The Brief

A new California law aims to keep more short children in booster seats for longer, imposing fines if they can’t properly wear their seat belt.

Last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a watered-down version of Assembly Bill 435 that originally proposed to ban smaller teenagers from sitting in the front seat and to require short-statured youth to use booster seats into their middle school years.

But enough of the Democrats who control the Legislature balked at ending the time-honored tradition of teens calling “shotgun” to ride in the front seat.

Instead, they settled on changing the standards police officers use to determine if a child is tall enough to safely wear a seatbelt while riding in a vehicle. Currently, California law requires children to use booster seats until they turn 8 or reach a height of 4 foot 9 inches.

That won’t change under the law Newsom signed. But beginning in 2027, children from 8 to 16 years old will have to pass a five-step test to be considered properly restrained by a seat belt under California law.

If the driver of a vehicle can’t answer “yes” to all of these five questions about their seat-belted child passenger, the driver could get a ticket and fines of $490.

1. Does the child sit all the way back against the seat?

2. Do the child’s knees bend comfortably at the edge of the seat?

3. Does the belt cross the shoulder between the neck and arm, resting on the collarbone?

4. Is the lap belt as low as possible, touching the thighs?

5. Can the child stay seated like this for the whole trip?

The bill’s proponents said the point is to encourage children and their parents to stay in booster seats until they’ve grown tall enough for a seat belt to fit them properly. The new rules are in line with recommendations public health officials and the California Highway Patrol have for years encouraged parents to follow.

Advocates cite numerous studies showing that small children in car wrecks are more likely to be severely injured or killed because seat belts aren’t designed for their small frames. It’s also especially dangerous for small-framed children to sit up front.

“The longer the child can be using a booster if they do not meet the test, the better, because it is so important to have the belt in the right place,” said Stephanie Tombrello, the former executive director SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. and a longtime proponent of seat belt laws.

Original bill was a tough sell

The original version of the bill would have banned teens up to 16 years old from sitting in the front seat if they couldn’t pass the five-step test.

The bill also would have required all children younger than 10 to use booster seats and bar all those under 13 from sitting in the front seat. The measure also would have required children as old as 13 to use a booster seat unless they passed the five-step test.

But even with child and automotive safety and health care groups supporting the bill, it proved to be too tough a sell in its original form for its author, Democratic Assemblymember Lori Wilson of Suisun City.

Her bill sailed through its first two committees. Then, in May, the bill died when Wilson brought it to the Assembly floor. It needed 41 votes to pass. It got 35, with 25 Democrats not voting, which counts the same as voting “no.”

As CalMatters reported, Democrats almost never vote “no” on their colleagues’ bills. Instead, they typically don’t vote at all. In the Capitol, it’s seen as a more polite way of saying “no” and less likely to lead to retaliation. Not voting also allows politicians to dodge accountability for controversial votes since it’s difficult for a member of the public to determine if a particular lawmaker was actually there to vote that day.

Wilson told CalMatters that part of the resistance from her Democratic colleagues was fallout over controversial legislation that sought to increase penalties for teen sex solicitation. That legislation raised difficult questions in the Democratic caucus about how hard to crack down on those accused of soliciting sex from minors, based on whether the victims were younger or older teenagers.

Then along came Wilson’s bill soon after. Wilson said conservative media outlets made comparisons between the bills, since hers sought to have the state treat some teens like small children. That was seen as hypocritical given the resistance from progressive Democrats to increasing penalties for those soliciting sex from older teenagers.

“It then started getting eyes on it,” she said. “And people started talking about, ‘Well, actually, I have a 10-year-old, and they don’t want to sit in a booster seat. I don’t want them to sit in a booster seat.’”

None of the Democrats who didn’t vote on the bill in May spoke during the bill’s brief Assembly floor hearing.

Of the Assembly Democrats who didn’t vote that day, CalMatters requested interviews this week with five of them, all of whom have children.

Spokespeople for Cottie Petrie-Norris of Irvine, Maggy Krell of Sacramento, Rhodesia Ransom of Stockton, Jesse Gabriel of Encino and Christopher Ward of San Diego did not make them available for interviews.

The following month, Wilson brought the bill back to the Assembly. Noting that many of her colleagues were leery of the bill, she promised to fix it in the Senate.

With her assurances, the bill squeaked by with 42 votes. Then, after the most controversial provisions were removed, it passed the Senate unanimously.

Wilson said she’s satisfied with the version of the bill that Newsom signed and has no plans to resurrect the more controversial measures in future legislation.

“I think just changing the culture, and now it being required by law to properly restrain your child,” she said, “I think that’s enough to push parents to make the right choice for their kids.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Homelessness has decreased in Orange County, according to data released this week from the county’s point in time count conducted in January.

The numbers are down 13.5% compared to 2024, when the last point in time count took place, according to Doug Becht, director of Orange County’s Office of Care Coordination. The office leads the county's efforts to address homelessness. In total, 6,321 people were counted as living outdoors, in vehicles or in shelters across the county.

During the last count in 2024, there was a spike of around 28% in the number of unhoused people, with around 7,300 people experiencing homelessness at the time.

The latest data was shared on Monday during a press briefing.

What the results show

 Becht said there was a 37% decrease in veterans experiencing homelessness as well as a 20% decrease in young people aged between 18 and 24 experiencing homelessness.

The latest point in time results also show that family homelessness has decreased.

In contrast, older adults in the county are experiencing higher rates of housing challenges. The number of seniors experiencing homelessness increased 1.5% compared to the last count, Becht said.

Southern cities in the county saw the largest decrease in homelessness while the central region 15.5% reduction. Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest and Mission Viejo all saw drops in people experiencing homelessness. In north Orange County, homelessness decreased by about 7.5%.

Becht said the survey also revealed that the number of people experiencing chronic homelessness — defined as an extended period or several episodes of homelessness — is rising within the county’s shelter system but decreasing on the streets.

He attributed that “to the ongoing housing shortage” that is causing people to stay in shelters longer. Around 3,200 of the county’s total unhoused population live in shelters, according to the data.

And when people stay in shelters longer, there’s not enough beds available for those who are on the streets, he said.

Over 50% of the people surveyed said they were experiencing homelessness because of financial reasons like losing a job and the lack of affordable housing options.

Why the count matters

The point in time count — a census mandated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to take place during the last 10 days of January — secures federal funding toward addressing homelessness. State and county officials use those funds to assess what programs and services are needed on the ground.

Point in time counts are widely viewed as undercounts by experts and don’t capture the full scope of homelessness — volunteers helping with the count can easily miss people, for example.

Becht said the count helps county staff engage with people experiencing homelessness. Once they have a person on the radar, it allows outreach teams to go back out and try to get them off the streets and into temporary housing.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Californians would have to take a four-hour course with live-fire training to buy a gun if a bill advancing through the Legislature gets signed into law.

Senate Bill 948, by Berkeley Democratic Sen. Jesse Arreguín, also would require gun owners moving to California to obtain a firearm safety certificate and register their firearms within 180 days of their arrival. Beginning in 2028, obtaining that certificate would require completing the training.

It’s the latest effort by California Democrats to add more restrictions on firearm ownership in a state that already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. However, it’s hardly certain the bill will become law. A similar measure died in the Legislature last year.

This year’s proposal advanced from the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday on a party-line vote with Republicans opposed. Committee members offered no comment on the measure and did not take any public testimony, which is typical for that committee.

But in March, when an earlier version of the bill would have required eight hours of training, Arreguín told the Senate Public Safety Committee the proposed training requirements would reduce gun violence and prevent accidental shootings.

“Firearm safety is essential in preventing firearm-related incidents, especially those involving children,” he said. “By strengthening training requirements and closing gaps in current law, SB 948 will ensure responsible gun ownership to keep Californians and communities safe.”

Rebecca Marcus, a lobbyist for the Brady Campaign, told the committee there were more than 69,000 shootings resulting in death or requiring urgent medical care in California from 2016 to 2021. Around one in three of those shootings were accidental, she said. Many involved children.

Gun rights advocates said the bill would be challenged in court if it becomes law.

Adam Wilson of Gun Owners of California called the proposed requirements “an insurmountable barrier to exercising a constitutional right.”

Clay Kimberling, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, said that’s especially true for the estimated 115,000 gun owners who move to California each year.

“Whether they move into the state on a new job, a new military assignment, or family obligations such as helping a sick or elderly family member, lawful firearm owners would now have to search out an instructor, pay for the class … and take eight hours out of their day … for simply wanting to continue to practice their constitutional right to keep and bear arms in a new state,” Kimberling said.

That original version of the bill also would have required new California arrivals to register firearms and take the course within 60 days.

Will the bill make it to Newsom?

Under current law, Californians are required to pass a written test and pay $25 to obtain a five-year firearm safety certificate to purchase a gun, but no formal training course is required.

Licensed hunters are required to take a mandatory hunting-safety course and aren’t required to get a certificate when buying rifles or shotguns. Also exempt are those who’ve obtained a concealed weapons permit, which is issued after 16 hours of mandatory training that includes live-fire at a gun range.

Those exemptions would still apply.

For everyone else, the proposed four hours of training would include coursework on state and federal gun laws, secure firearm storage, safe handling, the dangers of guns, use-of-force laws, how to sell firearms legally and conflict resolution. The live-fire portion of the course would need to last at least an hour.

Second Amendment groups say paying a Department of Justice-certified firearms instructor would add at least $400 to the cost of buying a firearm. Applicants also would have to pay for ammunition, gun rentals and range fees. Fees and firearms taxes already can add more than $100 to the cost of a firearm in California.

The training requirements would take effect July 1, 2028.

Until then, beginning on Jan. 1, gun owners moving to the state would be required to pass the current written test and register their firearms with the Department of Justice within 180 days.

Violating the proposed law would be a misdemeanor.

The bill now moves to the full Senate. It will then have to advance through the Assembly by this summer if Gov. Gavin Newsom is to sign it. He hasn’t taken a position on the legislation.

Last year, a bill with eight-hour training requirements died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

As her family prepared to evacuate their West Altadena home, Claire McLaughlin picked up her favorite snow globe, a music box featuring a mother hummingbird and two babies. She considered packing it, then put it back.

“I left it because I thought, ‘My house isn’t going to burn. I’ll come home later,’” Claire told The LA Local.

Claire never saw her favorite snow globe again.

West Altadena did not receive its evacuation order until after 3 a.m., hours after other parts of Altadena and Pasadena were told to leave. Despite that, Claire urged her family to evacuate after a friend in Pasadena called to warn her to do the same.

“I felt like I was being dramatic,” Claire said, “because we got no notification.”

Eventually, Claire, her mother, father and two older siblings saw flames surrounding their neighborhood from their driveway. Without any official word, they knew it was time to go. Their house burned down a few hours later.

Of the 19 people who died in the Eaton Fire, 18 were in West Altadena, and two of them were Claire’s neighbors: Anthony Mitchell and his son, who needed help evacuating. “I wish people knew that,” Claire said. “No one came to help the west side of Altadena.”

The students who lost their homes

Claire McLaughlin and her siblings outside their old house. Claire is the youngest, on the bottom left.

(

Courtesy Claire McLaughlin

)

More than 1,000 students in the Pasadena Unified School District lost their homes, and more than 10,000 were ordered to evacuate during the Eaton Fire. Claire was one of those students. At Pasadena High School, however, she said she didn’t know any friends who lost homes. 

“Even though it happened to thousands of people, I felt alone because I was the only kid I knew,” she said.

The fire coincided with major milestones for Claire: prom, graduation and the start of college. “Before the fire, it felt like I was still a kid, growing up,” Claire said. “But then it just sped it up, and it was like, ‘Oh, I’m an adult. I need to do this.’”

At graduation, Claire was so happy that, for a moment, she forgot about the fire. “I realized I wasn’t thinking about it,” Claire said. “It felt strange. I felt like I should be thinking about it.” Looking back, she wishes her school had focused more on the fire during the ceremony.

Now, Claire is in her first year at Pasadena City College.  She is living with her family at her mother’s former boss’s home in Pasadena while their house is rebuilt. Claire found a job at a bowling alley after the restaurant where she worked, Fox’s, burned down. She is excited for the end of the year, when she hopes her family can move back.

Rebuilding what was lost

One of the signs in an empty lot in West Altadena near Claire McLaughlin’s home.

(

Rachel Metzger

/

The LA Local

)

It has been more than a year since the Eaton Fire, but the emotions still linger for Claire. The news coverage has, in Claire’s words, “slowed down.”

“No one really talks about it anymore. Everyone’s moved on. But it just felt like I was stuck. I just keep thinking about it. I should be moving on, but I still feel sad.”

Claire still thinks about her neighbors, her street, her home and her musical snow globe, which she has tried and failed to find on eBay.

She misses her kitchen, her room and the sycamore tree in her front yard, which survived the fire but was later cut down for construction. Claire loved that tree. It’s where she would sit while her boyfriend washed her parents’ car. Her mother and brother would lie under the tree, usually after mountain biking in the San Gabriel Mountains behind their home, with their bikes strewn across the lawn. Claire would join them in the shade.

The tree is gone, but Claire’s house is starting to look as it once did. The last time Claire visited the site, the layout felt familiar. She could see the outline of her room in the same place and size as before.

Feeling lucky

The McLaughlins after buying their home in West Altadena several years before the fire.

(

Courtesy Claire McLaughlin

)

Nearly all her neighbors are hoping to return. But Claire is worried about investment firms buying lots from families who have lived there for generations and cannot afford to come back. She has attended protests with her mother to raise awareness about West Altadena.

“When I think of the situation with West Altadena, I feel really disappointed and angry,” Claire said. “But when I think of my house, I feel hopeful. Because now I’m going home soon.”

Above all else, Claire is grateful to be able to return. As she said, “You don’t find this sense of community everywhere.”

Right before the fire, on New Year’s Day, while the Rose Bowl was on, Claire’s neighbor was outside with his kid.

“I was messing with him,” Claire said. “The little kid was trying to chase me down the street, and I was running with him, and I thought to myself, ‘I’m so lucky to grow up here.’”

For Claire, nothing can change that feeling.

“I love that place with all my heart,” she said. “I still do.”

A new four-day music festival takes over Figueroa Boulevard in Highland Park this weekend.

The Arroyo Secodelic Festival will feature 65 bands, with acts hailing from Los Angeles, Mexico and as far as France and Holland.

The festival was co-founded by Guy Keltner and Tom Segal. Keltner said he’s organized shows for nearly 14 years now, most notably with Freakout, an annual underground music festival he started in Seattle that draws thousands.

Keltner told LAist he wants Arroyo Secodelic to be a place for music discovery, pairing rockers Flamin’ Groovies — who are celebrating six decades as a band — with local bands like El Sereno’s Windows and Levitation Room.

“I’m just trying to kind of present to L.A. like ‘Hey there’s a ton of great music happening that you don’t know about,’” Keltner said.

Headliners include OC legends Adolescents, iconic punk band FEAR and L.A. psych-rockers The Warlocks.

The neighborhood collaboration will span seven stages, with shows at traditional venues like the Lodge Room, as well as De La Playa Records and North Figueroa Bookshop.

“I think it’s going to be nice to do something unconventional. This whole thing is run by independent businesses. So even beyond just the bands, there’s a DIY spirit to the venues,” Keltner said.

The weekend-long festival will also include acoustic sets, artist signings, and book readings by performers like Kid Congo Powers of The Cramps and The Gun Club fame.

Keltner said he hopes Arroyo Secodelic will serve as a bit of an antidote to what he sees as some “cosplay” rock and roll taking up space in L.A. right now: bands he feels are not investing as much in the artistry.

“Underneath all of it, there are great bands,” Keltner said. “There’s so much talent in the city, it’s just not in the places you’re usually looking.”

Arroyo Secodelic runs from May 22 to 24. More info at the Arroyo Secodelic website.