Assembly Standing Committee on Emergency Management

Alright. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you all for being here. I'm assembly member Rhodesia Ransom, and you are here in the assembly emergency committee on emergency management. Before we start, please note that assembly bill 1639 and assembly bill 2474 have been pulled from this hearing by the authors and remain eligible to be heard at our final special hearing on the twenty third.

Additionally, assembly bill 2475 was removed from consent by request of the vice chair and will now be presented. We have 15 bills eligible today, seven are on consent. Each bill is entitled to a primary witness in support and a primary witness in opposition. Each will be allotted two minutes for the testimony, And I just wanna reiterate two minutes.

Following the presentations, additional individuals may approach the microphone to state your name, affiliation, and position on the bill. Written testimony may be submitted directly to the committee. With that, let's establish a quorum. Madam secretary, can you please call the roll?

Quorum roll call. Ransom.

Present.

Ransom present. Hedwig?

Awesome. We have a quorum present. And so with that being said, we are going to make motions to move forward with our consent calendar.

Second.

Alright. So we have a motion and a second for the consent calendar. We will now move forward with the consent calendar as stated. AB 1699 Rogers, do passed to the committee on appropriations. AB 1836, Gabriel, do passed to the committee on appropriations.

AB 1893 Gallagher, do passed to the committee on appropriations. AB 1995 Patel, do passed to the committee on appropriations. AB 2043 Calderon, do passed to the committee on privacy and consumer protection. AB 2341 Fong, do passed to the committee on appropriations.

AB 2473, which is an emergency management committee, do pass to the committee on appropriation. Thank you for the first and second. Secretary, please call the vote on the items.

On the consent calendar, AB 1699 Rogers do passed to the committee on appropriations. AB 1836 Gabriel do passed to the committee on appropriate. AB 22043 Calderon, do passed to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. AB 2341 Fong, do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. AB 2473, Emergency Management Committee, do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Ransom?

Aye.

Ransom, aye. Hedwick? Arambula? Baines? Bennett?

Bennett, aye. Calderon?

Aye.

Aye.

Calderon, aye. Demaio?

Demaio, aye.

Aye.

Thank you. We'll keep the hold the rule open for absent members. Alright. We're gonna move forward with the remainder of the bills. We're gonna hear these bills and sign in order.

Never mind. We're gonna hear these bills in order. In fact, next up, we have assembly member Bennett.

We are, but it's the only one here, I think.

No. Next, we'll see you. Yeah. She's here, okay. Assembly member Bennett, we're moving forward with Assembly Bill 2013. You may proceed.

Thank you very much, madam chair. We are at a tipping point in California when it comes to wildfires and the damage that they are doing in our communities. And it is very clear that we can't just maintain the status quo and be able to have affordable homeowners insurance in the future. It requires whenever you're trying to change the status quo, it require some challenging moves. We have to stop losses.

And the two key things to stopping those losses is to Harden homes and to make sure we don't prematurely run out of water from our existing water systems. And I want to emphasize, there's nothing in this bill and nothing that I've ever advocated for that says we should rebuild or massively expand the water systems to fight all wildfires.

But they we also should make sure we're doing the basic things so that we don't prematurely run out of water during these, wild when wildfires hit into a community. We literally are losing homes because some water districts did not have a plan to increase their water levels during red flag warnings. We're literally losing homes and lives because water pumps didn't have backup generators when the electricity went off.

And we are literally losing homes, because pumps are burning up that are located in the wildfire area and were never hardened. Those are three basic things that I would call cause premature loss of water, during, these wildfire events when they sweep in. So all this bill is asking for, and all the advocates of this bill, and there are many, are asking for is that we simply have transparency about those three things.

Do water districts have a plan to top their tanks off during red flag warnings? Do they have backup generators or not? Doesn't require them to have these things. It doesn't require them to have backup generators. It just creates transparency as to whether that's the case or not. And then are they hardening their pumps that are in these high fire risk areas? I'll guarantee you, after a fire, all of the the residents at your district, all of the residents ask those very three questions.

After every fire that I've been involved with, residents want to know what were the tank levels? Were their backup generators? Right? Did the pumps burn up? Because those three things keep happening over and over again in California.

So residents want this, and I would offer to you the vast majority of the assembly members, and and state senators want this also. But we do have to make sure we can have this conversation with everybody, and move the bill along outside of this committee. I don't have witnesses here today with me. You would note that the Orange County Fire District is supportive of this bill, But I could easily have many, many, and there are thousands of organizations and residents that would be here. But they're not organized to support these kinds of things.

You know, it's just hard to get residents to to be able to be there over and over again. But I would ask you today to really give a fair shot for this bill to continue to move forward because what all of us seem to constantly ask for from government is transparency. Transparency. That's all the residents deserve, but they deserve transparency. If their water districts don't have backup generators, the residents deserve to know that.

If their water districts don't have a plan to top their tanks off, and I don't mean top all the way, but to make sure the tanks are not at 5% and 10%, which is exactly what's happened in some of these fires, the residents deserve that transparency. And I think you're going to hear from opposition all kinds of reasons why we shouldn't give residents that transparency. And I would offer to you that's the status quo. That's what's been out there.

And that's why over and over again, we find water districts prematurely running out of water because they've never had a frank conversation with their residents about these three actions and for a variety of reasons.

The final thing I would say to you is that I've had a member of the assembly tell me, my water districts are opposed to this because they're not doing these things and they don't want it to be out there in the public. I find it hard for us to buy into that argument and say, let's kill this bill. Let's not have any more transparency. Let's not let this bill get out of committee. And so with that, I will pledge to you one thing.

Last year, we worked on a bill that was much more vigorous than this. The bill we worked on last year for the County Of Ventura only actually required them to have backup generators, required them to harden those things. We had a 145 water districts. Those 145 water districts, many of them opposed that bill when we first brought it forward. And they came up with all kinds of this sentence.

We're concerned about this sentence. When we were done, when this bill finally moved forward, we had cleared all of the opposition and there was no opposition from those 145. We have taken I have taken significant amendments to try to deal with the concerns as they're raised.

And I pledge to this committee that I will keep taking those amendments and working hard as long as the amendments don't fundamentally deny the residents the transparency of that they and the fire departments deserve as they're getting ready for wildfires. And I'm ready to pass it on and answer any of the questions that the committee may have.

Thank you, Assemblyman Bennett. As you mentioned, you don't have any primary witnesses here with you. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Thank you for being here. Please introduce yourself, and you may proceed with two minutes, in your testimony.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Kylie Wright with the Association of California Water Agencies. ACWA represents approximately 470 public water agencies statewide. I first wanna thank the assembly member and his staff for the recent conversations.

While the April 6 amendments attempt to address our concerns, ACWA maintains respectfully and oppose unless amended position on AB 2013. Community water systems are designed and constructed to provide safe and reliable drinking water and for localized structure fires consistent with fire codes and industry standards. Public water systems are not designed to combat wildfires, and designing a system in such a way would be physically impractical impractical, financially infeasible, and may compromise the quality and affordability of water.

During a wildfire, extreme demand is placed on water systems, including the use of many hydrants and uncontrolled leaks from damaged homes. Community water systems coordinate closely with their local incident command center in charge of managing wildfire response and actively manage their systems during a wildfire to provide support and information to firefighters in response to the experienced real time conditions.

While the author's intent may not be to impose water systems are designed for wildfire, the bill would create new standards upon water systems for wildfires. The bill would require community water systems to submit a report to the county board of supervisors, including an assessment of the minimum water tank levels and water pumps necessary to maintain average daily system capacity during a wildfire. It is unclear how agencies are expected to calculate the infrastructure and water levels needed to maintain their daily flows during an emergency situation.

And also raises the question if the agencies are then committed to meeting the documented capacity. As a result, this new standard would increase legal liability for public water systems.

ACWA is supportive of wildfire preparedness and planning, but this bill takes the wrong approach. For these reasons, ALCO respectfully asks for a no vote in committee today.

Hi. Good afternoon, chair and members. Andrea Abergel with the California Municipal Utilities Association. Like my colleague said, we respect the author's intention to come to the table and talk with us in our recent conversations. We do acknowledge that those April 6 amendments were substantive.

However, CMUA remains respectfully opposed to AB 2013 for three primary reasons. One, the bill suggests that water systems are designed to fight wildfires. Two, we have concerns with the liability protections in the bill. And three, we generally disagree that the bill is needed. To our first point, our public water agency members are good stewards of the job in which they were tasked to do, provide clean, safe, and reliable water service to Californians.

As the author states, water systems are not responsible for fighting mega fires. However, the language in AB 2013 and the author statement that hydrants should be operable for as long as possible during a wildfire event contradicts that notion by implying some responsibility for wildfires. The government code specifically states that the water service is a property related service that aids in the provision of fire service provided to properties and that hydrants are not designed or installed to provide water service to aid in extinguishing wildfires.

By calling out fire and wildfire in several places, AB 2013 challenges the author's contention that water systems are not responsible for fighting those megafires. To our second point, making information publicly available as to minimum water tank levels or pumps or the location and quantity of backup generators exposes our water systems to liability should at any given time during wildfire that minimum tank level dips below the stated minimum.

We appreciate the author's effort to address liability, but more is needed. Lastly, we just disagree that there's a need for the bill. The committee analysis indicates existing requirements in state and federal law where emergency planning and similar information are reported to emergency management entities. This information required by AB 2013 is duplicative, and the long list of opposition to the bill might suggest that there's doubt about the bill's necessity. For these reasons, we respectfully oppose AB 2013 and urge your no vote today.

Okay. Thank you for that. Do we have so we're now gonna go to the folks that are here. Is there any me too testimony in support of the bill? Okay. Is there any testimony in opposition?

Good afternoon. Adam Quinonez, California Advocates on behalf of Mesa Water District. Respectfully opposed.

Brenda Bass on behalf of Western Municipal Water District. Respectfully opposed unless amended.

Good afternoon. Kiara Ross on behalf of the city of Burbank. Respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon. Jamie Go on behalf of San Diego County Water Authority. Respectfully opposed as well.

Jack Werson on behalf of the Alevehenheim Municipal Water District with an opposed and less amended position.

Good afternoon. Caitlin Johnson with Political Solutions on behalf of California Water Association, and respectful oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chris Anderson, California Chamber of Commerce respectfully oppose unless amended.

Good afternoon. Jaime Minor, Eastern Municipal Water District, shared the oppose unless amended position of our association.

Good afternoon. Aaron Avery, California Special Districts Association, respectfully oppose unless amended.

Patrick Foy with the Three Valleys Municipal Water District, respectfully oppose unless amended.

Good afternoon. Lily MacKay, on behalf of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and West Valley Water District, oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Laura Bennett, on behalf of Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, oppose unless amended.

Okay. So we wanna thank everyone for providing their testimony. With that, we're gonna bring it back to the author. Did you want to, make you a new response to the opposition and or give a closing statement? Oh, I'm sorry.

Before I do that, do there are there any questions from, members of the committee? Assemblymember Calderon. Yes.

Thank you, Assemblyman Bennett. I know how important this issue is to you, and I know you put a lot lot of thought into your bills. I do have a few questions, though. How are water districts already coordinating with local emergency plans?

Well, water districts of certain sizes have to submit, these plans. But many smaller water districts, my understanding are not not doing that. They don't have to submit the plans that major water districts have to submit. There's certainly a big, big difference there. For example, you know, in our county, in Ventura County, a 145 water districts, many of them, the fire district Ventura County Fire District was very frustrated because they could not get the information from the water districts in terms of what was going on.

There's a water district that had four water pumps, that supposed to be serving the area. Three of them were down and had been down for a significant period of time. And fire department was not informed of that. As they were moving into that area during a major fire, they would have handled things differently if they would have known there was only one water pump active and that three water pumps were down. So it it varies greatly in terms of how much cooperation there is out there.

I might point out in terms of the issue raised about liability, that they say, hey, if they report this information that they'll have liability that many of the many water districts already report this information. This is the very information that we're asking for here is provided by some water districts, but it should be provided by all water districts. So it's very spotty. It's

it's my summary answer for you in terms of how much they are coordinating and truly coordinating with the fire district.

Okay. Is does the opposition have ... anything to add?

Well, the to the coordination piece, the existing preparedness plans, planning is done at a different level than what the information is in this required in this bill. The planning is telling you who is doing what and when and where and how are we going to maximize the resources to move things around.

What this bill is as asking and some of the information is required by the disaster preparedness plan already required in the government code is, yes, where are the backup generators or or or do you have backup generators at your water sources? That's part of the disaster preparedness plan. Currently, the requirement is 10,000 or more connections to do that.

And the water levels, the pressurized, etcetera, some of that stuff is are is included in the disaster plan. So all water agencies that are CMUA members are coordinating with their local emergency response departments in their cities and counties on this on emergency preparedness, whether it's per the state and federal or their own additional information that they are providing.

I will also add to the liability piece. Submitting the information, that's already in existing law is different from the new standards that would be placed within this bill, and the language really matters when it comes to liability.

Okay. Thank you. And then with respect to the annex, what are the costs in in developing the annex? And would this be a burden taken on by rate payers or or customers?

The cost to create and submit the plans for small water districts would not be substantial at all. I can't imagine that it has a significant you're talking about small water I'll give you an example of actual water district you know about. Water district serves about 400 connections, and they had a pump, a tank, and they could have it would have been having one backup generator, and they could have hardened that one pump, and that's it.

Now, to create a report that identifies, are we going to take any action when there's a red flag warning? Are we going to make sure our tanks the classic example, in one city, they always filled their tanks at midnight.

The fire swept into that city at 10:30 at night. They had not done anything and their tanks were at less than 10%. And because their tanks were at less than 10%, literally, they ran out of water within minutes. When if the tank would have been more full, doesn't have to be all the way full, they could have had water for hours.

Then on top of that, they had backup generators, but they didn't have the backup generators anywhere near where the tanks were or where the pumps were.

And the backup generators did not have the right, couplings. So they had never tested the backup generators. And so the backup generators, even when they got there, they could not hook them up properly. And this small water district I talked to you about, they had one they had a a shed, wooden roof on it. The wooden roof caught on fire burned up and the pump went out.

And now instead of that water district, having some flow coming back in, it was out for, multiple hours, before they could repair that pump. So creating a report about that when you have one pump, one backup generator, one tank is not very expensive. Water districts as has been reported, but that they already include some of this information in their emergency report. But number one, it is scattered in the emergency report.

This asked for it to be an annex that specifically deals with these things so that the public can have easy transparency to it and fire departments can have easy, transparency to it.

I have other answers to questions here, but I'll but, anyway, I hope that helps you. I I don't think I don't think you can call the cost significant. Thank you.

Would you like to respond?

Respectfully disagree. We think that the cost would be significant, especially for those small systems. Those, above a 100 customers and up to 3,300, which is the federal requirement. Those small systems already fight for the resources that they have. And using their time and resources to develop a plan, that is not actually a plan as I kinda mentioned in my prior response of coordinating emergency response is not the best use of the resources in our opinion.

For those that are above the 3,300 connections or the larger systems that that we, equally represent, they still have time and resource expense. And the question that we have is is this bill necessary for the impact that it would have on the rate payers?

I would just ditto that response.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly member Calderon, Assemblymember Hadwick. Did you have a question? No? Anything else from the committee? Okay. Well, with that being said, my my only comment is, first of all, thank you for taking the amendments that we talked about.

I think as we can hear, there's, still work to do to make sure that we're working with the stakeholders in regards to answering their concerns and making sure that you're, able to, you know, deal with the concerns about how it will work out on the on the other side, if this motion does pass and go on to the, environment environmental safety and toxic material committee. With that be said being said, we're now going to do we have a motion or okay.

There's a motion and a second? I didn't hear a second. Was there a second? So we have it moved by assembly member Rambla. Okay.

There's not a second on the motion. I'm gonna go ahead and I'm gonna second the motion. Normally, don't wanna do that, but I'm gonna go ahead and second the motion to give you an opportunity to get this bill an opportunity. And then we have other members who are here or who are not here who may be able to add on. So we'll see where it goes.

But that with that being said, we have a first and a second. Did you wanna make any closing statements?

Yes. I would. I'd like to I'd like to offer just a couple of things. Number one, the water districts have been talking about an emergency plan that they're submitting. That emergency plan mostly talks about what kind of coordination they're going to have with fire districts about who's going to do what during a fire, etcetera.

That's different than what is needed. And what is needed is transparency about what has happened before the fire happens, What has happened? And it's not just fires. It's for all kinds of situations where the power might be out. And that is, are you do you have appropriate tank levels?

Do you have backup generators? That's that's one. So there's a fundamental difference when they say we're already doing this. They're not doing this. They're doing coordination.

This is about what is needed. Number two, I would emphasize the cost question that you brought up. Ask just ask yourself, how expensive would it be for a small water district that has 400 customers to be able to simply identify? That's all it says. Identify.

Do you have backup generator for your do you have you hardened your well? That can't be a major expense. And water districts that I've talked to have have clearly identified that that is not by itself a major expense. Now there may be some real expense and they're fighting for resources if they if the bill required them to buy a backup generator, but to just report it is the transparency that the public really wants.

The next thing I would offer to you as I think it's you should I see it as very beneficial that the only people that really came here to oppose this are water districts.

You don't have the general public saying there's something wrong with this transparency bill. You have only water districts that have a vested interest in always maintaining the status quo. Instead, what I would hope is you would let this bill survive to other days and other reviews or many more committees has to go through the Senate also. It has to come to the assembly floor.

If you let it survive the concerns that the three concerns that were brought up, one, that the systems were not designed to fight wildfire.

We completely agree. I've stated it. We try to state it in our, author statement. The committee has suggested language that clearly states we're not trying to give them or a mandate or any kind of liability to fight wildfires, number one. Number two, on the liability language, we worked and last year received we worked on liability and we came up with language that we received agreement on in terms of liability.

We're happy to continue to add more liability language and work with these people, to try to make sure the liability is is, taken care of. And then a fundamental question, they say this is not needed. And that's what I would most strongly disagree with. I can show you fire after fire, and I gave you specific examples where these things weren't happening. And the public after the fact still cannot get the answers as to whether they were topping the tanks off or not.

This is years later when liability statute of limitations is there and everything else. They can't get these answers. We need this transparency in California because to go back to my beginning, we're at a tipping point. We can't keep doing things like we have. Yes.

We have to harden, but we also have to have our water systems at least tell us whether they're likely to prematurely run out of water or not. With that, I respectfully ask you to keep this bill alive until we have further opportunities to work with the opposition on this.

Thank you. That's right. Thank you, assembly member Bennett. We have a motion and a second. The motion is do passed to the committee on environmental safety and toxic materials.

Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Alright. Thank you, Assemblyman Bennett. We're gonna hold the role open for absent members to add their pleasure on this item. Next up, we are gonna have assembly bill twenty three eighty five by Petrie Norris related to local reconstruction agencies. Apologies.

Alright. You can begin whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon members. Pleased to join you today to present AB 2385. California communities are facing more frequent and more severe natural disasters, but California's local governments lack clear authority to plan for and execute post disaster recovery. Forty years ago, the legislature passed the disaster recovery reconstruction- reconstruction act of 1986 to equip local governments with tools to proactively plan for disasters.

It authorized regional entities to manage recovery with powers including tax increment financing, property acquisition to prevent land speculation, and authority to enter into contracts for large scale rebuilding.

However, because this act references now defunct community redevelopment agencies, the authority to perform this recovery work is effectively eliminated. This ambiguity delays rebuilding, increases costs, and leaves communities vulnerable to disorganized recovery and speculative development. AB 2385 clarifies state law by allowing local government to create local reconstruction agencies. This bill enumerates specific powers necessary for comprehensive recovery, including property acquisition to prevent land speculation, financing authority, and contracting.

Finally, it offers state support directing the California Office of Emergency Services and the Governor's Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation to develop model ordinances and provide technical assistance to local governments.

We believe that AB 2385 is an important step to ensure that communities across the state are prepared to respond when disaster strikes. Pleased to be joined today by Melissa Sparks Kranz in the League of California Cities and Lauren Harper from the Los Angeles County Blue Ribbon Commission on Climate Action and Fire Safe Recovery. Thank you for being here.

Okay. Great. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chair Ransom and committee members. My name is Melissa Sparks Kranz. I'm with the League of California Cities. We work on behalf of the state's 483 cities and towns.

We're pleased to be in support of AB 2385, and we thank Assembly Member Petri-Norris for carrying this bill and her leadership on it. AB 2385 does clarify state law to to authorize cities and counties to develop these disaster recovery plans prior to a disaster occurring. This will help facilitate expeditious and orderly recovery and reconstruction, again, following a disaster should it occur. Developing these plans unlocks a really powerful tool, as she mentioned.

Basically, it would reauthorize the construct of a redevelopment agency, but in the context of disaster, calling them local reconstruction agencies to really empower local governments to use a portion of our tax revenues to be able to finance disaster re- recovery needs, rebuild, reconstruction, any additional efforts to support us in the recovery.

As- As mentioned and as we have all experienced in the last decade, disasters, regardless of type, are increasing in- in frequency and severity. And I have the ability to talk to cities every day about those various types of disasters and how it's really the threat impacts their community and how they're planning and how they're preparing for disaster. AB 2385 really proposes valuable changes in law that would support our community recovery, from future disaster events.

So we respectfully request your aye vote today on AB 2385. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you, chair, and to the committee for this opportunity to speak in support of AB 2385. Again, my name is Lauren Harper. I'm the director of sustainable cities at the Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator. The Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator or LACI is a nonprofit Cleantech Incubator that works to create an inclusive green economy.

After in the aftermath of the January 2025 wildfires, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Climate Action Fire Safe Recovery was created, and Matt Peterson, our CEO, became chair. Part of my role was to staff him and support the 20 member commission in developing and finalizing and publishing their set of 59 recommendations, to with policymakers in mind in order to help LA recover rapidly and also rebuild with resiliency.

And so within this recommendation book and report, c 11, which is entitled Updating Disaster Recovery Act reconstruction act and encourages, and enables local jurisdictions to plan effectively before occurs and to clarify such powers that a reconstruction authority should ideally have over those local jurisdictions. So within that, AB 2385 does just that.

And it's critical to empowering both communities and local governments to strengthen their disaster preparedness, enable recovery, and rebuild a community that is safer, more adaptive, and able to respond effectively and intentionally before, during, and after disasters occurs.

So thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Okay. With that, are there any witnesses in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, are there any- anyone who'd like to, add on their support for this bill?

If so, you can come to the microphone. Okay. Seeing none, I'm gonna bring it back to the committee. Okay. Alright.

Alright. Are there any questions from members? Alright. Assembly Member Bennett, and then we're gonna move to Assembly Member Hadwick.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate the effort and the- the- the concept that you're moving forward with. After being on the city council and being on the board of supervisors, I tried to look carefully at the implementation steps of this. And so, this is emergency management committee, not the local government committee. But when you're in front of local government committee, I think many of these other issues will be analyzed by staff.

And many of those give me concern. Since I'm not on that committee, I want to express them here. I will definitely be supporting the bill as it moves out, but very concerned about having these things worked out as you go forward with the bill. And the issue of eminent domain, generally, I can live with that one under the right conditions, but I don't I don't know know that I see the process for the public being able to weigh in.

And so I hope that- that process is- is robust.

The sales tax procedures, I'm not sure that they're implementable the way they're set up at this point in time. And then the fact that if the city or the county runs this, does this add to their debt levels even though this is a separate agency being able to take this on?

And then the fact that some of these taxes are district taxes or special taxes and they wouldn't be allowed to be used for some other purpose if you so, anyway, those- those things and- and we'll try to get those expressed clearly to you as- as you move forward.

And thank you. I really I appreciate you- you raising those issues. The bill will next be going to local government, and those are a number of the, I think, challenges that we're grappling with as you translate, you know, as you translate the- the intent, into some of the details. So, we'll continue to work with the team on that, and we'll certainly keep you updated as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

I just wanted to say thank you for bringing this forward. I really like this bill. I love that it's at the local level. Recovery looks so different, in every community. I have 11 counties, and every one of them, it looks different.

So I just really appreciate it and wanted to tell you thank you. I wish I would have thought of it myself. I'm happy to support today.

Thank you, assembly member.

Are there any other questions or comments from the committee? I also wanna thank you for bringing this bill. I know that it has other committees to- to go through, but we definitely appreciate the local approach and the- and the close similarities to redevelopment, which was an amazing tool that we lost in the past. So I really appreciate that and would love to add on as a coauthor later on.

I know this bill is gonna have to go through other iterations, but thank you for bringing this bill.

With that, we have a first and a second on this. Would you like to make yes. Would you like to make any closing comments or statements before we go to the vote?

Well, thank you, madam chair. I appreciate your comments and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Awesome. Thank you. The motion is do passed to the committee on local government. Secretary, please call the vote.

AB 2385, Petrie-Norris. The motion is do passed to the committee on local government. [roll call].

Awesome. We're gonna leave the role open for, absent members to add on. Thank you.

Thank you.

Up next, we have Assembly bill 2492, which is Gabriel related to public safety. Mega sporting events will be presented by assembly member Bauer Kahan.

You got an upgrade if you ask me, but hi, everyone.

Although I did not bring you guacamole. I apologize. Good afternoon, madam chair and colleagues. Pleased to present AB 2492 on behalf of assembly member Gabriel. This is a measure that will ensure safety and security are prioritized when California hosts some of the biggest sporting events in the world, including the twenty twenty seven Super Bowl and the twenty twenty eight Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games.

These events present a unique opportunity to boost our economy, generate millions in state and local tax revenue, and further enhance California's global brand. At the same time, these events require enhanced security coordination to ensure the safety of attendees, athletes, and our local communities.

AB 2492 will accomplish this goal by establishing a framework for interagency coordination, ensuring that state and local agencies as well as host committees are aligned in their efforts to provide the highest level of security while reducing the risk of human trafficking, racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination. Ensuring the highest level of security coordination is appropriate given notable instances of violence at major international sporting events, including the attacks in New Orleans prior to the Super Sugar Bowl just last year.

While we always hope for a safe and peaceful event, AB 2492 ensures that California is prepared for any incident, whether it be a natural disaster, a medical emergency, or a security threat so that we can deliver the best possible events on the global stage.

With me to testify in support of the bill is Amelia Zimani on behalf of California Travel Association. Thank you.

Two minutes. Great. Good afternoon, chair and members. As the Assemblymember said, I'm Amelia Zimani. I'm the director of government affairs and public policy for the California Travel Association.

We are the advocacy organization, in charge of representing the travel and tourism industry in California. My members include destinations, lodging, attractions, transportation companies, and others for whom travel and tourism is important. According to our partners at VISIT California, travelers infused a $156,400,000,000 into our economy in 2024, which supported 1,200,000 jobs and generated $12,600,000,000 in local and state tax revenue. We hope that these numbers will increase as California hosts several major sporting events in the coming years.

The events that we're talking about today, Super Bowl sixty one, and LA twenty eight Summer Olympics and Paralympics represent more than just sporting competitions.

Their investments in California's economic future, workforce development, and international reputation. While the next few years will showcase everything we love about California, our world class venues, vibrant cities, beautiful landscapes, they'll also bring increased scrutiny. It's critical that with the world's eyes on California, we ensure the safety and security of our visitors, workers, and residents.

According to a recent US travel association survey about the World Cup this summer, personal safety emerged as traveler's top concern, reflecting a shift in priorities and increased sensitivity to safety and US policies at the federal level that influence travel decisions. This is unlikely to change before Super Bowl sixty one in winter twenty twenty seven or the Olympics and Paralympics in summer twenty twenty eight.

This bill develops a framework for interagency coordination to ensure that international sporting events are safe for everyone involved and that the only memories people leave California with are positive ones. The attention we're getting from these events will hopefully result in many years of return visits from around the globe. We respectfully urge your support of this bill. Thank you.

Awesome. Thank you very much for that testimony. Is there anyone who any primary witnesses in opposition to this bill? Okay. Is there anyone who'd like to provide additional add on testimony in support of the bill?

Okay. Anyone like to add opposition to the bill? Alright. Seeing no one, I'm going to, bring it back to the committee for questions. No questions? Alright.

I was hoping for some hard ones.

Okay. I'm gonna start by asking, what are you drinking? Okay. Alright. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I'm gonna give it back to Assemblymember Bauer Kahan. Did you have any closing comments?

No. Thank you, madam chair, and I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Awesome. We have a first and a second. The motion is do passed to the committee on arts, entertainment, and sports and tourism. Yes. That's right. Secretary, please call the roll on the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, madam chair and committee members, for your work on this bill. Recent amendments clarify that this bill only applies to statewide public agencies and not localities. California's interagency emergency communication system should be consistent and reliable. Disrupted or otherwise delayed communications during emergencies can create significant risk for first responders and other personnel charged with ensuring public safety.

Unfortunately, some state agencies of Cal OES have directed their IT staff to perform work on the California Radio Interoperable System, CRIS, and the public safety communications division network creating irregularities in this critical system.

In one instance, interference by IT staff caused the California Highway Patrol to lose a critical line of communication for approximately five and a half hours. Without consistent maintenance oversight, the public safety communications division cannot fulfill its mandate to remain operational at all times. AB 2370 reinforces the California governor's office of emergency services authority over maintenance of statewide public safety communications. Here with me to testify in support of AB 2370 are Crystal Moreno, legislative advocate for the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers.

And if we have any technical questions, I have Rob Acker here to answer those questions.

Thank you assembly member. Your witnesses will each have up to two minutes. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Crystal Moreno, and I'm here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, proud sponsor of AB 2370. This bill is intended to clarify existing law and ensure public safety is prioritized across all statewide agencies during emergency communications. AB 2370 simply reinforces that the public safety communications division is the central authority ensuring consistency, coordination, and proper oversight across state agencies.

On behalf of the operating engineers, we represent the skilled professionals who maintain this infrastructure every day.

These telecommunications technicians perform essential work that supports all California's public safety agencies and ensures the state's critical communications network remain operational at all times. These technicians at Cal OES program, diagnose, troubleshoot, and repair emergency communication systems and equipment. And while many state agencies operate their own radio systems as users, PSC provides support and connectivity to those systems. Unfortunately, in practice, we are seeing an inconsistent application of that authority with work being performed outside of the division.

As other state agencies outside of Cal OES are directing IT staff to perform work solely within the scope of PSC technicians.

As a result, PSC network has experienced significant disruptions, and that could have been fatal. These systems require specialized expertise and uniform standards, which this bill helps to protect. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for an eye vote.

Thank you for your testimony. Okay. So we have witnesses in support. If you'd like to add on your support, please come forward.

Good afternoon, madam chair and members. Matt Cremens with the International Union of Operating Engineers and strong support.

Yes, sir.

Hello, committee. Christopher Van Hurst with Local 39, and we ask for we proudly support this bill.

Sorry. It's a little short. Good afternoon, everyone. Brandy Johnson, Local 39, also offer support. Thank you.

Awesome.

Alright. Are there any witnesses in opposition or anyone who'd like to oppose this bill? Okay. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee. We have first and second.

Any questions from committee members? 'Kay. With that being said, Assemblyman Arambula, would you like to add have a closing statement?

Thank you, madam chair, for the ability to present this bill. Ultimately, this bill is about keeping our statewide emergency communication systems reliable. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you for that. Alright. The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on utilities and in and energy. Secretary, please call the vote.

AB 2370, Arambula. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. [roll call].

Thank you. We'll hold the role open for absent members. Alright. Assemblyman Gibson and Assembly Member McKenna, you should start making your way to the committee on emergency management to present your bills. Yep.

Chairwoman, you may begin.

Awesome. Thank you. Today, I'm gonna be presenting Assembly Bill 2475. California relies on after action reports to capture critical lessons learned from disasters and improve future emergency response and recovery efforts. However, ambiguity in current law regarding the timelines for these reports has led to inconsistent implementation and significant delays.

As California Office of Emergency Services interprets current law as directing the completion of after action reports as no longer than one hundred and eighty days after an emergency declaration ends, reports have been postponed for years. As a result, state and local emergency managers are left without timely access to information that could strengthen preparedness and response in the face of in- of increasingly frequent and severe disasters.

This bill is designed to bring clarity, accountability, and timelines to the after action reporting process by separating the response and recovery components into two distinct after action reports with clear deadlines. It ensures that response focused findings and recommendations are available within the first one hundred and eighty days of a disaster when they are most actionable while maintaining the existing timeline for recovery reporting. While waiting for the recovery after action reports, Cal OES will also be required to provide annual recovery updates.

Also, at the request of the local emergency manage- managers who represent California Emergency Services Associations, I've included requirements for local after action reports. These local requirements codify existing Cal OES regulations and provide additional clarity time for local emergency managers to complete their after action reports and authorizes after action reports as an eligible cost for CDVA funds. By improving the structure and timelines of after action reports, this bill strengthens California's ability to learn from past emergencies and better protect our communities in future disasters.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Do you have any primary witnesses?

I do not have any primary witnesses because it's such a great bill. It does not require primary witnesses.

Are there any witnesses in support in opposition? Bring it back to the members for questions? We have a motion by Arambula and a second by Calderon. Would you like to- Do you wish to do closing arguments?

No. I just wanna say that as we have seen these frequent natural disasters and emergencies, it's really important that we have responsiveness from our agencies, both- both local and statewide in regards to what has happened and what lessons we can learn from and how we can move forward in- in the best way to prepare California to respond in the future. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Secretary, please call the vote.

On AB 2475, the motion is do passed to the, committee on appropriations. [roll call].

Thank you. The vote is four. We will hold the roll open for absent members.

Awesome. Thank you. Alright. So okay. You know, I'm going to spin in a circle, and then I'm gonna go ahead and do the next bill that we have on behalf of the assembly and manage committee on man emergency management.

It's that was thank you. Assembly Bill 2543.

We are ready for you.

Thank you. This bill, Assembly Bill 2543, deals with emergency preparedness for electrical vehicle fast charging infrastructure. California is the most disaster prone state in recent history regarding things such as fires. Given the vast array of natural disaster risk our communities face, planning for emergency preparedness in the electrical vehicle space should not be ignored. Emergency preparedness in the EV sector during an active emergency remains unexplored, underscoring the urgent need for clear guidelines for direct current fast charging operations in the event of an emergency.

With the climate driven hazards such as wildfires, the grid occasionally being subjected to plans planned shutoffs, comprehensive emergency plans that explicitly address EV charging infrastructure can help ensure Californians retain access to critical charging services when they need them most. Emergency plans that consider EV charging infrastructure typically relax or suspend the usual regulations and standards governing operations.

While this is understandable in the interest of life safety, we should still aim to mitigate preventable gaps by establishing baseline expectations, identifying critical assets, and planning for continuity so the Californians can make the best use of available resources even under emergency flexibilities. As California transitions away from fossil fuels, we must consider what emergency operations in the EV space looks like without legacy fuel infrastructure.

This bill will ensure that our emergency management systems are most prepared to swiftly and effectively respond to future disasters, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any primary witnesses?

As previously, this is such a great bill. We don't need any primary witnesses. Thank you very much.

Witnesses in support. Opposition? We'll bring it back to the members.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Do you have closing comments?

I just wanna say as we start to see, you know, more electric vehicles and this transition, it's so important that in the- in- in a disaster and in times where we our infrastructure is interrupted, we wanna make sure that people can access these things. And so this is important as we move forward. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Secretary, please call the vote.

AB 2543 Ransom. Aye. The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on utilities and energy. [roll call].

Thank you. The vote is at five, and we will hold the roll open for absent members.

Thank you. Alright. Thank you. Next up, we have Assembly bill twenty four eleven by Assembly member Skinner relating to the California Olympic and Paralympic Public Safety Command agreements with state and local agencies. Assembly member, thank you.

You may proceed when you're ready. Thank you. Madam chair and members, as Chair of the assembly select committee on the 2028 Olympics and Paralympic games, I am honored to present AB 2411, which will require the California Olympic and Paralympic public safety command established by the California Office of Emergency Services in 2019 to create a temporary process allowing in state and out of state law enforcement agencies in coordination with federal security efforts to supplement local security operations during the twenty twenty eight Olympic and Paralympic games.

The twenty twenty eight games will mark the third time the world gathers in Los Angeles, providing a global opportunity to showcase California's values, leadership, and resilience. However, international events also place significant demands on regional public safety resources. This bill is about public safety collaboration between our federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies so that the twenty twenty eight games are as safe as they possibly could be for the public and for the host city.

While federal agencies coordinate security in the most sensitive areas surrounding competition venues, the federal role and state and local roles will have separate public safety responsibilities. The operational impact extends beyond game venue locations. Experience from recent host cities, including the twenty twenty four games in Paris, shows there are many demands for public services and safety entities to consider at the local and regional levels.

To meet security needs for the games, it is possible that out of state police officers may need to be contracted with the state to help meet local public safety security needs. All of out of state police officers working on the game details will be required to adhere to and enforce California law.

This possibility is because the Los Angeles Police Department will have limited capacity to assign 2,000 officers to games details per day while also being responsible to continue for the safety and security of the public. This potential gap must be filled. California has some of the strictest standards in the nation to become a police officer, and my office is actively working with the commission on peace officer standards and training regarding contracting out of state police officers providing security for the games.

As it is their responsibility to evaluate the training, educate, and and and experience of law enforcement officers. The critical public safety bill allows for a streamlined post certification process for out of state contracted law enforcement officers operating in California during the games for a reasonable amount of time for the games.

Furthermore, it will enable the city to augment staffing levels and meet expanded public safety demands across the region. Aye, along with the bill sponsor, are committed to continue working, on this bill with stakeholders, including Cal OES and POSE peace officers standing training commission so that we can be proactive and provide our law enforcement partners at the state and local level the resources they need so that we can all have a fun and safe twenty twenty eight games in Los Angeles and the region.

Here to testify in support is Nicole Kurian? . Kurian, state affairs manager with the office of mayor Karen Bass, City of Los Angeles, the sponsor of this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Nicole Kurian, and I serve as state affairs manager to Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass, the proud sponsor of AB 2411. As Los Angeles prepares to welcome the world, the city must be fully equipped to meet increased public safety demands.

Similar to other recent global events such as the twenty twenty four Paris Olympic games, host cities must ensure adequate law enforcement personnel are available to meet heightened security requirements while continuing to provide regular public safety services to residents and visitors. The twenty twenty eight games will require a significant increase in law enforcement staffing well beyond Olympic venues, creating a regional strain on top of the city's regular service demands.

Current estimates for the number of officers needed cover the city of Los Angeles during the twenty twenty eight games is approximately 6,000 per day. Even with full deployment and exhaustion of overtime, the total need is estimated to be between ten and twelve thousand officers to ensure enough on duty officers are available each day of the games. Eighty twenty four eleven is designed to ensure the Los Angeles region has sufficient law enforcement coordination and capacity for the twenty twenty eight Olympic and Paralympic games.

This bill establishes a temporary process led by Cal OES to coordinate in state and out of state law enforcement agencies to supplement local security operations during the games. This bill will complement the national special security event structure led by the US Secret Service, which is responsible for the security zones for competition venues by ensuring sufficient staffing and coordination across the broader region outside of these zones where local jurisdictions maintain the primary responsibility.

Ultimately, this bill enables local law enforcement to do what they do best, protecting their communities while allowing federal partners to focus on their designated security responsibilities. For these reasons and on behalf of Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass, I respectfully ask for your support on this bill.

Thank you, and thank you for your testimony. Is there is there any other testimony in support for the bill? Would anybody like to speak on it? Okay. Are there any witnesses in opposition of the bill?

Okay. Well, seeing no one, I'm gonna bring it back to the committee. Are there any questions? Alright. Well, we have a motion, first and a second.

The motion is do passed to the Committee on Public Safety. Secretary, please call the roll.

Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. I'm really excited. This is great. We really appreciate you helping us get prepared. So, thank you for that. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Alright. The bill has five votes, and we're gonna hold the roll open for absent members.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you. Alright. So we're gonna go ahead and add on we're gonna go ahead and add on votes for the members who have joined us. So we're gonna first, I will do the consent calendar.

On the consent calendar, Hadwick Aye. Hadwick, Aye. Arambula Aye. Arambula, Aye. Banes.

Okay. That bill is out. We'll still hold the roll open on the consent calendar. Consent calendar is out. K. We're gonna move forward to add on members to AB 2013. Bennett.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Okay. So at this point, we have one bill left. We're waiting for Assemblymember Mike Gipson. Mister Gipson, if you can hear us, if you're in committee, please join us.

Superhero. This is right room. Right?

We are so delighted to have you join us.

I'm delighted to be here.

Alright. Next up, we have Assemblyman Gipson with Assembly Bill 2405, related to the Emergency Medical Services Act. We'll give you a second to catch your breath and... We know you ran.

I was chairing a committee and rushing up here and to leave the roll open for that committee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present something I'm very passionate about. Assembly Bill 2405. This bill is related to the Emergency Medical Service Act.

Assembly Bill 2405 addresses an issue that has become one of a statewide concern. A hospital, hospitals throughout California face an epidemic of overcrowding. Our hospitals are being pushed to the brink by many factors, and one of these is in practice of law enforcement bringing patients to hospitals that is not in the same neighborhood in which they enforce or work in.

An extreme example of this is being experienced at the hospital that's near and dear to me, and that is Martin Luther King Community Hospital in South Los Angeles. This hospital is receiving patients from all over Los Angeles County who is being brought by law enforcement.

Many of these law enforcement officers are bypassing, and I wanna underscore, bypassing many hospitals on their way to Martin Luther King Hospital. I have been a long standing champion for quality of care that has exemplified, that has been exemplified by this hospital.

And it is very important to me that they, that they have the necessary support to keep their doors open. This is a simple bill that would require law enforcement to transport patients to the geographically closest hospital rather than a hospital they choose.

Assembly Bill 2405 would also require data reporting from law enforcement so that if a pattern, and I want to underscore, if a pattern is identified, there can be a conversation with the emergency management service authorities about how to best address that pattern.

This bill seeks to ensure that vulnerable communities, California communities, communities in which I represent, receive a timely, equitable emergency medical care by establishing clear, consistent standards for law enforcement transport to emergency departments.

Assembly Bill 2405 addresses these challenges by requiring law enforcement agencies to transport individuals to the nearest appropriate emergency department with exceptions for specialized care needs and alternative destinations sites, such as behavioral health facilities, detox facilities or detox centers, or sobering centers.

Additionally, this bill established a statewide reporting framework, enabling the emergency medical service authorities to monitor, to comply, to monitor compliance, publish data, and enforce standards. Data shows, data shows that there have been over 400 law enforcement transports to Martin Luther King Hospital. I just need that to sink in for a moment.

400 law enforcement transports to Martin Luther King Community Hospital over the last four months. I did say four months. Including from jurisdictions far outside its service area. In a meeting with the hospital's leaders, leadership, I've learned that some of these patients came from, watch this, Santa Monica, Hollywood, Pasadena. Without legislation, Martin Luther King...

Oh, let me go back. Excuse me. When you look at the distance from Santa Monica to Martin Luther King Hospital, we're talking about 20 miles. When you talk about from Pasadena to Martin Luther King Hospital, we're talking about roughly 22 miles. And guess what? They're passing up 15 hospitals along the way, and we're talking about seven hospitals along the way.

But we're going to Martin Luther King Hospital, an already distressed hospital by California state standards. Without legislation, Martin Luther King Hospital will continue to see drop offs that came from, again, from Santa Monica, Pasadena, and perhaps, every week, if this legislation doesn't pass.

This place a significant strain on the limits of on limit resources of safety net hospitals and exacerbate already high emergency department utilizations. Assembly Bill 2405 addresses inequities and strengthens overall emergency care systems while supporting a long term stability of safety net hospitals and improve outcomes for patients across California.

Here with me to support these measures are two qualified individuals representing Martin Luther King Community Hospitals, and one is the Vice President of Community Affairs for Martin Luther King Hospital, both which will self introduce.

Thank you, Assemblyman Gipson. I wanna let your witnesses know. First of all, welcome, and you'll have two minutes each to give your testimony.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Kristy Wiese with Capitol Advocacy on behalf of the Martin Luther King Junior Community Hospital. We're very grateful to the Assembly Member for taking this issue on and look forward to a conversation about how we can address this. With me is Dr. Atul Nakhasi from the hospital, and he's dealing with this situation day in and day out. So I'd like to, I'll give him a chance to share the hospital's perspective.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Nakhasi, and I serve as Vice President of Government and Community Affairs at Martin Luther King Community Hospital in South LA here in support. Our emergency department is facing an overcrowding crisis that endangers patient safety and care.

We have 29 beds but regularly see 350 patients daily, making us one of the nation's busiest emergency departments, right in South LA. Even our chapel and gift shop are used for patient care today. One unfair reason why is law enforcement agency drop offs from far outside our community.

Timely access to emergency medical care is a matter of statewide concern. EMS is required to transport patients to the nearest appropriate facility, yet law enforcement agencies lack such uniform standards. This inconsistency causes unsafe delays, unfair patient distribution across EDs, and three, overcrowding of safety net hospitals.

We see this firsthand. In the last four months, we had 400 law enforcement drop offs, some from as far away as Santa Monica, Pasadena, and Hollywood. On April 4th at 12:28am, a patient on a 51/50 involuntary hold was dropped off from the Pasadena area, 22 miles away from our hospital.

This required bypassing more than 13 other hospitals, including San Gabriel Valley Hospital, Garfield Medical Center, Monterey Park Hospital, Adventist Health White Memorial Hospital, and nine others. For someone in a behavioral health crisis or with an undiagnosed medical condition, that delay is dangerous.

Minutes matter. AB 405 fixes that with a simple common sense and uniform standard. If law enforcement transports someone to an emergency department, they go to the nearest appropriate one, just like EMS already does. This bill also preserves flexibility for specialty care and alternative destinations and improves transparency so we can build a better system together. I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Vanessa Gonzalez with the California Hospital Association here in support of AB 2405. With emergency department visits at an all time, all time high and an estimated 2.1 million Californians expected to lose coverage by 2034 due to HR 1, ensuring timely, equitable, and consistent access to emergency care is more important now than ever.

We appreciate Assembly Member Gipson focusing on law enforcement transports, as this is an issue for many of our hospitals across the state, and we look forward to working with the author to help move the bill forward. Respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony and for bringing this important issue to the state and everyone else's attention. Are there any other witnesses, anyone that'd like to add in support of this bill? Is there anyone who would like to provide opposition testimony or speak in opposition of this bill? Okay. Seeing no one. I'm gonna bring it back to the Committee Members for questions. Assembly Member Hadwick, Vice Chair Hadwick.

Hi. I have a lot of questions. As you can imagine, I completely empathize with what's happening in your city, and that's horrible. I represent 11 very rural communities, so this, or counties. So this is gonna look really different where I live. So I, can you explain. The bill requires law enforcement to transport someone to the nearest medical emergency department. What does that mean? Like, other other than just the...

Yeah. The way it's defined in the bill is the nearest geographic emergency department to the point of pickup of the individual.

Okay. So in my district, that would be out of state. So is that accounted for at all? In a lot of my communities, it would be out of state.

We've spoken to law enforcement agencies and look forward to working with them and heard their concerns as well and how we can take into consideration timeliness as well as geography. So the closest, nearest appropriate facility by time as well as geography.

And then it lists out that it does not limit a law enforcement officer from transporting individuals to the appropriate alternative destination, including sobering centers, detox centers, behavioral health crisis centers, psychiatric stabilization units, freestanding psych hospitals, or designated or contracted psychiatric emergency facilities. Does this include other situations not mentioned here, or is that the list?

Do you have an example of what type? I mean, we tried to be comprehensive in coming up with the language, right, to address all of the other scenarios. I mean, the goal here both from the hospital's perspective and I'm sure from law enforcement's perspective is to get people to the appropriate place to get care. So we tried to be as comprehensive as possible. Is there a specific, is there a specific or particular type of facility that you're seeing?

So I guess I'm thinking more in emergency situations. So, like, during a fire a lot of times our roads are closed and they can't go that way. Hospitals are full at capacity. They're taking them maybe to shelters, to a nurse at the shelter. They're just, there's always some other what if, I guess.

So when it, when they're listed and very specific, then if there is another facility, is that considered? I'm mostly worried about the civil penalty. That's what I'm worried about for my department. So are they going to be, can language in there that that gives them that option, I guess? Like, it feels very restricted to me.

I would just wanna comment. And if you, in my statements, I said if there's a clear pattern. Right? If there's no clear pattern, well, there's not an issue. But as I try to articulate and the good doctor from Martin Luther King has articulated, with the 400 calls in one month.

Oh, that's a pattern. Yeah.

That seems to be a a pattern. From Santa Monica to Watts, from Pasadena to Watts. And we're not talking about, in this bill, people who've suffered gunshots being transported by police. We're talking, we're, you know, we're talking about 51/50s. We're talking about those kinds of situations. Emergency vehicles, emergency personnel will still respond accordingly to transport individuals who needs the care.

What I'm most concerned about is, in 2015, Martin Luther King Hospital closed. And it reopened up again, where we have right now. It's opened up a second time, and we're grateful. But during the time that Martin Luther King Hospital was closed, you know how many, there was a lot of people who'd passed away because the nearest hospital was so far away. Right?

And if we don't try to address some of these issues now, we can have some of our frontline law enforcement public safety officers in the line of duty, you know, suffer gunshot wounds, and we need that hospital to remain standing.

But if we continue to go down a pattern we're going down right now, if something like that happened, King's door is closed, then we look at a loss of life. Whether it's law enforcement, whether it's our first responders, we cannot afford to have what we're having right now continue if we don't address it. And this bill and this measure seeks to try to address some of the issues that we see as problems.

And I think if I can add to that as someone I think what you're speaking to is some accommodation for exigent circumstances. We've had conversations with law enforcement, and they've raised the need for that type of language.

The bill is double referred to Public Safety, so we'll be having a conversation around that as well. Because I think too, I mean, as you've heard here, there's clearly a pattern that we're trying to address. But we do understand that in emergency circumstances, there needs to be an accommodation.

One daily, that's all they're doing. Right? They're instant decisions that they have to make. So I completely think this works for your district. It, unfortunately, doesn't work for mine. The reporting, additional reporting is always really hard. I have counties that have 10 deputies.

I mean, they just, every time we add something, it's taking away from people being on our streets and keeping us safe. So but I really I hope that you'll continue to have those conversations and think about our little counties because they are struggling too. And if it was just gonna affect your area, I would vote aye today. I'm respectfully opposed today, but thank you.

Sure.

Assembly Member Bains.

Yeah. No. I hear you, Assembly Member Hadwick, on that. And, especially when it comes to rural health care, there are concerns. I know the MLK Hospital, they do a lot of great work for the vulnerable communities. Health care is suffering right now, guys, especially with the trillion dollars cut federally.

I really worry about our hospitals and keeping them open just like what you said, Assembly Member Gipson. And I'll share, I'll kinda share a story. When I was working out in Taft and we're about an hour away from a hospital, I had my MA come in and say, hey, Dr. Bains, there's a patient in the Uber that is has no legs, and they were sent here without a wheelchair. They were sent from the hospital.

They discharged this veteran to my clinic, which was an hour away, and he's not from Taft. And he can't walk. He has no legs, and he has no wheelchair. And they discharged him to my clinic in Taft. Not making this story up. I still cannot to this day believe that that happened.

A veteran that served this community was discharged to a clinic an hour away from where he's not from to live on the sidewalk of my clinic because he has no legs to go anywhere else nor does he have any family. There's a real big issue in rural communities when it comes to health care, and I agree with you, Assembly Member Hadwick.

Especially when it comes to rural law enforcement, they have oftentimes 10, they're lucky if they have ten ten deputies on at a time. I'm supporting this bill through, but the concerns on this side, you know, are legitimate. At the other time as a physician, I kinda worry, like, about the liability because this is not emergency transport.

And law enforcement does have CPR and basic life support training. But if there's something that goes wrong in that transport, who's gonna cover the liability of that life? So those are the two concerns that I have. I'll be supporting the bill forward, but sometimes, you know, it's really scary times right now for health care. Health care is really suffering, and I know we need to be unique and innovative to save it right now.

But I want to just make sure that we preserve the quality of health care. And more and more of the stories that you shared, more and more of the stories that I just shared are going to come out. And like I said, I'll be supporting it today, but continue working towards an option where we can cover and really save health care.

Thank you. Okay. Assembly Member Arambula.

I'll be quick. I wanna thank the author for bringing this measure forward. It sure sounds like we're talking about patient dumping here, where they pick an individual hospital and they're sending patients directly to you, bypassing hospitals that are closer and more appropriate for them to be seen for 51/50s.

And with that in mind, how much effort we've put into a state. Thankful to you, Assembly Member, for your long standing championship of MLK Hospital. It would be unfair for us with our state investments not to make sure that we were creating a system that would direct patients to the closest hospital. And so I'm in favor of it, have made the motion for it, and just wanna encourage our colleagues to support it today.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. So thank you, Assembly... Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member Gipson, for bringing this bill. I think as we talk about health care and the sustainability of health care and even rural health care, it is important that we protect the integrity of the system and make sure that it is putting patients first.

This brings law enforcement in alignment with what's already expected from patient transport when it comes to getting folks to the nearest hospital because minutes do matter when it comes to health care. And I definitely appreciate, you know, what we hear from with all of the different input we've gotten from our Committee Members.

And I do hope that we can work out something in regards to the concerns of our Vice Chair regarding, like, the fact that the nearest state in some time the closest option. I think that's something that's unique. And so, you know, unfortunately or fortunately, we're solving for all of California.

And there's an opportunity for us to be able to address that. But with that being said, we wanna make sure that hospitals are not used, as was stated, at dumping grounds. We wanna make sure that patients are getting the care that they deserve.

And I believe that this also addresses what was mentioned by Dr. Bains in regards to someone being dropped off in an Uber, you know, to a hospital. At that point, that's the closest hospital that person's at. You know, we're not gonna send that patient somewhere else. So we do see that you are clearly solving an issue here.

That hospital must be amazing. The fact that it could even handle how many people are being dropped off there. So thank you for bringing this important issue. Those are my comments to you. I don't have any questions, but, again, thank you for bringing this issue.

I heard a first on this from Dr. Arambula, and we have a second. Oh, okay. And we have... And we have a second from Assembly Member Bains. So at this point, I'm gonna bring it back to you. Did you have any closing statements?

Yes. And I wanna say thank you very much, Madam Chair and the committee. Thank you very much for your complimentary words and to... None of your comments are lost on me. Certainly, take in everyone. I want this committee to know that we sat down with law enforcement.

We've heard their concerns, and we will continue to do so. We have a willingness to work with law enforcement and try to move them to a yes on this particular matter. We didn't know about the state situation in the rural community. Yeah. But we will.

It's an important problem. We wanna try to, again, try to make sure that we address these issues, not only in your district, but also with law enforcement as well. We hear about the penalty piece. But I just wanted to point out if there's a clearly a pattern, we just wanna make sure that, one, even those who are being transported are making sure that they're being cared for.

And cared for it in the most expeditious manner by the closest hospital. We wanna make sure that Martin Luther King Hospital continue to stand for generations to come. For those who need it, it's there. And I appreciate this committee and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblyman Gipson. With that, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Public Safety. Secretary, please call the vote.

AB 2405, Gipson. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Public Safety. [Roll Call]

We're gonna reopen the roll to add on for Members that were absent.

[Roll Call]

And we're adjourned. Thank you. Oh, I got to bang it.