Senate Standing Committee on Governmental Organization

Good morning. Thank you for your patience. The Senate Committee on Governmental Organization will convene in 60 seconds. Good morning and welcome. At this time, the Committee will come to order. We have nine file items on the docket this morning, four of which are recommended to be taken up under consent. We do not yet have a quorum. The Committee will proceed with taking bills under consideration as a sub file. Item number one is SB 509 by our esteemed Senator Caballero, who I know is here and always prepared. Welcome, Senator.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Appreciate the opportunity to present SB 509 which will develop a specialized training for law enforcement to recognize and respond to the growing threat posed by foreign governments targeting diaspora communities.

Marginalized groups identified as dissidents and asylum seekers to the United States, including ethnic and religious minorities, increasingly faced attacks on their human rights while in the US from foreign governments hostile to their concerns. These countries see their diaspora communities as threats to their political stability and often extend their repressive measures beyond their own national borders.

Authoritarian regimes have made use of advanced technologies such as digital surveillance and social media monitoring to track, intimidate and threaten individuals living in democratic countries.

Tactics such as harassments, threats and even physical violence, often carried out covertly or with the assistance of international law enforcement, undermine the right to safety and freedom of expression to their former country people. Transnational repression is a direct violation of the human rights of those living in the diaspora, especially those who have sought refuge in democratic societies.

While the United States has mechanisms in place to protect individuals from transnational repression, the current system is not fully equipped and local police departments are not trained to know how to document the growing scale of these threats.

A more comprehensive and coordinated approach would help ensure that California can provide adequate data and information to the victims of transnational repression. SB 509 strengthens our country's commitment to human rights, safety and justice for every law abiding individual, regardless of their background or country of origin.

The bill ensures that law enforcement officers receive the specialized training needed to recognize and respond to the unique threats posed by foreign governments targeting individuals on US soil.

We had today in support Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association, but I believe he's juggling Committee so he's not here but with us is Hamid Yazdan Panah with Immigrant Defense Advocates to speak.

Good morning. My name is Hamid Yazdan Panah. I'm the Executive Director of Immigrant Defense Advocates. We work directly with immigrant communities across California, focusing on policies that protect the civil rights of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. As an Iranian refugee and former immigration attorney, I've seen firsthand the dangers people flee and the threats that can follow them.

My family came to the United States to escape political repression in Iran. Nearly three decades later, the Iranian regime still targets dissidents here on US soil. Just last month, two men were convicted in New York in a murder for plot hire against an Iranian journalist. A textbook case of transnational repression.

Unfortunately, these threats are far more common than most people realize. California is home to an estimated 500,000 torture survivors, more than any other state. Many fled regimes that punish free expression with prison or worse. And even here, they aren't always safe. Victims often stay silent out of fear of law enforcement, immigration consequences, or because of trauma.

That's why SB 509 is so important. This bill provides training for law enforcement officers to recognize and respond to transnational repression. It helps ensure immigrant communities can access protection and support without fear. This bill is more than just policy. It's about people.

It's about ensuring California remains a true place of refuge where people are protected, especially those who stood up to tyranny. I urge you to support SP 509. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there additional members in the hearing room that would like to register support for this bill? Seeing no one come forward, is there a lead witness in opposition to the bill? Please come forward. You can make yourself comfortable at the table or wherever you're comfortable.

If you have more than one witness, you'll have two minutes each. Please state your name again for the record and welcome and proceed whenever you're prepared.

Hello. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Samir Kalra and I'm a Civil Rights Attorney and Managing Director of the Hindu American Foundation. Here to express strong opposition to SB 509, I want to start by stating unequivocally that we are against transnational oppression in all forms, whether by foreign governments or by foreign organizations.

This Bill, however, is not the right way to address this challenge. On the contrary, SB 509 lacks the adequate guardrails and safeguards necessary to prevent OES trainings on transnational repression from being politicized or from institutionalizing biases against diaspora communities from specific countries of origin.

In fact, this bill would label anyone who criticizes or uses digital technology to track the activities of terrorists or separatist movements as being radicalized by state sponsored propaganda or ideology. This would set a disturbing precedent and lead to severely curtailing and undermining important First Amendment freedom of speech protections.

More dangerously, under the guise of protecting dissent SB 509 would empower law enforcement to criminally prosecute diaspora groups and community organizations who merely speak out against terrorism and extremism by accusing them of being foreign agents or engaging in soft transnational oppression on behalf of a foreign country.

In addition, the language of the bill in both in its definition of transnational oppression and who is considered an agent of a foreign government is overly vague and could easily be weaponized to create trainings that demonize specific communities and privilege certain viewpoints.

Finally, the lack of federal clarity and guidance on this issue, which is constitutionally within the purview of the federal government, would create inconsistencies and confusion in how trainings would be implemented, leaving immigrant and minority communities at significant risk of overzealous prosecution. I therefore respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and senators. My name is Sudha Jagannathan. I'm with CoHNA Coalition of Hindus of North America and we strongly oppose, oppose SB 509. We ask you to vote no on this bill.

Just like SB 403, AB 3027 partisan bills that failed in previous years, SB 509 hides behind innocuous sounding and vague language to create a divide among California communities and target certain minority and immigrant heavy groups. FBI data shows zero TNR cases in California. This bill therefore is a solution looking for a problem.

It creates no new crimes, uses vague undefined terms and oversteps federal authority. We really fear SB 509 will create flawed training that will spread this bias into law enforcement, which is why DAs have also opposed it.

Over the past 14 months, I have sought help from many of our lawmakers to tackle the great growing anti Hindu hate in California, something documented by California's own hate hotline.

Now, I really fear that far from getting help, folks like me will stand accused of TNR and silence when we seek protection for our places of worship in California, four of which have been vandalized in 14 months, all in the name of anti India speech. Senators, my community is really scared. We are terrified.

Please keep California equal for all. We ask you to vote no on SB 09. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the hearing room would like to go on the record in opposition to the bill? If so, please come forward, come to the microphone, state your name and your position on the bill and organization or affiliation, if any. Please.

I am Geeta Sikand, with Americans for Hindus. I oppose SB 509. In 1984, my uncle was shot dead by the supporters of the ideology of this Bill. Please don't let it pass. Thank you very much.

Ramya Ramakrishnan, from the Hindu American Foundation, strongly opposing SB 509. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Vineti Wori. I'm from Sacramento. I oppose SB 509. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Dr. Ranajee Joshi. This Bill creates a safe harbor for transnational criminal and terrorists. I oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Senators. My name is Herman Schupertel. I represent Gujarati Samaj of Sacramento. I read the Bill. It's really vague—scary, because it's a two double edged sword. While its intent might have been good.

Sir, I apologize to interrupt but I—just at this point—need you just to state your name for the record and what—that you're opposed to the Bill. That's all I permit you to do.

The whole community is opposed too.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Niraj Dhanani. I am a resident here of Greater Sacramento, and I oppose this Bill.

Namaste. Good morning. My name is Prabhakar Maramreddy, President of Roseville, concerned Hindu. I strongly oppose SB 509.

Namaste. My name is Meghna Deshpande and I represent CoHNA, Coalitions of Hindus of North America, and I strongly oppose SB 509. Thank you.

Morning. My name is Jayas Simon. I strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Harsha Shedbalkar, and I'm from the greater Sacramento community, representing Hindus here, and I oppose this SB 509 Bill. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Chiranth Kalyanpura and I'm a resident of Folsom, California, and I strongly oppose the Bill. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Rajiv Singh. I'm representing Rana, an Indian American organization, and I'm in strong opposition of SB 509. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony and participation. We'll bring it back to the Committee for questions. The author and Senator—just maybe a little more about the impetus. And then, specifically, I'm observing—and I mean this, this Bill requires POST they do, certainly through specialized training Institute.

And I know one of your witnesses isn't here. But maybe you can speak to what we know, or one of your witness in support, can speak to the process that is involved in the development of those standards and trainings at POST. And what that looks like for POST to conduct that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to explain a little bit further. The impetus came from the Central Valley—the community in the Central Valley. The Sikh Community has been very concerned about this issue, and in fact, Assemblymember Jasmeet Bains was a—the subject of—of terrorist threats and has been concerned for her life.

She's a doctor and so, she, many times, works in a clinic with—clinics are not protected in any way. And she's concerned with her safety and has been in discussions with the community. Here's, here's the problem. I'm not surprised that California may have no—no reported cases of transnational repression.

We don't have a system for reporting to the Police Department—an officer that would understand what they're talking about.

And so, part of the challenge is that, if you go to your local Police Department, she lives in Delano, and when she goes to the Delano Police and makes a report, there's no way for them to understand what that means and the kind of impact that it could have.

And since a lot of the threats that come are, are threats that are directed through social media, they don't have the resources to document and to compile a report, which then would go to the Federal Government. No question, this is a federal issue. The idea that we would allow police departments to prosecute doesn't make any sense.

Police never prosecute. They take reports. That's what this is about. We need the kind of training that will allow them to understand the political context, in which some of this activity is happening, so they can pass it on and pass it on to the FBI and National Security Agency.

So, what POST—their job is to come up with training programs that they can offer to local law enforcement, so that there is a consistent way of reporting information and taking it down and passing it on to our federal partners. This doesn't tell the Federal Government what to do because we can't do that.

It just provides the mechanism for California to be recognizing that they—that we—have a number of diaspora communities. It's not just from one region, it's from all over.

And in the Central Valley, that's a repository for immigrants coming to the United States, because they have—many of them run small businesses or work in agriculture, and that's where they can find jobs. So, that's the genesis—was the discussion with the communities in my district and also with our Assembly Member colleague.

Thank you, Senator. And before we continue bringing questions from the Members, we have a quorum. Let's establish it. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. All right. Are there questions from Members of the Committee? Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward.

I'm—myself and probably Chair, the only ones that have a police background in our careers and POST, when I was through the academy, would certify our training, would certify our information from the community over the years, and whether it be the California Highway Patrol, or any of the municipalities, the training was unique, it was uniform, and it certainly provided us with information with constitutional law, as well as civic law, and so on.

But it also gave us the sensitivity of our communities. And I believe that this Bill does that. And if we're not afforded the opportunity, law enforcement, to understand these various communities, to understand how everyone feels, to know exactly what's going on, not only just here, but internationally, how else can we better serve the community?

And this is why I will support the Bill and move it, at the appropriate time, because I think POST is the right agency to begin and, of course, with OSC, and I think it's the right move. We've got to understand what's taking place, and we have to do it here in California.

California has the best law enforcement officers, I believe, in the State of California, who's already emphasized that, time and time again, we are the best of the best. And I think this additional training will even take us to a new level. So, I thank you for bringing it forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Senator. Any other Members have questions or want to speak to the Bill? All right. I'm sorry.

Sorry.

Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, it's interesting that we're bringing this Bill forward, and I have had conversations with Dr. Bains about some of the concerns and experiences she's had. I am concerned about also the concerns that are our opposition has expressed.

But I think it's important to have a little bit of a discussion, as far as how to guarantee the fact that we want to protect, you know, the free speech for folks wanting to express their concerns, about whatever it may be.

But I think we should also address the concerns about the safety that they feel has been threatened, and how this particular Bill, or bills such as these, might, not mitigate, but actually facilitate more threats or danger against community member, that just want to live peacefully in their communities, but happen to be from that particular countries that are, you know, maybe considered sources of transnational repression, prosecution.

So, how do we ensure that we have training that is—it is in accordance to federal training, but yet doesn't promote negative stereotypes towards other citizens from those countries, living in our country?

How do we promote—because that's, I think, one of the biggest concerns that our community members are having, is that having such a training might pose a perception, or an optic, that they, themselves, are not good citizens living in this country and might have ulterior motives, in pursuing or conducting themselves in a way that may be deemed threatening.

So, you have a lot of thoughts in there.

Sorry.

Part of the difficulty—and what I thought about saying, once the Chair moved on and took roll, was that it is—I, I hear what the opposition is saying. I'm very sensitive to being targeted and having people think you're different and being treated differently.

And I feel very badly for the woman who lost her brother. That kind of thing should not happen, and that's part of the reason why this Bill is so important, is that—people, whoever you are in the State of California, need to feel like when you go—so, so, when immigrants come to this country, first of all, they don't speak—many of them—speak English, or if they do, it's, it's limited.

It's their second language. And the difficulty is it that you may come from a country where there isn't a lot of trust—trust in officials, trust in the Police Department, trust in people that you think should be keeping you safe.

And so, when you come to this country, you bring that with you, and so, it takes a while before you start trusting the authorities. And that may never happen.

Which is why we became a sanctuary state, because we wanted people in their communities to feel safe, to go to the Police Department and to record bad behavior by people that may be illegal. And that relationship becomes really, really important, where you can trust the officials.

And so, that's what we're trying to do with this Bill, is that what we've been told, by people that have been targeted, is they've gone to the Police Department and nothing happens. There's no report. They check back and there's nothing. And what they're told is, we can't do anything, because it's not against the law.

Well, we don't, we don't manage federal laws. And part of your question had to do with the Federal Government and targeting, and that kind of thing. We can't control the Federal Government.

And now, more than ever, some of the dialogues and discussions are difficult, but we have to have people feel like, when they feel that they're threatened and that it's credible, someone's watching their house, they know what they're doing, they are being threatened by who, who they are, that someone take—is going to take a report—that someone's going to write it down, and that there will be official records, so that you, so that you can pass it on to the Federal Government and there'll be some kind of analysis of what's really going on in our country, that may be related to transnational relationships, and then—but it's in their hands.

It's not in the hands of local government. And this Bill doesn't do anything to say we're going to start prosecuting these kind of cases, we're going to start talking to people and arresting them. It's, it's a way to report what people are feeling and what they're seeing and how they think it's related to where they came from.

And, on a federal level, we'll deal with it. It's—not everything—reporting this, this is a very simple Bill, reporting it doesn't mean that people are going to be targeted or arrested, or people are going to come knocking on their door at night.

It's a way to, to, to support what people are saying, which is that I'm afraid, and to document things. And if the Federal Government starts creating rules about, about what they're going to do, then we can look at it at that time, but that's not in our hands. So, so, there's a lot of different levels at which we're operating.

And all this Bill is trying to do—it's not to pick on anybody. It's not to say your country of origin is bad or good.

It's to say people are afraid, and that, and that if they're afraid and they go to the Police Department, that someone's going to care about the fact that they're afraid and there will be a record.

So, if I may, just to follow up on that. So, how do we ensure that—because, I think, in part of the analysis in the Bill, I think folks are feeling that they are being targeted because of their home country, that are being mentioned in the analysis or in the Bill.

No countries are mentioned in the Bill.

In the analysis—I'm sorry—in the analysis. You know, it's interesting that they would feel that they're being targeted because they're from India, or from China, or from Russia.

How do we, how do we ensure that they actually understand that it's not—they're not being targeted because they're from those specific countries, but just the act—the, it's the actions that may be targeted, but not necessarily the—and I think that's probably a way to differentiate what the purpose of the Bill is.

It's that it's certain patterns of behavior and actions that might be, that might be—that may be—conducive to saying they're victims of, and I'm sorry, transnational repression. Is there a way that we can do that, in order—so that folks do not feel targeted by country of origin, or is that just inherently within the scope of the Bill?

Well, there are no countries listed in the Bill, on purpose, because I felt very strongly that we don't want to be identifying. There have been internal wars, if you will, and internal conflict and strife, where communities have been forced to leave. And it happens all over the world.

And so, right now, it may be a particular country, but it's neutral on exactly which countries we're talking about. There are people that—and communities—that are still reeling from diaspora, from being part of a diaspora community.

The, the Armenians, for example, the, there I could go on and on and on—but, but the point is, is that once the conflicts start to abate a bit, then, you have less fear of threats to your person.

And so, this is, this is something that could benefit any community that comes— that feels like they're being threatened because they left, and they left under difficult circumstances. And so, it's not targeting anybody.

And it's argued that it's vague, but it's vague on purpose, because we don't want to be calling out any countries or any conflicts in particular. We just want to say, if people have left their country and they have left involuntarily, but for their safety, and then they come to this country and that the safety doesn't abate—in other words, they're still being targeted and still being threatened, that somebody should be taking a report.

And that's the training that POST does, to be able to take down that information. What do you do with it? And then, where do you send it?

So last, last comment—question. So, for the opposition, I think it's helpful to understand that there is no specific country named. It's a pattern of behavior, I would say.

Would that be fair to say?

Yes.

That it's a pattern of behaviors that they're looking into, that feel—that make people feel threatened, that the, the law enforcement will be trained upon, but not necessarily targeting folks by origin of country. And I think that's important.

Is that—is that fair to say?

That is accurate, Senator.

So, I would love to hear your thoughts on that. But I think it's important to have that discussion and have clarity that it is training and behaviors that are being looked upon, to be reported, so that awareness can be made.

All right, we'll let the witness answer. Please state your name again for the record and briefly respond.

Samir Kalra, with the Hindu American Foundation. Thank you, Senators, for that discussion. Two things in response to that, I think where there is concern, as Senator Caballero pointed out, is providing training to POST, or information to POST and political context.

Who provides that political context and how is that defined, and how is that going to privilege certain viewpoints on issues dealing with geopolitics in another country, that may have come here between communities from a particular country? That's where our fear comes. Who's gonna provide that information to POST, that's gonna then conduct the training?

And how is that gonna then train them to view certain issues that are coming up? The example I would give, very briefly, is that Hindu temples have been vandalized and attacked by people espousing an ideology, known as the Khalistan Movement.

It is a fringe Sikh extremist movement that is not supported by the majority of Sikhs, but it is supported by some. Now, when those issues get reported to law enforcement, or people from the Hindu American community advocate for that, we are accused of criticizing that movement and being puppets of the Indian government and being agents of the Indian government and engaging in transnational repression.

So, that's where our fear comes in, is that we can't even speak out, and we have been accused of that, in articles. So, there is documented evidence of that.

So, how is now the training going to be conducted, or what information is going to be provided to them? How are they going to treat these attacks on these temples, by these movements—extremist movements? How are we going to be treated when we speak out against it?

Is law enforcement going to be trained to ignore those attacks and say those are just dissidents, they're not terrorists, they are dissidents? And that we are the ones that are engaging in transnational oppression, on behalf of an Indian government trying to suppress their voices? That's the first thing.

The second thing is, in terms of the intent. I appreciate Senator Caballero mentioning that there are no countries in this. I think, unfortunately, while we appreciate that, if we look at those that have openly taken credit for helping to craft the Bill, they've all come from the Sikh community.

And so, we know that the target of the Bill is directed against India and people from—that are Indian origin.

And so, while it's not there, again, on paper, in the text of the Bill, it comes down to how is it going to be implemented and who—are those people going to be the ones that are providing the information to POST for training? So, those are where our concerns are coming from.

It's not that there is going to be training, per se, conducted, but is it going to be conducted in an unbiased, unpoliticized manner, that is going to not privilege certain political viewpoints in the trainings?

Thank you. Senator. Does that answer your question? All right. Any other questions? The Chair has an IRECO on this. I'm going to support your Bill, and I appreciate—a couple quick comments. First of all, transnational repression is, is documented—I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't—I looked over there earlier, didn't see anyone. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I know you—I appreciate your comments. I hear where you're going, and I just wanted to say that I support the Bill. And I just want to say, to your community, the worst thing a community can have is a police officer that is not educated.

We've been down this road before, many of our communities, and you're absolutely right. What is going to be in the training, and unfortunately, the struggle continues. It's to make sure that we are doing training that adequately prepares and creates culturally conscious law enforcement that can do their job and not abuse our citizens and our residents.

So, you know, POST—a lot has been done by this Legislature and thousands of organizations in our communities, to ensure that we have leaders on that body that understand vulnerable populations, that understand bias and racism, that understands the power of law enforcement and how, historically, law enforcement has undermined, abused, and violated their authority in our communities.

And I think there's a tremendous effort, and we see in many of our communities some progress, in trying to address those conditions and those very dark and real realities of some bad apples, who, unfortunately, have not done their jobs very well. But the way we address it is through education.

The way we address it is through our advocacy. The way we address it is ensuring POST does what it needs to do, to best represent and to protect our community. So, I am a proponent of educating police officers. That is one step, and then our advocacy is another.

So, I will support the Bill today, but I—from a community that has had a long history of engaging with law enforcement, and certainly, it's been a very troubling history, but one where through 500 generations, continues to fight, to ensure that officers are standing up to the, the code of law and engaging with our communities, in a way of dignity and respect and protection.

It's not easy. It doesn't work in many cases, but that doesn't mean we don't fight to make it better. So, with that, I, I will support the Bill. I just wanted to share that point.

Thank you, Senator. Now, one more time, is there any other Member of the Committee that would like to ask a question, or have a statement? If I don't see you, please feel free to verbally get the attention of the Chair, so that we get this right. I don't want to overlook anyone.

There are no more questions or comments? No, ma'am. The testimony phase of this is complete. Again, as I was saying a minute ago, the Chair has an IRECO on this. I will support the Bill. I appreciate you bringing the Bill forward. And just briefly, I think it's important to remember a couple of things.

One, transnational repression does exist. It is documented. It is a practice engaged in by foreign governments, through an organized and intentional manner. It has impacts in the United States and in California.

And even if the offenses are criminal statutes that are federal and not state, a key component of successful interdiction is always coordinated collaboration with state and local authorities. The first line of contact is often local law enforcement. Hence, it is important that that training and standards be professional, be updated, and be consistent.

This Bill simply instructs that that process begin. I think it's a little premature to make assumptions about the content of that training, or what that training's bias may, or may not, be, because POST has an entire process to gather information from experts, including public input about what those—wow, we have another Member joining—and what that, what that content should look like.

So, with that, there's an IRECO. Senator Archuleta, you wanted to make a motion? All right. Senator Archuleta moves the Bill. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, thank you. We'll place that item on call. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator. File Item number two is SB395 by Senator Wiener. I see that he is here and proposed prepared.

Morning Senator. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Colleagues. I'm here today to present Senate Bill 395. This will allow authorize the city and County of San Francisco to designate a hospitality zone to allow more restaurants to open at a lower cost in a designated downtown area.

The Mayor has indicated that this will be the Union Square Yerba Buena area, which is an area of San Francisco that has really struggled to recover post pandemic. And we're looking to inject some additional life and vibrancy into that area. It will recover. We want to help facilitate it and speed it up.

We, you know there's a lot of good happening in San Francisco right now. Many of our neighborhoods are thriving, but we do have some parts of our downtown area that continue to see a slow recovery. SB395 will authorize 20 low cost non-transferable liquor licenses for restaurants in this new hospitality zone.

And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today to testify is Ben Van Houten with the San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development and Eileen Mariano with the office of Mayor Daniel Lurie who is the sponsor of this Bill.

Thank you, Senator. Please state your name for the record and proceed. You'll have two minutes.

Hi. Good morning Chair and Committee Members. My name is Eileen Mariano. I manage state and federal affairs for San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie. Thank you for hearing today.

SB 395 Senator Weiner's Bill sponsored by Mayor Lurie to empower the City and County of San Francisco to create new investment in our downtown hospitality zone through the creation of new non-transferable and affordable liquor licenses. Since day one, Mayor Lurie has taken major steps to support businesses downtown and citywide.

In February, the Mayor launched Permit SF to reform and streamline the city's permitting processes, cutting red tape for small businesses and housing development. He has also renewed our first year free program which has helped thousands of small businesses open their doors by waiving fees in their first year.

This legislation before you today represents another effort to reaffirm that San Francisco is open for business. With the changes to the office market and retail shopping caused or accelerated by the pandemic, there's widespread consensus that we must take meaningful steps to evolve downtown San Francisco into a thriving 24/7 neighborhood that provides a variety of amenities.

Our hospitality zone, compromising Union Square and Yerba Buena neighborhoods, has been described as the beating heart of San Francisco. It houses our convention center, a variety of large and small retailers and hotels. It has experienced some of the most dramatic impacts since the pandemic, but it is quite critical to our city's economic comeback.

At the same time, we need to do more to attract new nightlife operators to vacant downtown storefronts to help drive foot traffic and attract workers, residents and visitors. Creating a targeted set of affordable liquor licenses can be an important tool in this work to support business attraction and expansion in our hospitality zone.

San Francisco is already beginning its economic comeback and the adoption of this legislation would add another important tool to our city's toolkit as we work to make our downtown hospitality zone the source of energy, culture and creativity that we know it to be.

I want to thank Senator Wiener for his leadership on this important issue and respectfully request your aye vote on this item. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair and Committee Members Ben Van Houten, Director of Nightlife initiatives at the San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

Under existing state law, the population based limits on the availability of full liquor licenses for restaurants and bars San Francisco has been effectively capped for for about 80 years now and as a result, our secondary market can see prices at times exceeding $200,000.

This is a significant barrier for new entrepreneurs, small businesses, and really represents a challenge, especially when we need business owners to invest in significant tenant improvements, say to change vacant retail spaces into new restaurants.

The SB395 would designate or empower the City and County of San Francisco to adopt an ordinance to designate a hospitality zone within which ABC could issue those non transferable restaurant liquor licenses over a three year period.

And these licenses, because they're available directly from ABC, would be far more affordable for new operators than the secondary market so that new restaurants can dedicate more of their money to those tenant improvements and to setting themselves up for success at the outset.

At the same time, the Bill thoughtfully makes sure that these licenses are non transferable so that they will not impact the existing secondary market. When an operator with a hospitality zone liquor license closes their business, their license will be canceled. Another operator would be able to seek such a license to support their new endeavor.

Moreover, an operator cannot move one of these licenses outside of the hospitality zone's boundaries. This legislation would not require ABC to issue any new liquor licenses unless local policymakers authorize it.

I think through this mechanism, local stakeholders will be able to evaluate the efficacy of this program in real time and adapt the implementation of new hospitality zone licenses to the conditions on the ground as they evolve over the next several years. And I just want to thank Senator Wiener for his leadership on this important issue.

And yeah, thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the hearing room would like to register support for the Bill? Please come forward to the mic. State your name and affiliation.

Thank you. Good morning. Marlon Lara with the California Restaurant Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Any individuals want to register opposition to the Bill? All right. Seeing no one, we'll bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. All right. The Bill has been moved by Senator Richardson. Please call the roll. Is there you want to close, Senator?

Absolutely. Thank you. Item two, SB395. Motion is due. Pass to Corporations Committee. Padilla? Aye. Padilla, aye. Valladares? Aye Valladares, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashby? Blakespear? Aye. Blakespear, aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Dahle? Aye Dahle, aye. Hurtado? Jones? Ochoa-Bogh? Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Rubio? Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wahab? Weber?Pearson?

All right. Please file item number two on call. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your testimony. Prior. We'll now take up the consent calendar and consent calendar has been moved. Please call the roll.

Padilla?

Padilla aye. Valladares? Aye Valladares, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Ashb?. Blakespear? Aye Blakespear, aye. Cervantes? Aye. Cervantes, aye. Dahle? Aye Dahle, aye. Hurtado? Jones? Ochoa-Bogh? Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Rubio? Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood, Cuevas, aye. Wahab? Weber?

Aye.

All right, we will place the consent calendar on call. That brings us to File item number four, SB765 by Senator Niello. I see that he is here and prepared. Welcome, Senator. Please proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I bring to you, hopefully, California's state snake. I'm presenting SB765. The giant garter snake is a representation of California's diverse ecosystem that communicates an important message of conservation, wildlife and California values.

By recognizing the giant garter snake as a state symbol, it also recognizes a story of conservation and highlights the critical importance of working lands to promote species habitat. The giant garter snake is found in wetlands across the state and is an essential part of our natural heritage, helping keep the balance in the environment.

By recognizing it as the state snake, we can raise awareness about the incredible species slithering through California's diverse habitats. The giant garter snake plays a crucial role in controlling and maintaining the balance of the ecosystem by keeping down pest populations in rice fields.

With its unique characteristics and slithery nature, the giant garter snake is the largest of all the garter snake species, reaching lengths of up to 64 inches. The snake is aquatic, predominantly found in agricultural areas, particularly rice fields, where it uses irrigation ditches and canals to get around between water bodies.

The giant garter snake may be on the rattle of extinction, but it is very much a symbol of California's conservation efforts. The giant garter snake was listed as threatened in California in 1971 and federally recognized as threatened in 1993. Its population has declined by more than 90% in the past century.

The primary threats to the snake survival are habitat loss and degradation, as well as predation by non native species. Since then, there have been vast conservatory efforts to protect the snake in addition to the wetlands and rice fields in which this fang-tastic friend resides.

For example, the California Rice Commission has taken initiative to make conservation of species like the giant garter snake a key priority. While the snake is still threatened, it shows the story of resilience and adaptation.

The giant garter snake is endemic to California, meaning it can be found nowhere else in the world, making it the prime candidate for our state snake. Why not use this snake as a fun, scaly tool to educate Californians about wildlife and the importance of environmental stewardship?

Not to mention 2025 is the lunar new year of the snake, symbolizing versatility, growth and creativity. This being the year of the snake makes it the best of all years to recognize the importance of snakes in this great Golden State, rich with history and flowering diversity.

We recognize the golden poppy as the state flower, and as nutty as it may be, the state nuts are the almond, walnut, pistachio and pecan. And if that's not cuckoo enough, the valley quail is the state bird and hullabunga surfing is our state sport.

I don't think we jumped to conclusions by recognizing the red legged frog as the state amphibian. So why not rattle our support around the giant garter snake? This snake is not just any reptile. It's a symbol of coiling progress and environmental awareness.

The more we wrap around the importance of species like the giant garter snake, the more we contribute to a positive, sustainable future. Let's make it official and rattle it, rattle the state support behind it. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 765 and I have witnesses here to support Michael Starsky, Starkey, excuse me, with the organization Save the Snakes and Paul Buttner on behalf of the California Rice Commission, welcome.

Please state your name for the record again and you have two minutes.

Good morning, Chairman and Senators, thank you so much for your time. So my name is Michael Starkey. I'm the founder and Executive Director of Save the Snakes, which is a non profit organization to snake conservation around the world.

Today I stand before you to advocate for a truly remarkable animal, a native Californian that deserves our recognition and protection. The giant garter snake. Now I understand snakes may cause some unease, but I hope you can see the giant garter snake through a different lens because it is truly special.

This magnificent serpent is endemic to California, meaning it is found nowhere else in the world. And it is a symbol of our state's unique natural heritage. And when we say giant, we do mean it. It's the largest of all garter snakes, reaching 5ft over 5ft. And they live in wetlands and also in rice agriculture.

Unfortunately, wetlands are rapidly disappearing and with it, the giant garter snake is also threatened. And it's going to need more support to not only save the snake, but the other vulnerable species that live in wetlands. Now, these snakes are not just part of the ecosystem, they're essential to its balance.

They act as both prey and predators and play a crucial role in maintaining balance in ecosystems. But they also control invasive species like the voracious bullfrog. And so when we support the giant garter snake, we're not just supporting one single species. We're safeguarding the health and stability of our entire wetland agricultural ecosystems.

Now, designating the giant garter snake as California state snake is more than just a symbolic gesture. It's a powerful statement to our commitment to conservation. It's a way to raise awareness about the importance of wetlands, rice fields and the unique creatures that inhabit them. It's an opportunity to Inspire future generations to cherish and protect our natural heritage. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman Padilla and Members of the Committee. Paul Buttner here with the California Rice Commission in support of SB765. As many of us know, rice fields are very important habitat for over 200 species of wildlife. This is largely because we have 500,000 acres of flooded ricelands, which are essentially surrogate wetlands in our state.

Like Michael mentioned, It's lost over 90% of its wetlands. So it's fortunate that this type of crop moved in in the Sac Valley to provide this habitat for all of these species. A recent publication from UC Davis in January really details how important this rice footprint is. Yes, we're beginning to call it our rice footprint.

A minimum number of acres, so to speak. So to speak that would support all of the wildlife that is supported by California rice growers. The giant garter snake is a focal species within this document. Many would say that quite possibly giant garter snakes would not be in the Sacramento valley without this 500,000 acres of ricelands.

It's not just the ricelands, but it is the network of drainage ditches and lateral canals operated by water districts and the manner in which they're operated that provides this really stellar habitat for a very cool animal. Giant garter snake right here in the Sacramento Valley. So we urge your support of this.

We believe that it will remind Californians of the importance of the rice footprint here in California. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the hearing room would like to register support for this Bill? Seeing none. Is there a lead witness in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. I'm looking for Mr. Samuel L. Jackson from Snakes on a Plane. I don't see him in the same in the audience.

So with that, I will bring it back to the Committee. Senator Richardson.

I'm not a big snake fan. I'll start off with that. However, I understand it's a part of our seal, so that's fine. My question is, were there any other snakes that were considered prior to you identifying the garter snake?

There are other candidates. Such as, as an example, the North Pacific, the California king snake, the North Pacific rattlesnake and the San Francisco garter snake would be candidates. But the king snake is not endemic to California, but more the broader western United States. The North Pacific rattlesnake is also not endemic, covering a wider area.

And the San Francisco garter snake is restricted just to the San Francisco Peninsula. So that's why we settled on the giant garter snake. And I think it's kind of cute.

Senator Valladares, I'm just.

I just wanted to say that I am happy to support this hiss-toric Bill and just want to thank the author for bringing it forward. Where's, can we have a live presentation now? Are we okay? Well, we.

We considered that, and I was told in no uncertain terms, if I were to try it, I might lose my office.

Understood. Thank you.

All right, does someone want to move the Bill?

Move the Bill.

All right. Thank you. Please call the roll.

Item four, SP765. Motion is do pass to the floor. Padilla.

Padilla, aye. Valladares.

Aye.

Aye.

Valladares, aye. Archuleta.

Aye.

Archuleta, aye. Ashby. Blakespear.

Aye.

Blakespear, aye. Cervantes. Cervantes, aye. Dahle. Dahle, aye. Hurtado. Jones. Ochoa Bogh. Richardson.

Aye.

Richardson, aye. Rubio. Smallwood-Cuevas.

Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wahab. Weber Pearson.

Aye.

All right, we'll place File item number four on call. Brings us to file item number five. SB 366 by our very own Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

As I slither out of the room, I thank you very much.

Thank you. None.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and happy to go after the the garter snake discussion. But before you today, Members, I'm pleased to present SB 366, which calls for a comprehensive study on the economic and workforce impacts of artificial intelligence. AI is no longer on the horizon. It's here. It's transforming industries across the board, from agriculture to aerospace.

This isn't a question of if AI will reshape California's economy, but how deeply and how fast. And yet the state is flying blind in some respects. In the midst of a budget crisis, we cannot afford to overlook one of the most powerful and fast moving forces reshaping our economy today.

SB366 is about making sure we understand AI's impact before it undermines our already future fragile economy. And our economic future. AI is likely to reduce labor demand in key sectors, which could further destabilize revenues at the state and local levels. And why does this matter?

We've heard many of the debates over the last couple of years, but we know that fewer workers means fewer income taxpayers, less consumer spending, and greater reliance on public services. And all of which will strain the state's budget. The state relies heavily on personal income tax making up the bulk of our General Fund.

And if AI displaces workers or drives down wages, income tax revenue falls, just as demand for public services will more likely go up. And we know that that will create a recipe for deeper Volunteer volatility in our state, where 19 million Californians go to work every day. SB366 helps California get ahead of this disruption.

It helps us think about ways to ensure that workers who really are the engine for creating our productivity, who are also part of partnering with businesses to ensure that we have demands and of course, consume goods. We want to look through SB366 to ensure that we have a clear picture of how to address these changes.

In 2018, the Little Hoover Commission projected that AI could impact up to 11 million California jobs by 2030 and reshape over 400 billion of our economy. These aren't abstract numbers. They point to serious fiscal implications. And we must spend, be ready for those. And to do that, we need real time data.

And SB 366 will direct the UCLA Labor center to identify which sectors are most vulnerable, how job quality and incomes will shift, and what those changes may mean for our state revenues. The goal is not to slow down this innovation.

We know this technology is and will continue to be integrated into all of our work places across a number of sectors. But we should be prepared for unintended economic consequences that may come with it. How are we going to be proactive? How do we plan for this new technological future?

The new revolution really that we're in the middle of. California's economy is already marked by a boom and bust cycle. And we have, unfortunately, since I've been here in the state Legislature, seen it firsthand, up close and personal. And when people lose stable income, those cycles grow more extreme.

People are the stabilizing force in our economy as our IPOs do what they do and capital gains does what it does. We know that we can rely on workers to sustain our economy and to keep us stable in those volatile times. But if and when they are displaced, the entire system becomes unpredictable.

And everyone, legislators, businesses, workers, we all need to understand those fiscal impacts. And this is about future proofing the California budget. With me to speak and support is Brian Justie, senior research analyst with the UCLA Labor Center. And I enthusiastically and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And before you proceed, Mr. Justie to the author, just want to confirm you accept Committee amendments.

Yes, yes. And thank you so much to Committee for working with me on those.

Thank you, Senator. Mr. Justie, welcome. State your name for the record. You'll have up to four minutes.

Good morning, chair and Committee Members. My name is Brian Justie. I'm a senior research analyst at the UCLA Labor Center. I'm here today to express my support for SB3 366, artificial intelligence has been one of the most discussed and debated topics over the last several years, yet too much of this discourse is informed by speculation.

This is informed on the part of both its proponents who claim that artificial superintelligence is just around the corner and will carry us into some sort of Sci Fi Utopian future of abundance, as well as its skeptics who fear that all or most jobs will be lost overnight, power and wealth might be for further concentrated and we will end up with a more bleak and dystopian future.

SB366, however, provides an exciting and urgent opportunity to engage with this topic concretely in a way that will produce novel primary data and bring this entire issue back down to earth, better informing policymakers and stakeholders who are shaping our collective future.

To date there have been countless studies of current and future AI impacts, yet none are that I'm aware of have engaged in the top in this topic in the way that SB366 dictates. Two factors in particular stand out. First, rarely is applied AI research confined to strict geographical boundaries.

Yet here we have California as a uniquely well suited case study for producing actionable policy recommendations that can provide a blueprint for other jurisdictions given its centrality both in the development of this technology as well as the size, stature and diversity of its economy and workforce.

Second, and maybe more importantly, by focusing on how AI will impact state and local revenues, we will be able to demonstrate robust connection between emerging technologies and broad socioeconomic sustainability in a way that other studies have not been able to do.

The research mandate underlying SB 366 offers an alternative to the counterproductive and zero sum war of attrition narrative that often pits labor and technology against one another. In my position at the UCLA Labor Center, I speak with workers across different sectors every day and they make it clear to me that they are not at all anti technology.

Rather, they will often share ways that technologies have improved their work and personal lives. They have many examples. Instead, what they do expresses a real concern for the ways that all too often the technological landscape and in particular workplace AI is designed and implemented in ways that are just fundamentally undemocratic.

So in closing, I urge you to vote aye on Sb366 so that we can deliver data driven findings that can reframe this debate and ensure that California can remain an innovator in not just technology, but Democratic technology.

Thank you, thank you for your testimony. Anyone else in the hearing room want to register support for this Bill, please come forward See no one. Is there a lead witness in opposition? Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back to the Committee for questions or comment. Senator Wahab moves the Bill. I don't see any desire. Do you want to close?

Senator, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, we'll place file item number five on call. Thank you, Senator. They'll take up the last Bill presentations. File item number seven, SB793 by Senator Archuleta. And if we could please send the word out to other outstanding Committee Members to come back, we'll be lifting calls. Proceed. Whenever you're ready, Senator.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I'm honored to be here before you today. We've got a public safety Bill that pertains, I think, to a lot of our children. I've been blessed to raise 5. And I thank God that he didn't get a hands on this lighter that we're going to talk about.

And we've seen that as we were growing up as teenagers, those little, little lighters that you would light and some of the flame would go up and down and. Well, we've discovered that sometimes when you turn them off, they really don't go off and they'll lay there. People have.

It's been discovered that fires and that lighter, and there's 10 different brands. So I'm not going to pick on any one of the 10 other than the one I think most of us remember. It's called the Bic lighter. Not being a smoker, but those Bic lighters, they come in various colors and you buy them at the liquor stores and so on.

Well, not all of them are to the standard of safety that we rely on here in California, and especially in the minority communities that, you know, the kids will get them, and especially at firework time and they're lighting the fireworks and everything else.

Well, they have a tendency to leak, they have a tendency to cause fires, and obviously there's injuries. So this is what this Bill is all about. And I'd like to thank the chair for allowing me to bring this before you.

So Senate Bill 793 which would prohibit a person from selling, offering for sale or distributing an unsafe or counterfeit lighter that does not comply with specific ASTM International safety standards. And it's true. Here in California we've got standards that we rely on every single day and oftentimes we don't think it's right before us.

So ASTM International is a globally recognized leader in the development and delivery of safety standards. These standards have shown to lower health costs and unsafe lighters by reducing hospital grade and hospital stays religious related to burns and injuries. Other countries have imported unsafe counterfeit pocket and utility lighters into the United States for many years.

These unregulated items have led to thousands of injuries, millions of dollars in damages, hundreds of deaths over the years across the not just here in California, but throughout the United States. Californians are needlessly put at risk for these unsafe counterfeit products.

And I will go on to tell you that thousands of people every day are affected by these things. By requiring lighters to meet the ASTM International standards, California will improve safety for the public, especially our children that I mentioned earlier from these dangerous lighters that fail to ensure safety.

And Senate Bill 793 aligns California with other states such as Wisconsin, Connecticut, Tennessee, Virginia in securing safety for their constituents. In this case our constituent. This Bill has no opposition and is supported by the lighter Association United Steel Workers and the BIC Corporation, which is one of the largest, and the California State Firefighters Association.

So with me today to testify and support is Nicole Quinonez from Bic and I respectfully ask for aye vote. Thank you Mr Chair

Thank you Senator, Welcome Ms. Quinonez. State your name again for the record. You'll have up to four minutes.

Thank you so much. Good morning Chairmembers Nicole Quinonez on behalf of the BIC Inc. The manufacturer of the world's safest lighter. Again, we want to thank Senator Archuleta for authoring SB793, which in addition to the number of safety standards that he mentioned it would put in place.

It does also protect businesses who manufacture in the US like back from the flood of counterfeit products that are coming into the US from foreign countries. If SB793 becomes law, it would not only protect companies like BIC, but also retailers who are unknowingly selling counterfeit lighters because they look so similar to the legitimate brands that they know.

So currently, if a retailer is being investigated for selling counterfeit products, it is a federal process that can significantly impact their day to day operations. But under SB 793 manufacturers like Beck who are protecting their intellectual property will be able to work with the retailer to identify the person or distributor who sold them the counterfeit product.

More than 300 million imported lighters entered the U.S. in 2017, and 70% of those lighters tested in the U.S. failed the ASTM international standards. In 2011, U.S. custom and Border Protection seized 261,000 cigarette lighters that violated the one federal safety standard which requires the child resistant mechanism. But California can do more. Like Connecticut, Wisconsin, Tennessee and Virginia.

As the Senator mentioned, China and other countries have exported counterfeit, unsafe pocket and utility lighters to the United States for decades. And we believe this Bill will help reduce the influx of those products and protect Californians. Thank you. And we urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the hearing room like to register support on this item? Seeing no one come forward. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition? Any individuals want to register opposition to this Bill? If not, we will bring it back to the Committee. It's definitely been moved. Thank you, Mr. Senator. Archuletta, do you want to close?

So, as always, let's California light up the safety that we should have. And I urgently ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. This will forever be known as the snakes and lighter hearing of the. All right, the Bill has been moved. We'll give that to Wahab. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Aye. We'll keep file item number seven on call and with that we will begin to lift calls going back to the consent calendar. Please lift a call.

[Roll Call]

All right, we'll keep that consent calendar will remain on call. That brings us to file item number one. SB509. Please. Please lift a call.

[Roll Call]

The item will remain on call. That brings us to File item number 2. SB395. Wiener. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We will keep that item on call. File item number four. SB765 Niello, please. Left the call.

[Roll Call]

That item will remain on call. Takes us to File item number five. SB366 Smallwood-Cuevas. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That item will remain on call. That brings us to File item number 7. SB793 Archuleta. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

All right. Thank you. That item will also remain on call. Thank you, Members. Now we are remaining waiting on three absent. We'll go ahead and momentarily recess Committee will stand in recess.

All right. The Senate Committee on Governmental Organization reconvene to lift calls starting with the consent calendar. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That item will remain on call. That brings us to File item number one. SB509 Caballero. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That item will remain on call. Brings us to File item number two. SB395 Wiener. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That item will remain on call. Brings us to File item number 4, SB 765 Niello. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That item will remain on call. That brings us to File item number five. SB 366, Smallwood-Cuevas. Please lift a call.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That item remain on call. Brings us to File item number 7. SB 793 Archuleta. Please lift the call.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That item will also remain on call at this time. The Committee will again stand in recess momentarily. Thank you.

We will be resuming in 30 seconds.

The long 30 seconds. We are going to lift the call on our consent calendar. Secretary, will you please call the roll. That Bill is out. Now moving to file item one, SB 509 Caballero. Secretary, please call the roll. 15-0. That Bill is out.

Next, we're moving to File item number two, SB395 Wiener. Secretary, please call the roll. That is 15-0. That Bill is out. Now moving to File item number four, SB765 Niello. Secretary, please call the roll. That's 15-0. That Bill is out.

Now moving on to File item number five, SB 366, Smallwood-Cuevas. Secretary, please call the roll. The vote is 130. That Bill is out. And our final item is File item number seven, SB793 Archuleta. Secretary, please call the roll. That Bill is 15 to 0. And that Bill is out. We are adjourned.