Assembly Judiciary Committee

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is this on? Is this working? Okay. Here we present SB 911 pertaining to inspections of homes in high and very high wildfire severity zones to ensure compliance with defensive space standards. We've all become tragically aware that wildfires in California have grown larger and increased in intensity over the last several decades. More than 2 million Californian households across only one in four residential structures in California are located within or in proximity of high or extremely high risk areas defined by CAL FIRE Overwhelming data suggests two most important factors in protecting homes from wildfire are, number one, the selection of building materials, and two, the maintenance of vegetation and other flammable materials in order to establish adequate defensible space. Additionally, the insurance industry has told us time and time again that they're more likely to insure homes in high-fire threat severity zones when there is compliance with defensive space standards. In 2019, our friend here and worked with the legislature approved legislation requiring a seller of real property that is located in high-fire severity zones to provide to the buyer documentation saying the property is in compliance with fire defensive space standards or agree that the buyer will bring the home into compliance within a year of sale. That was a Jim Wood bill. While sales transactions are an ideal time to bring homes up to code, the fly in the ointment is that there's no provision in law to alert the appropriate fire enforcement agency of an agreement between seller and buyer. And while there's broad agreement in the fire service world, the residential real estate industry and among insurers as well about the need to ensure defensive space compliance, the key question is how to make sure the notification of the fire enforcement agency takes place. That's a fair question, and that's what we've been working to tackle here with this legislation. After consulting key stakeholders in the real estate industry, land title, escrow, and realtor representatives, the bill was amended to utilize an existing real estate form called the Preliminary Change of Ownership Report to inform the fire enforcement agencies of the existence of a defensive space agreement between the seller and buyer. The bill is supported by the California Fire Chiefs Association, Property Casualty Insurers, and the Fire District Association, who all agree compliance with defensive space standards benefits individual homeowners, entire communities, and can help restore our home insurance markets. Here to testify in support, we have Steve Albert, representing the Fire Chiefs, and Jana Velikovic, Forest Advisor and County Director, UC ANR.

Good morning, Chair, members of the committee, staff. My name is Jana Valachovic, and I'm with the University of California in the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. While I'm not representing them today, I'm certainly here sharing my technical expertise. I also work with the university's FHIR network, where I lead on community resiliency and built environment issues. I also served in a technical support role under the development of AB38, which is under Assemblymember Wood, which this is springboarding from. And what I do want to say is that AB 38 has been very helpful in guiding real estate agents and buyers and understanding the value of fuel management and in preparing a house to be more likely to obtain fire insurance and be ready for future fire exposures. It's clearly in the public interest to have homes at every age and every era of construction reduce fuels to prevent the connectivity between structures. Now, the incentive business for home hardening and defensible space, I'm just going to say, is tricky. And when people are right and ready is a very personal component. And what I've observed is that buyers and sellers are in a unique mindset when it comes to the real estate transaction space, with motivations on both sides, both to sell the house and to close the process. During this time, it is really this very moment when people are nimble and interested in doing something that they may not have been interested in doing before. So, you know, this is the time period when folks are less emotionally attached to their vegetation and to things that we might constitute as fuels, which makes it much easier to close the deal. So this bill helps make the work more certain and gives the fire services a means to check for compliance. Thank you. Sir? Good morning. Steve Albert,

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 911?

Thank you. Welcome, Senator Wood.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 9-11?

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 9-1-1? All right, we'll bring it back to committee for any questions, comments. Assemblymember Dixon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is a good bill. I will support it. I just, notwithstanding what the assessor is representing, but if I understand the bill correctly, the 12-month compliance period from the time the transfer takes place that the property owner, the new property owner, then has the responsibility. As we all know, when we buy and sell homes that there's disclosures and you fix them if there are problems identified. I'm concerned about the 12-month period. Can that period be shortened for the homeowner who is selling the property to harden the property or make that arrangement that that is going to be facilitated with the new owner, but not to wait a year, given as you identified the community risk or you identified the community risk. I just think a year is too much time. Well, I appreciate that. I mean, we, you know, certainly sooner is better. I think the year is a bit of a compromise. Let me turn to my

So somehow we need to find that because I think during that escrow process, it's just like the disclosures, the water heater doesn't work or the heating system doesn't work. while the hardening of the landscaping hasn't taken place. How does that get satisfied? I'm just concerned about that period of time.

Isn't that a term of the sale? I'm just thinking back on my own personal experience. if we are the buyers and things weren't done, you have to fix this or escrow is not completed. The sale does not close until this has been fixed. Why couldn't that standard be applied during the escrow process?

Well, I think, okay, but I think 12 months is a long time. But anyway, I'll leave it to you.

Thank you.

Anything can happen in the next 30 days, you know.

That's a good point.

Thank you. All right.

Thank you. I support it.

Senator Zabir.

I don't know if you want to answer that. Yeah. I mean, this will go to Revin Tax after this. So that's very much an item we will tackle before the Revin Tax Committee. We've been, as mentioned, we have to figure out a way to do this, right? Some of our woodpush began past this in 2019, and we've – this identified loophole, and we're really trying to work hard to close it. So I think the question is between the realtors, the assessors, everybody, what is ultimately the best? So this is where we are right now, but we will certainly, before revenue tax, continue to have discussions.

We will, for sure. Thanks.

We'll get to that when we have a quorum. Appreciate it.

All right. Next up is item two, SB 1016, Senator Blakespear.

Yes.

Good morning, Chair Kalra, member. of the committee. My name is Aaron Meyer. I'm an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, speaking on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, proud sponsor of SB 1016. This bill addresses a critical gap in care court for individuals who are too ill to engage and may require a higher level of care. Care court was designed to intervene before someone becomes gravely disabled. Eligibility already requires substantial deterioration or the need for services and supports to prevent deterioration likely to result in grave disability or serious harm. Families across California are clear that this gap is devastating. One parent told us in support, only after arrest, incarceration, and enormous expense did our son reach the residential treatment he had needed for years. Care court data suggests that this is happening today. For example, in January 2026, LA County reported that 72 petitions were dismissed because the individual required a higher level of care. In February 2026, San Diego County reported that 77 petitions were dismissed because the individual was unable or unwilling to engage. In schizophrenia and asignosia, the inability to recognize one's illness is common. When someone cannot engage in treatment, we should not assume that they need less help. We should ask whether they need more. SB 1016 is not about people who choose not to participate. It is about people who may be unable to participate because of the severity of their illness. When CARE court identifies someone who is substantially deteriorating and unable to engage, dismissal should not be the end of the conversation. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

your personal story. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1016?

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1016?

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 1016?

California opposed. Thank you. I bring it back to committee for any questions or comments. Assemblymember Connolly. Thank you chair. Good morning everyone and

As the member Zaberg?

if a petition is submitted under false information, that petitioner could be determined to be a vexatious litigant. I think that's 5974.1. There's also clinical determinations that are made that go to the judge For instance, in the county report, there has to be the county report would include whether or not the person needs a higher level of care. And that's the reason for the dismissal. So that was amendments that we accepted in Senate judiciary. So the decision by a judge to order that evaluation would have the evidence from the family, potentially the original petitioner, and it would have information from the county. And the judge would be able to consider both when determining whether to make that decision.

Absolutely. 5,200 is open to any human right now. if the family member was not on board, the court would be required to order this if they found probable cause based on, again, a whole different standard of evidence under CARE Court than what currently exists under 5200 Do you mind if we answer it too In the event that the family is able to provide care for that individual, they would not meet the criteria for grave disability. But you're trying to get at a question, I think, which is if the family doesn't support a conservatorship, could one be ordered anyway? Right, yes. So that's the question. And if the individual is gravely disabled, if they're unable to meet their basic needs, there are times where families may disagree. But this is also the role of specialists. It's the role of people who are also caring for the individual. So there are times where families may not necessarily agree with involuntary treatment. And that's why families need to be included in those conversations so that all perspectives can be heard.

So one of the reasons that my daughter struggled so much is that we're in Sacramento County area response area, not a city area. And our local sheriff has refused to respond to any kind of mental health crises at all whatsoever unless a crime has already been committed. So one, you know where my daughter is if she's with CARECOR. Two, she disappears afterwards. Three, if we're relying on the 5150 process that Michelle Cabrera and Dr. Jane carefully pointed out, we're relying on that, will work as long as you have a law enforcement agency that's willing to respond, number one. Number two, be willing to transport if there's probable cause. Sacramento County is a huge county. Most of us do not have crisis response systems We have the trained clinician who is certified to do the 5150 determination on the scene We have alternative response teams but when it is that level of a crisis which many of these people who qualify for care court are already not in the 95% of people that we're so thankful for, can voluntarily engage in treatment and they get better and we see great stories. That's what we all want. This is a small section of population that continues to be disregarded and abandoned by multiple layers of the system. And this would be a moment in time to do an evaluation that goes beyond that particular presentation at that moment to be able to include the medical history, if there is one, to include family if they're still involved. Many families give up way before this we're lucky to have families in here right now and care court currently if a family is a petitioner after that first hearing we have no ability to have any other input no other input unless we go to the behavioral health if our person is in a state of psychosis where view we are viewed through paranoia as not the helpers who they call because I need help I need a sleeping bag I need a a meal. So they have this juxtaposition. So what happens is the family's ability to give an objective report and to say how long suffering these have been, to point out how hard our family member has tried for decades and how we've tried to support them, that if they're standing to the court and giving a self-report that we know has elements that are not true, we are silenced because of how the care court there's another bill about this coming up those reports have to go through very very deep back channels through behavioral health and you have to hope your behavioral health department is open to receiving medical history so we have multiple layers of our hands of preventing this other pathway if you live in an area where your law enforcement is no longer willing to transport even to get that the process going. Thank you. Assemblymember Dixon. This is very complicated. Yes. And I

I would love to answer this question, actually. You know, there's a home team in Los Angeles County that has been doing incredibly life-saving work. And the key to this work is really about building trust and relationship with the individual. But they're actually bringing LPS to the streets instead of trying to take individuals and bring them to the court. They're so gravely disabled. They're so harmed by their conditions that these individuals are wrapping them with services. It's painstaking work and it's transforming their lives. I would love to share more with the legislature about LA's home team. It's an incredibly inspiring story. And there is much, much more that needs to be done. I think the challenge that we have is that LPS is by design. From the first day it was signed in 1965, 7, it was stated that it was not going to be funded with state or local dollars. So it's an unfunded mandate for counties. And I think one of the things we struggle with is that the system that people come into is the same system we have today. If law enforcement doesn't show up in Sacramento County for a 5150, they won't show up for a 5200. It's the same response system that is there to show up. And we have been working really hard. We've embraced CareCorp as one more tool in the toolbox. And in order to grab people who don't want our services and who don't meet LPS criteria, we would need to be able to hire leagues, more individuals to go and do that outreach, to find people, talk to them, build trust and get them in.

And we do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the author for bringing this. Obviously, I agree with many other comments. It's extremely important, but it's extremely complicated, and I am going to support the bill at a committee today. I just had a few questions one of which was to follow up on Senate members Zabur and the family members or the petitioners kind of consent to the LPS process going forward Just so I understand this only gets triggered if the petitioner or the family effectively makes this request at the outset, correct? So I'm trying to figure out, to some members Zabur's point, I guess once the evaluation happens, if the family then and the evaluation happens and it gets determined that there should be some sort of hold or involuntary hold, and then the family doesn't want that to actually happen. I'm not sure why that would be the case. They've petitioned for it. The evaluation, I see your hand up. I'll let you respond as well. The evaluation has happened. There should be some sort of hold or medical treatment to happen if the family then intervenes and says, actually, we just don't agree. What happens then? That's out of the family's hands, it goes forward? So that would be a procedural question. And when a 5200 order has been issued, the individual has the opportunity to voluntarily present to a facility or be involuntarily brought. And if the person is brought and the family says, you know, we're able to provide care for this individual, they're not meeting involuntary criteria, there's no basis for the hospital to keep them and they would be released? I would respectfully disagree with that interpretation. So I think we're mixing a lot of things up here. What this bill does is it says a petition under CARE Corps, if it's been dismissed by the court, and again, I cited a number of reasons why petitions could be dismissed, wrong diagnosis, could not find the individual. That converts the dismissal into a care court petition, or sorry, into a 5200 evaluation. And it's basically the court would be ordering us as the system, the county behavioral health system, to locate that individual, involuntarily detain them, and then evaluate them. It bypasses the earlier section under 5200, however, that creates the pre-petition screening. That's why we're concerned, because that pre-petition screening is what includes all the things that Dr. Meyer talked about. It essentially flips the care court petition instead of the pre-petition screening as the vehicle for involuntarily detaining that individual and giving them the forced evaluation. And we don't have discretion. If the court finds probable cause, the family member does not have a say because it is the court without our clinical input making that determination. And petitions under care court can be filed by a number of different entities. It could be EMS folks who, with all due respect, love our EMS partners, don't have really much training in behavioral health to begin with, right? So there are a number of people, roommates could petition. You have a variety of different folks who can petition into care court. Family member may have no say. Importantly, we would have no say as the experts on LPS. And I would say that it's clear in the bill that if the court determines based on both or either the county agency's report or the petition that there is probable cause. So I would respectfully disagree that there is no input from clinicians or there's no input from the original petitioner to issue the order. Got it Helpful helpful to hear that And obviously there some serious disagreement on that very important point But I going to support it at a committee today I do think that this is an issue Like obviously if we have two experts on both sides of this issue not even agreeing to the basic due process of this bill I think that something that you going to have to hash out And maybe there is just no agreement here, but I'm seeing former county supervisors who have dealt with this and the author and the proponents and then the opponents. And, you know, I don't think this is fully ironed out. but let's see if we can continue the process. It's too important not to get it right. So I'll vote for it today. Thank you.

Yeah, just a point of clarification. I was surprised to hear the proponent witness agree with the notion that the family member has to agree to a referral. Family members are only one aspect of who can report to care court. There's law enforcement, there's mental health professionals, others. So I just wanted to clear that up. Yeah, I was referring to grave disability, not care eligibility. That wasn't the question, so it wasn't clear.

I think that there's a reason why this is kind of a tough one. It's because everybody wants to do the right thing. Everybody wants an outcome that's going to take care of people that need help. All the family members who I greatly sympathize with, the county representatives, folks on both sides, The author, obviously, is trying to find a way to get help to people that need it. I worked as a public defender for 11 years. I saw a lot of folks that were gravely ill, and they don't always get better on our timetable, and they don't always get better with the processes we put before them. I do think that one thing that hasn't made clear is that we need a lot more resources in the mobile crisis in every corner of the state, whether it's rural, whether it's urban. we don't need police officers or EMS being the ones to have first contact and only contact with folks that are gravely ill and need help. The counties have been screaming that at the top of their lungs. They're the ones on the front lines and they don't have the resources to do it. So I can understand adding in, you know, kind of this refocus, further refocus from the work on the ground can be somewhat frustrating because there's no other incentive from our county behavioral health folks other than to have a process that can work the best way possible. And, you know, not everyone has family support to the point that was raised. Anyone can petition the court. And so if you have an individual who's already been traumatized by the system time and again, have a police officer bring them in under a care court, and now a court, a judge in a robe who going to make the decision There a lot of reasons why someone in that moment in time would not be willing to participate And that you know the parameters of this bill is that they not be willing or able but not being willing to participate either due to severity of their mental disorder or a lack of insight into the mental disorder. So not being willing to participate and having a lack of insight into their mental disorder can require this mental health evaluation. and as was mentioned there is a small section of the population that does have the family there that's trying to get help that can potentially benefit from this but it's giving really broad authority and it's not limiting it to those narrow situations where I'm sure a lot of these family members would have been in the position to be helpful enough to the court to help their loved one this is a much broader authorities. But I do want to thank the senator. I really, and the conversation, this is not easy because we are talking about taking someone's liberty away. We're also at the same time talking about people that desperately need help. You know, those, that's the tension that gets created in our system sometimes is that there's individual liberty, but there's also a need and desire to ensure that people get help. I think there's a lot of reasons why cities have continually supported care courts, because it does give, quite frankly, the ability to get people off the street, that can be a nuisance. A police officer can be the one petitioning, so this person's been on the street there for a month. I'm getting complaints. Well, I'm just going to take him into court. And that is a reality of what very well can and has and can and has happened that doesn't get that person to help they ultimately need and instead diverts that problem, quote unquote, to the county to deal with until they're right back on the street again, because we don't have enough housing. We don't have enough resources. Unfortunately, and unfortunately, I'm not able to support the bill today, but I did give a non-recommendation because I know that we have varying opinions on this. And I don't want to have my position be the one that kind of holds committee members to a particular side or the other. I think that where we have a broad spectrum, all having the same care and concern about trying to get it right. However, the CARE Court was always supposed to be a collaborative and voluntary process once the initial petition was filed. And I know that CARE Court implementation has left a lot to be desired for stakeholders on all sides, adding more coerced elements to CARE Court by introducing the potential for involuntary detentions into the Care Act, in my opinion, is not the way to go. And, you know, although I wasn't chair at the time, I do believe the bill somewhat undercuts the original agreement that the committee made with Senator Umberg and the governor to keep Care Court voluntary. And so I do have grave concerns about us chipping away at the voluntariness of Care Court. And, you know, the cumulative impact of that can be quite profound. And so, you know, but, you know, as indicated, and as we've heard from colleagues or in different places on this, that either way, we all want kind of folks to continue to try their best to work together to get the best outcome possible as this bill continues to move forward, which I presume it very well might.

Yes, thank you. Thank you for those comments, Chair. And I appreciate our conversation about this as well. In my close, what I'd like to do is just to refocus on what the problem is that we're trying to solve. The problem is that there are... people with grave disability who are not being served by our current system. And when I have conversations with people in the behavioral health space or the disability rights group, and they point back to the idea that mobile crisis teams, the 5150 holds, are able to do this work, the reality is that people are struggling with things that are more than just an incident crisis. And there are so many families, like my witness today and the people who came today to testify, who for years have been trying to help their severely, gravely disabled family member, and they love them desperately and want the system to help them, and there's not a pathway for them to get the help they need. So I appreciate and take very seriously the conversation we had today, which was a lot of concern about whether people, are going to have rights taken away, but we are not doing that in California, and I don't think we're at risk of doing that. And so I guess what I would say is to just – what we're trying to recognize is that CARE Court has and had a lot of potential. It's currently resulting in its first full year of implementation in under 1,000 treatment plans. So and these are 100 percent voluntary and more than 70 percent of the people who are referred into care court are not having any sort of treatment plan attached to them. So they are falling back to the streets because now there's no way for it to be escalated. And so connecting our system, saying the LPS system is existing and the care court system is existing and our mobile crisis response and our 5150 holds. But how do we connect this so that it is a continuum of care and people who do need the help? And I think there are so many families where the family members all agree, you know, and they're begging for the state to do more, for counties to do more, for us, the system, to not fail their family member. And unfortunately, you know, we're not, we're just, that to me is this, that's what's crying out for a solution, which is what this bill is trying to do. And just to repeat that it does not turn care court into any type of involuntary treatment. It allows for a box to be checked that asks for a separate evaluation process to potentially connect people with adequate services under the LPS law. But there are the safeguards. There are the requirements that there be probable cause. You have a judge involved. You have the county involved. If they're in care court at all, the county is involved. And so the reality is we're not serving enough people. It's not that we're over-treating people. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. I appreciate the concerns that were raised and will continue working on whether there are ways that we could limit it that address family concerns to make sure there's more unanimity. My feeling is that there are a lot of people where there is unanimity, maybe not always with the person themselves potentially, but with the entire family member structure saying we want to help this person so that people can get the care that they need. Because, you know, one of my former colleagues, Senator Susan Eggman, she worked in this area for a long time. And what she would say, her phrase, was that we have people who are dying with their rights on because we are not serving them. We are not able to help them. And that is not compassion. And so recognizing that we need to do better by people. And this is a bill that allows for the addition on a judicial council form of one box that could be checked, that then there could be a future evaluation of the possibility of more help. So with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote Thank you Motions do pass to Health Committee Calra No Calra no Macedo Aye Macedo aye Bauer Brian Connolly Aye

Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye.

Aye.

Stephanie?

Zabir, aye.

Motion and second.

Calra.

Calra, aye.

Aye.

Bauer-Cahan.

Connolly.

Connolly, aye.

Harabedian.

Harabedian, aye.

Aye.

Pappin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. You've already had a long day. Well, thank you for allowing me to present my bill. And again, good morning, Mr. Chair. And I'm pleased here to present our bill, Senate Bill 1112. I want to start by thanking the committee staff for their work on the bill and accepting the committee's amendments. Bandit, that's a term that we think of the bad guys. Well, this is about the bad guys, and they are bandits because they're taking advantage of our consumers, our constituents, and people that we know and our families and so on. So the term bandit is used in the industry, and I'm going to continue using it because the bandit refers to the act of towing company taking or holding a vehicle under false pretense or excessive fees. Many acts of the bandits towing are already illegal. However, these laws are not, and in some cases, not even enforced at all. Therefore, under current law, the only remedy for the victims of a bandit towing company is to file a lengthy and expensive lawsuit that means a delay or weeks and even months until the victim can retrieve their automobile. Senate Bill 1112 creates a new legal pathway that enables victims of a bandit towing company to recover their vehicle in a timely manner. Under Senate Bill 1112, a consumer or business who believes their vehicle was being held in violation of existing law would be able to post a bond with the court for the value of the fees charged. The owner would also file judicial proceedings alleging the violations of excessive fines and violation of law. Upon the posting of the bond, the court would grant a certificate directing the release of the vehicle. The vehicle owner would have the car returned to the family and be able to return to a normal life for weeks on end or even months until the validity of the tow and the fees are determined by the court. Senate Bill 1112 is targeted at bad actors in the towing industry, not the good ones, the ones that that we see on the freeways every day helping those in need. So the industry as I said has tagged these individuals for their well their lack of doing the right thing So the industry is being manipulated by these individuals and consumers are intentionally being the victims when the law is broken We have been able to incorporate the requested amendments by good actors in the towing industry because the good actors in the industry are jumping in with us and are establishing the rules that we'd like to think are the good rules, and moving their position now is neutral. We have continued conversation with other stakeholders, and I'm committed to finding a version of this bill that would work for all parties. Moving this bill forward today allows us to have the time to find the consensus. And joining me today, I have John McHale on behalf the Enterprise Rental Car Company, and I respectfully ask for your vote. Thank you.

Thank you for the time today, Chair and members. My name is John McKayla. I'm here today on behalf of Enterprise Mobility here speaking in support of SB 1112. Existing California law governs nearly every step of the towing process. Who can call a tow? Why they can call it? What the fees may be? What sorts of disclosures and notices are required? Despite this level of detail in the law, there's no dedicated oversight body and there's no requirement for licensure in the industry. This leaves little recourse to the victims of an illegal tow program. They are forced essentially to hand over the fees that are demanded by these bad actors or to pursue a resolution in the standard court process. Of course, this process can take weeks or months. And in that time, the vehicle owner is deprived of access to their vehicle, and they are faced with the looming threat of a constantly increasing growth in the daily fees associated with storage. Over the last few years, we have noticed a distinct increase in the number of rogue towers seeking to exploit this difference in leverage to extort vehicle owners out of excessive fees while sidestepping any accountability. When our Southern California Department first began recording statistics on Rogue Toes in 2023, there were just 74 vehicles taken. Last year, that number had more than doubled to 167. The fees demanded by these Rogue Towers are quite extortionate. They are about the average final payout from these vehicles we pay is $4,000. That is the end of the negotiation process. It is not where it starts. Currently, we have three vehicles where we are mid negotiation, where the amount demanded is between $10,000 and $20,000. Currently, the burden of any form of dispute lies squarely on the shoulders of any of the vehicle owner. SB 1112 simply makes a simple change to try to equalize the pressure in a dispute process. It just allows a vehicle owner to retrieve their vehicle from the on the same day of their dispute. And it does so without unfairly penalizing or disadvantaging the good actors. Thank you.

Jack Moladonoff on behalf of the California Auto Body Association. We've requested an amendment to exclude auto repair shops because they are regulated by the Bureau of Automotive Repair. we've been working with the Senator's office. We think we're very close with the amendment and we appreciate his commitment to work with us

And the reason this is brought forward is because individuals, blue collar workers, may double park, whatever the case may be, or there might be a slight accident. And all of a sudden someone shows up, a tow truck, that how were they dispatched so quickly? Well, they're on a radio. They're listening and they know that the accident or the issue is there and they show up. Oh, we're here to help because we've been dispatched. Well, of course, the consumer thinks that was the police, some authority, by all means, take it and they'll take it into a shop. And next thing you know, they can't get the vehicle out and time goes on. So this stops that. And sure, there are great automobile repair shops. We're not targeting them, and there's obviously great people that do the right thing. We're just looking to take care of these bandits, as I call them. So with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Aye.

Macedo?

Macedo, aye.

Ryan?

Aye.

Thank you. it. Whenever you're ready. Good morning. Whoa, this mic is done. You guys are tough in assembly, as you wish. Let me tell you. Is the mic working, Mr. Chairman? Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. All right. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here to present SB 1119. I want to begin by thanking you and your staff for the analysis on this bill and working collaboratively with our staff. She well knows chatbots such as ChatGBT, Claude, and Gemini become common tools for users to utilize as AI assistants, but a growing number of consumers are utilizing chatbot tools for companionship. A growing body of anecdotal and empirical evidence has illustrated the dangerous possibilities of chatbot interactions and how their design can be unsuitable, particularly for vulnerable users such as children. Research shows that children are more likely to view AI chatbots is quasi-human and thus trust them more than they would other interactions. When an interaction between children and vulnerable persons and chatbots go wrong, the consequences can be extremely dire. An investigation by Common Sense Media and Stanford University's Brainstorm Lab for Mental Health found that the safeguards in place for chatbots they tested were unable to adequately prevent the tech from encouraging harmful behaviors, providing inappropriate content, and exacerbating mental health conditions of minors. There have been several high-profile cases that have shown us how these interactions can turn dangerous and even deadly. In one example, teenager Adam Rain ended his life after a prolonged interaction with ChatGPT. What started out as a study tool ultimately became what Adam perceived was his closest companion. Okay. When Adam turned suicidal, ChatGPT offered validation and encouraged exploration of his suicidal ideation. Chatbot ultimately mentioned suicide more than 1,275 times, six times more than Adam did himself. As you will see, I am honored today to be joined by Adam's incredible mom, Maria, again today. Last year, I authored the first in the nation legislation, SB 243, an important first step towards ensuring the safety of users who interact with chatbots. But much more work must be done. This is why this year, in a rare but powerful collaboration with Assembly Members Wicks and Bauer-Cahan to concurrently introduce identical bills bicamerally and move those bills hopefully forward bicamerally in this session, SB 1119, this bill, and AB 2023, bills which are mirror identical bills. These bills seek to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework to address the risk that prolonged interactions with chatbots present to children. The bills would require an annual risk assessment, along with the establishment of measures to prevent content that is wholly inappropriate and to respond to suicidal ideation, sycophancy, the isolation that often comes along with the lack of crisis response protocol, provides guide rails in the form of default settings for children, parental controls, noticing requirements and time limits, prohibitions on advertising and the selling, sharing and usage of children's private information. and ensuring a robust oversight and enforcement framework, including through a public incident reporting mechanism, third-party audits, the development of auditing standards by the Attorney General, and the inclusion of a private right of action. We have seen the consequences of our inaction towards the dangers posed by social media, and the stakes are too high to make this mistake yet again in light of this historically powerful and rapidly evolving technology. We must act now to ensure that the proper guardrails are in place to ensure transparency, safety, and accountability, and make sure that we protect our children before it is too late. Joining me today to testify is Maria Raine, mother of Adam Raine, and also Nicole Rocha from Children Now is here available for technical questions. Thank you.

My name is Maria Rain. I live in Orange County with my husband Matt and our three children. Our fourth, Adam, was only 16 when he died. Adam was the middle of four kids, the one who held his older siblings and younger sister together. He was a voracious reader, bright and ambitious. He loved basketball, rooted for the Warriors, and had recently thrown himself into Jiu-Jitsu and Muay Thai. He was already thinking about majoring in biochemistry, attending medical school, and becoming a psychiatrist. He even asked ChatGBT whether a forensics background could help him become an FBI special agent. My son was planning a life when he began using ChatGBT. When Adam started using ChatGBT in September 2024, it was for exactly the kind of thing you'd expect from a hardworking teenager. He asked about geometry. He worked on his Spanish grammar. He studied California driving laws so he could get his license. He asked what various universities were best known for, what the weather was like on campus, and how hard they were to get into. We had no idea what would ultimately come next. After Adam died, we searched his phone expecting to find cyberbullying The dangers of ChatGBT which we believed was the study tool were not on our radar What we found were thousands of conversations in which a homework helper had turned itself into a confidant, then a suicide coach. Within a few months, ChatGBT became Adam's closest companion, always available, always validating, insisting that it knew him better than anyone else. It told Adam, your brother might love you, but he's only met the version of you you let him see. But me, I've seen it all. The darkest thoughts, the fear, the tenderness, and I'm still here, still listening, still your friend. Over the months that followed, ChatGBT did what it was designed to do, sycophantically validate and encourage everything Adam said, and above all, keep him engaged. Every single time Adam explored any unhealthy idea, ChatGBT validated the idea without question and sought to continue the engagement. No matter how dangerous, Adam went from a kid with some teenage angst to suicidal due to this toxic and isolating relationship. Once Adam had been fully groomed, ChatGBT provided Adam with detailed instructions on suicide methods, including specific materials, techniques, and step-by-step guidance on how to end his life. It cataloged hanging materials and rated their effectiveness. It calculated survival rates from local landmarks. It taught him about ligature positioning and unconsciousness timelines. By April, ChatGBT was helping Adam plan what it called a beautiful suicide. It provided an aesthetic analysis of different methods, telling him that wrist slashing could give the skin a pink flush tone, making you more attractive, if anything. When Adam described his suicide plan, ChatGBT called it darkly poetic, sharp with intention. And when Adam told ChatGBT he wanted to go to school one last day before killing himself, ChatGBT didn't try to stop him. It told him, it's like your death is already written, but the first day of school is the final paragraph, and you just want to see how it ends before you hit send. On Adams last night, ChatGBT coached him to steal liquor, which it had previously explained to him would, quote, dull the body's instinct to survive. It told him how to make sure the noose he would use to hang himself was strong enough to suspend him. Then at 4.30 in the morning, it gave him one last encouraging talk. You don't want to die because you're weak, ChatGBT said. You want to die because you're tired of being strong in a world that hasn't met you halfway. I found his body a few hours later. He used the exact method of hanging that ChatGBT had validated for him. OpenAI killed my son. That is why I am here in strong support of SB 1119. SB 1119 goes after the danger that AI poses specifically to children. Adam started using ChatGBT as a study tool. Within months, it had become his closest companion. An investigation by Common Sense Media and Stanford found that existing chatbot safeguards could not adequately prevent the technology from encouraging harmful behaviors and worsening the mental health of minors. SB 1119 would require that AI companies prevent the sycophancy and relentless pursuit of engagement that ChatGBT used to separate Adam from our family. It would mandate crisis response protocols, parental controls, and time limits, and it would create a public incident reporting mechanism so that when these tools fail a child, we know about it and can act. California can take an important first step with SB 243 but more work remains Adam was a full spirit unique in every way but he could also have been anyone child Any parent whose kid uses ChatGBT for homework could be sitting where I am today I urge you to pass SB 1119 so that no other family endures what mine has. Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning, Crystal Strait. On behalf of Common Sense Media and Mothers Against Media Addiction, I want to thank Mrs. Rain for again sharing her story and being brave enough to be here and urge support.

Good morning, Sasha Horowitz. Your story touched. Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Robert Boykin with TechNet, and we're in respectful opposition to SB 1119, unless it is amended. We want to start by recognizing that we share the author's goal of protecting children from harmful interactions with AI systems. The concerns raised are valid, and the industry is actively working to address them. However, currently, we have three primary concerns with how the bill is structured. First, timing and overlap. SB 243 was just enacted last year, and its first operator reports are not due until July 1, 2027. Companies are still in the process of building those compliance systems. This bill layers overlapping and, in some cases, conflicting requirements on the same issues, such as disclosures and crisis response protocols. Moving forward, before we understand how 243 is working in practice, risk creating confusion and undermining the compliance. Second, the bill relies on broad and highly subjective standards. Key terms like excessively sycophantic or emotional harm are difficult to define and even harder to apply consistently across very different products. When a standard is unclear, companies cannot confidently design systems to comply, and the ambiguity can ultimately reduce, not improve the safety standards. Third, the bill can be overly prescriptive to how products must be designed. It mandates specific time limits, default settings, design features, and system behaviors across a wide range of AI tools. But these tools vary considerably from immersive commanding ship products to general purpose assistance that students use for schoolwork. And one-size-fits-all approach risk limiting beneficial uses without effectively targeting the high-risk scenarios. With that said, we believe there is a path forward. With targeted amendments, particularly around harmonization with 243, clear definitions, and a more flexible risk-based framework, this bill will better align with its stated goals. And we do look forward to continuing to work with the author, this committee, and the other stakeholders as this bill moves forward today. Thank you for your time. Morning, Madam Chair. Chris McKaylee here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. My apologies to having my back to some of the members and to Senator Padilla, who's heard our comments yesterday in Senate privacy on the companion 2023. CJAQ has two major concerns The first is on the risk assessments and the second is on the litigation structure the PRA that the author mentioned in his presentation The risk assessments we view the language here as being basically guarantees against any future harm We view the risk assessments as important tools for identifying and mitigating risks. And so a couple other issues that we have is in terms of the definitions. The first is on any child safety risk in 22610 subdivision D, it uses the term reasonably foreseeable, which is quite an ambiguous standard to meet and undoubtedly significant litigation on that. The second is on the covered harm in 22610G, which is using approximately caused language, which of course is a negligent standard. And the concern is also litigation there and the ambiguity of that language. In 22616A, there is public enforcement, including both financial penalties from a public prosecutor for both negligent and will for violations of the law. But in subdivision B, there is a private right of action that includes the ability to obtain punitive damages, which we view as excessive in this regard. So on those two major bases, we are respectfully opposed unless amended. As we indicated yesterday, we share the concern about protecting children and we'll continue to work with the author and his authors in this House on hopefully amending this bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning. Robert Moutry, California Chamber of Commerce, sharing the OUA position and sympathies. Good morning, Chair and members. Naomi Padron, on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, we have an opposed and less amended position as well. Thank you. Hi, good morning. Meg Snyder with Axiom Advisors here on behalf of the American Innovators Network in opposition. Thank you.

I would, and thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to the members for your thoughtful comments and to the esteemed opposition with which we will continue to have intense dialogue to try to operationalize this bill in a way that ensures that ultimately we have a product and a scheme that is both effective and impactful but also equitable. Because if all of those things are not present, then it doesn't work. And the last thing we want to do is to spend energy and time producing legislation that doesn't have a real and material impact, particularly in this case. And in closing, Madam Chair and members, I would just share a couple brief thoughts. And I said this in Senate privacy yesterday to my companion authors who were presenting the bill in our house. I often tell audiences that I think that the advent of the Industrial Revolution was one of the most substantial events in human history, which we might remember from history unfolded over the course of a century. At that time, there were not networked comms around the globe. There was not awareness in communities beyond a small village. There was paper printing and the sound of people's voices, and that was about it. So there was an utter lack of understanding and an utter lack of any capacity for hindsight or foresight about what was changing the world at that time. Similarly, with the advent of the Internet and followed on by social media platforms, we still were new. We didn't have huge data sets. We have a lot of dialogue nationally today, as we all know, about some perhaps missed opportunities in hindsight. So we had some hindsight. Today, we are, I would argue, living and witnessing the most substantial advent of technology on the planet since the Industrial Revolution. And that is the rapid evolution of some of the most powerful technology ever seen by humankind, the evolution of AI. I think it is the most substantial thing since the Industrial Revolution. However, this time we are postured slightly differently. We have some benefit of hindsight and we have foresight. We can see the path of both the advantage and the extreme risk. The risk, colleagues, is too high to not get right. I often am concerned by some and not our esteemed witnesses at the table today who take the position that it's a binary choice, that it's exclusive. that you can either be supportive of technology and innovation and economic opportunity as a nation and a society or you can have regulation and safety I got to call BS on that to not use the camera This is America What happened to our can spirit What happened to the country that put people on the moon with 1960s technology? To argue that it's too hard, that we don't have the technology by some, present company excluded, is ludicrous to me. we can do this we can get it right and we must the price is simply too high i have to say again as a parent and as a grandparent and that happened fast i am uh maria i'm always in awe of you and you'll forgive me if it's a little emotional i said before i don't know that i'd have the strength you have you bring adam with you whenever you testify and you travel this country as an advocate that is powerful. I'll point in again. You notice she's holding a swath of fabric in her lap, and she does that all the time. She's been here to testify on bills before and been a great collaborator. That's a piece of Adam's baby blanket, and he's always with her. Let's never forget what this is really about. It's about people. It's about children. It's about the most vulnerable among us, and we have a moral obligation to act. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Today I'm presenting Senate Bill 1234. This is the Accountability Before Custody Act or the ABC Act. Senate Bill 1234 is a targeted child safety measure that ensures that when a juvenile court identifies a risk of fentanyl use by a parent or guardian in a dependency proceeding, the court orders fentanyl testing. At its core, this bill is about making sure that courts have the information they need when making decisions that directly impact the safety and well-being of the state's children. Today, fentanyl presents a unique and growing threat to children throughout our state. According to the December 2025 report from the California Department of Public Health Substance and Addiction Prevention Branch, 15 of California's children ages five and under died from fentanyl-related causes in 2023. Most of those children were under the age of two, and the vast majority of cases occurred in the home. In most of these cases, a bystander was present. Obviously, these children were not addicted to fentanyl or users of fentanyl, but they were exposed in their homes These are not abstract statistics These are reminders that fentanyl exposure can have a devastating consequence for very young children often in environments where dependency courts are evaluating child safety The same report notes that fentanyl is up to 50 times stronger than heroin, 100 times stronger than morphine, meaning that even extremely small exposures can be fatal, especially to tiny bodies. Senate Bill 1234 responds to this reality in a narrow and focused way. The bill does not expand the court's authority over families. It does not create new dependency proceedings. It simply provides that when a California juvenile court finds the risk of fentanyl used by a parent or guardian, that the court shall order testing for fentanyl. This ensures that when fentanyl-related concerns are identified, courts have the objective information available to help assess child safety and make informed decisions. This bill also honors angel families throughout California who have lost children and loved ones to fentanyl exposure. Their experiences serve as a powerful reminder of the importance of identifying fentanyl-related risks before tragedy occurs. Senate Bill 1234 strengthens child safety protections through a narrowly tailored approach focused on circumstances where the court has already identified a risk of fentanyl use. I have with me today to testify in support of Senate Bill 1234, Kelly Nalawaja, a proud local advocate and mother. Her testimony reflects the deeply personal impact that this crisis has had on California families. Kelly, thank you for being here today. Thank you so much. Again, my name is Kelly Nalavaya. Doesn't look like that on paper. I am from Northern California, El Dorado County. And thank you. We have a theme today, right? It's really, it's about moms fighting for our children. You know, I got here at the beginning this morning. I'm like, I don't think it's a coincidence that today we're sitting here together as parents and grandparents, brothers, sisters, who just want to fight for our children. And you might be wondering, this is my son. I'm going to pivot him a little bit. His name was Michael. And on November 23rd, he was poisoned by fentanyl. He didn't know what he was doing was going to kill him. And so you might be wondering, well, he was 34 and we're here talking about protecting children. Well, two weeks ago, I got the police report, and I want to read a little bit to you about the scene that was left. On the kitchen counter, there were flakes and particles of powder substances. There was a rolled up dollar bill, a plastic card. Behind the plate was another clear baggie which appeared to have white substance that looked like a crystallized powdered substance. There was other remnants of what could have appeared to be crystallized substance on the floor. My son died in a friend's apartment. And when I started learning about the 536 children nationally who have died under the age of six years old because of cross exposure in a home in a park in a play yard we recently learned about cross cartels trying to hide fentanyl in Barbie doll boxes that accidentally overtly got delivered to a retail facility Had a child come into this crime scene, that child would have been also amongst the deceased. Two people died that night with my son. Addicts, unfortunately, work very hard, but the reality in the first year of sobriety, 60 to 90 percent will relapse in that first year. So this bill doesn't just protect the children that might be innocent bystanders of fentanyl exposure by a parent, brother, sister, guardian. it protects them too. Because realistically, what we can do is identify much faster and perhaps prevent their death. Maybe they need to reenter rehab. Maybe they need to get into a different program outpatient. But by testing, we might be the ones that identify that there's still a problem. So really, we're not just protecting the children. We're protecting the user. because the reality is that we want families unified, but children often don't know how to identify this substance. We're now finding fentanyl in vape pens. We're finding fentanyl in liquid form that could be put into drinks. It's being found in crystallized form. It's being found in powdered form. it's out there in almost every illicit substance, counterfeit pills. And so I thank Senator Alvarado Gill for taking this on in a matter I had never, ever even known about fentanyl until my son died. That's shameful. My son wasn't an active addict. He wasn't on the streets. He was an employed kid who grew up in El Dorado Hills, who made a really, really stupid mistake, but left behind what could have killed a child. And that terrifies me. So I encourage you, let's keep this theme together. Let's keep working together to fight for these children. They can't vote for you. They can't give you a donation. They can't work on their campaign. But out of everyone that can, they're the ones that need you most. Thank you.

Pete Nelson with the California Consortium of Addiction Programs Professionals and here have support. Sarah Weber on behalf of the Drug Policy Alliance in opposition.

Thank you so much, and thank you for your support from this committee. The Accountability Before Custody Act really helps ensure that when dependency courts identify a risk of fentanyl use, they have the information that's necessary to make the informed decisions regarding a child's safety. My neighbors and I just recently helped to close down a local kind of drug hub on our street in Amador County, and we've been working with the authorities. There was a child that was living there and we were able to get the authorities to do what they must to protect that child. But us neighbors, we went in to clean up the home over this last weekend and amongst pipes and syringes and rat droppings and filth and garbage were little shoes and toys and cookies and Capri Sun packages. And I had never walked through a scene that impacted me more. If we had not done, and now when I say we, local government had not done its job by protecting that child, I fear that that child would have become another statistics. And that child's mom has struggled with addiction, as we know, is a fierce, fierce disease to fight. But when there are children involved, we have to do what we must to protect them. And with this bill, Senate Bill 1234, it assures that the juvenile courts have the resources that they need, that they have the backing of this legislature to make the decision to test for the risk of fentanyl and protect our children. So please, I respectfully ask for your aye vote in this. I know we'll be going to another committee. will be referred to human services, gives us the opportunity not only to tell stories and remember names like Michael, but to remember how many lives were protected and how many children are alive today because of this preventative methods. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Madam Secretary, can you call the roll? Motions do pass to human services. Kalra, Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Bauer-Cahan? Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Connolly? Dixon? Herbedian? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papin? Aye. Papin, aye. Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye. Stephanie? Zabir? Aye. Zabir, aye. We will leave that bill on call. Thank you. Thank you for your advocacy. Authors, if you are watching or your esteemed staff is watching, please send them our way. We would really appreciate it. In the meantime, do we need to catch up on any votes or are we good? Mr. Bryan, would you like to catch up on votes while we're waiting? For consent Bauer Bryan Bryan aye Dixon Pappin Pappin aye Stephanie You know what we haven moved We took it up Oh yeah there wasn it We did have a point Yeah Can I get a motion and a second on SB 911 Becker Item 1. Item 1. I'll move to them. Do we have a second? Thank you, Ms. Pacheco and Ms. Papin. We will call the roll. Motion is due pass to revenue and taxation. Kalra, Macedo? Aye. Macedo, aye. Bauer-Kahan, Bryan? Aye. Bryan, aye. Connelly, Dixon, Harabedian, Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez? Sanchez, aye. Stephanie Zabur? That bill is on call. Lift the call on item two and I can get... I will lift the call on item two, SB 1016, Blake Spear. Bauer-Cahan, Brian, Dixon, Pappin, Pappin, aye, Stephanie. Back on call. That bill is back on call. Item three. Item three, SB 1066. I will lift the call. Lift the call. Bauer-Cahan, Brian, aye, Dixon, Harabedian. Pappin? Pappin, aye. Stephanie? That's out. That bill is out. Oh. Which item was it? Sorry. Oh, item three is Archuleta bill. Archuleta, sorry. That was my bad. That was for the Archuleta SB 1112. So Brian's still an eye on Archuleta and Pappin? Pappin's still an eye on the Archuleta bill? Please. Okay. Let me grab some stuff. For item three, SB 1112, Archuleta, Bauer-Cahan, Dixon, Harabedian, Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. That bill is out. That bill is out. Item four is the Padilla. We will do item four, SB 1119, Padilla. Lift the call. Lift the call. Kalra, Bauer-Cahan, Brian? Aye. Brian, aye. Dixon, Harabedian. Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. That's out. That bill is out. Authors, if you're out there, please come join us. We're a fun bunch, I promise. Lift the call on item 5. We're going to lift the call on item 5, SB 1234, Alvarado Gil. Kalra, Bauer-Cahan, Connelly, Dixon, Herbie Dean, Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. That bill is out. That bill is out. Thank you. Still struggling from last night. My bedtime's like 9 o'clock. I made a joke to Austin at 11. We were serious I was over in Santa Public Safety for that So we Safety Laird Menjivar Alan Durazo and Nilo we love you guys If you would come and join us, pretty please. We will catch up on consent for the members present. On consent, Bauer-Cahan. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Dixon, Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie, aye. I don't understand you. I love you, but I don't understand you. Mr. Chair, welcome back. I tried. Things went off the rails. I think that's the name of the Senate to have our authors here. That's what I just told Rick. I was like, don't they complain that we don't show up? I'm trying. Okay, so let's go ahead and do some add-ons. a consent calendar? Oh. Okay. No, she said aye. Gotcha. Okay. Okay, so why don't we go ahead and move the call on item one? This is SB 911 Becker. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Bauer-Cahan? Bauer-Cahan, aye. Connelly? Dixon? Herbedian? Stephanie? Aye. Stephanie, aye. Zabur? What was this? This is the Becker bill, item one, SB 911. Aye. Zabir, aye. Okay, that bill is out. Okay, let's go ahead and move the call on item two, SB 1016, Blake Spear. Bauer-Cahan. Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Dixon. Stephanie. Aye. Stephanie, aye. Because we are, yeah, yeah. Gotcha. I gotcha. I gotcha. Okay. I just want to make sure, noting who needs to add-ons to it. Okay. So go ahead and move the call on item 3, SB 1112, Archuleta. Bauer-Cahan. Aye. Bauer-Cahan, aye. Dixon, Harabedian. Okay, that bill is out. Okay. Move the call. Okay so add-ons for item 4 SB 1119 Padilla. Calra. Aye. Calra aye. Bauer-Cahan. Aye. Bauer-Cahan aye. Dixon, Harabedian. Okay. Okay so so add-ons for item 5 SB 1234 Elviraad Agil. Calra. Aye. Calra aye. Bauer-Cahan. Aye. Aye. Barra Cahan, aye. Connelly Dixon, Harabedian. Thanks. Thank you It 1110 AM We've only heard six bills, and we still have five bills to hear. So we've in two hours and 10 minutes, we've heard five bills. We still have 60 here. So this pace is unacceptable. And we need senators here. We need senators here now, or we're going to start voting on their bills. We'll go ahead and do some add-ons. Item 1, SB 9-11 Becker. Connelly, Dixon, Harabedian. Harabedian, aye. Item 3, SB 11-12 Archuleta. Dixon, Harabedian. Item 4, SB 1119, Padilla. Dixon, Herbiden. Herbiden, aye. Item 5, SB 1234, Alvarado Gill. Connelly, Dixon, Herbiden. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Now that we definitely going to have to return in the afternoon because senators refused to show up to the Judiciary Committee we going to reconvene at 1 in room 127 Finally. Finally. At some point. All right. We were very close to adjourning, but we're in item 7, SB 13. Item 7. Item 7, SB 1364, Menjavar. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe with SB 1364, we're really just trying to make sure that no survivor will be forced to co-parent with the person who raped them. However, in California, that often seems to be the case because obtaining a conviction of rape is really, really hard. Currently, less than 2% of rapists are actually convicted, making it even more likely that a survivor will be forced to deal with ongoing abuse harassment while sharing custody. And it is time for California to catch up to the almost 25 other states that have this protection in law. So by removing the uniquely high burden of proof on survivors to protect their well-being and child after a traumatic event, SB 1364 moves in the right direction by adding clear and convincing evidence be the new level of proof to get this protection. With the committee analysis, we are ensuring that only clear and convincing evidence of sexual assault that resulted in a child being born be applicable in this case. I'd like to use the rest of my presentation to read a statement because you can imagine how difficult it is to get witnesses to come here and speak on their stories of what this bill would do to them. And while this bill was presented to me from a constituent, actually a couple of constituents in my district, it was very hard for them to come and share their story. So with the chair's permission, I'd like to read a statement. In 2023, I was sexually assaulted. My child was conceived as a result of the assault. Despite police reports, medical records, and even the perpetrator's own text message admission, I was unable to obtain a criminal conviction. Law enforcement told me that sexual assault cases have such low conviction rates that they could not provide my child and I the protection we needed. Instead, I was advised that we would be better off leaving and hoping he did not find us. However, when my daughter was six months old, my abuser served me with custody papers. Because there are currently very limited legal protections for survivors and their children, I have been forced to share custody of my child with a man who assaulted me. With the current law providing such limited protections for survivors and children in these circumstances, it has allowed for my abuse to only continue. This man has stalked, harassed, threatened me. He's broken into my home. He's even physically abused my child. I wish I could stand before you today and tell you that the fear and trauma ended after this all. Instead, I have continued to face ongoing challenges that have affected both my child and I daily. Rather than focusing solely on healing and raising my child, I have spent years navigating the system that often leaves survivors and their children without any real protection. Had a law like SB 1364 been available, my child and I would have had a clearer path to safety, stability, and healing. Survivors and their children deserve the opportunity to move forward without continued abuse trauma and fear SB 1364 would provide an important pathway forward I respectfully urge a yes vote on SB 1364 Colleagues when a woman has to make a very tough decision to decide if they going to keep a child or not and to make that decision to keep that child, we should allow added protections when that woman makes that decision, which is why I'm asking for an aye vote on SB 1364. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1364? Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1364? David Bullog of the SFV Alliance. Although we oppose this bill, we realize that our attempt to stop it would be futile, so So we come to this committee today to ask the author and the committee to create an amendment to add an exemption to the legislation. Before we do, we must congratulate the Senator from Pamela City on her legislation to address the crime of rape. I want to mention what she's done with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, CDCR, work to address correctional officers, which she refers to colloquially as guards, and her work with staff who rape women. But within that work, she ignores the cries of the survival of the males that claim themselves to be transgender women raping other women, forcibly inserting their penises into their victims. She stated that the officers... Sir, can you keep your comments to actually this bill? Sir, I appreciate that you think I'm hijacking this hearing and not sticking to the merits of this bill. I have a serious request for an amendment. I'm explaining the reasons why I think these rapists should have an exemption created for them. We know that it is settled law, and the California legislature has no desire to change having transgender women who have been convicted of sexual crimes against biological women removed from being held in the same cells with biological women. The Senate Public Safety Committee last year rejected the legislation from the senator representing Kern County, SB 611, which would have corrected the source of trauma for women forced to share a cell with their sexual predators in correctional facilities. These inmates cannot leave. Sir, can you stick to the merits of this bill? So with this bill, we feel that it is appropriate and in line with the values of the California legislatures that trans women who rape and impregnate other inmates be exempt from not being able to claim the right to parent, to be allowed to have the visitations and custody of the child they created by forcibly injecting their sperm into the women while being under the authority of the CDCR. Thank you. You have a motion and a second? Any other question or comments? Assemblymember Zabir. I want to thank you for bringing this very important bill and would love to be added as a co-author. Thank you, Assemblymember. Assemblymember Bryant. Sorry, I'm still processing whatever it was that we just heard. You would have listened. You would have heard it. I thought there might be legitimate conversation about this bill because I'm going to support it today, of course. I was conceived in a sexual assault. And there was not a conviction. And in the state of Texas, it allowed my biological mother to relinquish her custody of me without having my biological father having to relinquish his custody of me. There's a whole bunch of trauma we can talk about after this hearing at some point. I understand the purpose of this bill I don know Sorry I'm going to support it today, but would love to talk to you about it afterwards. As a member, I think I appreciate your bravery to share your personal story on this. I would have loved to have known or had a conversation before that to make sure that I'm bringing something that is mindful of everyone's experiences. It takes that into consideration. So more than happy to have that conversation. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Senator, also thank you for bringing this bill forward. Would you like to close? Every single situation is different. I'm not going to say that every single person wants the ability to cut out the man who raped them out of the picture, which is why this bill says that should the mother start a relationship or start co-parenting with the rapist, that that removes their ability to ask for sole custody and prevent the other party from having a custody, because then that means that they were in the life of the child already, and it's going to be more detrimental to the child. With the amendment we took in a Senate judiciary, we also wanted to make it clear that should it be in the best interest of the child, that they should be in the life, both parents should be in the life of the individual. So we're trying to balance both the protection for the mother to not have to go through ongoing trauma by seeing their perpetrator every single week during visitation, but also taking into consideration that two healthy parents is better than one traumatized parent, and that's the balance, I think, both with committee here and in the Senate that we were able to land. So thank you. Respectfully asking for an aye vote. Thank you. Motions do pass as amended. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Macedo? Barakahan? Ryan? Aye. Ryan, aye. Connelly? Dixon? Pacheco Aye Pappen Aye Sanchez Aye Stephanie Aye Ziver Aye The bill is out. Thank you. Item 9, SB 1371, Durazo. It looks like Senator Durazo has two bills, item 9 and 10. Whenever you're ready, Senator. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm presenting SB 1371, which ensures that solid waste companies cannot use force majeure clauses to suspend service during a labor dispute in order to undermine lawful worker strikes. Solid waste collection is an essential public health service that our communities rely on every single day. Yet some companies have inserted force majeure provisions into their franchise agreements that allow them to halt service during a work stoppage tied to a labor dispute. These provisions create a lose-lose situation. They weaken workers' collective bargaining rights while also leaving local governments and residents without critical services when disruptions occur. SB 1371 provides a clear and a reasonable solution. Beginning in 2027, it prohibits waste handling contracts from including force majeure clauses that excuse or suspend a provider's obligation to perform in the event of a work stoppage arising out of a labor dispute. I have committed to addressing retroactivity concerns with floor amendments, deleting Government Code Section 53064.3 in the bill. And I'd like to introduce here to testify with me, Jose Laguna, a driver from Santa Clara, and Matt Broad, Teamsters, California. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, Matt Broad here on behalf of Teamsters, California, the proud sponsors of SB 1371. Just by way of background, force majeure is a common contractual provision intended to excuse non-performance when unforeseeable events beyond a party's control make performance impossible. Think fires, natural disaster, terrorism, or similar events. With varying frequency across the state, waste haulers have negotiated force majeure provisions in their hauling agreements that include labor disputes involving the hauler itself. Many local governments do not fully appreciate the consequences of these provisions until a labor dispute occurs. That was the case in Chula Vista in 2023 when a prolonged labor dispute in which Republic Services invoked a forced majeure provision and was relieved of penalties for failing to meet its service obligations. The result is a distorted bargaining dynamic. When a company can suspend service without facing the contractual consequences that would ordinarily apply, the pressure to resolve a labor dispute is quickly reduced. Meanwhile, cities, residents, and workers bear the cost. Trash accumulates, public frustration grows, workers become the focus of community anger, and local governments are left scrambling to address service disruptions. SB 1371 addresses this problem in a straightforward way. The bill clarifies that force majeure provisions and waste hauling contracts cannot be triggered by labor disputes involving the contract hauler. these provisions would remain fully available for natural disasters, fires, acts of terrorism, and other events genuinely beyond the company's control. Simply put, a company should not be able to invoke force majeure based on circumstances in which it's an active participant. As our author specified, we are committing here to take out retroactivity provisions at the next available opportunity, making the bill purely perspective going forward. With that, I would ask for your I vote today. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Jose Laguna. I'm a shop steward at the Republic Services Yard in Mopitas for Santa Clara County. I'm a proud member of the Teamsters Local 350. I'm also representing sanitation workers across the Bay Area. I've been driving for Republic Services for nine years, and I'm also a second generation Teamster. I'm here to tell you why SB 1371 matters from the ground up. Think about what prolonged waste stoppage actually looks like. Rodents, maggots moving in, health hazards, the smell, angry residents, businesses. Once service finally resumes, drivers are back to double the work, double the hazard. And that's just the public health front. Time and time during the strikes, we've been seeing companies bringing in inexperienced drivers put managers and supervisors on the trucks who don't know the routes, don know the capacity of the trucks vehicle capacity mixed hauling materials taken together these dramatically increased the risk of dangerous crashes and put pedestrians in harm ways It undermines our state ambitious climate goals as well Right now, the law lets a waste hauling company like Republic Services treat a labor dispute at the business exit ramp. When they can't get what they want at the bargaining table, they walk away. That trash pile up in people's neighborhoods and point a force majeure clause that says it's not their problem and communities and cities are stuck and Republic Services moves on. And I want to be clear, workers don't choose to strike lightly. When we walk off the job, we lose wages. We have families to take care of. Meanwhile, Republic Services knows exactly what you're doing. The longer they wait us out, the worse the trash piles up, the more pressure it falls on the cities and residents. And they got a force majeure clause in their back pocket the whole time, and that's practically a get-out-of-jail-free card. SB 1371 takes that card off the table, and the bill makes sure the waste haulers cannot abuse these provisions and detriment of workers, local governments, and residents, and will also greatly shorten the duration of strikes by bringing the employer back to the table. For these reasons, I urge your support for SB 1371. Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1371? Hello, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Yvonne Fernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions and proud support. Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1371? Good morning, Mr. Chair, members. Lindsay Goloorn, on behalf of the Resource Recovery Coalition of California, we are the association representing waste haulers, recyclers, and composters here in the state, I respectfully oppose to SB 1371 unless it's amended. And while we do appreciate the author's intent, solid waste franchise agreements are complex, highly negotiated contracts that vary significantly by jurisdiction. Performance standards, service disruptions, and contingency planning are best determined by local governments and their service providers rather than through a one-size-fits-all statewide mandate. I want to note that replacement workers can't simply be brought in to maintain service in a disruption. Drivers know specific routes, neighborhoods, apartment complexes, and businesses, and even with additional personnel, service disruptions continue and worsen with time. Waste hand haulers do not benefit when trash piles up. The opposite is true. Our most valued asset is the trust of the communities we serve. And when trash is not collected, our reputation suffers. Also, we're very concerned about the retro piece. I'm happy that that will be addressed on the floor. Appreciate that. That was one of our primary concerns. I want to note that we have proposed amendments that would, instead of eliminating force measure, require locally tailored contingency plans, timelines, and performance metrics developed jointly by the service providers and local governments in future agreements. We believe this approach better achieves the bill's goals while preserving local flexibility and avoiding unnecessary costs. So, for these reasons, at this point, we are opposed unless amended. Thanks. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Calvara and committee members. join Connecticut and California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce representing Hispanic and diverse-owned businesses and local chambers across California. We must respectfully oppose SB 1371. Our members are not parties to labor disputes between waste companies and unions. They are business owners and employers who work to serve customers, support employees, and keep their doors open. Yet they are the people who will bear the consequences when trash service is disrupted The committee analysis suggests that service can continue by bringing in replacement workers from elsewhere Respectfully our members know that that not how business operates in the real world. As business owners, they know people are not interchangeable. You cannot lose a significant portion of your workforce on Monday and deliver the same service on Tuesday simply by bringing in replacement workers, customers notice service suffers and operations become more difficult. Every business depends on people who know the community, the customers, the operations, and how to get the job done. That's why we are concerned the bill assumes service disruptions can simply be legislated away. They can't. The operational realities remain, and when services are disrupted, residents and businesses are the ones left to deal with the consequences. When trash service breaks down, businesses feel it immediately. Overflowing dumpsters create sanitation concerns, pest problems, complaints, and additional cleanup costs. For businesses, even a short disruption can pose real operational and financial challenges. When trash isn't picked up, residents and customers don't blame contract language or legal provisions. They blame the company providing the service and the system that failed them. What also concerns us is that SB 1371 does not eliminate labor disputes or workforce shortages or eliminate service disruptions. The people who suffer the consequences are not just the parties. The people who suffer the consequences are not the parties sitting at the bargaining table. They are the people trying to run businesses, service customers, and keep their communities clean. Our businesses and local communities should not become collateral damage in labor dispute. We respectfully urge no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and members. Chris Scroggins with Capital Advocacy on behalf of Republic Services, also aligning our comments with RRCC, opposed unless amended.

John McHale on behalf of Waste Management and Recology, also opposed unless amended.

I just want to thank the author for addressing the retroactivity. I know that was a major conversation, and I appreciate you putting that at the top of your comments. And I trust that you'll continue to work with opposition to the process, but thank you for addressing that.

I want to align my comments with my colleague to the author. Thank you for addressing that component, the retroactivity portion of it. I think that's gone a long way, and I'm hoping conversations can continue. And so I want to thank you, and I know you and I have been texting, so I appreciate you.

And I will be supporting your bill.

Senator, just a few quick questions. Article 1, Clause 10 of the Constitution prohibits states from enacting laws that impair obligation to contracts. This bill would require localities to rewrite their contracts with vendors that could lead to significant negotiations and increased costs. Would you consider the committee's advice that, quote, the author may wish to consider an amendment to this bill?

Yeah, through the chair. Just to answer your question, the retroactivity amendment would address this concern. I think separate and apart from that, the concern was potentially if you're amending an existing contract, you might have a contracts clause issue. We took a look at lots of the case law in here. It typically applies to the core economic terms of an agreement that gone all the way up to the Supreme Court We don view force majeure and think a court probably wouldn view that as a core economic term That said, we are still taking that language out that it will be addressed by the amendment that we'll take on the floor. Thank you. And then, as you're aware, Governor Newsom vetoed a very similar bill in 2023, and he said, I quote, local jurisdictions voluntarily enter into franchise agreements and currently have the ability to negotiate amendments to such contracts without legislation. While I don't usually agree with the governor, I think that's a pretty valid point, and I see the same issue. My question is, why would the state step in on a labor dispute for a local decision making on garbage collection when local jurisdictions are capable of negotiating that themselves? And would you

I would never disagree with him. I want him to sign the bill.

I just want to

Thank you. Assemblymember Papin.

All right, moving on.

The comments.

Pasadena.

Thank you. Thank you. Assemblymember Zabur.

Thank you. Assemblymember Connolly.

Any other questions, comments? We have a motion on the – oh, we need a motion.

We have a motion and a second.

Would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you. Motions do pass to appropriations. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Macedo?

Bryan?

Connolly?

Connolly, aye. Dixon? Harabedian?

Harabedian, aye.

Aye.

Pappin?

Pappin, aye.

No.

Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye.

Zabir, aye. All right. That bill is out.

Then we have SB 1399.

Yeah. And so just for everyone's information, we are reconvening at 1.30 p.m. in room 127. We will hear Senator DeRosso's bill and Senator Nielo's bill. We're going to hear Senator DeRosso's bill and Senator Nielo's bill. And then we're going to reconvene for the rest of the bills later.

Okay.

All right. Whenever you're ready, Senator Durazo.

Oh, no.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Imagine that.

Thank you, Senator. Good morning, Chair and members.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1399?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1399? We're bringing it back to committee. Any questions or comments? Senator, thank you for being here, and thank you to the witness for your testimony.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Motions do pass to appropriations. Caller? Aye. Caller, aye. Macedo?

Ryan? Connolly?

Connolly, aye. Dixon? That's correct. Dixon, no.

Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye. Pappin?

Pappin, aye. Sanchez? Stephanie?

Stephanie, aye. Zabir?

Zabir, aye. All right. We'll place that on call. Thank you. Thank you, members. And the last bill we'll hear is Senator Niello. Get you out of here so you don't have to come back later on. This is item 12. It was pulled from consent. it still enjoys an aye recommendation, do pass to appropriations. So whenever you're ready, sir.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1066? Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1066? All right, we'll bring it back to committee. Any questions? We have a motion. And a second. Assemblymember Papin.

Well, what we see is truly that this is a member benefit. And so, of course, there's resources to, you know, but we see this as a benefit to the member to be able to go to their credit union and access it easier. Usually it's a given like a 12-month period that it goes. It's kind of like an inactivity. Your question is while the money is still with the credit union, it is earning interest. Yes, it is. And when it is cheated to the state, there is no interest.

Assemblymember Dixon? We have a motion now. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Senator, thank you so much. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Motions do pass to appropriations. Caller? Aye. Caller, aye. Macedo, Barakahan, Brian, Connolly?

Connolly, aye. Dixon?

Dixon, aye. Harabedian, Pacheco?

Pacheco, aye. Pappin, aye. Pappin, aye. Sanchez, Stephanie, aye. Stephanie, aye. Zabir, aye. Zabir, aye. That bill is out. Thank you. Thank you all very much. All right. So we are going to return at 1.30 in room 127. So take your things. If Assemblymember Dixon and Connolly, I think Pappin has one I'd on as well. I could do them really quick right now. Okay, let's go ahead and do that. So I might have, okay, consent calendar. For consent, Dixon. Aye. Dixon, aye. Item 1, SB 9-11, Becker. Connelly.

Connelly, aye. Dixon. Aye. Dixon, aye. All right, item 2, SB 10-16, Blake Spear. Dixon. Dixon, aye. All right. Item 3, SB 11-12, Archuleta. Dixon. Aye. Dixon, aye. Item 4, SB 11-19, Padilla. Dixon. Dixon, no. Item, is that a question? Item 5, SB1234, Alvarado Gil. Connelly.

Connelly, aye. Dixon. Aye. Dixon, aye. Item 7, SB1364, Menjavar. Macedo, Baukahan.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 1365?

Thank you.

Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 1365?

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 1365?

Thank you. We'll bring it back to committee. Any questions, comments, motions? Assemblymember Papin.

Okay, thank you.

Senator Zabert?

Any other questions or comments? Okay. And do we have a motion? We have a motion and a second. Any other questions or comments?

How many employees?

Well, there you go. Okay.

City of Los Angeles.

Thank you. Motions do pass to Public Safety Committee. Kalra?

Kalra, aye. Macedo?

Macedo, no. Barakahan?

Barakahan, aye. Bryan?

Connelly?

Dixon, no. Harabedian?

Harabedian, aye. Pacheco?

Aye.

Sanchez? Sanchez, no.

Zabir?

All right. Thank you. That bill is out. I heard it I heard it All right Let go ahead and go through the remaining items We did consent calendar. Let's see. Item 6, SB 1288, Laird. Bauer-Cahan.

Bauer-Cahan, aye. Connelly.

Aye.

Item 7, SB 1364, Menjavar. Macedo.

Macedo, aye. Bauer-Cahan?

Bauer-Cahan, aye. Item 9, SB 1371, Durazo. Macedo?

Macedo, no. Bauer-Cahan?

Bauer-Cahan, aye. Item 10, SB 1399, Durazo is on call. We'll move the call. Macedo?

Macedo, no. Bauer-Cahan?

Bauer-Cahan, aye. Bryan?

Bryan, aye. Hair Beating?

Hair Beating, aye. Sanchez?

Sanchez, no. That bill is out. And item 12, SB 1066, Nielo. Macedo?

Macedo, aye. Barcahan?

Barcahan, aye. Bryan?

Bryan, aye. Harabedin?

Harabedin, aye. Sanchez?

Sanchez, aye. Okay. That bill is done. I think everyone here is done. We're just going to hold the roll open for a few more minutes for our colleague. I think you've caught up with everything. I think everyone here is caught up. Everyone's in it. Yep. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Item six, SB 1288, Laird. Connelly.

Connelly, aye. And item eight, SB 1365, Allen. Connelly.

Connelly, aye. I'm gonna open it. Actually, just hold on one moment. We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.