Assembly Emergency Management Committee

. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. There you go. Can you all hear me now? Yeah. Thanks, guys. All right. We're going to call this meeting to order. Currently, we do not have a quorum, so we're going to operate as a subcommittee. I want to welcome everyone. We have nine bills that are eligible today. One is on consent. That's Assembly Bill 1960 has been pulled off of consent at the request of the vice chair. Each bill is entitled to a primary witness in support and a primary witness in opposition, and each will be allotted two minutes, again, two minutes for their testimony. Following the presentations, additional individuals may approach the microphone, State your name, affiliation, and position on that bill. Name, affiliation, and position. Written testimony may be submitted directly to the committee. With that, we're going to go ahead and just jump right in because we don't have a quorum. Once we do we will take a roll Do we have a quorum now Okay With that let establish a quorum Secretary please call the roll Quorum call, roll call. Ransom?

Here. Arambula here. Baines?

DeMaio? We're going to move on with our consent calendar. We have AB 2517 Calderon. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriation. Is there a motion and a second for the items on the consent calendar? So moved. Second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the vote. On the consent calendar, AB 2517 Calderon. Motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations.

Ransom, aye.

Hadwick, aye.

Arambula, aye.

Bennett?

DeMaio?

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I want to first begin by thanking you and the chair, you're thanking you, the chair, and your staff for working on this bill. AB 2152 is about balancing the scales, ensuring essential fire station projects move forward, while also protecting the environment. This bill streamlines the legal review process, ensuring that a CEQA lawsuit were to occur, it would be resolved within one year. The other piece of the bill that I have committed to work on is crafting a series of best practices at a job site must follow. In addition to the other considerations already listed that will lead to a presumptive negative declaration for new construction of a fire station, firefighters are at the backbone of our communities, access to our great state. Calls have hit historic heights with firefighters responding to emergencies at unprecedented rates. And while call volume has surged, fire department infrastructure hasn't exactly kept up. In 1960, Los Angeles Fire Department had 112 stations serving 2.5 million residents. Today, it has 106 stations serving only 3.9 million residents. So Los Angeles has six fewer stations to serve 1.4 million more residents. And the last time LAFD tried to build a new fire station in Van Nuys, they did everything right and still a group of residents sued under CEQA, not once, but twice. That project delayed for two years, put thousands of lives at risk, and cost taxpayers 1.9 million in reports and legal fees. Here to support the bill and give us on-the-ground perspective, Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters.

So we've heard from a primary witness in support. We don't have any registered witnesses in opposition. Is there anyone that would like to add on their Me Too testimony in support? Okay. Anyone would like to speak in opposition?

Is there anyone else that would like to add opposition to the bill? Actually, again, here a little bit, like, West, on the building trade. Thank you. Adding support. Okay. Thank you. Mr. West. Okay. Mike West for the State Building, Extracted Trades Council of California in support. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone in support or opposition? Okay. Seeing none, we're going to bring it back to the members. Any questions for the author? Okay. Well, is there a motion? Oh, it's been moved. We have a motion. I'm so sorry. We have a first and second. Thank you. Arambola and Hadwick. All right, cool. Thank you. Mr. Gonzalez, would you like to make any closing statements?

All right. Thank you, Secretary. Please call the vote. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. AB 2152, Mark Gonzalez. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations.

Hadwick. Hadwick, aye.

Bennett.

DeMaio.

Doug Zubers on behalf of the California professional firefighters. We really appreciate the collaboration with the author and commitment to the amendments. And when those amendments are in print, we will be removing our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for bringing this bill forward, and I'm pleased to hear you say that you're going to continue working with the opposition. I think that's always, you get the best result. So I just wanted to thank you for that. Thank you.

Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye.

Hadwick, aye. Arambula. Arambula, aye. Baines. Bennett. Calderon. Calderon, aye. DeMaio. Awesome. Thank you. We'll keep the roll open for absent members. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember. Next up, we have AB 2101, Assemblymember Mike Gibson, regarding human trafficking notice and training for disaster sites. Assembly member, you may begin whenever you and your witness are ready. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present. Assembly Bill 2101 Assembly Bill 2101 seeks to strengthen and protect for disaster response workers to protect them from human trafficking I think it's very important that, one, we understand what human trafficking is. Human trafficking is a crime involving exploitation of persons for labor services or commercial sex through the use of force, fraud, or coercion. It is often described as a form of modern-day slavery, where victims are compelled to work or to engage in sexual acts. against their will, often for profit or for other things. Human trafficking is a global issue with an estimated 27.6 million people forced into labor or sex exploitations that takes place each and every day in this country. And the aftermath of natural disasters, recoveries, efforts are often driven by utility crews debris removal teams, construction workers, electricians, or day laborers. These workers are disproportionately immigrants, and I want to underscore immigrants, who are, watch this, undocumented or hold temporary status with limited English proficiency. Despite the essential role they play, they often face widespread issues of wage theft and exposed to hazard conditions without proper training. Most recent, unethical employers and supervisors exploit them by threatening them with ICE. Coerge workers into unpaid labor, unsafe working conditions. Disaster recovery sites often involve long subcontracting and chains, limit overtime, and workforce that is mostly immigrants, temporary and marginalized. Yet, these same workers play a vital role in rebuilding and restoring affected communities, making these protections especially critical. AB 2101 addresses these needs by requiring posting, just posting. And I want to also show this is what we're talking about when we talk about posting. Posting, know your rights. human trafficking hotline information at designated disaster sites as well as at businesses that hire or deploy disaster relief or disaster response workers. The bill also established a standardized training requirement to ensure workers and supervisors understand that these protections and how to identify this activity in the field. By increasing awareness education and accountability this bill empowers some of the most vulnerable workers while strengthening integrity of disaster recovery efforts With me to provide, let me also simply say this, that we have worked with opposition and we will continue to work with opposition until we hopefully reach, you know, getting individuals who oppose this bill to either a neutral or to a position where that they can support this particular piece of legislation. With me to provide supporting testimony who was self-introduced is the director of the Anti-Trafficking Initiative from Loyola Law School who was self-introduced. Hello, my name is Professor Stephanie Richard and I'm the director of the Anita Jane anti-trafficking initiative at Loyola Law School. I've worked on human trafficking in California for the last 20 years. SGI got involved in the connection between human trafficking and natural disasters and observed firsthand the lack of information and understanding of this issue on the ground in Los Angeles in the wake of the 2025 fires. During this response to the LA files, elected officials and agency heads spoke a lot about the increase of price gouging, looting, but said nothing about human trafficking. Indeed, in the wake of natural disasters, the focus is on rebuilding and rebuilding quickly for the infrastructure that we need. But more than two decades of evidence-based data shows that this comes at a cost of our workers doing the rebuilding. Indeed, recent reports have shown that disaster workers are two times more likely than common construction workers that are not working in disaster sites to experience labor trafficking, and 77% more likely to experience labor exploitation. So these risks are not accidental. Disaster restoration and mitigation sites by their natures complain high-risk condition work sites that are dispersed and subcontracting. And that workforce, as was indicated is often made of immigrant workers who in this climate of fear are even more at risk of being threatened and forced to continue an unsafe working of violence. Thus, AB 2101 does an effective way of having workers both know their rights and have the information to address their rights, as well as other workers who are going to those sites having that knowledge and having the information to call out for help for other workers. And the last thing I just want to say is I've worked on legislation like this since 2016, so these provisions are based on well-established human trafficking law around hotline posting and training that have been enacted for specific locations and businesses known at high risk. And now that we have the evidence-based data on disasters, And we know that in California, disasters and response will increase. Unfortunately, we must protect our workers. Thank you. Yeah. Madam Chair and members, Courtney Jensen, on behalf of the Sunita Jain Anti-Trafficking Initiative, I've been asked to provide a Me Too on behalf of Justice at Last and Resilience Force. Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Are there any witnesses in support? Wasn't planning on saying anything here, but I'm at San Clemente City Council I remember hearing this in support of this. Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Okay. You'll have two minutes to present your testimony in opposition. Whenever you're ready. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Amanda Guadalajara with Cal Broadband. We have an opposed and less amended position on this bill. We appreciate the continuing conversation with the author, sponsor, staff, and your committee. Cal Broadband shares the legislature's commitment to ensuring the safety and resilience of our critical infrastructure, particularly during emergencies and disaster events. Our industry plays a central role in maintaining communication networks that support 911, emergency alert, public safety communications, and the continuity of government operations. We appreciate the intent behind this bill, but it's drafted AB 2101, Lex Clarity, on compliance for entities like telecommunications providers, when there are no public entrances or structures where the public is located within disaster sites. We roll out with first responders when a disaster hits. We set up mobile cell towers to ensure that firefighters and other public safety officials have communication and that the public can receive those evacuation notices and other emergency alerts that are so critical during those times. When we move out to repair facilities with utilities, there are no structures. We utilize bucket trucks and other trucks to restore that communication. This is very specialized work. Hiring practices go far beyond accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and include lengthy and involved training. If there is a shortage of workforce, the companies will redirect their own workers from other parts of the state or other states to ensure that we have the staff on the job that is trained and capable of doing this technical work. Since there is no place for the signage and disaster response and recovery, and we only have employees working at these sites, we have been requested to be removed from this bill. We look forward to the continuing conversations and happy to respond to any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Tracy Ryan with the Royal County Representative of California and also with the Opposed and Less Amended. And I do want to say that we've been working with a sponsor and the author's office and appreciate that open conversation. The analysis outlines situations that have heightened risk for human trafficking, right? So mass shelters, temporary housing placement, and discusses where key people in places, such as emergency shelter managers, disaster centers, volunteer operation centers, where they need to be made aware of human trafficking and have processes in place. And we completely agree with that. But I don't think that's what this bill does. This bill targets disaster areas and mitigation areas, and something we pointed out in our letter was these are not defined places. These are large places. Fuel mitigation areas in the bill would be an SRA or state responsibility area. That's one-third of California's land mass. These are huge areas, and when you have large disasters such as the Caldor fire, these could be hundreds of thousands of acres, and there's no really defined place to do the posting. Also, designated disasters can come months after. The governor just came out in April about the floods that were in 2025. And so I think there implementation concerns that counties have We contract with these entities to do cleanup in these areas and if it not clear that extra cost to the counties and local governments and so we just wanted to be really clear how we can comply with this we are absolutely in support of where the bill wants to go we just need to make sure it's a ministerable thank you Are there any other witnesses or people that would like to add into opposition? Yes, good morning. Good morning, Chair. Okay, it's your responsibility. So we met. Yolanda Benson representing US Telecom, the Broadband Association. Also want to just mirror the comments that were made. We're willing to work with the author and we appreciate the work that's happened so far, but we continue to need to have those conversations. Thank you. Madam Chair, Juliana Voris on behalf of the League of California City is also opposed unless amended. Thank you. Hello, Audra Hartman on behalf of the California Communications Association. These are the small companies in mostly rural areas of California. We have an opposed unless amended position on the bill. Thank you. I'm going to bring it back to the committee. Hi. You guys, as soon as they talked about rural, everybody knew I was going to ask questions, huh? So I have a lot of concerns. My disasters look a lot different than like the fire in LA, right? And it would have been my job previously to make sure we complied with this as a county. what is the plan for an area like the Dixie fire that was a million acres? There was no buildings. There was no, there's multiple shelters. Is it just at the shelters? Is it at incident command? Is it at the emergency operating center? Yes. So thank you for that great question. And I want to be really clear that the responsibility isn't about the area. It's for the employers who are responding to that area. And then all the posting and most labor laws in California have the same standards where it's in a conspicuous area that employees can see it. And, you know, that's been the standard for all 15 other businesses locations. Now, that said, disaster sites, right, are broader. But when I've talked with our co-sponsor, Resilience Force, who is an expert in disaster recovery and on the ground with workers all the time, There are always common locations like rally points, temporary structures, things like that, where the posting can be. But that said, we are in discussions on if there is absolutely nowhere for broadband or telecommutions to post, given their unique location, that they can post at their hubs. And we see that as valuable because what we see in the trafficking context is that no one understands what it looks like and therefore can't recognize it, whether it be for themselves or they're working alongside or in areas where other workers are. So having access to a hotline that's posted permanently allows workers to reach out and gather information. And also having them train that 20 minutes, I can't tell you, it puts a light bulb on people's heads. Because most people, when they think about trafficking, think about sex trafficking, maybe. But they definitely don't think about labor trafficking happening here in California. They think about it happening in India or China or somewhere else And so that is what this framework does and it is based on evidence practice that we will identify and protect workers And I do think it equally relevant for rural counties where actually workers are hidden for longer and might be abused even easier. I absolutely don't disagree with the intent of the bill. It's the implementation. So there often isn't a hub, especially in smaller fires or smaller disasters. They're coming in a car, They're coming in a truck. They're coming to turn. Are they going to have to post when they turn off the power because they're going into a different county? Like my people are coming. I live three hours from everything. So like they're coming from a long ways away. They might get a hotel room if they're lucky. Sometimes they're camping and they're in tents because we don't have hotels. So if there isn't that hub, then what is the employer on the hook for at that point? Like can it be emailed to them? Can it be like the training? I'm all for it. So again, the general standard is in a conspicuous location where the employees are. And so, again, often that gives a lot of flexibility for the employer to understand its own needs and be in compliance by posting. And when I said hub, I want to say that what we've been in discussion about is that it's the hub of the business where their regular employment notices are all posted. At their office three hours away. So it doesn't matter at the disaster. Well, except for they'll have had the training and they'll have had, when they're in the office, that access to that hotline. Again, ideally, we would rather the postings be at the disaster sites. And our opinion is that they could be placed on a cone or there's lots of places that you could easily post this notice. But if it's impossible, we do think there's the flexibility in either working through an amendment or in the language that's already there. And we just haven't heard these concerns in the past about posting locations. But again, we're still in conversations because disaster sites, as you've said, disaster mitigation sites are the first time. And this is first of its kind legislation in the country that I think California will be proud of when it enacts it. Okay, so in the bill, it appears that it applies also to like a homeowner clearing vegetation to harden their home. Is that true? No, because it applies to employers. So in the mitigation zone, it's going to be anyone, it's going to be the person you contract to clear your home. So that contractor has to have something posted at the home that they're clearing for three hours that day. Okay. That's correct. Okay. Okay, and it counts, it applies to all utilities, so electric utilities, the internet, everybody. If they are not a private, if it applies to private entities, so not public services. Okay, so we also often have out-of-state vendors come. They are now have to do that as well when they get to camp or they get to incident command. When you say out-of-state, you mean contractors for construction and other services? Just for mop up for strike teams, we have. Yeah, so they often have to do that. I live on that. Those are some of the more vulnerable workers that are coming from out of state often are the ones that are subcontracted and have, because they don't have the same connections to the state can be most at risk. So I, even with your answers, I just don't see how this would work in my, I have 11 counties, like we're out in the middle of nowhere. like you could put a cone down and then you're gonna be 250 miles the other way, you know, responding in that same disaster. So I think the idea is there and I totally get the concern I just feel like the implementation has to be different I will have to oppose the bill today And I certainly understand and hear your concern And for me, this is about, one, making sure that people are not being taken advantage of. And we've seen the proliferation of people being exploited and taken advantage of. And we hear human trafficking. We certainly believe that there is a sexual component to this. But there's also a component of this that, as I talked about and articulated, the slavery part, but also the wage part of this, that people are not being fairly compensated for their work. and we can talk about the stories that people long hours not being compensated for even a minimum wage, right? And then being threatened with ICE and in this day and age and the sensitivity that's around someone saying that if you don't do this, then I'm going to call ICE and hearing on the radio or singing on TV and all that that brings and the trauma that brings and the unfairness that that brings just to have something posted to let people know. And we're talking about, by and large, these are subcontractors and the companies in which the national companies, and we honor the vital work that these companies bring and the longstanding that these companies provides to California. And we understand that it's not these companies, but we're talking about and we're targeting very specifically the subcontractors that don't represent these companies, but they work for these companies, but they subcontracts for these companies, right? They don't have the standards. They don't, you know, and they're hiring people, you know, that may not have, you know, the ethics, not only the training, all they do is picking up people and they're intimidating these people and they're getting away with not paying these people who work for the wages and the benefits that they rightfully deserve under California's law. And that's what we're attempting to stop. And we know that knowledge is power. And if we hope that if someone sees this hotline and as well as this notice, stop human trafficking and call or text this, that it will be a gateway to send someone and notify someone that this is happening. And we can put a stop to this, right? We don't want this in California. And that's what this bill is trying to accomplish. So we actually have a lot of labor trafficking in my district. We have a lot of illegal cannabis grows. So it's a huge problem. Very talked about in my district. I just, it's strictly the implementation, like even having a digital version or having a, you know, add it to the briefing in the morning for two minutes or something, put it in all the bathrooms, like something like that would be easier. It's just so vague that I don't think it'll work in our disasters. I think there's just a philosophical difference of what my disaster zones look like and what a city disaster zone looks like. because we're out there in the middle of nowhere. I understand. Thank you. Thank you. I want to thank the author. Thank you, Assemblymember, for your input. I want to appreciate the author for his willingness to continue to work with the stakeholders and with the opposition. I think there were some really good ideas on how we can make sure that this ultimately, works for everyone because I believe that your goal, based on what you stated, is to ensure that people have the awareness. And I do understand the concerns about rural areas, but people clearly have to have a place to relieve themselves, even if they're in the middle of nowhere, right, on some of these job sites. They're clearly getting employment information and signing paperwork and when they're being hired. So it's really going to be incumbent upon everyone to just really find out a way to get this information to vulnerable people. So we appreciate the assembly member for this bill and for the willingness. The next stop for this bill, because this bill does enjoy a due pass recommendation, shall it pass today, will be appropriation. So you'll need to work on getting those amendments together with the opposition. Would you have any closing comments, assembly member? Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and to the committee members, and also to Member Hadwick for her dialogue, and also for the opposition. I will assure this committee and to the chair and to Member Hadwick that we will continue to work with opposition to try it again, even to moving them to neutral on this, because we want to get it right. And as the professor from Loyola has indicated, this is the first of its kind, and we want to get it right the first time. And it's important for me to want to hear from both sides, those who oppose this particular bill. We want to make sure that when California leads in positions in areas of its first kind, that other nations and other states follow. And so we want them to follow California. We want to follow them the right way. And so I respectfully ask when I vote. Thank you, Assemblymember. Do we have a motion? Okay, so we have a first by Arambula, second by Calderon. Secretary, please call the vote. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. AB 2101, Gibson. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations.

Ransom, aye.

Arambula? Aye. Arambula, aye. Baines? Bennett?

DeMaio. Okay, we will hold the roll open for the absent members. We have three bills remaining.

Thank you Okay there the next bill up I going to go ahead and present my bill I'm going to turn it over to Vice Chair Heather Hadwick to preside over the meeting while I present Assembly Bill 1805.

Okay, so I'm here today to present Assembly Bill 1805. I want to start by accepting the committee amendments. As we know, in recent months, the legislature and the public we serve has become aware of flagrant waste of $456 million on one of our most fundamental essential public safety projects, the Next Generation 911 Modernization Project. The goals of this project are essential, as they are basic, to modernize our 911 infrastructure away from outdated wired infrastructure known as the legacy system and into a modern internet protocol system. Hopefully, and eventually, this system will allow 911 callers to share text, voice, videos, photos, and improve location data with dispatch centers. Allow dispatchers to share this data directly with first responders and ensure resiliency by automatically rerouting 911 calls to other dispatch centers when there are high call volumes during large emergencies or if a dispatch center is not operating. These modernizations will provide the public with increased access and faster communications with emergency services when facing dangerous situations and increase the speed and efficiency in which law enforcement and public safety entities coordinate a 911 response. Unfortunately, this project has spent nearly half a billion taxpayer dollars with too little to show for it. When people call 911, they are facing very real emergencies. people who could be hurt or killed without being able to call one phone number that they've been taught to rely on. We all know when you're in trouble, you call 911. We spent decades and a lifetime telling Americans and children that it is a reliable place for them to get in touch with the fire department, with emergency medical services, and with law enforcement, allowing the essential life-saving services to be so poorly mismanaged. We are leaving Californians without the best level of access to the service, and this is simply unacceptable. Walking away from NextGen 911 is not an option. The real question is how do we get it done right and how do we do it with public trust? AB 1805 is a fix. The bill starts with three critical steps towards fixing the project right now. Number one, this bill calls for an immediate audit of the NextGen 911 project by the state auditor, providing their office with a list of hard questions so that both lawmakers and the public we represent have answers. Those answers will not only let us know what happened, but also inform us as we move forward. Number two, the bill creates and strengthens the existing 911 advisory board, renaming the 911 advisory board as an oversight board and gives the board authority to conduct rigorous oversight on the project The board will have oversight over technical and operational standards for the 911 system training standards for county coordinators, any budgetary decisions made on the project, and direct oversight on changes to currently approved plans. They would be able to hire technical experts if necessary in order to ensure that we have the right people at the table. And three, AB 1805 requires detailed quarterly reports to the legislature on the status of the project, roadblocks they may be encountering, and the solutions being proposed to solve these challenges. The legislature has a key role to play in reorienting this project towards success. To do that, we need to understand what has gone wrong and how new proposals address all potential issues. My goal is simple, to make sure that NextGen 911 is reliable, accountable, and completed without further delay. This bill is not just a step in the right direction for NextGen 911. This is an opportunity for this project to remember the people that 911 is meant to serve and to put in the work so that our constituents have an emergency call system that they can rely on. So with me today to testify, I have Mr. Mark Smith on behalf of the California Chapter of the National Emergency Number Association, as well as staff here. They are here. If necessary, the Legislative Analyst's Office is on standby to answer any technical questions that we may have. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Smith.

Look, we are California, and we're used to leading. This is such an important project for the state, and while we have definitely suffered, I don't want to call it some embarrassments, but we are needing to really recalibrate and move forward. This bill really answers questions. We've tried to get audits, but due to kind of some of the technical deadlines and things like that, we were not able to get that done. This bill gets that done. People want answers. And those answers will also include the answer to how we are moving forward and whether we are moving forward in the best way possible for California. So I'd like to thank my witness for the testimony. I know that we did not call the LEO up, but I want to appreciate the work that they've done as well as them being here today. 9-1-1 helps everyone in this room if they need it. and I hope that no one ever is in the situation and it does not work for them. If we need it, the last thing we should be wondering is whether our calls will go through. I've given an example several times about what happened in my county when folks were at a mass shooting and it was a birthday party and no one knew the address and our first responders were confused about where they needed to go. This bill shines a light on this project that is meant to keep everyone safe from harm. Next Gen 911 project needs to be properly planned and executed in order to keep us connected. And so with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote so that we can move this project forward in the best way possible.

Secretary, please call the vote. AB 1805, Ransom. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations.

Ransom, aye. Hadwick?

Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye.

DeMaio.

Yep. It's out. Yes. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. To start with the Addis bill? Yes. Okay. Awesome. Next up, we have Assembly Bill 1536, which is a bill by Assembly Member Don Addis regarding offshore oil pipeline safety

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Good morning. With thanks to the Chair, Christina Skirinj with the Center for Biological Diversity, proud co-sponsor of AB 1536. This is a bill to protect California's $51 billion coastal economy, our unique biodiversity, communities, and cultures from yet another devastating oil spill. Trump plans to expand drilling off our coast even as he drops bonding guardrails and cuts hundreds of millions from coastal protection, emergency management, and environmental cleanup. California has had many spills, but 16 since 2010 have dumped 10,000 gallons or more on our shores. Three major spills dumped more than 4 million gallons impacting marine protected areas and beaches, closing fisheries and killing wildlife. The 2015 spill on Chumash lands and the 2021 spill on Tongva lands contaminated thousands of acres, closing fisheries and state parks, costing the state millions, including more than 200 million in damages and 3.9 million in lost recreational value. The federal plan could bring another 1.9 million gallons to pollute our coast. California's multi-billion dollar coastal economy enjoys over 150 million visitors per year, nearly 600,000 jobs that all rely on clean beaches and a healthy ocean. Coastal tourism and recreation are the major drivers of GDP and employment for our marine economy. Oil spills devastate ecosystems, homes, businesses, and livelihoods. This is about fiscal responsibility. What it won't do is raise gasoline prices, which are set by global markets. Even the rosiest scenario for unmitigated oil production off California would not be produced until 2040, would only account for 0.22% of global production. That's a drop in the bucket, not enough to move oil prices. It's also not true that this would increase reliance on high-cost, high-carbon imports because California's oil is more carbon-intensive than imports, and on a per-barrel basis, imports are less expensive than oil-produced here offshore. Californians have for decades overwhelmingly opposed drilling off our unique and beautiful coast. We urge you to vote yes to protect against these very foreseeable risks to all we hold dear. Thank you. Hi, how you doing? My name is Peter Belden. I'm excited. It's my first time to the state capitol and part of a process like this. So thank you for listening. So like you said, I'm a member of the business alliance for protecting the Pacific coast. I've also been a lifeguard in Newport beach for 26 years. And for the last 10 years, I had a surf club in Newport where we had offered memberships and surfboard rentals to residents and visitors from all over the world. And I just want to give you kind of my experience of what happened to the 2021 oil spill in Huntington beach and how that affected me. my business, but even more importantly, maybe some lesser known or obvious impacts from that. So for me, obviously lost revenue during that period. You know, when there's an oil spill, that's bad for business as a surf club. And you can imagine every other kind of tourist business that's involved with the beaches there. So huge fiscal impact to me. Also, I had to shorten my business hours, which means lower wages or hours for my employees. So there's a lot of effects to my businesses, which are obvious, but there's two things I wanted to highlight. Number one was the media and the public perception after that oil spill So for the next week we were hit over the head every single day local news TikTok Instagram Facebook You see pictures of, you know, oiled pelicans and fish washing up, and you see caution sign on the beach. And those images get pumped into the public perception, and it's day in, day out. Well, when they reopen the beach nine days later, obviously they're not going to have the same kind of response to let everybody know, hey, beaches are open. So while it was a nine-day closure in Newport and Huntington, for me as a business, it lasted months after. In fact, up to six months later, I was still getting calls asking if it's safe to go to the beach. And these are California residents that want to enjoy our beach. That's why we live here. And that image, so when there's an oil spill, like, yeah, it might get cleaned up quickly, but that image lasts way longer to the people of California. The other one that was very surprising to me was how massive the downstream effect was. So obviously my business was impacted, but then I was no longer ordering surfboards, leashes, fins, surfboard wax, drinks, I mean, even less like toilet paper and paper towels. Like it affects so much downstream of me, not just the direct impact. And I had lots of friends that, you know, they were just outside the eligibility zone, you know, to get compensation from the oil company. And they had coffee shops and other things like that. And they got nothing. Their businesses were impacted because we live in a tourist town. just like so many others. Oh, is it my time? Okay. So the last point I want to make is I think what's in this bill is very reasonable. Like I actually thought when I read this that a lot of these were already in place. So if there's an old pipeline that has a history of problems, I can't believe we're not already addressing that. And that oil leak in Huntington, that had a leak detection system. It was just faulty, also with some operator error. But if you had up-to-date technology, we wouldn't be here, and I wouldn't be here right now. That would already be solved. So please support this bill. Thank you.

I'm nervous. My heart's going.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Will Breger. I'm here for 350 Humboldt up in the North Coast. Climate Action California. We're everywhere in California. And I got to say, my real clients, my six grandchildren, I'm always bragging on California to them. So we support the bill. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of our firm's clients, Oceana, Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Surfrider Foundation. I was also asked to convey the support of Sierra Club California, California Environmental Voters, Active Sam Gabriel Valley, California Coastkeeper Alliance, Center for Environmental Health, Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Environmental Defense Center, Food and Water Watch, Las Padres Forest Watch, Ocean Conservation Research, the Bay Area and San Diego 350s, Santa Cruz Climate Action Network, Save Our Shores, and Turtle Island Restoration Network. All in support. Good morning, Josh Gawker on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you. Jordan Curley on behalf of Clean and Healthy California in strong support. Good morning. Melissa Sparks Kranz with the League of California Cities in support. This is critically important for our coastal cities to have greater oversight over hazardous spills and potential leakage to protect our coastal economies. Thank you. Hi I Tess Sullivan I City Council of Fort Bragg also on the Coastal Cities Committee representing most of Northern California coastal cities And we have a very fragile ecosystem on the Mendocino Coast as well as most of our coastal cities do And up in our area, this is where the whales get food and the sharks get their food and all the other wildlife get their food. So it's really important that the Northern California coast is preserved and as well as all of California coast. So I am here in favor. Mark Inmeyer, San Clemente City Council and Chair of the Cal City's Coastal Leadership Group, also downstream from Huntington Beach, in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Paul DeArrow representing the Western States Petroleum Association.

Thank you for that. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to this bill? Is there anyone who'd like to add on any testimony in opposition or any me to testimony? No. Okay. Seeing none, I thank you all for your witnesses. I'm going to bring it back to the committee. Assembly member Arambula, you recognize.

Thank you for moving the bill. Assembly member Hadwick.

I can't, perhaps the witnesses that are with me can. Yeah, I'm happy to. Despite what opposition says, that's a big spill, 10,000 gallons. There have only been 18 since, there have been 18 since 2010 that have spilled that amount. Many of those pipelines have spilled that amount two or three times. So these are repeat offenders. It's consistent with federal regulation, which increases regulation at that 10,000 gallon threshold.

And I'm happy to answer some of the other.

There is, it's built in already. Happy to have those discussions. Certainly would defer to the author on that. But the state fire marshal can put off abandonment for a year to have continued discussions. That's within their purview to discuss that with the operator. Obviously, repairs are different. Those repairs were not made quickly. Many things are still happening. In fact, some of these pipelines will never be active again. For example, the one that would service Richmond is no longer going to be active. So how long something takes to be repaired is very particular to that particular pipeline. And that would be worked out with the state fire marshal as it's been done for years and years.

Go ahead. Through the chair. You know, Sable maintains that they are already operating up and operating. So, you know, I mean, their timeline was pretty quick, wasn't it? And they just got the go ahead from the president. what so days later they claimed they were up now that's still currently being litigated there in bio you know the state says they're in violation of a lot of laws and injunctions doing that but as I said each repair is going to be particular to that situation and the the counter to that is how much risk we're putting to these coastal economies in the meantime right so you have to counter those risks You going to have hits to employment when this happens You not going to get oil to market if it spilling or seeping through rusty old corroded Swiss cheese pipelines. So and what we're asking for is currently in law requires best available technology, but it's limited to valves. And we saw with Huntington Beach, that wasn't enough. We're asking for up-to-date. Some of these regulations and laws are years old, and as you mentioned, these pipelines are decades old, and many of them are currently enacted.

Yeah, I have a list of like 20 economic experts that say that oil production off the coast of California, much less in the state of California, much less the entire United States, do not impact global oil markets. I'm happy to list them off from you. They include those from California, Berkeley, UC, Santa Barbara, Stanford, but also MIT and the Cato Institute. Yale lists of them. So the economic experts say, you're wrong. It will not increase gas prices. We also have lots of data that we're happy to provide from economic experts saying, this is a drop in the bucket. It will not impact California supply. We see already in these conversations about how we're going to get through this transition, and you hear from the vice chair over at CEC and from DPMO, they constantly are going back to imports. Why? Because imports are cheaper and cleaner despite what the opposition says. And so you have not just what's easiest for the state and what Gupta and the DPMO keep going back to is that we're going to have to look at managing that transition through increased imports. But you also have, these are profit companies as they have a duty to their shareholders to find the cheapest way to bring that gasoline to market. And so they're going to be more interested in cheaper imports than the high cost of offshore production is very expensive.

Yeah, thank you very much for the time through the chair.

Thank you.

That's all I have.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Aye.

Hadwick?

Hadwick, no.

Arambula, aye. Baines? Baines, not voting. Bennett? Aye.

DeMaio, no.

Can I start with the 1964 fire marshal survey?

regarding state fire marshal, county recorder, home hardening program. I'd like to start by accepting the committee's amendments on page seven of the analysis. I want to thank the committee staff for your work on this bill. California is at a tipping point. 14 of the 20 most destructive fires occurred within the last 10 years. And there's no end in sight. The state's wildfire season continues to grow more ferocious and long. We lack comprehensive data on the state of the home hardening of homes in California. This requires a state fire marshal to conduct a survey, identifies the number of homes in moderate to very high fire severity zones, how many have achieved hardening, and an estimate of the cost to complete the hardening. With a more complete understanding, the state can better focus the limited resources we always have to wrestle with. And I'd like to point out that we have today, like, point out that we have letters and support, and one of them is from the Nature Conservancy, and they point out that you can't manage what you can't measure. And it is important for us to understand the situation. If this is, and I believe it will be, one of the most important things California will do, which is transform our commitment to home hardening, just like we transformed communities communities when after whole cities were burning down because they didn't have fire standards. So with that, we're ready to answer any questions about the bill. Thank you very much.

Sorry, I have so many questions today. I'm sorry. I wanted to see where, what's the position of the county recorders on this bill? And are they, what's the position of the county recorders on this bill? And are, are they already collecting these records related to construction?

And how, well, you kind of answered it, I guess.

this is going to be a general one-time survey that's out there to get us started on this. And from that, we'll learn a lot about whether we should do this survey every five years or should we measure, you know, because I think we, we want to, to major how well we're doing in terms of this, but this first time that wouldn't be the case. And I think you're going to see a lot of this being done by GPS, by photography. They may fly drones over areas to be able to look at that, but it's not going to be a every six month adjustment based on how well people have trimmed a particular trees, et cetera.

Great. Thank you. Any other committee members? Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. We have a motion, Romulo? Is there a second?

Would you like to make a closing statement?

Awesome.

AB 1964, Bennett, the motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Ransom?

Ransom, aye.

Aye.

Arambula?

Arambula, aye.

Aye.

Bennett?

Bennett, aye. Calderon? Calderon, aye. DeMaio? Aye. DeMaio, aye. All right. That bill is out. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have AB 1960, Assemblymember Bennett, Wildfire Prevention Grants Program, Identified Cohesive Fire Communities. You may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you Assemblyman Bennett. Are there any witnesses in support of this bill? Any witnesses in opposition of this bill? Okay. I'm going to bring it back. This was pulled by Vice Chair Hadwick. Did you have any specific questions?

I'd like to respond by saying if. No matter how much money we have we don have enough money for all of the wildfire prevention activities that you like to do in your community We could take all of the money in the state and send it to your community It would not be enough There needs to be a recognition that people in your community are paying higher home insurance costs because Palisades burned down When you have a $35 billion loss, everybody in the state pays for that. And so we can't take a it's all got to go to one one area of the state, one need. Yes, those those forests are have real challenges, particularly where the trees are dying because of beetle infestation, et cetera. Those are real risk. But we have to think about the whole state and say, what's the best way for us to decrease our insurance rates? Well, one of the big ways to do that is make sure Palisades doesn't burn down, make sure Eaton doesn't burn down, make sure communities in Northern California don't burn down. And encouraging communities to think, this is the only bill that encourages communities community-wide to harden. And community-wide hardening helps everybody, whether you're low income or high income, even though it may not send dollars directly to you. So we have been missing the boat in sort of thinking about that whole community, I mean, that whole state approach and trying to stretch preciously few resources that we're going to have for hardening. We're trying to stretch those by maximizing the marketing bang that we get. I would offer to you there's more of a marketing bang from this bill than there will ever be from the actual dollar spent because we will be able to advertise to all communities. If you get to 10% early, you're going to get this. All of a sudden, that buzzes through the community and people sit there and start talking. I'm trying to get people to talk about home hardening. This is a very modest modification, but allows people to in every community say we've got a chance of doing that. You could have 10 percent of the people in your community do that. And in your community, 10 percent of the people could afford to harden. Not every community. In some of your communities, 10 percent of the people could probably afford it. 10 percent of them may already be hardened. Right. And they maybe could just apply. And suddenly, look what you have. they're buzzing because, hey, we had 10% that were already hardened. We got qualified. We met the certifications. Now, bang, we get to talk about that's the kind of buzz I'm trying to create. I feel more like a marketing manager, an advertising manager, than I feel like a fire safety person with this. But that's what we need. We need marketing to join with Cal Fire and all the others out there. So pardon me, but thank you for letting me sort of be there.

So I think that that's the, that is the, that is the, didn't go that far.

And unfortunately the fear of these communities burning is the only way we get people to do things and move.

You know, we had a nice conversation before, and I greatly respect that you approached me, told me you had concerns. We had a chance. I had a chance to try to explain that to you. But in the interest of the committee and everything,

and the first tier may be pretty much low-cost stuff, putting the vents on, clearing the brush. And if that's the case, there may be a way for them to qualify in terms of this. So there are ways that things could happen.

Yes, yeah.

Madam Chair, if I may, there's one very important point. One very important point. This is not code enforcement. Okay, sorry, not code enforcement. Not code enforcement. Certification. This is voluntary certification. somebody asks somebody to come and check my house out. That's very, very different than mandatory code enforcement. That is not what this is, and that's a buzzkill for the marketing program that we need in the state of California. I retract that. I don't want the buzzkill, so I do retract that. I meant certification. Sorry. All right. Are there any other committee questions? All right. We have a first and a second. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please call the vote. AB 1960, Bennett. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Hadwick? No. Hadwick, no. Arambula? Aye. Arambula, aye. Baines? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. Calderon? Calderon, aye. DeMaio? DeMaio, no. I appreciate that your no was quiet because that helps on the marketing campaign. We're going to keep the roll open for the absent member. We're now going to invite Assemblyman DeMaio to present AB 1863 regarding fire protection, district fees, 911 telephone calls. Whenever you are ready, you may begin.

Thank you, Assemblymember. We have a motion. I'll second the motion. Are there any witnesses in support of this bill? Seeing none, are there any witnesses in opposition? of this bill? I'm going to bring it back to the committee. Are there any questions or concerns? I want to just thank the assembly member for accepting the amendments, having been on a fire authority and chair to fire authority. Definitely want to ensure that Californians know that they can call 911 without, you know, being concerned about any absorbent fees. And then also want to make sure that our districts know that if they do go out and administer IVs or things like that, they can still, you know, bill insurance and be recover any costs. So we think that this bill hits a sweet spot. And with that, uh, we, I do, you do enjoy the, uh, do pass request from the chair. Um, we have a first and a second secretary, please call the vote.

Okay. Thank you. AB 1863 DeMaio. The motion is due pass to the assembly floor. Ransom. Ransom. Aye. Hadwick. Hadwick. Aye. Arambula? Aye. Arambula, aye. Baines? Bennett? Aye. Bennett, aye. Calderon? Aye. Calderon, aye. DeMaio? Aye. DeMaio, aye. Okay. We're going to now go back over to add-on votes for committee members who joined after the meeting started. On the consent calendar AB 2517 Baines Bennett Aye Bennett aye Calderon 2517. Aye. DeMaio. Aye. DeMaio, aye. Do we know where Baines is? Do we ask her to call Baines? Aye. AB 2152. Member Gonzalez. Motion is passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Baines Bennett Bennett I DeMaio DeMaio no AB 2041 member Carrillo do pass to the committee on appropriations Baines Bennett Bennett I DeMaio DeMaio I a b 2101 Gibson do pass to the committee on appropriations Baines Bennett I Bennett, aye. DeMaio? DeMaio, aye. AB 1805, ransom due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Baines? Calderon? Aye. Calderon, aye. DeMaio? DeMaio, aye. Okay. We have one member that we're going to hold the roll open for the next 10 minutes to add on for the missing member. Everyone else, you're free to leave. Thank you Okay, Secretary, can you please call the roll to add on the missing votes? On the consent calendar 2517 Baines. Baines aye. AB 1863 Baines. The motion is due passed to the assembly floor. VOTING. AB 2517 CALDERON. I'M SORRY. AB 1960, Bennett, Baines. Bennett Baines aye AB 1805, Ransom, Baines. Aye. Baines, aye. AB 2101, Gibson, Baines. Aye. Baines, aye. AB 2041 Carrillo, Baines. Aye. Baines, aye. AB 2152, member Mark Gonzalez, Baines, aye. All bills are out. No. No, no, no. All bills are not out. Okay. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.