Assembly Standing Committee on Emergency Management

At today's hearing, we will take public comments from those in the room. Members of the public may also submit testimony to the committee at aem.assembly.ca.gov. First, let's establish a quorum, but with that we'll start as a subcommittee since we don't have any other members to start. But with that first one we have here is file number nine, AB 716. Assemblymember Boerner Horvath, you may proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, or Mr. Chair. First I'd like to say members, I'd like to accept the committee amendments and would like to thank the chair and your staff for working on this bill. This is the third time we're running this bill and it's finally getting a hearing, so we're very excited today. AB 716 quite simply seeks to prevent consumers from being hit with surprise bills for a ground ambulance service.

California already has very strong protections in place for surprise medical bills, but there remains a loophole for ground ambulance bills. Under this bill, patients with insurance will only be responsible to pay the in-network cost sharing amount. Those without insurance will be charged no more than the Medi-Cal or Medicare rate for the service, whichever is greater.

And this bill would require that absent a contract between the ambulance provider and the insurer or health plan, the health plan or insurer pays the ambulance provider for the locally local emergency medical authority, the LEMSA rate for ambulance services, meaning that our local firefighters and paramedics are compensated for the heroic work that they do. This issue has also personal to me. My daughter had to take an emergency trip to the hospital. I don't know if you remember, it was probably just about three years ago.

I was up here on a Monday, and on a Tuesday I got a call that she was in the hospital and I received a surprise bill despite having excellent insurance. When calling an ambulance, the last thing anyone should be thinking about is if that life-saving ride will result in a financial hardship. AB 716 is a common sense solution that I hope all my colleagues in the Legislature will join me in supporting. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And I have here with me today Jennifer Reisz, who will first share the story of what happened when her daughter was injured. We'll also have Katie Van Deynze, thank you, policy and legislative advocate for Health Access California, the sponsors of this bill. Thank you.

You may proceed when ready.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and committee members. My name is Jennifer Reisz and I live in Fresno County. I am here today in support of AB 716. I hope that after you hear my story, you will understand an aye vote is so important to all California members. Almost exactly a year ago, my daughter, a 21-year-old student, sustained serious injuries due to being kicked multiple times in the chest by our horse. After being kicked, she fell to the ground, unable to move or speak.

The Apple watch she was wearing immediately activated and called 911. An ambulance arrived at our home and transported her to the nearest hospital, 5 miles away. While there, she was diagnosed with four broken ribs and a partially collapsed lung. The seriousness of her injuries prompted her to be transported again by ambulance to a level one trauma center 12 miles away. She spent three nights in the hospital. A month later, she received a bill from the ambulance company totaling $4,600.

My daughter is covered by my employer-sponsored health insurance plan, but our insurance company paid less than half of the bill, leaving her responsible for $2,400. She was distraught because she didn't know how she was going to pay the bill. I initially thought my insurance company had processed the claim incorrectly, but after many hours on the phone, I found out the $2,400 bill was because the ambulance company was out of my insurance plan network.

I also discovered that all Fresno County 911 calls are handled by this particular ambulance company, and this company chooses not to contract with any employer-sponsored health insurance plans. This choice makes them out of network for all Fresno County residents with employer-sponsored health insurance. With a million residents in Fresno County, that's a lot of people receiving a surprise ambulance bill.

To make matters worse, four months after receiving the first ambulance bill, and despite knowing I was working to resolve the claim with my insurance company, the ambulance company sent my daughter to collections. To provide perspective, the total bill for the three-day hospital stay at the level one trauma center was $57,000. My insurance covered all but $1,700. Basically, my daughter owed 3% of the hospital bill, but more than 50% of the ambulance bill.

I am actively fighting to prevent other Californians from enduring the struggle I endured over the last year. Ground transportation ambulances should be stopped from surprise billing for critical emergency services. I urge you to vote aye on AB 716. Thank you.

Thank you, whoever's next.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I'm Katie Van Deynze, a policy and legislative advocate with Health Access California, the statewide healthcare consumer advocacy coalition and we are proud to support and sponsor AB 716. AB 716 will close a glaring cap in California's existing consumer protections for surprise billing by prohibiting ground ambulance providers from surprise billing consumers and ensuring that consumers will only pay that in-network cost sharing.

The bill also places a cap on what uninsured Californians can be charged for ambulance services in preventing them from being charged the full rate. A surprise bill happens when a consumer does the right thing by when going to the emergency room or taking an ambulance, but they get that care with an out-of-network provider through new faults of their own. In case of ambulances, consumers don't have a choice when they get in the ambulance that arrives if that ambulance is in their network.

And a study found that 73% of ambulance rides among Californians with large employer coverage included an out-of-network charge. For an ambulance ride, consumers often receive a bill of $1,000 or even more than $2,000 in surprise bills, which can destabilize a family's finances, especially for low and moderate-income Californians without savings. We hear from Californians that many will not even call the ambulance, sorry, excuse me, for legitimate fear of the bill putting their own health at risk because they're so afraid of the charges.

AB 716 will require that health plans and insurers pay the ambulance provider, the locally set LEMSA rate for services and takes the consumer out of the middle, ensuring they only pay that in-network cost sharing for AB 716. We are committed to honoring the existing LEMSA process for setting rates and we know this committee discusses changes and we'll leave that to you.

AB 716 will end surprise billing for ambulance services and give consumers more financial security during and after an emergency and ensure they can focus on getting to the hospital and not what the Bill will do to their finances. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 716. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? With that, anyone else in support in the room?

Noe Paramo representing California Rural Legal Assistance foundation in support of AB 716. Thank you.

Anyone else in support? Anyone in the room for opposition? Seeing none, before bringing back to the committee members, let's go and establish a quorum since I believe we have enough. Secretary like to call the roll.

Calling the roll for a quorum. Rodriguez. Aye, here. Rodriguez present. Waldron. Waldron. Present. Aguiar-Curry. Aguiar-Curry here. Alvarez. Calderon. Present. Calderon present. Dahle. Schiavo.

We have a quorum now. So with that, bring back to committee members any questions about any committee members? Seeing and hearing none. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And I want to thank the member for bringing this very important bill forward, because I'm a reflection of what happened. I worked over 30 years in the ambulance industry and I remember going on calls back in the day when people saying, oh, I'd want to get this surprise bill right, because it happened in the past where we can't know where emergency is going to happen, right? Whether they're in district or out of district, it's not up to us. Things happen unfortunately, as was stated before, they already have enough stress and trauma going through a hospital with an emergency or disease or illness, and now you get the surprise bill weeks after. That's not what we should be doing. So thank the author for bringing this forward. I do have an aye. And the motion is, first of all, do we have a motion and a second? Motion by Calderon, second by Aguiar-Curry. And the motion do pass, as amended, to the Committee on Health. Secretary, call the roll.

File item nine, AB 716. The motion is do pass, as amended, to Committee on Health. Rodriguez. Aye. Rodriguez, aye. Waldron. Aye. Waldron, aye. Aguiar-Curry. Aye. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Alvarez. Calderon. Aye. Calderon, aye. Dahle. Schiavo.

The motion is out, but we'll leave the roll open for any folks that missed. Thank you.

And I believe next we have Assembly Member Lee. Is he still here? Oh, yes, he is. Oh, we can do the move. Let's do the consent while we're here. There's a motion, a second for consent. The following bills are in consent. AB 379, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Next one is AB 946. The motion do pass Committee on Appropriations. Next one, AB 1023. Motion do pass Committee on Education. Next one is AB 1141. The motion do pass Committee on Appropriations.

Next one is AB 1185. The motion do pass Committee on Appropriations. Next one is AB 1303. Motion to do pass Committee on Appropriations. And the last one on consent is AB 1638. The motion do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, I have a motion, a second. So let's go ahead and vote on the consent calendar.

Okay. On the consent calendar. AB 379, do pass to Committee on Appropriations. On consent, AB 1023, do pass to Committee on Education. On consent, AB 1141, Dahle. Do pass to consent to the Committee on Appropriations. On consent, AB 1303, Rodriguez. Do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. On consent, AB 1638, Mike Fong, do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. On Committee. I'm sorry, on Appropriations. Rodriguez. Aye. Rodriguez, aye. Waldron. Aye. Waldron, aye. Aguiar-Curry. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Alvarez. Calderon. Calderon, aye. Dahle. Shiavo.

Consent calendar is out. Now we will turn it over to file item number 10, AB 835. Assembly Member Lee, when you're ready.

All right, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Honored to present for the first time for this Committee. I want to start by saying I accept the Committee amendments which require the state fire marshal to send a report on single stair buildings above three stories to the Building Standards Commission and to this Committee. Currently, California requires two stairway exit routes in apartment buildings above three stories tall. However, there are mid rise buildings throughout Europe with single staircases.

Many European countries allow buildings with single staircases and have better records on fire safety than even in the United States because European buildings generally have more modern safety features like sprinklers, which could also be implemented in America. The bill will help bring this type of building to the United States by directing the State Fire Marshal to research standards for single stair, multi-unit residential buildings and submit a report to relevant stakeholders. With that, I'd like to introduce my two witnesses today. First, we have Alfred Twu, a practicing architect with experience designing affordable housing, and Ed Mendoza, a demographer, trained city planner, and Policy Director for Livable Communities Initiative.

There's a motion. Thank you.

All right, good afternoon, Assembly Members. My name is Alfred Twu. I'm an architect in the Bay Area working on affordable housing and with organizations working on solving our state's housing crisis. One of the things we work on is to avoid building in wildfire or flood zones. We want to build more in our existing cities, but many of these lots are very small, and that is where these single stair buildings come in. What is a single stair building?

As you can see on the floor plan, it's a building where you get off the elevator and there's a small lobby, maybe the size of this little area right here with doors to two apartments and then one stair. Millions of these buildings exist around the world and are legal in most countries and a couple of US cities such as Seattle, Washington. They are a way to lower the cost of building housing, provide more family sized apartments, and also provide more natural light and fresh air.

And they can be as safe or even safer than other types of apartments. In contrast to single stairs, this is what a conventional California apartment building looks like, a double stair building with a stair at either end of a long hallway. Most of these buildings are giant. They're about the size of a block, because for a small lot, it would not be efficient to have this much hallway and stairwell. This is the last one.

Okay.

Yeah. What we're looking for is not a very large change. The current code allows for single stair apartments up to three floors with four apartments per floor, but it does not limit the height of those floors. You can have a three story loft style apartment with double high ceilings legally in California right now, and in Seattle, you can have six stories.

For single stair buildings, Seattle requires additional safety features such as sprinklers and either an outdoor stair or a pressurized smokeproof stair, as well as fire resistant walls and floors. In summary, single stair buildings are a way to bring people back to our struggling downtowns. Use those small vacant lots instead of building in wildfire and flood zones. I ask for your support for AB 835. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support?

Honorable Assembly Members of the Committee on Emergency Management, my name is Ed Mendoza. I'm the Policy Director of the Livable Communities Initiative, and I'm here to urge you to support AB 835. I come before you today to offer a possible answer to a pressing question. Why this study? Why there's reform? Why now? I'm here to shed light on two possible reasons for this. Firstly, there was no political need for this study until now. Land was not as expensive 10 or 15 years ago as it is today.

There were more greenfield sites and larger infill sites than there are now. However, housing costs have significantly risen in recent years, and due to land scarcity, the value of developable land has skyrocketed in cost as well. Land assembly premiums in Los Angeles, for example, reach up to 40% of land acquisition costs. This directly punishes affordable housing providers and hampers the new construction of new affordable housing and market rate housing. In contrast, building on unconsolidated land lowers housing costs.

Secondly, many jurisdictions did not allow for the missing middle multifamily housing that is now largely allowed today. In the US and internationally, point access single means of exit buildings are tailor made for smaller sites and create hyper-efficient, safe, and livable layouts. However, until the recent passage of various state laws such as state density bonus updates, AB 2011, SB 35, AB 1763, and SB 478, low-rise, multifamily buildings simply could not be built.

Now that more forms of infill multifamily buildings are allowed, we are seeing code compliant buildings that follow life and safety regulations, but are lacking the livability that the people who inhabit these buildings deserve. The use of single or double loaded corridors on small parcels forces layouts where units may face an adjacent property that is only or may only be 3ft away. As a result, homes may have no natural light and limited airflow, which is unacceptable.

Currently, single means of egress multifamily buildings up to four stories are allowed in our existing code for R-3 uses. However, this has led to a rise of co-living situations akin to modern day de facto SROs. We must address this problem by considering equity, safety, and decency. We advocate studying ways to improve the living conditions of people living in new multifamily apartments, looking for ways to provide fresh air, sunlight, green space, while maintaining the highest degrees of safe environment.

Other cities and municipalities in the US have standards that allow for this, and we ask the Fire Marshal to study standards tailored for California and Californian families. Let us provide the dignity of our fellow person and strive to make our communities more livable and sustainable. Thank you for attention.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support?

Mr. Chair and Members, Alex Torres with the Bay Area Council on behalf of our 300 employer members, want to be here in support. Thank you.

Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in support.

Chair and Members of the Committee, Jordan Panana Carbajal on behalf of California YIMBY in support. Thank you.

Anyone else in support in the room? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to this bill? Come forward, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Meagan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. And with the amendments proposed as outlined in the Committee analysis, CPF will be removing our opposition and move to neutral. We'd like to thank the author, the author's staff, and the sponsors for meeting with us to talk through our concerns.

We think it makes sense as a first step for the State Fire Marshal to study the issue, study the impacts on the residents and also fire safety, the safety of the firefighters who need access to these buildings. And so we appreciate the author's willingness to refine the language in the bill, and we remove our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee Members. Any questions, comments, Committee Members? I think we do have a motion, right? We have a motion, second. Motion by Aguiar-Curry, second by Calderon. Assembly Member Lee, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote and thank my witnesses and for the wonderful prop as well, visual explanation, thank you.

And thank you for bringing the bill. You know, my thing is just, I'm glad you were looking at those amendments and working together with the firefighters. Because the last thing on my mind is, let's not compromise our first responders and the folks that may try to help if the need arises. So thank you again. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, call the role.

AB 835, Lee. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Rodriguez. Aye. Rodriguez, aye. Waldron. Waldron, aye. Aguiar-Curry. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Alvarez. Alvarez, aye. Calderon. Calderon, aye. Dahle. Dahle, aye. Schiavo.

That motion is out. We'll keep it open for missing Members. Thank you.

Thank you.

So, should I do. Irwin's out here. Which one's right now?

Mr. Rodriguez is going to present AB 513. And you may proceed when ready.

We have two primary witnesses also in support, MariaElena De La Garza, Community Action Board of Santa Cruz, as well as Noe Paramo, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. And Mr. Rodriguez, you may proceed.

Thank you. Colleagues, this bill would establish the California Individual Assistance Act to be administered by the California Office of Emergency Services, Cal OES. The purpose of this bill is to provide timely and direct assistance to families and individuals who have suffered harm due to local and state-declared disasters, but would not be eligible for or may not warrant federal disaster assistance for individuals. This bill provides local governments, community-based organizations, and individuals with assistance they need to quickly recover from a disaster.

All too often, FEMA and Cal OES have been unable to provide assistance to the most vulnerable communities, where disaster survivors have few paths to recovery. This is critical because aid from FEMA remains out of reach for families and individuals who have survived a disaster if the local disaster does not meet the criteria for federal assistance. After the community of Pajaro was flooded, I visited the evacuation shuttle in Watsonville and there are way too many displaced families with unmet needs.

While the community-based organization were stepping up to help the disaster survivors, at this point they have received no federal assistance and felt forgotten. We need to do better. This bill will help as it also requires Cal OES to retroactively provide individual assistance for the recent winter storms and for the magnitude 6.4 earthquake off the Northern California coastline near the City of Ferndale in Humboldt County. So with me is to testify and support MariaElena De La Garza and Noe Paramo. Thank you.

Thank you and buenos tardes. I'm MariaElena De La Garza. I'm the Executive Director to the Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County. We exist to eliminate poverty and create social change. And I am so incredibly grateful to Assemblymember Rodriguez for coming and visiting. We need to do better. There are thousands of people who have been displaced in the Pajaro Valley because of the river breach.

We're talking about 3000 families who have nowhere to live, who have come back to their community and are dealing with toxic mud and just until last week, toxic water. These folks are our essential workers. They're our farm workers, and they need support and they need help. We have been there. The community-based organizations that I represent, mine and 70 others, a coalition of members who are trying to fill the gaps that we have seen.

Some of the gaps that we have seen are our families not only don't speak English, they don't speak Spanish. They're indigenous language speakers that speak mostly Mixteco Bajo. And so as you can imagine, our partners, our government partners are having. There's a gap in the way those families are being served. And so community-based organizations have helped support with food, have helped support with economic relief. We're talking about families who have not worked since the season and are not going to work until August of this year.

There are no revenues, no income. We need economic relief for these families, and we need it urgently. We have been partners with philanthropic partners, the Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County and the Community Foundation of Monterey County, and we've raised about $900,000 that have gone out the door since January 1. 300,000 have been directed to Pajaro river breach.

However, we're talking about $500 for people who have no income and need to pay their rent and need to pay food and need new refrigerators, need new stoves, need new cribs for their children. Please, I urge you to understand the situation. It is urgent. There are people who are needing support now, and these are our essential workers who are picking our strawberries and cutting our lettuce. Thank you very much. We urge for your support.

Good afternoon. Noe Paramo with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. CRLA Foundation is a legal services organization serving primarily Spanish and indigenous-speaking rural poor farm worker communities. CRLA Foundation strongly supports AB 513 as an urgency measure which provides financial assistance necessary to assist vulnerable individuals excluded from restricted federal emergency assistance programs due to their immigration status. A case study released by UC Irvine School of Social Ecology in 2020 reported that undocumented Latinos, indigenous immigrants are particularly vulnerable to disasters and require special consideration in disaster planning.

They are disproportionately affected by racial discrimination, exploitation, economic hardships, less English and Spanish proficiency, and fear of deportation in their everyday lives, their pre-disaster marginalized status. Currently, more than 250,000 undocumented immigrants reside in counties designated under the California and presidential major disaster declarations are excluded from FEMA, cash, disaster relief, and other restricted forms of assistance.

And while a mixed-status household, a US citizen, or a lawful permanent resident qualify a member for assistance, many working-age and older adults who have no immigration status, qualifying members are completely excluded from these programs. Moreover, many of the individuals, as my colleague has said, are excluded from federal programs because they are a vital part of California's workforce and taxpaying population.

And yet they have borne the brunt of suffering and destruction caused by recent natural disasters in Pajaro, in Planada, in Merced County, and I'm from Stanislaus County next to Merced County. Second AB 513 as the Assemblymember and author of the bill has said, recognizes and leverages the capabilities of local governments and community-based organizations by funding them to deliver culturally competent emergency response and recovery services to these displaced residents.

CRLA Foundation supports AB 513 to establish the California individual assistant program and urges an aye vote. Thank you for the measure to pass, to provide much-needed relief for families and individuals who have suffered harm due to declared disasters. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. Seeing none, I'd like to bring it to the committee for any questions, comments.

Thank you. I'll just make a quick comment. We've seen so many disasters in the State of California for six years. We saw tremendous fires and devastation in the north state where I represent. These are the things that we need to help do to get people back on their feet. Get them to be productive and to make sure that they have food on their tables and a roof over their head. So thank you very much for bringing this forward, Assemblymember.

So we do have a motion and a second. Mr. Rodriguez, would you like to close?

I respect the ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. The motion is do pass with an urgency clause to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call a vote.

AB 513. Rodriguez motion.

I jumped the gun.

The motion is do pass with an urgency clause to the Committee on Appropriations. Rodriguez. Aye. Rodriguez, aye. Waldron. Aye. Waldron, aye. Aguiar-Curry. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Alvarez. Alvarez, aye. Calderon. Calderon, aye. Dahle. Dahle, aye. Schiavo.

That bill is out. And we're going to move a little out of order again to AB 944, Ms. Irwin.

Move the bill.

I'll go very quick then. AB 944 will require fire stations have an alternate source of power to keep all necessarily function, necessary functions of a station online during a power outage. Our communities rely on 847 fire stations across our state to be properly equipped to respond to millions of emergencies annually. With our current climate crisis bringing forth heat waves and wildfires, both planned and unplanned outages will continue to occur.

I have to say, when I got the new cities in my district, I went for a tour of some of the fire stations, and I was truly astounded to learn they had no backup power. So the current law. I found out that the current law doesn't ensure that fire stations have proper backup power in place. And if you don't have power, you obviously cannot raise your garage door, you cannot fuel your fire truck unless it's by hand.

You can't turn on the TV, and your refrigerator doesn't work either. Through this bill, California will ensure that all fire stations will withstand the vast majority of power outages, as the safety of all Californians relies on the preparedness of our first responders. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room for support? Seeing none. Anyone in the room opposition to this bill? Seeing none. Come back to Committee Members. Questions, comments? Any Committee Members? I think there's a motion and a second? Correct. Aguiar-Curry's motion, seconded by Calderon. With that, Assembly Member Irwin, like to close.

I guess I closed prematurely because I had a motion and a second. But again, ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And obviously, we do have, I reckon, and I just want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. It's very important that we keep our fire stations operational 24/7 in event of a disaster, particularly when it comes to the infrastructure of the building, that everything is working condition 24/7. So once again, I do have a motion, a second, and do pass amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, call the roll, please.

AB 944, Irwin. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Rodriguez. Aye. Rodriguez, aye. Waldron. Waldron, aye. Aguiar-Curry. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Alvarez. Alvarez, aye. Calderon. Calderon, aye. Dahle. Dahle, aye. Schiavo.

That bill is out. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Go back to me. Right. Which one was it?

Now we will hear AB 1505 I by Mr. Rodriguez.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members. You know, when it comes to preparing for a major earthquake in California is only a matter of time. If not, not if, and we need to be prepared for an earthquake in the midst of other disasters, whether it be floods, fires or pandemic. We must also be mindful of the lessons from the devastating earthquakes in Turkey and Syria. As you know, earlier this year, the Committee on Emergency Management held a hearing to assess California's preparedness for major earthquakes.

The hearing made it clear that we need to adopt a real sense of urgency when it comes to preparing our communities and infrastructure for a catastrophic earthquake in California. As you know, last year we were successful in establishing a $250,000,000 seismic retrofit program for multifamily soft-story homes. Unfortunately, the Administration has proposed to delay the implementation of this critical initiative.

Don't be fooled by those who would dismiss Turkey as a developing country with substandard building codes, or those who claim that an earthquake of such magnitude could not occur in California, or those who would dismiss the possibility of collapsed buildings. When I look back at my experiences as a first responder during the 1994 Northwest earthquake, I see deaths, injuries, and multiple collapsed buildings that could have been avoided.

It is why I'm so committed to making the state do more to encourage seismic retrofits to protect the most vulnerable communities and infrastructure. With that, I have two witnesses support, Ryan Kersting, U.S. Resiliency Council, and Sarah Atkinson, San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association, here to testify and support.

Thank you, chair and Members. I'm Ryan Kerstring and I'm here today as a practicing structural engineer. I work here in Sacramento with Bueller Engineering, one of the founding Members of the US Resiliency Council, who is the sponsor of this Bill. AB 1505. Happy to talk about the importance of our Bill and the funding for this important program. The USRC's mission is to improve community resilience by advocating to make buildings resilient to natural disasters.

And I'm here today to urge your support of this Bill and this critical program. The recent earthquake in Turkey should be a reminder to us here in California about the risk of a severely disruptive, if not catastrophic, earthquake. And even here in California, we still have a lot of work that we need to do.

The USGS shakeout scenario predicts what would follow a similarly sized, magnitude 7.8 earthquake in Southern California, predicting nearly 1800 deaths, 50,000 injuries, and the potential for more than 250,000 residents to be displaced from their homes. Many of those impacted will live in soft story apartment buildings exactly like this ones this retrofit program would fix. The USRC estimates that California has approximately 100,000 soft story apartment buildings that may house upward of two and a half million people.

Nearly every county in this state has dozens to thousands of these structures. The good news is that these types of buildings are typically easier to fix, and they tend to be economical to fix by adding steel frames or wood walls or concrete or masonry walls to the first story. The retrofit grant program also addresses the aspect of equity, as many of these buildings house our most vulnerable populations, seniors, lower-income families, or those with disabilities.

Furthermore, this retrofit program would protect the workforces of our communities, their small businesses, and preserve property tax revenues that cities and counties will desperately need after a major earthquake. I'd like to note that the US Resiliency Council assembled a diverse coalition of supporters of this Bill, including local and statewide fair housing advocacy groups and apartment associations, environmental organizations and chambers of commerce, cities and builders.

I think you'd agree these are not groups that usually agree on a whole lot together, but to come together to support this retrofit program is truly unprecedented and reflects the importance of the funding. I'd also like to take a moment to speak today on behalf of the Structural Engineers Association of California, or SEOC, as well as the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, or EERI.

Together, these organizations have both been active for over 75 years and represent thousands of members in California and throughout the US who are the experts when it comes to understanding effective policies regarding earthquake preparedness of our communities, our organizations and our fellow citizens.

SEOC and EERI have recently published a joint policy agenda that is founded on three key principles, with retrofit of vulnerable existing buildings, particularly housing, being one of the three key pillars of the agenda, understanding how critical it is for our fellow citizens to be protected in their homes and in order for our communities to start the recovery process. SEOC and ERI are both pleased to support this Bill.

On behalf of the large and diverse coalition assembled by the USRC, I strongly urge the Committee to support AB 1505 and provide this necessary funding for the soft story mitigation program. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Madam Vice Chair and members of the Emergency Management Committee. My name is Sarah Atkinson. I live in Oakland and I am the Earthquake Resilience Policy manager at SPUR, a public policy nonprofit based in the Bay Area. I'm here representing SPUR, the cities of San Jose, Burlingame, Alameda, and Mountain View, along with Thrive Rise, a San Mateo county coalition of community organizations active in disaster.

The seismic retrofitting program for soft-story multifamily housing recognizes the greatest natural hazard that California faces and has implications for California's emergency preparedness, housing security, social equity, and climate goals. A major earthquake in California could damage tens of thousands of homes, creating an acute housing crisis in the midst of a chronic one. The Association of Bay Area governments estimates that the Bay Area has about 24,000 units in at-risk soft-story apartment buildings.

As these are older buildings, many of these units also contribute to the state's naturally occurring affordable housing. Loss of these apartment buildings would increase homelessness, disproportionately impact disadvantaged and vulnerable community Members like the elderly living on mixed incomes, working families, minorities, and students. Despite the great work of the California Earthquake Authority in retrofitting at-risk homes, their state-supported grant programs currently only provide funding for owner-occupied, majority single-family homes.

However, when 44% of California households are renters like myself, AB 155 offers the opportunity to protect this population by focusing on protecting multifamily housing. As the Emergency Management Committee you are tasked with preparing for the worst case scenario. So what if a major earthquake happened during the Covid-19 pandemic, when we were directed to shelter in place with our already overwhelmed hospitals, what would we have done? How would you have managed the spread of COVID in temporary shelters required to house displaced residents?

As chair Rodriguez has wisely said, the best way to manage multiple overlapping hazards is to be prepared as possible. AB 1505 is a major step in the right direction. In the devastating earthquakes in Turkey and Syria, soft-story buildings were among the many that collapsed. Having grown up in California and hoping to raise a family here, I do not want to see our state suffer a similar disaster.

Despite San Francisco already having completed 90% of soft story retrofits, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution last month in support of AB 1505. Recognizing the importance for the Bay area's and the state's earthquake preparedness. I applaud you for supporting this funding last year. And I urge you again to vote in favor of AB 1505. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Are there other supporters in the audience? Please come forward. Name organization.

Hi, Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Mountain View, in support.

Good afternoon, Members. Brady Guertin on behalf of the California building officials in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Izzy Swindler on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, in support.

Chris Kahn, representing the Building Industry Association of Southern California, in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it to the Committee for questions. Mr. Alvarez, thank you.

I want to start by acknowledging the work of the Chairman last year on this. And I guess my first question is, is this being delayed or completely not funded in the Governor's Budget?

It's being delayed till next year, but I think we need to address it now. We can't continue to delay this.

I agree with you. I think one of the things that I've learned, and if anyone wants to share, is that some of these retrofits aren't even necessarily very expensive. Can you talk a little bit about that? Because I think that's important to educate just the community about.

Yeah, I think in terms of ease of retrofit, these are some of the easier retrofits to do. Soft story tends to be a little bit more accessible to do the construction. And that means you're not displacing residents usually. And so the cost of it is not just always the material, but also the displacement factor. So it's much more economical. I don't have the stats right here in front of me. I might be able to find them here before the end of the hearing, though, for you.

I think roughly they're saying about $5000 per building compared to $6-700,000 to replace a higher building.

And then on the number of units I understand SPUR mentioned just in the Bay Area alone, I think it's 20 thousand. Is there an estimate for the naturally affordable units? Is there an estimate for the statewide.

I don't have the number for affordable units. Do you?

No. And the 24,000 units was all across the Bay Area. But I think that USRC has estimated.

It'S 100,000 units total, is my understanding. Or maybe buildings that have this problem and quite a few of them are the affordable housing population.

Okay, appreciate it. Again, appreciate the work that was already done on this. It was disappointing to see that not being in the budget and hopefully we move this forward in an urgency manner, we can get this funded this year very much in support of the Bill.

Go ahead.

To help clear my mind because I don't remember everything from last year. Does this apply to any historic buildings that have apartments in them, in historic downtown?

Not that I'm aware, but that can find out for sure because that's what.

My concern is because there are apartments in a lot of our historic communities, particularly in rural areas, and they'll go that quick. And I know they've been looking for funding and trying to figure out how to do this. So I just want to ask if that might have been.

And I just, I can double check and get back to you.

That'd be fine.

Okay. Thank you.

Is there a second to the motion? Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Mr. Rodriguez, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Madam Secretary, can you please call the vote?

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out.

Thank you very much.

You don't have to worry about phone call, just go right to the consent and then go right to the missing members.

I'm glad you said that.

Okay, consent calendar.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay. We're going to bring this back to the consent calendar. Secretary, would you like to call the roll on the missing Members regarding the consent calendar? Number one, AB 379. Number two, AB 946. Number three, AB 1023. Number four, AB 1141. Number five, AB 1185. Number six, AB 1303, and number seven, AB 1638. On the consent Calendar, call the missing Members.

Yes, on the consent calendar, AB 379, do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. AB 946, Nguyen, do pass to the Committee on Appropriations on consent. AB 1023, Papan, do pass to the Committee on Education on consent. AB 1141, Dahle, do pass to the Committee on Appropriations on consent. AB 1185, Gabriel, do pass to the Committee on Appropriations on consent. AB 1303, Rodriguez, do pass to the Committee on Appropriations on consent. AB 1638, Mike Fong, do pass to the Committee on Appropriations on consent. We have Alvarez. Alvarez, aye. Dahle. Dahle, aye. Schiavo. Schiavo, aye.

Okay, consent calendar is out. Next one will go to file item number eight, AB 513. Secretary, call the missing Members.

AB 513, Rodriguez. Schiavo. Aye. Schiavo, aye.

And that one is out. Next one, file item number nine, AB 716. Secretary, call the missing Members.

AB 716, Boerner Horvath. Alvarez. Dahle. Dahle, not voting. Schiavo. Schiavo, aye.

The motion is out. We'll keep it open. I think Alvarez will be coming back. I hope. Okay, next one, number 10, AB 835. Call the missing Members.

AB 835, Lee. Schiavo. Schiavo, aye.

That bill is out. The next one, file item number 11, AB 944, Irwin. Secretary, call the missing Member.

AB 944, Irwin. Schiavo. Aye. Schiavo, aye.

That motion is out. Next one, file item number 12, AB 1505. I think we got that one out, actually. So we'll wait a few more minutes as we still have a bill on call, file number nine, AB 716, Boerner Horvath. We'll see if Alvarez comes back. With that, we are done for now. So what, do he go to Committee, I wonder? We'll just wait to see if he comes back. Yeah. Got him. Did he say he must have went to Committee? Wonder what are the committees around? Somebody want to let his office know?

Secretary, you want to open the roll for item number nine, AB 7116? Call the missing Members.

AB 716, Boerner Horvath. Alvarez. Aye. Alvarez. Aye.

Thank you. And with that, this meeting is adjourned.