GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. WELCOME
TO THE ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. ITEM ONE SB 611
MENGIBAR. AND ITEM SIX, SB 1184.
EGGMAN HAD BEEN PULLED FROM THE
HEARING FOR TODAY. THE RULES FOR
WITNESS TESTIMONY ARE THAT EACH
SIDE WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAIN
WITNESSES. EACH WITNESSES WILL
HAVE APPROXIMATELY TWO MINUTES
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF OR
OPPOSITION TO THEIR BILL OR TO
THE BILL. ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
SHOULD STATE THEIR NAMES,
ORGANIZATION, IF ANY, AND THEIR
POSITION ON THE BILL AS YOU
PROCEED WITH WITNESS, WITNESSES
AND PUBLIC COMMENT, I WANT TO
MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS
COMMITTEE HAS RULES TO ENSURE WE
MAINTAIN ORDER TO RUN A FAIR AND
EFFICIENT HEARING, AND I WILL GO
OVER THOSE RULES. IF NECESSARY.
BUT HOPEFULLY THEY WON'T BE
NECESSARY TO GO OVER THOSE RULES
. AND WE HAVE WITH US, OUR FIRST
ITEM FOR THE DAY, FILE ITEM TWO,
SB 901, SENATOR UMMAT. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR. GOOD
MORNING. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND MEMBERS, A SPECIAL THANK YOU
TO YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND YOUR
CONSULTANT, MR. LITKE, FOR YOUR
HELP ON THIS BILL. IT'S AN
IMPORTANT BILL. IT SIMPLY SAYS
THAT IF YOU ARE, IN ESSENCE,
SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES THAT WE
SHOULD OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT,
THAT YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT ALL
YOU WANT, BUT YOU CAN'T ADVOCATE
AND BELIEVE THAT AND BE A MEMBER
OF THE NATIONAL GUARD THAT WE AS
A STATE ARE NOT GOING TO TRAIN
PEOPLE IN WEAPONS AND OTHER,
KINETIC ACTIVITY, IF THAT'S YOUR
BELIEF. SO IF THAT'S YOUR BELIEF
AND YOU'RE ADVOCATING IT AND
YOU'RE IN THE NATIONAL GUARD,
THEN YOU'RE GOING TO GET FIRED.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE GOING TO
LEAVE THE NATIONAL GUARD, AND IF
YOU ADVOCATE THAT AND BELIEVE IN
THAT, PRIOR TO ENLISTMENT OR
COMMISSIONING, THAT'S NOT GOING
TO HAPPEN. THAT'S SIMPLY THE
BILL URGING. I VOTE. THANK YOU,
AND NO WITNESSES FOR TODAY. I
MET. ALL RIGHT. SOUNDS GOOD.
ANYONE HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB
901? ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION
TO SB 901? ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, WELL, THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, CHAIR UMBERG, FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD. I HAD A SIMILAR
BILL A COUPLE YEARS BACK. THE
CLEAR ACT THAT HAD TO DO WITH
LAW ENFORCEMENT, GIVING
AUTHORITY, AT LEAST FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT, FOR POLICE
DEPARTMENTS, POLICE CHIEFS TO BE
ABLE TO REJECT SOMEONE GOING
THROUGH A BACKGROUND PROCESS OR
TERMINATE SOMEONE THAT WAS
AFFILIATED WITH, WITH, KIND OF
HATE GROUPS THAT ALSO, MANY OF
WHICH ARE A PART OF THE SAME
AFFINITY IN TERMS OF WANTING TO
OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT. I
THINK THIS MAKES COMPLETE SENSE.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A MODEL
AFTER THE NEW FEDERAL GUIDELINES
AS WELL, AND SO I APPRECIATE YOU
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. WE DON'T
RIGHT NOW, ACTING AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. AND SO WE CAN'T
TAKE UP THE BILL IN TERMS OF A
FORMAL VOTE, BUT WE'LL DO THAT
AS SOON AS WE CAN. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO CLOSE, WELL, THANK YOU.
SUPPORTING. BILL. I SIMPLY URGE
A NO VOTE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
ALL RIGHT, YEAH. FILE ITEM
THREE, SB 959. SENATOR MENGIBAR,
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. REALLY
SHORT AND QUICK, MR. CHAIR.
UDEGE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, SB 959
IS LOOKING TO DO WHAT WE DID
WITH THE WEBSITE, WITH THE
ABORTION CA.GOV. IT'S LOOKING TO
REPLICATE THAT, FOR A WEBSITE TO
BRING RESOURCES, CONSOLIDATE OR
THE RESOURCES, THE PROTECTIONS,
WHICH WHICH PHYSICIANS, WHICH
DIRECTORIES ARE GOING TO BE
AFFIRMING TO OUR TGI POPULATION
OR TRANSGENDER, GENDER DIVERSE
AND INTERSEX COMMUNITY MEMBERS?
WE ARE ASKING HHS TO PUT TO THE
TOGETHER THIS WEBSITE THAT WILL
HAVE ACCESS TO THE DIRECTORIES,
THAT WOULD INCLUDE COVERAGE THAT
WOULD MAKE SURE THEY KNOW WHO,
WHAT THEIR LEGAL PROTECTIONS
ARE. IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD,
PRETTY SIMPLE. MR. CHAIR, I'D
LIKE TO JUST TURN TO MY EXPERT
WITNESSES HERE TO TESTIFY ON
BEHALF OF THAT. GREAT. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. UP TO TWO MINUTES EACH.
GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY. MY NAME
IS MADDIE ROBY. MY PRONOUNS ARE
THEY THEM. AND I AM HERE WITH
TRANS FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES
AND TRANS YOUTH LIBERATION AND
SUPPORT OF SB 959, I'M AN
INTERSEX PERSON. THE ENGI WHO
WAS BORN WITH VARIATIONS IN MY
SEX CHARACTERISTICS WHICH REFERS
TO DIFFERENCES IN CHROMOSOMES,
HORMONES, INTERNAL REPRODUCTIVE
ANATOMY, AND EXTERNAL GENITALIA.
THE INTERSEX COMMUNITY IS OFTEN
OVERLOOKED AND UNDERREPRESENTED,
AND FAR TOO MANY OF US SUFFER
THE CONSEQUENCES. THIS HAS BEEN
MY EXPERIENCE WITH ACCESSING
GENDER AFFIRMING AND INCLUSIVE
CARE THROUGHOUT MY LIFE. GOING
TO A DOCTOR HAS RANGED FROM
BEING A SLIGHTLY UNCOMFORTABLE
TO HIGHLY TRAUMATIC EXPERIENCE.
I'VE SAT THROUGH ENTIRE
APPOINTMENTS, BEING MISGENDERED,
SUBJECTED TO MICROAGGRESSIONS
AND TASTELESS JOKES, ASKED
UNNECESSARY AND INAPPROPRIATE
QUESTIONS. FURTHER, MOST
DOCTORS, FROM PRIMARY CARE TO
ENDOCRINOLOGY HAVE APPROACHED MY
TREATMENT AS A TRIAL AND ERROR
WITH COMPLETE DISREGARD TO THE
DAMAGE CAUSED SIMPLY BECAUSE
THEY HAD NO TRAINING ON BODIES
THAT EXIST BEYOND THE BINARY. I
WAS SEEN AS COLLATERAL, A
LEARNING OPPORTUNITY, AND AN
EXPERIMENT TO FURTHER THEIR
UNDERSTANDING AND NOT AS A
PERSON. THE FIRST TIME I SAW TGI
INCLUSIVE CARE, THE ONLY
RESOURCES AVAILABLE WERE ON
SOCIAL MEDIA BY WORD OF MOUTH. I
WAS ONLY ABLE TO FIND ONE LIST
THAT HAD FIVE DOCTORS IN MY AREA
WHO WERE LABELED TGI FRIENDLY,
BUT THE RESOURCE WAS UNRELIABLE,
AND I WAS QUICK TO LEARN THAT A
DOCTOR SIMPLY KNOWING THAT TGI
INDIVIDUALS EXIST IS NOT THE
SAME AS A DOCTOR WHO IS TGI
COMPETENT AND INCLUSIVE. AT 27,
MY DISTRUST OF DOCTORS DUE TO
PAST EXPERIENCES HAS PUT A
STRAIN ON MY HEALTH AND
WELL-BEING. BEING INTERSEX PUTS
ME AT A HIGH RISK OF DEVELOPING
CERTAIN CANCERS, BUT BECAUSE OF
MY MEDICAL TRAUMA, IT WAS ONLY
LAST YEAR THAT I STARTED TO
RECEIVE THE PREVENTATIVE CARE
I'VE NEEDED SINCE I WAS 18. I'M
NOT ALONE IN THIS. WITHIN THE
INTERSEX COMMUNITY, HEALTH
DISPARITIES DUE TO IMPROPER
TREATMENT ARE HIGH, TO NAME A
FEW. INTERSEX PEOPLE WHO LACK
ACCESS TO ADEQUATE CARE ARE MORE
LIKELY TO EXPERIENCE
INFERTILITY. CONSECUTIVE
REPRODUCTIVE SURGERY, REDUCED
SEXUAL FUNCTION, PERMANENT NERVE
DAMAGE, CHRONIC PAIN, AND MORE.
A GUIDE LIKE THE ONE THAT SB 959
IS PROPOSING COULD HAVE SAVED ME
AND OTHERS LIKE ME FROM THE
MISTREATMENT OF MALPRACTICE WE
EXPERIENCED FROM THOSE WHO
PROMISED TO DO NO HARM. WE
DESERVE ACCESS TO QUALITY CARE
THAT IS SENSITIVE, INFORMED, AND
SPECIFIC TO OUR NEEDS AND THE
ABILITY TO FIND THOSE WITH THE
EXPERTISE, TRAINING AND
AWARENESS TO PROVIDE IT. SO GO
AHEAD AND FINISH UP. YEAH, I
URGE YOU TO VOTE YES ON ON. GOOD
CLOSE. YOU'RE CLOSE. ALL RIGHT.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR KALRA. AND
MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
SYMPHONY BARBIE WITH PLANNED
PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES OF
CALIFORNIA ON BEHALF OF THE
SEVEN AFFILIATES WHO PROVIDE
CARE THROUGH OVER 100 HEALTH
CENTERS IN THE STATE. HERE, AS A
PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF SENATE BILL
959, GENDER AFFIRMING CARE
CONSISTS OF SAFE, EFFECTIVE, AND
MEDICALLY NECESSARY CARE, WHICH
IS SHOWN TO HAVE POSITIVE
IMPACTS ON THE MENTAL WELL-BEING
OF TGA PATIENTS. DESPITE THIS,
SEVERAL STATES HAVE ENACTED
EXCUSE ME. SEVERAL STATES HAVE
ACTED TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO THIS
CARE. MANY OF THESE BANDS
INCLUDE CRIMINAL PENALTY AGAINST
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND PARENTS
WHO SUPPORT THEIR CHILDREN IN
ACCESSING IT. ACCORDING TO THE
WILLIAMS INSTITUTE, 156,500
TRANSGENDER YOUTH LIVED IN 32
STATES WHERE ACCESS TO GENDER
AFFIRMING CARE HAS BEEN
RESTRICTED OR WAS AT RISK OF
BEING BANNED DUE TO LEGISLATION.
SB 959 AFFIRMS A PERSON'S RIGHT
AND ABILITY TO ACCESS GENDER
AFFIRMING CARE, AND THE RIGHTS
OF HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS TO
PROVIDE IT BY CONNECTING TO
PEOPLE AND THEIR FAMILIES, TO
THE RESOURCES THAT THEY NEED.
THIS WEBSITE CREATED BY SB 959,
WILL SERVE AS A TRUSTED
INFORMATION SOURCE AND RESOURCE
THAT WILL NAVIGATE PEOPLE TO
ACCURATE AND COMPREHENSIVE
INFORMATION TO SEEK THE
APPROPRIATE CARE. WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE ON SENATE BILL 959. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 959?
SORRY, PRISCILLA. KUDOS HERE. ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA FACULTY
ASSOCIATION AND THE CALIFORNIA
ACADEMY OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT
PSYCHIATRY IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
, CRAIG PULSIFER ON BEHALF OF
EQUALITY CALIFORNIA, PROUD
CO-SPONSOR AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, STEPHANIE ESTRADA, ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA LATINAS FOR
REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
NORA LIN. WITH CHILDREN NOW IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, AARON TAYLOR
WITH POLITICAL SOLUTIONS ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF
WOMEN AND GIRLS IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. GENESIS GONZALES, ON
BEHALF OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
ELENI KOUNALAKIS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO SB
959? WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS? ASSEMBLYMEMBER REYES,
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD. THIS IS THE
LEAST WE CAN DO TO PROVIDE A
WEBSITE THAT THAT HAS THE
RESOURCES FOR TGI PEOPLE TO BE
ABLE TO, TO ACCESS. SO WHEN THE
TIME IS APPROPRIATE, I WILL MOVE
THE BILL. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. YEAH I AGREE I SECOND
THOSE THOUGHTS. IT'S LONG
OVERDUE AND I APPRECIATE THE
ADVOCACY BECAUSE WITH THAT
ADVOCACY, THERE ARE GOING TO BE
MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT GOING
TO HAVE TO SUFFER IN THE SAME
MANNER WE ARE RIGHT NOW WORKING
AS A SUBCOMMITTEE, SO WE CAN'T
TAKE UP A VOTE AT THE MOMENT.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE? NO WHEN
THE TIME IS RIGHT. I APPRECIATE
THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER BEING
WILLING TO MOVE THE MOTION.
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, MR.
CHAIR. THIS WOULD REALLY ENSURE
THAT WE REMOVE PEOPLE WHO ARE
MISLEADING THE TGA COMMUNITY.
THAT IS REALLY GOING TO BE A
TRUSTED MESSENGER FROM THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA THAT SHOWCASES
EVERYTHING WE'VE DONE. THUS FAR.
AND BEING A LEADER IN
PROTECTION, THE TGI COMMUNITY
JUST IN ONE, ONE STOP. THANK
YOU. AND RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR
NINE VOTE. THANK YOU. YOU'RE
GONNA HAVE TO GO WALK OUT AND
FIND OTHER NO I DON'T YEAH, WE
HAVE A SENATOR HERE. I WAS ABOUT
TO GO OUT AND GO SEARCH FOR
ANOTHER ONE, PILOT ON FIVE SB
1061, SENATOR LIMÓN. GOOD
MORNING. GOOD MORNING. WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. YES. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
FIRST, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE
CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR YOUR WORK AND ADVICE ON THIS
BILL. I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THE
AMENDMENTS SPECIFIED IN THE
ANALYSIS. AS SB 1061 WILL REMOVE
MEDICAL DEBT FROM CONSUMER
CREDIT REPORTS, IT DOES NOT
FORGIVE THE DEBT. IT PROVIDES
RELIEF TO MILLIONS OF
CALIFORNIANS WHOSE CREDIT SCORES
ARE UNNECESSARILY HARMED BY
THESE DEBTS. WE ALSO WE ALL KNOW
THAT OUR HEALTH IS NOT SOMETHING
THAT WE CAN TAKE FOR GRANTED.
OFTENTIMES, OUR NEED FOR HEALTH
CARE SERVICES IS DRIVEN BY
FACTORS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OF
OUR CONTROL, WHETHER DUE TO AN
ACCIDENT OR GENETICS. THE SOCIAL
DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH, OR JUST
PLAIN BAD LUCK AND WE LIVE WITH
A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THIS
COUNTRY THAT IS IMPERFECT, THAT
FAILS TO PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE
AND AFFORDABLE CARE FOR ALL
MEMBERS OF OUR SOCIETY. WE ALSO
KNOW THAT MEDICAL DEBT
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS LOW
INCOME PEOPLE, BLACK AND LATINO
COMMUNITIES, AND YOUNG PEOPLE.
MEDICAL DEBT THAT IS REPORTED TO
CREDIT AGENCIES IS ALSO OFTEN
INACCURATE, WHETHER DUE TO
BILLING ERRORS, MISTAKES WITH
REIMBURSEMENTS, OR ONGOING
DISPUTES WITH INSURANCE PLANS.
WHEN A CONSUMER DISCOVERS
MEDICAL DEBT ON THEIR CREDIT
REPORT, THEY MAY NOT KNOW WHY IT
IS THERE OR WHO TO CONTACT. THE
PROCESS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER
AN ALLEGED MEDICAL DEBT IS
ACCURATELY REPORTED CAN BE TIME
CONSUMING AND FRUSTRATING, AS
THE CONSUMER GOES FROM CREDIT
BUREAU TO DEBT COLLECTOR TO
HEALTH CARE PROVIDER TO
INSURANCE COMPANY SEEKING TO
FIGURE OUT WHETHER A MISTAKE HAS
BEEN MADE AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR FIXING IT. MEDICAL DEBT IS
LESS PREDICTIVE OF A CONSUMER'S
WILLINGNESS AND ABILITY TO PAY
FUTURE CREDIT OBLIGATIONS THAN
OTHER FORMS OF CONSUMER DEBT.
SOME LENDERS AND CREDIT SCORING
MODELS HAVE COME TO REALIZE THAT
FALSE SIGNALS THAT THE MEDICAL
DEBT CAN SEND, LEADING THEM TO
REMOVE MEDICAL DEBT FROM THEIR
RISK SCORING SYSTEM. THIS BILL
PROHIBITS MEDICAL DEBT FROM
BEING REPORTED TO CREDIT CREDIT
AGENCIES, BUT AGAIN DOES NOT
FORGIVE THE DEBT. THIS BILL DOES
NOT RELIEVE MANY BURDENS
ASSOCIATED WITH MEDICAL DEBT.
THE BILL DOES NOT FORGIVE DEBTS
NOR DOES IT RESTRICT COLLECTION
PRACTICES RELATED TO MEDICAL
DEBT. WHILE THIS BILL DOES NOT
SOLVE ALL OF THE PROBLEMS WITH
MEDICAL DEBT, IT IS A START.
REMOVING MEDICAL DEBT FROM
CREDIT REPORTS WILL GIVE
CONSUMERS A BETTER CHANCE TO
RESTORE THEIR FINANCIAL HEALTH.
I'M FORTUNATE TO WORK WITH A
GREAT GROUP OF CO-SPONSORS ON
THIS BILL, AND TESTIFYING TODAY
IS DANNY KONDO KAISER, WHO WILL
SHARE CONSUMER A CONSUMER'S
EXPERIENCE WITH MEDICAL DEBT,
SHOWING UP ON THEIR CREDIT
REPORT, AS WELL AS CARMEN COSTI,
LEAD REGULATORY POLICY
SPECIALIST FOR THE CALIFORNIA
NURSES ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU,
SENATOR, AND WILL YOU BE
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS? YES, I
WILL BE ACCEPTING THE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
UP TO TWO MINUTES EACH. GOOD
MORNING. DANNY KENDALL KAISER ON
BEHALF OF TWO OF THE CO-SPONSORS
OF SB 1061, THE CALIFORNIA LOW
INCOME CONSUMER COALITION AND
THE NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW
CENTER, BOTH ORGANIZATIONS WORK
WITH CONSUMERS STRUGGLING WITH
THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF MEDICAL
DEBT, AND I'D LIKE TO READ THE
STORY OF ONE SUCH WOMAN,
SACRAMENTO BASED SONIA HAYDEN.
IN OCTOBER 2021, I WAS INVOLVED
IN A MAJOR CAR ACCIDENT WHILE
DRIVING ON I-80 FROM SACRAMENTO
TO OAKLAND. THE ACCIDENT
HAPPENED AROUND 10 P.M. IN THE
EVENING, AND I WAS TAKEN BY
AMBULANCE TO THE E.R. IN
FAIRFIELD. AS A STATE WORKER, I
HAVE FULL INSURANCE COVERAGE
THROUGH WORK, SO THAT WAS AT
LEAST ONE LESS THING I HAD TO
WORRY ABOUT. FAST FORWARD TO THE
SUMMER OF 2023, WHEN MY PARTNER
AND I MADE THE DECISION TO TRY
AND BUY OUR FIRST HOME WHILE
APPLYING FOR A LOAN, I WAS
SURPRISED TO DISCOVER MY CREDIT
SCORE HAD GONE DOWN
SIGNIFICANTLY DUE TO AN UNPAID
MYSTERY BILL. I CALLED THE
CREDIT CARD COMPANY LISTED AND
DISCOVERED THAT THE HOSPITAL I
WAS TAKEN TO AFTER THE ACCIDENT
HAD CORRECTLY BILLED MY
INSURANCE FOR EVERYTHING EXCEPT
FOR ONE VERY EXPENSIVE TEST.
THEY HAD DONE. I THINK IT WAS A
SIMPLE MISTAKE. THEY HAD SIMPLY
FORGOTTEN TO ADD MY INSURANCE
INFORMATION TO IT AND BUILD ME
INSTEAD. BUT SOMEHOW I NEVER
RECEIVED THAT BILL. THIS WAS
INCREDIBLY STRESSFUL AT A TIME,
AT A TIME BECAUSE MY CREDIT
SCORE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED OUR
MORTGAGE RATE AT THE TIMES WHEN
RATES WERE ALREADY AT AN ALL
TIME HIGH. I HAVE SPENT HOURS
AND MONTHS ON THE PHONE TRYING
TO GET THIS FIXED, TO NO AVAIL.
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE INSURANCE
COMPANY HAVE TRIED TO HELP AS
HAVE HAS THE CREDIT CARD
COMPANY. THIS I'M SORRY, THE
CREDIT COMPANY, NOT THE CREDIT
CARD COMPANY. THIS IS STILL
SHOWING ON MY CREDIT SCORE AND
THERE APPEARS TO BE NOTHING I
CAN DO ABOUT IT. STORIES LIKE
SONIA'S ARE FAR TOO COMMON IN
CALIFORNIA. WE URGE THIS
COMMITTEE TO VOTE AYE ON SB
1061. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M
CARMEN CÁC, LEAD REGULATORY
POLICY SPECIALIST WITH THE
CALIFORNIA NURSES ASSOCIATION.
I'M ALSO A PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF
THIS BILL, REPRESENTING OVER
100,000 REGISTERED NURSES ACROSS
THE STATE, MEDICAL DEBT
INFORMATION ON CREDIT REPORTS
NEGATIVELY AFFECT MILLIONS OF
CALIFORNIANS. IT CREATES CHAOS
AND PATIENTS LIVES AND LIMITS
ACCESS TO CREDIT FOR NEEDED, TO
SECURE HOUSING, TRANSPORT AND
EVEN JOBS. BUT A PATIENT'S
ABILITY TO PAY FOR A HEALTH FOR
A HEALTH CARE THAT THEY NEED IS
NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE AN
INDICATOR OF THEIR CREDIT
WORTHINESS. CNA NURSES WITNESSED
FIRSTHAND THE NEGATIVE IMPACT
THAT MEDICAL DEBT HAS ON PATIENT
HEALTH. WHEN PATIENTS WORRY
ABOUT MEDICAL DEBT IMPACTING
THEIR CREDIT, THEY TOO OFTEN
FORGO IMPORTANT MEDICAL
TREATMENTS. 78% OF CALIFORNIANS
WITH MEDICAL DEBT REPORT
SKIPPING CARE DUE TO COSTS.
THAT'S TWICE AS LIKELY AS PEOPLE
WITHOUT MEDICAL DEBT. 1 IN 2 LOW
INCOME CALIFORNIANS HAVE MEDICAL
DEBT, AND BLACK AND LATINX
CALIFORNIANS ARE MORE LIKELY TO
HAVE MEDICAL DEBT THAN WHITE
CALIFORNIANS ACCRUING MEDICAL
DEBT IS OFTEN OUT OF A PATIENT'S
CONTROL, PARTICULARLY FOR
UNEXPECTED, UNEXPECTED INJURIES
AND ILLNESSES LIKE A BROKEN ARM,
A HEART ATTACK, OR EVEN CANCER
TREATMENTS. AS HIGH DEDUCTIBLE
INSURANCE PLANS HAVE GROWN
FASTER THAN INFLATION, MEDICAL
DEBT HAS BECOME WORSE. EVEN THE
CREDIT REPORTING BUREAUS
THEMSELVES RECOGNIZE THAT
MEDICAL DEBT IS NOT A RELIABLE
PREDICTOR OF CREDIT WORTHINESS.
FINALLY, WHILE WE APPLAUD THE
NEW FEDERAL PROPOSAL FROM THE
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION
BUREAU ON MEDICAL DEBT REPORTING
, WE KNOW THAT THE ROAD FOR
FEDERAL REGULATION IS LONG AND
UNCERTAIN. CALIFORNIA CAN ENACT
STRONG CONSUMER PROTECTIONS
TODAY TO PROVIDE IMMEDIATE
RELIEF TO PATIENTS BY SUPPORTING
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT,
IF WE CAN ESTABLISH QUORUM,
PLEASE CALL UP HERE. DIXON
BAUER-KAHAN, BRIAN CONNOLLY,
HANY MAIENSCHEIN, MCKENNA.
PACHECO. PRESENT. PATTERSON
REYES. SANCHEZ. ALL RIGHT, WE
HAVE QUORUM, IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE HERE IN SUPPORT OF SB 1061?
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR. AND
MEMBERS. KATIE VAN DINES WITH
HEALTH ACCESS CALIFORNIA, AND WE
ARE A PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF THE
MEASURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
BRIAN LEAHY, AARP VOLUNTEER, ON
BEHALF OF OUR 3.2 MILLION
MEMBERS SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
KIMBERLY ROSENBERGER WITH SEIU
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU, REBECCA
MARCUS, IN SUPPORT FROM CALPIRG,
ONE OF THE PROUD CO-SPONSORS.
THANK YOU. HI, ANTHONY LIU FROM
THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.
ROB BONTA, ONE OF THE PROUD
CO-SPONSORS OF THIS BILL. AND
THANK YOU, MICHAEL GOLDSMITH,
WHO PROVIDED TECHNICAL SUPPORT,
ANSWERING TECHNICAL QUESTIONS
FROM THE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU,
YVONNE FERNANDEZ, CALIFORNIA
LABOR FEDERATION IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, JOSH, ON BEHALF OF
THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA IN
SUPPORT, THANK YOU, AUTUMN OGDEN
SMITH WITH THE AMERICAN CANCER
SOCIETY, CANCER ACTION NETWORK,
ALSO IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
MARVIN PINEDA, ON BEHALF OF THE
LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA SOCIETY IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, RACHEL
BHAGWAT, ACLU, CALIFORNIA ACTION
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MARCUS,
ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU,
NICOLE MASLIN WITH THE MESA
VERDE GROUP REPRESENTING THE
CONSUMER FEDERATION, CO-SPONSORS
OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU. TH¤U,
ON BEHALF OF WESTERN CENTER ON
LAW AND POVERTY AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE HERE
IN OPPOSITION TO SB 1061? YEAH.
YOU CAN FIGURE OUT IF A COUPLE
OF YOU CAN MAKE SOME SPACE.
THAT'D BE GREAT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS
MELANIE CUEVAS WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSOCIATION.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE MUST OPPOSE
THIS MEASURE AS IT IS CURRENTLY
WRITTEN. UNLESS THE DEFINITION
OF MEDICAL DEBT IS TIED TO THOSE
DEBTS THAT ARE OWED DIRECTLY TO
A PROVIDER OR TO A FACILITY.
EVEN THE CFPB, WHICH RELEASED
DRAFT REGULATIONS ON A SIMILAR
TOPIC JUST LAST WEEK, ALSO
SPECIFIES THAT MEDICAL DEBT ARE
THOSE DEBTS OWED DIRECTLY TO A
MEDICAL PROVIDER OR TO A MEDICAL
FACILITY, AND THEY EVEN STATE
THAT MUCH OF WHAT CONSUMERS
UNDERSTAND TO BE MEDICAL DEBT
ARE DEBTS OWED DIRECTLY TO
HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. THE
REASON THAT EVEN THE CFPB TAKES
THIS APPROACH IS BECAUSE, FROM A
COMPLIANCE PERSPECTIVE, THE
INCLUSION OF CREDIT CARDS AND
SECURED DEBT SIMPLY DOESN'T
WORK. AND AS WRITTEN, SB 1061
WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR OUR
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO
IMPLEMENT. AND THAT'S BECAUSE
OUR BANKS DON'T HAVE ITEMIZED
TRANSACTION LEVEL INFORMATION.
AND THE MEASURE WOULD REQUIRE
LENDERS AND CREDIT BUREAUS TO
COMPEL THAT INFORMATION IN ORDER
TO DISTINGUISH WHICH PORTION OF
A TRANSACTION ACTUALLY DOES
QUALIFY AS MEDICAL DEBT. IN
OTHER WORDS, BANK OF MELANIE
DOES NOT SEE THAT A PURCHASE AT
A PHARMACY, FOR EXAMPLE, IS
COMPRISED OF A CO-PAY, A BOTTLE
OF WATER, BAND-AIDS, AND CANDY.
SO MELANIE WOULD SEE THE TOTAL
AMOUNT AND WHEN AND WHERE THAT
PURCHASE WAS MADE, BUT THE
MEASURE WOULD COMPEL THAT
PATIENT OR THAT CONSUMER TO
SHARE PRIVATE MEDICAL
INFORMATION OR, TRANSACTION
LEVEL INFORMATION IN ORDER TO
JUSTIFY WHICH PORTION OF THAT
TRANSACTION WOULD ACTUALLY
QUALIFY AS MEDICAL DEBT SHARING
THAT PRIVATE MEDICAL INFORMATION
IS OF VERY BIG CONCERN. AND WE
HAVE OPPOSED THIS IN RED STATES
WHERE THERE ARE LEGISLATURES
ATTEMPTING TO COMPEL THAT SAME
INFORMATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
TRACKING WHO IS TRAVELING ACROSS
STATE LINES FOR ABORTION
SERVICES, FOR EXAMPLE, FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS DO NOT AND SHOULD
NOT BE INVOLVED IN PRIVATE
MEDICAL INFORMATION IN THIS
MANNER, I THINK IT'S ALSO
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT EVEN WITH
OUR AMENDMENT, THE EXAMPLES
GIVEN BY THE PROPONENTS WOULD
STILL BE COVERED, AND SO AT THIS
TIME, WE CONTINUE TO URGE THE
AUTHOR TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WOULD CLARIFY THAT MEDICAL
DEBTS ARE THOSE DEBTS OWED
DIRECTLY TO A PROVIDER OR TO A
FACILITY. THANK YOU. THANKS
CHAIRMAN CARO, VICE CHAIR DIXON
AND MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS DAVID
REED, AND I SERVE AS GENERAL
COUNSEL TO THE RECEIVABLES
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION. AN
INTERNATIONAL ARMY IS A
NONPROFIT TRADE ASSOCIATION
WHICH REPRESENTS BANKS, CREDIT
UNIONS, COLLECTION AGENCIES,
DEBT BUYING COMPANIES AND
COLLECTION LAW FIRMS. WE'RE
HEADQUARTERED IN SACRAMENTO. I
AM BEFORE YOU TODAY, IN
UNFORTUNATE OPPOSITION TO SB
1061. I SAY UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE
RMI AGREES WITH THE AUTHOR'S
POSITION THAT MEDICAL DEBT
SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY,
FROM OTHER ASSET CLASSES DUE TO
THE UNIQUE NATURE OF THE DEBT.
SIMPLY PUT, PEOPLE DO NOT CHOOSE
TO GET ILL, NOR DO THEY CHOOSE
TO GET IN AN ACCIDENT. RBI HAS
BEEN CONSISTENT IN ITS
OPPOSITION FOR ONE SINGLE REASON
THE OVERLY BROAD DEFINITION OF
MEDICAL DEBT. I THINK WE CAN ALL
AGREE THAT DEBT OWED TO A
HOSPITAL, MEDICAL CLINIC, OR
MEDICAL PROVIDER IS CLEARLY
MEDICAL DEBT. THIS IS THE
POSITION TAKEN NOT ONLY BY THE
FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY, BUT
ALSO THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL
PROTECTION BUREAU. HOWEVER, THIS
BILL APPLIES, A MUCH BROADER
DEFINITION OF MEDICAL DEBT,
WHICH PULLS IN OTHER TYPES OF
FINANCIAL PRODUCTS, INCLUDING
SOME CREDIT CARDS, GENERAL
PURPOSE LINES OF CREDIT, AND
SECURED DEBT. THE CFPB SPENT TWO
YEARS ANALYZING THE CHALLENGES
RELATED TO MEDICAL DEBT AND
CONSIDERED APPLYING IT TO OTHER
FINANCIAL PRODUCTS SIMILAR TO SB
1061, BUT IN THE END REALIZED IT
WOULD BE OVERLY COMPLICATED AND
FOCUSED EXCLUSIVELY ON WHEN THE
DEBT IS OWED TO A HOSPITAL,
CLINIC, OR MEDICAL PROVIDER. WE
ASKED THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO
DO THE SAME. HOWEVER IF THIS IS
NOT POSSIBLE, RMI IS REQUESTING
GREATER EXEMPTIONS IN THE BILL
TO COVER GENERAL PURPOSE CREDIT
CARDS. GENERAL PURPOSE LINES OF
CREDIT CLOSED END LOANS AND
SECURED DEBT. WE ALSO REQUEST
THAT THE EXPUNGEMENT PROVISION
CONTAINED IN THE BILL FOR
REPORTING DEBT TO A CREDIT
REPORTING AGENCY, EVEN AN
ACCIDENTAL REPORTING, CONTAIN A
PROVISION WHERE THE REPORTING
ENTITY CAN SEEK TO CORRECT THE
ERROR WITHIN 15 DAYS OF CONSUMER
NOTICE. FOR THESE REASONS, RMI
REMAINS IN OPPOSITION. IF THESE
CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED, RMI, RMI
WILL CHANGE ITS POSITION TO
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO SB 1061? HI. GOOD
MORNING. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, MARK FAROOQ, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION. WE'RE IN OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION WITH THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WERE TAKEN, I
THINK WE'RE LIKE 90% THERE TO
RESOLVING THOSE ISSUES. I WANT
TO THANK YOU AND YOUR STAFF FOR
ASSISTANCE. ALSO, THE AUTHOR HAS
BEEN VERY PATIENT WITH HER TIME
AND TALKING THROUGH THIS WITH
US. I THINK WE'RE SIGNIFICANTLY
CLOSE TO RESOLVING OUR ISSUE.
WE'LL STILL BE OPPOSED UNLESS
AMENDED, BUT I THINK WE'RE
LITERALLY A FEW WORDS AWAY FROM
BEING ABLE TO REMOVE OUR
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. A FEW
WORDS. CAN YOU GIVE ME A LOT OF
THINGS? ANYWAY MY OWN. THAT WAS
MY INSIDE THOUGHTS COMING OUT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CLIFF BERG
FOR THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION
OF COLLECTORS. WE TOO REMAIN
OPPOSED, HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT
HAVE BEEN ARTICULATED BY THE
LEAD WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I AGREE WITH
YOUR INTERNAL THOUGHTS, ROBERT
MURRAY, ROBERT MURRAY,
CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
OPPOSED DUE TO THE DEFINITION OF
MEDICAL DEBT AS STATED. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR MEMBERS AND DERM MCDONALD
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION,
WOULD ALIGN OUR COMMENTS WITH
THOSE OF THE CALIFORNIA BANKERS
ASSOCIATION AND CONTINUE TO ASK
FOR THE AMENDMENTS TO ALIGN THE
DEFINITION OF MEDICAL DEBT WITH
THE CFPB DEFINITION. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. AND, BUT BEFORE I GO
TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I JUST
WANT TO ASK A QUESTION. THE
AUTHOR, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND
THAT YOU'VE THERE HAVE BEEN SOME
CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS REGARDING
DEFINITION OF MEDICAL DEBT MAY
NOT BE TO THE SATISFACTION OF
OPPOSITION, BUT I BELIEVE THAT
IT INCLUDES EXCLUDING GENERAL
PURPOSE CREDIT CARDS. THAT'S
CORRECT. IF YOU WANT TO IF YOU
WANT TO ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT,
GENERAL PURPOSE CREDIT CARDS,
THOSE HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED. THIS
IS ONLY THE CARE CARD, RIGHT?
THIS IS ONLY THE CARD THAT'S
USED FOR MEDICAL SERVICES THAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO ANYTHING
ELSE THAT'S ON A REGULAR CREDIT
CARD IS OUT. THAT'S NOT WHAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT MEDICAL CREDIT
CARDS. THAT SHOULD ONLY BE USED
FOR MEDICAL SERVICES IF THEY ARE
NOT. I THINK WE HAVE A DIFFERENT
PROBLEM, BUT CERTAINLY JUST WANT
TO BE CLEAR. I ALSO THINK THE
ANALYSIS DOES A REALLY GOOD JOB
OF DESCRIBING SOME OF THE
AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAVE, GOTTEN
TO FOR CLARIFYING LANGUAGE ON
HOW WE'RE NARROWING IT DOWN,
INCLUDING REAL ESTATE AND
MORTGAGE AND ALL THOSE OTHER
THINGS. OKAY. THANK YOU,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN,
WELL, I WANT TO START BY
THANKING THE AUTHOR BECAUSE, IN
HER YEARS IN THE LEGISLATURE,
I'M NOT GOING TO CALL THEM MANY
BECAUSE THAT'S NOT NICE. BUT YOU
REALLY HAVE BEEN A HUGE
PROTECTOR OF CALIFORNIA'S
CONSUMERS FROM WAYS IN WHICH THE
LENDING INDUSTRY HARMS THEM. AND
I THINK THIS IS A FURTHER
EXTENSION OF THAT WORK IN A WAY
THAT'S REALLY CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT. I'M SURE THERE'S NO
ONE ON THIS DAIS WHO HASN'T BEEN
HIT WITH A SURPRISE MEDICAL BILL
OR SOMETHING OF THE SORT, AND
WE'RE ALL FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO
HAVE THE SKILL, THE ABILITY TO
DEAL WITH IT AND THE RESOURCES
AS WELL. SO I THINK THE WORK
YOU'RE DOING HERE IS REALLY
IMPORTANT. I APPRECIATE THE
AMENDMENT THAT WAS HIGHLIGHTED
BY THE CHAIR, BUT ONE THING THAT
WAS SAID BY THE OPPOSITION THAT
I THINK IS INTERESTING. SO I, I
AGREE WITH YOU, BY THE WAY, ON
THE CARE CARDS. SO THE CARE
CARDS, CREDIT CARD ISSUE, I
THINK I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT WHAT
I HEARD THE OPPOSITION SAYING
WAS ALSO, WHAT IF YOU HAVE A
LINE OF CREDIT ON YOUR HOME THAT
YOU USE TO PAY OFF YOUR MEDICAL
DEBT, WHICH I'M SURE PEOPLE DO,
RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT HAVE HUGE
MEDICAL DEBT, HOW DOES THAT
APPLY HERE? AND I'M GOING TO
HAVE, OUR TECHNICAL EXPERT HERE
ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR PIECE.
OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I BELIEVE
THERE'S BEEN THANK YOU. I
BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN UPDATES TO
THE PROVISION OF THE BILL THAT,
WILL EXCLUDE, ANYTHING THAT'S
SECURED, INCLUDING A SECOND
LINE, INCLUDING, LIKE A SECOND
MORTGAGE. SO ANYTHING THAT'S,
ANYTHING PULLED OUT THAT'S
SECURED TO YOUR, REAL PROPERTY
WILL NOT BE INCLUDED AS PART OF
MEDICAL DEBT. SO I DO SEE THE
CREDIT CARD LANGUAGE IN THE
ANALYSIS. I ACTUALLY DON'T SEE
THAT IN THE ANALYSIS. SO IF
SOMEBODY COULD POINT THAT TO ME,
THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. MY
UNDERSTANDING IN TALKING WITH
STAFF, OF COURSE, IS THAT, THAT
LINES OF CREDIT ARE SPECIFICALLY
UNLESS ARE EXCLUDED, UNLESS
THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY MARKETED,
MARKETED TO TARGET JUST MEDICAL
DEBT, OTHERWISE THEY'RE
EXCLUDED. SO I READ THAT WHEN IT
SAYS IT SAYS CREDIT CARD. SO I
GUESS SO THIS IS IN THE VOID
PROVISION. SO WE'VE EXEMPTED,
ANY SECURED DEBT IN THE VOID
PROVISION. OKAY. SO I GUESS IF
THAT'S NOT CLEAR I TAKE THIS AS
YOUR COMMITMENT TO MAKE SURE
THAT IS. YES. YES. WE'VE
EXEMPTED STILL THE VOID
PROVISION OKAY. THAT IS. YES.
OKAY. SO I GUESS THAT HOW DOES
THAT IF YOU DON'T MIND, MR.
CHAIR, HOW DOES THAT ADDRESS THE
BANK OF MELANIE'S CONCERN? I
APPRECIATE THE QUESTION.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT DOESN'T
ADDRESS WHY, BECAUSE THERE ARE
THERE IS A QUESTION AS TO
WHETHER WHEN THERE AND CAN SPEAK
ON THIS AS WELL, IF THERE IS A
SECURED LINE, WHAT WHAT DOES
BANK OF MELANIE NÓ AGAIN. WHAT
THAT IS BEING SPENT ON. SO DO I
DOES BANK OF MELANIE KNOW THAT
IT IS SPENT ON A DEFINED MEDICAL
LIKE A MEDICALLY NECESSARY DEBT?
I THINK I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SHE JUST
SAID THAT SHE EXEMPTED SECURED
LINES THOUGH, SO. OKAY, SO WHAT
I'M NOT REPORTING CORRECT. THE
SECURE DEBT HAS TO BE SPECIFIC,
THICKLY MARKETED FOR MEDICAL. SO
LIKE IF IT'S IF YOU BANK OF
MELANIE OR BANK OF MONIQUE
MARKET IT LIKE YOU CAN TAKE OUT
A LOAN OF CREDIT TO PAY YOUR
MEDICAL DEBT THAT'S NOT
EXEMPTED. BUT IF YOU BANK OF
MONIQUE ME WHATEVER. RIGHT. SAY,
HEY, THIS IS A LOAN FOR YOUR
HOME. AND IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO
MEDICAL DEBT THAT IS EXEMPTED.
AND I THINK THAT'S AN AREA FOR
US OF A LITTLE BIT OF AMBIGUITY
IN THAT I AM NOT PERSONALLY
AWARE OF LINES THAT ARE
SPECIFICALLY MARKETED ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF MEDICAL, BUT I
THINK THAT THERE IS KNOWLEDGE
THAT YOU MIGHT TAKE OUT A SECOND
MORTGAGE AND USE IT TO PAY FOR A
VARIETY OF THINGS, RIGHT? SO IF
THE INDIVIDUAL BANKER KNOWS OR
DOESN'T KNOW, I THINK THAT IT
GETS A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED.
AND I THINK A LOT OF IT HINGES
ON A VERY, VERY CLEAR
DEFINITION. RIGHT? SO I GUESS
WHAT I'M HEARING THE AUTHOR SAY
IS THAT HER INTENTION AND IS.
YES, AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE THAT
LANGUAGE. IS IT IN THE SO IN THE
ACTUAL IN THE BILL AND PRINT ON
IT'S ON PAGE SIX, LINES SEVEN
THROUGH 20. OKAY. SO BUT IT DOES
SPECIFICALLY SAY MEDICAL DEBT
DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE
FOLLOWING DEBT, Ó IN BE A LOAN
SECURED BY REAL PROPERTY UNLESS
EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING. THE
LENDER MARK ONE. THE LENDER
MARKETED THE LOAN AS BEING FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PAYING FOR A
MEDICAL SERVICE, PRODUCT OR
DEVICE, OR NUMBER TWO AT THE
TIME THE LOAN WAS MADE, THE
LENDER HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE THAT
THE BORROWER INTENDED TO USE THE
PROCEEDS ALONE TO PAY FOR A
MEDICAL SERVICE, PRODUCT, OR
DEVICE. NOW GENERALLY, WHEN LOAN
LINES OF CREDIT ARE TAKEN, THE
BANK DOESN'T REALLY CARE WHAT
YOU'RE USING IT FOR, AND SO THAT
THEY'RE PROBABLY VERY RARE
SITUATIONS WHERE THIS WOULD
APPLY. CORRECT. AND WE ARE OPEN
TO LOOKING. I KNOW THAT THE
MORTGAGE BANKERS HAD SAID THAT
THEY WERE GOING TO PROVIDE
CLARITY ON MARKETING. SO IF THIS
ISN'T CLEAR ENOUGH, THIS
EXEMPTION HAPPY TO LOOK AT THE
LANGUAGE. AND I WILL SAY THAT
WHAT YOU CITED WITH THE BANKERS
HAVE CITED, WHICH IS A KNOWN OR
SHOULD HAVE KNOWN KNOWLEDGE, IS
DIFFERENT THAN AN ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE STANDARD, WHICH IS
WHAT THE LANGUAGE SAYS. AND SO I
DO THINK THAT THAT SHOULD
ADDRESS. BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE I
THINK THE AUTHOR, FROM WHAT I'M
HEARING IN THIS CONVERSATION,
UNDERSTANDS THAT CONCERN OF A
REGULAR CREDIT CARD THAT I GO,
YOU KNOW, AND I'M SURE MANY OF
US DO THIS TO GET POINTS PAY OFF
YOUR, YOU KNOW, MEDICAL DEBT
USING A CREDIT CARD. AND THERE'S
NO WAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE
CREDIT CARD HAS WAY OF KNOWING
THAT'S MEDICAL DEBT. THEY
OBVIOUSLY CAN'T NOT REPORT THAT
AND NOT DO ALL THE THINGS. BUT
AGAIN IF YOU KNOW THAT'S WHAT IT
IS, WHICH I CAN'T IMAGINE A
SITUATION. I'M WITH THE CHAIR
WHERE THAT WOULD BE THE CASE, OR
YOUR MARKETING IT SPECIFICALLY
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE CAN BE
CLARIFICATION ON THAT
POTENTIALLY IF YOU PROVIDE IT. I
THINK THAT PIECE OF IT, IS GOING
TO BE ADDRESSED. I'M CONFIDENT,
IF NOT ALREADY ADDRESSED, AS IT
SOUNDS LIKE PERHAPS THE AUTHOR
SEES IT, BUT SHE'S I KNOW HER
WELL ENOUGH TO KNOW SHE'S OPEN
TO CONVERSATIONS ON THAT. AND
THEN I WANTED TO ADD ONE FURTHER
QUESTION. IF YOU'LL INDULGE ME,
MR. CHAIR, WHICH IS THERE'S VERY
SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN HERE ABOUT
THE, CONTRACT PROVISION THAT
WOULD MAKE IT THAT YOU HAVE TO,
YOU KNOW, JULY OF 2025, ANYONE
ENTERING A CONTRACT HAS TO HAVE
THIS LANGUAGE. WHAT IS CONFUSING
TO ME IS HOW THIS APPLIES TO
MEDICAL DEBT THAT IS IN PROCESS
TODAY. OKAY. RIGHT. SO I HAD A
SURGERY SIX MONTHS AGO. I
HAVEN'T PAID IT LIKE I'M IN THE
PROCESS OF THAT BEING A HIT ON
MY CREDIT REPORT. WHEN DOES THIS
TRIGGER LIKE IT DOES? THERE
SEEMS TO BE A RETROACTIVITY
PROBLEM HERE THAT ISN'T EVEN
CLEAR TO ME WHEN YOU WOULD WHEN
THIS KICKS IN. FOR PEOPLE WHO
ARE CURRENTLY IN PROCESS, ETC.
SO THE LAW, YOU KNOW, GOES INTO
EFFECT. SO THE STOPS THE
STOPPING OF REPORTING IT TO,
CREDIT AGENCIES STARTS ON THE
DATE THAT THE LAW GOES INTO
EFFECT. SO UP UNTIL NOW, I MEAN,
PEOPLE CAN CONTINUE TO REPORT IT
TO CREDIT AGENCIES, CAN CONTINUE
ON THEIR PLAN OF PROCESS FOR
DEBT COLLECTION, THE REPORTING
PIECE ALSO THAT STARTS ON
JANUARY 1ST OF 2025, IS AGAIN,
IT DOESN'T VOID THE DEBT. IT
JUST SAYS YOU THE ENTITY HAS TO
PROCESS WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, HAS
TO GO THROUGH THEIR PROCESS BUT
CANNOT REPORT IT TO CREDIT
AGENCIES. SO WHATEVER OUR DEBT
IS IN EXISTENCE, THE WHAT STOPS
IS NOT THE DEBT. WE'RE NOT
TOUCHING THAT. IT'S JUST THE
REPORTING TO CREDIT AGENCIES.
THAT IS WHAT IS TRIGGERED ON
JANUARY 1ST OF 2025. SO NO MORE
REPORTING TO CREDIT AGENCIES.
YOU DEAL WITH EXISTING DEBT JUST
THE WAY THAT YOU'VE BEEN DEALING
WITH IT. IT'S JUST THE REPORTING
THAT STARTS ON JANUARY 1ST. SO
AT WHAT POINT, IF I MAY ASK A
QUESTION OF SOME OF THE EXPERTS,
I DON'T KNOW WHO WANTS TO. MAYBE
THE AUTHOR KNOWS THIS. AT WHAT
POINT DO YOU REPORT TO A CREDIT
AGENCY DEBT EVERY MONTH THEY'RE
REPORTING NOW. THEY'VE BEEN
REPORTING EVERY MONTH. SO FOR
DEBT THAT'S ACCRUED PRIOR TO
JANUARY OF 2025, FOLKS WILL HAVE
BEEN REPORTED ALREADY. AND IT'S
ALREADY IMPACTING THEIR CREDIT
SCORE. SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT
THIS BILL CAN DO TO CHANGE BAD
CREDIT SCORES. DIFFERENT CREDIT
SCORES, YOU KNOW, IMPACTED
CREDIT SCORES UP UNTIL NOW. AND
THIS ISN'T GOING TO SOLVE FOR
THAT IN THE FUTURE. IT JUST SAYS
AS OF JANUARY 1ST OF 2025, THE
PRACTICE OF REPORTING. BUT BUT
IT'S BEING REPORTED EVERY MONTH
AND IT HAS BEEN FOR DECADES.
RIGHT. SO I YEAH, I GUESS I'M
STRUGGLING WITH THAT BECAUSE I
THINK THAT INDICATE IT'S A
CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR ON THE
CREDITORS PART THAT DOESN'T
EXIST VERSUS MOVING FORWARD. NEW
DEBT BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY.
SO I GUESS THAT PIECE OF IT IS A
CHALLENGE FOR ME. I DON'T KNOW
IF ANYBODY WANTS TO ADDRESS THAT
SPECIFICALLY IN THE HEALTH CARE.
SPHERE AND ESPECIALLY AT
HOSPITALS, THERE'S A DELAY OF
WHEN IT CAN CURRENTLY BE
REPORTED TO COLLECTION REPORTING
AGENCIES. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE
TIME, THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT
TAKES FOR A CLAIM TO BE
SUBMITTED TO INSURANCE COMPANIES
FOR APPROVAL PROCESS FOR SOMEONE
TO REALIZE THAT THEY OWE MONEY
FOR THEIR MEDICAL BILLS, ALL
THAT HAS TO TAKE TIME. SO
GENERALLY, AT MINIMUM, IT'S LIKE
ABOUT 180 DAYS, IF NOT LONGER
FOR THE INITIATION OF REPORTING
TO COLLECTION AGENCIES. SO EVEN
NEW DEBT WILL CURRENTLY HAVE TO
PAUSE BEFORE IT CAN BE REPORTED.
RIGHT. SO THAT'S I THINK WHAT
I'M STRUGGLING WITH, AND I KNOW.
THAT'S SO I GUESS I JUST I THINK
WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS
REALLY IMPORTANT. I JUST THINK
THAT IF WE MAKE A CHANGE IN THE
LAW, IT SHOULD APPLY
PROSPECTIVELY TO DEBT. BUT I
GUESS THAT'S SOMETHING I'M
STRUGGLING WITH ON MY OWN. SO
WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT BACK TO
THE CHAIR. THANK YOU. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PATTERSON. GREAT. THANK
YOU, WHAT'S GOOD TO KNOW? WE
HAVE TWO BANKS IN THE ROOM WITH
THE BANK OF MELANIE AND THE BANK
OF MONIQUE. I ENTERED THE WRONG
FIELD. I DON'T HAVE MY OWN BANK,
I UNDERSTAND, WHAT YOU'RE DOING,
WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE PROBABLY ALL
KNOW PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN
STRADDLED WITH MEDICAL DEBT,
OBVIOUSLY, THAT THEY DIDN'T ASK
FOR. AND SO SORT OF
PHILOSOPHICALLY, YOU KNOW, MAYBE
I COULD GET TO A PLACE OF
SUPPORTING IT. BUT MY BIG
CONCERN IS THIS I SIT ON HEALTH
COMMITTEE AND, I'VE PUT TOGETHER
A HEALTH ADVISORY GROUP, YOU
KNOW, DISTRICT PROVIDERS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT. AND PRETTY
MUCH EVERYBODY ON THAT. NUMBER
ONE, FRUSTRATION IS ALWAYS JUST
GETTING PAID, NO MATTER WHO THEY
GET PAID FROM, RIGHT? I MEAN,
WHETHER IT'S THROUGH A DEBT OR
WHETHER IT'S FROM A PLAN OR
SOMETHING ELSE. AND SO MY
BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT, AND
ESPECIALLY IF IT WAS PUT ONTO
THE PROVIDERS OR THE HOSPITALS,
IS THAT THIS REALLY CHANGES THE
PRIORITY IN WHICH PEOPLE ARE
GOING TO PAY WHAT DEBT THEY OWE,
BECAUSE THERE'S WOULD BE SMALLER
CONSEQUENCES, TO PAY, YOU KNOW,
YOUR HEALTH BILL OVER MAYBE LIKE
A CREDIT CARD OR SOMETHING LIKE
THAT. SO, SO I GET A LOT OF
CONCERN BECAUSE IN MY DISTRICT,
THERE'S A MEDICAL GROUP, FOR
EXAMPLE, OF EMERGENCY ROOM
DOCTORS THAT ARE LITERALLY OWED
MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS. AND I JUST GET
CONCERNED WITH THEIR VIABILITY
TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THOSE
SERVICES. BUT THAT SAID, I KIND
OF UNDERSTAND WHERE MAYBE SOME
OF THE CONVERSATION IS GOING
BEFORE IT GETS TO THE FLOOR. SO
I'LL BE INTERESTED IN THOSE FOR
SURE. BUT, BUT I JUST DON'T WANT
TO EXACERBATE AN ISSUE, WITH
PROVIDERS GETTING PAID
BASICALLY. SO AND IF YOU HAVE A
RESPONSE TO THAT, I'D LOVE TO
HEAR IT, OBVIOUSLY. BUT THOSE
WERE JUST MY COMMENTS. THANK
YOU. AND REMEMBER THAT THIS DOES
NOT FORGIVE THE DEBT, RIGHT? SO
THE DEBT CAN STILL BE COLLECTED.
THE ONLY THING THAT THIS BILL
DOES IS IT SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T
REPORT IT TO A CREDIT AGENCY. SO
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. AND SO WE
THINK THAT THE REASON, THAT IT'S
IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THAT IS
CERTAINLY BECAUSE THE NATURE OF
MEDICAL DEBT, IT'S A SMALLER
GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE A
MEDICAL DEBT. AND ALSO BECAUSE
OF THE INACCURACIES, I MEAN, I
THINK WE CAN ALL LOOK AT OUR OWN
AND SAY, I HAVE TO CALL THE
INSURANCE FOR THAT. THEY DIDN'T,
YOU KNOW, THEY LET ME LET ME
MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE
INFORMATION. LET ME MAKE SURE
THAT THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE
FOLLOWED UP WITH THE PAPERWORK.
THAT'S NEEDED. SOMETIMES IT'S A
CODING ISSUE. YOU HEARD FROM ONE
OF THE WITNESSES THAT THAT
WITNESS DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT
THERE WAS MEDICAL DEBT UNTIL
THEY SAW IT. SO I THINK FOR US,
AGAIN, THE ISSUE OF COLLECTING
ON DEBT, THIS DOESN'T FORGIVE
IT. IT'S JUST ABOUT REPORTING TO
THE CREDIT AGENCIES. WOULD YOU
MIND, MR. CHAIR, YEAH. ON THAT
NOTE, I THINK SOMETHING THAT
WOULD ESSENTIALLY ENSURE THAT
THE PERSON ACTUALLY KNOWS THEY
HAVE THE DEBT, OR THAT IT'S
GOING TO BE REPORTED, IT'S
OBVIOUSLY PROBLEMATIC IF
PEOPLE'S LIVELIHOODS OR THEIR
ABILITY TO OBTAIN CREDIT IS
BEING LIMITED OVER A CODING
ERROR OR JUST, SOME PLAN OR
WHETHER IT'S MEDI-CAL OR ANY
OTHER PLAN UNABLE TO PAY BECAUSE
SOMETHING HAPPENED, YOU KNOW,
WITHIN THE SYSTEM, AND THEN A
PERSON GETS, YOU KNOW, PENALIZED
AS A RESULT. THAT IS AN
INTERESTING TOPIC. I'M
DEFINITELY, WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE
OF THAT, THIS IS MORE BROAD. I
UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING
WITH IT. AND I GET THE. BUT IF
SOMETHING'S NOT GOING ON MY
CREDIT REPORT AND I OWE A DEBT,
I THINK ABOUT THAT. RIGHT. AND
I'M GOING TO PAY OTHER DEBTS
FIRST. SO, SO THAT IS A CONCERN
I HAVE, BUT, I LIKE WHAT YOU'RE
THINKING THAT THE ACCIDENTS THAT
OCCUR THAT CAUSE PEOPLE TO BE
UNFAIRLY PENALIZED OUT OF THEIR
CONTROL, THAT IS A PROBLEM. AND
IF WE COULD SOLVE THAT, I'M
TOTALLY ON BOARD WITH THAT 100.
SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I
WILL ALSO JUST NOTE, I THINK AND
I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT PAGE, BUT
IN THE ANALYSIS IT ALSO SAYS
THAT A SURVEY WAS DONE BY KAISER
HEALTH GROUP AND ABOUT 43% OF
FOLKS FEEL THAT THERE HAVE BEEN
AN ERROR WITH THEIR INSURANCE.
SO KUDOS TO THE FACT THAT I'M
REMEMBERING. I JUST DON'T
REMEMBER, LIKE WHAT PAGE IT WAS.
BUT I READ IT. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH,
I KNEW IT WAS COMING.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S REYES I DO WANT
TO THANK YOU. YOU HAVE
ABSOLUTELY BEEN THE LEADER WHEN
IT COMES TO CONSUMER DEBT AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION. OAN I
THINK THIS IS ONE STEP FORWARD.
JUST AS MY COLLEAGUE MENTIONED,
AND I THINK WITH BANK OF JIM
WOULD ACTUALLY PAY THAT DEBT. JO
JO Þ. EVERY DAY. THE BANK OF JIM
MAY NOT PAY, BUT THE BANK OF JIM
. OKAY I THINK IT'S VERY
TELLING. WHEN THE CALIFORNIA
HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION TELLS US
THAT THEY ARE 90% THERE, THE
FACT THAT THAT IT'S JUST A FEW
MORE WORDS, CLEARLY THERE'S BEEN
LOTS OF NEGOTIATIONS GOING ON
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE RIGHT
LANGUAGE TO PUT IN TO PROTECT
THE CREDIT CARD COMPANIES THAT
DON'T REALLY THEY'VE ALREADY
PAID THE DEBT TO THE HOSPITAL,
AND NOW IT'S SOMETHING THEY
CAN'T REPORT. I GET THAT, BUT IF
WE HAVE THE CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION, IN, IN, IN
NEGOTIATIONS TELLING US THEY'RE
JUST A FEW WORDS AWAY, THAT THAT
SAYS A LOT TO ME, I THIS IS AN
AREA THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM, FROM
MANY GROUPS. THE FACT THAT
MEDICAL DEBT IN YOUR IN YOUR
CREDIT REPORT CAUSES SO MANY
PROBLEMS, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING
THAT SOMEBODY DOESN'T WANT TO
PAY. IF THEY CAN PAY, I KNOW
THAT THEY WILL TAKE CARE OF IT.
BUT THE FACT THAT IT IT HINDERS
THEIR FUTURE IN SUCH A WAY AS IT
DOES NOW, I THINK IS SOMETHING
THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED. AND I
ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATE THAT
YOU'RE BRINGING THIS UP. AND
WITH THAT, I WOULD MOVE THE
BILL. THANK YOU SIR. SECOND,
SECOND, SUMMARY. PACHECO. SO
THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL THAT WOULD
HELP. THANK YOU TO THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD.
I DO HAVE, SOME QUESTIONS, SO IT
ALL THIS PRETTY MUCH THE
OPPOSITION IS MORE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF, OF OR
THE DEFINITION OF MEDICAL DEBT,
AND I KNOW THE AUTHOR HAS TAKEN
AMENDMENTS. I'M CURIOUS TO SEE
WHERE, THE OPPOSITION LIKE WHAT
THE OPPOSITION THINKS OF THESE
AMENDMENTS. DOES IT MAKE IT
BETTER, IT FEELS LIKE IT DOES
MAKE IT BETTER, BUT I JUST WANT
TO HEAR FROM OPPOSITION TO SEE,
YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU ARE WITH
THESE AMENDMENTS. WELL, I WOULD
SAY THAT FOR, I, WE VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE THE WILLINGNESS OF
THE AUTHOR AND HER STAFF TO WORK
WITH US, AND, AND PURSUE
AMENDMENTS, I WOULD SAY THAT,
YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, WE
REPRESENT, BUSINESSES IN ALL 50
STATES, CREDITORS IN ALL 50
STATES, AND, AND IDEALLY, WE
LIKE TO HAVE UNIFORMITY IN ALL
50 STATES, ALONG WITH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND I WOULD
SAY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE
STATES THAT HAVE ADOPTED
LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO THIS HAVE
ADOPTED A MORE NARROW, NARROWER
DEFINITION. AND CERTAINLY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ADOPTED A
MORE NARROWER DEFINITION. BUT
THAT BEING SAID, YOU KNOW,
OBVIOUSLY CALIFORNIA CAN DO WHAT
CALIFORNIA WANTS TO DO, WHAT
WE'RE ASKING IS IF WE CAN'T GET
THAT NARROW OR DEFINITION THAT
WE HAVE APPROPRIATE, EXEMPTIONS,
AS WELL AS ADDRESSING THE, THE,
THE EXPUNGEMENT LANGUAGE. AND
THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT, COMES
DOWN TO AT THIS POINT. YOU KNOW,
WE I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN AN
ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THE, THE
MORTGAGE DEBT, WE THINK THERE'S
STILL AMBIGUITY AS, AS MELANIE
MENTIONED. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE
ARE SOME OTHER, TYPES OF
PRODUCTS THAT AREN'T EVEN
ADDRESSED YET IN THE EXEMPTION,
INCLUDING, A GENERAL PURPOSE
LINE OF CREDIT. YOU GO TO A BANK
AND YOU GET A $5,000 UNSECURED
LINE OF CREDIT, AND YOU PUT THAT
TOWARDS A MEDICAL EXPENSE THAT'S
NOT COVERED HERE, WHICH MEANS
THAT, IF THEY PUT THAT $5,000
TOWARDS A MEDICAL DEBT, EVEN
THOUGH THE BANK DID NOT KNOW
THEY WERE DOING THAT, THAT IS
ALL OF A SUDDEN, MEDICAL DEBT.
AND IF IT'S REPORTED, TO A
CREDIT REPORT, IT'S EXPUNGED.
THE SAME THING GOES WITH JUST A
STRAIGHT OUT CLOSED END LINE OF
OR NOT A LINE OF CREDIT, BUT
JUST A LOAN OF $5,000. YOU GO TO
A BANK UNSECURED LOAN THAT'S NOT
EXEMPTED AS WELL. SO THERE ARE
THINGS THAT WE THINK THAT COULD
BE TIGHTENED UP ON THE EXEMPTION
SIDE. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY ON THE
EXPUNGEMENT SIDE, YOU KNOW, OUR
CONCERN AGAIN IS AN
UNINTENTIONAL REPORTING WILL
THEN EXPUNGE THE ENTIRE DEBT.
AND WE THINK THAT THAT'S AN
EXTREME OUTCOME FOR SOMETHING
THAT COULD BE INADVERTENT AND
ACCIDENTAL. SO, A COUPLE MORE
QUESTIONS, REGARDING THE SECOND
EXAMPLE THAT YOU USED, IF
SOMEONE TAKES OUT A LINE OF
CREDIT, IT DOES SAY HERE THAT,
IN ORDER FOR THAT, IT, IT
WOULDN'T INCLUDE IF IT WOULD
ONLY INCLUDE IF THE LENDER
MARKETED THE LOAN AS BEING FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PAYING FOR
MEDICAL SERVICE. SO I THINK THE
EXAMPLE THAT YOU USE, IF SOMEONE
TAKES OUT A LINE OF CREDIT TO,
PAY FOR A MEDICAL DEBT, LET'S
SAY A LINE OF CREDIT OF 10,000
USE 5000 FOR A MORTGAGE PAYMENT
OR SOME KIND OF DEBT, AND THEN
5000 FOR A MEDICAL DEBT. IT
WOULDN'T THAT WOULDN'T BE
INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION. IS
THAT CORRECT? WELL, AGAIN, I
THINK I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T HAVE
THE BILL RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE
SITUATION THAT THAT THE REAL
SITUATION THAT YOU COULD
POTENTIALLY HAVE, INCLUDING ON
THE HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT,
IS THAT WHAT IF THE CONSUMER
SAID THANK YOU? I'M AT THE POINT
THAT THEY'RE SIGNING THE HOME
EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT. THANK
YOU. I NEEDED THIS MONEY SO MUCH
BECAUSE I NEEDED TO PAY FOR A
MEDICAL DEBT. THEY MIGHT BE
TELLING THE PERSON, YOU KNOW
THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE
SPENDING THE MONEY ON. BUT THE
BANK ITSELF DID NOT MARKET IT
FOR THAT PURPOSE, SO THAT'S
WHERE THE AMBIGUITY THAT WE'RE
VERY MUCH CONCERNED ABOUT
EXISTS. I CAN THE REASON THAT
WE'RE SAYING THAT IS BECAUSE
THERE'S IT'S AN EITHER OF THE
FOLLOWING. SO EITHER THE, THE
LOAN IS MARKETED FOR THAT
PURPOSE OR AT THE TIME OF THE
LOAN, THE LENDER HAD ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE. SO IN THE EXAMPLE
THAT MR. REID GAVE, IF THE
CONSUMER IS TAKING ON THAT LINE
OF CREDIT AND SAYS, YOU KNOW,
I'M USING IT FOR THESE THREE
THINGS AND ONE OF THEM HAPPENS
TO BE MEDICAL, OR MAYBE IT'S IN
THAT SORT OF AMBIGUOUS AREA
WHERE IT'S YOU KNOW, A COSMETIC
PROCEDURE. AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IF
YOU'RE GOING YOU'RE IF YOU'RE
USING A CARD AND BUYING
BAND-AIDS OR THOSE MEDICALLY
NECESSARY OR NOT, THE LENDER IS
NOT IN THE POSITION TO MAKE THE
DETERMINATION OF WHAT'S
MEDICALLY NECESSARY OR NOT. BUT
UNDER THESE AMENDMENTS, WITH THE
KNOWLEDGE STANDARD, IF SOMEBODY
IS TELLING THAT BANKER, YOU
KNOW, AT THE TIME OF
ORIGINATION, HEY, I'M GOING TO
USE IT FOR THESE THINGS, THEN
DOES THAT QUALIFY? DOES THAT
HELP ANSWER YOUR. YEAH. AND I DO
SEE THAT LANGUAGE HERE THAT IT
IF THE LENDER HAD ACTUAL
KNOWLEDGE THAT THE BORROWER
INTENDED TO USE THE PROCEEDS.
YEAH, YOU KNOW, FOR THE, THE
MEDICAL DEBT THAT THAT WOULD BE
INCLUDED AS WELL. I'M JUST
TRYING TO THINK IN MY HEAD OF
LIKE WHEN THAT WOULD HAPPEN, I
THINK IT WOULD BE RARE FOR
SOMEONE TO SAY I AM USING WHAT
THEY'RE USING THEIR, YOU KNOW,
LINE OF CREDIT FOR. AND I DON'T
KNOW WHAT YOUR EXPERIENCE HAS
BEEN OR IF, YOU KNOW. YEAH, IT'S
NOT UNCOMMON FOR A BORROWER TO
DISCLOSE WHAT THEY'RE USING THE
FUNDS FOR. SO LIKE IF YOU'RE
TAKING OUT, YOU KNOW, A HOME
EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT AND YOU'RE
SAYING, HEY, I'M USING IT TO
REMODEL MY BATHROOM AND DO X, Y,
AND Z. OKAY. WELL, I'M ACTUALLY
I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM THE
AUTHOR AS WELL. YEAH. NO. AND I
THINK, LOOK, WE TRY TO TAKE,
AMENDMENTS TO CLARIFY THAT
THERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE. IF
SOMETHING IS MARKETED FOR
MEDICAL DEBT, WHETHER IT'S A
LOAN OR A CREDIT CARD, IT SHOULD
BE INCLUDED. IF IT IS NOT. AND
WE'VE TRIED TO, I THINK, CAPTURE
THAT IN THE AMENDMENTS WITH WITH
MATE. IF IT'S NOT MARKETED FOR
THAT, THEN IT'S NOT. IT
SHOULDN'T BE INCLUDED. AND SO
WE'RE HAPPY TO LOOK AT ANY
LANGUAGE THEY HAVE, TO FURTHER
CLARIFY THAT IT IS ABOUT, YOU
KNOW, HOW YOU MARKET IT, LIKE IF
YOU GO OUT AND TELL PEOPLE YOU
CAN USE THIS MONEY TO PAY OFF
MEDICAL DEBT IN ANY, YOU KNOW,
IN ANY ORDER, BUT IT'S IN THERE,
THEN IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED. SO
WE'VE MADE AMENDMENTS IF THERE,
YOU KNOW, ARE MORE. WE'RE HAPPY
TO LOOK AT LANGUAGE TO FURTHER
DEFINE THAT. BUT THIS IS NOT
INTENDED TO BE FOR A GENERAL
CREDIT CARD, NOT INTENDED TO BE
FOR A HOME MORTGAGE, THAT IS FOR
HOMES. IT IS FOR MEDICAL DEBT.
SO HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO LOOK AT
THAT. THANK YOU. AND I LOOK
FORWARD TO MORE CONVERSATIONS
HAPPENING BETWEEN BOTH SIDES. I
WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS BILL
TODAY. BUT AGAIN, THANK YOU TO
THE AUTHOR FOR BRINGING THIS
IMPORTANT BILL FORWARD. THANK
YOU, VICE CHAIR DIXON, THANK YOU
. CHAIR, I APPRECIATE YOUR GOOD
INTENTIONS HERE. AND LISTENING
TO THIS CONVERSATION, I'M. MAYBE
I MISSED THIS, BUT I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND MANY PEOPLE MYSELF,
AND MANY OF US INCLUDED, RECEIVE
, REIMBURSEMENT FROM OUR
INSURANCE COMPANIES FOR MEDICAL
SERVICES PERFORMED, DEPENDING ON
YOUR PLAN, SOME PAYMENTS ARE
PAID DIRECTLY TO THE MEDICAL
PROVIDER. SOME PEOPLE RECEIVE A
PERSONAL OR A CHECK PERSONALLY
IN THE MAIL. OKAY. HOW FOR THE
FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED. AND
SO HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THIS? I
DON'T SEE WHERE THIS BILL WOULD
ADDRESS CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THAT
THOSE ARE MEDICAL SERVICES
PROVIDED THEY'VE BEEN
REIMBURSED. THE PATIENT HAS BEEN
REIMBURSED 80% OR WHATEVER THE
BALANCE REMAINING AFTER
DEDUCTIBLE, BUT THEY HAVE CHOSEN
NOT TO PAY BACK FOR THOSE
SERVICES. SO DOES THIS BILL THEN
NOT RECORD THAT DEBT AS A
MEDICAL EXPENSE, AND THEREFORE
THAT DOES NOT GO ON THEIR CREDIT
WHERE THEY ARE PERHAPS WILLFULLY
NOT PAYING THAT MEDICAL DEBT
THAT THEY'VE BEEN REIMBURSED
FOR. HOW HOW DO YOU HANDLE THAT?
WE'RE ACTUALLY WORKING WITH THE
COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS TO
CLARIFY THAT. AND SO THE HEALTH
THIS BILL GOES FROM THIS
COMMITTEE TO HEALTH COMMITTEE.
SO HOPEFULLY IN THE HEALTH
COMMITTEE, WE WILL FURTHER
CLARIFY THAT THAT IS NOT,
ACCEPTABLE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER MENTIONED. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR. CHAIR. WE'VE HAD A LOT
OF DISCUSSION ON THIS, SO I
WON'T GO INTO IT MUCH OTHER THAN
TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE
YOU WORKING ON THIS. THE AUTHOR,
I, YOU KNOW, HAVING SERVED AS A
COLLEAGUE WITH YOU, I KNOW YOU
WORK WITH THESE ISSUES. I
CERTAINLY HAVE HAD SOME OF THE
ISSUES RAISED BY THE OPPONENTS,
KIND OF RAISED IN MY MIND, TOO.
I KNOW THIS ISN'T TOTALLY DONE,
JUST, YOU KNOW, URGE ALL THE
PEOPLE TO KEEP WORKING TOGETHER
TO GET SOMETHING. I KNOW SOME OF
THE OPPOSITION HAS COME OFF, AND
THAT'S ALWAYS A GOOD THING, OR
AT LEAST BEEN LESSENED. BUT JUST
ASK. YOU KNOW THAT YOU YOU ALL
CONTINUE, ALL OF YOU CONTINUE TO
WORK ON THIS BEFORE IT GETS OVER
IN ITS FINAL FORM. BUT
APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS FROM ALL
THE PARTIES THAT HAVE GONE
FORWARD SO FAR. THANK YOU AND
I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT TODAY.
THANK YOU. AND YES, THIS BILL
HAS TAKEN ITS DOUBLE REFERRED IN
BOTH HOUSES. SO IT'S TAKEN
AMENDMENTS IN EVERY SINGLE
COMMITTEE. AND I EXPECT THAT IT
WILL PROBABLY HAVE MORE
AMENDMENTS BY THE TIME, YOU
KNOW, IT GETS TO THE NEXT
COMMITTEE AND, YOU KNOW, A
PROCESS AND THEN ASKS, WELL,
THANK YOU, AND OUR MEDICAL
FINANCING SYSTEM IS VERY
COMPLEX. I HAVE SOME IDEAS. IF
ANYONE'S CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT WE
CAN DO ABOUT THAT, AND I KNOW
AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE
SENATOR FOR ALL OF HER WORK OVER
MANY, MANY YEARS, AND WE GOT WE
GOT ELECTED TOGETHER SO I CAN
CONFIRM AS MANY, MANY YEARS, BUT
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THIS WORK
YOU'VE DONE A TREMENDOUS JOB IN
REALLY LISTENING TO OPPOSITION
AND TAKING A NUMEROUS
AMENDMENTS. I THINK IT MADE THIS
BILL BETTER AND STRONGER AND
REALLY FOCUSED, AND SO FOR THAT,
I THANK YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
CLOSE? THANK YOU. AND I JUST
WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR THE
ROBUST CONVERSATION. THIS IS A
WORK IN PROGRESS. IT IS
HAPPENING AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL,
AND THE CFPB ACTUALLY WAS ONE OF
THE FIRST ORGANIZATIONS THAT IS
SUPPORTING THIS BILL, AS IS WITH
THE LANGUAGE. SO, THIS
CONVERSATION HELPS US ALSO SHAPE
SO THAT BY THE TIME YOU ALL SEE
IT, WE'RE ABLE TO NARROW. BUT
THE IDEA IS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, FOLKS DON'T
HAVE BAD CREDIT BECAUSE OF
MEDICAL DEBT. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE
THANK YOU MOTIONS DO PASS, AS
AMENDED, TO HEALTH COMMITTEE.
CALL FOR A CALL. AYE. DIXON
BAUER-KAHAN BRIAN CONNOLLY.
CONNOLLY. AYE. HANEY. AYE.
HANEY. AYE MAIENSCHEIN. AYE.
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE. MCKENNA.
PACHECO AYE. PACHECO. AYE.
PATTERSON REYES. REYES. AYE.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ NO. WE'LL PLACE
THAT BILL ON CALL. I HAVE TO GO
TO PUBLIC SAFETY.
WIENER THE GOOD SENATORS ALLOWED
ME TO GO FIRST, IF THAT'S OKAY
WITH THE CHAIR. OKAY. LET ME GET
MY. I HAVE EIGHT HERE, BUT IT IS
OKAY. WHATEVER IT IS. ALL RIGHT?
WE ARE. OKAY. WE ARE DOING
SENATE BILL 1524. SENATOR DODD,
THANK YOU. VERY APPRECIATE,
SENATOR WIENER ALLOWING ME TO GO
FIRST. I'VE GOT A COMMITTEE
HEARING. I GOT TO GET BACK TO.
SO, MADAM CHAIR, I WANT TO START
BY THANKING YOU AND YOUR STAFF
FOR THE HARD WORK. AND, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER KALRA AND HIS TEAM HAVE
JUST BEEN AMAZING. AND, WE
NEGOTIATED THOSE AMENDMENTS I'LL
BE TAKING THIS AFTERNOON WHEN
THE BILL IS HEARD IN THE
ASSEMBLY. PRIVACY COMMITTEE.
THESE AMENDMENTS RESPOND TO THE
CONCERNS FROM CONSUMER GROUPS BY
NARROWING APPLICABILITY AND
STRENGTHENING TRANSPARENCY AND
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS IN
ADVERTISING IN THE FOOD SERVICE
INDUSTRY, AS PROPOSED TO BE
AMENDED, SB 1524 WOULD PROVIDE
THAT MANDATORY FEES FOR FOOD OR
BEVERAGE ITEMS SOLD DIRECTLY TO
A CUSTOMER IN A RESTAURANT, BAR,
FOOD, CONCESSION CATERER,
GROCERY STORE, OR GROCERY
DELIVERY SERVICES DO NOT NEED TO
INCLUDE A MANDATORY FEE OR
CHARGE. THEY'RE ALL IN
ADVERTISED PRICE. HOWEVER ANY
FEE WITH THE EXPLANATION OF ITS
PURPOSE MUST BE CLEARLY,
CONSPICUOUSLY, CONSPICUOUSLY
DISCLOSED ON EVERY
ADVERTISEMENT, MENU OR OTHER
DISPLAY THAT CONTAINS THE PRICE
OF A FOOD OR BEVERAGE ITEM. SB
1524 IS BEFORE YOU TODAY TO
ADDRESS QUESTIONS AND UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES SURROUNDING SB 478,
LEGISLATION I AUTHORED TO
ADDRESS THE DECEPTIVE
ADVERTISING PRACTICE OF DRIP
FEES OR HIDDEN FEES. SB 478
TARGETED BAIT AND SWITCH
PRACTICES WHERE BUSINESSES
ADVERTISE AS A LOW UPFRONT
PRICE, ONLY TO REVEAL MANDATORY
FEES LATE IN THE PAYMENT PROCESS
BEFORE PROVIDING THE FINAL BILL
OR AFTER PROVIDING THE FINAL
BILL. IN WORKING THROUGH THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF SB 478 AS IT
IS SET TO TAKE EFFECT JULY
FIRST, POTENTIAL PROBLEMS HAVE
COME TO LIGHT. FOR EXAMPLE,
SERVICE CHARGES FIND A VARIETY
OF WORKER BENEFITS BARGAINED FOR
THROUGH THEIR UNION. THEY ARE
USED TO SUPPLEMENT HEALTH CARE,
COVERAGE, PENSION PAYMENTS, AND
OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS.
ELIMINATION OF SERVICE CHARGES
WOULD UPEND THESE COLLECTIVELY
BARGAINED CONTRACTS HURTING
SERVICE WORKERS. SB 1524 UPHOLDS
THE PRINCIPLES OF PROVIDING
CONSUMERS WITH UPFRONT
TRANSPARENCY WITHOUT
INADVERTENTLY HARMING FOOD
SERVICE WORKERS ME TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT. ROSS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION AND SHANE GUZMAN ON
BEHALF OF UNITE HERE. THANK YOU
SIR. GO AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON,
JOHN ROSS, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION, I NEED TO START BY
THANKING SENATOR DODD FOR ALL
HIS HARD WORK HERE AND
ADDRESSING THIS VERY IMPORTANT
PROBLEM. AND A NOD TO ASSEMBLY
COAUTHORS ASSEMBLYMEMBER HANEY
AND SENATOR WIENER, WHO'S ALSO
IN THE AUDIENCE TODAY,
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM FOR THE
INDUSTRY. AND WE APPRECIATE
EVERYBODY'S WILLINGNESS TO HELP
AS THE SENATOR SAID, THE PROBLEM
HERE WAS TRIGGERED BY RECENT
GUIDANCE ISSUED BY THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE THAT SUGGESTED
THAT THESE SERVICE FEES WERE
CAPTURED BY AB 478. I MEAN, SB
478. WE DON'T REALLY NEED TO GET
INTO THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT
WHETHER IT IS OR ISN'T, BUT THIS
BILL AT LEAST ATTEMPTS TO
PROVIDE CLARITY IN THIS AREA TO,
TO NOT DO THIS WOULD HAVE
SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON
RESTAURANTS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE. THOUSANDS WHO HAVE DEPEND
ON SERVICE CHARGES AND OTHER
MANDATORY FEES, TO BOTH ADDRESS
COMPENSATION INEQUITIES. AS THE
SENATOR, SPOKE TO A MOMENT AGO
AND TO ENSURE THAT THEY CAN
PROVIDE ADEQUATE BENEFITS TO
WORKERS, THIS BILL, CODIFIES
WHAT WE THINK IS THE BEST
PRACTICE OF MOST RESTAURANTS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE, WHICH IS
TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS CLEAR
AND CONSPICUOUS DISCLOSURE UP
FRONT BEFORE SOMEONE ORDERS FOOD
, THAT'S WE THINK THIS
CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT OF SB
478 AND CAPTURED BY THESE
AMENDMENTS. AND WE THANK YOU ALL
AND ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. MADAM
CHAIR, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE, SHANE GUSMAN, ON
BEHALF OF UNITE HERE, WE TOO
WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE AND THE STAFF FOR
WORKING SO HARD ON THE BILL. THE
AUTHORS AND THEIR STAFF, THIS
CAME TOGETHER VERY QUICKLY, IT'S
A PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE
SOLVED BY JULY 1ST. OTHERWISE,
MANY OF OUR MEMBERS ARE GOING TO
LOSE BENEFITS AND PAY, WHICH WE
HAVE NEGOTIATED IN A VARIETY OF
PLACES, INCLUDING RESTAURANTS,
BANQUET, AND OTHER VENUES. AND
SO WE REALLY NEED THIS BILL TO
HAPPEN. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW
MANY OF OUR MEMBERS HAVE
CONTACTED THEIR LEGISLATORS, OUR
LOCALS, AND WE NEVER VIEWED THIS
AS A WIN FOR 78 WAS COMING
THROUGH. WE NEVER VIEWED IT AS A
PROBLEM, FOR WHAT THE SERVICE
CHARGES THAT BENEFIT OUR MEMBERS
, HAD WE DONE SO, WE WOULD HAVE
COME HERE A LITTLE BIT EARLIER,
BUT IN THAT VEIN, WE ASK FOR
YOUR AYE, VOTE. VERY GOOD, DO WE
HAVE ANY, SPEAKERS? MAIN
WITNESS, OTHER WITNESSES TO COME
SPEAK, PLEASE. AND PLEASE STATE
YOUR NAME AND ORGANIZATION. AMY
HINES-IKE REPRESENTING UNITE
HERE. LOCAL 11. AND THERE ARE
32,000 MEMBERS IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA. AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HELLO.
KELLY MORRIS WITH EDELSTEIN,
GILBERT ROBESON AND SMITH ON
BEHALF OF SAN FRANCISCO
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. THE
AIRPORT SUPPORTS THIS BILL AS
THEY BELIEVE IT WILL PRESERVE
THEIR RESTAURANT WORKERS ACCESS
TO HEALTH CARE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, AMELIA ZAMANI WITH THE
CALIFORNIA TRAVEL ASSOCIATION
AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. GENESIS GONZALEZ, ON
BEHALF OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
ELENI KOUNALAKIS AS A PROUD
CO-SPONSOR IN SUPPORT, THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
SABRINA LOCKHART. AND ON ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ATTRACTIONS AND PARKS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT, THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS, AUBETTE
FRANKE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA HOTEL AND LODGING
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. CHAIR MEMBERS NICK ROMO ON
BEHALF OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY
REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MADAM VICE
CHAIR MEMBERS. BEVERLY, YOU, ON
BEHALF OF OPENTABLE AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. VERY GOOD. DO WE HAVE
ANY MAIN OPPOSITION WITNESSES?
PLEASE COME FORWARD. SURPRISE,
SURPRISE. SHOW ME YOUR WHEREVER
YOU LIKE. IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE
CHAIR. SURE. OF COURSE, GOOD
MORNING, MADAM VICE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. ROBERT HARRELL,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
CALIFORNIA. WE HAVE AN OPPOSED,
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION TO THE
BILL AS PREVIOUSLY IN PRINT, LET
ME JUST OPEN, BY SAYING THAT WE
WERE JUST A LOWLY SUPPORTER OF
SB 478 LAST YEAR, BUT WE ALWAYS
THOUGHT THAT RESTAURANTS WERE
INCLUDED IN THE BILLS THAT WAS
MOVING THROUGH. SO THE LACK OF
CLARITY, IT'S HELPFUL TO GET
SOME CLARITY THERE, WE WOULD
ALSO NOTE THAT WE DO WISH, AS
WELL THAT THE AG'S OFFICE HAD
COME OUT WITH SOME GUIDANCE
EARLIER, THEN IN LAST MONTH,
HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK
THERE'S A BROADER STATEMENT I'D
LIKE TO MAKE. AND THEN I'LL GET
INTO SOME DETAIL ABOUT THE
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE IN FRONT OF
THE COMMITTEE. WELL, THEY'RE
GOING TO BE TAKEN AT PRIVACY
LATER THIS AFTERNOON, OUR BROAD
VIEW IS THAT CONSUMERS DESERVE
TO KNOW UP FRONT, WHAT SOMETHING
WILL COST. THIS HAS BEEN A
PERNICIOUS PROBLEM THAT'S GOTTEN
WORSE AND WORSE OVER THE PAST
DECADE. ESPECIALLY, I DON'T CARE
IF IT'S A CONCERT, SPORTING
EVENT, RENTAL HOUSING, NEW OR
USED VEHICLE, A RENTAL CAR, A
HOTEL ROOM, A HOUSE RENTAL, YOUR
ACCOUNT WITH A CREDIT UNION OR
BANK, A MOBILE PHONE PLAN, YOUR
CABLE BILL, STREAMING SERVICE OR
RESTAURANT OR TAKEOUT. AND I
WOULD JUST NOTE THAT IN MANY OF
THOSE INDUSTRIES I JUST LISTED,
THERE ARE BIG PROBLEMS WITH
HIDDEN AND JUNK FEES BEING ADDED
ON. IT'S WHY THE BIDEN
ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE TACKLING
HIDDEN AND JUNK FEES SUCH A HIGH
PRIORITY, AND WHY MUCH OF KFC'S
WORK FOR THE PAST COUPLE THREE
YEARS HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON THIS
ISSUE, SO WE HAD A CONCERN WITH
THE BILL AND PRINT. WE THOUGHT
IT WAS OVERLY BROAD. I'M NOT
GOING TO DWELL ON THAT POINT
BECAUSE I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE
AMENDMENTS HERE THAT ARE BEFORE
THE COMMITTEE TODAY, I HAVE TWO
Ã. WE APPRECIATE THE NARROWING,
THE WORK OF THE STAFF, THE WORK
OF THE CHAIR, THE WORK OF THE
AUTHORS AND INTERESTED PARTIES.
I WOULD NOTE WE WERE NOT
INVOLVED IN THOSE NEGOTIATIONS.
SO I'M LOOKING AT THIS LANGUAGE
FOR THE FIRST TIME AS OF A DAY
AGO, WHEN I SAW THE LANGUAGE IN
THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS
RESUBMITTED, I HAVE TWO COMMENTS
ABOUT THE AMENDMENTS, ONE, IT
SAYS, FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T
THINK THE DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION
OF AN ADDITIONAL YEAR TO JULY
1ST, 2025, IS FULLY WARRANTED.
WE'D LIKE TO SEE THAT A BIT
SHORTER, THIS HAS AN URGENCY
CLAUSE BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT SB 478
TAKING EFFECT JULY 1ST OF THIS
YEAR. SO WE THINK THAT, CLEAR
AND CONSPICUOUS IS NOT SOME NEW
STANDARD, CLEAR, CONSPICUOUS AS
A STANDARD HAS BEEN AROUND A
LONG TIME. THE OTHER THING I
WOULD JUST POINT OUT IS THAT,
SOME OF THE DISCLOSURES THAT ARE
HAPPENING, ESPECIALLY IN THE
FOOD SERVICE INDUSTRY AND THE
RESTAURANT INDUSTRY ARE NOT
ACCURATE. SO I WOULD URGE THE
ADDITION OF THE WORD ACCURATE.
WE HAVE MANY EXAMPLES OF ADD ONS
TO BILLS THAT SAY OR CREATE THE
FALSE IMPRESSION THAT THEY GO TO
THE WORKERS WHEN THEY IN FACT DO
NOT. THAT IS MISLEADING. I WOULD
ARGUE THAT'S A SEPARATE LAW
VIOLATION. IN ADDITION TO THAT.
SO I WOULD URGE YOU, AS YOU'RE
AMENDING THIS BILL QUICKLY THIS
AFTERNOON, A PRIVACY COMMITTEE,
TO INCLUDE THAT WORD ACCURATE TO
MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE CHARGE,
BECAUSE THAT HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN
THE CASE. WITH THAT. I THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN OPPOSITION
IF YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD TO
THE MICROPHONE. NO. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. WELL, DO WE WANT TO
BRING IT FORWARD TO THE DAIS TO
THE COMMITTEE. ANY COMMENTS?
QUESTIONS? MR. MISTER JOE
PATTERSON. WELL, THANK YOU,
WELL, APPRECIATE THE WORK ON
THIS BILL, SENATOR, YOU KNOW, I
THINK THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY IN
PARTICULAR AND MY MOM'S A
WAITRESS AT A RESTAURANT IN YOUR
DISTRICT, BUT I WON'T SAY WHICH
ONE, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN
THERE. WE ALL GO THERE. WE'VE
ALL ALL OF US NAPA PEOPLE GO
THERE. BUT, FREE ADVERTISING,
RIGHT? YEAH. YEAH, EXACTLY.
WELL, I DON'T WANT OTHER PEOPLE
TO STALK MY MOM. YOU KNOW, SHE'S
JUST TRYING TO WORK HARD, BUT,
YOU KNOW, IN THE RESTAURANT
INDUSTRY. AND PRIOR TO THIS JOB
I PLANT FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS,
I PLANNED EVENTS AT HOTELS AND
FACILITIES ALL AROUND THE STATE.
AND I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS AS AN
ISSUE IN TERMS OF NOT FALSELY
MISLEADING OR SOMETHING. BECAUSE
WHEN YOU'RE DOING A $200,000
EVENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT,
IT'S PRETTY BAD BUSINESS
PRACTICE TO GO IN THERE. AND OH,
SORRY, I FORGOT TO MENTION THE
20% PLUS PLUS, YOU KNOW, ON TOP
OF THE $200,000 BILL. SO IN MY
EXPERIENCE, EVERYBODY HAS BEEN
VERY CLEAR ON ON THIS AND I'VE
ALWAYS RECEIVED IT UP FRONT. I
ACTUALLY DON'T THINK IT'S A
PROBLEM THAT'S EVER REALLY
EXISTED THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN
TRYING TO MISLEAD. BUT THIS BILL
IMPROVES. IT JUST ADDS SOME
GUIDANCE THAT, HEY, LOOK, YOU
SHOULD PUT IT UP FRONT. AND
THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE
DOING UNDER THIS BILL. AND, YOU
KNOW, I'D ALREADY HAPPENS.
HONESTLY IN MY EXPERIENCE. SO
BUT I'M GLAD THIS PROTECTION IS
GOING TO BE THERE TO PROTECT
EVERYBODY. AND I'M NOT REALLY
SURE I'M NOT REALLY CLEAR ON THE
OPPOSITION, BUT I'M ALSO ON
PRIVACY COMMITTEE. SO BETWEEN
NOW AND 130, IF YOU WANT TO STOP
BY MY OFFICE, MAYBE YOU CAN
CHANGE MY MIND, BUT, WITH THAT,
I'LL MOVE THE BILL. BY THE WAY.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS,
MR. HANEY? YEAH, I JUST WANTED
TO QUICKLY THANK THE SENATOR FOR
COMING FORWARD AND WORKING WITH
ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS TO TRY TO
ADDRESS THIS. I KNOW THAT IN
MANY WAYS, THIS WAS NOT THE
INTENTION OF YOUR ORIGINAL BILL.
SO, FOR YOU TO COME BACK AND BE
WILLING TO FIX IT AND BE
RESPONSIVE TO THE CONCERNS THAT
PEOPLE HAVE HAD, I THINK IS
REALLY HONORABLE AND NECESSARY.
AND I CAN SAY AND I KNOW MY
COUNTERPART, SENATOR WIENER IS
HERE AS WELL, THIS HAS, LED TO,
VERY EXTENSIVE CONCERN AND
CONSTERNATION IN MY CITY AS WELL
, TO SAY THE LEAST, AND SO,
WE'RE GRATEFUL THAT WE'RE BOTH
GOING TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS IT,
BUT ALSO, CLARIFY WITH THE
AMENDMENTS, THE LEVEL OF UPFRONT
TRANSPARENCY THAT NEEDS TO BE
THERE, I THINK IS IMPORTANT.
WE'VE ALSO HEARD FROM CONSUMERS
AS WELL, CONCERNED ABOUT THAT,
THAT ASPECT OF IT. AND I THINK
THAT WE DO NEED TO MAKE SURE
THAT IF THERE ARE THESE, SERVICE
FEES OR OTHER FEES, WHETHER IT'S
FOR HEALTH CARE OR GOING
DIRECTLY TO THE EMPLOYEES, THAT,
CONSUMERS REALLY DO UNDERSTAND
WHAT THOSE ARE UP FRONT. AND I
THINK YOU'RE STRIKING A BALANCE
HERE. AND WITH THAT, I'LL SECOND
THE MOTION. VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER
COMMENTS? WELL, I'LL TAKE A
MOMENT OF PRIVILEGE HERE TO
SPEAK. I WANT TO THANK YOU,
SENATOR, A WEEK AGO, I RECEIVED
A CALL AND HEAR FROM A
RESTAURANT OWNER IN NEWPORT
BEACH AND TELLING ME ALL THIS.
AND THAT'S THE FIRST I HEARD.
THEN I TALKED TO MY DISTRICT
OFFICE, SAYS, OH, MY GOD, WE'VE
HEARD FROM EVERY RESTAURANT
OWNER. AND NOW TO BE ABLE TO
SAY, WE'RE WORKING ON A FIX. AND
IT REALLY IS IMPRESSIVE SO
QUICKLY TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THIS
CHANGE AND TO BE COGNIZANT OF
THE ISSUES THAT WERE
UNINTENTIONALLY CREATED BY LAST
YEAR'S BILL, I JUST WANT TO SAY
THANK YOU, AND IT'S A GOOD
MESSAGE THAT WE SEND BACK TO OUR
RESTAURANT OWNERS IN OUR
DISTRICT THAT, SACRAMENTO DOES
LISTEN. AND SO I'M, I'M PLEASED
WITH THAT. AND WITH THAT, YOUR
CLOSING STATEMENT. YES. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. FIRST OF ALL, I'D
LIKE TO THANK THE ALL THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES AND THE
COAUTHORS FOR ALLOWING THIS BILL
TO BE, HEARD SO QUICKLY AND GET
THROUGH THE SYSTEM BECAUSE WE
KNOW TIMING, IS EVERYTHING I
WISH WE HAD BEEN ON THIS A
LITTLE BIT EARLIER, BUT WE ARE
WHERE WE ARE. SO I THANK THE
ASSEMBLY INSTITUTION FOR, FOR
THEIR HELP IN THAT REGARD TO MR.
HARRELL'S, COMMENTS. I THINK
THAT, I THINK A CAREFUL REVIEW
OF THE AMENDMENTS, INCLUDE, WHAT
HE'S CONCERNED ABOUT BECAUSE WE
ARE LOOKING FOR ACCURATE,
STATEMENTS, YOU KNOW, IN THERE.
BUT WE'LL BE HEARING THIS AGAIN,
AS I SAID, AS, MR. PATTERSON
SAID, LATER TODAY, RESPECTFULLY
ASKED FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. WELL,
THANK YOU. AND WE DO HAVE A
MOTION, MR. PATTERSON AND MR.
HANEY AND, LET'S CALL THE ROLL,
PLEASE. THANK YOU. MOTIONS DO
PASS THE PRIVACY AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION COMMITTEE CALL.
DIXON. DIXON. AYE. BAUER-KAHAN.
BRIAN CONNELLY. HANEY. HI.
HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE. MCKENNA.
PACHECO. AYE. PACHECO. AYE.
PATTERSON PATTERSON. AYE. REYES.
SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ AYE. IT'S OH,
WE'RE STILL ON CALL FOR ONE
MORE. OKAY. THANK YOU ALL.
APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL
MOVE UP. MR. WIENER. SENATOR
WIENER, THANK YOU. AND THIS IS
SENATE BILL 1037. SCOTT. THANK
YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU, MADAM
VICE CHAIR, THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES, TODAY I'M PRESENTING
SENATE BILL 1037, WHICH IS
SPONSORED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL
BONTA, COLLEAGUES, IN RECENT
YEARS, WE HAVE, MADE SIGNIFICANT
STRIDES IN PASSING STRONG STATE
HOUSING LAWS TO ENSURE THAT
CITIES UP AND DOWN THE STATE,
ARE PART OF THE SOLUTION IN
TERMS OF MORE QUICKLY, BUILDING
THE MILLIONS OF NEW HOMES THAT
WE NEED SO THAT PEOPLE CAN
ACTUALLY AFFORD TO LIVE IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND WHILE
MANY CITIES AND I WANT TO MAKE
CLEAR, I'M NOT BROAD BRUSHING
CITIES WITH THIS BILL, I THINK A
SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY OF CITIES
ARE WORKING VERY HARD TO COMPLY
WITH STATE HOUSING LAWS TO GET
THEIR HOUSING ELEMENTS CERTIFIED
, TO ISSUE THE PERMITS THAT THEY
ARE REQUIRED TO ISSUE, WHILE
THAT IS DEFINITELY THE CASE,
THERE IS A MINORITY OF CITIES
THAT ARE NOT AND A SMALL
MINORITY THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY
ACTING IN BAD FAITH IN REFUSING
TO FOLLOW STATE HOUSING LAWS.
AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE WAY OUR
LAWS ARE SET UP, THEY SORT OF
FEEL LIKE THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH
IT. AND THE REASON IS THAT RIGHT
NOW, IF A CITY JUST BLOWS OFF
ITS OBLIGATION UNDER STATE LAW,
REFUSES TO ISSUE A PERMIT, THAT
IS ABSOLUTELY MANDATED UNDER
STATE LAW, OR JUST REFUSES TO
COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH
HOUSING ELEMENT, WHAT HAPPENS
IS, AFTER PLENTY OF TIME WITH
HCD SAYING, PLEASE COME INTO
COMPLIANCE, YOU'RE VIOLATING THE
LAW, PLEASE COME INTO
COMPLIANCE. AND THEN IN THE
SMALL SUBSET OF CASES WHERE THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL GETS INVOLVED,
WHICH IS THE REALLY EGREGIOUS
CASES, AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SAYS, PLEASE COME INTO
COMPLIANCE, PLEASE COME INTO
COMPLIANCE. AND THEY DON'T. AND
THEN THAT RARE SITUATION ARISES
WHERE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FILES
A LAWSUIT. SO BY THE TIME WE GET
TO A LAWSUIT, IT'S PROBABLY A
YEAR OR TWO IN, WITH MANY
OPPORTUNITIES TO COME IN TO
COMPLIANCE. AND THE CITY HAS
REFUSED. SO A LAWSUIT IS FILED,
AND THEN IT GOES ALL THE WAY
THROUGH LITIGATION FROM
BEGINNING TO END, WITH PLENTY OF
OPPORTUNITY K¾T TO RESOLVE IT
AND SETTLE. AND THEY DON'T. AND
THEN THE JUDGE ENTERS A JUDGMENT
AGAINST THE CITY. THEN WHAT
HAPPENS? THE CITY. THE CITY
STILL HAS SEVERAL MONTHS TO CURE
ITS VIOLATION AND NOT HAVE ANY
CONSEQUENCES. THEY DON'T HAVE
ANY FINES, NOTHING, WE WOULD NOT
TOLERATE THAT IN ANY OTHER FORM
OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. YOU CAN
VIOLATE THE LAW, HAVE A MILLION
OPPORTUNITY CITIES TO STOP
VIOLATING THE LAW, REFUSE TO
STOP VIOLATING THE LAW, LOSE IN
COURT, HAVE A JUDGMENT ENTERED
AGAINST YOU. OH, AND THEN YOU
CAN CORRECT IT. AND THERE'S NO
CONSEQUENCE. SO WHAT THIS BILL
DOES IS IT PROVIDES A
CONSEQUENCE THAT IN THOSE RARE,
EGREGIOUS BAD FAITH CASES WHERE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS FILED A
LAWSUIT AND THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN
VERY OFTEN, THIS IS A TRULY
SMALL SUBSET, AND IT GOES TO A
JUDGMENT. THEN ON IT THEY WILL
THE COURT WILL ISSUE A FINE
BETWEEN 10 AND $50,000 A MONTH.
GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINATION OF
THE VIOLATION, THE COURT CAN USE
ITS DISCRETION IN FOR THAT
RANGE, AND THAT MONEY WILL NOT
JUST GO INTO THE GENERAL FUND.
THAT MONEY WILL GO IN, BE HELD
IN TRUST FOR THAT CITY, FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THAT CITY.
SO THE CITY WON'T EVEN LOSE THE
MONEY. SO THIS IS A VERY
REASONABLE, WELL CRAFTED BILL.
AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY IS JANICE STANFORD,
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE FOR THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND STEVE
STENZLER WITH THE HOUSING ACTION
COALITION. PLEASE PROCEED. GOOD
MORNING, MISS VICE CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
JANICE STANFORD. I'M A
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCATE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
AND I HAVE WITH ME ALEX FISH,
WHO'S A SPECIAL ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR HOUSING,
WHO CAN HELP ANSWER ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE
ON BEHALF OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
ROB BONTA, I WANT TO START BY
THANKING SENATOR WIENER FOR
AUTHORING THIS IMPORTANT BILL,
WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS
PROUD TO SPONSOR. AS YOU KNOW,
CALIFORNIA IS FACING A SEVERE
HOUSING SHORTAGE AND
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS. THE
LEGISLATURE HAS PASSED STRONG
HOUSING LAWS IN RECENT YEARS TO
ADDRESS THIS CRISIS, INCLUDING
OVER A DOZEN MINISTERIAL
APPROVAL LAWS. BUT THOSE LAWS
WILL ONLY MOVE THE NEEDLE TO
ADDRESS THE HOUSING CRISIS IF
THEY'RE FOLLOWED. ATTORNEY
GENERAL ROB BONTA HAS MADE
ENFORCEMENT OF HOUSING LAWS A
TOP PRIORITY AND HAS TAKEN
ACTION AGAINST SOME OF THE MOST
EGREGIOUS VIOLATORS, BUT THE
REMEDIES AVAILABLE UNDER
EXISTING LAW ARE NOT EFFECTIVELY
DETERRING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM
VIOLATING THESE LAWS IN THE
FIRST PLACE. DESPITE THE
MINISTERIAL APPROVAL LAWS ON THE
BOOKS, SEVERAL CITIES HAVE BEEN
RELUCTANT TO PROCESS QUALIFYING
APPLICATIONS MINISTERIALLY,
INSTEAD IMPOSING LOCAL
REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER CREATIVE
POLICIES AND PRACTICES THAT
DEVIATE FROM THE CLEAR OBJECTIVE
STANDARDS THAT THE LEGISLATURE
HAS ESTABLISHED. THIS FRUSTRATES
THE PURPOSE OF MINISTERIAL
APPROVAL LAWS, WHICH IS TO
STREAMLINE APPROVALS AND BUILD
HOUSING QUICKLY. AND WHILE LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE TASKED WITH
PLANNING TO MEET THE HOUSING
NEEDS OF THEIR COMMUNITIES,
THERE ARE OVER 180 JURISDICTIONS
OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING
ELEMENT LAW. EFFECTIVE MONETARY
PENALTIES WILL SERVE AS A
DETERRENT AND WILL ENCOURAGE
SETTLEMENTS. WHEN THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL WARNS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
THAT THEY'RE OUT OF COMPLIANCE,
WE NEED EVERY LOCAL GOVERNMENT
TO DO THEIR PART TO MEET THEIR
FAIR SHARE OF REGIONAL AND
STATEWIDE HOUSING NEEDS, AND
WHEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SHIRK
THIS RESPONSIBILITY AND REFUSE
TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW, THEY
SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR I VOTE
. NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE. GOOD
MORNING, MADAM VICE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS STEPHEN STENZLER, WITH
BROWNSTEIN ON BEHALF OF THE
HOUSING ACTION COALITION. THE
HOUSING ACTION COALITION IS A
MEMBER SUPPORTED NONPROFIT THAT
ADVOCATES FOR BUILDING MORE
HOMES AT ALL LEVELS OF
AFFORDABILITY TO HELP ALLEVIATE
CALIFORNIA'S HOUSING SHORTAGE,
DISPLACEMENT AND AFFORDABILITY
CRISIS. WE'RE HERE TODAY IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF SB 1037, WHICH
WOULD GIVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
AN IMPORTANT NEW TOOL TO ENFORCE
STATE HOUSING LAW, A FEW KEY
POINTS FROM HACK'S PERSPECTIVE,
THIS BILL IS NOT A TOOL FOR
REGULAR DAY TO DAY ENFORCEMENT
OF HOUSING LAW. IT IS NARROWLY
CRAFTED TO ONLY APPLY TO
JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE ACTED
WITH WILLFUL AND FLAGRANT
DISREGARD FOR THEIR
RESPONSIBILITIES TO PLAN FOR AND
APPROVE NECESSARY HOUSING, AND
HAVE REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO
CORRECT THEIR BEHAVIOR. THERE
ARE MANY OFF RAMPS AVAILABLE TO
LOCALS BEFORE THE PENALTIES ARE
ASSESSED, AND IT'S ONLY AFTER A
LAWSUIT HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND A
JUDGMENT ENTERED, A PROCESS
WHICH CAN TAKE YEARS, THAT THEY
WILL BE ENFORCED, AND THE
AUTHORITY TO SEEK THESE
ADDITIONAL PENALTIES IS
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. BECAUSE OF
THE REALITIES OF DEVELOPMENT
ECONOMICS. THE SAD TRUTH IS THAT
IF A PROJECT IS DELAYED LONG
ENOUGH, MARKET CONDITIONS CAN
CHANGE, FINANCING CAN FALL
THROUGH, AND CAPITAL CAN DRY UP,
MEANING THAT EVEN IF A PROJECT
ULTIMATELY PREVAILS IN COURT,
THE VICTORY IS MOOT. GIVEN THE
DIRE NEED FOR HOUSING AT ALL
INCOME LEVELS AND IN ALL CORNERS
OF THE STATE, WE SIMPLY CANNOT
ALLOW FOR UNITS TO BE LOST IN
THIS WAY, THE ABILITY TO SEEK
ADDITIONAL PENALTIES FOR
IMPROPER DENIALS OF STREAMLINING
IS AN IMPORTANT TOOL AND A
CREDIBLE THREAT TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL CAN USE IN ENFORCING THE
LAWS THAT THIS BODY PASSES. FOR
THESE REASONS, HOUSING ACTION
COALITION IS IN STRONG SUPPORT
THANKS TO SENATOR FOR HIS WORK.
ASK FOR YOUR AYE VOTE. THANK
YOU. LET'S TAKE IT OUT TO THE
SPEAKERS. COMING FORWARD TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SENATE BILL
1037, HOLLY, FOR MEETING WITH
LIGHTHOUSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS.
EXCUSE ME, ON BEHALF OF SPUR AND
SUPPORT TODAY, AS WELL AS
FIELDSTEAD AND COMPANY. AND THEN
MR. SPENCER ALSO ASKED ME TO
SPEAK AND TESTIFY IN SUPPORT ON
BEHALF OF HOUSING CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. NEXT
SPEAKER, ANDREW DAWSON, THE
CALIFORNIA HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
IN SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
SUSAN MATTINAT HERE ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA YIMBY IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS IN
OPPOSITION? EXCUSE ME. IN
SUPPORT, ANY OTHER ANY SPEAKERS?
IF YOU'RE A WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
IF YOUR MAIN WITNESS, COME
FORWARD TO THE TABLE, PLEASE.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. CHAIR
MEMBERS. BRADY GERNAN, ON BEHALF
OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION,
WANTED TO THANK THE COMMITTEE
ANALYSIS FOR LOOKING AT THE
VAGUENESS OF THE LANGUAGE. WE
ARE STILL VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
THAT. AND WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
THEY TALK ABOUT PRIOR PRECEDENT
AND STATE LAW. WE ENCOURAGE THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE TO WRITE THAT
SPECIFIC STATE LAW IN THE BILL.
SO IT'S MORE CLEAR. THE OTHER
THING I WANTED TO BRING
ATTENTION TO IS THAT IF THE GOAL
IS TO ADDRESS ACTING IN BAD
FAITH, THERE'S NO LANGUAGE THAT
DOES THAT. NOW GRANTED, THERE'S
A POLICY AND A PROCESS TO GO
THROUGH POTENTIALLY. BUT, YOU
KNOW, IF THE GOAL IS TO SETTLE,
THERE'S ALSO A COST TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS THAT I THINK WOULD
NEED TO BE AWARE OF. SO EVEN IF
THEY'RE TRYING TO ACT IN GOOD
FAITH AND THEY HAVE TO SETTLE
OUT, I THINK THAT'S OF CONCERN.
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, I THINK
THE HOUSING ELEMENT PROCESS HAS
HAD CONSIDERABLE CHALLENGES, AS
WE'VE SEEN WITH HOW MANY CITIES
ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE. AND WE
DON'T WANT VAGUE LANGUAGE TO
COME OUT AND ARBITRARILY FINED
THEM FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH
STATE LAW DESPITE THEIR BEST
EFFORTS TO DO THAT. I KNOW
THAT'S NOT THE INTENT OF THE
AUTHORS OFFICE, BUT WE THINK
SOME BETTER CLARITY IN THE BILL
WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THAT, WHICH
IS WHY WE'RE STILL RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED TO THE BILL AND HAVE
OFFERED AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE NOT
BEEN ACCEPTED. THANK YOU. VERY
GOOD. THANK YOU. ANY SPEAKERS IN
OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
ALYSSA SALEHI, ON BEHALF OF THE
CITIES OF CARLSBAD, CORONA,
MERCED AND RANCHO PALOS VERDES,
IN RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING. ROSS ON
BEHALF OF THE TOWN OF TRUCKEE
AND THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS, IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. CASSANDRA MÀ, ON BEHALF
OF THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY AND
THE CITY OF DOWNEY AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK YOU
PRISCILLA. KUDOS ON BEHALF OF
THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. I'LL BRING IT UP TO THE
COMMITTEE. ANY COMMENTS? DO YOU
HAVE. NO, NO, ASSEMBLYMEMBER
CONNELLY, PLEASE. THANK YOU.
CHAIR, I WANT TO ALSO THANK THE
AUTHOR AND THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR THE WORK ON
THIS BILL, AND APPRECIATE THE
INTERACTION WITH MY OFFICE. SO
JUST A FEW QUESTIONS. JUST
WANTED TO FULLY UNDERSTAND WHERE
THE BILL IS NOW, AND IN THIS
REGARD, ALSO, KUDOS TO STAFF FOR
A GREAT BILL ANALYSIS FOR
FLAGGING SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
SO RIGHT NOW THERE ARE MULTIPLE,
STANDARD ADS BEING PUT TOGETHER
IN THE BILL. ALL OF WHICH HAVE A
LEGAL BASIS. INTERESTINGLY I,
EVEN AS AN ATTORNEY, HAVE NOT
SEEN THEM ALL PUT TOGETHER IN
ONE BILL. SO, FOR EXAMPLE,
ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS,
PROCEDURALLY UNFAIR OR UNLAWFUL,
ETC. I WILL NOTE THAT BAD FAITH
IS NOT EXPRESSLY CALLED OUT.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, IF THAT'S
THE TRUE INTENT, PROBABLY COULD
BE. BUT TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE,
WHAT HOW WOULD IT HOW WOULD THE
AMALGAMATION OF THESE VARIOUS
STANDARDS BE APPLIED? AND WHAT
KIND OF ACTIONS SPECIFICALLY
DOES THE BILL TARGET? RIGHT.
YEAH. NO, I APPRECIATE THAT.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. SO AND I THINK
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IN, IN
TERMS OF FRAMING THIS IN THE
CONTEXT OF HOW INFREQUENTLY THIS
IS GOING TO APPLY, AND I
APPRECIATE THE OPPOSITION, AT
LEAST NOT ORALLY TODAY,
HOPEFULLY NO LONGER TALKING
ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HONEST MISTAKES
BECAUSE INITIALLY SOME OF THE
OPPOSITION WAS FOCUSING ON
HONEST MISTAKES RESULTING FROM
FINES. AND THIS IS NOT A
SITUATION WHERE IT'S LIKE
SOMETHING HAPPENS IN TWO DAYS
LATER, YOU KNOW, THEY WRITE A
TICKET AND SAY, BOOM, HERE'S,
HERE'S YOUR FINE, RIGHT? THIS
ONLY HAPPENS AFTER WHAT WILL
PROBABLY BE, YOU KNOW, MANY
MONTHS OR YEARS OF HCD OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL WRITING
DETAILED LETTERS SAYING, HEY,
THIS PERMIT WAS REQUIRED TO BE
ISSUED. YOU DIDN'T ISSUE IT, YOU
KNOW, PLEASE CORRECT IT. SO BY
THE TIME THE CASES THAT WILL BE
SUBJECT TO THIS, IT'S LIKE ALL
THE PROCESS WITH HCD PRE
LITIGATION WITH THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, THE ENTIRE LITIGATION
PROCESS WHICH CAN TAKE, YOU
KNOW, A LONG TIME. AND THEN ONLY
CASES WHERE A JUDGMENT HAS BEEN
ENTERED. SO ANY CITY THAT WAS
REALLY TRYING TO LIKE IN GOOD
FAITH RESOLVE IT. IT'S GOING TO
BE RESOLVED PROBABLY LONG BEFORE
WE GET TO THIS POINT. THE
PROBLEM IS YOU HAVE CERTAIN
CITIES, I MEAN, I'LL JUST NAME
THE MOST EGREGIOUS ONE, WHICH
IS, HUNTINGTON BEACH, RIGHT,
CUPERTINO USED TO BE IN THAT
CATEGORY, BUT THEN THEY GOT A
DIFFERENT CITY COUNCIL, AND THEY
IT'S SORT OF JUST THUMBING THEIR
NOSE AT THE STATE AND SAYING, SO
SUE US. WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY. SO,
YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL,
SUE US AND SO I THINK BY THE
TIME YOU GET TO APPLYING THIS
STANDARD, IT IS GOING TO BE SO,
LIKE CLEAR THAT THIS IS LIKE AN
OUTLIER KIND OF CASE. SO THESE
ARE ALL, AS YOU KNOW,
ESTABLISHED CONCEPTS UNDER UNDER
THE LAW. AND AND I, YOU KNOW, I
THINK THEY'RE IT'S SIMILAR TO
WHAT A WRIT OF MANDATE WOULD BE
LIKE IF YOU'RE CHALLENGING, SAY,
AN AGENCY ACTION, SO WE THINK
IT'S REASONABLE. BEALL, YOU
KNOW, WE'RE ALWAYS OPEN TO
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT IT, YOU
KNOW, AS WE HAVE BEEN THROUGHOUT
THIS PROCESS ABOUT REFINEMENTS,
BUT WE THINK IT'S A REASONABLE
APPROACH. AND I'LL ASK MAYBE MR.
FISH, WHO SPOKE WELL ABOUT THIS
IN THE LAST HEARING TO MAYBE ADD
ON. SURE. I'D JUST I'D JUST ADD,
YOU KNOW, ON HOUSING ELEMENT,
VIOLATIONS. IT'S A TIMING THING.
IT'S A IT'S A LIMITED SUBSET OF
HOUSING ELEMENT, PROBLEMS. SO IF
A CITY DOESN'T MEET THE, THE
NUMBER OF, YOU KNOW, IF THE
MARKET DOESN'T PRODUCE THE HOMES
THAT ARE CALLED FOR IN THE RINA
ALLOCATION, THAT'S NOT WHERE
THIS COMES UP. THIS IS WHERE A
CITY SIMPLY CHOOSES NOT TO
SUBMIT, NOT TO ADOPT A COMPLIANT
HOUSING ELEMENT. AND YOU KNOW,
WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS. I THINK
IN THE NEXT ROUND, THE NEXT RENO
ROUND, EVERYONE WILL UNDERSTAND
THE NEW PROCESS A LOT BETTER. SO
I'M NOT I THINK THIS WILL BE
GOOD ENCOURAGEMENT, ON TOP OF
THE EDUCATION THAT'S ALREADY
HAPPENED IN THE MINISTERIAL
APPROVAL PROCESS, THAT'S A
REALLY IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT
THIS LEGISLATURE HAS DONE OVER
THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. AND YOU
KNOW, WITHOUT GOING INTO
INVESTIGATIONS THAT MAY OR MAY
NOT BE HAPPENING, YOU KNOW, WHEN
I THINK ABOUT THE MINISTERIAL
APPROVALS, THAT THAT COULD BE A
PROBLEM. I'M THINKING ABOUT
INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS TRYING TO
USE THE LAWS THAT YOU'VE ALL
CREATED. AND THERE'S A
TREMENDOUS POWER IMBALANCE
BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE, YOU
KNOW, THE HOMEOWNER DEVELOPER
FOR AN ADU FOR AN SB9, AND
THERE'S WAY THERE ARE WAYS FOR
CITIES TO BRING DISAGREEMENTS
ABOUT STATE LAW WITHOUT WITHOUT
VIOLATING THOSE HOMEOWNERS
RIGHTS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IN
THOSE INSTANCES WHERE CITIES
WANT TO CALL THE QUESTION, THERE
ARE PROCESSES AVAILABLE THAT
WOULDN'T GIVE RISE TO THIS
PENALTY, WHEREAS IF THEY ARE IF
THEY'RE CAUSING PROBLEMS FOR
APPLICANTS, THEY SHOULDN'T BE
DOING THAT. NO, I APPRECIATE
THAT CLARIFICATION. YOU KIND OF
BOTH ANTICIPATED MY NEXT
QUESTION OR THOUGHT. AND THAT IS
REALLY THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THESE
PENALTIES WOULD BE A MEASURE OF
LAST RESORT. AND IN THAT REGARD
AND CENTER, YOU STARTED TO TOUCH
ON THIS. WHAT ACTIONS WOULD THE
AG TAKE BEFORE FOR RESORTING TO
THESE CIVIL PENALTIES? LIKE WHAT
DISPUTE RESOLUTION OR AIRING OF
LEGITIMATE DIFFERENCES WOULD
OCCUR? I THINK THAT'D PROBABLY
BE BEST FOR THE AG TO COMMENT,
BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WHO DO
IT, BUT IT'S FIRST, IT'S HCD
FIRST. YEAH. TYPICALLY, AND I,
YOU KNOW, KNOW THAT THERE'S
OFTEN A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH
AND THEN IT'S ONLY WHEN HCD HAS
SORT OF GOTTEN TO THE END OF THE
ROPE THAT HCD THEN REFERS IT TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. SO EVEN
PRE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THERE'S
BEEN A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH
OFFERS OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND
SO FORTH. AND THEN IT GETS TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. YEAH. AND
I WOULD APPRECIATE HEARING FROM
THE AG THAT'S THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THAT'S THAT'S VERY WELL
SAID. AND I'D JUST ADD ON THE,
THE HCD PART THAT WITH THE
HOUSING ELEMENT DISPUTE, HCD IS
NOT ALLOWED TO CALL OUR OFFICE
AND REFER THE CASE UNTIL THERE
HAVE BEEN TWO MEETINGS WITH THE
CITY. SO IT'S, THAT'S THE
LEGISLATURE HAS BUILT IN QUITE A
BIT OF BUFFER ON HOUSING
ELEMENT, MINISTERIAL APPROVAL,
YOU KNOW, WE REALLY DON'T WANT
TO COMMIT ATTORNEY RESOURCES TO
YEARS LONG LITIGATION. SO, THIS
WOULD PROBABLY TYPICALLY START
WE WORK CLOSELY WITH, WITH HCD
AND THEIR HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY
UNIT. THAT'S THE MOST LIKELY
PLACE IT WOULD START. IT'S
POSSIBLE THAT THE AG OBVIOUSLY
HAS AN INDEPENDENT CAPACITY, BUT
WE WOULD WE WOULD NOT GO
LIGHTLY. WE I CAN'T THINK OF AN
ACTION WE'VE TAKEN THAT HASN'T
STARTED WITH A LETTER DETAILING
WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, AND, YOU
KNOW, AGAIN, WITHOUT COMMENTING
ON THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING, WE
DO A FAIR BIT OF WORK THAT IS
NOT VISIBLE THAT PREVENTS
LITIGATION ALREADY. AND THAT
WOULD CERTAINLY BE THE CASE WITH
THIS ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE FOR
CITIES TO COMPLY. AND I WILL
JUST SAY, AS SOMEONE WHO
REPRESENTS A CITY THAT HAS, YOU
KNOW, AND I IN THE PAST I HAVE
PUBLICLY ADVOCATED THAT THERE,
AT ONE POINT THAT THERE SHOULD
HAVE BEEN A LAWSUIT BROUGHT
AGAINST SAN FRANCISCO BECAUSE
THE CITY, IN MY VIEW, WAS, NOT
DOING WHAT IT NEEDED TO DO. SO
I'M EQUAL OPPORTUNITY HERE. BUT,
HCD SPENT AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF
TIME WORKING WITH SAN FRANCISCO
BACK AND FORTH TO BRING THE
HOUSING ELEMENT, INTO THE, INTO
COMPLIANCE. AND SO I SAW THAT
FIRSTHAND FROM MY OWN CITY, AND
IT WAS IN A LOT OF RESOURCES
THAT HCD PUT INTO THAT. YEAH.
AND I THINK, AND I APPRECIATE
THAT. I THINK, AS YOU'RE HEARING
FROM THE CITIES, IT IS GOING TO
BE IMPORTANT TO HAVE DIALOG TO
HAVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, THIS IS
MORE OF, LET'S SAY, A HAMMER.
AND IT SHOULD NOT BE THE FIRST
IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. SO WITH
THAT, I'LL LEAVE IT THAT, AGAIN,
THANK YOU TO THE AG'S OFFICE TO
THE SENATOR, PARTICULARLY
WORKING WITH MY OFFICE ON SOME
OF THE CONCERNS. I'M GOING TO BE
SUPPORTING THE BILL TODAY, AND
LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE
DISCUSSION AROUND THE BILL
CONTINUE. THANKS. THANK YOU. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMITTEE? YES. MR. PATTERSON,
THANK YOU, SECOND TIME I'VE SEEN
THIS BILL, AND I'LL JUST SAY FOR
NOT I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE NOBODY
CARES ON THIS COMMITTEE, BUT I'M
GOING TO SAY IT ANYWAYS, WHEN WE
WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THIS,
DISCUSSION IN HOUSING COMMITTEE,
I CAME IN THINKING THAT I WAS
GOING TO OPPOSE THE MEASURE, BUT
THAT IT'S REALLY LIMITED TO. AND
I'M PRETTY PRO HOUSING ON IN
THAT COMMITTEE. BUT, BUT THIS
STILL HAD SOME CONCERNS FOR ME.
BUT HAVING BEEN THROUGH A
HOUSING ELEMENT CYCLE, WHEN I
WAS ON THE CITY COUNCIL AND I
SAW THE BACK AND FORTH WITH HCD
AND BY THE WAY, THERE WERE
DEFINITELY THINGS I DIDN'T LIKE
THAT THEY ASKED US TO DO. AND I
THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM THAT OR
AN ISSUE THAT WE SHOULD THINK
ABOUT ADDRESSING AT SOME POINT
BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO
CHANGE ORDINANCES THAT I DIDN'T
REALLY THINK WERE RELATED. AND
IT WAS KIND OF OUTSIDE THEIR
PURVIEW, BUT THAT IS WHAT IT IS.
BUT ANYWAYS, WE CAME UP WITH AN
AGREEMENT, WE TOLD THEM, YEAH,
WE'LL THINK ABOUT IT. AND, AND
WE CAME UP WITH A HOUSING
ELEMENT THAT I THINK, YOU KNOW,
HOPEFULLY WILL WILL WORK, BUT
BUT ALSO, JUST A COUPLE THINGS I
WANT TO SAY IS THAT ALTHOUGH AND
I WOULD SAY A LITTLE BIT OF
CAUTION ON THAT, THERE ARE 180
CITIES OUT OF COMPLIANCE. I
MENTIONED THIS KIND OF LAST TIME
TOO, BECAUSE A LOT OF THOSE
CITIES ARE MAKING EFFORTS. AND
REALLY, THIS BILL IS LIMITED TO
THE MOST EGREGIOUS AFTER THERE'S
BEEN A JUDGMENT MADE IN, YOU
KNOW, THE COURTS THAT THERE HAVE
BEEN VIOLATIONS. AND SO THAT IS
SUCH A LIMITED NUMBER OF CITIES.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, AND SO
BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT KIND OF
TEMPTED ME. BUT ALSO THERE'S
THIS ONE OTHER POINT AND WHY I
FIND MYSELF SUPPORTING HOUSING
LEGISLATION IS THAT I'M A
PROPERTY RIGHTS PERSON. I'VE
ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT PROPERTY IN
IN THE REPUBLICAN WORLD OF
THINGS IS, YOU HAVE LOCAL
CONTROL AND YOU HAVE PROPERTY
RIGHTS, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS HAS
ALWAYS BEEN A FOUNDATIONAL VIEW
OF, YOU KNOW, NOT OF MY PARTY.
AND SO I FEEL LIKE WHEN A
DEVELOPER COMES IN AND THEY SAY,
HEY, LOOK, I HAVE A PROPERTY
RIGHT BY RIGHT TO DO THIS
PROJECT, THE STATE HAS GRANTED
ME THIS, THIS ENTITLEMENT THAT
SHOULD BE NO DISCRETIONARY
REVIEW. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN A
CITY COMES IN AND SAYS, HEY, NO,
WE'RE GOING TO SLOW THIS DOWN.
WE'RE GOING TO MESS IT UP FOR
YOU AFTER THEY'VE INVESTED MONEY
AND RESOURCES AND TIME AND
THINGS LIKE THAT. AND I THINK
THAT'S TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.
BEALL, AND SO THAT'S WHAT LED ME
TO SUPPORT THIS BILL AT THE END
OF THE DAY IS, PEOPLE, REALLY,
IT'S JUST THE MOST EGREGIOUS
CASES. AT THE END OF THE DAY.
SO, SO I'M GOING TO BE
SUPPORTING IT AGAIN TODAY, AND
I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT AGAIN ON
THE FLOOR, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T
GET MESSED UP BETWEEN NOW AND
THEN. AND, SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
AS LONG AS YOU DON'T CALL HIM
JIM. MADAM VICE CHAIR, YES.
THANK YOU. CHAIR, WELL, I'LL
HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION. AND MY
COLLEAGUE AND I HAVE TALKED
ABOUT HOUSING AND OUR RESPECTIVE
DISTRICTS, BUT TO ME, HAVING
BEEN THROUGH A HOUSING ELEMENT
WITH IT FOR A CITY, MY CITY,
WHERE I LIVE ON THE CITY
COUNCIL, WAS IN FULL COMPLIANCE
WITH HCD AND DID ALL THE RIGHT
THINGS AND CHECKED ALL THE BOXES
WITH A LITTLE BIT OF PUSHBACK.
MY CONCERN AND, ABOUT THIS BILL
IN PARTICULAR, IS THAT IT IS SO
TARGETED AND USING MR.
CONNOLLY'S WORD, THE HAMMER, THE
IN MY I'M NOT A LAWYER, AND I'VE
GENERALLY FOLLOWED THIS CASE
FROM THE NEWS THAT IT'S NOT SO
MUCH OF A MATTER OF PERMITS.
IT'S A MATTER OF THE RIGHTS OF
CHARTER CITIES. AND I THINK
THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THE LONG LIST
OF CITIES THAT ARE DEALING WITH
THIS. AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN ON
THE COUNCIL FOR EIGHT YEARS, I
KNEW THAT THERE WERE PRIOR
LAWSUITS. THE CITY OF IRVINE HAD
A LAWSUIT IN 2004 OR 5 OR 6
PERIOD ON THE SAME THE PREVIOUS,
ARENA ALLOCATION ISSUE. AND THEY
LOST BECAUSE THE STATE ASSUMES,
PRIORITY JURISDICTION OVER
HOUSING AND OR DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY. I FORGET WHAT THE
TECHNICAL TERM WAS. SO AS I
UNDERSTAND, THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THERE ARE
THREE OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE
ACTUALLY PREVAILED IN SUPERIOR
COURT AND ARE GOING THROUGH THAT
PROCESS WHERE THEY, DEFENDED
THEIR RIGHTS AS A CHARTER CITY.
AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY A
FUNDAMENTAL CORE ISSUE ON THIS
MATTER. AND SO I THINK THE
PUNITIVE ASPECT OF THIS BILL IS
UNSEEMLY, GIVEN THAT THERE ARE
BACK AND FORTH WITH ANY LAWSUIT
THERE, BACK AND FORTH, BACK AND
FORTH, BACK AND FORTH, BUT IT'S
TO RESOLVE THE FUNDAMENTAL CORE
ISSUE, THE RIGHTS OF A CHARTER
CITY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THAT'S WHERE I COME DOWN, AND I
CANNOT SUPPORT THE BILL,
PROPERTY RIGHTS IS INVOLVED, BUT
IT'S REALLY IN THE STATE
CONSTITUTION, THE RIGHT OF A
CITY TO DETERMINE WHAT'S BEST
FOR ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
AND ALL THE OTHER RIGHTS THAT
ARE SPELLED OUT FOR CHARTER
CITIES. SO THAT'S WHERE I COME
DOWN. AND I JUST THINK THIS IS,
IF YOU WERE TO SAY THAT THIS
WOULD TAKE EFFECT THREE YEARS
HENCE WHEN ALL THIS HAS BEEN
RESOLVED. BUT I THINK IT'S
PUNITIVE TO ONE PARTICULAR CITY
WHEN THERE ARE THREE, AT LEAST
THREE OTHER CITIES, THE THREE
CITIES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
IN LA COUNTY PREVAILED AT THE
SUPERIOR COURT LEVEL. SO WE'LL
SEE WHERE THAT'S GOING TO END
UP. SO I JUST THE PUNITIVE
NATURE DOES NOT SIT WELL WITH
ME. YEAH. AND JUST BECAUSE I WAS
GIVING HUNTINGTON BEACH AS AN
EXAMPLE, I GAVE SAN FRANCISCO AS
AN EXAMPLE TO THEIR VARIOUS
CITIES THAT HAVE HAD ISSUES. AND
I THINK IT IS A SMALL MINORITY.
SO THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
REYES. THANK YOU. JUST LIKE MY
COLLEAGUE. THIS IS THE SECOND
TIME I'M SEEING THIS, I HAD AN
OBJECTION OR OPPOSITION FROM ONE
OF MY CITY. CITY OF COLTON? I
APPRECIATED THAT MY COLLEAGUE
ALSO ASKED THE QUESTIONS ABOUT
THE PROCESS. THERE ARE LOTS OF
DETAILS TO IT. JUST AS YOU
MENTIONED IN THE HOUSING
COMMITTEE AS WELL, THAT THIS IS
FIRST, YOU TRY TO BRING
EVERYBODY IN TO CONVERSATION ON
FOR COMPLIANCE. THAT'S THE GOAL
IS FOR EVERYBODY TO COMPLY. AND
BUT IF THEY'RE NOT AND THEY'RE
BEING EGREGIOUS ABOUT IT,
THEY'RE BEING INTENTIONAL ABOUT
IT. THERE HAS TO BE A NEXT STEP,
AND I APPRECIATE ALSO THE FACT
THAT THE PENALTIES THAT ARE,
THAT ARE THAT ARE GATHERED ARE
THEN HELD IN TRUST FOR THAT VERY
CITY TO, FOR THEIR HOUSING.
THAT'S AN IMPORTANT, IMPORTANT
DETAIL ALSO. BUT, I, I
APPRECIATE THIS BILL AND
APPRECIATE ALL OF THOSE STEPS
THAT ARE TAKEN BEFORE THE AG
COMES IN, AND EVEN THEN THERE
ARE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE AG. SO
WITH THAT, IF THE BILL HASN'T
BEEN MOVED, I WOULD MOVE THE
BILL. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION
AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, THANK
YOU, SENATOR, FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD. I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW,
WE ALL HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY. AND
BY WE, I MEAN ALL CITIES HAVE A
ROLE TO PLAY WHEN IT COMES TO
OUR HOUSING CRISIS, BECAUSE THIS
IS AN EXTREME CRISIS. AND I KNOW
COMING FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
LIKE MANY OF US, INCLUDING
YOURSELF, IT'S NOT A COMFORTABLE
POSITION TO BE IN TO BE ABLE TO
PUT IN MECHANISMS THAT THAT KIND
OF FORCE THE ISSUE AND KIND OF
FORCE FOLKS TO THE TABLE. BUT I
THINK THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ABDICATE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF BEING REGIONAL
PARTNERS IN RESOLVING THIS
CRITICALLY AND PROBABLY THE MOST
IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT I THINK
MOST CALIFORNIANS WOULD AGREE
WE'RE FACING. SO THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING THIS FORWARD. I KNOW
IT'S DIFFICULT TO HAVE THESE
CONVERSATIONS, AND I APPRECIATE
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE AS
WELL, IN PARTNERING WITH YOU IN
THIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE,
THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR THE
CONVERSATION. REALLY THOUGHTFUL
DIALOG, I APPRECIATE IT,
FUNDAMENTALLY, THIS IS ABOUT,
THE ISSUE HERE IS WHEN WE PASS
THE STATE HOUSING LAW, IS IT
ACTUALLY A LAW? AND ARE WE GOING
TO ENFORCE IT? AND ARE THERE
CONSEQUENCES FOR VIOLATING THE
LAW, I THINK THE ANSWER NEEDS TO
BE YES. AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU. ROLL
CALL. VOTE ON SB 1037, PLEASE.
MOTIONS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A CALL
FOR AYE. DIXON. DIXON. NÓ
BAUER-KAHAN. BRIAN BRIAN. AYE.
CONNELLY. CONNELLY. AYE. HANEY
AYE. HANEY. AYE. MAIENSCHEIN.
MAIENSCHEIN. AYE. MCKENNA
MCKENNA. AYE. PACHECO PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. AYE. REYES. AYE
REYES. AYE. SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. NO
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT BILL
IS OUT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
COLLEAGUES, ALL RIGHT, LET'S
START WITH THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
IF WE COULD. IS THERE A MOTION
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR? OKAY
THOSE ITEMS INCLUDE SB 1027,
MENTION OF OUR TWO
APPROPRIATIONS, SB 1190, LAIRD,
AS AMENDED, SB 1476, BLAKESPEAR
TO APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A
CALL FOR AYE. DIXON. DIXON. AYE.
BAUER-KAHAN BAUER-KAHAN. AYE.
BRIAN AYE. BRIAN. AYE. CONNELLY.
CONNELLY. AYE. HANEY HANEY. AYE.
MAINCHAIN. MAINCHAIN. AYE.
MCKENNA AYE. MCKENNA. AYE.
PACHECO. AYE. PACHECO. AYE
PATTERSON. PATTERSON. AYE. REYES
REYES. ON. ON CONSENT. REYES
AYE. SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. AYE ALL
RIGHT. CONSENT CALENDAR IS OUT,
WE NEED A MOTION ON FILE ITEM
TWO, SB 901, BURKE, MOVE. IS
THERE A SECOND? SECOND? ALL
RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION A
SECOND. WE PLEASE TAKE ROLL
CALL. VOTE ON SB 901. MOTIONS DO
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR
A CALL FOR AYE. DIXON BAUER.
KHN BAUER. KHN AYE. BRIAN
BRIAN. AYE. CONNELLY. CONNELLY.
AYE. HANEY HANEY. AYE.
MAINCHAIN. MAINCHAIN. AYE.
MCKENNA MCKENNA. AYE. PACHECO.
AYE. PACHECO AYE. PATTERSON.
PATTERSON. AYE. REYES REYES.
AYE. SANCHEZ. SANCHEZ. AYE ALL
RIGHT. THE BILL IS OUT. WE ALSO
NEED A MOTION ON FILE. ITEM
THREE, SB 959. MENGIBAR WE HAVE
A MOTION IN A SECOND. MOTIONS DO
PASS. TWO MOTIONS DO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CALL FOR A
CALLER. AYE. DIXON. DIXON. NÓ
BAUER. KHN BAUER. KHN AYE.
BRIAN AYE. BRIAN. AYE. CONNELLY.
CONNELLY. AYE. HANEY HANEY. AYE.
MAINCHAIN. MAINCHAIN. AYE.
MCKENNA MCKENNA. AYE. PACHECO.
AYE. PACHECO. AYE. PATTERSON
PATTERSON. NØ. REYES. REYES.
AYE. SANCHEZ NO. SANCHEZ. NO.
THAT BILL IS OUT, AND WE WILL
MOVE THE CALL ON. ITEM FIVE. SB
1061, LIMÓN BAUER. KHN BRIAN.
BRIAN. AYE. MCKENNA AYE.
MCKENNA. AYE THAT BILL IS OUT,
AND WE'LL MOVE TO ITEMS. WELL,
WE'LL MOVE THE CALL AND FILE
ITEM SEVEN SB 1524 DODD CALL FOR
A CALL. AYE. BAUER. KHN
BAUER-KAHAN. AYE. BRIAN AYE.
BRIAN. AYE. CONNELLY. CONNELLY
AYE. MCKENNA. MCKENNA. AYE.
REYES REYES. AYE REYES. AYE. AYE
RIGHT. THAT BILL IS OUT, AND WE
ARE ADJOURNED.