Senate Standing Committee on Emergency Management

Alright. Senate Emergency Management Committee will come to order. We are going to get started as a subcommittee here. And so, we have one author with us today. So we're going to allow you to present, Mr.

Assembly member. And then, when we get a quorum here, we'll take motions, votes, all that good stuff. So welcome. I think you have one measure on consent before us and one for presentation. I believe AB 1934 is for presentation. So welcome at your, at your convenience.

Thank you very much, Chair Stern. And, the cast of thousands of members here today. California's wildfires, destruction has reached a tipping point. We all know that wildfires are sweeping across the state, and we have had certainly the devastation three whole communities have burned down in the last eight years. We have never used to have whole communities burned down.

In many of the communities, it ember showers that are causing the biggest problem, and the biggest risk to your house burning down is if the house next to you burns down. And the science is really clear. You can dramatically improve the chances of a house surviving if that house has engaged in home hardening, scientifically proven home hardening techniques. It needs to be comprehensive, needs to be holistic, and it needs to, as much as possible, be neighborhood and community oriented, and not just single homes.

So AB 1934 directs the wildfire mitigation advisory committee under the state fire marshal to establish a voluntary home hardening certification program, identifies the hardening measures including defensible space that will let you get the certificate.

The value of the certificate is then we, as state legislators, would then be able to build a whole series of incentives around, those that certificate because we would have confidence we would be providing incentives to people that truly have hardened their homes properly, and that is, why I think the bill has received bipartisan support as it has moved forward, but it will be a giant marketing campaign, a multi year, many year marketing campaign, but this is the first fundamental step.

Have the right voluntary certification program, then we can build all kinds of incentives and all of us can get creative about those incentives. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Do you have any witnesses, lead witnesses in support?

No, I don't have any witnesses.

Just general witnesses in support. Welcome to come forward at this time. General witnesses in support. Welcome.

Thank you, chair and members. Ashley Walker with Nausman on behalf of the board of supervisors of the county of Monterey in support.

Thank you.

Sharon Gonzales on behalf of the city of Thousand Oaks in support. Thank you. Thanks. Hi. Good afternoon.

Olivia Herrera, intern at Stone Advocacy on behalf of Elevate in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

With The Nature Conservancy in support. Thank you

. Thanks.

Jordan Wells on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, League of California Cities, and Rural County representatives of California in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chloe King with political solutions on behalf of Matador Fire in support. Thank you.

Thanks. Martin Radasovich on behalf of Mega Fire Action in support.

Thanks.

Jeff Neal representing the Orange County Fire Authority and the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County also in support.

Thank you very much. Alright. Seeing no others in support, do we have any in opposition to this bill here before us today? You're welcome to come forward at this time. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dias.

Comment? Question? Yes. I can make a comment. You may.

Mister vice chair?

So, anyway, thank you for your bill. I think it's very good for us to continue the work of making these kind of efforts more fruitful for people, and also kind of give them the framework for what that looks like. If you go to tell somebody a home hardening in one area versus, you know, home hardening in another, you come up with different answers. And this will help guide people in their efforts to try to make their homes not susceptible during fires.

So I think it's a good step.

There's a lot of other steps that will wind up being taken. Just because you have the certification doesn't mean it's good forever. So I was kind of

curious, is there like a renewal type of thing? How long would the certificate be good for until you need like a reinspection or what is that?

I certainly have my own personal thoughts about that. But we didn't put those that specificity into the bill because we want our experts, we want it to be science based, and so we want the state fire marshal with the advisory committee's input to be able to identify how long, but we we will be making sure that we identify those questions that need to be answered. How when do you need to recertify? What what are the conditions under which that happens? How do you do it?

How do we charge for it? They're in charge of coming up with all of that rather than us trying to lay all of that out in a bill.

Yeah. Because, you know, using local fire agencies, most of them, you know, Ventura County, LA County, all of them have brush inspection programs for all homes that are in areas that are like this. And that communication with them, knowing that this is a home certified thing, they can either do it during their annual inspections that come usually around June. It depends upon how wet the year was. But, yeah, that would be something that they can work with.

And like you said, they will work on that. But for now, a good bill. We will probably get it through here when we get some people here.

And if I could, just to follow-up on that. For example, we've already passed a resolution on the assembly side, and we hope it happens on the Senate side, that we identified the second week in September as home hardening week. And then you'll have all these fire safe councils and everybody in the state will be out there and that would be a great time for us to sort of try to do an assessment. How many homes are certified now? How many next year?

How many homes got certified? You could really have sort of a whole awareness week going on in the state of California at the same time. And that might be when you have more of these inspections take place, etcetera.

Would it be better to have it in late June, July, because that's actually when we start having we usually have the first wave of big fires up here and actually down south in June. And then by September the whole state is rolling. And so having the week while we got flames all over the place might be tough.

I tell you one of the minor issues, you know, when is the right time, you know, the real and the intense time is in the spring is in the fall, you know, getting ready for that October Well, the Santa Ana winds. When the rains have stopped, number one. And number two, some legislators said I want to be back in my district during that that time. And we're not back in our districts in June. We are back in our districts usually in September.

So You already had some other issues.

Pop off in the last three days. Sure. Up and down south. Yeah. You know, so Yeah. Alright.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Definitely supportive of this measure today as I'm already on the bill, but Aye, I will say I think, this certification is just one piece of the puzzle. And, I really appreciate the coalition that's here today.

I think we, in between Fed Federal and state dollars that are on the line right now, my my only concern about this is we we sort of get this certification program slowly built and meanwhile appropriate a bunch of dollars and then they all start moving out the door the old way.

And whether it's about a billion dollars of veg management that we're about to push out the door from Prop four and from GGRF this year, under an old model that really doesn't look at, say, public safety risk or home risk, instead looks at acreage as a goal or a forest management goal. You know, I'm really concerned about that. We also just got an update, about the status of our, federal funds, the BRIC Dollars that do a lot of the hardening and pre asthma mitigation.

This committee's heard a measure from Senator Richardson, in the last cycle. And this was really about trying to make sure that federal dollars aren't sort of just concentrated amongst a couple, couple communities that are shared more broadly.

And then if you're not doing these giant jobs home by home, but in fact, if you're scaling and say doing, you know, getting more for less out of these either state or federal dollars, I think we're gonna get to go a lot further. For instance, you know, hardening a thousand homes will do might sound like a good goal, but actually will do nothing, to prevent fires unless it's concentrated. Right?

And there's and so we know that, just those kind of metrics won't, won't really get you there. They may feel satisfying, but that we're going to need something more than that.

So I'm hoping we get this bill done, but also in your capacity as a subcommittee chair over the assembly that you apply your rigorous thinking that you have now sort of slowly got all of us bought into here. I hope we can apply this in this budget cycle as the year goes on. So

I really hope so too.

Really good point. I really appreciate you pointing that out. You know, we tried this bill last year and the governor vetoed it, even though it passed with bipartisan support, that slowed us down by a year here on the voluntary certification program. And then it would have been easier for us this year to focus more on the other resources to to support the incentive program. But we do have to have a a a rethinking of how we're spending our fire prevention dollars Yeah.

Because we're not we need to make sure we have sufficient resources to incentivize this because it is the single most effective thing that that can be done.

And I I will give some credit to the administration. I think they just came out with an update to their action plan for the, wildfire resilience and forest management task force that did have some risk metrics in there. Seems like the state fire marshal is actually making some progress in that regard and to really measure outcomes so we don't just burn fire money on projects that feel good but don't get a lot of outcomes.

So we're going to be following up on that sneak preview to all the coalition here. We're going to be introducing legislation shortly, into a bill we've got in the assembly that will look at sort of trying to embed some of those risk metrics in dollars that go out the door for veg management, for example.

So look forward to working with you, but also everyone here, and, we still don't have quorum yet. Do you have a comment before, we lose Mr. Assemblymember?

Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, assembly member Bennett for bringing the bill forward only because I have the deepest respect for the fire marshal, the state fire marshal now. He's not opposing this, which I know he can't really, but you haven't had conversations with him that is not something that

Extensive conversations. Last year, we we we worked closely with him and again this year. So, yeah, I I feel very confident about the bill.

What's that?

What's his thoughts about the bill?

Oh, I feel very confident in saying he feels very positive about this bill.

That's what I wanted to know on public record. Thank you.

You're welcome. Alright. I I would point out as you're talking about, you know, a thousand homes won't move the needle very much at all. Another bill coming in coming in front of the Senate will be the home survey, and we have allocated some some funds in the budget, for, the Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshals to do a survey so we have an idea of what's our starting spot. What percentage of the homes in the high fire risk areas are already hardened?

How much further do we have to go? And that will be really valuable for us also.

Well, thank you. Hopefully, you know, our firefighting strategy won't be about people like you bravely having to cut hose during, the middle of a, you know, a catastrophe, but we can get ahead of all this. So at the proper time, I'll be supporting the bill and appreciate your presentation.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

Alright. We'll, we'll look for other available members to present. Yeah. If you see any assembly members, please please bring them in. And now we'll take open mic.

So if anyone just has a thought on their mind, you can stand up and just tell us how you feel. Just kidding. All right. We'll take a pause. We are gonna resume.

We have an author.

And we have an author. George's dress. Assemblymember McKinner, welcome. Everyone's very excited to see you. We are a subcommittee, so we're not gonna do motions or votes yet, but you can present.

We can hear testimony. Thank you. At the appropriate time, it sounds like you're gonna get a motion. Welcome. So when you when you get a get your legs under you, you're welcome to begin.

Mister

members, I would like to begin by accepting the amendments noted in committee's analysis and thank the chair and staff for their work on this measure. Mister chair and members, AB 2411 creates a process to train out of state law enforcement officials to provide temporary supplemental public safety during the twenty twenty eight Olympics and Paralympic games. It's gonna be an exciting time.

According to the city of Los Angeles, the LA 28 host city, the games will require an estimate of 30,000 additional sworn law enforcement officers to keep athletes, fans, and visitors from around the world safe. Yet current estimates have identified only 6,000 in state officers that could be available to provide necessary mutual aid.

To be clear, AB 2411 does not replace available in state law enforcement officials for using for use during the twenty twenty eight games. The bureau clearly states that any out of state officers used, during the games will only augment available in state officers. I appreciate the productive conversations I've had directly with our law enforcement labor partners and will continue to work with them to ensure that any out of state officers used in 2028 will meet California's high standard of conduct and accountability.

Pending approval excuse me. Pending approval of the bill today, we'll be taking additional amendments in the Senate Public Safety Committee to incorporate suggestions from the commission on peace officer standards and training on best practices and accountability for any out of state officers serving during the games.

Senators, we have a choice on how to keep athletes, fans, and visitors safe during the 2028 games. We can use the next two years to establish process for the LA twenty eight, Cal OES, and the commission on peace officer standards and training to plan, coordinate, deploy, training for supplemental out of state officers to enforce California state laws. Or we could do nothing and leave it up to this Federal Government to, bring in security and officers.

As chair of the assembly select committee on the twenty twenty eight Olympic and Paralympic games, I would prefer that we plan, train, and require any out of state law enforcement officers to serve under a state run central command and comply with all state laws for con for conduct and accountability. Senators, a safe game is central to a successful games, And AB2411 will give us a tool necessary to keep us all safe while we celebrate the twenty twenty eight Olympic and Paralympic games.

I am so excited if you can tell about the Olympics. And we know that it's gonna it's wonderful for California. It's wonderful for Los Angeles, and it's wonderful for The United States. But we must keep everyone safe, and I think this is how we do it. Today, I'd like to bring up my witnesses, Andrew Antwih

from the office of Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass, and Daryl Lushin from Los Angeles Police Protective League.

Mister chair, members, thank you for the opportunity to be present today. My name is Andrew Antwih on behalf of Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass. Mayor's office is pleased to serve as sponsor for AB 2411, and we thank the author for the measure. The bill is about preparation, coordination, and public safety. In 2028, LA will become home for roughly four weeks for both the Olympic and Paralympic games.

That moment will bring extraordinary opportunity for the city, the region, and the state. It will also bring extraordinary operational demands, including dense crowds, high profile venues, transit corridors, fan zones, and surrounding neighborhoods that must remain safe and accessible throughout the games. AB 2411 gives California a responsible framework to meet that challenge before it arrives. Local agencies cannot absorb the scale of visitors and the public safety demands through ordinary staffing alone.

The bill allows the command to coordinate with qualified public safety personnel from California and other states with important safeguards while preserving the oversight and structure necessary for accountability.

Importantly, the bill does not lower California standards. Out of state personnel would be required to complete a streamline training process through post. So they understand the requirements in the state, and our expectations. And I'm sure the committee is prepared to reinforce this, and we hope with that, for this major international event, the committee will look upon this bill favorably and help us get started as early as we can to get this done correctly. With that, thank the author and the committee requesting aye vote.

Thank you very much, mister Antwih. There's in support. Have another lead witness, mister Lucien? Alright. Welcome, sir.

Thank you, mister chairman, senators. Darryl Lucien representing the Los Angeles Police Protective League, LAPD's Police Union. First and foremost, I wanna thank, Mayor Bass for her leadership on this issue, as well as the esteemed and venerable assembly member, Mckinnor. We're down to roughly around 8,500 officers now in Los Angeles. We should be well over 10,000 even with our members, and we anticipate our members will want to work their their share of overtime.

We recognize that we're going to come nowhere even close to being able to supply the manpower to create enough of a sizable dent in terms of what's needed. I've personally talked with a couple of law enforcement leaders across the state in management at different departments. And it's clear that the process has begun to survey how many officers different suburban and rural departments can potentially offer to send down to Los Angeles, and it's nowhere meeting the need. And so, we need the personnel.

We need to keep, folks safe. And so, as a union ourselves, we're strongly supportive of this measure.

Okay. Thank you very much. We'll look to other witnesses in support. General, where's this witnesses in support? Now's a good time to come up.

State your name, affiliation, position on the bill.

Chloe King with political solutions on behalf of two clients, the California Travel Association and the California Orthotic and Prosthetic Association in support. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Others? Seeing none, we'll turn to opposition. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses?

Please. Welcome. Either hey, you can take a seat right here. Welcome.

Welcome. Thank you. Oh, no worries. Thanks.

Got a little bit of a speech here. Good good more. Actually, good afternoon, Chairman Stern and committee members. My name is Brian Marvel. I'm President of PORAC.

We represent about 87,000 public safety members in the state of California. I'm here today to let you know that we are opposed to the bill currently way it is AB 2411, unless it's amended. But I also wanna recognize the effort that the assembly member has put out and reached out to us. We're currently working as hard as we can with all the stakeholders. We do recognize the importance of ensuring a seamless cooperation between California agencies and partners from across the country.

That's why we're actively engaged with the bill's author, LAPD, Cal OES, and POST. Our goal is to collaborate and refine this measure so it truly serves the public interest and upholds the highest standards of our profession. California peace officers have earned a reputation as among the best trained and most professional in The United States. Over decades of dedicated effort, through rigorous post standards, continuous improvement, and a commitment to accountability, we have built a system that reflects the very best of public service.

The Olympics must showcase this excellence.

Every officer working these games, whether from within our state or beyond, should reflect the professionalism, training, and integrity that Californians expect and deserve. We think AB 2411 can be made even stronger Even with the current staffing issues most departments are facing in California, we're confident that these events can be professionally served with California peace officers. Before looking beyond our borders, we must ensure that California first exhausts every reasonable effort to mobilize and support the exceptional talent within our own ranks.

This due diligence honors the men and women who have built our profession's reputation and guarantees that the twenty twenty eight games reflect the very best of California's law enforcement and values. With that said, out of state personnel are needed, and we wanna make sure they receive appropriate California post align training and operate under our laws, protecting both the public and the officers themselves.

The twenty twenty eight games represent far more than a global event. They're an opportunity to demonstrate what California law enforcement stands for, duty, preparedness, and an unwavering commitment to public safety. By working together to perfect this legislation, we honor the hard work of generations of officers who have elevated our profession. We ensure that Los Angeles welcomes the world not only with celebration, but with a quiet confidence that comes with absolute best in public safety.

Together, we will deliver an Olympics that is safe, secure, and worthy of California's proud legacy. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Marvel. We'll look to other witnesses in opposition. We got one more.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Matthew Siverling on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. Apologize for a late opposition letter we submitted. We're encouraged by the commitments to take the language, that the author described. I think it's getting closer to a better product, but as the bill is in print now, we do remain opposed and it's very critical we get this right.

If our officers are going to be working alongside officers from other states, we want to make sure that they meet California's standard and keep everyone safe. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Any others in opposition? Seeing none, we are gonna bring it back to the dias, but we do have a quorum, so I don't wanna miss that moment. Let's let's establish one if you guys are up for it.

Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you so much. Let's bring it back to the dais. Comments, questions, members. Senator Grove, and then we'll come to the vice chair.

Deference. Right to the vice chair and then on back.

Thank you. So, okay, I'll put you at ease. I'm going to support your bill today. I have grave concerns about this whole issue. One of them is, you know, we've had some issues with recruitment and retention in California, and we've done a lot of laws that have made it really difficult for enforcement agencies to even recruit and retain employees, and we already heard, you know, just LAFD, who is the primary agency responsible for these games, are going to be severely undermanned.

So, there has to be an effort to get these agencies brought up to speed if we can, and I don't know that we can. The plan to have outside agencies is not something that is unfamiliar with emergency service work. When we can't handle what we're doing locally, we go to the county and we can't handle on a county level, we go to the state and if we can't handle on the state, we go to the national.

And that means the Western Hemisphere comes or the Western U. S.

Comes and helps. The problem is, if you're going to train all these people, you have to get them to want to be trained. I don't know that you're going to have I think you're going to have a recruitment problem in that. So I'm glad to see that you're going to start now so that we can recognize that this is probably going to be an issue. The other thing that I'm very concerned about is the tremendous cost.

So just taking our state agencies alone, for them to come in and work overtime while they're still because these are all going to be overtime personnel that are working. And when we're using our personnel that means they're coming in on their off shifts while other personnel are covering their regular shifts and so almost every lick of personnel that we're using is going to be time and a half.

It gets a little different when it goes out of state because the ones that are getting time and a half here have a home to go to. They have that's why you see the travel agency here, like, they're pretty excited about this.

What happens when we get them from out of state is the minute they leave their home to when they come here and for as long as they stay here, if they come in and they're here for two weeks, they get paid 20 fourseven, time and a half for two weeks.

They get per diem for all of the other stuff. You're talking about millions and millions or hundreds of millions of dollars in costs just for personnel alone with this approach. But I don't know another approach. So I am excited for you. I am excited for Inglewood to be able to host some of this.

It's been a long time coming for that community to have venues like they have now that can host the Olympics. I'm also Really, Really Worried about them because of this. This is what happens when all of our concerns come to roost. Right now, they are coming to roost because we do we are severely undermanned to handle something like that. If we are going to cut out or attempt to cut out the federal government, that is a huge mistake.

Okay. I know, but what you were saying was you want to use them as little as possible. They are our partners. Okay.

Okay. They are our partners in this. They have to be.

They are

They have the knowledge. They have the training. We have systems in place. What we don't have is personnel and what we're banking on is that other personnel from out of state will find this so lucrative that they're wiling to get trained beyond the training that they have to come here and get trained again to go do this. That's going to be a trick.

So, anyway, those are the concerns I have. Like I said, I'm gonna support it, because I want something to happen. Something has to happen to make this work. But the, concerns outlined, by the opposition here are well founded and then some. And so, so with that, mister chair, you can

Appreciate it. Senator Grove.

Thank you. With all due respect to the to my esteemed vice chair of this committee, he's a long time fire chief. That was the the issue with the LAFD instead of the LAPD. He just couldn't bring himself to say PD. Yes.

He did. I know it's habit. Right? It's it's okay. Just just thought I'd make sure that our law enforcement excellence that we have in the room is not offended by your fire department comment.

Anyways, so just forgive him a little bit because he's been a fire department chief forever and a day. You asked me to substitute on this committee. Don't even go there. I, agree a portion of what he's say my colleague is saying about the recruitment standards. Policy in the state has caused our recruitment ability for our, law enforcement, and we have excellence in law enforcement.

But policies, you know, when I was growing up, and I think we were growing up, everybody wanted to be a police officer and a teacher. And now, very few people wanna pursue that that career because of in fact, just the demonization of our excellence in law enforcement, which is very heart wrenching.

I do think that because it is the Olympics, and because we have the opportunity to show American excellence and host the most amazing athletes in the entire world that are coming to Los Angeles and into California, I think there are people that wanna come from out of state, and they wanna make sure that, man, I was able to do that. I can tell my grandkids I stood right there on that stadium.

I could so I think there's a sense of honor that will play into the recruitment factor, but I agree with the opposition completely that they better be post certified.

They better not they better augment and not take the place of any officer that is duly sworn in this state that's been here, lives here, loves this state, protects this state and its community. And for somebody to come, no offense against Arizona, Colorado, Texas, somebody show up here, get double the amount of money, twenty four hours pay, seven days a week, or whatever it is on overtime, and stand next to somebody who's not just as, that's not qualified.

Like, those people are not the same qualifications that we have. And I do I never even thought about it when I read the analysis, and I apologize to you. The jeopardy that it might put you or you one of your officers in the situation for somebody who's not qualified to handle something that we are qualified to handle here.

So I apologize for not having that, upfront. I'm still supporting the bill, but I would just ask for a commitment from the author who is honorable and, wants to make sure that her city in LA is protected just as much as anybody, and we need to have a preparation plan, I wanna make sure that you take that into consideration. Just like we wouldn't want again, I could use another example, but it'd probably freak everybody out. So just we have outstanding law enforcement officers.

The people coming in need to have the same excellence that we have here in our state, or they shouldn't be standing shoulder to shoulder with us on

a line to protect people. So that's just my comment. And, like I said, I'll still hold true to move the bill. And I was under the same impression that my colleague was that you did not want the Federal Government involved in this.

I didn't mean it that way. I'm gonna straighten that out of my power.

Okay. So it means either or. Right? Because if something goes down

Tell me no.

The Federal Government can say hands off. But I'm telling you, we need FBI. If something goes down, we need to have all hands on deck. I don't care who they are. Right?

So okay. Just making sure that you clarify that comment. So, it wasn't in the language, but based on your comment, I wanna make sure that was done. But thank you for being here.

Senator, we'll return to Senator Grayson.

Thank you, mister chair. And, your excitement, energy, and passion emanates from you, and I wanna commend you for your work, especially on this bill, considering post and their comments as well as the representatives that we have here from PORAC. Real quick, I believe this bill is being referred to public safety if it was to get out of this committee in public safety.

Just wanna just wanna affirm that you have, plans in working with opposition to, talk about some language and then take, appropriate amendments in the next committee to help, mitigate or to help deal with any opposition. Absolutely.

With that, I'm I'll be supporting the Bill today.

I think we do have a motion from Senator Grove. That's correct. So before allowing me to close, I just want to make a brief comment. I really appreciate you working with us, working with the committee, and the the delicate dance that's required to to make all this work in a complex political environment. We have some things that maybe transcend all this, and we think these games can do that.

And that, yeah, that there's a way to to, to rely on our talent, without putting ourselves at a security disadvantage for for a larger event than we've probably ever seen in our history.

To that point, just would direct members' attention to page five, and granted that this may be fleshed out a little bit more before a public safety committee or you all may work further, but the amendment that the the committee, the intent language that at least committee had proposed and authors accepted says it's the intent that, California peace officers shall be the primary and preferred source of law enforcement personnel for the twenty twenty eight Olympic and Paralympic games, and that the services of out of state law enforcement personnel shall be utilized only to augment available California resources.

So hope that gives a good directional sense, with the author to keep working forward in good faith. So and just further allow you to close. Thank you for all your efforts.

Thank you, mister chair, and thank you members. The comment about the Federal Government, it's not or. It's just that it this we get a chance to work together to shape what that looks like to have to if we have to bring in outside officers. If we do nothing, we won't have the opportunity to shape it because the Federal Government will just take over the whole thing. They will be working with us.

They're here now with the FIFA games. They're here in Inglewood and in San Jose. FBI, CIA, everybody. Everybody's here because we need to stay safe. We remember the games in Atlanta and things that happened there, and so we don't want that to ever happen in LA.

Now our law enforcement partners, I've had a great conversation with them. Thank you guys for coming in and talking with me, and I understand their issue as well. And we're here to do this together so that we can make it a a safe California. The cost, Senator, I think we're gonna make a lot of revenue in sales tax up when the Olympic comes because we're gonna have hundreds and thousands of people here. And so I think that we'll be able to cover that cost.

I feel like we do, but I didn't even think about people might not wanna come. Thank you, Senator Grove, for saying no. They're gonna wanna come because that scared me. What if they didn't wanna come and we're doing all this and no one applies? That would be horrible, but I think they will wanna come because Olympics is so exciting, and we haven't had it here since since '84.

And with that, I would ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you so much. We have a motion for Senator Grove. The motion is do pass sorry. Due pass as amended to public safety.

So without further ado, please call the roll.

[Roll Call] That is five to zero. On call.

K. Great. We'll leave that on call for the absent members. Thank you so much, Assemblymember McKinnor everyone else for joining. I will turn back to the Bennett bill, file item number two, AB 1934.

I believe we had an offer of a motion from the vice chair on this one. So motion from Senator Seyarto. Please call the roll. Sorry, the motion is do pass to natural resources.

[Roll Call] That's five to zero. That bill's on call.

Okay, we'll leave it on call for the absent members, then we're gonna go that sound like a motion for the consent calendar. That was. Oh, indeed. Okay. So let's let's just review real briefly, members.

We have AB 1873, AB 2341, AB 2471, and AJR 27 as our consent proposed consent items. Barring any objection, we'll call the roll, with Senator Seyarto's motion.

[Roll Call] That's five-zero. That bill is on call. Okay.

We'll leave that on call for the absent members. And take a pause for recess. Take a recess. We'll take a brief recess.

We're gonna reconvene in thirty seconds. We're gonna reconvene the committee, and we will lift the calls for the one of the absent members here. Not absent anymore. He's quite present. We're gonna start with the consent calendar. The current vote is five to zero. Let you review your items, but this is for proposed consent. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave that on call for the absent members. Now were going to file item #2 AB 1934 Bennet the motion is do pass to Senate Natural Resources and Water. Please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave that on call for the absent members. For you, sir, AB2411, Senate member kennard, the motion is do passed as amended to the Senate public safety. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

We will leave that on call as well. Thank you. We're gonna take a brief recess. All right. We're going to reconvene Senate Emergency Management Committee, and we are going to lift calls on the outstanding measures here.

First off, we're going to do proposed consent, file items one, three, five and six. Current vote is seven? Six-zero? Six-zero. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll leave that on call. Turning now to file number two AB1934, Bennet, motion is do passed as natural resources and water. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

seven-zero, we'll leave that on call. And then lastly, file item number four, AB2411 Mckinner. The motion is do pass as amended to public safety. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave that on call. and Pause? No. another recess. Okay, we'll take another recess.

We're gonna reconvene committee in thirty seconds. Alright. That was a quick thirty. We're back. Welcome. We're gonna lift calls for the absent members. Start with the consent calendar, if you're okay with that. File items one, three, five, and six. The current vote is seven-zero. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay, eight-zero, leave that on call. File item number two, AB1934, Bennett. A motion is do passed to natural resources and water. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Eight-zero. Leave that on call. And lastly, AB2411, Mckinner, DO pass as amended to Public Safety. Please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We will leave that on call and take A pause, a recess, a recess, brief recess. We're gonna reconvene in thirty seconds. All right. Wrinkle in time.

Thirty seconds is now. We are going to lift the calls on the for the absent members. We have one left. We're going to start with consent items, if that's alright. It's items one, three, five, and six. The current vote is eight-zero. Please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Okay, bill is out. Nine-zero. File item number two, AB1934, Bennett, the motion is do passed to send natural resource and water. Please call the absent member.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Nine-zero. 90 bills out. File number four, AB 2411, Senatoe McKinnor, which is so pass as amended to Public Safety. Please call the absent member

[Roll Call]

Okay. 90. That makes it through our calendar. These meetings are hereby adjourned.