Assembly Standing Committee on Emergency Management

Good afternoon. I think you can hear me. Very good. Okay, once again, we'll call this hearing to order. And with that, good afternoon and welcome, everyone. I'm Assemblymember Freddie Rodriguez, Chair of the Committee on Emergency Management. Thank you all for joining us today as I look forward to a productive hearing. This first hearing we have is communities recovering from disasters. As you know, and I say many times before, California is a disaster-prone state. We experience year-round emergency risk, often one right after the other.

As our emergency responders move from disaster to disaster, it is important to revisit some of the hardest-hit locations and evaluate their recovery. Despite our best efforts, people are being left behind. A few weeks ago, I toured the town of paradise five years after the devastating campfire. While Paradise continues to build back, they still face issues such as the lack of funding for a central sewer system and low housing stock. Additionally, I visited the evacuation shelter in Watsonville soon after the community of Pajoro was flooded.

Months after the floods, there were too many displaced families with unmet needs, a problem that still remains true. Furthermore, this community is home to a significant community of undocumented individuals supporting our agricultural economy. Rural communities and undocumented people are often disappropriately impacted by disasters. However, federal funds cannot legally be directed to undocumented people, and federal rules also require a very high threshold of damage to qualify for federal aid.

This means that disasters in less dense rural areas can fail to qualify, putting critical aid out of reach for devastated families and individuals in those places. We're hoping to address these problems this year through legislation. These bills include our Emergency Management Committee Bill AB 2660 which would require CalOES to direct more federal grant money to locals. And also, AB 2776 would prioritize infrastructure and housing recovery projects in communities that suffered population and business loss in a declared major federal disaster.

But redirecting existing funds will only take us so far. We also need to establish a dedicated source of funds for disaster relief to fill the gaps left by existing state and federal programs. This is why I'm also running AB 1786, which would create two disaster relief programs to help underserved individuals, families, and communities quickly recover from disasters due to climate change.

While these are the initial solutions myself and my committee are presenting, I'm looking forward to hearing from all of our panelists for additional ways we can help communities recover. Let us work together to ensure the best practices are implemented and supported so that we can continue to serve and protect the people of California. I look forward to hearing from our panelists on how California communities are rebuilding and recovering from disasters and lessons learned and how we can address any unmet needs.

With that said, I want to open it up for any of my colleague members here. Have any opening remarks, And seeing none, great, let's go to our first panel. As a reminder, we will hold questions until the end of the presentations. Our first panel we first will hear from Edward Flores and Ingrid Brostrom from the UC Merced Community and Labor Center. So with that, you can go ahead.

[Inaudible]

Is it there? I think it's on there.

Thank you.

There you go.

Thank you to the California Assembly for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the UC Merced Community and Labor Center. Last year, following a major flood disaster in Planada, our center conducted a community needs assessment. The Planada Community Needs Assessment estimated residents' unmet need from federal aid and led to a major state allocation. We are here today to share our experience from that study and to share reflections for improved disaster response planning in the State of California.

Planada, located in southeast Merced County, is a rural unincorporated community of roughly 1000 homes and 3700 residents. On January 92023 heavy atmospheric rains inundated southeast Merced County, the local levee system failed, and a major flood disaster ensued. Planada residents experienced profound losses from then calculable value of personal belongings lost to damaged homes, vehicles lost, and time lost at work. Next slide, please. Yet the scale of these losses was not understood in a systemic fashion.

Next slide. In response to the widespread hardship on April 15, 2023, several state and local public officials and community leaders met in Planada to discuss unmet needs stemming from the flood disaster. At the meeting, community members shared that many residents were undocumented and that there were gaps between what federal disaster aid provided for and what residents needed in return. Public officials expressed frustration with the lack of reliable estimates of Planada residents' unmet need.

Next slide. Following the April 15 meeting, our center met with local community leaders to develop and execute the Planada Community Needs Assessment Survey to estimate residents' unmet need from federal aid following the disaster. We developed a survey instrument, designed a household representative sampling method, received institutional review board approval, and trained over a dozen community outreach workers as social science survey interviewers. We spent two full days in the field collecting surveys from 206 out of Planada's 1016 households.

We then analyzed the results and published them as a research and policy brief on our website disaster response. Next slide. The Planada study found that 83% of Planada households experienced at least one form of economic loss following the flood, that 41% of households with flood-damaged property reported being ineligible for federal disaster aid, and that 57% of worker households who experienced job loss reported being ineligible for unemployment insurance.

We also specifically estimated the amount needed to close the gap of unmet need for funding assistance for renters, home inspection, home remediation, vehicles, infrastructure, and public administration and community outreach. Next slide. We presented the findings to community members at a town hall, where they deliberated upon the prioritization of the different identified and estimated unmet needs.

The results informed a $20 million budget request that was successfully championed by state Senator Anna Caballero and Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria and a $20 million budget request that was successfully championed by Assemblymember Robert Rivas for a similar disaster in Pajaro. So I'd like to close. Next slide, please. Sorry, next slide again. I'd like to close with a couple of reflections on what we learned from this experience and what it could mean for the rest of the state.

First, although California has the fifth largest economy in the world, many of its residents lack access to federal aid and the economic safety net. Over 1 million California workers annually contribute an estimated $3.7 billion in local and state taxes, yet are ineligible for federal aid. As global warming increases climate-related disasters, it is more important than ever for the state to begin creating the infrastructure for an economic safety net for all. Second next slide, please.

Community outreach workers who collected surveys during the Planada community needs assessment often play critical roles during major public disasters in California. Our center's research brief, responding to a public health disaster, examines their valuable skills, but also the major employment challenges they face and provides recommendations for professionalizing their work and stabilizing an important component of the state's disaster response infrastructure. Next slide.

Third, public institutions, such as disaster assistance teams located in local agencies across the state and public universities, might follow the same methods we follow to produce reliable estimates of unmet need and inform the state's response to major disasters. In turn, our center has designed a disaster research toolkit called Rapid Assessment of Unmet Need, which is now on our website for anyone to use. My colleague Ingrid Brostrom will now share a little bit about the toolkit. Thank you.

And you can go to the other slide deck if you have it. Great. And you can set on actually, the second slide. It's hard to read. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak before the committee today. The climate crisis is accelerating the frequency of natural disasters. These disasters do not affect everyone. Equally marginalized residents experience significant barriers to federal disaster aid due to difficulties with access and eligibility.

At-risk populations include unhoused individuals, elderly or disabled residents, linguistically or geographically isolated populations, and undocumented immigrants. Many individuals, such as undocumented residents and those without a verifiable address, may be ineligible for federal disaster aid entirely. In the case of Planada, barriers to federal aid affected nearly one out of every three residents. The inability to receive aid not only devastates individuals and families, but it also has broad implications for the entire community.

Residents who are displaced or forced into poverty after a disaster impact every facet of community life, from the local economy to school funding to local infrastructure. This disaster response toolkit is designed to help state and local governments address funding gaps when federal aid does not fully cover property and income loss after a disaster. Estimating losses after a disaster can be a lengthy and complicated process, which only further exacerbates burdens facing vulnerable populations. This toolkit is intended to streamline the disaster needs assessment process through representative sampling.

A well-designed representative survey can provide reliable estimates equivalent to a full population survey in a fraction of the time. The toolkit provides a step-by-step guide on how to rapidly assess unmet needs through four implementation phases. Next slide. Includes assembling the team, designing the survey instrument, conducting the survey, and analyzing and sharing the survey data. The toolkit contains numerous resources and templates, such as a sample survey, a PowerPoint training for local canvassers, and links to online tools to generate maps and randomized samples.

Next slide. One unique feature of the toolkit is its focus on community partnerships. Trust is vitally important in reaching at-risk populations. Community partners are local experts and can identify impacted areas and populations. They can increase the legitimacy of the survey in the eyes of local residents, and they can help administer the survey to residents.

The toolkit provides recommendations on developing survey questions beyond property damage, such as questions on job loss and lost wages, evictions and rent increases, and the potential for future economic loss due to deferred damage, such as mold after a flood. Another set of questions to assess FEMA eligibility, qualification, and the actual amounts of aid received from FEMA or other disaster relief programs. The increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events due to climate change will impact an increasing number of California residents.

We hope that our toolkit can be a helpful resource to public institutions and agencies seeking to connect vulnerable and at-risk population with sufficient aid after a major disaster. You should have been provided with a toolkit today, or you can find it online at the UC Merced Community and Labor Center's publication page. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, Ms. Brostrom was first. Now we'll hear from Kelsey Scanlon, director of emergency management for the County of Monterey. Hopefully, I got that right.

Crushed it. Thank you so much. I'm Kelsey Scanlon, director of emergency management for the County of Monterey. Thank you so much for having me here today. I wanted to talk a little bit about our experience with response and recovery in relation to the community of Pajaro, but also generally from the emergency management perspective. If you could go to the next slide, please. Oh, it's a PowerPoint or a PDF. I'm sorry, it's too large.

I'm actually going to skip this, but I could talk for hours about our strategic forecast for the emergency management sphere. I had originally presented to this governing body in January, sorry, in March. I believe it was March, almost a year exactly to the day, just several days before the Pahara levy broke. And so you'll note the difference between the January and March storms in that.

Yes, January was very impactful and significant for our community, but March was catastrophic for the community of Pajaro, and catastrophe is fairly relevant when you're talking about communities that are in rural areas that are disproportionately impacted, generally marginalized, of low income socioeconomic status. And so you'll see that our incident period was about 68 days, though we do have the proclamation still open for emergency repairs until such time that the levee is actually repaired.

We exhausted our DSW CADRE, and I think most notably, and I'll talk about this in the next slide as well, is that we had 300 water rescues. Next slide, please. And when you talk about water rescues, we're talking about people either being taken from the roof of their home or stranded in a vehicle, much actually like the photo in the background, either by boat or by high water vehicle.

And during this incident, we only had one injury, no fatalities, which is something that we're very proud of. But we were able to do that with the ample state resources that were provided to us with the State National Guard, as well as law enforcement, mutual aid, and Cal Fire support through the XMUY task force. Throughout the county, we had over 10,000 people evacuated. So this included other areas in the Monterey County operational area along the Salinas River, the Carmel River, and the Big Sur River.

In total, after doing 1000 building inspections, we identified approximately 444 buildings that were damaged or destroyed, though those numbers don't adequately reflect the total number of homes impacted by some amount of flood waters. These are based on the FEMA standards about water in proximity to the electrical outlet height of 18 inches, and generally about 3000 homes threatened across the Monterey County operational area. During that time. We provided sheltering for over 500 guests across five different shelters and three temporary evacuation points. Next slide.

We provided rescue and evacuation services. We had drone teams providing 24-hour situational awareness. We provided shelter. We provided local assistance centers. We conducted very aggressive flood-fighting activities. We offered commodity distribution, ample public information, a curbside debris removal program, hygiene hubs, and damage assessments. Next slide. Next slide.

So this is just a quick snapshot of what response into long-term recovery looks like, though there are questions from my colleagues about whether or not this chart needs to be updated in terms of what the expectation is versus what the reality is. But ultimately, you can see the progression from response to long-term recovery. But most importantly, that a lot of these concepts overlap and therefore require some flexibility in policy. Next slide.

So, with our community resource center, we served over 500 persons through our right-of-way debris removal. We provided 10,000 cubic yards of debris removed, and our local assistance center provided over approximately 1200 people services. And our shelter, including non-congregate, was about 600. Next. So we really wanted to commend our CalOES partners, the recovery director in particular, which I believe you'll hear from later on. We were very impressed with their debris removal program. It was a skill and a capability that had been really developed out of the fires that transitioned to assist us in a really novel way to provide curbside debris removal. Fire debris and flood debris are not the same thing and they cannot be treated as such.

But because we have tailored so much of our debris removal programs to wildfire threats and hazards, CalOES had to come up with a different solution on the fly that served communities where there is actually a higher degree of renters living in the homes and access to the property is either limited or unnecessary for them to recover in debris removal. I think one of the things that was most shocking was how different in capability the debris removal program was from the other programs in the recovery directorate.

That capability had really been developed, and it was clear and obvious in how well they were able to support us. And we'd really like to see that continued buildout of capabilities with regards to local assistance centers, care and shelter, individual and public assistance, volunteer agency and private sector coordination, and novel recovery challenges. Ultimately, we would really appreciate more coordination with our public information officers between the state and local level so that we're all clearly saying the same thing and not perpetuating any misinformation.

And then while FEMA does not consider preparedness to be mitigation, knowledge is power and it does help us in reduce impact. And therefore, we fully believe that preparedness is mitigation. And more training on how recovery works before the disaster occurs would be beneficial not just for the local jurisdiction, but for the state in recovering as much money as possible. Next slide. So curbside debris removal. I'm actually not going to hit on this very hard, but the program in total cost us about $1.6 million.

We removed 9000 cubic yards in total, 10,000 in household debris, and 2000 cubic yards in mud just from the right of way. So we had people move their debris to the curb and we removed it for them. A fantastic example of what a novel solution looks like to a novel challenge. Next slide. Actually, on that item in particular, that's a perfect example of cultural sensitivity and equity, right?

You're providing a service for a highly undocumented population that does not exclude them from participating in a program that they need to survive for care and shelter. We really struggled with this, in particular with such a great demand for shelter services. We really had to find a solution that was not a congregate operation after the first several months and realizing that this community did not have the friends family network available to them beyond their community to call upon to help support them.

We also found that, yes, a lot of them received FEMA rental assistance, but just because you get money does not make the housing available. And so those checks either were unable to be used or were used for various other purposes that were very necessary for survival. And also our rental market could not accommodate the amount that was allocated by FEMA.

I think for this one, we have seen a great demand from our local jurisdictions, not just in our county, but across the state, for care and shelter resources. We already have a day-to-day housing crisis occurring, which is fully exacerbated during a disaster. And so our request is that more grant funds be available specifically for care and shelter emergency services staff at the county level through DSS, not just through CalOES.

We've built out our emergency management program, and now we're still relying on Department of Social Services to provide something that was really only intended to be provided once every 10 years, and it's becoming multiple times a year. And then looking more fully at how the state can provide direct care and shelter services, especially as we enter into that gray area between response and recovery. Next step or next slide? Big thanks. Many thanks for the 20 million allocated to Pajaro.

It has been a truly tremendous experience to be able to work with the community to identify what their actual needs are, not what the Federal Government perceives to be their needs and create programs out of that dialogue. And so through several community meetings, we were able to come up with this proposed list of projects to be implemented in the community of Pajaro that we would not have been able to do otherwise.

And you'll see at the very top, creating an unmet flood recovery need for individuals and households, as well as small businesses. And I'll talk about that in a second. And then investing in the community through community grants and then into our infrastructure as well, both day-to-day infrastructure, housing infrastructure, but also our preparedness and response infrastructure as well.

Next slide. This column on the left is actually the most shocking part of this slide, which is that less than half of the population were actually eligible for FEMA assistance, which is heartbreaking. And for the people who were eligible, the process for going through individual assistance is cumbersome and it's dehumanizing. There is no dignity in having to justify your losses repeatedly and to constantly be denied. And the bureaucratic process requires an education level far beyond what most Americans have.

From a local jurisdiction perspective, it is also difficult. This is our business, and we struggle to navigate the FEMA, IA, and PA process, and so creating our own Pajaro unmet needs disaster assistance program, essentially, what is an IA program at the local level, we've been able to find areas of flexibility to put faces and names to cases, to stories, to experiences, to disaster trauma, and meet them halfway.

Where did the Federal Government fail or where did they stop, and where can we meet that difference and creating it in such a way that is both culturally sensitive and adequate for them to actually not just recover, but honestly survive? To this day, many of them are still very much living in the same state that they were a year ago. I will say that there are many nuances to the FEMA IA program that have been difficult for the county to overcome.

We've essentially created this program out of thin air with very little guidance to help us avoid duplication of benefit and reduce risk for the individual and household, as well as for the county as well. We spent a lot of time working with the County of Merced to see where we can share ideas, but ultimately it really is beyond our capacity to provide this type of program regularly. But it is very needed.

And so our ask is that the state, who is in a very great position, being that you also contract for disaster case management services through Catholic Charities for this particular disaster. You already have the infrastructure set up, you already have the relationships, and you already have the ability to access data that would reduce duplication of benefits that would greatly benefit all of our residents in the State of California, but also Monterey County.

And so we're asking that you prioritize grants for communities that have suffered from disasters, but also develop a state individual assistance program. Next slide. This is a quick snapshot of what the sequence of delivery looks like. So when we say no duplication of benefits, it's a small sentence, but it has a lot of implications. There's a lot of risk to that.

And so when we talk about sequence of delivery, this is the process by which FEMA ensures that no individual, household, or person receives more than what they have a right to, essentially. And so we plugged in at the end of this process to ensure that all persons going through our program have actually been able to fully maximize their eligibility for these programs. And then the delta between what they need and what they've received is what we provide through this program.

And we're doing that in partnership with the State of California, contracted disaster case managers. So we've already really tapped into the system that you've already created. Next slide. I'm sorry, I'm trying to go so fast. Small business recovery. This is one that I don't think is talked about often, but our small businesses are the backbone of the State of California economy. In 2022, we identified that 4.2 million small businesses in California represented 99.8% of our overall market. That's quite significant, if not all of our business.

7.4 million of those small businesses employed 47.9% of California employees. There is no federal program for relief for small businesses. There is a loan program with a low interest rate. That is not recovery relief. That is not disaster relief. And it's honestly inappropriate and insulting to our small businesses to think of a small interest loan to be disaster recovery. 40% of small businesses never reopen after a natural disaster occurs. We have seen this in the community of Pajaro.

90% of businesses experience or will never, sorry. 90% of businesses that experience a business interruption close forever after a natural disaster. These are statistics from the Federal Government through FEMA and the SBA. It is quite possibly the most heartbreaking thing to see the backbone of our communities fail because we have not been able to create a local, state, or federal program to assist them. So we've created a small business recovery program, and we'd like the state to consider doing something similar. Next slide.

I could talk about this one for hours, so you can call me back for another day for this one. Next slide. We had a lot of public works damage to the tune of. Next slide. Over 102 eligible response and recovery expenditures that are eligible for FEMA public assistance between 2019 and 2023. So six federal disasters in six years for a system that was really only intended to service once every decade is exhaustive.

Of 102 million, 82 million are eligible for a direct check from FEMA, of which 7 million have actually been obligated. And what that means is we have the paperwork submitted to FEMA. They have only approved paperwork that we have submitted to them for 7 million of that $82 million. So there's an administrative backlog. And of that 7 million, we've maybe received 2 to 4 million in actual monies for seven years. And David Reid will talk about his experiences. But this is exhaustive of our local budget.

We're fortunate in that we're a very well-resourced county and we're very conservative in how we spend and save money. But this is far beyond what we are able to withstand in terms of risk. Next slide. Emergency management has drastically changed. 1940, emergency management came out of the civil defense concept after World War I has obviously greatly changed since we're no longer really talking about civil defense.

There was some nuclear fallout shenanigans in the '70s, and then in the 1980s, we saw some about on average 3.3 $1 billion disasters annually throughout the decade. Since then, just in 2023, we've seen 28 1 billion disasters nationwide that is catastrophically compounding on each other. Our office really became a division of the CAO, the County Administrative Office, in 1990, right?

This past year, we became a standalone department and have now a staff of 15 people to accommodate the exacerbated demand on our department for Services and resources in a disaster and is easily justifiable. So the purpose for which we started has quite considerably changed to today. Unfortunately, funding for those services has not increased in any commensurate manner by which the demand for service has. And so our ask is that the state direct a greater share of federal grants to local emergency management.

Next slide. Short of this long is we really appreciated Director Ward bringing everyone together this past winter to look at how we can rebuild our relationship, look at how we can move forward, look at how as a state and individually as operational areas, we can reevaluate how emergency management works in the community, but also how we leverage our policies and procedures and where we can change them to meet the needs of the community, not our perception of what the community needs. And so we really appreciate that opportunity, and I think it really is a step in the right direction. And with that, I'm sorry I took so much time. It was way more than five minutes. I will hand it over to David Reid.

Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. And now we'll hear from David Reid, director of the Santa Cruz County Office of Response, Recovery and Resilience. When you're ready, sir.

Thank you, Chair. I'll be quick and try and put another finer point on the financials behind the important work that you're proposing in your opening remarks and how critical those bills and that legislation is. So next slide.

So I'm going to highlight some public assistance focused requests and some individual assistance focused requests in the context of our local, state, and federal disaster framework and the importance that we reimagine the systems that we have in place in response to disaster.

So we talk about resilience from a human standpoint. We talk about resilience from an infrastructure and home standpoint, and what we really need to do--and the bills that you're proposing, Chair, are really about resilience and the system--the systems of support and recovery that our state and federal and local governments need. Next slide. So, as my colleague mentioned, in 2023, federally, nationwide, 28 billion dollar disasters. As Kelsey mentioned, in the 80s, there were a total of 33 in the decade of the 80s. In the last five years alone, we've had 102 billion dollar disasters nationwide. So FEMA was not designed for a system of this frequency, right?

And they are not able to recover and respond and pay and reimburse us for the damages when they're facing 28 billion dollar disasters nationwide. Next slide. That trickles down. This is just another reiteration of that over time. You can see in the 80s all the way to the present, the nature of disasters and the magnitude of increase over time. Next slide. This is just in the State of California the billion dollar disasters that we've had since the 1980s.

Again, the State of California, CDAA, Cal OES, was not designed for the frequency and intensity of these disasters, and we need to change the systems of support that are at the state and federal level to get more money to community to get the right reimbursements in a more timely manner because--next slide--I'll start to show how that impacts local government. So, not unlike Monterey County, Santa Cruz County: seven federally declared disasters in the last six years, we have the auspicious designation as the most vulnerable county in the state to landslide based on FEMA.

And we are just a very small but very vulnerable on the front lines of climate change county. And how that impacts us--next slide--is that the financial impacts of these disasters--so this bar chart, the colors show the financial impacts: 140 plus billion dollars--or million dollars. Sorry. 140,000,000 dollars in 2017, eclipsing that in 2023. The colored bars are the cost of the disasters that we've experienced over the last seven years.

The gray bars are our General Fund tax revenue. So a disaster is eclipsing all of our revenue capacity at this local level. Next slide. From just the last seven years to articulate what's going on, right, so our county, second smallest geographic county in the state, over almost 250,000,000 dollars in damage. We've gotten some of that obligated through FEMA. We're sitting on about 140,000,000 dollars in unobligated or unpaid claims to FEMA.

What that means is that we are looking at having to finance about 85,000,000 dollars in damage costs, go out and get bonds to cover those costs. That will leverage us up to about our maximum ability financially. So we are putting ourselves in a place that we are trying because of the delays of the federal government in reimbursing us to pay for our recovery. But we don't have the financial means to continue to do that year over year.

So we really do need a couple specific things that I'm going to get to in the ask because of this financial impact from these disasters. Next slide. So I want to break down the importance into public assistance and individual assistance. So we were grateful for Cal OES's advance, CDAA advance on category a and category b, funds that we incurred due to the 2023 disasters.

However, we need--because of those delays on the federal government side in reimbursement for permanent work categories c through g--we need to expand. We need a dedicated funding source, as you're looking for, Chair. We need a dedicated funding source to help us at the government level with some of that permanent work because those delays from FEMA three, five, seven years are crippling us financially. We also need to take some lessons learned from the mitigation side of Cal OES.

The mitigation arm of Cal OES does an amazing technical assistance job, helping local jurisdictions try to access the mitigation dollars available at the federal level. But we need that same technical assistance with FEMA PA support so that we as a state, we as a local government can be more efficient and get our paperwork done. And it's always a moving target with FEMA.

Don't get me started on the Covid Congregate 20-Day Ruling, but we need that technical assistance so that we can all become more efficient at getting those monies back from the federal government. And then the other thing, to just reiterate what my colleague said, support in the non-congregate sheltering space is critical, as these disasters are very impactful to community and bearing that cost at the local government level is not sustainable. And then next slide.

So on the individual assistance side, and I'll just finish with this, the proposed work that you're doing here in this Committee to create an individual assistance program is critical. We definitely need a state individual assistance program. Our county got the most federal individual assistance of any county for both disasters last year, which is a testament to the need in our community. But it's not enough. What ends up happening in the disasters that we experienced in 2023 and also the disasters that we're experiencing now points to Item Number Two, which is people are deathly afraid of losing their insurance.

So we've got folks that live in the Wildland Urban Interface. They're in a high fire severity area, and they're on the teetering edge of getting their insurance pulled. So they are subject to federally declared disasters or just disasters that we've had this year.

And they are afraid to use those resources, their insurance resources, to pay for the damages because they're afraid of losing their coverage. So we need support from our state legislative body to build a more stable insurance market so that our community members can access the federal dollars, right? They can't access the federal Individual Assistance dollars, as Kelsey mentioned, from a duplications of benefit standpoint, unless they exhaust their home insurance. If they're afraid to use their home insurance, they can't even access that federal Individual Assistance dollars.

So we really need to build some security for folks in the insurance market. And lastly, I'll say that, you know, we as Santa Cruz County have been tremendously impacted by disaster. Every county in the state has been impacted, but we all compete for limited mitigation dollars and we all have vulnerable populations. And I think what we need is consistent, sustained funding that we can build programming, build resilience for our community, and not be competing with each other.

So there needs to be a base level of funding for those most vulnerable communities, those most impacted communities, those most financially constrained counties and communities like Santa Cruz County because we are financially strapped, given the nature of the disasters that we've experienced, and we need that funding support. So with that, I'll stop and I'll hand it to the next speaker.

Once again, thank you, Mr. Reid. Now we'll hear from our final panelist, Collette Curtis, Recovery and Economic Development Director for the Town of Paradise. When you're ready.

Good afternoon, Chairman Rodriguez, Distinguished Members of the State Assembly Committee on Emergency Management. Thank you for this opportunity to address you today on this critical topic of communities recovering from disasters. My name is Colette Curtis. I'm the Recovery and Economic Development Director for the Town of Paradise. I'm here representing that resilient community, which faced crushing challenges after the 2018 Camp Fire.

During that fire that broke out on November 8th, 2018, 153,000 acres were burned, 11,000 homes were lost, and 85 people lost their lives. And I wish to express our sincere gratitude to the state for your generous assistance, support that has played a pivotal role in our recovery journey thus far. In the past five years since the devastating Camp Fire, the Town of Paradise has made significant strides towards recovery.

Our population has rebounded to 10,000 residents, which represents 37 percent of our pre-fire population of 26,500 and we have successfully rebuilt nearly 2,800 housing units. Over 350 businesses are operating in our community, which is down from 1,200 before the fire. According to the State Department of Finance, Paradise is the fastest growing city in the State of California for the past two years running. We're very proud of that statistic.

Our recovery started immediately after the Camp Fire with the removal of debris under the FEMA-funded Cal OES Debris Removal Program and it was completed nine months after the disaster. That program removed 2.5 million tons of debris. It was a significant effort. Additionally, the Government Tree Removal Program, also funded through FEMA and administered through Cal OES, removed 28,000 trees rooted on private property within the Town of Paradise alone, contributing to a safer and more resilient environment.

This program was the first of its kind and was the result of collaborative and creative discussions on how best to recover from wildfires with our federal and state partners. Building back responsibly and resiliently has been the goal of our recovery from the very start. In addition to state and Wildland Urban Interface or WUI building codes, we have local overlays which were designed with the Department of Insurance's Safer from Wildfires standards in mind, and those have been put in place as a requirement for rebuilding.

Those local standards incorporate science-backed, proven practices to enhance our community's resilience against future disasters. The Town of Paradise is committed to enhancing community awareness of future emergencies through the construction of 21 evacuation sirens over the past year. We are actively working on improving evacuation routes, road configurations, and transportation infrastructure, including installing center turn lanes and paved walking and biking paths to increase our evacuation capacity while also maintaining our quality of life for residents.

Connecting evacuation routes for accessibility and circulation improvements during emergencies is also a top priority and we are actively working on several roadway connection projects that will significantly improve evacuation safety. These projects are funded through Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery or CDBG-DR funds.

Though I would like to note, while these funds are considered to be the last funds for disaster recovery and meant to fill unmet needs, the Town of Paradise still has substantial need for safety and mitigation projects that is not being met through this funding. As an example, through CDBG-DR infrastructure, the Town of Paradise applied for projects totaling over 815,000,000 dollars, which would have funded identified evacuation improvement and mitigation projects in Paradise.

The town was awarded 199,000,000 dollars, a significant and generous amount. However, that covers only 25 percent of our identified need. It is important to mention here, as I discuss our infrastructure accomplishments and vision, that I also note Paradise's efforts with infrastructure are hampered by the lack of infrastructure to begin with.

Before the fire, Paradise was a bedroom community of 26,500 people with a median income lower than the rest of our region, a higher percentage of seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities, and a very strong sense of community pride. Fully built out and situated on a ridge between two canyons, basic infrastructure was minimal. Paradise and other disadvantaged communities like Paradise often lack what would be considered basic infrastructure in other communities.

Sidewalks, stormwater and drainage infrastructure, wastewater collection and disposal, and fair road service condition are examples of the types of infrastructure that disadvantaged communities often do not have even before disaster strikes. As disadvantaged communities like Paradise recover from a major disaster, this lack of infrastructure became a major barrier to full recovery. Funding to repair sidewalks damaged by a disaster can be found, but funding to install sidewalks where none existed so the disaster-affected community can rebuild does not usually exist.

The disparity between disadvantaged communities and those that are not is significant when it comes to funding for basic community needs. The Town of Paradise has been fortunate to work with many thoughtful, creative, collaborative recovery partners at the local, state, and federal level who worked with us and within the existing system to address these disparities. And I want to highlight that that work was as vital and foundational for our recovery and for other communities like Paradise.

While we in Paradise are proud of our progress, we acknowledge that there is still much work ahead. There are significant challenges when it comes to our unfunded priority needs like evacuation, infrastructure, and sewer. The availability and affordability of insurance is also a barrier. Insurance is an issue across this state and the country, and in Paradise, we are no different.

While we have made major changes to the way we maintain defensible space, the way we build our homes and businesses, and the way we look at our community risk as a whole, insurance rates have yet to catch up. Looking ahead to our next five years of recovery, the Town of Paradise is both hopeful and pragmatic. We find ourselves in a position we never imagined: here with you today, eager to share the lessons we've learned, and committed to advocating for other communities facing or preparing for disasters. We are grateful for the ongoing support of the state, and we respectfully ask for your continued assistance in the areas where it is needed most.

Well, thank you. I think that's a conclusion to our first panel. So now, my colleagues, any questions? Go ahead. Assembly Member Arambula, you have a question?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll begin with Dr. Flores, if I could. Under your reflections, you speak about those who are ineligible for federal aid. And we heard about the effect that this has not only on the individuals and families, but on the school districts and on the local municipalities that miss out when we have individuals who are not qualifying.

Can you speak more explicitly about, if you're talking about unemployment insurance or about individual assistance or both, and ways in which we can support community who currently is unable to receive federal resources?

Thank you for that question. So my comments in regards to the lack of eligibility that many California workers have for unemployment insurance is with the understanding that to create such a system would take time, and given the increasing frequency of climate-related disasters and the intensity of them, that now is a good time to begin thinking about how to build the infrastructure for such a system because the infrastructure would have to be built first, right? So that's what my comments were referring to.

On the next page, you talk about community outreach workers and the need to professionalize their services. Can you share the differences between community health workers and community outreach workers and what's different?

Absolutely. That's a great question. So we refer to them as community outreach workers. They could also be referred to as community health workers. Oftentimes, the very people that the state relies upon to do public health outreach have a variety of skills.

And so we saw this during 2020 when there was a census Education and Outreach, that promotoras, community health care workers, were spreading the message about the importance of filling out the census form to make sure that California did not have an undercount and lose political power. So the challenges that community outreach workers face, promotoras and others, is that with the passage of AB 5, undocumented folks that used to work as independent contractors can no longer work as independent contractors.

What we've identified in that policy brief that I had mentioned, responding to a public health disaster, is the need for funding to support the development of co-ops among undocumented immigrants, who are the trusted messengers in many of these rural communities that have relationships with the community that do census outreach and public health outreach and also conducted surveys during the Planada disaster. So creating the brief describes the need to invest in the infrastructure so that these workers can create co-ops.

Because even though undocumented folks cannot work as employees under federal law, they can be business owners. So self-employed, having employee-owned co-ops would be a mechanism for them to be able to continue doing this work that would build the disaster infrastructure for the state.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Assembly Member Bennett, question?

Thank you very much. And I'm glad I had an opportunity to look at the material, but I really appreciate the long-term efforts you've made and what you folks are doing in terms of trying to say, 'how can we get aid to the people that are just falling through the cracks?' So we need to tighten the safety net up.

So my question that I'm going to ask--I just want to emphasize--does not mean I don't want us to go full on in terms of trying to do that, but at the same time, if we just take a look at the big picture with climate change coming, with more disasters coming, there simply will not be enough resources to take care of all the disasters.

And a significant effort also--not separate from--but also needs to go to try to find ways to decrease those impacts or prepare communities better for those impacts. An example I would give is flood insurance at the federal government that FEMA requires if you're in the flood zone. You've got to have flood insurance. Well, that just dramatically helps when these things happen. And flood insurance might be somewhat of a hardship, but it's not the hardship that rebuilding your home would be for these people.

That's a pretty straightforward one, but I think we have to be much more creative and talk about all of the concepts that go with that. A recognition that you're moving into a place that has higher risk, a recognition that you therefore have to take some more responsibility for that, a recognition that you have to have insurance or we have to have a community invest in hazard mitigation. And there's a good write up about that in there.

But I just want to make sure that it's two prongs because there just won't be enough resources for the climate change disasters that we're going to have coming forward. Thank you very much.

May I comment on that? So one of the things that we really struggle with, and I think along the lines of what you're talking about is mitigation, right? The FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is really predominantly set up to assist local jurisdictions in capital improvement projects on public land. And until recently, I believe BRIC is the only other grant program federally that's available to incentivize private property owners to reduce risk on their own property.

We have tried to leverage the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program to do a Home Hardening and Defensible Space Program, but we found the BCA, the benefit cost analysis tool, to be inequitable. We found that the monitoring requirements were so cumbersome to be almost impossible to overcome for the private property owner. And frankly, the ability of actually paying for it was also quite cumbersome in that they would not actually see a check for maybe five to six years after they had already done the work.

And frankly, I think if people could afford to do the work, they would just rather do it than have the federal government help them. And then in addition to that, there's a variety of other requirements that they're required to participate in for the useful life of the structure. And so, quite frankly, the federal Hazard Mitigation Program has failed us. We spend a good portion of money that goes towards that program, and very rarely is it actually used or leveraged.

And if it is, it's not for private property owners. So I would encourage this governing body to really reevaluate how the state can support private property owners in reducing the risk on their own property, in addition to supporting local jurisdictions. Actually, the Town of Paradise is a perfect example of how can we create green spaces or spaces around the infrastructure that we've built that reduce the overall risk to the community? But there are, as she will tell you, many private land use issues and zoning issues related to creating resilient spaces.

So, yeah, I did say it was going to be easy. And so I don't know why you don't have it solved yet, right? I certainly recognize very difficult, very complicated. All the more reason for us to be creative and be bold and try to cut through all that regulatory red tape and try to come up with something that works. But I appreciate you pointing all of those obstacles out there.

I support you in that endeavor.

Well, thank you. I had a couple of questions, but one particular. Counsel, you said in your presentation about better coordination with agencies, what are we missing that we're not coordinating, that we need to do a better job of?

So under the Standardized Emergency Management System, the state is really our advocate with the federal government. It's difficult, if not unprofessional, to go around the state and talk directly to FEMA to try to broker resources and programs and policy decisions. And so we have to rely on Cal OES to broker those resources for us. And typically, we find a great delay in the messaging that's come down from FEMA, if at all, ever, and what that means for us when we implement policies.

And so I think there's a very--I know everyone's going to be very surprised by this--but there's a lot of Catch 22s in federal and state policy, and that coordination between the local jurisdiction, the state, and the federal government could be greater in transparency of correspondence. So we are required to submit letters requesting resources in certain periods of time, depending on the type of resource we're requesting.

There's very little transparency about whether or not that is actually relayed to the federal government, when it is relayed, when the state receives a response back, and to what degree the state is required to provide us that response in relation to when they've received it. For instance, my understanding is that we submitted a request for non-congregate sheltering to FEMA, and the letter for denial actually sat with the state for two months while we had been operating the program. So greater coordination and transparency about when things are received, when they're transmitted, and when a response is received back.

Okay, interesting. I know right now, obviously in California, we've been dealing with the floods and then the fires, but how do we start to look at--as I've talked about before--being prepared to respond to two major disasters simultaneously? To me, we haven't had that earthquake and it's coming, and when we're talking about the insurance issues and the cost of what fires and floods are doing, but we haven't even compared to what an earthquake is going to do, the type of disaster is going to do infrastructure.

So how should we--or have you guys already started looking in your own areas that, hey, we got to start looking at two major disasters? I don't know if you have, but shouldn't we be looking at that throughout the state, that two things can happen at the same time? So if we're already struggling with one, how will we be able to balance two at the same time?

I totally agree that that is a great concern. Even with the pandemic and trying to provide congregate sheltering during wildfire evacuations in 2020 was quite difficult for us. And two back-to-back federal disasters means we've exhausted our financial resources as well as our contractual resources, as well as our disaster service workers. We've seen significant burnout.

And so from the local level, we are doing an exhaustive revamping of our DSW program so that we're ensuring all 5,000 Monterey County employees are able to serve and not just the small handful of people who keep raising their hands. And so I think this is kind of what we're talking about when we say resilience and creating a cultural paradigm shift.

Resources are allocated for local jurisdictions based on what our leadership at the local, state, and federal level are really interested in putting resources and information and attention towards. And we have seen that shift with this past winter, and I really appreciate that. And it has been extraordinary to see what we can actually do with those committed resources. And it's really opened my eyes because the community is changing. They're living with this risk daily and they're living through trauma regularly.

I can count on one hands how many times I've personally been evacuated from a home over my time here in the State of California, and that is a multigenerational trauma. And that ultimately changes the perspective of the generations coming up into government, coming up into the community as community leaders. And so my hope is that for people coming into the space, that we realize that health and emergency preparedness are two of our greatest challenges.

And they are very much entwined with infrastructure, with housing, with commodities, with food, with agriculture. And so when we look at emergency management, we should really be looking at it much like health in all policies and looking at how we can create sustainable programs, not just programs that are intended to be leveraged once every decade. And I think we have focused so much on placing funds at the federal level that we've really discouraged any capability or capacity development at the local level.

Of the 12 jurisdictions in Monterey County, approximately none of them have a dedicated emergency manager. They all fall under fire or law, and that's because of the resources that are allocated for them. And so there is a greater need for resources at the local level and at the state level. But the federal programs that we have been leveraging are struggling to meet up with the new demand.

Okay, well, thank you very much. I really want to thank everybody from the first panel on your presentations, and I'm the type of--California always likes to lead on a lot of things, and I think we should really evaluate ourselves and be the leader when it comes to disaster preparedness and response for our state. So really, thanks again, and we'll move on to our second panel. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much, sir.

Good afternoon, Chair Rodriguez and Members of the Committee. My name is Robert Troy, Assistant Director of Interagency Recovery Coordination at Cal OES. I want to thank you first of all for the invitation to speak today on the role of Cal OES in disaster recovery efforts. I'd like to briefly touch on our role during the response phase of a disaster before going to a little more detail on the recovery side of things.

Cal OES is at the forefront of the state's incident response efforts during preparedness, response and recovery, ensuring effective emergency management situational awareness and coordination during crises. Response activities encompass immediate actions aimed at saving lives, safeguarding property, and meeting essential human needs in the aftermath of disasters or threats. A key aspect of response is reinforcing local efforts by coordinating state level resources, including government agencies, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations.

This coordination follows the state's standardized emergency management system guidelines, which are consistent with the National Incident Management System, or ensuring a unified and efficient response. The state's recovery efforts begin on day one of the event and are concurrent with our response efforts. We continue to be dedicated to ensuring that we begin right alongside as soon as the disaster hits. We start from a firm position of partnership and well established relationships with recovery partners at all levels of government.

You'll hear soon from some of our key recovery partners at CDSS and HCD, and we thank them for their partnership. From initial response and throughout recovery, Cal OES works hand in hand with local governments to support their efforts. We stand with them from beginning to end, fighting for every dollar or resource from every federal and state program we can tap.

We want our local partners to know we will be there with them at the onset of the incident, through the turbulent times managing the incident, and until recovery efforts have been successfully completed. Our goal is to work hand in hand with recovery partners to identify unmet community needs and leverage every available recovery resource to fill those gaps and to provide the best possible support to locally led recovery efforts.

There's an often quoted saying in emergency management that all disasters start and end locally, and that's certainly true. But at Cal EOS it is our firm conviction that local communities should not have to do that alone. Cal EOS plays a vital role in working with local governments immediately following emergencies and facilitating the declaration request and approval process for disaster proclamations. We collaborate with affected jurisdictions as well as state and federal stakeholders to assist in the development of declaration requests.

This includes State of Emergency Proclamations, California Disaster Assistance Act funding request, or presidentially declared major disaster declarations. As mentioned earlier, all disasters start locally. The first step in the disaster process is for a local jurisdiction to proclaim a local emergency and, if the local authority determines the event exceeds their ability to respond to and recover from the incident, may request that the Governor proclaim a State of Emergency.

If a disaster is of such severity that state resources are overwhelmed, the Governor may request assistance from the Federal Government. Based on the Governor's request, the President may declare that a major disaster or emergency exists, thus activating an array of federal programs to assist in the response and recovery effort. Generally speaking, there are two types of disaster declarations provided for in the Stafford Act, emergency declarations and major disaster declarations. Both declaration types authorize the President to provide supplemental federal disaster assistance.

An emergency declaration, which is fairly uncommon for California, can be declared for any occasion or instance when the President determines federal assistance is needed. This support is generally limited to direct federal assistance, which allows FEMA to mission task other federal agencies for support to California. This is something that we experienced during last year's storm events where we did have some notice compared to a fire to allow us to kind of bring in federal partners sooner rather than later to provide direct federal assistance.

But it is a point that can sometimes cause confusion because it does not authorize federal reimbursement for state or local expenses. A major disaster declaration is made for any natural event that the President believes has caused damage of such severity that it is beyond the combined capabilities of state and local governments to respond. A major disaster declaration provides a wide range of federal assistance programs for individuals and public entities, including funds for both emergency and permanent work.

This includes event types of any natural catastrophe, including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm or drought, or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion. And that's something also that people frequently don't have clarity on in terms of what types of events are eligible. And so the key, therefore, the non natural disasters would be, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, which is a question that we frequently receive.

We work closely with FEMA to implement approved programs which can include the public assistance, individual assistance, and hazard mitigation programs of which you've already heard some feedback from some of our well experienced local partners. We also engage on voluntary agency support. We provide support to vulnerable communities through coordination with our dedicated voluntary agency liaisons. The role of the VAL, also known as VAL's, and their role is to establish, foster, and maintain relationships among government, voluntary, faith based, and community partners.

The support is vital to our efforts to fill gaps in state and federal assistance programs and to ensure the delivery of inclusive and equitable services and empower and strengthen capabilities of communities. In particular, we also utilize the Listos California Program, which builds resiliency to ensure the state's most vulnerable populations are ready when disaster strikes.

Listos California partners with local trusted messengers, community based organizations, federally recognized tribal nations in California, and community emergency response teams to leverage a grassroots field strategy to help vulnerable populations prepare for respond to earning cover from emergencies. In the latest round of grant funding, Listos California grantees included 93 community partners. Listos California partners successfully reached 1 million engagements in just 11 months since the work began in July of 2022.

I'll briefly cover the declaration process, which begins with the initial damage estimate, or IDE, phase of the disaster. When a governing body submits its local proclamation of emergency at the Cal EOS, the package should include an initial damage estimate, also known as an IDE, which is the local government's identification of the impacts and local response and recovery activities.

The IDE assists Cal EOS to understand the jurisdiction's damages and determine whether or not to request a joint preliminary damage assessment, also known as a PDA, with FEMA and the Small Business Administration and those joint preliminary damage assessments, known as PDA's, are called into play when an incident approaches the level of a major disaster, at which time the state may request the joint PDA with FEMA, which determines impacts on individuals in public facilities and ultimately the types of federal assistance that may be needed during a joint PDA.

We partner with FEMA, local and tribal governments, and certain PNP's to estimate and document the impact and magnitude of the incident. When a severe catastrophic incident occurs, the Governor or Tribal Chief Executive may submit a declaration request prior to completion of the PDA, and the requirement there is that the damage and severity is able to be verified to reach the indicators or thresholds without going through the PDA process, and that it is self evident through other means.

So it takes a pretty sizable catastrophic incident to get that turned on, and even then it's generally only a partial declaration. So we'll still ultimately need to go through and do those PDA's. Generally speaking, before I wrap up, I'd like to touch on assistance available under major disaster declarations and briefly discuss the FEMA declaration process. So not all programs are activated for every disaster.

Of note, the most recent declaration, major disaster declaration for San Diego, was solely for the Individual Assistance Program and then also the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, but not the Public Assistance Program, which reimburses state and local costs for public entities and certain PNP's. The determination is authorized is based on the types of assistance specified in the request, but more importantly, meeting the indicators or thresholds as identified by our FEMA partners.

Their programs include, as mentioned earlier, individual assistance, which is assistance to individuals and households that may include different types of housing assistance and other needs assistance, which is generally reimbursement for losses of personal property and other items necessary to maintain a household.

There's also the public assistance program, which is available to state, tribal, and local governments and under certain circumstances, some private nonprofits for emergency work in the repair or replacement of disaster damaged facilities and then hazard mitigation assistance for actions taken to prevent or reduce long term risk to life and property from natural hazards.

As far as the declaration criteria, it's pretty complex, but I'll try and hit at least the high levels, the main factors that FEMA looks at in terms of making recommendations of a governor's request for a declaration for public assistance. While no single factor is determinative, generally speaking, FEMA will only authorize the public assistance program if the estimated cost of estimated eligible cost exceed annually adjusted per capita thresholds across the county and the state in need.

So for FY 24, the per capita threshold is a dollar and $0.84, which comes out to about $73 million for the statewide threshold. And then the county indicators are based off of a cost of $4.60 per resident. So, to put it plainly, the county both needs to hit its indicator, but also the state needs to hit the $73 million of eligible state cost as well.

For individual assistance, there are six primary factors, state fiscal capacity and resource availability, uninsured home and personal property losses, the disaster impacted population profile, the impact to community infrastructure casualties from a disaster, and disaster related unemployment. But the two factors that they look at most closely and that really hinge the determination for whether or not recommending yes or no are the first two really it's the state's fiscal capacities and their uninsured home and personal property losses.

So that's kind of putting it at a very high level. I'm certainly happy in question to answer if you'd like to provide more detail on that. So in conclusion, as the effects of climate change continue to increase the frequency and severity of disasters. The need to increase disaster recovery capabilities at all levels of government, and in partnership with the private sector in particular, is greater than ever.

As the ongoing recovery processes continue for multiple disaster events across our state, Cal EOS will continue to be firmly engaged, helping to rebuild our communities and supporting those that have been affected. I want to thank you again for your time this afternoon, and I'm available for any questions that the community may have.

Thank you very much. Next we'll hear from the Palmer Social Services Director, Kim Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Kim Johnson California Department of Social Services and Social Services has a variety of roles and responsibilities, but for the purposes of this conversation today, I'll focus on those serving immigrant communities. As has been discussed and in the previous panel, undocumented Californians are ineligible for much of the FEMA individual and housing assistance programs that provide that financial assistance and direct services to individuals and households after a disaster.

Also would note that many undocumented communities are also fearful of the possible immigration consequences of receiving government assistance due to misinformation about the public charge immigration rules. So many don't turn to government assistance after a disaster starting actually, in the previous Administration, Governor Brown's Administration, the California Department of Social Services, has supported immigrant serving organizations seeking to provide financial assistance and navigation support to undocumented communities after natural disasters. Actually, beginning in 2015, CDSS began funding immigrant serving organizations across the state to provide immigration legal services.

Many of these organizations are trusted sources of information for immigrant communities in places where people seek assistance in times of need. So after the devastating Northern California wildfires in 2017, immigrant serving organizations reached out to the Department requesting funding to provide recovery assistance to families.

Since 2017, the state has relied on a combination of disaster response emergency operations account, or DREOA funds and later, rapid response funding state general funds to provide support for immigrants who are impacted by natural disasters and other emergencies and excluded from those other relief. The state has periodically made funding available to social services develop one time ad hoc disaster recovery services for this population in partnership with nonprofits.

In 2019, the state created the statutory framework and authority for a rapid response fund in welfare and institutions, code sections 13400 and through 13408 to provide critical assistance to immigrants during times of needs, kind of above and beyond disaster emergent needs as they develop. With these funds, CDSS has administered projects to support recovery efforts in response to floods. Covid-19 responses to wildfires have been funded through DREOA, because there's no existing infrastructure to provide disaster services to undocumented communities.

For each project, social services was tasked with quickly developing programs and providing supports for nonprofits to implement. This includes drafting eligibility guidelines and policies, developing intakes, staff trainings, identifying vendors to issue payments, and at times, identifying regional lead organizations who could fund smaller organizations and assist with reporting and grant management. In addition so for this latest round in 2023, the Storm Assistance for Immigrants was developed and that was focused on the storms that we have discussed.

The Storm Assistance for Immigrants Project serves 25 adversely impacted counties as a parity program for federal disaster assistance and provides relief services for individuals and families ineligible for FEMA. The Storm Assistance Project was launched in June of 2023 to distribute approximately $80 million in recovery assistance to individuals. Through this project, CDSS funds nonprofit organizations in impacted communities to provide that direct assistance to eligible persons impacted by the storms. Qualifying adults receive one $500 and children under 18 receive $500, with a maximum of $4,500 per household.

A household is defined as an individuals who live and purchase and prepare meals together. Services include, but are not limited to, case management, one time direct financial assistance, language access, donation procurement, knowing your rights, trainings, and other supportive activities needed. As of the end of February of this year, the initial $80 million in funding has been dispersed.

The community partners have now been able to administer a second allocation of $11.7 million made available in September of 2023 to storm impacted counties with high farm worker populations that excluded Merced and Monterey, who received an additional $20 million separately on that space, and so over 56,378 individuals were served through February 25th of this year. The outreach is critical, and you heard again in your first panel about this piece. It's occurring again through trusted messengers relationships including service providers.

Providers were selected in our initiative based on their effectiveness in reaching and providing services to undocumented populations and their local relationships with community based organizations. Many selected organizations were already providing some level of recovery services and utilizing the existing networks to identify eligible clients. Social media and media outreach is limited as relational, word of mouth and referrals from local partners are expected to be the most effective in reaching impacted communities.

This strategy of targeted outreach conducted by the CBO's is also employed to mitigate against fraud broader media campaigns may unnecessarily call attention to. The program would also just note that we had a 1-800 line in eight different languages stood up to really again connect people to the resources that they have. Just in terms of your question around some lessons learned that I want to highlight in this space. Privacy and confidentiality critical protecting privacy and confidentiality of all program applicants and recipient recipients.

I mentioned again public charge. Given public charge considerations, many individuals are hesitant to enroll. So that trusted messenger piece is key. Language access, again, I'm going to underscore just ensuring that the linguistically diverse and richness of our state that we are reaching and meeting people with language lines, ensuring translation of materials.

Also financial literacy undocumented communities have varied levels of financial literacy, so cash assistance programs may require additional funding to allow service providers to guide recipients through processes such as the use of ATM machines, et cetera, and also should consider payment issuances such as paper checks and prepaid debit cards. And then again, the capacity and looking at how we build that over time, we do have a lot of other programs. Disaster Calfresh, you heard. We also support mass care and shelter.

We work on priority populations and vulnerable populations, and also the longer term connection to safety net for those survivors who may not be previously engaged with our safety net services, getting that connection made to those who need them. So I'm happy to go to any of those other places at the pleasure of the Committee.

Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Director Johnson. Finally, we'll hear from Jenny Cho, assistant Deputy Director for Federal Financial Assistance, Department of Housing and Community Development, when you're ready, Jenny.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair Rodriguez and Members of the Committee. I'm Jenny Cho with the Department of Housing and Community Development, where I serve as the assistant Deputy Director over federal relief and recovery. Thank you for this opportunity to update the Committee on HCD's role in long term equitable disaster recovery.

You do have a handout in front of you, and I will go through how long term disaster recovery funds are allocated to HCD, how HCD administers those resources, and go through some examples of prior and recent efforts. So HCD's role is in long term recovery, working to administer federal U.S. Department of Housing and Community Development, or HUD Community Block grant disaster recovery, or CDBGDR, funds for presidentially declared major disasters. And those funds come after all.

Other sources of funding, as you've heard, have been made available, including FEMA, SBA, insurance, and are congressionally appropriated for very specific uses.

While HCD does not have dedicated resources outside of prior CDBGDR funds during disasters, HCD does work in partnership with Cal OES, the Department of Social Services, disaster case managers, local jurisdictions, public housing authorities, NGOs, continuums of care, and various other state and federal agencies, including FEMA and HUD and CAL-FIRE, to track to the damage of the disaster as the unmet needs data becomes available and also to serve impacted communities at every opportunity.

HCD is committed to deep community engagement and that begins during the response phase, continues throughout planning and through due program implementation and beyond. So to highlight some examples of those efforts during the 23' winter storms, HD supported with redirecting existing non-CDBGDR funds and existing state awards for urgent needs, including federal grants as well.

Since Santa Cruz and Monterey are entitled jurisdictions who receive funds directly from HUD, HCD coordinated with Merced County Human Services Agency Cal OES and Merced County emergency operations to provide temporary housing assistance for 38 individuals through the Felix Torres OMS Center. Those individuals were not eligible for FEMA and could not find temporary housing. All were in the Planada community. We also coordinated with health and human service recovery support function and producing mold suppression materials after floods.

We worked with multiple state federal partners on the recovery needs assessments, which then informed our action plan. With every new disaster, we continue to explore how to deepen early coordination and engagement with our partners and with the communities who are impacted.

Next is some background on CDBGDR funds slide four they are appropriated by Congress and allocated by HUD to rebuild disaster impacted areas and provide seed funding to start the long term recovery process for presidentially declared disasters, they are an almost exclusive source for long term recovery.

As mentioned earlier, these are last in, federal funds for long term recovery after all other sources have been exhausted and are designed with equitable and resilient outcomes to benefit unmet needs of the most impacted and vulnerable populations, including people with low, moderate income, historically marginalized groups, people with disabilities, elderly populations, people with limited English proficiency, and others. HCD's housing recovery programs create safe and affordable homes for the most impacted residents while reducing risk and vulnerability for future disasters.

HCD's infrastructure and hazard mitigation programs prioritize building resilience and reduce risks where there's high levels of social vulnerability. Again, these funds only meet a fraction, as you've heard from folks before me, of unmet long term recovery needs and hazard mitigation needs are felt in the community many, many years after the disaster. So to ensure that funds can go the furthest, recovery and hazard mitigation funds often need to leverage other sources.

I'll use the example of the Town of Paradise, where CDBGDR funds represent about 25% of total development costs. HCD allocated about 230,000,000 in funds for 22 infrastructure projects. The town leveraged another 93 million for 10 of those projects, and they are still in the process of leveraging additional funds for the sewer project for the development of seven multifamily housing projects that will house disastrous survivors. HCD allocated around 55 million, and the town leveraged another $188,000,000.

Moving to some of the key timelines, which is a common question when it comes to CDBGDR funds. So once a disaster occurs, if that disaster is declared by the President to be a major disaster, this unlocks FEMA, IA and RPA. If Congress approves the allocation, HUD applies a formula to allocate funds across all state grantees or disasters that have happened in the nation. And then HUD announces the funds to be made available to the State of California in what is called a federal register notice.

That is FRN that provides all of the regulatory requirements eligible uses, et cetera. This enables HCD to then start the action plan process. Historically, for California, announcements have been made within one to two years after a disaster, with a 23 grant as an anomaly having happened just eight months after the disaster and before HCD can spend funds, HUD must approve our action plan. That timeline is set by HUD and is required of all state grantees. It's not unique to California.

So using the 2023 action plan, which is currently out for public comment, as an example, it takes around eight months from federal register notice to have an executed grant agreement with HUD. The action plan reflects the unmet needs of impacted communities, and that's informed by both our deep engagement that starts early on and the data that HUD provides, mostly relying on FEMA and SBA that we supplement with various other sources of data to really bring about the unmet needs of the most vulnerable communities.

We were able to do that this round for the 23 grant, working with Merced and San Joaquin Counties to obtain information about mobile home impacts, impacts of farm workers, working with DCM data to supplement that FEMA data as well. So we captured unmet needs that were not initially captured by HUD. Finally, we get into implementation. The diagram in your handout is a very simplified version of that timeline. A lot of that is happening concurrently.

So programs have launched anywhere between one to three months and up to one year longer for select programs that have run into unforeseen circumstances. Those programs were maybe first in nation, first in kind, those very large scale wildfire recovery programs. If Covid occurred in the program timeline, then that also impacted the timeline. But we've implemented continuous improvement. We've streamlined, refined and innovated to accelerate our launch and award timelines. Most recent program went out just two months after we had an executed grant agreement with HUD.

There are multiple steps. Some of those, again, are in the timeline in front of you, and any changes to the program require a formal process, which is called an action plan process. That process takes up to five months for HUD to approve before we can move funds around and make changes to the action plan. If we need to make other changes that are in statute, we cannot. There are waivers, though. We can submit and get approval from HUD four to, for example, extend an expenditure timeline.

That waiver could take up to a year to approve, so we don't tend to lean to try to extend the timeline. However, some circumstances require it. To date, California has received approximately $1.7 billion in funding for disaster year 17' 18' 20' 21' 23' and has administered approximately 22 programs over 30 counties. All of those funds are committed or awarded, or conditionally awarded and designated for very specific uses. We report out quarterly on expenditure and performance metrics. HUD publishes those as well.

California is the only state to administer a large scale wildfire recovery program and a more recent recipient of funds for floods and storms. As you are aware, wildfire recovery does add significant complexities to recovery efforts that floods do not. Some examples, just some, are debris removal which delayed our program or required us to sort of wait for that as a precursor, took over a year to complete. 20' and 21' programs are well into implementation. The 23' action plan is on its way.

We're ready to launch those programs soon after we have an executed grant agreement. I'm almost to concluding here and want to highlight some recent efforts. So to give some examples of real timelines, I'll highlight Santa Cruz and Town of Paradise who are in attendance with Merced, who's included in the upcoming 23' grant.

Here's an approximate breakdown that you have in your handout of the funds and timelines of when those funds were made available to Santa Cruz and Town of Paradise, with approximately 114,000,000 available to Santa Cruz for 2020 wildfires and around 263,000,000 for the Town of Paradise. Finally, for the January 23' severe winter storms that significantly impacted Planada, Santa Cruz and Pajaro. As you've heard, there were two declarations.

As you've also heard, only one of those resulted in CDBGDR allocations, and those are available to Merced and Santa Cruz. There are no DR Funds for Pajaro at this time. The action plan is out for public comment, as I mentioned, and in it you will see that Merced is proposed to receive 11.2 million and 6.3 for Santa Cruz for the replacement of mobile home units. Mitigation as well. They'll be elevated and an additional 59 million to all mid areas for a multifamily housing program.

And as mentioned earlier, full recovery requires accessing a whole host of other funding sources to make a community whole. And some of those sources are listed in your handout. Thank you very much.

Well, thank you as well for your presentation and thank the second panel. Let's see, for Robert real quick, when they, I guess the county or the state declares emergency and they do the paperwork to submit it to OES for approval. Is there a timeframe from OES that once they receive it, that we have a week or two weeks to figure out if they're going to be granted the funding or however that works?

I don't know if there's a time frame from you guys once you receive the application for disaster.

So it depends, right? As always, it depends. But if we're going to submit, if we believe that it's going to rise to the level of a major disaster declaration, we have to make that request within 30 days or seek an extension for the closure of the incident period. Right, and so the incident period, depending on the event, can be a day or it can be several weeks, depending on what it is.

When it comes to individual requests, though, for state assistance, depending on the level of authorization by the Governor, the individual request for approval for particular costs can take longer than that. Right, and it's based off of a number of different factors, including similar cost estimates that are similar to FEMA in terms of per capita indicators.

On the public assistance side, CDA is ultimately the state's public assistance program, but also looks at other factors as well, in terms of the jurisdiction's fiscal capacity and health, the frequency of recent disasters and the impact of jurisdiction, et cetera. And then ultimately Cal OES offers up recommendations and the Governor chooses to act as appropriately.

I talked a little bit briefly on opening and regarding a couple of bills I was doing.

Do you think that's one of the approaches we can do at the Legislature to help you guys with some of the things you deal with as far as fund our communities, our families and individuals that obviously are in this kind of a unique position where they might not meet that federal threshold for assistance, but at least at the state level, we can do our own program, so to speak, to help communities that are suffering from a disaster.

I mean, that's one approach I didn't know if you know of anything else out there that maybe we should look at to maybe help you guys as well and what you're doing to provide assistance to our communities.

Thank you for the question. Thank you for the previous question as well. So if I'm interpreting it correctly in terms of how the state can work together, agencies and Legislature, it's a number of different ways. It is a continued dialogue between us and our federal partners. I know it appears to be slow and frustrating, and it certainly can be challenging. We do make positive progress in a number of different areas.

And to be clear, my job is to advocate for the State of California, not to be a cheerleader for federal partners. But we'd like to acknowledge that both FEMA and SBA and USDA have made some positive changes that we're also tracking, and we intend to fully leverage to make sure that Californians get the full benefit of those changes. So, for example, the Small Business Administration recently came out with their policy for rural declarations. I mentioned earlier that San Diego received individual assistance, but not public assistance.

And that is a bit of a black swan, or it does not happen very often. It's far more often the reverse, where there's public assistance only. But if there is at least one home or business that has received major damage within a rural area, that'll turn on the SBA program. And as Director Scanlon noted earlier, that is a loan program.

SBA has doubled their loan amounts and made their terms much more appealing in terms of no payments for a year, so that essentially somebody can get an interest free loan depending on the terms, at least for a limited duration. So it is a tool in the toolbox that is more available. Also, previously, SBA would not make a final determination so long as there was a pending request from the state for the individual assistance program or even a pending appeal.

Right, and so that can take months sometimes. One example being the Caldor Fire. Right. Where the state put together a very, we thought, comprehensive request. We were denied. We put forth what we felt was a very comprehensive appeal. And all that took time. And previously, the SBA was not allowed to make a determination until that was resolved to avoid duplication of benefits.

They've now announced a more recent program, I'm blanking on the name, but an expedited declaration process, so that if that request has been pending for more than 20 days to the President, that they can go ahead and do an administrative declaration. Right. And then they can reconcile after the fact.

And so I just want to acknowledge where there is improvement, to make sure that our local communities and all of us at all levels of government are tracking that, to make the most of it, to fill more tools in the toolbox.

The USDA, last year, kind of quietly based off of 2022 disasters, but allowed us the early winter storms of last year to be eligible because the incident period was actually December 27th of 2022 to receive increased consideration and lower requirements when it came to age or income for their rural repair program. It's not the easiest program in the world to navigate. It can either be a reimbursement or a grant on the front end, as long as you provide quotes from contractors, et cetera.

It's a bit burdensome in terms of paperwork, but the terms of are really pretty fantastic. You could receive up to, depending on agent income, up to around 80,000 something dollars in a grant and $10,000 potentially additionally in a grant or a loan. They also did a pilot program for the later springs or later winter storms and early spring storms where they were given consideration to some of our other events. They also gave some consideration to the Ferndale Earthquake for the end of 2022 as well.

We don't have anywhere near as many people as we'd like applying for that. We're still trying to get education out there and push for it. We've put together flyers to help socialize the program done specialized webinars for those impacted eligible communities. It's still pretty low in terms of the application and approval rate, but the average dollar amounts coming out from those grants are right now are about $36,000, which is significantly higher than what people receive from FEMA, which is usually more in the $4,000 range.

And then lastly, but not least to our friends at FEMA, I would like to call out a few improvements which will take effect on March 22 of this year. Just so we have awareness that we intend to make sure we get the most out of this. They've made a number of key improvements that beginning with standardizing what they call serious needs assistance. Right now it's called Continuing Needs Assistance, but making an automatic payment of $750 right off the gate for eligible survivors.

They are also creating something called Displacement Assistance because previously, as we all know and certainly from the disasters in Pajaro and Planada, frequently had survivors sleeping on family members couches, et cetera. Any cost that their family members might have incurred for taking those on was not reimbursable, and even if they could put together a lease, it was generally not eligible for reimbursement unless that lease was available to the general public, et cetera. So practically speaking, it didn't really happen.

But now they will, and the devil is going to be in the details, which we will track closely. But they will offer some financial reimbursement to help with those costs of community helping community. Right. They're simplifying the other needs assistance program. So it used to be the requirement that you had to register with the Small Business Administration prior to receiving that assistance for personal property reimbursement, durable medical equipment, etc. That is no longer the case.

We'll see how that plays out, but it seems to be a positive progression. Underinsurance is a significant one. I want to call out because previously if a survivor had an insurance settlement that exceeded the FEMA max grant, currently $42,500, they were not eligible for FEMA assistance. Right? So even if they had $500,000 of unmet need and had insurance, they would not be eligible. FEMA is changing that now so that they can still receive assistance up to their max grant.

So a positive step in the right direction we've long said that states like California that have wildfire as a significant threat where we know underinsurance is a reality here, are penalized for having insurance. So it's a small step in the right direction. Also, they will be paying for greater accessibility improvements for folks with access and functional needs. It was mentioned earlier that small businesses don't need a loan after a disaster.

So one small change on the FEMA side is that entrepreneurs, self employed folks, gig industry folks, self employed tradespeople, will be eligible to receive funding for their tools for their jobs now, right? So quickly as well, without having to go through that loan process. And then they will be streamlining the application appeal process in the barrier for light applicants so that they no longer need to provide documentation to support their appeal for a late registration.

Right now, I recognize that all of that is a moot point if we don't have the declaration hand to begin with. And there are significant challenges that states like large states like California face when receiving a major disaster declaration for both PA, but especially the individual assistance program. I'll stop there. I think I've given you a long winded answer, but I'm certainly happy to talk more about that particular part.

No, that's good. I'm glad. A lot of useful information. Obviously, my job is just how we make sure we can continue to learn from these events that we're having. Obviously. Unfortunately, we're having more and more because climate change is real and how do we put ourselves at a better position to respond and provide services to the communities in need? So with that, I want to thank the second panel for your presentations, and now I will open it up to public comment.

I don't know if there's any Members of the public who want to come forward for a comment seeing, hearing, none. Going once, twice. I think our public comment is now closed. And with that, I want to thank everybody for coming here to present and to talk about these issues facing our state from recovering from disaster so that our hearing is officially closed. Thank you.

Thank you.