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. 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. everyone. Welcome to the Committee on Emergency Management. I'm Assemblymember Radhija Ransom, and we are going to go ahead and get started. I'm going to just kind of put it out there. The Senate is currently hearing a budget bill right now, and so since we are hearing Senate bills, there may be some delays. It is my understanding they are going to get passes to come and join and present bills, but just wanted to give a heads up that there may be some delays throughout this hearing. Today we have four bills that are eligible, one of which is on consent. Each bill is entitled to a primary witness in support and a primary witness in opposition. And I'll probably repeat this when folks are here, but if there are any witnesses that are here now, you will each have two minutes when it is time to give your testimony. Following the presentations, additional individuals will be able to approach the microphone to state name, affiliation, position on bills only. Again, name, affiliation, and position on bills. Written testimony can be given directly to the committee. And with that, we're going to go ahead and establish a quorum. Secretary,

Awesome. So we have a quorum present, and next we have a first and second to move the consent calendar, which is SB 895 Strickland.

985 Strickland. And that vote is we're going to hold the roll open for open members. Awesome. And so now is the fun part where we get to, we're going to wait until the members of the Senate join us and talk amongst yourselves, have a good time. Whatever. Thank you for being here.

Just a quick update. The Senate is continuing their deliberations, but they have been asked to join to take a pass and come over. So just be patient. Thank you.

All right, we'd like to welcome Senator Erguin. Thank you, Senator. Senator Ergine is going to present Assembly Bill 1299 regarding the State Fire Marshal Fire Suppression Education and Training Safety Act. Thank you for being here, Senator. You can begin whenever you are ready.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Ransom and members of the committee. Martin Vindiola on behalf of the California State Pipe Trades Council, co-sponsors of SB 1299. Fire suppression systems are among the most important life safety features in Californians' homes, businesses, schools, hospitals, and public buildings. When a fire occurs, occupants, first responders, and property owners rely on these systems to work immediately and effectively. But a fire sprinkler system is only as reliable as the individual who installs and maintains it. While existing California regulations require C-16 fire protector contractors to be licensed, There existed a significant gap regarding consistent qualification standards for the individuals performing this highly specialized work. Recognizing this need, the legislature enacted AB 433 in 2013, directing the state fire marshal to establish certification standards for sprinkler fitters. The state fire marshal subsequently adopted regulations, creating a certification framework. However, as the Senator mentioned, these regulations were later challenged in court and were disrupted due to procedural issues identified under the Administrative Procedures Act. Importantly, the court did not reject the need for training, certification, or apprenticeship standards. This decision focused on procedural concerns only, not the merits of the certification program. Fire suppression work is highly technical. Our apprenticeship programs combine classroom instruction with thousands of hours of supervised on-the-job training. These programs ensure workers possess the knowledge, skills, and experience necessary to perform this work safely and correctly. When a sprinkler system fails, the consequences can be catastrophic. SB 1299 is a common sense public safety measure that ensures that people responsible for installing and maintaining fire suppression systems possess the training and qualifications necessary to protect Californians. Thank you. And at the right time, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Randy Rockson. I'm the executive director of the Sprinkler Fitters Association, California. Also a retired assistant deputy director with the State Farm Marshal's Office. This bill requires those who install, repair, inspect, or maintain fire suppression systems to be qualified through training and education by completing an approved fire sprinkler and apprenticeship training program and pass a written examination by the State Farm Marshal. SB 1299 is based upon regulations adopted in 2010 17 by the State Farm Marshal requiring sprinkler set of fitters to be certified in apprenticeships apprentices registered The State Farm Marshal Sprinkler Fitter certification program has been effect for nearly a decade However in 2019 a coalition of contractors sued the State Farm Marshal alleging a host of alleged discrepancies namely procedural errors of the Administrative Procedures Act Over the next seven years, this lawsuit limited the State Fire Marshal from adequately enforcing key element enforcement provisions of this regulation. In December 2025, the court ruled on the suit while dismissing most of the issues presented in the lawsuit. They did strike some language. However, the court stated its ruling that the program was necessary for purposes of public safety. The court stated that the state fire marshal could reintroduce those items through the regulatory process if they so desired. SB 1299 will restore this stricken language that required training and education for trainees as well as supervisor to apprenticeship trainee supervision ratios. Currently, there are no ratios. There's no supervision required of trainees. So in a sense, a trainee currently can go out there and install fire sprinklers without any supervision at all. That makes little sense, and that's what we have currently. SB 1299 would place in statute the same structural rules for qualification, yet provide some flexibility to the State Farm Marshal to adopt regulations concerning the program's administrative functions and some penalties for violations. By placing the current sprinkler fitter certification program in statute will ensure its legacy despite the many changes of state fire marshal administrations. It will also prevent it from lawsuits by those who do not believe that training and educating its workforces is necessary. Structurally, the State Fire Marshal's Office automated system for certifying sprinkler fitters and registering apprentices is already in place and has been in operation for the past decade. So there should be little changes that will be necessary for their automated system. Thank you, and I'm looking for any questions.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California in support.

You know, they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Nobody wants to see a fire prevention device, a sprinkler system improperly installed. So it's a good intention, but when we add up all the good intentions and the regulatory costs, it ends up breaking the back of working families It makes housing and construction in California prohibitively expensive Not all states have this requirement In fact the majority of states don have these requirements, and they seem to be doing pretty fine. In your construction of the bill, Have you looked at what the cost implications might be to require this new set of training and certification and obviously enforcement as well? I mean, I call attention to page three of the committee analysis, which talks about the fiscal impact. And it quoted the analysis from the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis. I'll just note that what we're doing is codifying the pre-existing certification process that was in effect for about a decade, but that now is not operative because of this court decision. So I would argue that it's not adding significant additional costs. It's merely implementing a process that was in effect for a number of years. So I know you cite fiscal impacts, but I'm not talking about just the cost to government. And I'm talking about the cost of real people, people who have to build homes, the family that has to try to afford a mortgage because all the costs of construction would be rolled in there. And we don't have an eye towards cost here. And obviously, you were referencing a previously enacted law that was overturned on administrative grounds by the court. I have to say I don't think the court weighed it in one way or another on whether it was a good idea. The court doesn't have purview, and that was probably not the purpose of the lawsuit. It was just whether there was a deficiency on administrative procedures. And obviously a group of people did step forward to challenge these requirements. A group of contractors brought suit. So there is opposition out there. There are people who saw that original law and decided for a variety of reasons that it wasn't a good thing, and they challenged it on the basis that it was deficient from administrative process. I can't support this proposal today because while in theory and in concept it seems like, okay, well, why not have another round of certification and training and regulation here? We really have not demonstrated the appropriate benefit for an unknown amount of cost that would be imposed on construction. Other states also provide for exemptions where sprinkler systems are not required. I did not see an exemption in your bill for that. So if a project decided, hey, we want to do something more than what the state requires, more than what code requires, they would have to make that decision with added costs of this bill. And then finally, I am always concerned about these bills being backed by a labor union because it's almost as though, well, we want people to go through our union and we don't like Merit Shop or non-union contractors. So that also gives me great hesitation in evaluating this proposal today. So I will not be able to support it. And I would urge other members in the middle of a housing affordability crisis that this may not be the right direction for us to be going in.

Hi, thank you. I didn't plan on talking today, but I had a couple questions. You probably won have the answer today but I would love to get it in the future I represent 11 very rural counties in the North state I guessing I don have a lot of contracted or the sprinkler fitters that would fit this in my district. Do you happen to know how many are in Northern California

In the state? In the state.

I didn't expect it. It's a big question. I was just curious when I was reading it. I, unfortunately, I live in the middle of nowhere. It's very hard to get anybody to even bid on a project, let alone show up and get an estimate or anything else. So I'm guessing in my county, there's probably none. And I live three hours from a town. So then that fee that is then taxed on to the builder is exorbitant for my district, who's already struggling in rural America. I can't support the bill today just because of that, just our sheer location. And my district's very unique. And I know that, but I vote my district every time. So, but I would love to get numbers and cause I'm sure it's going to go through today, but so I would love to just know for when our constituents call. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you very much, Madam chair. Well, once again, just to briefly respond to assembly to Maya's comments and appreciate his questions and comments. Once again, on page three of the committee analysis, and I'll just read the last sentence of the first paragraph. The state fire marshal must update its regulations. There may be additional but potentially absorbable rulemaking workload. Administrative workload for the state fire marshal may also be offset by some extent by fee revenue. So that's dealing with the cost of implementing with respect to the cost of construction. As the chairman of the Senate Housing Committee, the Senate cares deeply about housing production, housing affordability. I don't want to do anything that's going to put barriers in the way of constructing homes in California. But we have to balance that with also making sure that those homes are safe. Because we've seen the tragic consequences when we don't have working fire sprinkler systems or fire suppression systems and people have lost their lives. That's really the jurisdiction of this committee is how we are making sure that we're putting in place rules and having trained professionals to make sure that these systems work. God forbid they need to work. Thank you.

Yes. Subpage five of the analysis. Once again, accept the committee amendments, which strike water and chemical-based systems from the definition of the fire suppression system. These amendments streamline the statute and ensure internal consistency to reflect the intentions of the bill. And there are also some other non-subsidive clarifying changes as well, which I accept.

Once again colleagues this is putting in place the certification process that we had on the books for a decade which was stricken due to a court decision on procedural grounds not on the merits of the regulations which are intended to make sure that we have working fire suppression systems in California that are installed and maintained and checked by people who are licensed and who are able to ensure their operation and safety, which is really about the life safety of buildings, homes, and commercial buildings in California. It's about safety. So I I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

The motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Labor and Employment. SB 1299, Oregon. The motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Labor and Employment. Ransom?

Ransom, aye. Hadwick? Hadwick, no. Arambula? Aye. Arambula, aye. Baines? Bennett? Bennett, aye. Calderon? Calderon, aye. DeMaio? DeMaio, no.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to present SB 1153, which will provide a practical and responsible approach to wildfire preparedness in California. Let me begin by thanking the chair and the committee staff for working so diligently with my office on this triple referred bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments today and appreciate the willingness to continue the conversations as we move on to the other two committees. Over the last decade, as you know, California has endured some of the most destructive and unpredictable wildfires in our history. In addition to the destruction and devastation and human suffering, they have also placed an extraordinary demand on California's public water system and their customers. In response to these unprecedented disasters, our public water systems have invested significant time and resources to prepare for wildfire events through emergency preparedness actions, which vary based on the system and region of the state. While public water systems were designed to provide customers with safe and reliable drinking water and to provide water to extinguish structural fires in the communities they serve, they were never designed to function as wildfire defense or suppression systems. Despite this, misunderstandings about how public water systems operate have shaped public expectations and contributed to perceptions that some of these water systems may not have performed as they were designed to during wildfire events, which is not the case. SB 1153 will improve local emergency planning by clarifying the role and capabilities of water systems during wildfire events, protect ratepayers, and support future investment in infrastructure, all while identifying wildfire suppression and hardening strategies that this state can invest in. With me today to testify is Andy Fecko, General Manager of the Placer County Water Agency in Kylie Wright, representing the Association of California Water Agencies. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Kylie Wright with the Association of California Water Agencies, the sponsor of SB 1153. ACA represents approximately 470 public water agencies statewide, and we appreciate Senator Cabrero for authoring this bill. SB 1153 improves wildfire planning and resilience while recognizing the limitations of water infrastructure. This bill would bolster existing emergency planning efforts by requiring urban retail water suppliers to incorporate wildfire-specific response procedures into existing emergency plans beginning January 1, 2028. The bill would require the plans to include actions to prepare, respond, and recover from a wildfire. The bill promotes effective emergency planning and coordination by providing a planning framework while allowing water suppliers, the experts on their systems, to develop preparedness strategies that reflect local conditions and operational needs. Following major wildfire events, public water systems have increasingly faced claims and lawsuits for wildfire damages. The financial burden of litigation is ultimately borne by customers impacting water rates and affordability. Public water systems are designed to provide customers with safe and reliable drinking water and to aid in structural firefighting for the properties they serve. They are not designed to meet the significant volume of water necessary for large-scale wildfire defense and suppression, and systems can become overwhelmed due to the high demand during a wildfire. Designing a system in such a way could impact the ability to provide safe drinking water, maintain financial stability, and protect water affordability. As catastrophic wildfires grow more frequent and severe across California, SB 1153 takes a balanced approach, promoting effective wildfire planning while recognizing the role of public water agencies and their systems capabilities and limitations. We respectfully request your aye vote today. Thank you. Chair Ransom, Vice Chair Hadwick, thanks for having me today. Appreciate you. My name is Andy Facko. I'm the general manager of the Plaster County Water Agency. We are a county-wide water and power agency in the foothills of the Sierras, just east of here. Our jurisdiction and our water and power systems have been plagued by a growing wildfire crisis over the last decade and a half. These include two of the largest megafires in the state that scorched our headwaters, threatened our water and power supply infrastructure and cost us nearly $100 million in damage and losses, losses paid by our customer base, as well as several wildland-urban interface fires that both our canal and our drinking water systems were made part of the firefighting apparatus. In response to these experiences, my agency is a statewide leader in managing forest lands through collaborative fuels management projects being implemented at a watershed scale to try to avoid catastrophes in the future. Though our water systems can be used in the portfolio of firefighting options in responding to wildfire, the capacity of our infrastructure is not and cannot be sized for this purpose. The capacity of our fire hydrants and our related water mains is dictated by the local firefighting authorities in the areas where we serve water, based on locally specific needs to fight structure fires. That's what we do. To size these facilities any large would be incompatible with the state mandated drinking water quality standards and insured through water sampling on a regular basis throughout our distribution systems I believe SB strikes the right balance of acknowledging the availability of our drinking water infrastructure and the portfolio of options for fighting wildfire, while also acknowledging the limitations of these systems that cannot feasibly be overcome. Based on my practical experience as a member of several incident response teams during wildfires, SB-1153 also provides for an appropriate level of preparedness and information sharing between water agencies and firefighting forces. Respectfully request your passage of 1153. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jamie Miner on behalf of Eastern Municipal Water District as well as Santa Margarita Water District, pleased to support.

Good afternoon. Lily McKay on behalf of West Valley Water District and Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Adam Quinones, California Advocates on behalf of Mesa Water District, Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency, and Cal Chamber in support. Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of the California Association of Mutual Water Companies in support. Good afternoon. Brenda Bass on behalf of Western Municipal Water District in support. Thank you. Jack Wurston from Nossman on behalf of the Liebenheim Municipal Water District, the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District in support. Kasha Hunt here with California Water Association in support. Thank you. Dana Nickel, Reeb Government Relations on behalf of El Dorado Irrigation District, Palmdale Water District, Walnut Valley Water District, and Rallon Water District in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Keely Morris on behalf of the California Municipal Utilities Association in support. Good afternoon, Cyrus Devers for the Las Virginis Municipal Water District in support. Good afternoon, Kenda Ojekre with the WIDAMIN Group on behalf of California Water Service in strong support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Deanna Latoura Keane on behalf of Irvine Ranch Water District and San Diego County Water Authority in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of Franco here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the California, sorry, the Fire District Association of California and Contra Costa Water District in support. Thank you.

Assemblyman Bennett. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I think it's valuable to make sure that we identify that water systems are not designed to put out massive wildfires. And to the extent that anybody thinks that. I actually don't hear many people asking for that capability because everybody recognizes just how enormously expensive it would be. This bill, so I applaud that that's what this bill, one of the things this bill does, but this bill, the biggest thing this bill does is give blanket liability protection to water districts. And I'm not opposed to that because we don want to have lawsuits causing rates to go up and up and up as we go forward But when you give blanket liability protection you introduce the potential for some real problems And one of them is you take away incentives for people to be diligent, do good government, et cetera. You decrease that. I shouldn't say you don't take it away from everybody, but you do decrease that. The way you counter that is with one of the ways that you can try to balance that is with transparency. And the one question that I have is that the public strongly supports more transparency after we've had these disasters hit over and over again. And so the public – and if you had to pick one thing that the public is asking for, and I've talked to lots of people in lots of situations and lots of assembly members that have had these things happening in their districts, and that is backup generating capacity. The public's not saying they want to have it in every situation, but they want to know because everybody knows that the power is going to be turned off during a wildfire. When it hits a community, the power's off. When the power goes off, if there's no backup generating capacity, there's no ability to keep refilling the tanks. And ember shower fires last sometimes for hours. And a community doesn't need a lot of water. It only needs the water for structural firefighting, but it needs a little bit of water for a long time because ember shower, ember spot fires are very easy to put out quickly if you have a little bit of water there. So they the public wants to know that there's backup generating capacity so that we don't have a situation like we had in my district where five and six hours after the fire swept through houses were catching on fire and burning down because there was no water at all in the hydrant to be able to to put out that that small spot fire. So that's what the public's asking for. And Senator, you and I have disagreed on some water issues in the past, and I hope that doesn't get in the way of this, what I think is a fairly small request. And that is we submitted amendments to staff, and we also submitted them to your office, and we understand you're not supportive of the amendments. And there's only one amendment that I'm most focused, most curious about. If I could try to understand as this bill continues to work its way forward. And it's just that, that when the water districts submit the plans that your bill calls for, that these get submitted, could they please just identify the proportion of the water pumps that have backup generating capacity? We're not asking for the location of them. We're not asking to reveal anything for national security reasons or anything else. But that's the one thing that would, if I had to pick one thing, that's the one thing that would significantly improve the transparency and improve the spill. And so my question is, why would that that doesn't that doesn't say the water districts have to fight out all wildfires, et cetera. They don't even have to do it. They just simply have to identify whether it's happening or not so that the public can have an honest conversation. We had people down in Parasite Paradise and Palisades I sorry and an Ethan say we didn even know the water district didn have backup generators or we would love to have had that conversation and they still can get those answers It seems like a fair tradeoff for blanket liability on one side, but at least enough transparency for people to know whether that one fundamental issue, which is backup generating power, is available or to what percentage it's available. Just let the public know, then the public can have a debate with the water district. So is that something you're – did you feel strongly when you rejected this amendment? Do you have thoughts as to why this is not an acceptable amendment? Could you help me with that? Sure, absolutely. Thank you for your question. I appreciate it. I'm trying to figure out where to start because you made a bunch of statements, a bunch of which I don't agree with. I don't believe it's a blanket liability. It's restating the law today. And although you say that everybody knows that these municipal water agencies can't put out these big wildfires, the reality of the situation is they get sued and then they have to defend the lawsuit. and ultimately the lawsuit gets resolved in one way or another, but it's expensive because the ratepayers have to pay for it. So that's the genesis of doing the bill in the first place, was on the one hand to come up with plans that are meaningful, that focus attention, as you indicated, transparency, for the public to be able to see what measures need to be taken to protect the infrastructure of the water company in order to be able to meet their basic needs post-wildfire in the area, but also pre, because some expense will be required to create defensible barriers to some of the equipment. So that's the framework from which we were operating is that state what is the law, which is that they're not responsible for putting out a wildfire and they don't have the infrastructure to do it. And there may be, we've created exceptions if there's negligence or a failure to do something that they should have done. But we've created the requirement that if they're in a high-risk zone, that they have to create these plans that start to set out some real details. And the backup generator is part of what they have to be able to identify as one of the safety precautions to be able to, because we know the electricity may go out at some point, what is the plan for protecting the generators and to have a backup that's operational as well. That is not right next to the generator. It should be somewhere else that is protected. In regards to any amendments you were looking for, we just got a copy of those. For some reason, we were told we were not going to be given a copy to look at, despite the fact that we knew you had some issues. We've got two more committees to go to. Well, there's two more committees. I can't remember the second one, but we'll take a look at what you've requested because what you're saying is logical, it's reasonable, and it's probably something that we could agree to. Yeah. need to take a look at the language and then talk with the committees to find out what it is that they're going to require as well. So I'm more than happy to continue the conversation, but I can't say right this minute because we, we had already done any amendments for the committee or we had already agreed to the amendments for the committee when we got your, your suggested amendments. Fair enough. I appreciate that. And I appreciate the, um, uh, we, we are both on the same side, which is you're saying, you know, uh, from a liability standpoint that, you know, that they need that so that we don't have all these people doing these suits. And I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm just, I'm just asking that in the plan that you have is to be just a bit more specific about what percentage has backup generating capacity, capacity, because that's the one thing the public is most curious about, because everybody knows that the power goes out. And so that's the one thing that so we will you have the language now and it's it's item the three the three eyes. Right. And but we will we will send it again over to your office and love to continue this conversation and hope that hope that we could have a meeting of the minds of this one.

Well, Chair Enzim, I mean, I think that the transparency really comes with the coordination with the local fire entities. I mean, I think, you know, ahead of time as part of this bill. But, you know, in reality, what happens in these wildfires is you get to incident command and everyone sits down and figures out what's going on in that moment. And that means water supply. That means what's the power situation. That means how many homes have burned down, how many water mains are broken, right? I mean this is sort of real stuff and you can do all that and you can put the inventory together and that fine But when the rubber meets the road really what we trying to do is coordinate here with the local fire agencies and the authorities including the city and counties so that when you get in that room, when there is an emergency, we all sort of know what the conditions are on the ground. And if that includes an inventory, I don't see a tremendous problem with it. But I think the value here is that upfront coordination with the authorities and the counties.

So why waste our time? Would it not be helpful to know where the support for the system is?

Now, I think there's a difference between that agency coordination and the public transparency. you know, publishing a list for the public. I'm not sure what the public would do with a list like that. I think that the important part of this bill is the coordination with the local entities so that they know what to do with it when we're sitting in a room together.

So I'm not going to go back and forth. I just wanted to just get your opinion since you do this work day to day and then we sit here and write, you know, rules and try to make sure that they make sense. I just wanted to get your feedback on that. But I do appreciate that everyone is, it seems committed to making sure that those backups are available and the senator is willing to dig a little further into seeing what we can do so the community feels that there's transparency. So thank you for that, Assemblymember. Madam Chair, based on the senator's commitment, I'd like to move the bill.

I just wanted to thank the author. I think the way the bill is written right now, it's a very logical, thoughtful bill, especially for my district. I applaud you for bringing one of my best water agencies with you. Unfortunately, they've become a pro in this arena, and we have to do this in District 1 way too much. But it's just part of living there. I do want to reiterate that the county OES and city OES have all that documentation of where those backup generators are, what's working, what's not. They have to tell them what's been serviced that year and all these things to keep it going. But I completely agree with the testimony that in the heat of an incident, there's always going to be something. So you can plan and plan and plan, but it never goes as planned, unfortunately. but that it's supposed to be responded to at a local level first. And they're, they're doing that in Placer County. So just wanted to thank you for bringing great testimony and I would love to be added as a coauthor on the bill.

The motion is due passed to, I'm trying to see which committee, to the Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials. SB 1153 Caballero. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials. Ransom? Aye. Ransom, aye. Hadwick? Aye. Hadwick, aye. Arambula? Aye. Arambula, aye. Baines? Bennett? Bennett, aye. Calderon? Aye. Calderon, aye. DeMaio? Aye. DeMaio, aye.

All right. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members. Almost to the day a year ago, a massive explosion rocked the town of Esparto in my district, and it was so large that it could be heard and detected even in Assemblymember Hadwick's district and in others all around the valley. And this was the explosion of a fireworks warehouse that no one knew even existed. It was not permitted for this use. Many of the licenses required were not present. And it caused immense destruction in a small town. Seven of my constituents and others lost their lives, including one of the chairs. many of them young people there for internships or work-based learning, spending their summers working in the fireworks facility that, again, was unlicensed and unpermitted. And the entire community still rocked with the outcomes from this tragedy. It's a small town. Everyone has been affected by it in ways big and small. And this was a significant part of our community. And immediately afterwards, we realized this did not have to happen. That state and local officials were unaware of what was sitting in our midst in the community because the two didn't share data. They didn't require anyone to tell them. SB 828 closes that gap and many others. It requires fireworks licensees to disclose where they are storing fireworks, prove that they have the local permits, and that they are not disqualified from holding federal licensure for their fireworks activities. Now, this situation in Esparto, in my district, was linked closely to raids that occurred in Southern California of large fireworks facilities as well. And even in those facilities, they were marked, many of the fireworks were marked to go to Esparto. This is a month before the explosion. And so the importance of coordinating the data and the information, of holding one another accountable, and of also rooting out some of the significant conflicts of interest and other challenges that have wracked the community, are the focus of SB 828. And I want to accept the nine pages of committee amendments and to emphasize that recognize that the committee has done a lot of work to simply simply to process and understand nine pages of amendments The committee is not imposing these amendments on us but has been very gracious in allowing us to, to, to develop these as we've been moving forward, because as you can imagine, after the, after the explosion, there were some initial findings that were clear needed to be fixed. But we and many others have been working in the last year in order to tackle the more comprehensive solutions that are necessary. And so the reforms that are in the bill were largely developed by the Office of the State Fire Marshal and their own Public Safety Fireworks Enforcement Task Force that's made up of local fire, police, and sheriff's agencies from all around the state. It has had plenty of industry engagement and consultation in local governments as well. And so the bill tackles many other challenges besides the ones I mentioned in terms of the finds authorities that are available, where the money goes in order to make sure that, especially these smaller communities have the capacity to deal with these issues. As has been noted earlier, in small rural towns, if anything, there might be one fireworks facility. Maybe none, hopefully none. But if there's one, you don't have a staffer who's really good at this. You just do it once, and maybe once every six years or whatever. You don't get good at it. And so developing the capacity, the training and the supports from all of the partners that are involved are essential to have effective local regulation and local enforcement of state laws in this regard. And so as we're approaching the one year anniversary of this absolutely horrid tragedy, we know that a law like this can prevent that kind of conflagration from occurring again. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Move the bill.

I'm Amanda Bloom on behalf of the California Association of Environmental Health Administrators, as well as the people of the board. Jeff Neal, representing the Board of Supervisors of Yolo County.

Madam Chair, members. Senator Cabaldon, good afternoon. My name is James Eady. I am a state licensed pyrotechnic operator speaking on my own behalf. I oppose unless amended. I have submitted a position letter with my reasoning, namely that the bill's permit verification requirements cannot be satisfied by all license types or in all jurisdictions.

Assemblyman DeMaio. Typically, we allow more time for organized presentation, and I have not seen your letter of opposition. Can you clarify what you meant by the objection that you have? Certainly. Thank you, Assemblymember. I want to be clear that I Bill's intent. The bill is aimed at commercial entities, importers, wholesalers, but individual pyrotechnic operators also fall within the statutory licensee definition, and not all operator licenses are commercial in nature. The license that I have is for hobby rocketry, practice for recreation and university STEM programs. And while hobby rocketry bears no resemblance to the large-scale commercial operations that motivated this bill, it is subject to the same laws, including a state-mandated local storage permit due to the state's legacy inclusion of rockets within the statutory definition of dangerous fireworks. I contacted over two dozen county fire departments to ask about their permitting process for small quantity storage of hobby rocket motors. Not hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of pounds, but perhaps 10 or 20 pounds for personal use. Of those that responded, some told me no permit was required. One sent me to an online permit portal that had no applicable permit, and another told me rocket motors are not considered fireworks, which is in contradiction with state law. whether a jurisdiction, none of these responses provides a process for the documented permit that this bill requires. Whether a jurisdiction doesn't require a permit or has no process in place, I am left with nothing that I can forward to the Office of the State Fire Marshal. A reassuring email is not a permit. Section 1 of the bill, under Section 1 of the bill, a licensee faces revocation or denial of their license for failing to provide a permit that in many parts of the state does not exist. The state should not punish, not penalize an individual when their local government has no pathway to compliance. Okay. That helps. Thank you very much. And have you shared some of these concerns with the senator's office so that he might be able to include some refinements in his bill? Yes. I spoke with his policy analyst, Ms. Murphy, in the January timeframe, and I remain optimistic that necessary amendments will fall into place. Okay, and so for the senator, I just wanted to figure out what was the nature of it the hobby rocketry I guess That's right any potential ways of refining the bill to clarify It sounds like there needs to be clarification just because there seems to be inconsistencies across certain fire districts as well Manager by may And can you make a clarification between hobby rocketry and model rockets Are those the same, Mr. Dean, before we move forward? Within hobby rocketry, I would include both model rocketry, which has its own statutory definition. There is also high-power rocketry, which is an outgrowth of model rocketry. same kit-based rockets with commercially manufactured rocket motors, just larger in size. Model rocketry has its own regulatory regime under the state law. High-power rockets still fall within the 1950s-era definition of dangerous fireworks because at the time, there was no rocketry, hobby rocketry. It was the space race. People were building their own rockets out of pipes and whatnot. So that's when it was included. The law then could not foresee the advent of safe hobby rocketry. Okay, so just for one point of clarification before we move on, because we're talking about three different types of rockets, as well as safe and sane versus, you know, other commercial fireworks. So to be clear, high-power rockets are already included in this type of – would already be included. They already need to have these type of permits for storage. Model rockets – oh, I think I have it the other way around. Is that right? Yes. So the clarification you're looking for is for whether or not hobby rockets would be excluded because they should not be to the same level as the type of fireworks that we're talking about in this bill. Well, I think that's a much larger policy discussion. My concern as the bill applies to rocketry is the requirement for the permit verification that local jurisdictions have no process in place to issue and the subsequent penalization for not being able to produce that permit. Okay. And that could be something that could be cleaned up administratively.

Yeah, so we're happy to take a look at it. I mean, as the chair has hinted at, this is a complicated area of, you know, I think when this first happened, everyone was like, how did all these safe and sane fireworks explode in Esparto? And they weren't. They're a different kind of pyrotechnics. And so these definitions really do matter. And I appreciate the witness noting that he wasn't calling for wholesale exemptions, but instead, how do we make sure that there is a viable path? We have been asked, we've asked the fire marshal the same question. And it does touch on this, I was noting earlier, is that with Tehamba County, if they get one model rocket request every five years, they just don't have a form. And we've got to figure out how that can work for the users. But I think that's part of the challenge that we're trying to address here, where there's these niche areas or even the big pyrotechnics. Local governments often haven had enough scale to figure it out So I am committed to working it through We asked the state office the state fire marshal for some technical assistance on this and other issues Okay thank you Senator Just in speaking with staff we are feeling like there definitely needs to be some administrative clarification through the office, through the fire marshals, in regards to how we ensure that it's clear on what the process would be and how we would handle the different rockets. I'm just going to call them the different rockets because they're all different. So thank you for that.

Yes, I do. Senator, I appreciate the bill, and I'm really sorry about what happened in your community. You've spent a lot of time working on this, So I just wondered if you could share with us your insights on the challenges of these things coming into the ports and inspections at the ports and how difficult is that? How much should this bill do this? How much should another bill do this? How much should it be done at all by California or not? How big is the problem? So completely supportive of the bill and where you're going, but would love to get some of your insights after you've spent so much time working on this. through the chair?

I only have some impressions to offer. We've obviously spent a lot of time on this issue, and I didn't know much about any of this other than as a former mayor at the local level, and I didn't realize just the sheer scale and the challenges and the kinds of networks for good and for evil that are involved in some of the sector. And so there is a real problem there, And part of what I was describing with the connection with the raids in Southern California kind of kind of hinted at that as well. So it's clear to me that there that that is a problem that needs some policy solutions. We we couldn't we could not reach an agreement or even a level of understanding that would make me confident in saying I know what the I know what the solution should be. But I certainly do think we need we need additional legislative work on this area. For this bill, we're simply trying to solve the specific problem, but that problem exists in part because there is sort of shady dealings, and our capacity at the state level and the local level to catch it is not up to snuff. And so we're trying to deal with both of that issue and then defer the other one to another bill potentially next year. Thank you.

Vice Chair. I have a lot of questions now. as a former 4-H rocketry leader, and I have a box in my garage that I'm probably going to be breaking the law after this. So I just want to make sure that I believe you when you say you'll work on that. I think that distinction is going to be very important in this. So I just want to thank the opposition for coming in because that also is hard to do, to come and testify in front of these folks. And so I appreciate that because we can't see his letter for some reason. I don't know why, But we'll make sure that works next time.

or statements? Simply to ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members.

SB 828 Cabaldon. The motion is due pass as amended to the committee on local government. Ransom, Ransom, I had wick had wick I a rambula a rambula I Baines Bennett Bennett I Calderon Calderon I DeMaio DeMaio I'm awesome thank you what is it