Assembly Standing Committee on Emergency Management

Now, two year bills. Can you all hear me now? All right. Thank you, sir. Can you hear me now? I don't have to repeat that. I'm good. Okay. So, following these presentations. I'm sorry. Let me start over. Each Bill is entitled to a primary witness in support, a primary witness in opposition.

Each will be allotted two minutes for their testimony. And given our late start, I'm going to ask that you please stick as close to your two minutes. You can even be inclined to go less than two minutes if you like as possible.

And then, following the presentations, additional individuals will be allowed to approach the microphone to state simply and clearly your name, your affiliation and position of the Bill. Written testimony may be submitted directly to the Committee. With that, let's establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, it looks like we have met our quorum, so we're going to move forward to our consent calendar. We'll make the following motions for items on the consent calendar. For Assembly Bill 261, do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. AB 588. Do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. AB 855. Do pass to the Committee On Appropriations.

AB 945. Do pass to the Committee on appropriations. A. Did I skip it? zero, excuse me. Strike 945. AB 944. Do pass to the Committee On Appropriations. AB 1103. Do pass to the Committee on appropriations. AB 1068. Do pass to the Committee On Expisitions. AB 1069. Do pass to the Committee On Appropriatives. AB 1457.

Do pass to the Committee On Application. AB 1530. Due pass to the Committee On Expisitions. AB 1531. Do pass to the Committee on appropriations. And. I'm sorry. Let's. I'm so glad I have great people sitting next to me. Strike that. AB 1531. Do pass to the Committee on Insurance. Are there any other corrections? Okay. Without with that. Is there a motion in the second for the consent calendar? Thank you.

We have a motion and a second by Assembly Member Calderon and Bennett. Secretary, please call the vote.

[Consent Calendar]

Okay, all right, thank you. With that, we're going to go ahead and move into directly into our bills. With that, we're going to invite Assembly Member Carillo to let's see which Bill we to go over Assembly Bill 645. All right. Assembly Member, whenever you are ready, you may start.

Thank you. Madam Chair and members, good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 645. This bill seeks to improve emergency medical services by requiring public safety dispatchers to complete emergency medical dispatch training or EMD. Dispatchers are often the first of the first responders.

The first voice of a person hears on the life or death emergency. We owe it to Californians to ensure those voices are trained and equipped to save lives. Currently, California has no statewide standard for dispatcher training. While some jurisdictions require EMD certification, many, especially in rural areas, do not.

That means a person's chance of receiving life saving pre arrival care can depend on where they live and that is unacceptable in cases of cardiac arrest and other life threatening emergencies. Every second counts. According to the American Heart Association, immediate bystander CPR can double or triple survival rates.

Yet fewer than half of cardiac arrest victims receive CPR before emergency responders arrive. EMD training equips dispatchers with the tools to guide callers through cpr, the heimlich maneuver and other critical steps that can help save lives before help arrives.

Studies show that when dispatchers provide step by step instructions over the phone, bystanders are significantly more likely to perform these life saving maneuvers. This bill is aimed at helping Californians help their family members, their friends, their neighbors when they're experiencing an emergency.

Today I have with me Ramit Sahi, Executive Vice President of NorCal Ambulance and Rob Lawrence, Executive Director of the California Ambulance Association.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Ramit Sahi and I'm here representing NorCal Ambulance in strong support of AB 645. In addition to my leadership role, I am also a certified emergency medical dispatcher.

I have personally seen how critical pre arrival instructions are provided during an emergency medical dispatch referred to as an EMD in saving lives. As a provider operating across 15 counties in California, we know firsthand how important it is that emergency calls are handled properly from the first moment.

Pre arrival instructions provided by trained emergency medical dispatchers provide CPR guidance, childbirth delivery instructions, stroke recognition tools and choking interventions. These instructions are often the difference between life and death. While many counties in California already have EMD systems, some rural areas where ambulance response times can exceed 60 minutes lack a formal pre arrival instructions.

In these areas, phone guidance is often the only immediate medical care a patient receives. The EMD certification process is not a lengthy process. For example, the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch, whose protocols are used in 54 countries and over 4,000 communication centers worldwide, require only a 24 hour certification course to properly trained dispatchers.

While we also appreciate that AB 645 has been carefully amended to focus specifically on dispatchers who handle medical emergencies, law enforcement only dispatchers who do not process medical calls would not be required to complete EMD training. This ensures the training is applied where it is needed most to save lives.

AB 645 establishes a common sense statewide minimum requirement to ensure that all Californians, no matter where they live, receive consistent medically guided support during critical emergencies. On behalf of NorCal Ambulance and from my experience as a certified emergency medical dispatcher, I respectfully urge your support for AB 645. Thank you.

Thank you. I believe you have another witness.

No, it's not.

Okay. Okay.

Mr. Rob Lawrence, Executive Director of the California Ambulance Association.

Thank you. You have two minutes, sir.

My apologies, Chair. I thought you said one witness. So here we are.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, My name is Rob Lawrence. I'm the Executive Director of the California Ambulance Association.

And I'm very proud to say that I have been the chief of EMS systems both in the UK, on the East Coast of the US, and also in Alameda County, California, where we have all enjoyed emergency medical dispatch and more importantly, life saving instructions for those that call in a life threatening emergency, whether it's cardiac arrest, as the assemblyman has already talked about, whether it's choking, whether it's advice to give to the caller or indeed the patient on how to basically stay alive until help arrives in the form of an ambulance or an emergency responder.

And so you've heard my colleague give the key points around the training. However, of course this bill is about equity right now and there's no guarantee that every person who calls 911 will receive the same level of care, regardless of where they're located.

Rural communities in particular face long response times already, and we know that sometimes upwards of up to an hour. But in these communities, every minute counts even more.

By ensuring that dispatchers in these areas are trained to provide emergency medical instructions, we're helping bridging the gap in service levels and giving all Californians access to life saving information when they need it most. As we say in the EMS world, life saving begins on the phone and indeed it does.

And so in conclusion, I ask for your support in passing AB 645. This bill is an essential step forward in creating a more consistent, effective and equitable emergency medical services across California. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. We're going to go ahead and move on. Are there any other witnesses in support of this bill? Okay. Seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition of this bill? Okay. With that, was there any? Okay. I'm going to bring it back to the members.

Are there any questions regarding this bill?

Just one comment, if I could. And that is just compliment the author. For dealing with one of the issues. Brought up in opposition with, with your amendment.

Hi. I just wanted to thank you for amending for law enforcement dispatchers. I had the pleasure of supervising dispatch for years at our sheriff's office. I am concerned about having the train. I'm assuming the training's in person that you're requiring.

Yes.

And where would those be offered?

If I can have one of the witnesses answer that.

So there's numerous organizations that provide emergency medical dispatch training. The one that I refer to, the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch, that's in over 4,000 communication centers, is a 24 hour course that can be done online.

Okay. So they don't have to be there in person?

Correct.

Okay. Because that's what I'm concerned about with my rural counties. It's very hard to get them. Most, if we can get it in Sacramento, that's as north as we can get it typically. So that's my biggest hurdle with it. I would love it if you would let local EMS or local medical facilities do the training.

I think that would be really imperative, especially in our rural areas because they kind of, they know they're. They know their issues. But I really applaud you for working with the opposition on this.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Carrillo, thank you very much for bringing this bill. I think this is a no brainer bill.

I was actually quite shocked and in our committee preparation share some stories about hearing some very disturbing calls where you had the dispatcher on the phone not giving any life saving information, but just having, you know, oh, calm down. General conversation.

So it's really Important that we are giving every opportunity for the folks who rely on our systems to have equity and an opportunity to survive things that are survivable. So thank you very much for bringing this bill. We have a motion by Assemblymember Bennett. Is there a second?

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Assemblymember, would you like to make any closing comments?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 645 will ensure that every 911 caller, no matter where they live in the state, receives the same high quality life saving support. It is time that California can join the 18 other states that already require EMD training. With that I respect play as for an I vote.

All right, thank you very much. Secretary, please call the vote. The motion is do pass to the committee on appropriations.

[roll call]

Thank you.

Okay, so we're going to need to leave the roll open. We have a. I think we're a 3, 2. Yeah, we have a. A 3-0 at this point. So we're going to leave the roll open and ask other Members to come in and weigh in on the bill.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right, please, Mr. Assembly member Carrillo, if you can stay, we'd like to move forward with Assembly Bill 716.

Once again, thank you, Madam Chair. Members. As California continues to push towards a clean energy economy, hydrogen will play a key role, especially in hard to decarbonize sectors. One of the challenges hydrogen stakeholders have faced as the industry has grown is fire safety. Hydrogen's unique properties require additional engineering and safety considerations.

This reality, combined with a relatively new and growing industry, has to lead to uncertainty and confusion for some local governments that lack experience and expertise with hydrogen fire safety. This bill was brought to us by the City of Lancaster in my district.

Lancaster has been an early adopter of hydrogen and is seen as a worldwide leader in hydrogen investment and industry development. This simple bill requires a state fire marshal to adopt statewide safety standards as a model for local governments and to appoint a hydrogen fire safety expert to provide guidance and support for local governments.

We have worked closely with the local governments in my district to develop this bill, and thanks to the conversation with RCRC and others, this bill has now no opposition. Here on behalf of the Hydrogen coalition to testify in support is Rosanna Carvacho Elliott.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. And Members Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition in support of AB716.

As you heard from the Assembly Member, AB716 will provide much needed clarity for both the hydrogen industry as well as local governments by ensuring that the National Fire Protection Association's Hydrogen Technologies Code is adopted here in California.

Additionally, the bill requires a state fire marshal to appoint an expert on the Hydrogen Technologies Code and provide ongoing training to local fire departments and building inspectors. Hydrogen is an emerging fuel, and therefore many local governments do not have much experience with the design, safety or permitting of hydrogen facilities.

There's a number of properties with hydrogen that require specific engineering and safety procedures to ensure its safe use. For example, hydrogen is lighter than air and ignites at much lower temperatures than gasoline or natural gas. While both of these properties are great features for your fuel stock, it does present challenges for leak detection and fire safety.

By providing clear and consistent standards across the state, AB716 will ensure public safety, give local governments critical resources, and create a level of predictability that all growing industries. Industries need in order to thrive. For these reasons, the California Hydrogen Coalition respectfully requests your aye vote on AB716. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. Are there any witnesses in support? Okay, seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Hold the bill.

Second. Okay, let's go ahead and bring it back to the members. Are there any questions? Okay, seeing no questions. We have a first and second on the bill. Assembly Member Carrillo, did you have any closing comments?

I just would like to thank this, the committee for their work on this bill and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, well, thank you very much for bringing this bill. My recommendation is a do pass. Secretary, please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Thank you for the Members.

We're going to leave the roll open for members. Thank you. Okay. With that, we're going to move forward and ask Assembly Member Lackey to please join us. Sign an order. You're next.

Sorry. Sorry.

You know. Okay. We're gonna invite Assembly Member Coloza, a very boisterous Assembly Member. We're gonna invite her forward for Assembly Bill 783.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, colleagues. I'm here to present AB 783. And first I would like to thank the Committee for working with us on the amendments, which we accept. 783 is about lowering the cost of rebuilding after a disaster, an urgent and growing concern for too many of our communities and constituents.

As you as you know, Californians live with floods, fires, earthquakes, atmospheric storms and more natural disasters every year, all of which can cause immense damage to property, infrastructure and Most importantly, people.

AB 783 aims to make essential construction materials more affordable and accessible for people working to rebuild after a disaster, helping families, nonprofits and local governments rebuild faster and more affordably.

AB 783 would authorize the Department of General Services to negotiate and enter into contracts on a bid or negotiated basis for construction materials commonly used in residential structures that may include price discounts, rebates, refunds, or other strategies aimed at lowering the cost of these materials.

These materials will be offered at cost or with minimal administrative fees to homeowners, contractors, nonprofits and local governments in disaster declared areas. The Bill would require that the materials only be used for recovery efforts that are directly linked to housing losses caused by a declared State of emergency, like the recent Eaton and Palisades wildfires.

Communities devastated by disasters often face these significant financial barriers, and that's why we decided to take this on, because we believe that we should leave no stone, no stone unturned when it comes to rebuilding our communities faster.

Federal tariffs, for instance, including those on Canadian lumber, and new tariffs on materials from Mexico and really anywhere in the world right now, have already driven up construction costs. According to a report from the San Francisco Chronicle, recent fires in Los Angeles County devastated 12,000 structures, exacerbating high material prices in the construction industry.

The surge in demand for construction materials is anticipated to drive up costs by a staggering 15 to 30%. And as we know, housing is already too unaffordable in our state, so these additional costs are unacceptable. And so with me today to provide testimony is Ali Sapirman, Advocacy and Policy Manager with the Housing Action Coalition. Go ahead.

Good afternoon, Good afternoon. My name is Ali Sapirman, Advocacy and Policy manager of the Housing Action Coalition, or HAC for short. HAC is a Member supported statewide organization that advocates for building more infill homes at all levels of affordability in order to address the housing shortage, displacement and affordability crisis.

Our Members span across the building industry from market rate developers, affordable housing developers, architects, land use attorneys and labor unions. I am here today as a Proud supporter of AB 783. There are many barriers to building much needed new housing when the state is not facing a disaster.

California faces frequent and severe natural disasters, including wildfires Earthquakes and floods which can destroy thousands of homes in a matter of hours. The aftermath of these disasters place immense pressure on affected communities to rebuild quickly and efficiently.

However, rebuilding efforts are often delayed due to high costs of construction and limited access to affordable materials, leaving families displaced for extended periods. The high cost of rebuilding exacerbates housing instability, particularly for lower income and vulnerable populations. AB 783 will help reduce the financial barriers to rebuilding, helping families to return to their homes sooner.

This Bill ensures an efficient and equitable and cost effective approach for disaster recovery. Supporting this Bill is a critical step in strengthening California's ability to rebuild communities swiftly and Affordability. Affordability after disasters.

On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, I urge you to support AB 783 to address barriers to disaster recovery by making essential construction materials more affordable and accessible for those impacted by declared disasters. Thank you so much.

Thank you for that. Are there any witnesses in support of this Bill?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Keshav. I'm with Lighthouse Public affairs. Here representing Abundant Housing Los Angeles and Habitat for Humanity, California. In support and appreciation for the author.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Karim Drissi. On behalf of the California Building Industry Association. while our position is pending, we did want to take this opportunity to commend the author for introducing the Bill, and we're very appreciative of her efforts on this worthwhile measure. Thank you so much.

Thank you. I see no additional witnesses and support. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Okay with that, I'm going to bring it back to the Members.

Move the recommended action. Compliment the author. Good Bill. Thank you.

I'll second the motion. With that would you like to make any closing comments AssemblyMember?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

All right, Secretary, please call the vote. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Utilities and Energy. I'm kidding. Do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Thank you.

You scared me, Madam Chair.

I scared myself, Thank you.

AB 783 Caloza. The motion is do pass, as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Ransom, aye. Ransom, aye. Hadwick, not voting. Hadwick, not voting. Arambula. Bains. Bennett, aye. Bennett, aye. Calderon. Demaio.

Okay, we're gonna leave the roll open for Members of the Committee to vote on the Bill. And with that, Assembly Member Coloza, you can present the next Assembly Bill 591.

You know, you're my favorite committee, so I just had to do three bills today.

We appreciate that.

So Chair Ransom and colleagues, here to present AB 591, which ensures that public works resources are available during disasters of any kind in our state and improves integration into the mutual aid framework.

AB 591 would require mutual aid to include public works personnel, equipment and materials during emergencies. Currently, public works agencies lack structured mutual aid agreements unlike other their other counterparts in law enforcement and firefighting.

As a former public works commissioner and as a current member of the State Public Works Board, I have worked with countless public works crews and have witnessed firsthand how essential their work is. They are first responders. They clear debris, repair infrastructure, restore vital water, electric and sewer services, and so much more.

Without clear and coordinated mutual aid plans, these essential workers face operational challenges that slow disaster response and prolong community hardship. AB 591 will also create a systematic and efficient deployment strategy by directing the Office of Emergency Services to develop a public works emergency mutual aid plan.

As we recently witnessed during the Palisades and Eaton fires, mutual aid agreements help save lives and livelihoods. By establishing clear, structured, mandatory local coordination, AB 591 ensures faster recovery, more effective disaster response and more equitable aid distribution.

Knowing that we need to improve our disaster preparedness as a state, we must take action rather than waiting until another disaster, unfortunately inevitably strikes.

Thank you for that presentation. With that, do you have any witnesses. Do we have any witnesses in support of the bill?

My witnesses are clearing debris, Madam Chair.

Yes, your witnesses are public. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Let's bring it back to the members. Do we have any questions about the bill?

I just want to. I love this bill and I just want to thank you for bringing it forward. I've never worked an incident that public works wasn't a vital part of the success of that response. So thank you.

Thank you.

I'll second, second the bill and also. Add public works so often overlooked in so many ways and certainly during emergencies in particular. So I think it's a great bill. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. With that, I want to thank the author for this very thoughtful and clearly common sense addition to public works and the recognized mutual aid response. We also thought it was a solid bill, which is why the motion is a do pass to the committee on appropriations.

With that, we'll ask you would you like to make any closing comments?

Thank you for just hearing my testimony. And yeah, we didn't want to wait for the public works crews to ask us for this bill. We already know what they need, so respectfully ask for your I vote.

Yes, ma'am. Secretary, please call the vote.

AB 591 motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.

[roll call]

With that, we're gonna leave the roll open for members to cast their vote. And Assembly Member Caloza, would you like to present Assembly Bill 1200?

Thank you, Chair Ransom and colleagues. I'm here to present my last bill today, AB 1200. To start, want to accept the Committee amendments and thank you again to to you, Madam Chair, and your Committee staff for working with me on this important bill.

AB 1200 strengthens California's ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from catastrophic disasters through three key strategies. First, it requires the Office of Emergency Services to convene government agencies, critical infrastructure operators, and private and nonprofit partners to participate in biannual scenario based tabletop exercises.

These exercises are grounded in existing disaster response planning plans developed by OES and FEMA. We have to do more than have plans on paper. We actually need to put them into practice. And that practice also needs to include community residents and the groups already working on preparedness at the local level.

Right now, the state lacks a structured system to routinely test and evaluate these plans across agencies. This bill helps fill that gap, ensuring we don't wait for the next disaster to find out what's missing. Second, AB 1200 creates the State Lifelines Council, a coordinated effort led by the Seismic Safety Commission, Strategic Growth Council, and CAL FIRE.

This council will identify the investments California must make now in our critical infrastructure to ensure communities can recover quickly after a major disaster. These are the systems that keep people alive and society functioning in the aftermath of a catastrophe, and we need performance standards and coordination between lifeline providers.

And third, this bill addresses preparedness at the neighborhood level. It directs OES and California Volunteers to coordinate with local community emergency response teams, also known as CERT, to conduct annual disaster training events in the state's most vulnerable regions.

These trainings must be inclusive, accessible, and tied to real time testing of emergency alert systems, especially in communities that have previously faced failures during wildfires or other emergencies like what we just witnessed in Southern California. AB 1200 reflects a simple truth.

If we don't rise to the level of our plans, we will fall to the level of our preparation. So whether it's through statewide simulations, local CERT engagement, or other smart infrastructure planning, this bill ensures California practices what it preaches on emergency readiness. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in support of Assembly Bill 1200? Seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition of Assembly Bill 1200? Okay, let's bring it back to the Members. Any questions or comments?

Okay. So the county OES. Most are funded by the EMPG grant. And they require that they do at least two exercises. You specified tabletop exercises. Is there any way to grow. To make that grow into a full blown exercise as well?

Yeah. No, I think.

Or just as an added thing as. The bill moves along. Because it will. Sometimes they don't just. They don't do the tabletop. They do a full blown exercise and it would just make it easier. I actually had no idea how well the north does this and I didn't realize other counties aren't doing this.

So I just have to commend some of my small counties because they really do it well. And I'm finding more and more in this role that the rest of the state isn't doing that. We do it out of survival because. We'Re so rural and remote.

But I am supporting the bill because they already do that because I hate to add more to their job.

Yeah. So I want to thank the author for accepting the Committee amendments and I think the next stop for amendments would be up in appropriations. So I would definitely encourage you to take a look at the additional amendments. Would you be able to. Would you? We'll.

We'll be able to get that information over to you because I have no idea what you're talking about. So we're gonna just more of a.

Top or full exercise.

Okay. A deeper level of bigger exercise. And it's not a tabletop.

You're acting and you're actually doing it, not just talking. A lot of them do that instead. Of a tabletop or both.

Yeah. No. Thank you so much. Assembly Member Hadwick would love to connect. With you and your team. And I think that like you mentioned, lots of different cities and counties, especially. In rural areas that are so disaster. Prone, have no choice but to do this. And we are finding out the hard way in Los Angeles.

So would love to connect with you on best practice practices and we'll reach out after this Committee. Fingers crossed.

Awesome. We think our Vice Chair had work for the suggestion. It's our goal to always make sure that the bills are as solid as can possibly be. So thank you for that. With that we have a first and second. Are there any other questions from the Committee? Assembly Member Caloza, would you like to close?

Thank you all so much for your support today and hearing my three bills. I hope you all find what I find is that we can't wait for anyone to ask us to do this work. We know what our communities need and. This is Part of that. So thank you.

Awesome. Thank you for that. With that, the motion is due. Pass to the Committee on appropriations. Secretary, please call the vote.

[Roll Call]

All right, thank you. We will wait for Bill Members to add on. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues.

Of course. I see. So we have a sign in order, if it's okay with Assemblyman Muratsuchi. Is it okay if we ask Mr. Lackey? Assembly Member Lackey. We want to invite him up to present his bill. Just because we pulled him off, couldn't set. Thank you, Assembly Member Lackey. We're going to do 301st.

zero, that's the only one. All righty. Thank you. So, first, want to thank Assembly Member Lackey for his patience and working with us as we work to make sure that we got his bill where he wanted it. So with that, the floor is yours.

All right. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess there's still a few Members up there.

Yes.

I'm looking forward for the opportunity of presenting AB300, and I will be accepting the Committee amendments to change the timeline back to five years. AB300 will require the state fire marshal to review areas in the state considered to be high fire hazard severity zones, or FHSZ, every eight years. Guess it's five years now.

It used to be eight, but we've fixed that. Okay. Currently, CAL FIRE is required to identify the areas that could be potentially considered to be high fire severity zones. These areas or zones are based on factors such as fuel, slope and fire weather. There are three zones based on increasing fire hazard, Medium, high, and very high.

And these zones are determined by using the most current data and field test, a model that serves as the basis of zone assignments. The model evaluates properties using characteristics that effect the probability of the area burning and potentially potential fire behavior in that area.

Many factors included, such as fire history, vegetation, flame length, blowing embers, terrain, weather, and the likelihood of buildings igniting. However, these maps are not updated on a fixed schedule, but instead are updated roughly every few years or when a major fire breaks out, such as the campfires or Palisades fires.

Given the recent devastating wildfires, it's crucial for the state fire marshal to assess and review fire hazard severity zones across the state. Not only do insurance companies rely on these maps to assess homeowner insurance risk, but local governments use them to determine evacuation routes.

AB300 will help ensure our communities are more accurately represented in assessing wildfire risks by having these high fire hazard severity zones updated on a fixed schedule. With me today is Julie Malinowski Ball with the California Fire Chiefs Association. And I thought we had another one too, but maybe not. So anyways, we'll turn it over to her.

Yeah. Good afternoon. I'm Julie Malinowski Ball. I'm here today on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California in strong support. We actually like the five years much better than the eight years, frankly.

Thank you, sir.

There is so much change going on in the environment with these maps and building out that every few years or ever when you feel like it just isn't working for us, we're on the front lines every day trying to keep your constituents safe. We think this is a great idea.

As wildfire risks continue to increase and climate change and its evolving fuel conditions up to date, hazard mapping is essential for fire prevention, emergency response planning and public safety. The maps inform building codes, as you mentioned, insurance rates and evacuation planning. And the irregular updates have led to communities relying on outdated risk assessments.

So we believe this bill ensures science based, regularly scheduled updates that reflect current wildfire threats, providing fire agencies, local governments and residents with the best available data, effective mitigation and preparedness efforts. We ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. With that, are there any other witnesses in support of the bill?

Yes, Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Are there any other witnesses in support. Are there any witnesses in opposition to this bill? Thank you. With that, I'm going to bring it back to the Committee for questions and or comments the bill.

I also just wanted to thank the author. This is a great bill and something that needs to happen more frequently. I. Cities and counties are having to do it on their own dime and this is something the state should be providing. So I'm very excited to see this bill and absolutely support it.

Thank you. I'll second to bill. But I have one question and that is tell me how, how different is this going to be from the current situation? Do you want to answer that?

Yeah. There's no set schedule for doing it. And even if they set an internal schedule, they don't have to necessarily stick with that. So just putting it in statute, just, you know, you can plan for it, they can set staff aside for it. They can budget for it. You know, it's really a much improved system.

Thank you.

Thank you. With that, I want to. Again, I want to thank the author for working with our Committee, if anyone is following this bill, it was first heard in Natural Resources which wanted to amend the Assemblyman's original request.

For 5 years to 8 years our Committee was able to work with the Natural Resources Committee and we are all in agreement that this is important enough that we would like to see it every five years.

And quite honestly I think we need to look at what we can do to make it sooner as we are pushing for housing growth in the State of California and we don't want growth to outpace our updated severity maps for things like evacuations and fuel being added literally to the fire.

So I want to thank the Assemblyman A for your patience and for trusting us to pull your bill off of consent and try to get it to what you originally wanted. And I also want to thank you for bringing something that will actually put pen to paper and make this an important part of our state operations.

So with that I am going to ask if you have any closing statements.

I just want to thank you for getting that reasonable timeline back down to five years. Very thankful for that. That's what we wanted from the beginning and we appreciate your leadership on that front and ask for your support.

Thank you sir. We have a first and a second Secretary. Please call the vote. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Approach AB300.

[Roll call]

Thank you Assemblyman Lackey. With that we're going to invite Assemblyman Marisuchi to present Assembly Bill 986. Whenever you are ready you may begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, I am here to present Assembly Bill 986, a commonsense proposal that is proposing to add natural disasters like landslides, as well as preexisting conditions exacerbated by climate change, to the conditions that would constitute a State of Emergency or a local emergency.

This really comes out of my personal experience in my district over the last couple of years. The Palos Verdes Peninsula in the Los Angeles South Bay Area and Los Angeles County has been witnessing a—what I call a slow-moving train wreck, you know, where we have seen land movement on the peninsula, that has been moving land movement, in inches, prior to the severe rainstorms that we've seen in the last couple of winters.

But with the severe rainstorms, that the scientists are attributing to the extreme weather swings of climate change, that—those—inches have translated into the land movement, moving as much as a foot a week. And so, you know, the bottom line is that homes are being, you know, torn apart.

You can see homes that have dropped like over 10 feet in elevation to 20 feet, perhaps more. The road is being torn apart. Utilities are being cut off. By any commonsense definition, a natural disaster, and yet, we are working with the California Office of Emergency Services.

They were saying that this is a pre-existing condition, because the land was moving before all of these rains. And of course it was—yeah, it was moving. We can deal with inches, but we can't deal with feet of land movement within a short period of time. And so, that is why we are here.

And that is why I have here—with me—the mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes, that has seen the greatest land movement, to testify as to their experience in trying to get state, as well as FEMA's assistance, and why this Bill fits into that effort. I also very much appreciate Melissa Sparks-Kranz, representing the League of California Cities.

Awesome. Thank you. You both have two minutes each.

Thank you very much. I'm Mayor Dave Bradley, of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Like the Assembly Members said, we have a major issue in my city. We have the most active landslide, or land movement, in North America. There are many things that you want to be number one for. That is not one of them.

The amount of movement that we have seen and the impacts on the city and the Palos Verdes Peninsula, over the last 18 months, we have allocated roughly $47 million in emergency funds to fix the landslide, or to retard the landslide with emergency temporary measures, that, for a city with roughly a $40 million a year budget, is absolutely unsustainable.

We recognize it's absolutely a disaster, contributed by severe weather. Unfortunately, within current state statute, it's not recognized as a natural disaster. This Bill, AB 986, will help fix that and help align to what everybody in common sense shows—this is a disaster.

To date, we continue to see land movement that is several orders of magnitude greater than we have ever seen it historically. One of my analogies is, we are repaving one of our major thoroughfares every 72 hours, last summer.

Within 72 hours, a 2 to 3 inch gap would open up in the major roadway and we'd be repaving it, somewhat like painting the Golden Gate Bridge. As soon as you get done with one end, you go back and start repaving it. What generally was a $700,000 a year repaving Bill in our annual budget, we ended up spending $7 million in the last 18 months to keep that major thoroughfare open.

It is unsustainable for a city the size of Rancho Palos Verdes and the Palos Verdes—Palos Verdes Peninsula, and it's unreasonable that this is not considered a disaster, very much exacerbated by the severe weather and severe climate change that we've recognized over the last several years. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Melissa Sparks-Kranz, with the League of California Cities, here in support of AB 986, which, as you heard, would include in the definition of state and local emergencies, landslides and pre-existing conditions worsened by climate change, and would just really want to kind of focus in on that point, in particular, speaking more broadly about how this Bill would be applied, if it were to become law.

Really the definitions currently of state emergency and local emergency are when we see, you know, proclaimed existence of disasters and extreme peril conditions that threaten our life and our property in the state.

And this measure would support both the state and local governments, should landslides or climate change worsen catastrophic impacts to our communities. And just for some broader context, the state already estimates that by 2040, our water supply is anticipated to be decreased by 10% statewide.

On average, annual temperatures are going to increase 4.5 to 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit. You know, by 2100, sea level rise will increase by 10 feet. So, climate change, as these projections show, is going to continue to impact communities and exacerbate the disasters that are impacting our communities.

So, when such emergencies are declared, that's when resources, funding, greater state authorities can support our communities and local governments, in responding as expeditiously as possible, to help protect life and property. And again, for these reasons, we support AB 986. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Are there any witnesses in—that like to speak in support?

Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Ara Mihranian. I'm Rancho Palos Verdes' City Manager. I want to first off thank the Member for authoring this Bill. I've been with the city for 28 years. I've never seen anything like this before. What we've seen in the last two years is incredibly devastating.

We've had hundreds of households impacted by utility shutoffs—damage, homes that have been red tagged. It is a slow-moving landslide, but it is a very destructive landslide. And I was listening attentively to all the deliberations and discussions on the previous bills, that you just acted on. And not once did one person say, that a natural disaster includes landslides.

It's said earthquakes, floods, all sorts of things, but no one says landslides. Landslides are a natural disaster. We need to deal with them, up along the entire state. So, thank you for considering this Bill.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of this Bill?

Hi, yeah. My name is Keely Morris with Edelstein Gilbert Robson & Smith. On behalf of the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, in support. Thank you.

Are there any witnesses or anyone who'd like to speak in opposition of this Bill? Okay, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Members. Are there any questions and or comments? Assembly Member Bennett.

As, as I've mentioned to the—my colleague—Assembly Member, we have experienced quite a bit of landslides and problems in my district, also the lock and cheetah land side being, you know, one of the classics. So, I'm very sympathetic to the basic challenge of local governments with this, but I—and I will support this now.

But I do have something that I hope that you will deal with, as this Bill continues to move and that is, it's a, we can put the state in an odd situation here, of all of these slow-moving land movements could be identified as being affected by climate change, as well, and it won't be long, it'll be sea level rise issues and all of that.

And I worry that we may overuse the term "emergency," and then overuse the, the authorities that come with that.

And so, I'm concerned about that, and I hope that that's something that you could, could try to address, so that we can make sure that emergency applies to emergencies and doesn't end up, because of the definition, getting applied to so many things that nothing, you know, really stands out in terms of emergency.

So, support the Bill, support the effort. I know it's frustrating, extremely frustrating, for the constituents and local but also, landslide movement, in particular, in California in the beach areas and the coastal areas, where it's consolidated shale, is just a fact of life.

It's going to slide and erode and as we have these heavy rains, it will get worse. And so, I, so, I appreciate being able to get that said and hope that you can continue to work on that—make this a, a great Bill for California and, and not one that has unintended consequences.

Assemblyman Muratsuchi.

Thank you, through the Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Bennett. I you know, I, I remember the conversations we, we had as, as I was asking you. You're one of the few Members that, that have experienced landslides in your district.

I do want to, you know, emphasize that this would add landslides and preexisting conditions exacerbated by climate change to the potential list, but is not a mandate, it's not a requirement, that the Cal OES and the Governor still maintain discretion in declaring a State of Emergency. So, I think that may go to, you know, that, that, that judgment.

But, but you know, I, I, I just want to, you know, say when, when I was, you know, when I was dealing with all of the, the homeowners that are losing their homes, you know, when they're, they're, they're, you know, their, their entire life savings are in their homes and they're losing their homes, that's a disaster.

Okay, I think.

I appreciate that and I, I appreciate that that word is, you know it is, as a potential, and I just, it's the potential for over application of that, that I'm concerned with. Everybody can create that sense of urgency for a bit.

I could come up with 10 places in Ventura County right now that people could say we're at risk.

Okay, but in this case, people actually lost their homes.

Haven't lost them yet.

Well, in our 10 minutes, they.

I'd say yes, a number of them, maybe not 10 that have lost them. All right, but people are losing their homes, gradually. Right? And, and, but steadily. Right?

We have over 20 homes that we have red tagged that are non-livable and we have another 18 that are yellow tagged, that are on the verge of becoming unlivable. Some of these houses have been ripped into three parts.

The, the, the movement of the land has changed from a above grade to a swale that is 18 feet below that.

I don't disagree—I'm not at all disagreeing with that. It's just—that this is an emergency, that this is a problem. I'm just trying to—where do we draw the line on land movement is going to be tricky and to the extent that you have now have taken on the responsibility of this, I hope you'll pay attention to that, as you go forward.

I will. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Bennett, for your input. Assemblymember Hadwick was next and then we'll go to Assemblymember Bains.

I just want to echo my colleague's concerns. Those were similar to mine. I—it's awful to tell somebody that they've lost their house, well, no matter what disaster that occurs in. I will be supporting the Bill.

I want to make sure it doesn't become a, a vehicle to abuse it, for future disasters, or it just opens it up to such a large—it could be potentially really catastrophic for us, as a state. So—but I, I love that, love your responses and know that you'll be mindful that that wasn't the intent of the bank.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Assemblymember Bains.

Yeah, thank you for giving the explanation. This is not a mandate, it's just, you know, adds to the list of potentials. But you know, I kind of hear what some of our, that it's coming from is a little bit highway. I mean the term pre-existing because of climate change is very general.

I mean, you could also even say utility bills that are really high in areas, that are 150 degrees, could be something that is catastrophic for people, because they're not able to afford.

That's either being able to afford their rent or their electricity bill. So, is that something that could be included on this preexisting?

Well, I mean we're talking about natural disasters, so, you know, we're—that is the preexisting natural conditions that add to the, you know, the list. The other items include things like air pollution, fire, flood, storm. Yeah, so.

So, that would be an example of it? Preexisting conditions exacerbated by climate change. So, the temperature being really, really high one day be exacerbated by climate change could?

Extreme heat.

Causing people to lose their homes because they can't afford their utility or their rent?

I mean, I understand that people may, you know, find conditions unlivable because of extreme heat, but I—not aware of anyone losing their home because of extreme heat.

Welcome to my district.

Can you, can you tell me?

Yes. Utility prices are very.

Okay, yeah.

Climate—climate change and all the impacts of what are happening to that are impacting our communities, are happening, and as a Doctor, I can tell you, it's impacting every wake of life right now.

And with the affordability crisis that's happening, people yes, are having to make decisions on whether they can afford their utility, whether they can turn the A/C on, whether they can turn the faucet on, whether they can even afford food on the table, or whether they can afford seeing a doctor.

So, I don't want to deter from what we're working on right now, but I just wanted to echo that it is a very general thing, but in all fairness to you, it is not a mandate, it is just adding to the potential. Just wanted to.

Okay, yeah.

So, Assemblymember Muratsuchi. So, I, I'm hearing, you know, kind of some of the concerns of the colleagues.

I think the difference, as it relates to your Bill, and I, I do appreciate, we're in California and we're talking about climate change and, and things are, are so different, where we're talking about sea level rising and we're talking about, you know, all of these different conditions that are now a lot more extreme.

So, I think kind of the difference in some of the examples that I'm hearing in your Bill, and I'd like you to clarify, is the ability to mitigate. You know, you can, maybe if it's a, if it's a Bill, somebody can't afford the heat, then get someone else to come and pay that Bill. They can—there can be a program, or something like that.

Are we talking about—when we're talking about red tags and we're talking about homes, you know, being split into half, etc., are these, when you're asking for this definition to be updated, are we talking about things that absolutely cannot be mitigated—and what can we do to ensure that our colleagues' concerns are answered, in regards to the overuse?

I don't think they're concerned about it being an overreach. I think they're concerned about it just being, you know, on a whim. You know, anyone can just say, oh, this is a natural disaster. How can we draw the line between the natural disaster and the, you know, whether it's self-imposed, or just something that's not related.

Sure. So, as pointed out in your Committee Analysis, I mean, the existing, you know, definition of State of Emergency and Local Emergency, it does allow for other conditions.

And so, that, you know, that was one of Cal OES's arguments last year, when a similar bill was going through the Legislature, that landslides can be one of the other conditions. But I guess I would, number one, we're focusing on what would constitute a State of Emergency.

And then, you know, it would be a whole different discussion as to what would be the, you know, mitigation or remediation or, you know, any financial assistance. This Bill is focusing on what would constitute a State of Emergency.

You know, where we were dealing with the frustration of the Cal OES, saying that, you know, land movement, because, you know, the land on the peninsula has been, you know, had been moving for, you know, for many years that, you know, they were arguing with that, this should not constitute a State of emergency.

But that's, you know, that was the reality before, you know, the severe rainstorms that we saw in recent years.

So, I guess to try to answer your question, you know, we're adding additional considerations to a declaration of State of Emergency, so that it recognizes the realities of climate change, whether it's extreme heat, or whether it's rising sea levels, or in our case, whether it's the dramatically, you know, sped up land movement, that that is not just hypothetically a disaster, but is, you know, and is resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in actual damages.

And so, that's what we're trying to accomplish here. Am I—did I answer your question, Madam Chair?

It did. I just wanted you to articulate for the record, like how you saw that working out. Your witness looks like he wants to.

Yeah, I was just going to say in the idea of remediation, we have a science-based remediation program that could actually stabilize this landmass. So, this is not something that is ethereal or, you know, it's just going to happen.

We have a way to actually retard the land movement and bring it back to historic norms, which is removing a lot of the water and a lot of the climate impacts that we've seen over the last several years. But that would actually bring it back to normal, manageable movement, which we think is very definitized.

So, when you were talking about something that is remediatable, this is one of those things that we would be able to remediate it, in the future.

Unfortunately, as the Assemblymember said, it was just very frustrating to be told by Cal OES that you have houses being split in two, you have a major thoroughfare falling into the ocean, you're spending twice your annual budget on emergency repairs and you're told, well, that's not really an emergency. Good luck with that.

Call us when you're in the ocean. That was frustrating.

Got it. Thank you for that. I think, and you know, this is a fun one, but I think one of the—just to kind of add on to the concern. So, if something can be remediated, it's probably as we're looking at how to, you know, how to put this into some sort of regulation and law.

If it can be remediated, and we know we can re-harden the surfaces. Get it. And as we think about this, and sorry, my Committee staff is probably going, we already talked about this, what are you saying, right?

But as we think about this in the State of Emergency is this, you know, these things are already eroding and now, it's tied to a flood made it, you know, made, you know, sped up the process. Are we saying an earthquake came and sped up the process or, you know, a land, land movement from a fire, and an atmospheric river sped up the process.

I think what I'm hearing from our colleagues is they're looking to tie it more clearly to what would ordinarily be a State of Emergency. And I don't want to speak for them.

I'm just saying what I think I'm hearing. But they're—I think they're looking for some way to separate it from just a way to solve a problem that's specific to a community. But we, we—this is an issue, right, and we do take it seriously.

It definitely is a serious issue to have, you know, homes literally falling off of cliffs in a community and folks can't live in homes where soil erosion is so bad that they don't know what day is going to be the day. And if you're having to red tag homes, we know that that is a process.

So, we just really want to think, and you know, be mindful as this Bill does move through, if it gets out of this Committee, which we do—we have a recommended do pass and we want to give you an opportunity to shore it up, so to speak.

Not a play on words, but we want you to shore this Bill up, the best that you can, so that it does respond to the concern. So, just want to give you a way to think about it, if it does move on to the Committee on Appropriations, and you're looking at additional amendments.

Are there any other additional comments before we ask for closing statements? Assemblymember—Assemblymember Bennett.

Just, yeah, just, just very briefly, I think if—my guess is your primary focus is what is going on right now, in this particular community, and if you could identify minimum thresholds, that might be a way to address some of the concerns we have. How many houses have to be affected? What—how much damage?

Certainly you're way beyond what that would be, but that would keep the governor's office from being pressured by every time a county runs into a problem, they're going to go to their Assembly Member and say, you know, declare this an emergency.

I'm trying to avoid, just from the standpoint of good government, not having to have, you know, elected officials say no over and over and over again because it, the definition is broad.

And as I read this, I just don't see, you know, when you say other, other things that could, could also be qualifying, that's, that's what makes me go whoa. All these other things, you know, can also qualify. We heard the extreme heat issue, you know, etc.

So, I just think, to be safe, making sure that this thing qualifies and there's some limits, so that other things have to get over pretty significant threshold, would be a suggestion I have for you to consider. Thank you very much. And I'll leave it at that. Good luck with the Bill.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Hadwick, you had one more comment?

One more. I just want to say that the local jurisdiction can make that emergency. I appreciate that you're bringing this. It's obviously a concern for your district. Cal OES and the Governor always have that—that option to support or not. I don't think any of us would have thought Covid would be an emergency.

And be, you know, at the level it was. But I think—and winter storms was just added, I believe last year, or the year before, to this list of qualifying incidents. So, I—I appreciate that you'll take our concerns of just making this broader and broader. Emergencies are so different throughout our state.

I have an emergency—I have multiple counties that have an emergency for wolves, in my county—in my district right now—for illegal Marijuana grows and the environmental impact to that. I mean, they're very different in my district. And so, I just appreciate you fighting for your district.

Awesome. All right. I—we have a first and second. Assemblymember Muratsuchi, did you want to make any closing comments?

I, I just want to appreciate all the thoughtful comments. We will certainly take, you know, all the feedback and, and continue to work on the Bill to address all concerns. Respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote.

Awesome. Thank you. We have a motion by Assemblymember Hadwick, a second by assemblymember Bennett. Secretary, please call the vote. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Approps.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we're gonna leave the roll open for Members to add on. Thank you. Okay. We're also going to ask for Assembly Member Zbur and Assembly Members Gipson, if your teams are watching, we are ready to hear your bills. And those are the last two bills for the day. Thank you.

Okay, let's open up the roll for first round of votes. We're going to reopen the... We're going to open the roll for Members to add on to previous votes. Do you want to add on? Okay. Okay. We're going to keep the roll open for Members to add on before the meeting adjourns. Thank you. Okay. We're going to take a five minute recess.

We're wrapping up our recess. We have one minute left. And since we publicly announced the five minute recess, we want to give people time to get back.

Okay, we are back. We are back from our recess. Thank you very much. Mr. Assembly Member Zbur, would you like to present Assembly Bill 478, please?

Yes, Madam Chair, Members, thank you for your patience. When disaster strikes, no one should have to choose between their own safety and their pet survival. That's why I'm proud to present AB478, a Bill that is rooted in compassion, common sense, and real experience.

It will ensure that pets are accounted for during emergencies and that cities and counties develop clear procedures to support pet owners during evacuations. The bill was inspired by Oreo, a Pomeranian who went missing during the Palisades fire and survived for five days in the debris before being reunited with his owner.

During disasters, pets may be separated from their owners due to a variety of reasons, including owners not being home at the time of an evacuation order, lack of equipment, or difficulty in capturing the animal. While animals are legally categorized as property, most people view them as family and as such, are determined to save them.

While we have seen incredible examples of fire and safety officials working alongside the public to rescue pets, as well as the extraordinary efforts of local animal shelters and rescuers, we owe it to pet owners across California to ensure that a plan is in place before disaster strikes.

Upon the next update of a city or county's emergency plan, this bill would require the jurisdiction to include procedures for rescuing pets in mandatory evacuation zones. Within that requirement, local jurisdictions have the flexibility to determine what procedures would be most relevant, safe and efficient for their unique circumstances and that are flexible under various emergency situations.

The Bill also directs cities and counties to provide clear online resources on pet evacuation and reunification, as well as a list of pets that have been rescued and provides time and dignity to both animals and their owners.

By extending the time owners have to reclaim their rescued pets before they're adopted out, transferred, or euthanized, AB478 will help to ensure that clear pet rescue procedures are in place prior to disaster so that rescues are conducted efficiently and will incentivize pet owners from endangering themselves by attempting unauthorized rescues.

Respectfully asked for your aye vote at the appropriate time. With me today in support of the bill are Mayor Lana Negrete, Mayor of Santa Monica, who will speak to the need for the bill based on her unique experience during the recent fires of the LA area, and Nick Sackett. On behalf of the social compassion and legislation, the sponsor of the bill.

Thank you, go ahead.

Good afternoon Chair Ransom and Members of the Committee. My name is Lana Negrete. I'm the Mayor of Santa Monica. Thank you very much to Assembly Members of Zbur for authoring AB478. I'm honored to be here today in support of this important legislation.

As you would expect being the Mayor of a city affected by the Palisades fire and mandatory evacuations, I was inundated with various calls for assistance from residents. One of the most common issues residents asked about was when and how they could get their pets that were left at home when they were asked to evacuate.

Unfortunately, even with the access that I had as Mayor of Santa Monica to emergency personnel, including OEM, I was unable to give my residents clear guidance on how to go about rescuing their animals.

I had personnel experienced in disaster response animal rescue who had been given keys to photograph residences and asked if they could help rescue their pets if only he was able to actually get through and get access to the area.

Sadly, because there were no pre existing procedures or plans in place on how to go about facilitating animal rescue, I could not get any authorization from OEM or anyone else to allow these experienced rescuers authorized access to the evacuated areas.

In fact, everywhere I turned I was pointed in a different direction to go speak to that person or go speak to this person. And I in fact dragged this person to every presser that I had during the fires and unfortunately we weren't able to get any help.

If that was my experience as the Mayor, you can only imagine the frustration and terror that residents felt trying to get help getting their pets. Trying to figure out a plan after the disaster strikes is not a winning strategy. Families love their animals and are naturally going to be panicked and desperate to save them during an evacuation.

Without a pre existing plan, many residents will take action into their own hands, but as you can imagine, that can only lead to confusion and chaos and create safety concerns for residents and emergency personnel alike. As elected officials, I think we owe it to our constituents to have a plan in place to facilitate their rescues.

The bill simply directs our cities and counties to do just that. What that plan Looks like who implements it. Those are choices that each jurisdiction. Jurisdiction will have to make on its own. This bill can't dictate that kind of granular detail, but what it can do is push each of us to lay out this very important plan.

So we all know these disasters are only becoming more frequent, unfortunately. So let's make sure that we are ready. And with that, I thank all of you for the time that you've allowed us here. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. I'm so sorry I flew in, and I'm losing my words, but thank you.

We appreciate it. You did a great job. Sir, you have two minutes.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair, Members. My name is Nicholas Sackett, Director at Social Compassion in Legislation, an animal advocacy Non-profit founded in 2007 and proud sponsor of AB478. The reason why we and other animal rights organizations support this bill is because we are acutely aware of the bond that our supporters have with their animals.

We see every day the lengths that Californians will go to save their pets from harm, the way that their pets bring them comfort, joy, and love.

A 2024 Pew Research poll showed that 97% of Americans consider their pet family, with 57% of women and 64% of lower income demographics saying their pets are as important to them as a human family Member. Legally, animals are seen as property, but we all know that the bond that we have with their pets goes well beyond that.

This bill recognizes the reality of those figures and the anxiety and emotional turmoil people feel when they need to rescue their animal but can't because there are no procedures or authorities to turn to for direction on how to go about doing so.

As Assembly Members Burt said in its opening, this bill simply requires local jurisdictions to put a plan in place so residents know who to ask for help and how to go about doing so. So with that, I'll cut my comments short and thank you for your time and appre. And consideration and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you for your presentations. Are there any witnesses in support of the bill?

Good evening, Chair and Members of the Committee. Sosan Madanat here on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund, in strong support. Thank you.

Any witness. Any additional witnesses in support? Witnesses in opposition of the bill? Of course not. I didn't know animals had a legal defense Fund either. I was just saying. All right, let's bring it back to members. Are there any questions or concerns to be. Assemblyman Bennett.

I'm gonna preface my comments by saying sort of our job Being on a Committee and when a bill is in front of Committee, that's when you really want to get granular about the, and try to talk about the things that are important to make it a great bill.

And the idea that cities and counties should come up with these plans for this is overdue. Things have changed in terms of our relationship with pets and we clearly need to recognize that. So I applaud you for that. The thing I'm concerned about is the very same thing our concerns for pets means.

It's the part of your bill that says that that prohibits pets from adoption euthanasia or transfer from a local animal control for 90 days. That can be a huge burden we have. We take great pride in what we're trying to do with animals in Ventura County.

I served on the animal RIG Committee for a long time and you know, we're always fighting sort of a loaded up facility and to get enough people to adopt, etc.

And so I'm just concerned that, you know, to the extent that animals, as you, as you stated, you know, they're, they become like human beings, you know, real family members. If you're not looking for a family member within 45 days at the animal shelter, you're probably not that attached, right?

So I would encourage a modification of the 90 days and I would encourage the other thing and that is what if they're full and they've got another shelter that they could transfer the animal to as long as they keep track of the animal. You know, this is the picture of the animal.

This is what we know about the animal. And but, but don't strangle these places with, you know, a full facility and then they can't do anything appropriate, you know, with that. So anyway, those would be the two suggestions I would have for modifications.

But I certainly am going to support the bill with that and hope that that is something that you might be able to work out.

We're aware that that is actually one of the issues that's been raised with the bill. We're actually talking to some of the folks from the animal control space and are talking to them about what the appropriate amount of time should be.

The current law allows an animal to be euthanized within three days and we know that that's not enough time.

So we do want to extend it and I think we're going to be looking to an appropriate amount of time that gives folks time during a natural disaster where it may not be something where they can get to an animal shelter or understand where they are an appropriate amount of time to rescue their pet.

So if you would look at time and also look at the ability to transfer if they're full. Thank you. Of course.

Thank you. Assemblyman Bennett. Any other comments or questions? No. Okay. Well, hearing none. Is there a motion Second. All right. We have a motion by Assemblyman Arambula and a second by Assemblyman Bennett. Assemblyman Zbur, would you like to make any closing comments?

I just want to thank thank my sponsor and Mayor Negrete and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Awesome. Okay. With that, Secretary, please call the vote. We have a motion to pass to the Committee appropriations. Do pass.

[Roll Call]

Awesome. Thank you. AssemblyB. We're gonna leave our roll open for Members to add on.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Thanks for coming.

Let's go ahead. We want to go ahead and add on, have Members add on. We have a AssemblyMember Arama here. Can we add on? Thank you.

For AB 300. Arambula, aye. Arambula, aye. AB 590, I'm sorry. AB 591. The motion is do pass to the Committee on appropriations of Arambula, aye. Arambula, aye. AB 645, the motion is do pass to the Committee on appropriations. Arambula, aye. Arambula, aye. AB 716. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Utilities and Energy. Arambula, aye. Arambula, aye.

AB 783, the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Arambula, aye. Arambula, aye. AB 986, the motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Arambula, aye. Arambula, aye. AB 1200, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Arambula, aye. Arambula, aye.

Does he need to do consent? Right. Okay.

Okay. On the on the consent calendar. Arambula, aye. Arambula, aye.

Awesome. Thank you. Assemblyman Gibson, thank you so much for joining us. Whenever you are ready, we are ready to hear Assembly Bill. Help me out here. Your Assembly Bill 598. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for allowing me to to present this bill, Assembly Bill 598, which seeks to establish a school mapping technology on K through 12 campuses. School mapping technology will allow emergency responders to have access to school layout prior to entering a campus.

This technology would drastically decrease response times and would be a life saving measure in case of an emergency. In 2023, there was reported 346 school shootings incidents across the United States injuring about 191 students. And from 2018 to 2023, 1073 people were wounded or killed in a school shooting incident.

In California alone, 96 schools shootings incidents happened within five years, resulting in 82 people being wounded or losing their life. These statistics have significantly affected the safety and the well being of our students in California schools and surrounding communities. Our children deserve better and their lives are on the line each and every day they go to school.

Emergency response times are vital during an event of an emergency. The tragic example of the effects of delays, response time, and lack of communications was felt and was realized and recognized with the Uvalde school shooting that took place in Texas.

Three out of the 19 victims died more than an hour later due to their injuries, which could have been treated. Alongside this, the intent of the school, the school shooter is more often than not to cause massive devastation and massive injuries. Thus these don't usually stop until that the person is killed by or shot by a security officer or law enforcement. It is vital that we are supplying our schools with the most advanced security systems that we can bring up through the technology.

This will not only decrease emergency response times, but it will also give students the reassurance that they need and giving more importance to their safety. And so with me is Joseph Hanson with the Critical Response Group to testify as a primary witness in support of this very, very important measure, Assembly Bill 598.

Thank you, Assembly Member. I am also Joseph, but not Joseph Hanson. Unfortunately, Joseph Hanson is sick today. So you get Joseph Devine in his stead. So, Madam Chair and Members, I'm Joe Devine with Platinum Advisors here on behalf of the Critical Response Group, the sponsors of this bill. Joseph Hanson apologizes for not being here, but again, he is sick and didn't want to infect anyone with whatever he may have. That could be an emergency in itself.

So that being said, Chair Ransom and Members, again, Joe Devine with Platinum Advisors here on behalf of the Critical Response Group, the sponsor of AB 598. Here to express strong support for the measure. When first responders arrive on a school campus during a 911 call, they are entering a highly dangerous, rapidly evolving situation.

Often they're working alongside multiple agencies they don't regularly coordinate with. Yet we expect them to immediately navigate a complex and unfamiliar environment, finding specific rooms, exits, or hazard areas without hesitation. The reality is without accurate accessible maps that's nearly impossible. The maps and blueprints schools rely on today are typically outdated, inaccurate, and inaccessible.

In Uvalde, officers were delayed by schematics deployed depicting shared walls that didn't exist. In Sandy Hook, floor plans were not available for tactical teams at all. These aren't isolated incidents. They expose a systemic vulnerability that puts lives at risk.

AB 598 directly addresses this gap by allowing school districts to contract directly with qualified vendors to create standardized, verified, and accessible digital maps that integrate into platforms first responders already use. Importantly, this bill is vendor neutral. It sets clear standards for school mapping and leaves the choice of provider to local agencies in collaboration with public safety partners.

These maps are designed to help first responders not expose sensitive information, and they provide consistent, accessible, and accurate data across agencies and disciplines. Again, these maps do not contain sensitive, top secret, or classified information of any kind.

And they are protected using the same cybersecurity systems used by the NSA, the National Security Agency, and are housed in platforms compliant with CJIS security standards, which is the Criminal Justice Information Services used by all law enforcement agencies. There's a reason Critical Response Group has mapped over 20,000 schools nationwide, including cities like Dallas, Austin after Uvalde.

The results are clear. The Federal Communications Commission found that room level mapping can improve emergency response times by 4 to 17 minutes. Minutes that can mean the difference between life and death. At its core, 598 is about preparedness, coordination, and saving lives. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you for that presentation. Are there any witnesses in support of this bill?

Madam Chairwoman, we're a tweener. Given that there was not another lead testimony, may I have a couple seconds? I represent CALNENA, the chapter of the National Emergency Number Association. That's the voice of 911 dispatchers in California. We have a support if amended position on the bill.

I think, as the lead witness said, this technology is incredibly important, and we want access to it. We want access to be able to dispatch the right response and to make sure that triage happens as quickly as possible. Our primary concern is that being vendor agnostic is that the tools that are created through the process are easily accessible in the platforms and the data systems that we currently use today.

That means on the eight or so screens that a dispatcher has in front of them with the existing software and also the complementary software that exists in the field that the police officers might have in their car, that the firemen have in their fire engines and so forth.

So we're looking for a small amendment to the bill that asks that Cal OES implement the program in consultation with the 911 Advisory Board. The 911 Advisory Board is the voice of dispatchers, fire, CHP, and law enforcement. We don't think that that adds any cost to the bill. We just think it makes the program more robust and brings in all these other voices. But again, we 100% support the goal of the author, and really appreciate him bringing a proposal like this forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of the bill?

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Sam Nasher on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support.

Okay, thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition to this bill? Seeing none. We'll bring it back. Is there, are there any questions or discussions from the Committee? Vice Chair Hadwick.

Hi. My question was going to be about the CALNENA request, if you were going to amend that to have the 911 dispatcher, 911 advisory board on there. It's in their opposition letter.

Yeah, I think we're happy to have that conversation from our perspective. And again, I don't want to speak for the author, but we believe that OES already has this capacity. They have the relationships to then coordinate with all agencies. And so, you know, we don't want to make the bill unnecessarily burdensome when we believe OES can already accomplish essentially everything that they're asking for.

And how much is the average cost for the schools for each site for this mapping? And how many vendors are there currently or approved vendors?

Thank you for the questions, Madam Vice Chair. While not a subject matter expert, I can speak to the fact that there are at least a dozen vendors in this space. Again, my client being one of many. Sorry, what was your second question?

How many approved and what's the average cost for a school site?

The average cost, because we haven't gone through a financial committee yet, I think is still TBD. We think it's around $5,000 per school, but again, that could fluctuate depending on school size and district size, et cetera. But I think a $5,000 number is what we had pegged last year.

So I just coincidentally spent the last two years creating safety programs for COEs. So we already have a mapping system, but I don't know that it would qualify as your approved vendor. If they already have this and they're already supplying it to dispatch, is that allowed to check this off their box or?

I don't want to speak again for the author, but is our intent to, if that's already available and the school district is utilizing it, we're completely happy with that. The goal here is to provide all school districts with a resource and a tool to be utilized, God forbid, in some type of horrible tragedy. And so we are agnostic to who actually maps. We believe CRG does a little bit better than others.

But fact of the matter is, because it's a vendor neutral bill, we fully support any vendor trying to accomplish this goal. But ultimately it's about making sure that schools are resilient, protected, and that first responders have, again, a common resource that everyone can work off of, again, in, God forbid, some type of horrible tragedy. So that's the goal is just, again, a tool and a resource that everyone can utilize that everyone has access to.

The cost is what makes me nervous. I represent 11 very rural counties that do not have the extra money to spend $5,000 a site for each. So the grant process, if there's a way to put an exemption in there for 10% to go to rural schools or those schools in need, some way, we never qualify.

We don't have the population, we don't have the stats, we don't have the data. It's really hard to get those competitive grants, even at a state level, let alone national level. It just doesn't happen. So that's the part that makes me nervous. I absolutely support the intent of the bill, and I will be voting for it, but that's my concern. So I just wanted to voice that.

And certainly I appreciate that I noted it so we could just circle back around to you, to your office, specifically about some of the, some of the questions you asked, especially about the cost and about grants and about the percentages you made mention of.

And I think you'd be surprised at how many are already doing this, at least in the North. I'm finding more and more that we're doing things really well up there. So.

Vice Chair Hadwick, thank you very much. Assemblyman DeMaio. All right, we have a first and second. I'd like to thank the author for bringing this bill. Clearly it's a great tool. You mentioned school shootings, but it's clearly a great tool for fire and police as well. So I appreciate the thoughtfulness of it. And we'll hopefully see everything worked out with Approps because we have a first and second. Did you have any closing comments? Oh, excuse me. Assemblyman Bennett.

Thank you. I'd just like to encourage the author to carefully consider the comments made by Mr. Smith regarding 911.

Sure. Absolutely. Oh, thank you. Well noted. Thank you very much. Just as my close, respectfully asked for an aye vote on AB 598. We believe it's a common sense approach, and the technology is here, and we want to protect our children. So again, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 598, Gipson. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you. We. Actually, the Bill, I think is. Do we have enough to have it out yet? No, we still. I think we have a quorum file. Okay. Yes. First Bill out today. zero, no, no, sorry. We're. I'm sorry, we're one show, but we're going to leave the rolls open. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Okay. With that, we're going to leave the roles open, but we're also going to go back and record positions for Members. Thank you, Assemblyman Rumbala. Got you. We know what was on consent. I don't. Yes, we do. Did you need a list? I can vote on that. Then I've got to go. Okay.

So for. Okay, you want. So for consent. Consent was AB260. You want consent? Aye on consent. Okay. And you'll come back. Thank you. Okay. But can we. We need to leave. We need. He's going to come back. He's coming back. He's go back to Tax and Rev. We're going to leave the rolls open probably for about 10-15 minutes because folks need to wrap up other committees.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we're going to leave the roles open for Members to add on for the next 10 minutes. And I am going to turn our meeting over to Vice Chair Hadwick as I need to check in another Committee right now. But Members, please come and cast your votes. If you've not done so, we're going to hold the rolls open. Thank you.

[Background]

We're gonna. We're gonna call on the consent calendar and the missing bills. That's all I had to do.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Can I get a motion to adjourn a second? I'll second. All in favor. Thank you so much.