE COUNTY, SAN RAMON
COUNTY, THE DUPLICATION SERVICES
OF HAVING COURT REPORTERS
REPORTING THAT THERE'S GOING TO
BE ANOTHER COURT REPORTER ON
SITE HAS BEEN ANYWHERE FROM 25%
OR IN MY COUNTY OF ORANGE, 50%.
SO YOU HAVE MY PROMISE THAT I'LL
WORK CLOSELY WITH CONSUMER
ATTORNEYS TO ALLEVIATE ANY
CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE. GREAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND, MR.
SALEH, JUST REAL QUICK, I JUST
ECHO THAT TO WORK WITH THEM
BECAUSE I WONDER IF THIS IS THE
RIGHT AT THE NOTICE STAGE, IS
THE RIGHT TIME TO GIVE THE
NOTICE OF A COURT REPORTER IF
YOU'RE GOING TO REQUEST A
HEARING, BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES
YOU DON'T EVEN GO THROUGH WITH
THE HEARING, BUT USUALLY IT'S
THE LOSER THAT WANTS THE COURT
REPORTER, RIGHT? SO YOU DON'T
KNOW YOU'RE LOSING UNTIL YOU GET
THE TENTATIVE. SO ONCE YOU GET
THE TENTATIVE, I THINK THAT
WOULD BE THE BEST TIME TO LET
THE OTHER PARTY KNOW WHETHER OR
NOT YOU'RE GETTING A COURT
REPORTER OR NOT, IF I MAY,
THROUGH THE CHAIR. THANK YOU.
WHEN WE MET LAST, WHEN WE MET
LAST THURSDAY WITH THE
STAKEHOLDERS, I THINK THAT SOME
OF THEIR CONCERNS, INCLUDING
THAT ONE, HAD MERIT. SO AFTER
THE THURSDAY MEETING, I REPORTED
BACK TO THE OTHER SPONSORS THAT
WE THOUGHT SOME OF THE CONCERNS
HAD MERIT. I DRAFTED PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS, ALSO CONSULTED WITH
THIS COMMITTEE STAFF ABOUT THE
POSSIBILITY OF THOSE AMENDMENTS,
WORKED ON THEM OVER THE WEEKEND.
THE LOBBYISTS AND LAWYERS ALL
HAVE THEM, BUT OUR CLIENTS HAVE
NOT QUITE SIGNED OFF INSOFAR AS
OUR ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE THEM TO THE OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S.
BUT YOU'RE CORRECT. OKAY.
APPRECIATE IT. YOU KNOW, WE
WOULDN'T NEED THESE IF ATTORNEYS
WOULD JUST BE CIVIL AND TALK TO
EACH OTHER. I WILL TELL YOU,
LITIGATING LAST FEW YEARS HAS
BEEN VERY CHALLENGING. LAWYERS
ARE UNRESPONSIVE. THEY'RE
THEY'RE THEY'RE MORE HOSTILE.
IT'S NOT VERY CIVIL, BUT THAT'S
BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS TO THE
BAR. THE CIVILITY TRAINING IS
NOT WORKING. IT'S NOT. SO
ANYWAY, I'LL BE HAPPY TO SUPPORT
THIS TODAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER
COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. MR. MR.
CHEN, YOUR CLOSING STATEMENT,
PLEASE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A
VOTE. VERY GOOD. LET'S VOTE.
MOTIONS DO PASS. KARA. DIXON.
DIXON. I BAUER, KHN. BRIAN.
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. I SALLY.
SALLY I HAIRABEDIAN. PACHECO.
PACHECO. I PAPPIN I PAPPIN I
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. I STEPHANIE.
HI, STEPHANIE I ZEBRA. ZEBRA I
OUT, IT IS OUT. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANOTHER AUTHOR
HERE? MR. GIBSON? ALL RIGHT.
WHAT NUMBER IS THAT? SO I'M UP
TO 12 AB926. IS IT 926. YES.
OKAY. I HAD NUMBER 17. ALL
RIGHT. LET ME GET TO 12. IS THAT
WHERE IT IS? YEP. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MADAM CHAIR. AND MEMBERS.
ASSEMBLY BILL 926 WOULD CREATE A
REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT
VISITATION BETWEEN A PARENT AND
THEIR CHILD IN FOSTER CARE ARE
UNSUPERVISED, UNLESS IT IS, AND
DETERMINE THAT A CHILD SAFETY
IS, IN FACT, IN DANGER. CURRENT
LAW DOES NOT SPECIFY WHEN
SUPERVISED VISITS ARE NECESSARY.
THE DURATION OF THE VISITS, AND
WHERE THE WHERE THEY'RE, WHERE
THEY SHOULD BE, WHERE THEY
SHOULD TAKE PLACE. EXCUSE ME. AS
A RESULT, MOST OF THE PARENTS
CONTACT WITH THEIR CHILDREN IS
SUPERVISED, EVEN WHEN THE
MONITORING IS UNNECESSARY, A
CHILD MAY BE REMOVED FROM THEIR
PARENTS BECAUSE OF THE HOME
ENVIRONMENT OR THE PARENT'S
INABILITY TO ACCESS THE
APPROPRIATE RESOURCES FOR THEIR
PARTICULAR CARE. UNFORTUNATELY,
CHILDREN LIVING IN POVERTY ARE
LIKELY TO BE REPORTED TO THE
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES. 47% OF
FAMILIES WHO HAVE CHILDREN
PLACED IN THE SYSTEM ARE LIVING
BELOW THE FEDERAL POVERTY LINE.
AB 926 ADDRESS GAPS IN
CALIFORNIA'S LAW TO STREAMLINE
FAMILIES TIME AND INCREASE THE
LIKELIHOOD OF FAMILY
REUNIFICATION. I HAVE BEEN IN
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE WITH SOME
OF THE OPPOSITION TO CW D A, AND
I LOOK FORWARD TO ADDRESSING
SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS AS THIS
BILL MOVES THROUGH THE
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. IF THIS
BILL GETS OUT OF COMMITTEE TODAY
WITH ME TO PROVIDE SUPPORTING
TESTIMONY, IS A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE DEPENDENT LEGAL SERVICE
WHO WAS SELF SELF RECOGNIZED OR
REPRESENT. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN?
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. AND
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND THE
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS JULIE HANNIGAN AND I AM
THE POLICY DIRECTOR FOR
DEPENDENCY LEGAL SERVICES. WE
REPRESENT PARENTS AND CHILDREN
IN NINE COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA.
I PERSONALLY HAVE REPRESENTED
PARENTS PRIMARILY IN JUVENILE
DEPENDENCY PROCEEDINGS FOR OVER
A DECADE. FAMILY SEPARATION
INFLICTS PROFOUND DAMAGE ON
CHILDREN AND PARENTS. CHILDREN
OFTEN EXPERIENCE FEAR, ANXIETY,
SADNESS, ANGER, AND CONFUSION
WHEN THEY'RE IN CARE. VISITATION
IS NOT ONLY THE LINCHPIN OF
SUCCESSFUL REUNIFICATION AND
RESTORATION OF THE FAMILY UNIT,
BUT IT IS ALSO CRITICAL TO
MITIGATING THE TRAUMA. TRAUMA OF
FAMILY SEPARATION FOR CHILDREN
BY ENSURING THAT CHILDREN IN
CARE CONTINUE TO HAVE MEANINGFUL
ACCESS TO THE PEOPLE THAT THEY
KNOW AND THEY LOVE MOST THEIR
PARENTS, THEIR FAMILY, FAMILY
TIME PROMOTES REPAIR AND
STABILITY AND FOSTERS HEALTHY
RELATIONSHIPS AND ATTACHMENTS.
THIS BILL HELPS CHILDREN. UNDER
CURRENT LAW, THERE IS ALMOST NO
GUIDANCE FOR COURTS REGARDING
VISITATION. AS A RESULT, COURTS
OFTEN DEFAULT TO SUPERVISED
VISITATION ORDERS THAT ARE OFTEN
UNNECESSARILY RESTRICTIVE,
DIFFICULT TO SCHEDULE,
UNCOMFORTABLE AND UNNATURAL FOR
FAMILIES, AND COSTLY FOR THE
AGENCY. IT CAN PROVIDE
EXCEEDINGLY LIMITED TIME FOR
FAMILIES ONE HOUR A WEEK FOR
SOME FAMILIES AROUND THE STATE,
THE FEDERAL GUIDANCE MAKES IT
CLEAR THAT THE PRIMARY PURPOSE
OF VISITATION IS TO FACILITATE
FAMILY TIME. IT IS NOT TO ASSESS
OR IMPROVE PARENTING SKILLS.
THERE ARE CLASSES FOR THAT.
FAMILY TIME SHOULD BE FAMILY
TIME. THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS
BILL THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE
DEPARTMENT FROM SCHEDULING TIME
TO OBSERVE AND ASSESS PARENT
CHILD INTERACTIONS. THERE'S
NOTHING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE
DEPARTMENT FROM RECOMMENDING AND
PROVIDING SERVICES THAT ARE
ACTUALLY DESIGNED TO ADDRESS
PARENT CHILD INTERACTIONS, SUCH
AS PCIT, CP ALL OF THOSE ARE
GREAT SERVICES. THAT'S NOT WHAT
SUPERVISED VISITS ARE. ALL IT IS
A MONITOR SITTING IN A ROOM,
TAKING NOTES THAT PARENTS OFTEN
DON'T SEE FOR MONTHS. WE BELIEVE
THAT DOES NOTHING TO IMPROVE
PARENTING SKILLS OR PROMOTE
REUNIFICATION. FOR THESE
REASONS, WE BELIEVE THAT AB 926
ENSURES THAT FAMILY TIME SHOULD
ONLY BE SUPERVISED WHEN
NECESSARY TO PROTECT CHILD
SAFETY. SAFETY AND WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER
HI. GOOD MORNING, ANN QUIRK WITH
CHILDREN'S LAW CENTER OF
CALIFORNIA. WE ARE A CO-SPONSOR
OF THE BILL. WE ARE THE
ATTORNEYS FOR CHILDREN IN
DEPENDENCY IN LOS ANGELES,
SACRAMENTO AND PLACER COUNTIES.
THE DEFAULT FOR MANY COUNTIES IS
SUPERVISED VISITATION. THIS
OFTEN TAKES PLACE IN THE CPS
OFFICE DURING BUSINESS HOURS,
WITH AN EMPLOYEE SITTING IN THE
ROOM. IT CAN TAKE MONTHS FOR A
FAMILY TO MOVE BEYOND THAT EVEN
LONGER. IF THE IF THE COUNTY
SOCIAL WORKER CHANGES AND THEY
HAVE TO START OVER. GETTING TO
KNOW EACH OTHER. FOR A CHILD,
THIS MEANS YOU ONLY SEE YOUR MOM
AND DAD 1 TO 3 HOURS A WEEK. IF
YOU'RE NOT PLACED WITH YOUR
SIBLINGS, IT'S OFTEN THE ONLY
TIME YOU GET TO SEE YOUR
BROTHERS AND SISTERS. THE
BUILDING IS CLOSED ON HOLIDAYS,
SO YOU DON'T GET TO SPEND
THANKSGIVING OR CHRISTMAS WITH
YOUR FAMILY. YOUR BIRTHDAY IS
CELEBRATED THREE DAYS LATE IN
THE CPS ROOM WITH JUST YOUR MOM.
BECAUSE GRANDPARENTS AND
RELATIVES, OTHER RELATIVES
AREN'T PART OF THE VISIT. YOUR
DAD CAN'T GO TO YOUR SOCCER
GAMES. YOU CAN'T HUG YOUR MOM
AFTER YOUR MIDDLE SCHOOL
GRADUATION, AND YOU NEVER GET TO
SEE YOUR DOG BECAUSE PETS AREN'T
ALLOWED IN CHILD WELFARE. WE
TALK A LOT ABOUT BEST INTERESTS
OF THE CHILD, AND AB 926
REQUIRES US TO PUT THAT INTO
ACTION AND REALLY TAILOR VISITS
TO WHAT THE CHILD AND FAMILY
NEEDS, NOT ARBITRARY
RESTRICTIONS FOR THE CHILD. THIS
REDUCES THE HARM OF SEPARATION
AND IT ALLOWS THEM TO STAY
BETTER CONNECTED TO THEIR
TRADITIONS, THEIR CULTURES,
THEIR FAMILY AND THEIR PET. WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE
OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT.
PLEASE COME FORWARD. ZECHARIAH,
AS SOMEBODY WHO IS BOTH A
REPRESENTATIVE OF ALLIANCE FOR
CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, WE'RE HERE IN
SUPPORT AND ALSO AS A AS AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO GREW UP WITH A
PARENT INCARCERATED AND FAMILY
MEMBERS WHO ARE CURRENTLY
INCARCERATED, WHO HAVE LOST
THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE CONTACT WITH
THEIR CHILDREN, UNRELATED TO
THEIR OFFENSE. I'M HERE TO
SUPPORT THIS BILL AND TO SUPPORT
FAMILY REUNIFICATION. THANK YOU.
JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND
POSITION, PLEASE. ANNIE THOMAS,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ALLIANCE OF CHILD AND FAMILY
SERVICES AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT?
SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION. PLEASE
COME FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON,
AMANDA KIRK. ON BEHALF OF THE
COUNTY WELFARE DIRECTORS
ASSOCIATION, WE DO HAVE A
CONCERNS POSITION ON THE BILL.
WE ARE ACTUALLY SUPPORTIVE OF
THE UNDERLYING POLICY THAT
SUPERVISED VISITATION SHOULD
BECOME MORE LIBERALIZED AS THE
CASE PROGRESSES AND WHERE ALL
THE PARTIES AGREE. WHERE WE DO
HAVE CONCERNS IS WITH THE
STANDARD FOR THE REBUTTABLE
PRESUMPTION. BUT WE HAD A VERY
EXCELLENT MEETING LAST WEEK WITH
THE SPONSORS AND THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE. WE ARE COMMITTED TO
WORKING THROUGH THAT LANGUAGE TO
FIND A STANDARD THAT WORKS FOR
ALL OF US. AND WE APPRECIATE
YOUR ENGAGEMENT ON THIS REALLY
IMPORTANT ISSUE. VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN
OPPOSITION? LET'S BRING IT UP
HERE. ANY QUESTIONS. GO AHEAD I
APPRECIATE THAT. I KNOW YOU AND
I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK,
MR. GIBSON, AND I WAS
PARTICULARLY CONCERNED WITH.
THIS LANGUAGE HERE THAT SAID,
YOU KNOW, THAT THE COURT, YOU
KNOW, SHOULD NOT PROVIDE FOR
UNSUPERVISED VISITATION IF
THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL DANGER TO
THE PHYSICAL HEALTH OF THE CHILD
OR THE CHILD IS SUFFERING SEVERE
EMOTIONAL DAMAGE, AND THERE ARE
NO REASONABLE MEANS BY WHICH THE
CHILD'S PHYSICAL OR EMOTIONAL
HEALTH MAY BE PROTECTED WITHOUT
HAVING SUPERVISED VISITATION. I
FEEL LIKE IF THE COURT HAS FOUND
THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL
DANGER TO THE CHILD, ADDING THAT
SECOND CLAUSE THAT TO BE HONEST,
I WASN'T EVEN SURE HOW ANYONE
WOULD MEET THAT BURDEN. BECAUSE
WHAT ARE THE I MEAN, HOW DO I
HAVE TO PROVE THAT THERE ARE ANY
OTHER OPTIONS AND I CAN'T? I
DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT
SECOND PART. AND I THINK THAT WE
NEED IF A COURT HAS FOUND THAT
THERE IS DANGER TO THE CHILD,
THAT THAT'S ENOUGH. I JUST I'M
HERE TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN.
AND I KNOW SO IS THE AUTHOR, BUT
I REALLY I APPRECIATE THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO WORK WITH THE
OPPOSITION BECAUSE I THINK THAT
NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. I HAVE A
SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH THAT
LANGUAGE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF
ANYONE WANTS TO ADDRESS THAT. I,
I CAN REAL QUICK, JUST A REAL
QUICK EXAMPLE OF WHAT THAT WOULD
LOOK LIKE IN PRACTICE. LIKE IF A
CHILD IS TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE OF
ALCOHOL ABUSE BY A PARENT,
MAKING SURE THAT THEY ARE
BLOWING INTO A AND CONFIRMING
THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE ALCOHOL IN
THEM. BREATHALYZER.
BREATHALYZER. THANK YOU. ROLLING
INTO A BREATHALYZER BEFORE A
VISIT WOULD BE A WAY TO MAKE
SURE THAT. AND WHO WOULD BE
CHECKING THE BREATHALYZER IF
IT'S UNSUPERVISED, WHEN THEY'RE
COMING TO LIKE YOU AT THE
MEETING POINT? YEAH, AT THE
MEETING POINT. GOT IT. OKAY. I
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, I
MEAN, THIS FELT LIKE I'D HAVE TO
PROVE THERE ARE NO REASONABLE
MEANS. AND I THINK THAT IS SUCH
AN OPEN ENDED INQUIRY THAT,
LIKE, THE COURT COULD BE LEFT
WITH, MAYBE THERE'S SOME
OPPORTUNITY OUT THERE FOR THERE
TO BE REASONABLE MEANS. AND I
DON'T WANT IT TO BE THAT HARD TO
PROTECT CHILDREN. SO THAT
LANGUAGE FEELS NOT RIGHT. BUT I
THINK THAT THE POINT YOU'RE
MAKING, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW,
MAYBE THE BURDEN SHIFTS BACK AND
THEY CAN PROVE THERE IS A
REASONABLE PROTECTION BEYOND
SUPERVISED VISITATION AND THAT
THAT WORKS. THAT WOULD PROBABLY,
YOU KNOW, WE OFTEN SHIFT THE
BURDEN BACK AND FORTH IN COURT
SETTINGS. AND I THINK THIS MIGHT
BE ONE OF THOSE EXAMPLES,
ESPECIALLY IF THE COURT HAS
ALREADY FOUND THERE'S A RISK OF
DANGER TO THE CHILD. SURE. AND
JUST TO CLARIFY, THE REASONABLE
MEANS IS LIFTED FROM OTHER PARTS
OF THE CODE. THAT'S IT'S PART OF
THE REMOVAL STATUTE. SO WE WERE
TRYING TO MIRROR THE LANGUAGE. I
THINK WE'RE COMFORTABLE WORKING
ON IT, BUT THAT'S WHERE IT COMES
FROM. AND IT'S A FINDING THAT
THE COURT MAKES OFTEN WHEN
TALKING ABOUT REMOVAL. BUT
THAT'S WHERE IT COMES FROM. AND
DEFINITELY AS CHILD'S ATTORNEY,
IF I WAS CONCERNED AND PARENTS
ATTORNEYS ARGUING FOR AND
THEY'RE SAYING THERE ARE
REASONABLE MEANS, THAT WOULD BE
GREAT. WHAT ARE THEY? RIGHT.
IT'S NOT THAT THEY HAVE TO LIKE
THAT. I WOULD HAVE TO PROVE THAT
THERE AREN'T ANY. RIGHT. SO I
THINK THAT'S WHAT I FEEL WOULD
BE BEST. AND I HOPE THE LANGUAGE
IN THE END REFLECTS THAT. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR.
SALEH, JUST REAL QUICK. I WANT
TO SUPPORT THIS BILL, BUT I'M
CONCERNED WITH THE WORD OF
SUBSTANTIAL. IT SEEMS LIKE A
HIGH BAR. WHY NOT? LIKELY.
SUBSTANTIAL SEEMS HIGH. SO
AGAIN, SUBSTANTIAL IS THE WORD
THAT WE USE OFTENTIMES IN THE
CODE WHEN TALKING ABOUT RISK FOR
CHILDREN. AND I THINK EVERY TIME
WE'VE TRIED TO PROPOSE LANGUAGE
THAT IS DIFFERENT, IT HAS
ACTUALLY MADE PEOPLE MORE
ANXIOUS WHEN IT COMES TO LIKE
SUBSTANTIAL IS USED THROUGHOUT
THE REMOVAL, THE DETENTION AND
REMOVAL STANDARDS. WHAT DOES IT
MEAN? WHAT DO YOU MEAN
SUBSTANTIAL? LIKE WHAT IS THE
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT
STANDARD? I'M FROM THE CRIMINAL
WORLD, SO I KNOW PREPONDERANCE.
I KNOW REASONABLE DOUBT, I KNOW
PROBABLE CAUSE. WHERE DOES
SUBSTANTIAL FALL IN THAT SCALE?
SO I MEAN, IT MEANS MORE THAN
SPECULATIVE, RIGHT? THE CASE LAW
IS VERY CLEAR THAT IT'S NOT JUST
SPECULATING THAT SOMETHING SOME
HARM COULD OCCUR, RIGHT. BECAUSE
HARM COULD OCCUR TO ANY OF OUR
CHILDREN. RIGHT. IS IT MORE OR
LESS THAN PROBABLE? I THINK IT'S
LESS LESS PROBABLE. I THINK IT'S
SIMILAR TO LIKE CLEAR AND
CONVINCING, LIKE WE HAVE THE
CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD
THAT ALSO IS LIKE SORT OF
AMBIGUOUS. SO YOU'RE SAYING IT'S
LESS THAN PROBABLE BECAUSE IN MY
MIND, SUBSTANTIAL IS HIGHER THAN
PROBABLE. AND WE DID TAKE IT
FROM THE SAME THING, LIKE
THERE'S THIS SUBSTANTIAL DANGER.
AND THAT'S WHY YOU WOULD REMOVE.
SO IT'S USING THE SAME
CONSISTENCY IN LANGUAGE. I'M
HONESTLY ASKING BECAUSE I DON'T
KNOW. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. I'M
LIKE SUCH A GOOD QUESTION. I
MIGHT I MIGHT HOLD OFF TODAY,
BUT I, I WANT TO YOU KNOW, I DO
GENERALLY SUPPORT THE IDEA OF
KEEPING KIDS WITH THEIR PARENTS
IF WE CAN. I DON'T THINK
ARTIFICIAL OR SUPERVISED
ENVIRONMENTS ARE GOOD FOR KIDS.
SO ANYWAY, THAT'S ALL. THANK
YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION. NO, NO.
ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
MAKE A CLOSING STATEMENT? YES I
WOULD. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR THE CONCERNS AND
ALSO THE ROBUST CONVERSATION.
JUST WANT TO REGALE YOU WITH A
STORY OF A YOUNG GIRL WHO'S 15
YEARS OF AGE, WHO LIVES IN A
FOSTER HOME. SHE SHARED WITH ME
THAT SHE FEELS REJECTED. SHE
SHARED WITH ME THAT SHE FEELS
ALL ALONE. SHE SAID SHE THAT
SOMETIMES SHE FEELS THE BEST
SAFETY PLACE IS IN A DARK ROOM
BECAUSE OF THE LONELINESS AND
THE REJECTION IN WHICH SHE
FEELS. SHE TOLD ME TO SHARE THAT
SHE WAS BORN HERE IN THIS WORLD.
DON'T GIVE UP ON HER. SOMETIMES
WE REALIZE THAT DEPRESSION IS A
BRANCH THAT'S COATED WITH
REJECTION, AND SOMETIMES WE CUT
THOSE BRANCHES OFF IN ORDER FOR
THE TREE TO BLOOM OR DON'T
BLOOM, WE HAVE TO GET AT THE
ROOT CAUSE. AND TODAY I BELIEVE
THAT THIS BILL, ASSEMBLY BILL
926, GETS AT THE ROOT CAUSE OF
THE ISSUE. CHILDREN WANTS TO BE
REUNIFIED WITH THEIR PARENTS. WE
DON'T WANT TO PUT CHILDREN IN
HARM'S WAY. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THEY'RE IN A SAFE ENVIRONMENT.
WE BELIEVE THIS IS A STEP IN THE
RIGHT DIRECTION. LET'S NOT DEAL
WITH THE BRANCHES. LET'S DEAL
WITH THE ROOT CAUSE, AND LET'S
DO THE RIGHT THING AND CREATE
THE UNIFICATION THAT THESE
CHILDREN DESPERATELY NEED, SO
THEY DON'T FEEL ALONE SO THAT
THEY FEEL WANTED AND NEEDED IN
THIS, IN THIS WORLD. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE.
THANK YOU. WE NEED A MOTION. WE
NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND,
PLEASE MOVE SECOND. THANK YOU.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT, LET'S VOTE.
MOTIONS DO PASS TO HUMAN
SERVICES. KARA DIXON NOT VOTING.
BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN
CONNOLLY, I CONNOLLY I SALLY NØ
THOÁT HAIRABEDIAN A HAIRABEDIAN
I PACHECO I PACHECO I PAPIN.
PAPIN I SANCHEZ. NOT VOTING.
STEPHANIE. STEPHANIE I ZUBER.
ZUBER I. OUT. IT IS OUT. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IS
THERE AN AUTHOR HERE WOULD LIKE
TO COME FORWARD? IDENTIFY
YOURSELF. IS SCHULTZ HERE? MR.
SCHULTZ? AVILA ÁVILA FARÍAS.
ÁVILA FARÍAS. SHE'S HERE. OH.
OH. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. ÁVILA
FARÍAS. MADAM, PLEASE COME
FORWARD. THANK YOU. 14, ITEM 14,
AB 1079. THREE. I'M SORRY. WHAT?
WHAT? YES. PLEASE PROCEED. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND
COLLEAGUES. APPRECIATE THE TIME
HERE THIS AFTERNOON. TODAY I'M
HERE TO PRESENT AB 1079, WHICH
WOULD ELIMINATE THE APPELLATE
STAY OF JUDGMENT IN CASES
RELATED TO THE CALIFORNIA VOTING
RIGHTS ACT AND THE FAIR, FAIR
MAX ACT. NEARLY 25 YEARS AGO,
THE STATE LEGISLATURE TOOK A
SIGNIFICANT STEP IN ELEVATING
THE VOICES OF HISTORICALLY
DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
THROUGHOUT THE CALIFORNIA VOTING
RIGHTS ACT. NOT TO BE CONFUSED
WITH THE FEDERAL COUNTERPART OF
THE CALIFORNIA VOTING RIGHTS
ACT, WHICH PROHIBITS AT LARGE
ELECTION SYSTEMS FROM IMPAIRING
THE ABILITY OF PROTECTED CLASSES
TO ELECT CANDIDATES OF THEIR
CHOICE OR INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME
OF ELECTIONS. IN SHORT, THIS
LANDMARK LEGISLATION AIMED TO
ENSURE THAT ALL MINORITY
COMMUNITIES ENJOY A VOICE AT THE
TABLE. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE
RELATED TO THE CALIFORNIA VOTING
RIGHTS ACT AND THE FAIR ACT'S
MAC, COURT JUDGMENTS ARE STAYS
WHILE AN APPEAL IS PENDING. AS
YOU KNOW, APPEALS ROUTINELY TAKE
YEARS TO RESOLVE, EVEN AFTER THE
COURT DETERMINED AN AT LARGE
ELECTION SYSTEM IS UNLAWFUL AND
RADICALLY DISCRIMINATORY, THE
LOCAL BODY CAN HOLD EVEN MORE
ELECTIONS UTILIZING THEIR
UNLAWFUL SYSTEM BY FILING AN
APPEAL AND PAYING ATTORNEYS TO
DELAY THIS PROCESS, DURING WHICH
TIME JUSTICE FOR COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR IS DELAYED AND VOTERS ARE
DISENFRANCHIZED. AB 1079 WILL
FIX THAT PROBLEM WHILE
MAINTAINING SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE
THAT ORDERLY ADMINISTRATION OF
THE ELECTIONS. AB 79 WILL MAKE
SURE THAT JUSTICE IS NOT
INDEFINITELY DELAYED, AND THAT
PEOPLE OF COLOR ARE FULLY
REPRESENTED IN OUR ELECTORAL
PROCESS. TESTIFYING WITH ME IN
SUPPORT OF AB 1079 IS MARVIN
PANETTA, ON BEHALF OF THE ASIAN
LAW ALLIANCE, AND KEVIN SCHEKMAN
WITH THE VOTING RIGHTS ATTORNEY
AND SCHEKMAN AND HUGHES, I THANK
YOU. AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. PLEASE
PROCEED. THANK YOU. CHAIR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS MARVIN PINEDA
WITH CALIFORNIA ADVOCACY ON
BEHALF OF THE ASIAN LAW
ALLIANCE, WHICH IS SPONSORING AB
1079. THE ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE IS
A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION
PROVIDING EQUAL ACCESS TO THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR THE ASIAN
PACIFIC ISLANDER AND LOW INCOME
POPULATIONS. OUR MISSION IS TO
PROVIDE LEGAL COUNSELING,
COMMUNITY EDUCATION, AND
COMMUNITY ORGANIZING, AND WE
PROMOTE SELF-SUFFICIENCY,
SELF-RELIANCE, AND BETTER
QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL. BOTH
THE CALIFORNIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT
AND THE FAIR MAPS ACT PLAY A
VITAL ROLE IN ENSURING THAT
VOTERS ARE PROTECTED. CLASSES
ARE PROTECTED CLASSES AND HAVE A
FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO ELECT
CANDIDATES OF THEIR CHOICE.
HOWEVER, THE CURRENT JUDICIAL
PROCEDURES ALLOW JURISDICTIONS
TO DELAY COMPLIANCE WITH COURT
ORDERS BY SIMPLY FILING AN
APPEAL, PERPETUATING SOME
DISCRIMINATORY ELECTION SYSTEMS,
AND UNDERMINING THE JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY. THE NEED FOR THIS
REFORM IS CLEARLY ILLUSTRATED
AND HAS BEEN ILLUSTRATED BY
DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS IN
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING
PALM SPRINGS AND NOW HUNTINGTON
BEACH. AB 1079 ENSURES THAT
FUTURE VIOLATIONS ARE SWIFTLY
CORRECTED AND COMMUNITIES ARE NO
LONGER FORCED TO WAIT YEARS FOR
JUSTICE. HUNTINGTON BEACH, WHICH
CURRENTLY FACES ALLEGATIONS THAT
IT'S VIOLATING THE CALIFORNIA
VOTING RIGHTS ACT, CVRA. FROM
HERE ON, I WOULD SAY WE'LL USE
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM TO DELAY
GOING TO DISTRICT ELECTIONS
DESPITE THE ORANGE COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT INDICATING THAT
THE VOTING RIGHTS PLAINTIFFS ARE
LIKELY TO PREVAIL. WE WILL SEE A
LONG A LONG DELAYED PROCESS THAT
WILL PREVENT JUSTICE BEING GIVEN
TO THOSE VOTERS. WHAT OTHER
CITIES WILL LIKELY DO THE SAME?
DELAYING JUSTICE FOR MINORITY
VOTERS? AB 1079 IS NECESSARY TO
STOP THE DISTURBING AND COSTLY
TREND. IN PAST YEARS. CVRA
CASES, THE LATINO LEGISLATIVE
CAUCUS, THE LEGISLATIVE BLACK
CAUCUS, THE ASIAN PACIFIC
ISLANDER LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS HAVE
FILED JOINT AMICUS BRIEFS
SUPPORTING DISTRICT ELECTIONS.
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. PLEASE PROCEED.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. IN WILLIAMS
VERSUS CITY OF DALLAS, THE
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT CONCLUDED
ITS OPINION BY SAYING, IN NO WAY
WILL THIS COURT TELL AFRICAN
AMERICANS AND HISPANICS THAT
THEY MUST WAIT ANY LONGER FOR
THEIR VOTING RIGHTS IN THE CITY
OF DALLAS. SIMILARLY, IN HOWARD
VERSUS CITY OF PALMDALE, A
CALIFORNIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT
CASE, THE COURT SAID THE
CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF PALMDALE
DESERVE TO HAVE A LAWFULLY
ELECTED CITY COUNCIL AS SOON AS
IS PRACTICAL. LIKEWISE, IN PICO
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION VERSUS
CITY OF SANTA MONICA, ANOTHER
CALIFORNIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT
CASE, THE COURT STATED. WHAT
SEEMS TO ME TO BE OBVIOUS, IT IS
ALSO IMPERATIVE THAT ONCE A
VIOLATION OF VOTING RIGHTS IS
FOUND, REMEDIES BE IMPLEMENTED
PROMPTLY LEST MINORITY RESIDENTS
CONTINUE TO BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR
FAIR REPRESENTATION. FOLLOWING
THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION IN
WILLIAMS VERSUS CITY OF DALLAS,
THE LATINO AND AFRICAN AMERICAN
RESIDENTS OF DALLAS, TEXAS GOT
THEIR VOTING RIGHTS PROMPTLY,
BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE IN
CALIFORNIA STATE COURT, THE
RESIDENTS OF PALMDALE HAD TO
WAIT THREE YEARS BEFORE THEIR
FIRST DISTRICT ELECTIONS. AND IN
SANTA MONICA, LATINO RESIDENTS
ARE STILL WAITING. NOW, MORE
THAN SIX YEARS AFTER THE LA
SUPERIOR COURT FOUND THE AT
LARGE ELECTION SYSTEM VIOLATES
THE CALIFORNIA VOTING RIGHTS
ACT. OTHER CITIES ARE FIGURING
THIS OUT, TOO, RECOGNIZING THAT
THEY DON'T HAVE TO DEFEAT A CVRA
CLAIM TO CLING TO POWER. THEY
JUST HAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AND
PAY EXPENSIVE LAWYERS TO DELAY.
THE LEGISLATURE LONG AGO
RECOGNIZED THAT SUPERIOR COURT
DECISIONS CONCERNING THE RIGHT
TO HOLD ELECTIVE OFFICE SHOULD
NOT BE STAYED WHILE A CASE
TRAVELS THROUGH THE APPELLATE
COURTS, LEST THAT STAY OBSTRUCT
THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO
REPRESENTATION. BUT BECAUSE
VOTING RIGHTS WERE NOT EVEN A
THING WHEN THE APPELLATE STAY
WAS PUT INTO LAW PRIOR TO THE
CIVIL WAR, THAT EXCEPTION IS
LIMITED TO QUO WARRANTO CASES.
AB 1079 UPDATES THE LAW IN LIGHT
OF THE FACT THAT CALIFORNIA NOW
HAS TWO ROBUST STATUTES THAT
PROTECT VOTING RIGHTS THE
CALIFORNIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND
THE FAIR MAPS ACT, AND IT DOES
SO IN A CAREFUL MANNER, ALLOWING
STAY WHENEVER THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE
BELIEVE IT IS NECESSARY. I HOPE
THIS COMMITTEE RECOGNIZES THAT
ELECTIONS DON'T WAIT FOR THE
APPELLATE PROCESS, SO VOTING
RIGHTS OUGHT NOT TO WAIT EITHER.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE
ANY SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION?
PARDON ME. OH. I'M SORRY. I
MEANT TO SAY SUPPORT. DO WE HAVE
ANY SPEAKERS IN SUPPORT? MY
APOLOGIES. NOW, SPEAKERS IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME TO THE
TABLE, YOU'RE ÞCOME TO.
GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING,
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS. SYLVIA
SOLIS, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA. THE CITY OPPOSES
THIS BILL AS IT WILL INTERVENE
IN THE CITY'S ONGOING LITIGATION
RELATING TO THE CVRA AND WOULD
FORCE THE CITY TO IMPLEMENT THE
TRIAL COURT'S ORDER BEFORE THE
CASE IS FULLY RESOLVED THROUGH
APPEAL, WHICH COULD LEAD TO
UNNECESSARY AND POTENTIALLY
CHAOTIC RESULTS. I'D LIKE TO
CLARIFY THAT THE SUPREME COURT
DID GRANT REVIEW OF THE CVRA
ISSUE, AND CONCLUDED THAT THE
COURT OF APPEAL HAD APPLIED THE
WRONG STANDARD, BUT ALSO HELD
THAT WE EXPRESS NO OPINION ON
THE ULTIMATE QUESTION OF WHETHER
THE CITY'S AT LARGE VOTING
SYSTEM IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
CVRA. THE SUPREME COURT AND THE
COURT OF APPEAL. EXCUSE ME. I
JUST CLOSED OUT MY DOCUMENT,
REMANDED SO THAT THE TRIAL COURT
COULD EVALUATE THE CVR, A CLAIM
UNDER THE CORRECT STANDARD,
HOWEVER, HAD AB SEVEN 1079 BEEN
IN EFFECT. WHEN THE TRIAL COURT
MADE THIS DECISION, THE CITY
WOULD HAVE HAD TO MAKE RADICAL
CHANGES TO ITS ELECTORAL SYSTEM.
AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE COURT
WOULD HAVE ORDERED THE CITY TO
SCRAP ITS 73 YEAR OLD AT LARGE
SYSTEM TO ADOPT A NEW SEVEN
DISTRICT SYSTEM, ADOPT A
DISTRICT MAP DRAWN BY A
PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT WITH NO
PARTICIPATION OR INPUT FROM
VOTERS IN VIOLATION OF THE
ELECTIONS CODE. CODE HOLD A
SPECIAL ELECTION IN JULY 2019,
AND TO THROW THE CURRENT COUNCIL
MEMBERS OFF THE COUNCIL BY
AUGUST 2019. WE WOULD HAVE HAD
TO AMEND OUR CITY CHARTER,
UNDERTAKE AN EXPENSIVE VOTER
EDUCATION CAMPAIGN TO EXPLAIN
THE NEW DISTRICT AND HOW IT
WORKS. CANDIDATES FOR ALL SEVEN
DISTRICTS WOULD HAVE TO
REGISTER, RAISE MONEY CAMPAIGN.
IN THE FIVE MONTHS BETWEEN THE
JUDGMENT AND THE ELECTION, THE
CITY WOULD HAVE TO SPEND TIME
AND RESOURCES PREPARING FOR THE
ELECTION. ALL SEVEN CURRENT DULY
ELECTED COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD
HAVE BEEN OUSTED FROM THE
COUNCIL AS SOON AS THE NEW
COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD HAVE BEEN
SWORN IN. WHEN THE COURT OF
APPEAL REVERSED THE TRIAL COURT
IN JULY OF 2020, THE CITY WOULD
HAVE HAD TO AMEND ITS CHARTER
AGAIN TO GO BACK TO AN AT LARGE
SYSTEM AND THEN START THE
PROCESS OF UNDOING ALL OF THE
THINGS IT HAD DONE TO IMPLEMENT
THE DISTRICT BASED SYSTEM,
THROWING OFF ALL SEVEN OF THE
COUNCIL MEMBERS OFF THE COUNCIL
WOULD HAVE NEGATED THE VOTES OF
THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS IN SANTA
MONICA. AB 1079, WHILE WELL
INTENTIONED, WILL DEPRIVE
VOTERS, INCLUDING LATINO AND
OTHER MINORITY VOTERS, OF THEIR
CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVES FOR MORE
THAN A YEAR, AND IT WOULD HAVE
IMPOSED SIGNIFICANT UNNECESSARY
EXPENSES AND CONFUSION ON THE
CITY AND THE CANDIDATES
THEMSELVES. IT WOULD RESULT IN
EXPENSIVE AND POTENTIALLY
TEMPORARY OVERHAUL OF A VOTING
SYSTEM THAT COULD LEAVE MINORITY
VOTERS IN THE CITY WORSE OFF
THAN UNDER THE AT LARGE SYSTEM.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER
SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION? PLEASE
COME FORWARD. SEEING NONE, BRING
IT FORWARD, MISS PAPIN. I JUST
THIS MAY SEEM OBVIOUS, BUT
WOULDN'T IT, IF YOU ALLOWED ALL
THIS TO GO FORWARD AS THE
OPPOSITION WITNESS JUST
TESTIFIED, WOULDN'T IT THEN BE
MOOT AT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL?
I'M. BUT IF I MAY, MADAM. GO
AHEAD, MR. BURR. I ACTUALLY
WANTED TO ALLOW MY WITNESS TO
RESPOND. MY APOLOGIES. YEAH. SO
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. NO,
IT WOULD NOT RENDER IT MOOT. SO
IN THE EVENT THAT PLAINTIFFS
PREVAIL IN A CVRA CASE AT THE
TRIAL COURT LEVEL, AND THEN THE
APPELLATE COURT REVERSED. THE
SYSTEM WOULD, COULD, COULD
REVERT TO THE AT LARGE ELECTION
SYSTEM FOLLOWING THE APPEAL.
WHAT AB 1079 ADDRESSES IS ONLY
THE INTERIM BETWEEN THE TRIAL
COURT JUDGMENT AND ANY DECISION
BY A COURT OF APPEAL. IT IT
SIMPLY DEFERS TO THE TRIAL
COURT'S DECISION THAT THAT THAT
THAT AT-LARGE ELECTION SYSTEM IS
VIOLATIVE OF THE OF THE
CALIFORNIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT. IF
UPON APPEAL, THAT DECISION IS
REVERSED, THE ELECTION SYSTEM
CAN REVERT BACK TO THE AT LARGE
SYSTEM. BUT IN THE MEANTIME,
YOU'VE GOT ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT
HAVE ALREADY BEEN ELECTED,
RIGHT? YES. AND THEY AND THEY
REMAIN REGARDLESS. AB 1079 DOES
NOTHING TO CHANGE THAT. WHAT
DOES IT DO TO THE PUBLIC? WILL.
OKAY. I THINK I'M GOING TO DEFER
TO MR. ALL RIGHT. MR. GRAVERT.
GO AHEAD. SO I'M NOT SUPPORTING
THIS TODAY. I, I, I THINK THE
INTENTION OF THE AUTHOR IS A IS
A GOOD ONE. THE EFFECT THAT THIS
HAS ON SANTA MONICA IS REALLY
TO, I THINK, INTRUDE INTO A VERY
LONG PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN
COMPLICATED GIVEN THE DYNAMICS
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA. I
WAS UP UNTIL 4:00 IN THE
MORNING, AND I ACTUALLY
APPRECIATE THE TWO. MR. PANETTA
AND THE SPONSORS OF THE BILL
BRIEFING ME LAST NIGHT. BUT I
READ THE ENTIRE DOCKET LAST
NIGHT. AND LITERALLY, I MEAN,
NOT THE ENTIRE DOCKET, BUT THE
STUFF THAT'S AVAILABLE IN
PUBLIC. WHAT HAPPENED IN SANTA
MONICA WAS A CASE WHERE IT'S
UNLIKE CASES LIKE PALMDALE AND
SOME OTHER PLACES WHERE WE
ACTUALLY HAVE MAJORITY MINORITY
DISTRICTS. THE LATINO COMMUNITY
IN SANTA MONICA IS ABOUT 14% OF
THE DISTRICT. THERE'S ONE
COMMUNITY THAT IS ABOUT THERE,
THERE, IN WHICH THERE'S ABOUT
30% MAJORITY IN 1 IN 1
NEIGHBORHOOD, DEPENDING ON HOW
YOU DRAW THE DISTRICTS AND THE
REST OF THE LATINO COMMUNITY IS
DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA. I DON'T KNOW,
FRANKLY. AND SO WHAT'S HAPPENED
WAS IN THE TRIAL COURT
ORIGINALLY, THE CITY WAS FOUND
TO HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH THE
WITH THE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
VOTING RIGHTS ACT. IT WENT TO
THE COURT OF APPEALS. THE COURT
OF APPEALS STRUCK DOWN THE TRIAL
COURT ON A NUMBER OF BASES. IT
WENT BACK THEN TO THE SUPREME
COURT, WHICH ESSENTIALLY FOUND
THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS HAD
USED THE WRONG STANDARD, HAD
BASICALLY USED THE FEDERAL
STANDARD RATHER THAN A STATE
STANDARD, WHICH WAS MORE
PROTECTIVE OF MINORITY
COMMUNITIES, AND ALSO FOUND ON
CERTAIN RESPECTS THAT THE CITY
WAS CORRECT AS WELL, AND
ESSENTIALLY REMANDED IT BACK
DOWN TO THE COURT OF APPEALS TO
A TO ACTUALLY EVALUATE WHAT THE
CITY, WHETHER OR NOT THE VOTING
RIGHTS ACT IS BEING COMPLIED
WITH BY THE CITY, BY THE TRIAL
COURT. AND SO THAT IS WHERE IT
IS NOW. THE THING THAT IS
DIFFERENT, I THINK, ABOUT SANTA
MONICA IS YOU HAVE AND OF
COURSE, THE COURT OF APPEAL WENT
THROUGH THE ENTIRE HISTORY AND
FOUND THAT THERE WAS NOT AN
INTENTION TO VIOLATE TO DEPRIVE
THE LATINO COMMUNITY OF VOTING
RIGHTS AND WENT THROUGH AN
ENTIRE HISTORY WHERE REALLY,
EVEN MEMBERS OF THE LATINO
COMMUNITY WHO WERE ELECTED AT
THE TIME WANTED THE FULL
NON-DISTRICT ELECTIONS BECAUSE
THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT MAKING
SURE THAT IF YOU HAD DISTRICT
ELECTIONS, THAT THAT WOULD
IMPEDE PUTTING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE
CITY. AND SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE
CRITERION THAT WAS THERE. I
FRANKLY DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR
NOT, IN APPLYING THE NEW
STANDARDS, WHETHER OR NOT THE AT
LARGE SYSTEM WILL PREVAIL OR
WHETHER THEY WILL HAVE TO GO TO
A DISTRICT ELECTION, BECAUSE
IT'S A COMPLICATED CITY, BECAUSE
YOU HAVE SUCH A SMALL MINORITY
AND IT'S DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT
THE ENTIRE CITY. AND WHEN YOU
ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE RECENT
ELECTIONS IN SANTA MONICA, WE
ACTUALLY HAVE, YOU KNOW, GOING
BACK TO 2014, WE ACTUALLY HAVE
WITH 14% OF THE VOTERS BEING
LATINO IN THE DISTRICT. IN 2014,
WE HAD TWO MEMBERS THAT WERE
LATINO. 2016, WE HAD ONE, TWO,
ONE, TWO. AGAIN, IN 2018 WE HAD
ONE TWO. 312, ONE, TWO THREE.
THEN IN 2024, THEN THEN IN 2022
THREE. AND NOW IT'S BACK DOWN TO
ONE. SO AND THE COMING DOWN TO
ONE WAS BECAUSE TWO OF THE
LATINOS DID NOT RUN FOR
REELECTION AGAIN. SO THERE IS A
COMPLICATED PROCESS THAT THE
TRIAL COURT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH
TO EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT THERE
HAS BEEN DILUTION OF THE LATINO
VOTE IN THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA. AND WHAT I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT IS THAT THIS BASICALLY IS
DEPRIVES BOTH SIDES, AND I THINK
IS JUST BAD PRECEDENT TO DEPRIVE
PEOPLE OF THE RIGHT TO SEEK
APPEAL. I MEAN, IN THIS CASE,
YOU KNOW, VOTING RIGHTS IS A
COMPLICATED AREA. AND SO, YOU
KNOW, I THINK THAT THIS SHOULD
PLAY OUT IN THE COURTS. I DON'T
KNOW WHETHER WHETHER IT IS GOING
TO RESULT IN THE AT LARGE
DISTRICTS BEING HELD, THE AT
LARGE VOTING BEING HELD UP, OR
WHETHER YOU NEED TO GO TO A
DISTRICT ELECTION. BUT THE OTHER
THING THAT THE SUPREME COURT
SAID WAS THAT THE TEST IS NOT
JUST BETWEEN DISTRICT ELECTIONS
AND AT LARGE, IT'S WHETHER OR
NOT THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE, AN
ALTERNATIVE FORM OF ELECTION
THAT WOULD RESULT IN ESSENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANTLY LESS DILUTION OF A
MINORITY POPULATION. SO WITH
THAT, I MEAN, I'M NOT ABLE TO
SUPPORT THIS TODAY. I DON'T
THINK THAT I THINK THAT THIS HAS
BEEN A COMPLICATED WE HAVE A
PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY IN THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA THAT I THINK
THAT IF THAT IS IN FAVOR OF
MAINTAINING THE DISTRICT
ELECTIONS, AND I DON'T THINK IN
AT LEAST RECENT ELECTIONS, THAT
WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD AN ISSUE
THERE, BUT I THINK THEY'VE GOT
TO GO THROUGH THE STATISTICAL
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINE WHETHER
OR NOT VOTING RIGHTS HAVE BEEN,
YOU KNOW, THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH. SO VERY
GOOD. THANK YOU FOR THAT. ALL
RIGHT. NEXT, MR. HERBARIUM. GO
AHEAD. I THINK, IF I MAY, YOU
MAY GO AHEAD. I AGAIN, I JUST
WOULD LIKE TO BRING THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS BACK TO AB
1079. THIS IS NOT SPECIFIC TO
ANY CITY. IT'S ABOUT
UNDERSTANDING THE CALIFORNIA
VOTING RIGHTS ACT THAT WAS
ADOPTED 25 YEARS AGO. AND AN
EXAMPLE I'D LIKE TO GIVE IN MY
OWN COMMUNITY. THIS REALLY WHEN
IT, YOU KNOW, IN THE SPIRIT AND
THE INTENT OF THIS LAW 25 YEARS
AGO WAS TO BRING MORE PEOPLE OF
COLOR IN REPRESENTATION,
ESPECIALLY TO HAVE THE
ELECTORATE, YOU KNOW, BE
REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT OUR
COMMUNITIES OF DEMOGRAPHICS LOOK
LIKE, WHICH I THINK WE CAN ALL
EMBODY IN, IN SPIRIT. AND IT
TOOK OFF MOSTLY IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA BECAUSE AS WE CAN
SEE, THE LEGISLATURE INCREASED
FROM FOUR LATINOS TO ALMOST 38
LATINOS. SO THE CALIFORNIA
VOTING RIGHTS ACT HAD AN IMPACT
AND AN INFLUENCE. BUT DURING
THAT PROCESS, THERE'S BEEN VERY
MINIMAL TWEAKS TO THIS LAW. IN
FACT, SIX YEARS AGO, WE
DISCOVERED A LOOPHOLE AROUND
GERRYMANDERING. BELIEVE IT OR
NOT, IN MY OWN HOME TOWN, CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY, NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, HAS SEEN VERY LITTLE
OF DISTRICT FROM AT LARGE TO
DISTRICT ELECTIONS, AND WE
STARTED MOVING MOST OF OUR
CITIES. WE HAVE TEN OF THE 19
CITIES IN CONTRA COSTA, AND TO
THIS DAY WE HAVE SEEN A LOT MORE
MINORITY REPRESENTATION, THAT
IT'S REALLY A MAJORITY OF CONTRA
COSTA IN MY OWN CITY. WHY? IF WE
WANT TO FOCUS ON LATINO OR ANY
ETHNIC GROUP, LATINOS IN MY
COMMUNITY WERE SPORADICALLY
DISPERSED THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
BUT HOWEVER, THROUGH THE VOTING
RIGHTS ACT AND GOING FROM AT
LARGE ELECTIONS, WE GOT TO SEE
THE FIRST AFRICAN AMERICAN. WE
GOT TO SEE THE FIRST AAPI MEMBER
AND MYSELF BEING THE FIRST
LATINA, THE FIRST LATINA ON THE
CITY COUNCIL, THE FIRST LATINA
ON THE COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION. SO THIS LAW IS REALLY
IMPORTANT, AND WE CAN'T APPLY IT
TO SPECIFICALLY TO CITIES. IT'S
IN THE GREATER GOOD OF THE
STATE. AND THE LOOPHOLE AROUND
GERRYMANDERING OUR STATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, BECAUSE OF THE
CASE STUDY OF MARTINEZ, HAD TO
COME BACK TO THIS LAW AND REVISE
IT BECAUSE OF GERRYMANDERING WAS
A LAW ALLOWED IN THIS. AND SO
I'M SIMPLY BRINGING THIS PIECE
OF THE LEGISLATURE TO ASK THAT
WE THIS IS A LOOPHOLE THAT WE
CAN STAY IN A COURT SYSTEM AND,
YOU KNOW, MARGINALIZED COMMUNITY
MEMBERS THROUGH THE VOTING
RIGHTS ACT. AND THAT IS NOT THE
SPIRIT AND THE INTENT OF THIS
LAW, JUST LIKE GERRYMANDERING
WAS NOT THE SPIRIT AND THE
INTENT OF THE LAW. AND I WOULD
ALSO LIKE OUR WITNESS TO ADD ON
TO SO I WAS ACTUALLY AND AM THE
LEAD COUNSEL ON THE PICO
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION VERSUS
SANTA MONICA CASE. AND I THANK
ASSEMBLY MEMBER CHÁVEZ. I KNOW
IT'S A LOT OF A LOT OF MATERIAL
TO READ THROUGH. AND I AND I
THINK THANK YOU FOR THE
CONVERSATION YESTERDAY. MUCH OF
WHAT ASSEMBLYMEMBERS CHÁVEZ SAID
IS ACCURATE, SOME OF IT NOT, NOT
QUITE. AND IT'S NOT CRITICIZING.
I UNDERSTAND FOUR IN THE MORNING
ONE ONE THING I DO NEED TO
CORRECT WHAT THE WHAT THE
SUPERIOR COURT FOUND AT THE TIME
OF TRIAL IN 2018, THERE HAD BEEN
71 MEMBERS OF THE SANTA MONICA
CITY COUNCIL ELECTED SINCE THE
AT-LARGE SYSTEM WAS ESTABLISHED
IN 1946. OUT OF THOSE 71, ONE
WAS LATINO. HE HE WON IN 1990.
HE GOT HE GOT OUSTED IN 94. SO
YOU KNOW, LOOK, THIS IS NOT THE
PLACE TO LITIGATE THE SANTA
MONICA CASE. AND AS ASSEMBLY
MEMBER ÁVILA FARÍAS SAID, THIS
BILL IS NOT ABOUT SPECIFICALLY
THE SANTA MONICA CASE. THIS IS
ABOUT CLOSING A LOOPHOLE THAT
ALLOWS A AN ELECTION SYSTEM THAT
HAS BEEN DECLARED BY A COURT OF
COMPETENT JURISDICTION AS BEING
ILLEGAL AND RACIALLY
DISCRIMINATORY, TO CONTINUE
BEING USED WHILE AN APPELLATE
PROCESS PLAYS OUT. VOTING RIGHTS
SIMPLY OUGHT NOT HAVE TO WAIT.
THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR.
BRADY. APPRECIATE IT, MADAM
CHAIR. AND THANK YOU TO THE
AUTHOR. I KNOW HOW PASSIONATE
AND HOW PERSONAL THIS IS FOR
YOU. AND I DO THINK THAT THAT
THE CORE OF THE BILL IS REALLY
GOOD. AND I DO THINK THAT YOU
AND WHAT ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ABREU
JUST LAID OUT, I THINK IS REALLY
IMPORTANT AS WELL. AND I DON'T
THINK THAT YOU TWO ARE ACTUALLY
DISAGREEING. AND I WOULD VENTURE
TO SAY THAT THIS BILL REALLY
SHOULD TRY TO FIGURE OUT. AND
I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO TAKE
AMENDMENTS FROM THE DAIS, AND WE
HAVEN'T HAD A TIME TO TALK. SO
THINK ABOUT HOW THIS BILL CAN IN
SOME WAYS EXEMPT THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA FROM ACTUALLY
FORCING THEM INTO A SITUATION
THAT I THINK IS REALLY UNFAIR. I
DO THINK THAT THEY ARE STUCK IN
THIS GRAY AREA. I THINK THAT
THEY ARE NOT SITUATED IN A WAY
LIKE ANY OTHER CITY THAT THIS
WILL IMPACT. I THINK THE FUTURE
IMPACTS OF THIS BILL ARE REALLY
GOOD, AND I THINK GETTING MORE
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, MORE
REPRESENTATION AT EVERY LEVEL IS
SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ALL GET
BEHIND. I THINK THAT THIS IS
UNFAIR TO THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA AS I SEE IT. JUST
OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING, THIS
SHOULD NOT BE FORCING THEM TO DO
SOMETHING WHILE THIS CASE IS
ACTUALLY PLAYING OUT. AND TO THE
EXTENT THAT THIS IS AN ATTEMPT
IN AN ATTEMPT TO MITIGATE OR
INTERVENE IN THAT CASE, I DON'T
THINK THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY A
GOOD USE OF OUR LEGISLATIVE
POWER. AND I DO THINK THAT
SOMETHING THAT THE WITNESS SAID
IS INCORRECT. BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION MEMBER TONY
VASQUEZ, WHO IS LATINO, WAS AN
ELECTED MEMBER OF CITY OF SANTA
MONICA. SO AND THERE'S OTHER
EXAMPLES. SO I JUST DON'T I
DON'T THINK THAT THIS SHOULD BE
USED AS A VEHICLE TO INTERVENE
IN THE SANTA MONICA CASE, BUT I
DO ACTUALLY REALLY APPRECIATE
THE BILL AND WHAT IT'S TRYING TO
DO. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE
CAN BE A COMPROMISE HERE OR
SOMETHING WORKED OUT, I DON'T
THINK THAT SANTA MONICA SHOULD
GET IN THE WAY OF THE BILL, BUT
I ALSO DON'T THINK THE BILL
SHOULD INTERVENE IN THAT CASE.
AND I DO THINK THAT THAT IS A
REALLY IMPORTANT THING THAT THE
MEMBER WHO REPRESENTS SANTA
MONICA HAS LAID OUT, I THINK,
QUITE ELOQUENTLY. SO I WILL
SUPPORT THE BILL. BUT TO THE
EXTENT THAT YOU CAN FIGURE OUT
HOW THIS CAN DEAL WITH THE SANTA
MONICA ISSUE, I THINK IS AN
IMPORTANT ONE, AND I CAN
APPRECIATE THAT ALSO, JUST
BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID, WE
STUMBLED ON IT JUST LIKE I ON
THE GERRYMANDERING. RIGHT? WE
WENT THROUGH AT LARGE TO
DISTRICT ELECTIONS. AND NEVER IN
MY MIND DID I THINK A CITY, A
JURISDICTION WOULD GERRYMANDER.
AND THEY DID. AND IT PROMPTED
THE STATE LEGISLATURE SIX YEARS
AGO TO INTERVENE IN THIS. SO
SOMETIMES WE DISCOVER THE THINGS
AND BUT I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE,
AND I'M VERY OPEN TO, TO WORKING
ON IT FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU, MR.
SALEH. YEAH, JUST BRIEFLY, FOR
THE SAME REASON. IT'S NOT FAIR
TO SANTA MONICA. IT'S NOT FAIR
TO OTHER COMMUNITIES, TOO. I
HAVE COMMUNITIES IN MY DISTRICT,
AND THEY GET THESE SHAKEDOWN
LAWSUITS BY PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS
LIKE THIS GUY. AND THEY
HONESTLY, IT'S EXTORTION BECAUSE
IF THEY DON'T GO INTO DISTRICTS,
THEY'RE GOING TO GET SUED AND
THEY GOT TO PAY OUTRAGEOUS
ATTORNEY'S FEES. AND THE COURTS
HAVE SORT OF TAKEN THE OPINION
WHEN I'VE READ THESE CASES, THAT
YOU EITHER GO INTO DISTRICTS OR
YOU'RE GOING TO BE AUTOMATICALLY
FOUND TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE
CALIFORNIA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT. AND
IT'S TOTAL CRAP. IT'S TOTAL
CRAP. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT
AT DISTRICTS OR DISTRICTS
INSTEAD OF AT LARGE IS GOOD IN
EVERY SITUATION. IT NEEDS TO BE
A CASE BY CASE DETERMINATION,
AND THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST A
MINIMUM LEVEL OF PROOF REQUIRED
THAT THERE IS SOME SORT OF
DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT. WITH THE
CURRENT SYSTEM, THERE SHOULD BE
SOME REQUIREMENT TO PROVE THAT
BEFORE FORCING CITIES TO GO INTO
DISTRICTS, BECAUSE I THINK MY
COLLEAGUES MADE GOOD POINTS
ABOUT SOMETIMES COMMUNITIES ARE
DISPERSED, THEY MIGHT NOT BE IN
ONE PARTICULAR AREA AND YOU
CAN'T DRAW A DISTRICT AROUND
THAT. SO THIS IS A TERRIBLE LAW.
I THINK YOU'VE HIGHLIGHTED SOME
OF THE PROBLEMS TODAY, BUT I
DON'T WANT US TO JUST FIND A
LOOPHOLE OR EXCEPTION FOR SANTA
MONICA. THERE ARE OTHER
COMMUNITIES, TOO THAT WILL BE
TREATED UNFAIRLY BY THIS LAW, SO
I'LL BE OPPOSING IT. AND YEAH, I
THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.
THANK YOU. AND I NEVER THINK
IT'S A GOOD LOOK FOR AN ATTORNEY
WHO LOSES IN COURT TO COME TO US
AND ASK FOR AN ADVANTAGE. I
DON'T, I DON'T I DON'T THINK
IT'S A GOOD LOOK. AND WE SHOULD
NOT BE CHANGING THE RULES OF THE
GAME IN THE MIDDLE LIKE THIS. I
DON'T LIKE IT. SORRY ABOUT KHN.
THANK YOU. SO I HAVE TO SAY, I'M
REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE THAT FIRST
OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY I'M YOUR
NEIGHBOR. AND I SAW WHAT
HAPPENED IN YOUR CITY AND OTHER
CITIES IN CONTRA COSTA. I'VE HAD
THE PRIVILEGE OF WATCHING THOSE
CITIES REALLY BENEFIT FROM THE
WORK THAT AND THE ADVOCACY OF
PEOPLE WHO CAME IN AND SAID, WE
DESERVE REPRESENTATION AND THIS
ISN'T WORKING FOR US. AND I WILL
SAY WE HAVE OUR FIRST LATINA
RIGHT NOW ON THE SAN RAMON CITY
COUNCIL. THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY
POSSIBLE BECAUSE WHEN YOU RUN IN
A DISTRICT, IT'S A DIFFERENT
GAME. IT REALLY IS. YOU CAN DO
THE GRASSROOTS WORK TO WIN. AND
I THINK ALL OF THAT IS
PHENOMENAL. BUT THIS ACTUALLY
DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT UNDERLYING
QUESTION, RIGHT. THIS DOESN'T
ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER
WE SHOULD BE DOING DISTRICT
ELECTIONS. THAT'S YOU KNOW, WE
ALL KNOW THAT. AND I GUESS I'M
CONFUSED BY A COUPLE OF THINGS.
SO FIRST OF ALL, I AM
UNCOMFORTABLE BY THE FACT THAT
THIS WE ONLY SEEM TO HAVE ONE
EXAMPLE WHERE THIS IS A PROBLEM.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, AT HOME
WHERE WE'VE HAD THIS HAPPEN IN
MANY CITIES, WE HAVEN'T SEEN
THIS PROBLEM WHERE IT'S GONE TO
COURT, THERE'S BEEN AN APPEAL,
AND VOTERS HAVE BEEN
DISENFRANCHIZED DURING THAT
APPELLATE PROCESS. ARE THERE
OTHER EXAMPLES SUCH THAT WE'RE
NOT PICKING ON SANTA MONICA?
ANYBODY, IF I MAY? YES. I'VE LET
MY WITNESS. YES. GO AHEAD. I
DON'T KNOW. ANYONE CAN ADDRESS
IT. OKAY. GO AHEAD. SO, YOU
KNOW, I MENTIONED PALMDALE IS
ANOTHER ONE. SORRY, I MENTIONED
PALMDALE IS ANOTHER ONE. AND WE
EXPECT, FRANKLY, HUNTINGTON
BEACH WILL SOON. AND WHAT IS THE
STATUS OF THE PALMDALE? I MEAN,
I GOT A GREAT OVERVIEW FROM
COUNCIL ACROSS THE TABLE ABOUT
THE STATUS OF THE SANTA MONICA
LITIGATION. AND IN THAT CASE,
PART OF WHAT IS MAKING ME
UNCOMFORTABLE IS THAT THIS BILL
AND THIS IS MY NEXT QUESTION, IS
IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR DISCRETION
BY THE APPELLATE COURT. AND
THAT'S MAKING ME SUPER
UNCOMFORTABLE, BECAUSE I THINK
THAT THE RIGHT TO APPEAL IS A
REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT ONE.
AND IT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT WE DON'T
TRUST ONE INDIVIDUAL JUDGE TO
MAKE ANY DETERMINATION ON
ANYONE'S RIGHTS. THAT IS THE WAY
OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS SET UP.
EVERYBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO AT
LEAST ONE APPEAL, AND THAT
SHOULD BE A MEANINGFUL APPEAL.
AND SO THIS IDEA THAT NO MATTER
WHAT THAT TRIAL COURT DID, YOU
NEVER GET A STAY, THERE'S NO
JUDICIAL DISCRETION HERE IS
MAKING ME UNCOMFORTABLE, AT
LEAST A STANDARD. THAT SAID, YOU
KNOW, THEY HAVE TO FIND A
LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD MAKE
ME FEEL BETTER THAN THIS IDEA
THAT THE APPELLATE COURTS NOW
MEANINGLESS, BECAUSE IN THE
INTERIM, WE'RE ELECTING ALL
THESE PEOPLE, EVEN IF WE SEE IN
A COMPLETE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
IN THE COURT. SURE. SO ONE, THIS
BILL WOULD NOT ELIMINATE
APPELLATE RIGHTS. APPEALS COULD
GO FORWARD. BUT YOU'RE ELECTING
PEOPLE IN A NEW WAY WITHOUT THE
APPEAL. SO THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT
MEANINGLESS. AND TO YOUR POINT
ABOUT THE CURRENT, THE LAW
CURRENTLY ALLOWS AN APPELLATE
COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
SUPERSEDEAS. THIS BILL WOULD NOT
CHANGE THAT. IN FACT, I BELIEVE
ONE OF THE SECTIONS 917 POINT
SOMETHING SAYS THAT NOTHING IN
HERE, NOTHING, NOTHING IN THIS,
IN THIS CHAPTER, PREVENTS AN
APPELLATE COURT FROM GRANTING A
WRIT. AND WHAT'S THE STANDARD
FOR THAT? I'VE NEVER ACTUALLY.
SO WHAT IS THE STANDARD FOR THE
COURT TO DO THAT? SURE. SO FIRST
THE COURT LOOKS AT WHETHER THERE
IS AN AUTOMATIC STAY. RIGHT. AND
THIS WOULD IN FACT ELIMINATE
THAT AUTOMATIC. RIGHT. AND THEN
THE COURT THE COURT OF APPEAL
CAN GRANT A DISCRETIONARY STAY
EVEN WHERE, WHERE THERE IS NO
AUTOMATIC STAY. AND THAT
DISCRETIONARY STAY IS BASED ON A
LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS AND A
WEIGHING OF THE OF THE PUBLIC
INTEREST, BALANCING THOSE
FACTORS. OKAY. AND YOU'RE SAYING
THAT'S IN HERE THAT THEY CAN
STILL DO IT, BECAUSE THAT IS
SURELY NOT HOW I READ THIS. SO
THAT IS AN EXISTING LAW. AND
YOU'RE NOT SUPERSEDING THAT WITH
THIS CHANGE IN THE STANDARD,
WHICH IS HOW I READ THIS
LEGISLATION, AND I'M SEEING THE
CONSULTANT LOOK VERY QUESTIONING
OF WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID. SO I
WOULD NEED SOMEBODY TO CLARIFY
THAT THAT'S STILL TRUE, GIVEN
THAT YOU'RE CHANGING THE LAW AND
NOTHING IN THIS BILL SAYS IT
STILL STANDS. AS FAR AS I READ
IT. BUT IT WOULD TYPEKIT. YEAH.
SO IT WOULD YOU CAN YOU CAN
NICK. YOU GOT TO GO. BUT EASIER
THAT WAY. THE APPELLATE COURT
WOULD RETAIN THE ABILITY TO STEP
IN IF, AS HE SAID, THE PROPER
STANDARD WAS MET. THIS IS SIMPLY
PREVENTING THE AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC STAY. OKAY. WITH THE
FURTHER DISCRETION OF THE TRIAL
JUDGE, IF THEY TRULY THINK IT'S
A WOBBLER, CAN ACTUALLY SEE THAT
AS WELL. I DID SEE THE TRIAL
JUDGE POWER. OKAY, THAT DOES
MAKE ME FEEL A LOT BETTER. AND
THAT'S IMPORTANT THAT THAT BE
THERE. BECAUSE I JUST THINK THAT
THERE HAS TO BE SOME BEALL. I
THINK BECAUSE I ACTUALLY
DISAGREE WITH YOU, I THINK THAT
AN APPEAL WHERE THERE IS NO STAY
ABILITY TO STAY IS MEANINGLESS.
THAT'S MY OWN OPINION. BUT WE
CAN DISAGREE ABOUT THAT. AND BUT
I STILL REMAIN LIKE MY
COLLEAGUE, CONCERNED. SO WAIT,
WHAT? YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE
QUESTION ABOUT PALMDALE BECAUSE
I INTERRUPTED YOU? WHAT'S THE
STATUS OF THE LITIGATION IN
PALMDALE IS RESOLVED? MY POINT
THERE WAS THAT DESPITE THE
JUDGMENT BEING IN 2013, THEIR
FIRST DISTRICT ELECTIONS WERE
NOT UNTIL 2016, AND THE COURT
FOUND IN THE FAVOR OF THE
INDIVIDUALS, NOT THE CITY FIND
IN FAVOR OF THE VOTING RIGHTS
PLAINTIFFS. AND I WAS THE LEAD
COUNSEL ON THAT CASE AS WELL.
GOT IT. SO, I MEAN, I DO THINK
THAT I'M WITH MY COLLEAGUE HERE
THAT THAT THE ONLY I MEAN,
HUNTINGTON BEACH IS STILL
OUTSTANDING. I THINK THERE ARE
SOME QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE
ADDRESSED SO THAT THERE'S NOT A
BACK AND FORTH. THERE WAS SOME
QUESTION I HEARD IN THIS
DISCUSSION AROUND WOULD SOMEONE
BE THE OPPOSITION SAID SOMEBODY
MIGHT HAVE TO BE REMOVED. THERE
WAS LIKE, THAT SOUNDS HORRIBLE.
SO I DON'T I YEAH, AND IT SOUNDS
LIKE, YEAH, I DON'T. SO I THINK
THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME
PROCEDURAL CLARIFICATION HERE OF
WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE INTERIM
INDIVIDUALS, IF I MAY USE MY OWN
CITY. SO WHEN YOU MOVE FROM AT
LARGE ELECTIONS, EVERYONE
RETAINS THEIR SEATS UNTIL THE
NEW MAPS ARE DRAWN AND THE NEXT
ELECTION PROCESS STARTS AND
PEOPLE HAVE TO RUN IN THE NEW
BOUNDARIES. NO ONE IS REMOVED
FROM AN ELECTED OFFICE FROM AN
AT LARGE TO DISTRICT ELECTIONS.
AND WE SAW THAT HAPPEN. WE SEE
THAT. I MEAN, THAT'S THE LAW. SO
THAT WAS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT
THAT PEOPLE ARE OUSTED OUT OF
THEIR SEATS. THEY'RE OUSTED
DURING THE ELECTION PROCESS, BY
CONSTITUENTS, BY THE VOTERS, Þ
AND PARTY. NOW, IF I MAY ADD,
THE LAW, IS THAT THE ONLY METHOD
IN WHICH TO OUST AN ELECTED
OFFICIAL IS QUO WARRANTO
PROCEEDINGS. AND THAT'S NOT
THIS. OKAY. NOW YOU'RE USING
LATIN. SO I DO. OH, YEAH. DID
YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? I
GUESS THE CHAIR THAT'S UP TO THE
CHAIR. WE NEED TO REALLY START
TO WRAP THIS UP. YES. I WOULD
QUICKLY ADD THAT IT THE TRIAL
COURT ORDERED THE CITY TO ADOPT
THE NEW SEVEN DISTRICT SYSTEM
AND TO HOLD THE SPECIAL ELECTION
IN JULY OF 2019, AND TO THROW
THE CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBERS OFF
BY AUGUST 2019. OKAY, SO IT WAS
A COURT ORDER. OKAY. THANK YOU
FOR THE CLARIFICATION. SO I DO
THINK THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT
PIECE THAT I THINK YOU WOULD IT
SOUNDS LIKE, HOPEFULLY BE
WILLING TO WORK OUT THAT WE CAN
RETAIN THE WILL OF THE VOTERS.
THAT FEELS LIKE SOMETHING AGAIN,
WE SHOULD ALL AGREE ON, BUT I
WILL. I DO HAVE TO CONCUR WITH
MY COLLEAGUE FROM ALTADENA. IS
THAT WHERE YOU'RE FROM? I DON'T
OKAY, THANK YOU. AND THAT THAT I
DO WANT TO SEE OUR COLLEAGUE
FROM SANTA MONICA'S ISSUES
ADDRESSED. I THINK THAT TO THE
EXTENT THAT WE ARE STEPPING IN A
CURRENT ISSUE IN HIS COMMUNITY,
IT FEELS REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE.
AND I THINK THAT THAT IS
SOMETHING YOU CAN ADDRESS IN
THIS PROCESS. AND SO I'LL BE
VOTING FOR THE BILL TODAY. BUT
I, I REALLY HOPE THAT BY THE
TIME IT GETS TO THE FLOOR, HE IS
COMFORTABLE WITH THE STATE OF
THIS AS. I WAS GOING TO, I WAS
GOING TO SAY, I DON'T THINK THAT
WE ARE, THAT OUR GOALS ARE
DIFFERENT. I REALLY DON'T I DO
THINK THAT SANTA MONICA RAISES A
VERY A MUCH MORE COMPLICATED
ISSUE THAN YOU SEE IN MOST
JURISDICTIONS BECAUSE OF THE
LAND USE PATTERNS, THE WAY THAT
THE WAY THAT THE DECISIONS ABOUT
DISTRICT VERSUS AT LARGE
ELECTIONS TOOK PLACE. AND SO AND
THEN I THINK THE OTHER THING
THAT I WOULD SORT OF SAY ABOUT
THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T
LOOKED AT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S
UNUSUAL TO NOT HAVE AN AUTOMATIC
STAY IN CALIFORNIA. AND THERE'S
A LIMITED NUMBER OF THINGS WHERE
YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTOMATIC
STAY. AND WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT
THOSE THINGS, BUT I, I, YOU
KNOW, AT THE VERY LEAST, I WOULD
SORT OF SAY THAT I DON'T THINK
THAT AT THIS POINT, GIVEN WHERE
WE ARE, THAT THIS SHOULD BE
SOMETHING WHERE YOU'RE INTRUDING
INTO THE LITIGATION RELATED TO
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AND
LETTING THAT PLAY OUT. AND
FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER
WHEN YOU DO THE STATISTICAL
ANALYSIS, IT'S GOING TO
BASICALLY FIND THAT VOTING ACT
COMMUNITIES ARE BETTER OFF WITH
DISTRICT OR NON DISTRICT
ELECTIONS. I JUST I REALLY DON'T
KNOW. AND SO I THINK WE WANT
THAT TO PLAY OUT. AND I THINK WE
WANT TO HAVE A RIGHT OF APPEAL
FOR THAT AND FOR THAT TO
CONTINUE TO PLAY OUT. SENATOR
PACHECO, I'M GOING TO MAKE MY
COMMENTS REALLY BRIEF. I
ACTUALLY DO HAVE CONCERNS WITH
THIS BILL, AND IT'S BECAUSE OF
THE CITY THAT I LIVE IN, THE
CITY OF DOWNEY, WE HAVE FOUR
DISTRICTS AND ONE AT LARGE. WE
GOT THREATENED WITH A LAWSUIT IN
THE CITY OF DOWNEY, AND NOW
WE'RE HAVING TO DIVIDE UP THE
CITY. THE COUNCIL ENDED UP
DECIDING NOT TO FIGHT THIS CASE,
OR ELSE WE MAY HAVE BEEN IN A
SITUATION LIKE SANTA MONICA, BUT
NOW WE'RE HAVING TO DIVIDE UP
THE CITY EVEN MORE. THE CITY IS
MAJORITY LATINO. IT'S KNOWN AS
THE LATINO BEVERLY HILLS.
THERE'S FOUR LATINOS ON THE CITY
COUNCIL AND ONE NON-LATINO. AND
SO IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF NOT
PROPER REPRESENTATION. BUT I
HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS BILL
BECAUSE OF WHAT I'VE SEEN HAPPEN
IN DOWNEY. THE AT LARGE SEAT IS
NOT A MAYOR SEAT. AND THAT WAS
THE CONCERN. AND I THINK THE
COUNCIL JUST DIDN'T WANT TO THEY
DIDN'T WANT TO FIGHT THIS
BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED
ABOUT LOSING AND ABOUT SPENDING
SO MUCH MONEY ON LITIGATION. SO
AGAIN, IF THE CITY OF DOWNEY HAD
FILED A LAWSUIT, WE MAY HAVE
BEEN IN THE SAME SITUATION AS
SANTA MONICA. YES. THANK YOU. I
JUST WANT TO STATE FOR THE
RECORD THAT GIVEN THE CONCERNS
THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED TODAY, I
AM HAPPY TO SUPPORT THE BILL
GOING FORWARD. BUT I RESERVE MY
RIGHT TO CHANGE MY MIND IF THESE
CONCERNS AREN'T WORKED OUT.
THANKS. IS THERE A MOTION WITH
ALL THOSE COMMENTS? THE MOTION
IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE A
SECOND? I'LL SECOND THE BILL.
AND THIS IS THIS IS THE
RECOMMENDATIONS DO PASS TO GO TO
ELECTIONS. I THINK THAT THE
COMMENTARY WAS, I'M SURE, VERY
CLEARLY HELD. I'VE WORKED A LOT
WITH ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE, THE I
BELIEVE IN THE GOALS AND
INTENTIONS OF THIS LEGISLATION.
BUT CLEARLY THERE ARE OTHER
OUTSTANDING ISSUES THAT WOULD
NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE? I JUST WANT TO
APPRECIATE ALL OF THE COMMENTS
AND LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING
IN THE GREATER GOOD OF
CALIFORNIA. AND REPRESENTATION.
YOU KNOW, THE CALIFORNIA VOTING
RIGHTS ACT, WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED
25 YEARS AGO, HAS BEEN VERY
MINIMALLY TWEAKED BY THE
LEGISLATURE. AND CLEARLY, FROM
ALL THE EXAMPLES, THAT NEEDS A
LOT MORE WORK TO MAKE IT BE WHAT
IT NEEDS. AND WE HAVE BEST
PRACTICES AND NOT SO GREAT BEST
PRACTICES. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO,
YOU KNOW, KEEP CHEWING AWAY AT
THIS AND TRYING TO COME UP WITH
A BETTER VERSION THAT WORKS FOR
ALL OF CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU.
MOTIONS DO PASS TO ELECTIONS.
CALL A CALLER I. DIXON. DIXON.
NO. BAUER. KHN. BAUER. KHN I
BRIAN. CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. I.
AS-SALIH. HAIRABEDIAN I
HAIRABEDIAN I. PACHECO. PAPPIN.
BLACKBURN. SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. NÓ.
STEPHANIE. HI. STEPHANIE I
ZUBIATE NOT VOTING. OKAY. THAT'S
ON. CAN I ADD MY VOTE? NO.
ISOLINO. IT'S ON CABLE. PLACE
THAT BILL ON CALL. WE HAVE MR.
SCHULTZ, AND AS MR. SCHULTZ
MAKES HIS WAY UP, JUST LET
EVERYBODY KNOW WE'RE GOING TO
RETURN AFTER HEARING THESE FINAL
TWO NON COMMITTEE MEMBER
PRESENTATIONS, WE'RE GOING TO
RETURN AT 1:30 P.M. TO ROOM 127.
WE'LL HAVE THREE MORE BILLS TO
HEAR. AND THEN WE CAN CLEAN UP
EVERYTHING. WE'LL DO THAT ON AND
WE CAN ADD ONS ALL THAT THEN.
YEAH. THE SPEAKER'S OFFICE HAS
ASKED US TO SHUT IT DOWN. I'M
TRYING TO AT LEAST FINISH UP
THESE TWO BILLS. YEAH. GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. KOLLER. MR. CHAIR, FOR
THE SAKE OF TIME, WE'RE PROUD TO
INTRODUCE AB 1050. WE ARE HAPPY
TO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. AND FOR THE SAKE OF
TIME, UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS, WE'LL JUST HUMBLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. I'LL MOVE THE
BILL. MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND?
OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF THIS AB 1050? ITS
NAME ORGANIZATION? SEAMUS.
SEAMUS KENNEDY WITH LIGHTHOUSE
PUBLIC AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF
ABUNDANT HOUSING LOS ANGELES AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB
1050, MICHAEL LANG WAS ALSO IN
SUPPORT Ó SPUR IN SUPPORT.
ANYONE ELSE IN ANYONE IN
OPPOSITION? AB 1050 ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
ANY OTHER COMMENT? WE WILL GO
AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL. VOTE
ON THAT. Ó WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? AND I WOULD BE REALLY
APPRECIATIVE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. MOTIONS DO PASS AS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS. CHOLERA A
CHOLERA I DIXON I'M NOT VOTING
B¢O BAUER-KAHAN. BAUER-KAHAN.
AYE. BRIAN. CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY.
AYE. SALLY. HAIRABEDIAN.
HAIRABEDIAN. AYE. PACHECO.
PACHECO. AYE. PAPIN. PAPIN. AYE.
SANCHEZ. NOT VOTING. STEPHANIE.
HI. STEPHANIE. AYE. ZABIR. THAT
BILL IS OUT. THANK YOU ALL VERY
MUCH. 1444 SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE
LARA AB 1444. THIS WILL BE THE
LAST ONE WE'LL HEAR BECAUSE
WE'VE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CLOSE
UP SHOP. JUST PRESENTING. 1444
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A VOTE.
THANK YOU. ANYONE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF 1444? ANY
ORGANIZATIONS? BRITTNEY BARSOTTI
WITH THE CALIFORNIA NEWS
PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION. ANYONE
ELSE IN SUPPORT? ANYONE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 1444? ALL
RIGHT, WE'LL BRING IT BACK. WE
HAVE A MOTION. CORRECT. AND A
SECOND MOTION IN A SECOND. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL
RIGHT. WE CAN TAKE A ROLL CALL.
VOTE MOTIONS DO PASS. CHOLERA A
CHOLERA. AYE. DIXON. DIXON. AYE.
BARRY. KHN. BARRY. KHN. AYE.
BRIAN. CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY. AYE.
SALLY. HAIRABEDIAN. HAIRABEDIAN.
AYE. PACHECO. PACHECO. AYE.
PAPIN. PAPIN. AYE. SANCHEZ. HI.
SANCHEZ. AYE. STEPHANIE.
STEPHANIE. EISENBERG. THAT BILL
IS OUT. WE'RE GOING TO RETURN.
1:30 P.M. ROOM 127, FIRST FLOOR.
YEAH. VERY NICE.
YEAH WE KNOW. BUT WE ARE GOING
TO BE SHORT A COUPLE OF CHAIRS.
BUT I DO KNOW THAT WE HAVE OTHER
MEMBERS, INCLUDING ONE WHO'S
HOLDING ANOTHER HEARING RIGHT
NOW. HE'LL COME TO ADD ON. AND
SO I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY
FIGURE THIS OUT AS PEOPLE COME
AND GO A LITTLE BIT. WE ONLY
HAVE TWO BILLS LEFT. ONE BY
MYSELF AND ONE BY OUR COLLEAGUE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ZUBIATE, WHO IS
AT THE DESK RIGHT NOW. AB 1084.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. AB 1084 IS SPONSORED BY
EQUALITY CALIFORNIA. THE TRANS
FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES AND
TRANS YOUTH LIBERATION.
TRANSGENDER AND NON-BINARY
PEOPLE ARE FACING AN
UNPRECEDENTED WAVE OF ATTACKS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY. AND EVEN
HERE IN CALIFORNIA, IN 2024
ALONE, AT LEAST 576 ANTI-LGBTQ+
BILLS WERE INTRODUCED
NATIONWIDE, MANY SPECIFICALLY
TARGETING TRANSGENDER
INDIVIDUALS BY RESTRICTING THEIR
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE, PUBLIC
FACILITIES, ACCURATE IDS, AND
MORE. THESE ATTACKS ARE PART OF
A COORDINATED EFFORT TO MAKE IT
HARDER FOR TRANSGENDER PEOPLE TO
LIVE SAFELY AND OPENLY AS THEIR
AUTHENTIC SELVES, AND ERASE
TRANSGENDER PEOPLE FROM PUBLIC
LIFE ENTIRELY. AB 1084 WILL
STREAMLINE THE PROCESS FOR
TRANSGENDER AND NON-BINARY
INDIVIDUALS TO RECEIVE COURT,
RECEIVE A COURT ORDER
RECOGNIZING THEIR GENDER CHANGE
AND CHANGING THEIR LEGAL NAME BY
SHORTENING THE COURT PROCESSING
TIME FOR UNCONTESTED PETITIONS
FROM A MINIMUM OF SIX WEEKS TO A
MAXIMUM OF TWO WEEKS. THE BILL
WILL ALSO REQUIRE THE STATE
REGISTRAR OR COUNTY CLERK, AS
APPLICABLE, TO ISSUE A NEW BIRTH
CERTIFICATE OR MARRIAGE LICENSE
WITHIN TWO WEEKS IF IT INCLUDES
A REQUEST FOR A FOR A CHANGE TO
CHANGE GENDER. DESPITE RECENT
LEGISLATION SUPPORTING
TRANSGENDER AND NON-BINARY
INDIVIDUALS RIGHT TO OBTAIN
ACCURATE IDENTIFICATION
DOCUMENTS, FAMILY LAW EXPERTS
AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVE
REPORTED SIGNIFICANT WAIT TIMES,
AS WELL AS OTHER BARRIERS THAT
PREVENT A TIMELY UPDATING OF KEY
IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS. HAVING
ACCURATE IDENTIFICATION
DOCUMENTS SUCH AS DRIVER'S
LICENSES AND BIRTH CERTIFICATES,
IS VITAL FOR THE HEALTH AND
WELL-BEING OF TRANSGENDER AND
NON-BINARY INDIVIDUALS. THIS IS
ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR MINORS,
AS CHILDREN GENERALLY NEED A
BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR VARIOUS
LEGAL, EDUCATIONAL, AND PERSONAL
REASONS. THIS INCLUDES ENROLLING
IN SCHOOL, RECEIVING MEDICAL
CARE, AND ACCESSING SOCIAL
SAFETY NET PROGRAMS THEY CANNOT
AFFORD TIME DELAYS IN RECEIVING
VALUABLE IDENTIFICATION
DOCUMENTS. AB 1084 WILL IMPROVE
THE ABILITY OF TRANSGENDER AND
NON-BINARY CALIFORNIANS TO
OBTAIN ACCURATE IDENTIFICATION
DOCUMENTS AND PROTECT THEMSELVES
FROM GROWING THREATS TO THEIR
SAFETY AND WELL-BEING. WITH ME
TODAY IS CRAIG PULSIPHER,
REPRESENTING EQUALITY
CALIFORNIA, TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND
ASSIST WITH QUESTIONS. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, CRAIG
PULSIPHER, ON BEHALF OF EQUALITY
CALIFORNIA, A PROUD CO-SPONSOR
OF THIS BILL. AS THE MEMBER
NOTED. HAVING ACCURATE IDS IS
CRITICAL FOR PARTICIPATION IN
PUBLIC LIFE, SOMETHING AS BASIC
AS SECURING HOUSING, ACCESSING
HEALTH CARE, OR EVEN BOARDING A
FLIGHT CAN BECOME A MAJOR HURDLE
WITHOUT ACCURATE IDENTIFICATION
DOCUMENTS. OVER THE LAST SEVERAL
YEARS, CALIFORNIA HAS PASSED
NUMEROUS LAWS TO MAKE IT EASIER
FOR TRANS AND NON-BINARY FOLKS
TO UPDATE THEIR IDENTIFICATION
DOCUMENTS. BUT DESPITE THIS
PROGRESS, OUR LAWS STILL HAVE
UNNECESSARY HURDLES THAT MAKE IT
HARDER FOR TRANS AND NON-BINARY
PEOPLE TO UPDATE THEIR IDS IN A
TIMELY MANNER. AND AS THE
ANALYSIS RIGHTLY NOTES THIS,
THIS PROCESS CAN OFTENTIMES DRAG
ON FOR MONTHS. AB 1084 IS A
STRAIGHTFORWARD MEASURE TO
STREAMLINE AND EXPEDITE THIS
PROCESS. AS THE MEMBER NOTED, IT
PRIMARILY DOES TWO THINGS.
FIRST, IT ELIMINATES THE
OUTDATED, MANDATORY SIX WEEK
WAITING PERIOD FOR UNCONTESTED
NAME AND GENDER MARKER CHANGES.
UNDER CURRENT LAW, INDIVIDUALS
ARE REQUIRED TO WAIT A MINIMUM
OF SIX WEEKS FOR ANYONE WHO
MIGHT OBJECT TO FILE A WRITTEN
OBJECTION WITH THE COURT.
HOWEVER, THE SIX WEEK WAITING
PERIOD IS UNNECESSARY AS TRANS
ADULTS AND MINORS WHO HAVE
CONSENT FROM BOTH PARENTS
BECAUSE THERE IS NO NOTIFICATION
REQUIREMENT UNDER EXISTING LAW.
THIS BILL REQUIRES THESE
UNCONTESTED PETITIONS TO BE
PROCESSED IN TWO WEEKS. SECOND,
THE BILL REQUIRES THE STATE
REGISTRAR OR COUNTY CLERK TO
ISSUE AMENDED BIRTH AND MARRIAGE
CERTIFICATES WITHIN TWO WEEKS.
AS THE MEMBER NOTED, THIS IS
ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT FOR YOUNG
PEOPLE WHO NEED THEIR AMENDED
BIRTH CERTIFICATES. JUST LAST
MONTH, WASHINGTON STATE
ANNOUNCED THAT IT WOULD BE
ISSUING AMENDED BIRTH
CERTIFICATES IN ONLY THREE DAYS.
I JUST WANT TO THANK THE MEMBER
FOR HIS LEADERSHIP ON THIS
ISSUE. THIS BILL HAS REALLY COME
AS A DIRECT RESULT OF
CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE BEEN
HAVING WITH INDIVIDUALS AND
FAMILIES OVER THE LAST SEVERAL
MONTHS, HEARING ABOUT THE
STRUGGLES THAT THEY'VE BEEN
HAVING IN GETTING IDENTIFICATION
DOCUMENTS THAT RECOGNIZE THEIR
IDENTITY. SO AT A MOMENT WHEN
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
BLOCKING TRANS AND NONBINARY
PEOPLE FROM OBTAINING ACCURATE
FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION
DOCUMENTS, THIS BILL IS AN
IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY FOR
CALIFORNIA TO MAKE SURE THAT
FOLKS CAN ACCESS ACCURATE, STATE
ISSUED IDS. GREAT. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE
IN SUPPORT OF AB 1084? NAME
ORGANIZATION, IF ANY, AND YOUR
POSITION ON THE BILL? GOOD
AFTERNOON, RYAN SOUSA, ON BEHALF
OF THE SAN FRANCISCO AIDS
FOUNDATION AND APLA HEALTH AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. KATHERINE
SQUIRE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE
STATUS OF WOMEN AND GIRLS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, SYLVIA SOLIS
SHAW, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
WEST HOLLYWOOD IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
HERE IN OPPOSITION TO AB 1084?
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS?
COMMENTS, MOTIONS. SECOND, WE
HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
ZUBIATE, FOR BRINGING THIS
IMPORTANT BILL FORWARD,
ESPECIALLY IN THESE TIMES. WOULD
YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE,
AND YOU WANT TO THANK EQUALITY
CALIFORNIA FOR THEIR HARD WORK
ON THE BILL. THANK YOU. MOTIONS
DO PASS TO HEALTH COMMITTEE.
CHOLERA I CHOLERA I. DIXON
BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN. CONNOLLY.
SALLY HAIRABEDIAN I GARABEDIAN I
PACHECO I PACHECO I PAPAN.
SANCHEZ. STEPHANIE. STEPHANIE I
ZUBIATE I ZUBIATE. ALL RIGHT.
THAT BILL NEEDS A COUPLE MORE
VOTES. AND SO WE'LL KEEP THE
ROLL OPEN FOR THAT PURPOSE.
THANK YOU. SURE. AND LET ME GET
UP THERE FOR. THE LAST ONE TO
HEAR.
HI. NOPE NOPE NOPE. OKAY. JUST A
MINUTE. ALL. OKAY. YOU KNOW
WHAT? I WANT YOU TO. YEAH, YEAH.
BY THE WAY, I'LL START OVER
HERE. ALL RIGHT. HI. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MR. KALRA. PLEASE
PROCEED. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
AB 878 WILL ALLOW SURVIVORS OF
VIOLENCE AND ABUSE TO ASK FOR
REASONABLE SAFETY ACCOMMODATIONS
FROM THEIR LANDLORDS. DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE IS A HIGHLY DISRUPTIVE
FORCE, TOUCHING AND UPENDING THE
LIVES OF MILLIONS OF
CALIFORNIANS. UNFORTUNATELY,
THIS KIND OF VIOLENCE IS
INTRINSICALLY LINKED WITH
HOUSING AND SECURITY, CREATING A
VICIOUS CYCLE THAT TRAPS VICTIMS
AND PATTERNS OF INSTABILITY AND
HARM. FOR EXAMPLE, 57% OF
UNHOUSED WOMEN POINTED TOWARD
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS AN
IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF THEIR
HOMELESSNESS. WHILE SHELTER
SERVICES CAN PROVIDE STOPGAP
HOUSING TO SURVIVORS, THE NEED
FOR SERVICES FAR EXCEEDS SUPPLY.
AB 878 WILL HELP SURVIVORS
REMAIN SAFELY IN THEIR HOMES BY
ALLOWING THEM TO REQUEST
REASONABLE SAFETY ACCOMMODATIONS
FROM THEIR LANDLORDS, SUCH AS
DOORBELL CAMERA INSTALLATION,
UNIT TRANSFERS, PARKING CHANGES,
ADDITIONAL TIME MOVING, AND
ADDITIONAL TIME TO PAY RENT.
THIS BILL ALSO ENSURES THAT THE
ACCOMMODATION PROCESS IS FAIR
FOR LANDLORDS. IF A TENANT
REQUESTS AN ACCOMMODATION THAT
WOULD POSE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP ON
A LANDLORD, THE LANDLORD WOULD
NOT BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE IT. I
WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE
CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED
BY STAKEHOLDERS AND AFFIRM MY
COMMITMENT TO WORKING WITH THEM
ON AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE THAT
FEASIBILITY, FEASIBILITY AND
FAIRNESS OF THIS BILL. IN
SPEAKING WITH THE APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION, FOR EXAMPLE, I
THINK WE HAVE A JOINT AGREEMENT
THAT I THINK MOST LANDLORDS ARE
GOING TO DO WHATEVER THEY CAN TO
HELP A VICTIM, BUT THERE ARE
SOME LIMITATIONS TO THAT, AND WE
RECOGNIZE THAT AS WELL. IN TERMS
OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS
WITH ME TO PROVIDE SUPPORTING
TESTIMONY IS TAYLOR CAMPION,
SENIOR MANAGING ATTORNEY, FAMILY
JUSTICE APPELLATE PROJECT, AND
LATASHA SPIRAL, A SURVIVOR. HI.
MY NAME IS TAYLOR CAMPION, AND
I'M THE SENIOR MANAGING ATTORNEY
OF FAMILY VIOLENCE APPELLATE
PROJECTS, HOUSING SAFETY AND
JUSTICE PROGRAM. FAMILY VIOLENCE
APPELLATE PROJECT IS A LEGAL AID
SUPPORT CENTER THAT ADVOCATES
FOR SURVIVORS THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORTS THIS
BILL. I HAVE REPRESENTED TENANTS
IN HOUSING CASES AND I HAVE BEEN
A LANDLORD. CALIFORNIA LAW
ALLOWS SURVIVORS TO STAY SAFE
FROM ABUSE BY LETTING SURVIVORS
CHANGE THEIR RENTAL UNIT LOCKS,
PROTECTING THEM FROM
DISCRIMINATION DURING HOUSING
SEARCHES, ALLOWING THEM TO END
THEIR LEASE TO ESCAPE ABUSE, AND
PROTECTING THEM FROM EVICTION
BECAUSE OF ABUSE. HOWEVER,
DESPITE CURRENT LAWS, SURVIVORS
ARE UNABLE TO OBTAIN REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATIONS. THEY NEED TO
STAY SAFELY HOUSED. GIVEN THAT
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A LEADING
CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS AND
SURVIVORS OFTEN STRUGGLE TO
OBTAIN HOUSING AFTER BECOMING
HOMELESS. ALLOWING MORE
SURVIVORS TO STAY SAFELY HOUSED
WILL BENEFIT ALL CALIFORNIANS.
AB 878 PROTECTS SURVIVORS FROM
ABUSE AND VIOLENCE BY ALLOWING
THEM TO REQUEST REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATIONS. THIS BILL IDEA
CAME FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
ADVOCATES AND ATTORNEYS WHO WERE
STRUGGLING TO GET THEIR CLIENTS
CLIENTS SAFETY ACCOMMODATIONS,
LIKE PERMISSIONS TO INSTALL RING
DOORBELLS OR BEING ALLOWED TO
RESCIND A NOTICE TO MOVED AFTER
THE SURVIVOR REALIZED THEY WOULD
BE SAFER IN THEIR CURRENT HOME
THAN HOMELESS AND LOOKING FOR
HOUSING. REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATIONS WILL ENSURE THAT
TENANT SURVIVORS CAN STAY SAFELY
HOUSED IN THEIR CURRENT HOME.
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS AND
HOUSING AND REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR SURVIVORS ARE
NOT NOVEL IDEAS. HOUSING LAW
ALREADY ALLOWS PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES, REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATIONS AND Ã. SURVIVORS
ARE ALREADY AFFORDED REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATIONS UNDER EMPLOYMENT
LAW BY PROVIDING SURVIVORS
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS AND
HOUSING. THIS BILL WILL ENSURE
MORE SURVIVORS HAVE SAFE
HOUSING, INCREASING HOUSING
STABILITY, AND SURVIVORS CHANCES
OF ESCAPING ABUSE. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR MEMBERS AND ASSEMBLY OF
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. MY NAME
IS LATASHA SPRUILL AND I AM HERE
TODAY NOT ONLY AS A SURVIVOR,
BUT AS SOMEONE WHO HAS LIVED
THROUGH THE DEVASTATING IMPACT
OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN EVERY
WAY POSSIBLE. I AM HERE AS A
WOMAN WHO HAS ENDURED ABUSE
FIRSTHAND, AND AS A DAUGHTER WHO
WITNESSED HER MOTHER SUFFER IN
SILENCE, AND AS A PERSON WHO
STILL CARRIES THE WEIGHT OF THAT
LOSS EVERY SINGLE DAY. I
STRONGLY SUPPORT AB 878 BECAUSE
I KNOW FROM PAINFUL EXPERIENCES
HOW CRITICAL THESE PROTECTIONS
ARE FOR SURVIVORS TRYING TO
REBUILD THEIR LIVES IN THE
AFTERMATH OF ABUSE. I AM A
SURVIVOR OF BOTH OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND GUN VIOLENCE. THE
ABUSE I ENDURED LEFT ME FEELING
UNSAFE, EVEN IN MY OWN HOME, A
PLACE WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN
MY SANCTUARY. I REMEMBER
CONSTANTLY FEELING ON THE EDGE,
AS IF DANGER WAS ALWAYS LURKING
JUST OUTSIDE MY DOOR. EVEN AFTER
ESCAPING THE ABUSE, THAT FEAR
STAYED WITH ME, WOVEN INTO MY
DAILY LIFE LIKE AN UNWELCOME
SHADOW. IT'S A FEAR THAT NO
SURVIVOR SHOULD HAVE TO LIVE
WITH. AND EXACTLY WHY AB 878 IS
SO NECESSARY. MY MOTHER, WHICH I
WEAR AROUND MY NECK, SANDRA
MERRITT, WAS A VICTIM OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LONG BEFORE IT
TOOK HER LIFE. I LIVED THROUGH
IT WITH HER. I SAW THE BRUISES.
SHE TRIED TO HIDE THE FEAR SHE
COULDN'T ALWAYS MASK. AND THE
WAY SHE CLUNG TO HOPE THAT
THINGS WOULD CHANGE. THE
VIOLENCE DIDN'T STOP. ONE DAY HE
TOOK HER LIFE. ALL WE NEEDED WAS
SUPPORT. ALL SHE NEEDED WAS A
WAY OUT, A SAFE PLACE,
RESOURCES, PROTECTION. SOMETHING
THAT COULD HAVE SERVED HER. BUT
NOW IT'S TOO LATE. THIS IS WHY
AB 878 IS SO IMPORTANT.
SURVIVORS ARE OFTEN FORCED TO
CHOOSE BETWEEN STAYING IN A
DANGEROUS SITUATION OR BECOMING
HOMELESS, AN IMPOSSIBLE DECISION
THAT NO ONE SHOULD EVER HAVE TO
MAKE. FOR MY MOTHER. SMALL
THINGS COULD HAVE MADE ALL THE
DIFFERENCE. A PARKING SPACE
CLOSER TO HOME SO SHE DIDN'T
HAVE TO WALK IN FEAR, A DOORBELL
CAMERA AND BETTER LIGHTING SO
SHE COULD SEE WHO WAS OUTSIDE
BEFORE OPENING THE DOOR. I STAND
BEFORE YOU TODAY AS A SURVIVOR,
AS AN ADVOCATE, AND AS A
DAUGHTER WHO WILL NEVER STOP
FIGHTING TO MAKE SURE THAT NO
ONE ELSE HAS TO EXPERIENCE THE
PAIN THAT I CARRY DAILY. I
BELIEVE THAT IF AB 878 HAD
EXISTED, THEN MY MOTHER WOULD
STILL BE HERE TODAY AND I CAN
HEAR HER VOICE. SURVIVORS
DESERVE TO FEEL SAFE, SECURE AND
EMPOWERED, AND THIS BILL IS A
CRITICAL STEP TOWARD MAKING THAT
POSSIBLE. I URGE YOU ALL TODAY
TO SUPPORT AB 878. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR TIME, YOUR COMPASSION, AND
FOR LISTENING TO MY STORY. OH
YEAH, I'M IN CHARGE. I'M READING
THE BILL. OKAY. EXCUSE ME, I
APOLOGIZE. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL? AB 878
SAADIA KHAN, ON BEHALF OF THE
WOMEN'S FOUNDATION CALIFORNIA,
AS A PROUD CO-SPONSOR.
ADDITIONALLY, I WANT TO NOTE THE
FOLLOWING AGENCIES AS STRONG
SUPPORT AS WELL. CHOOSE YOUR
PATH FOUNDATION AND DISABILITY
RIGHTS. CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU.
HELENA ALEXANDER. ON BEHALF OF
THE HOME COHORT, WHICH IS
COMPRISED OF 11 AGENCIES ACROSS
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PROUD
CO-SPONSOR AND IN SUPPORT OF
THIS BILL. AND THOSE 11 AGENCIES
ARE BLACK WOMEN FOR WELLNESS,
CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP TO END
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, COMMUNITY
UNITED AGAINST VIOLENCE,
COMMUNITY OVERCOMING
RELATIONSHIP ABUSE, EMPOWER
TEHAMA FAMILY VIOLENCE, LAW
CENTER, HAVEN HUMAN OPTIONS,
GENESIS CENTER, INC, RAINBOW
SERVICES, AND STRONG HEARTED
NATIVE WOMEN'S COALITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CAPRI WALKER, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE. ALSO CRIME SURVIVORS
FOR SAFETY AND JUSTICE. PROUD
CO-SPONSOR AND SUPPORT. ALSO ON
BEHALF OF VALERIE US IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL
ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION AND THE
NATIONAL HOUSING LAW PROJECT IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS
IN OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON.
DEBORAH CARLTON WITH THE
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION. FIRST, LET ME SAY I
WANT TO THANK THE CHAIRMAN FOR
WORKING WITH US. I AM OPTIMISTIC
WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE. THE
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
STRONGLY BELIEVES IN PROTECTING
THE RIGHTS AND PROTECTING
VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. SO
WE PROVIDED SOME POTENTIAL
LANGUAGE TO THINK ABOUT AND
WE'LL CONTINUE TALKING. SO THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION
COMING BACK, COMING TO THE DAIS,
MR. ZUBER? SO I WANT TO THANK
THE AUTHOR. I THINK THIS IS A
RIGHTEOUS BILL. I ALSO WANT TO
THANK THE APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
FOR WORKING WITH THE AUTHOR. I,
YOU KNOW, THINK THIS IS REALLY
IMPORTANT. ALSO LOOKED AT WHAT
THE APARTMENT ASSOCIATION IS,
YOU KNOW, ASKING FOR. AND IT
LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE GENERALLY
SUPPORTIVE OF THE CONCEPT OF THE
BILL AND JUST WANT SOME
CLARIFICATIONS ON
RESPONSIBILITIES AND HOPE YOU'LL
WORK WITH THEM TO RESOLVE THOSE.
IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WASN'T VERY
SIGNIFICANT. SO THANK YOU. IT'S
BEEN IT'S BEEN A VERY AMICABLE
AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION SO
FAR. I'M CONFIDENT THAT WE ALL
HAVE THE SAME GOAL IN MIND, AND
I THINK WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET
THERE ON SOME OF THE IT'S A THE
GOAL IS QUITE CLEAR, BUT THERE
ARE DEFINITELY SOME DETAILS THAT
NEED TO BE WORKED OUT TO MAKE IT
CLEAR WHAT THE RESPONSIBILITIES
ARE FOR LANDLORDS. MR. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I WOULD JUST
LIKE TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THE BILL AND OBVIOUSLY
EVERYONE WHO'S BEEN A PART OF
IT. JUST TO ECHO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S COMMENTS, THINK
IT'S A GREAT IDEA. I THINK
WORKING WITH THE APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION ON TIGHTENING UP
SOME OF THESE THINGS I THINK IS
GREAT, AND WE CAN TALK MORE
OFFLINE, BUT APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING THE BILL. I WILL MOVE
IT AT THIS TIME. THANK YOU. DID
DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? YES. GO
AHEAD ASSEMBLYWOMAN AND I'LL
SECOND THE BILL. I DON'T KNOW IF
IT WAS SECOND. YEAH. THANK YOU.
AND I WANT TO JUST ADD TO THE
CHORUS THAT WHEN I READ THE
BILL, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE WE
KNOW HOW MUCH TIME THEY HAVE TO
PAY RENT OR WHAT THE OUTSIDE OF
THAT IS THE TIME TO MOVE ALL OF
THAT. JUST SO IT'S CLEAR. AND
WE'RE NOT IN LITIGATION FIGHTING
ABOUT WHETHER THEY COMPLIED WITH
THE LAW, I THINK IS REALLY
CRITICAL MOVING FORWARD. BUT I
REALLY APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW,
WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. AND I
THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF WAYS IN
WHICH LANDLORDS COULD BE VERY
REASONABLE IN ACCOMMODATING THE
NEEDS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
SURVIVORS. AND YOU'RE PUSHING
THE LAW IN A WAY THAT I THINK IS
PROTECTIVE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS,
AND I'M GRATEFUL FOR THAT. SO
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. ANY OTHER
COMMENTS? YES, SIR. STEPHANIE,
THANK YOU. I WANT TO THANK THE
CHAIR FOR THIS BILL. THIS IS AN
AREA THAT I CARE SO MUCH ABOUT.
AND TO THE WITNESS, I AM SORRY
FOR YOUR LOSS AND WHAT YOU HAD
TO SEE GROWING UP AND WHAT
YOU'VE HAD TO EXPERIENCE. I JUST
KNOW THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT
TOUCHES MY HEART TOO. I'M LUCKY
THAT MY MOM GOT OUT OF A
SITUATION THAT SHE WAS IN FOR 41
YEARS, AND I'VE SEEN A LOT, AND
I KNOW THAT WE NEED TO COME AT
THIS ISSUE IN A VARIETY OF WAYS
TO PROTECT WOMEN AND THOSE WHO
ARE ABUSED. SO I WANT TO THANK
THE CHAIR AND THE APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION FOR WORKING ON THIS
ISSUE. IT'S SO IMPORTANT. AND
THE BILL'S ALREADY BEEN MOVED
AND SECONDED, SO I'M HAPPY TO
SUPPORT IT TODAY. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER COMMENTS? LET ME JUST MAKE
ONE COMMENT. I ECHO ALL OF THESE
COMMENTS AND CERTAINLY MY
SYMPATHY AND MY APPRECIATION FOR
YOUR COURAGE IN COMING FORWARD
TO FIGHT FOR SOMETHING THAT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT. I WILL LAY OFF
ONLY BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT ALL THE T'S ARE CROSSED AND
I'S ARE DOTTED, AND BRINGING THE
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION AND OTHER
LANDLORD RELATED ISSUES AS
THEY'VE PRESENTED TO THE FORE,
BECAUSE I THINK IT IS AN
IMPORTANT BILL AND WE JUST HAVE
TO SETTLE SOME OPEN ISSUES. SO
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT
FORWARD. YOU MAY SPEAK, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH TO EVERYONE FOR
YOUR SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS AND TO
THE APARTMENT ASSOCIATION FOR
WORKING WITH US, AND I'M
CONFIDENT WE'LL GET TO A
RESOLUTION. I WANT TO GIVE A
SPECIAL THANK YOU TO MY
WITNESSES, WHO HAVE BEEN
STICKING AROUND FOR OVER FIVE
HOURS, ESPECIALLY MISS FARRELL,
FOR YOUR COURAGE AND SHARING.
IT'S COMMENDABLE. AND SO WITH
THAT, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. OKAY, MOTIONS
DO PASS CHOLERA. CHOLERA. I
DIXON NOT VOTING BAUER KHN
BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN CONNOLLY.
SALLY HAIRABEDIAN I PACHECO I
PACHECO I PAPIN. SANCHEZ.
STEPHANIE I STEPHANIE I ZUBER.
ZUBER. I. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT
BILL WILL BE PLACED ON CALL.
THANK YOU BOTH. OKAY. SO LET US
START FROM THE TOP WITH CONSENT
FOR CONSENT. BAUER-KAHAN B¢O
BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN SALLY
PACHECO I PACHECO I SANCHEZ. HI.
SANCHEZ I. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN
ON. AND SO WE. OKAY. Ó. CAN WE
JUST CAN WE REDO THE CONSENT
AGAIN REAL QUICKLY? I THINK MR.
O'BRIEN NEEDS TO ADD ON FOR
CONSENT. BRIAN. BRIAN I SALLY.
OKAY. CAN YOU STARTED RIGHT NOW.
SO JUST TO SEE. OKAY. YEAH.
WE'RE JUST DOING ADD ONS. NOW
LET'S START FROM THE TOP. LET'S
GO FROM THE TOP BECAUSE I THINK
EVERYONE'S GOING TO SOMEONE HAS
TO ADD ON TO EVERYTHING. YOU
HAVE TO LIFT THE CALL ON ITEMS.
OKAY. LIFT THE CALL ON ITEM ONE.
THIS IS AB 251 B¢O KHN. I
BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN, I BRIAN, I
SALLY PACHECO NOT VOTING SANCHEZ
I SANCHEZ I. THANK YOU. ITEM TWO
TO ADD ON BARRY KHN B¢O
BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN I BRIAN I
SALLY PACHECO I PACHECO I ITEM
THREE ADD ONS BAUER-KAHAN B¢O
BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN I BRIAN I
SALLY PAPIN. I'M SORRY. ITEM
THREE AB 449 JACKSON PAPIN I.
OKAY. ITEM FOUR. ITEM FOUR IS AB
464 PAPIN I PAPIN I. ALL RIGHT,
THAT'S CLOSED OUT. ITEM FIVE
MOVE THE CALL ON ITEM FIVE.
WARD. THAT'S AB 474. BRIAN I
BRIAN, I SALLY PAPIN. I PAPIN I
THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM SIX LEE
HAS EVERYBODY. ITEM SEVEN LIFT
THE CALL ON ITEM SEVEN. THIS IS
AB 628. MACKINAW CHOLERA. I
CHOLERA I BAUER-KAHAN B¢O
BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN I BRIAN I
CONNOLLY. SALLY. HAIRABEDIAN I
HAIRABEDIAN I OKAY THAT BILL IS
OUT. AB 711 CHEN. ADDING ON ADD
ONS CHOLERA I CHOLERA I BARRY
KHN BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN I BRIAN
I HAIRABEDIAN HAIRABEDIAN I OKAY
THAT'S DONE. ITEM NINE THIS IS
AB 851 ADD ONS FOR MACKINAW
CHOLERA I CHOLERA I BAUER-KAHAN
B¢O BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN I BRIAN
I HAIRABEDIAN I HAIRABEDIAN I.
ALL RIGHT I'M 11. WE JUST DID
WAS WAS EVERYBODY HERE FOR MY
BILL I JUST DID. NO BRIAN OKAY.
THAT'S OKAY. LIFT THE CALL. LIFT
THE CALL ON AB 878 AB 878
CHOLERA. BRIAN I BRIAN I
CONNOLLY EASILY PAPIN I PAPIN I.
ALL RIGHT THAT BILL IS OUT.
THANK YOU. AB 926 GIBSON ADDING
ON CHOLERA I CHOLERA I BRIAN
BRIAN I GOT IT OFF THAT BILL IS
DONE ON TO ITEM 13 SCHULTZ AB
1050 BRIAN BRIAN I SALLY ZUBIATE
I THINK I VOTED I ZABIR I YOUR
HONOR I HAVE. PASSED ON TO ITEM
AB 1079 LIFT THE CALL ON ÁVILA
FARÍAS. BRIAN. BRIAN I. NEEDS
ONE MORE CHANGE. OKAY, I'LL DO A
VOTE CHANGE. ON AB 1079. VOTE
CHANGE. CAPTAIN, FROM NOT VOTING
TO I. FROM NOT VOTING TO I TO
SALLY VOTE ON THAT ONE. IS THAT
ONE DONE? WE VOTED. NOT
NECESSARILY, BUT IT'S DONE.
OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CALL
BILL. OKAY. SO THAT BILL THAT
BILL IS OUT. ITEM 1084 IS A BR.
LIFT THE CALL BAUER-KAHAN
BAUER-KAHAN I BRIAN. HI BRIAN. I
CONNOLLY. A SALLY PAPIN WHICH
I'M SORRY AB 1084 I PAPIN I
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ NO. ALL RIGHT
THAT BILL IS OUT ADD ONS FOR AB
16 JACKSON 1201. CHOLERA A
CHOLERA I PAPIN I PAPIN I OKAY
THAT'S DONE AB 1240 LEE. I'LL
LIFT THE CALL. LIFT THE CALL.
CHOLERA A CHOLERA I BAUER-KAHAN.
BAUER-KAHAN I HAIRABEDIAN A
GARABEDIAN. I OKAY, THAT BILL IS
OUT. ITEM 18 AB 1444 LARA.
BRIAN. BRIAN I SALLY. ZUBIATE A
ZUBIATE I ALL RIGHT, THAT BILL
IS DONE AND SO LET'S GO. I THINK
EVERYONE HERE IS DONE EXCEPT FOR
ASSEMBLYMEMBER CONNOLLY. RIGHT?
YEAH. NUMBER ONE, LET ME CHECK
NUMBER ONE, FINAL ITEM ONE, MAKE
SURE PAP BEEN VOTED. AYE. YEAH A
LITTLE CHANGE. YOU CAN DO A VOTE
CHANGE ON THAT ITEM ONE AND THEN
AB 251 CHOLERA VOTE CHANGE. AYE
TO NOT VOTING SANCHEZ AYE TO NOT
VOTING. WE KNEW IT. THAT'S NOT
LOVE. I SEE LOVE THROUGH
ACTIONS, NOT WORDS AS MY
MICROPHONE IS ON. AND I HAVE NO
PROBLEM WITH THAT. OKAY. ALL
RIGHT. HERE WE GO. LET'S LET'S
GO THROUGH AND LOOK FOR
ASSEMBLYMEMBER CONNOLLY. YEAH.
THE FIRST ONE THAT I SEE IS ITEM
SEVEN AB 628 MCHENRY. AB 628
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I SALLY. AND
THEN ITEM 11 OKAY. ITEM 11. ITEM
11 IS AB 878. CONNOLLY Ã
CONNOLLY I IS SALLY. OKAY. ITEM
15 IS THE BURR. YEAH. AB 1084
CONNOLLY. CONNOLLY I SALLY.
OKAY, I THINK THAT'S LET'S SEE
IS DOUBLE CHECK. I THINK THAT'S
EVERYTHING. YEAH I THINK WE'RE
GOOD. YEAH, YEAH. IS IT. HE'S
ON. HE'S AWARE. HE'S ON. WE'RE.
SUCH AS THIS. HE'S ON.
SO IS. GALGIANI SECRETARY. OKAY
OKAY. SO EVERYTHING IS ON BOARD
OKAY. WELL. YEAH OKAY. 2000. ALL
RIGHT. ALL OF THESE WERE TAKEN
CARE OF. STAFF AND, YOU KNOW,
LOTS OF PROPERTY. THAT'S.
INTERESTING, I KNOW THAT.
WOW. YEAH. HUSING CHEN. OKAY, SO
THIS.
IS.
SO LET'S DO SOME ADD ONS FOR
SALLY. WE'LL START WITH THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. SALLY. Ã.
SALLY I FOR CONSENT AND AB 251
CHOLERA ITEM ONE A SALLY KNOW.
SALLY DARE YOU AB 316 CARILLO.
SALLY I SALLY I AB 449 JACKSON,
SALLY. ABSTAIN OR NOT VOTING NOT
VOTING. ITEM FIVE AB 474. WARD,
SALLY. NO. SALLY. NO. ITEM SEVEN
AB 628. MCHENRY, SALLY. NO.
SALLY. NO. ITEM 11 AB 878
CHOLERA I SALLY, DID WE DO ITEM
EIGHT? DID I VOTE ON THAT ONE?
LET'S DOUBLE CHECK EIGHT. HAVE
YOU AS AN EYE ON THIS? IT IS AN
EYE ON THE TRÊN BILL. ITEM 11 AB
878. CHOLERA. WHAT ABOUT 1010?
GOT PULLED. WE'RE STILL WORKING
ON SOME OF THE LANGUAGE. OKAY.
AND THEN SO ITEM 11. YES. ONE
SECOND. LEE. NO. SORRY. ITEM 11
YEARS. YES. I'M SORRY, I HAVE A
POSE HERE. WHERE'S MY SHEET?
SORRY. OPPOSED? NO. Ã. SALLY.
NO. ON AB 878 AB 13, AB 1050.
SCHULTZ. NO. SALLY. NO. ITEM 15
AB 1084 ZUBIATE. NOT VOTING. NOT
VOTING ON ZUBIATE. AND THE LAST
ONE WE HAVE IS ITEM 18 AB 1444.
FLORA. SALLY A SALLY, I THANK
YOU, I APPRECIATE YOU. YEAH. WE
ARE ADJOURNED. ARE ALL THE
CHARACTERS IN THIS? IN THIS?