Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

Good afternoon. The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. Welcome, everyone, and it is nice to see so many members of the public here today. The hearing room is open for attendance of this hearing, and we can also be watched from a live stream on the Assembly's website. We encourage the public to provide written testimony by visiting the Committee website and note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted.

We will be allowing two minutes each for two primary witnesses in support and in opposition, and these witnesses must testify in person in the hearing room, and for those of you who are wondering why, it's because it is actually difficult for the Committee often to hear people when they are remote and certainly to ask questions, and we find that this makes for a more engaged Committee and one where there's less barriers to communication.

We are going to start with those members of the public who are here in this room for the second portion of witness comments. That portion will be limited only to your name, any organization that you're representing or pretending to represent, and whatever position that you have, and that testimony can be either in person or remote. But again, we will stop you if you try to actually give us a reason. Just your name, your position, and any organization.

If you have anything beyond that, please send it to us by email or by mail. To use our telephone service for that portion of the hearing, the number to call is 877-692-8957 and the access code is 1850110. Finally, the Assembly unfortunately has experienced a number of disruptions to Committee and floor proceedings in the last few years. Conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing is prohibited.

Such conduct may include talking or making loud noises from the audience, uttering loud, threatening, or abusive language, speaking longer than the time allotted, extended discussions of matters not related to the subject of the hearing, and any other disruptive acts. To address any disruptive conduct, I will take the following steps: if an individual disrupts our hearing process, I will direct them to stop and warn them that continued disruptions may result in removal from this building.

I will also document on the record the individual involved and the nature of the disruptive conduct. I may temporarily have to recess the hearing. If the conduct does not stop, I will request the assistance of the sergeants in escorting the individual from the building, and I thank you for your cooperation. I'm looking forward to working with all of you to ensure that our transportation policies improve the quality of life for all Californians and that also, we address the state's urgent climate and housing crisis.

I'm very excited to begin this Committee as we move forward this year, and with that, we're going to begin our hearing. Please note that our Vice Chair, Assembly Member Vince Fong, is absent today, and Assembly Member Joe Patterson is going to be filling in for him, and we thank him for that. We do not have a quorum, so we're not going to call roll at this time, and we're going to wait to adopt the Committee rules until we have a quorum.

And hopefully if there's any Members within earshot, if you can come into the hearing--we have a quorum? Oh, we do have a quorum. We do now. We have a new Member come in and join us, so with that we will take roll.

[Roll Call].

Well, I want to welcome all the new Members to the Committee. It's great to have you all here. We do have a lot of work to do this year to make sure that we look at prioritizing our transportation investments towards projects and strategies to reduce driving and to help decrease greenhouse gas emissions, also to make sure that our transit systems are healthy and that they support our transformation so that ridership numbers can increase.

We have to make our streets safer for everybody, and we have to make sure that we center equity. The fact that we have an aging population, many of whom--and also a young population--many of whom don't drive for a variety of reasons, and we've got to make sure that we see them when we make policies as well. And that means people who have mobility issues and certainly people who use public transportation. And with that, we're going to move on to adopting our Committee rules.

Can we have a motion for adopting the Committee rules? We have a motion. Do we have a second? Okay, we have a motion and a second. Can we have roll on the rules?

[Roll Call].

Okay. We have rules. I'd also like to bring to everybody's attention our Committee's highway naming policy, which is consistent with the Senate Transportation Committee's policy. This policy is posted on our website. As Chair of this Committee, I also intend to continue to aggressively promote the celebration of the accomplishments of women and the recognition that most of our highways, the vast majority, are named for men, and I hope that as Members do bring names forward for highway namings that they try to rectify that and find women in their community to honor. Now, today we have three bills on consent: File Item One: AB 250, File Item Five: AB 378, and File Item Nine: AB 466. Is there a motion on the consent file?

Motion.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Can we have the roll, please?

[Roll Call].

Okay. The consent calendar is adopted. What's the roll?

Yeah, we have nine votes. The consent calendar is adopted. We have six bills to discuss today. The first bill is AB 316. I would invite assemblymember Aguiar-Curry to the podium, and also the witnesses in support and in opposition may come up. Yeah.

Okay. And we will be allowing two speakers from each in support and in opposition. Okay. Assemblymember Aguiar Curry, whenever you're ready.

We have one additional person just for technical assistance if we need that. Thank you, Chair Friedman and Members. I also would like to thank the Committee staff for their work with our office. Members, you've undoubtedly have heard many things about this bill. The suggestion that it is a ban on testing and deployment of autonomous trucking is a cynical attempt by some to mischaracterize and confuse. The language is simple.

When an autonomous vehicle over 10,000 pounds is operated on a public roads, it must be accompanied by a qualified operator. To date, the only fully autonomous testing and deployment on public roads in this state has been with light duty vehicles. In San Francisco, over 92 incidents with autonomous vehicles have prompted city officials to ask the CPUC to rein in the deployment of driverless autonomous vehicles. Meanwhile, the companies deploying the technology are insisting on and lobbying for expansion.

In these incidents, driverless vehicles stopped suddenly, impeding traffic and causing accidents. In others, they have blocked emergency vehicles driven through emergency scenes and drove away from police officers doing a police stop. While I do believe this technology has great potential, there is absolutely no reason to believe this experience won't be repeated. In testing driverless trucks, the difference between up to 76,000 extra pounds, an exponentially greater threat to the public at significantly higher speeds.

As the Member who represents a district laying here between the Capitol and Bay Area, millions of people driving from home to work and back, and thousands of trucks moving goods from ports east and goods to ports west. I believe it is my responsibility to be and have the Legislature be the final step in agreeing trucking without any human operation is safe.

We also must address the reality that autonomous trucking could decimate the qualified workforce before we find out what the employee needs of the future are resulting in severe shortage of trained and capable workers to meet future needs. The requirement to have a human safety operator gives companies the incentive to help train and transition the workforce as opposed to eliminating one of the most common jobs in California.

We have already and will continue to meet with the experts and stakeholders in trucking and Truckee employment, technology, public safety goods, movement and logistics. This bill is a compromise between those who would prefer to ban these technologies and those who seek, often with enormous financial incentives, to immediately deploy an as yet unproven technology.

While I have great respect for our public safety officials at DMV and CHP, I believe as the persons most directly accountable to our constituents for their safety and well being, we owe it to them to be a part of the determining when the threat to the public is minor enough to remove humans from California trucking.

And since several of my colleagues have requested reporting language so we can monitor the data emerging from testing and deployment, I will, Madam Chair, work with DMV and CHP on language to allow the Legislature to monitor the safety performance of the vehicles and the technology. Members, please join me and over 20 bipartisan co authors of this bill in protecting the public safety and our workforce while still allowing companies to test and deploy automated vehicles. I will be asking for your aye vote today.

I have with me I'm forgetting names. Sarah Floss and Matt McKinley. Thank you.

Thank you. And two minutes for each of your witnesses.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Committee Members, my name is Matt McKinley. I am a Member of Teamster Local 150. I am here in support of AB 316. As a 28 year professional in the transportation industry, I know firsthand that there are many aspects of commercial driving that cannot be replaced by autonomous vehicles. In the course of a routine workday, we impact the communities in which we work by being a first responder, a trusted observer, and a communication link. Recently, I have reported a garage fire.

Due to the swift reporting, the home was saved and the damages were relatively minimal. Had I not been there, this family would have lost their home. In another instance, I encountered a lost elderly gentleman with memory deficits. He had wandered from his home in the heat of August. I contacted authorities and stayed with him for over an hour, providing him with water, shade and support. Until the situation was resolved.

During the recent fires and storms, my colleagues have gone to great lengths to service the affected areas. These vital deliveries include medications, important financial documents, emergency supplies, and phones. These drivers have been a lifeline to these hard hit communities, contacting residents directly and through social media to arrange meet points, alternative delivery locations, or to authorize leaving packages with families, neighbors, and local retailers. Commercial drivers act as a set of watchful eyes within a community.

There are many instances when we report our assist in fires, accidents, assaults, burglaries, and thefts more times than is known. Our mere presence keeps these events from even occurring. This is just a small sample of the many public safety benefits that commercial delivery drivers have. These cannot be replaced by autonomous technologies. My story is not unique. It is true of drivers across all industries. AB 316 is necessary to safely and responsibly deploy autonomous vehicles. Over 10,000 pounds. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

A perfect two minutes. Setting the tone for the rest of the hearing today.

Next witness, Madam Chair Members. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation. We're a proud co-sponsor of this bill with the Teamsters, and we represent many union Members who drive for a living, whether school buses, delivery vehicles, trucks, or transit vehicles of all kinds. And I want to start by saying that this bill is not anti-technology. In fact, we believe that technology has great potential to make the public, our roads and jobs safer.

The question before us is, do we trust Silicon Valley tech companies and their investors to put the safety and job security of Californians first and foremost? Our answer is that the issue of autonomous vehicles has too big of an impact on this state and every californian to leave to the private sector. The issues go way beyond public safety. There are questions of how does law enforcement deal with this? What is our transportation infrastructure? What do we do about cybersecurity and hacking into these vehicles?

And, of course, the question of the more than half a million Californians that drive for a living and have, in many cases, good union jobs where they have raised their families and bought their homes with these driving jobs, the opposition will come up and say that this technology will make our roads safer and that automated vehicles are safer than human drivers. But the evidence doesn't totally bear that out.

If you look to the analysis, the really excellent Committee analysis on page three, there are studies that are quoted saying that we just don't know, and we may not know for decades whether these vehicles are safer. And then there's a question of when you have a heavy duty vehicle, so it could be 80,000 pounds driving on the 5, the 99, the 80, the 710, the 10, the 110, all of the freeways I'm missing in fog with all kinds of obstacles. All kinds.

If you can finish up, please.

Yes. So this really, I would like to point to Mr. McKinley and the examples that he gave that commercial drivers are really the stewards of the highway and keep us safe in many, many ways. And so AB 316 to us, this is just responsible innovation that allows for the testing of technology, taking advantage of the experience and training of skilled commercial drivers. So we urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Okay. And now we're going to ask for people in the room who are here to testify in favor of this bill.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Rene Leyva and I'm with Teamsters Local 386. And I'm a business agent representing over 3000 Members out of Stanislaus, Mariposa and Merced County. And we are for AB 360.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Michelle Aldridge. Also I'm representing Local 386 and I am in support of AB 316

My name is Roy Spears. I'm also from Teamsters 386, Modesto. And I am in support of AB 316. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Leanne Shea and I'm also in support of AB 316.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Committee Members Louis Costa with the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, Transportation Division, Smart TD, in support. Thank you.

Hello. James Senville here, representative of Smart Local 23 who represents the bus operators in Santa Cruz, California in full support. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Monica Sandoval I'm a mother and a dependent of the bus driver. And I support 316.

Hi, Mike Pratt, Teamsters Local 431 in Fresno in strong support of AB 316. Thank you.

Juzan Mejia, business agent at a Local 431 in Fresno, California. And I'm in support of the Bill.

Hello. Corey Hallman, representative with Teamsters Local 856. I'm here in support of AB 316 also.

Good afternoon, I'm Ron Cannizzaro, I am business agent with Local 150 in Sacramento. 10,500 Members, and I am in support of the Bill as well.

Yes, my name is Carlos Ortega. I'm recording secretary for Local 386 and I also in support of AB 316. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Anthony Sampson here on behalf of the California new Car Dealers Association, in support.

Hi, my name is Florencio Sinogui. I'm a business representative for your Local 665. I represent text bus drivers out of Santa Clara and San Francisco County. And I'm in support of Bill. Thanks.

Hi, Jimmy Thiessen, Teamsters Local 315 out of Martinez, California. And I support AB 316.

Nev Neap, Prayer on Behalf of the California School Employees Association, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Philip Javier , Vice President of Teamsters Local 2785 in San Francisco. And I support AB 316.

Good afternoon. Dustin Baumbach with Teamsters Local 315, rise in support of AB 316.

Hi, I'm Maurice Mcdonald, local 986. I'm in support of AB 316.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Matt Cremins here on behalf of operating engineers local three, and the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers in strong support. Thank you.

Tony Navarro here for Local 150. Sorry. And in support for AB 316.

Hi, Steve Sharp, Teamsters Local 431, Fresno, California and I'm in support of AB 316. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Al Edger, Local 2785 Teamsters General, former for the rock and roll industry, and I support the Bill.

Adam Padilla, Teamsters Local 150, and I support the Bill. Thank you.

Sal Medina, Package Car Driver, local 2785, Teamster, and I support the Bill. Thank you.

Clint Curtis, business agent for 2785 out of San Francisco. I support the Bill.

Mike Fry, casual steward for Local 2785. For all the casual drivers. I support the Bill. I refuse to let anybody in this room be what's called an acceptable risk.

Apollo Wallace, Teamsters Local 2785, business agent, San Francisco. I support the Bill.

Hi, I'm Lynn Vo, organizer for our local 150, and I support AB 316. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Monica Alcala. I am a shop steward out of my building for package card division and out of Local 150. And I, too, support AB 316. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Jerry Raya. I'm with Teamsters Local 150. I'm on the warden. I'm also a warden. I'm also a 21 year UPS vet, and I support this Bill.

Alejandro Ibarra, Teamsters Local 386, business agent, and I support AB 316. Thank you.

I'm William Stewart from 386, Teamsters, Modesto, California. And I do support AB 316. Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon. Matthew Castillo with Teamsters Local 350 and I support AB 316. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Robert Sandoval, Political Director and business rep for Teamsters Local 350. We represent Members in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and San Bernardino County, and we are in favor of AB 316. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Ayanna Banks, Local 350 trustee and Shop Steward, Teamsters, and I support the Bill AB 316.

Good afternoon. John Bouchard, with Teamsters Local 350 and join council seven in support of AB 316. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Joe Gomes, Teamsters Local 350. 37 year equipment operator, and I support the Bill.

Good afternoon. Juan Coca with Teamsters Local 350, recording secretary, and I'm in support of this Bill.

Good afternoon, John Virgin, over, 30 year Member of Teamster Local 150, and I support the Bill. Thank you.

Miguel Gallegos, Teamsters 856 in support.

Sal Ruiz, Teamsters 439. I'm in support.

Hello. Mark Jones, Teamsters 856, representative, in support.

Brian Tyce, Teamsters 150, and I support AB 316.

Good afternoon. Quentin Booker, I support AB 316.

Good afternoon. John Apodaca, Local 350, and I am in support of AB 316. Thank you.

Shanae Vaughn, business agent, local A 56 and I support AB 316.

Hi. Lonnie Richardson, Teamsters Local 2010, and I support AB 316.

Hi, Kathleen, I'm with local 2010 and I support AB 316.

Pia Wright, Teamsters local 2010. I support AB 316.

Hi, Felicity Sima Horcapas, and I'm Teamsters, Local 2010. And I support AB 316.

Tasha Wallace, Teamsters 856. I support AB 316.

Keisha Clayton, for local 856, and I support AB 316.

Lynette Adams, 856. I support AB 316.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Mike West, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Joseph Meyer, business agent for Local 2010. We're in support of the Bill.

Good afternoon. Colin Tamandong, Local 150. I'm in support of this Bill.

Good afternoon. Cody Kaiser, Local 150. I'm in support of the Bill.

Good afternoon. Bonnie McAway, Local 150. In support of this Bill.

Rocio Richards, Teamsters Local 2010. And we represent the UC employees and CSU, and I support the Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Shifri Gammon, Teamsters Local 2010. UC Berkeley. I support the Bill.

Barbara Stewart Anderson, local 2010, and I support the Bill.

Lynette Wilson, local 2010. And I support the Bill.

Good afternoon. Luis Diaz, Teamsters Local 948, Visalia and Modesto, California. And I support Bill 316. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Otis Hall, Teamsters Local 948. 40 year commercial driver and union official, support the Bill.

Thank you. I know that we have witnesses on the phone, but what we're going to do is for every one of the bills today, we're going to take the telephone testimony together at the end of each of the testimonies so that we have blended support and opposition in the interest of time and the difficulty of sorting through people. So with that, we will now move to the opposition. Two minutes for each of the two witnesses.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Jeff Farrah, and I am proud to lead the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association, composed of the world's leading AV companies that are safely testing and deploying AVs across the country, including autonomous trucks. I care deeply about the State of California. I was born and raised in Torrance, and my family has lived in the state since before 1900. I am here today in strong opposition to AB 316.

AVIA shares the safety concerns of the author and believes that safety is paramount to the development of autonomous vehicles. But AB 316 is a blunt tool that would effectively impose a permanent ban on AV trucks in California. With no articulated path for the state to approve autonomous trucks, and without any demonstration of why a human operator will improve safety, make no mistake. This course will make Californians less safe because it will halt the deployment of AV trucks. I want to make two important points.

First, the level of deaths on California's roads is unacceptably high, and AB 316 enshrines the safety status quo in law. 4250 people died on California's roads in 2021, and the US Department of Transportation has affirmed that human behavior is the overwhelming cause of these deaths. USDOT has also found that drivers of trucks over 10,000 pounds were responsible in 87% of incidents in which the truck caused the crash. AV trucks are safer than trucks operated by humans. AVs make quicker decisions.

They don't speed, they don't text, they don't drive drunk, and they do not drive fatigued. But Californians will see none of these benefits if AB 316 becomes law. Second, AB 316 is premature. CHP and DMV should be allowed to continue to gather stakeholder input and develop rules for comment. There has only been one workshop on this topic, and there are no draft regulations. And yet AB 316 would step in the middle of this process.

Okay, you're at your two minutes if you can finish up.

To conclude. Thank you very much, and I urge you, no vote.

Thank you. Okay, next speaker.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Chris Childs. I'm a native Californian and a recently retired assistant commissioner with California Highway Patrol. During my nearly 28 year career with the CHP, I've been fortunate to serve the people of this state in many capacities to enhance traffic safety. Following my certification as a collision re-constructionist through both Northwestern University and the CHP's collision reconstruction programs, I spent several years as an investigator with the CHP's multidisciplinary accident investigation team.

I responded to many multi fatal collisions and saw firsthand the devastating injuries and deaths caused by traffic crashes. I've sat with grieving families at hospitals, courthouses, and in their homes as they grappled with the consequences of poor human driving behavior. In 2005, I responded with a team of reconstructionists to a fiery crash that killed three UC Berkeley doctoral students. This senseless tragedy was caused by two men in separate vehicles who took a street race onto our freeways.

This is just one of hundreds of cases I have seen, and we can do better. Later in my career, with training in law enforcement leadership from the FBI Academy in Quantico, I oversaw the CHP's regulatory responsibilities toward the autonomous vehicle industry in California. My team and I personally dove deep on AV issues on behalf of the people of this state. We visited AV companies across California and over a period of years developed a first hand, up close understanding of these transportation advances.

It is my opinion that autonomous technology will be a critical part of reducing roadway injuries and death on our roads. Fully autonomous technology makes decisions quicker, stays alert, doesn't get distracted and is never chemically impaired. All factors that lead to traffic catastrophes. In conclusion, I too respectfully urge a no vote on AB 316 requiring a human operator in a fully autonomous truck with no path to driverless implementation locks in the human driven status quo.

I have seen too many human induced tragedies for this to be California's answer to AB safety. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Thank you very much. Now we're going to move to the phone lines. Operator, if you're there, if you could open the phone lines for witnesses in support and in opposition for AB 316.

Thank you. Madam Chair.

Sorry. I'm sorry, I forgot to go to the in room testimony in opposition to the Bill. Does anybody in the room wish to speak in opposition of the Bill? Please come up to the microphone now. And, operator, we're going to turn to you in just a few minutes.

Good afternoon. Peter Laro Munoz with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group representing over 350 companies in the innovation economy. We are respectfully opposing the Bill.

Andrea Deveau, on behalf of Aurora, respectfully opposed.

Supreme Picuato, Chamber of Progress. Respectfully opposing the Bill.

Monika Darwish, Kodiak Robotics. We respectfully oppose the Bill.

Alex Torres, on behalf of the Bay Area Council, respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon. Aidan Ali Sullivan with Waymo. Respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon. Brady Van Engelen, California Chamber of Commerce. Respectfully opposed.

Hi, my name is Mark Watts. Representing the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. And we're concerned about the measure. Thank you.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Respectful opposition. Thank you.

Lia Nitake with Technet. Respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon, Chair Members. Jose Alvarado, on behalf of Cruise, respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon, Chair Friedman and Committee Members. Andrea Cao with the California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce. And we respectfully oppose AB 316. Thank you.

I'm Nate Hatterly, on behalf of George Peppas and the California Chambers of Commerce. Or sorry. Coalition of California Chambers of Commerce. Orange County and San Juan Capistrano Chamber of Commerce. They oppose this. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no more witnesses in the hearing room, operator, we will go back to you for testimony in favor of and opposed to AB 316. And again, for people who are calling in by phone. It is the same procedure of name, organization and your position only.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

For those of you who wish to speak in support or opposition to AB 316. Please press one than zero. Press one than zero only one time as pressing one than zero a second time will remove you from the comment queue. Our first comment will come from line 72.

Good afternoon and Madam Chair Members. James Thuerwachter, with the California State Council of Laborers. We are in strong support of AB 316. Thank you.

Line 18, your line is open.

Chair Friedman, Vice Chair Patterson and Members, James Lombardo. On behalf of Beta California Motorcycles Rights and Safety organization and support. Thank you.

Line 27, your line is now open.

Good afternoon. Chair Friedman and Committee Members and Staff Christophe Mayor. Calling on behalf of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. In strong support of AB 3116. Thank you.

Line 49, your line is now open.

Hi, my name is Nairi Bagdasarian from the San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership. Calling in opposition of AB 3116.

Line 77, your line is now open.

Good evening. My name is Walid Hajj with the League of California Cities. In strong support of this Bill.

Line 24, your line is now open.

Thank you. Chair, Committee Members Julian Cañete President, CEO, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce. In opposition.

Line 15, your line is now open.

Sharon Giovinazzo, CEO, Lighthouse for the blind and visually impaired. Opposed.

Line 61, your line is now open.

My name is Anne Kenner. I'm here on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business. I'm a Member of the leadership council in California. In California we are opposed.

Line 12, your line is now open.

Hi, this is Edward McGlone with NRide on behalf of the Save Coalition. We are respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Line 42, your line is now open.

Hi, my name is Ritz Steiner. I'm here on behalf of Gaddock. And we respectfully oppose AB 316.

Line 50, your line is now open.

Hi, my name is Morgan Roth. I'm here on behalf of Motional, and we respectfully oppose AB 316. Thank you.

Line 63, your line is now open.

Good app.

Pardon me just a moment. Line 13, your line is now open. Line 13, your line is open.

Pardon me. We'll come back again. Line 70, your line is now open.

Hi, my name is Denise Duncan. I'm calling on behalf of A T Industrial Products, and we oppose AB 316.

Line 75, your line is now open.

Hi, Marcus Gomez with California Clothing Recyclers and board member of the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. We oppose. Thank you.

For other listening members here who wish to comment on this bill, please press one, then zero at this time. We may have missed you. We're going to go to line 13. Your line is now open. Line 13, you just press one, then zero. Your line is open.

Hello, my name is Yvonne Curley with TEL HI Neighborhood Center in opposition of AB 316.

Madam Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Thank you very much. Okay, we're going to go to comments and questions from the committee. Mr. Ward, I think we have you first. And if you wish to speak, please raise your hand and we'll get you on the list.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. One that I'm proud to be a co-author on as well. It seems very clear and direct and very simple in its concept. And I think that's something that is shared by a lot of my constituents. That as we are starting to experience in passenger vehicles right now, the integration of AI technology and driverless technology as well, that generally has been paired with a human.

But sometimes we also see our news reports as well too about a pilot vehicle that's out there that does cause problems on our roads. Something that would just stop for no good reason in the middle of a bridge or, worse, might actually run somebody down because it just didn't detect that person. These things happen. And to scale that up to something the size of a major big rig vehicle going down the interstate is just not something I think that we are quite comfortable with yet.

That said, we welcome this technology and we know that paired with a human operator this is something that actually can probably add a lot of value. Yes, we acknowledge that humans make mistakes. They do all the time. And things have been really troubling on our roads. And the idea that we can take this together is something that for me can only. You have an AI operator and a human operator together it should be additive. You could probably only make things even safer with that combination.

And with that really being employed over time, I could see that something that the public could get a lot more comfortable with again as more data comes in and as this has started to be integrated. And I guess I also had a chance to meet with opposition last week, and I appreciated that conversation. But there was one thing that I had asked that I just didn't feel was actually answered at all. And maybe if the testifiers today could answer this question.

You said that the technology would be an effective ban, but it's not. We want to incorporate that. We welcome incorporating that. We certainly support our tech businesses here in California developing that, and we're already seeing that being employed today in many passenger vehicles as well. How do you see this actually banning the technology if this bill is passed?

Thank you very much for the question. I think the first thing to point out here is that we have a severe truck driver shortage in this country, 80,000 truck drivers set to double by 2031. So, the idea that we would be able to pair both autonomous trucks and humans is very challenging if you look at those dynamics. I think in terms of why it is that I call this a permanent ban. There is no articulated off-ramp.

This says that you have to have a human with the autonomous truck in these circumstances. There is no other kind of graduation of that whatsoever. Compare that with 22 other states across the country that have proactively authorized autonomous vehicles on their roads. They do not have this type of driver in requirement. And so California would make itself a national outlier if it was to vote affirmatively for AB 316.

So I would actually see that as maybe a way that we can compare and contrast California conditions on California's roads versus other states that maybe are taking that leap of faith. It's, I think, too great of a leap for me to be able to be comfortable with today. But I don't see that as a permanent ban. I still see this as something that will be welcomed, will be wanted, and integrated technology for operations on our roads.

And I certainly would like to see more people avail themselves of trucking professions, as well as an opportunity to close any professional gaps that you were stating. So, I would like to see us move forward. The off-ramp, of course, as we all know, would be future legislation based on more data and maybe even comparative data with other states as well. We do future legislation clarifying otherwise updates, changing our sunsets all the time.

And so I think, armed with that, we can say that this is something that we are taking the responsible steps as we think about how we are trying to protect those who are driving on California's roads today. So, Madam Chair, happy to move this bill, and I welcome more conversations, of course, as this does go forward, through additional Committee steps. And hopefully, if this was signed into law. Certainly, more data is coming in to make sure that this is being integrated in a responsible way.

Happy to move the bill, Ms. Madam Chair.

Okay. Assemblymember Davies.

Thank you. Madam Chair. I want to first thank the author for coming forward with this. Obviously, this is a very important issue, and you and I had a private conversation last week, and my concern wasn't so much what was in the bill, it was what isn't in the bill, and that was reporting data. And so, with your opening comments, you were talking about why that's so important.

So I was wondering, have you had any discussions as of yet what information you think would be collected when it comes to the data that we're going to need?

Thank you very much. I really appreciate you talking to me about the data. So, safety data is currently being collected by the DMV and federal regulators, but information is still relatively sparse. So, as you asked, we do need to have more information, and we're looking into whether or not an enhanced reporting requirement could be added to this bill to help gather information. And we'll be continuing to work on this bill to make sure that we can get that done.

Thank you. I think some of the things, if I can just throw a few things out there, obviously want to make sure that the CHP is involved because they're going to be the first person at the scene, and they're going to have that information. Some of the things such know how many disengagements do we have with these trucks? How many accidents are there? Were there any injuries?

Were there any fatalities, response time on how long it took to get to the vehicle, as well as clear the area? And for are as members, our first priority is public safety, no matter what. And really that was my biggest concern, but also mobility. And for me, my district, I am south Orange County into north San Diego, and we have the five freeway, and on one side, we have the ocean. We also have a nuclear plant commission, and then we have Camp Pendleton.

So all we have is one road. And if there's an incident, there's nowhere to go. And that is my concern right now, is what happens if all of a sudden the brakes go or a tire goes flat? How long does it take to clear that, especially if we ever have some type of fire like we've done in Camp Pendleton? So mobility is just really important to me, but obviously, public safety is the number one.

And so one of those things that was important to me is I went ahead and did a survey over the weekend, knowing that this was coming up, and we responded basically saying, "Would you want to have a driver with this type of vehicle, or would you prefer that you're okay without it?" We had 116 residents say that they would like to have a driver, human driver, and 10 saying no. So for me, before I ever vote on something, I make sure that I reach out.

And obviously, it wasn't a lot, but it was very specific. In regards to right now, I think public safety is the main concern for them. And again, as my colleague over here was talking about, this is something right now in order for us to get good data so we can move on down the line. So I appreciate that. And right now, what I would do is I'm going to go ahead and move this forward.

But what I do expect is I'm going to be in CNC Committee coming up, and I'd like to see what type of language you guys have actually put because I really believe this is something that we can work on together so that we can make sure that it's safety, that we're getting the data, so that we can make really great decisions.

Knowing that if we go ahead and we move down the line and open it up, that we know that, listen, the data is showing it there. It's also showing if we had these concerns that they've been addressed, they've been able to be tweaked, they've been able to be fixed so that we can feel 100% knowing that when these trucks are out there, the people are safe on the road as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Kalra.

Thank you, Chair Friedman. And I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I'm also proud to be a principal co-author of this legislation and really appreciate the comments from other colleagues that have spoken so far. And I think that there is a significant public policy reasoning for us to ensure that this is done the right way. And we mean, look, I represent San Jose, the Capital of Silicon Valley. These technologies are being done right in my own backyard. And I get that.

And I get how important it is for us to protect the industries that are Silicon Valley, our California industries, especially as it applies to innovation, automation and what have you. That being said, the time for us to have these conversations about what we need to do to make sure these technologies are safe is not 5, 10 years from now when these large vehicles are crisscrossing our streets. The time is now.

And at some point, with the data, we come to a determination of what the right combination is in terms of making sure our streets are safe. That's fine. I think there will be a point. My guess is at some point in the future, for smaller vehicles, there may be a time in which it'll be more regularly common to see automated vehicles that may or may not have drivers on board. But this is different.

I mean, if you look at the public policy reasoning when you're talking about whether it's a train or a plane, whatever it might be, most of which are operated in an automated fashion, but there are operators that are there because of the public policy behind ensuring that there's a human being that is there if something goes wrong. We're talking about vehicles that can weigh tons, especially with cargo on board, can weigh many tons.

If something happens and you don't have a human operator that's there, it's not just about making sure the vehicle is driven safely. We get that automation can greatly enhance safety on the road.

But what it will not and cannot do is ensure that the cargo, not just in terms of national security, but in state security, that the cargo that's on board is the cargo that they say is on board, as we have these vehicles that are crisscrossing our state to ensure that if a vehicle breaks down or there's an accident, that there's someone there immediately that can help resolve the situation, whether it's to clear the vehicle or make sure that those that may be injured can be attended to.

And so the reality is that with this technology, there are a lot of unanswered questions as to not just the viability, but what is the outcome if something does happen. And that's where you do want a human operator there that is trained, that can understand not just how to drive a truck, but understand in the thousands of different scenarios that can occur, what is the right thing to do at that moment. And I think that's where the value of having an operator present.

And quite frankly, I don't think there's anything wrong when we talk about jobs. I don't think that the fact that we may be short of trucking jobs, I don't think the answer is to eliminate those jobs. I think the answer is to determine in what manner can we preserve those jobs, protect those jobs in a way that's good for public policy, not just for the sake of creating jobs but for the sake of ensuring that our streets are safe.

And I think this is a scenario where we can do both. We can ensure that the technology that's being deployed is some of the best technology and safest technology in the world, and we could do it in a way that protects good quality jobs of those that are trained to understand how to ensure that the operation is done as safely as possible. We've seen the perils of what happens when we take our hands off regulation, whether it's our banking system or our trains that are crashing.

It seems like every other day in different parts of this country. In California, we have to have our own standard to make sure we're protecting our community, regardless what other states do, because we need to be really the gold standard as it applies to these technologies that are being created here are being deployed in a way that's safe for our greater community. And for that reason, I'll be supporting this bill moving forward.

Thank you. Assemblymember Nguyen.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for bringing this forward. And I want to thank those of you that came out today, the bus drivers, the truckers, because you really do keep things moving here in our state. Folks, technology isn't just coming, but it's here, and it's changing every single day. Not just every day, every minute. I never would have thought a car would be able to park itself, let alone drive itself.

And so one of the things that when the opposition came into my office and we had some conversations, it is about jobs, right? As somebody who came from a workforce development background and ensuring that folks have jobs, I want to make sure that as we move forward into this direction, and as some of my colleagues talked about, this isn't the end of the conversation, but this is something that is a continued conversation. And it eventually will get there. I believe it will get there.

And my hope is that we can have this conversation today. And that as we saw all of the opposition coming forward and knowing what's coming, I ask that you can have a sit-down conversation with them about what their concerns are and how we can come together to make this work. And I'm happy to support this bill. I just ask that we sit down and we work with each other on this.

Thank you, Mr. Gipson.

Thank you very much. I had to leave and present in transportation, but I have, in fact, reviewed the bill and thanked my team for briefing me. I signed on as a co-author of the bill. I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. My daddy was a truck driver, one job for 47 years. And he retired, became a local president of that union.

And I want to line my comments with my colleague next to me, Mr. Kalra because I think you hit it on the nail. I remember growing up, The Jetsons, and we're almost at that point right, where we have vehicles flying and now they're parking themselves, as my colleague Ms. Nguyen has indicated. So, the innovation is here upon us. I do think that one we need to, and I've been very publicly stating that it's hard for me to support when eliminating jobs and people.

We need to make sure that we're continuously looking out for men and women of this state, putting people to work good-paying jobs. And I know as a truck driver, I now chair of the Select Committee on the Ports in California and want to make sure that the ports, which is our economic engine to California, we cannot tout about being the fourth world economy if we diminish that ability to move forward not only with the technology but also with men and women power.

And so I think that this author, let me not say I think I know this author is willing to meet with both sides. I know she has an open mind. And I would just encourage the other side that's opposing this bill, AB 316, to get to have an opportunity to have a conversation with her and try to find a middle ground, if there be any, because sometimes there's just not right. But we have to also put in the forefront of safety.

We know that this technology has some things they need to work out as they move forward. And we believe they will. We absolutely believe that they will work out those kinks in this technology. I'm very excited about this bill. I'm excited us even having a conversation around this emerging technology moving forward. And I'll be supporting the bill and thank the author for coming forward with this bill for us to have this conversation that elevates technology in California. Thank you.

I usually speak last, but I have to go over and vote it in another committee. So, I'm going to make my comments now. And then I'm going to pass the gavel. And then after that, we're actually going to take a few bills out of, we're going to take one bill out of order so that I can be back for your next bill, Assemblymember Curry. We'll take Mr. Brian after this bill and let him go on his way.

So this was not an easy bill, actually, because I think that many of us do believe in autonomous vehicle technology. I myself think that it holds probably the best promise of any technology that we have to reduce the carnage that we see on our streets, not just fully autonomous vehicles, but safety technology incorporated into even driver, even vehicles with drivers. And what that can do for safety is very, very important.

And I think that all of us who are legislators because we do live in California, where technology and R&D are some of our hallmarks and creativity, don't like to see things that might stop what we believe will be the path that the rest of the world will follow. And I personally don't think that there's any stopping this technology, whether it is developed in California or hopefully not, but developed elsewhere. This technology is probably going to continue to advance and possibly replace drivers.

However, we are right now deploying passenger vehicle autonomous vehicle technology, and there are still some concerns about the state of that technology. And what really tilted the balance for me with this particular bill was just that I believe that the DMV has not done a great job at regulating in this space.

And we see it, particularly with regard to one particular auto manufacturer and their overstated promise of what their vehicle actually is capable of doing, and that leading to confusion from the drivers and the purchasers of those vehicles, and to a lot of very tragic accidents that could have been prevented with better oversight from DMV and regulators.

And let's be clear: yes, the technology may have had issues, but what was really at issue was that the regulators who would have otherwise been able to deploy the driverless technology for big rigs, they didn't do a great job with passenger vehicles and they allowed cars to be sold as being fully autonomous when they were not. So that's why we are here where we are today.

So I do think that it's appropriate that we don't just turn over the decision of when these vehicles are ready to DMV and to those regulators that we, as the legislature, act as the backstop to make that decision. And people may ask, when are we going to know when the time is ready? I don't know the answer to that, but I would think that putting 80,000-pound vehicles on the road without a driver would happen sometime after we all feel really, really good about the state of single-passenger autonomous vehicles. And remember, this bill does allow for the testing of these vehicles with the driver.

It also allows for them to be used on nonpublic streets, which means that if you're at a port, for instance, if you're at an individual business that has a very large lot, you could do autonomous trucks on that property under the confines of this bill and test it there where you're not with people, with kids in their cars on a highway, with strange situations, with livestock entering the road or whatever, or snow falling onto the road, or things that really, right now, the autonomous vehicles may not have quite as much information about.

So I think that this is a tough one, and I understand the position of the opponents and I think that their concern is well founded in many cases. But I think that if we are careful about this and we as the legislature keep a watchful eye with the eye towards hopefully getting ahead of the technology and sort of changing things when the time is right, then we'll still eventually have these in California.

And in terms of the labor issues and the job issues, I think that's a real issue here. And you've got a very large sector of workers that are in these industries.

And given that the technology is several years away, I would hope that the industry takes its time to sit down with labor in a very serious way to figure out what happens to these jobs and what happens to these industry sectors so that there is a way of transitioning people directly from those to being the testers to being whatever it will be that those jobs will turn into.

And I think that industry, it really is their responsibility with their own workforce to come to something that is agreeable and something that is actually hopefully interesting to those employees and to those workers. And I think that this, hopefully, is the signal that they should be doing this in a real way. So I am going to support this. I would actually ask if I could be added as a joint author to this bill.

I think it is important, and I think that we need to send the signal that there is great promise here, and this current state of carnage on our roads is unacceptable. But we also need to make sure that we do this in a way that's responsible. And I do hope that the regulators are also watching this conversation. And with that, I'm going to go and come back and leave you in the very good hands of Assemblymember.

Assemblymember Carrillo.

Thank you. I just want to thank the author, the presentations and those who came up in support and in opposition. I think it gave us an opportunity. It gave me an opportunity to listen to both sides. I do believe in technology. Without a doubt, technology is advancing really rapidly, and this is just another example of where technology is taking us. However, I do believe that we need to take into consideration fixing other obstacles, like on the ports.

And I'm glad to hear that Mr. Gipson is part of that select committee. I think that we need to take a look at the situation. Our ports make sure that they are more efficient, and I think that that will be something that will demonstrate in the near future how this can be included into our roadways. Yes, safety is number one for me, and as you mentioned, from other members as well.

And I think that this, again, is an opportunity for the technology, for those that are providing these vehicles to show that they can be capable of them, of doing what they are supposed to be doing, and that's operate with safety. I believe that we also need to take a look at providing other modes of transportation to get people out of the freeways that will alleviate some of the constraints for these autonomous vehicles to be able to operate.

We need to invest in public transit the more people we get out of the freeways. That's another way that this type of technology could also be very valuable. And without a doubt, we need to move goods not only throughout the state but throughout the nation as well. I believe that this is the way to do it, but I believe that needs to be done incrementally.

I think that this is the right time to introduce this at 10,000 pounds, and then you will demonstrate that it's possible to do it, being effective and causing no accidents. Eventually, that's the goal. The next increment, whatever the weight may be, 40,000 or 80,000. I do believe that legislation will be introduced later, once this is proved to be the way that it's supposed to be. And I think that that's something that we need to work on.

And I would see this as an opportunity for those with the technology manufacturers to demonstrate that this is going to work. This is the way of the future to move goods throughout the state and throughout the nation. Again, I just wanted to make those comments so that you know where I stand, and I think that we need to look at other things to make sure that this is a success for the State of California. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Carrillo. Assemblymember Lowenthal.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd first like to ask the opponents of this bill, is there any standardization of the software across the industry, or is it siloed based on the manufacturer and the user of the vehicles themselves?

Thank you for the question, sir. I think that what I began by saying is that what the members of our organization have in common is that they are all designing and manufacturing an automated driving system. They tend to use similar technologies to ultimately come to that autonomous driving system, which you can really think of as the brains that operates the vehicle. And so while they all have different approaches, they have that commonality, and they use it, whether it's on passenger cars, shuttles.

Got it. But there are different approaches, meaning there's different software. There's no standardization like you would find in air traffic control. As an example.

I'm not aware of what goes on in the air traffic control context, and so I don't know that I can answer.

Well, different airports aren't allowed to have their own software systems. They're all part of a standardized software system coordinated by the FAA, overseen by the FAA.

If you're asking me whether or not NHTSA or FMCSA at the Department of Transportation level has a national software standard, I believe the answer is no.

So thank you for that answer. I really appreciate that answer. I'm also a principal or a co-author of this bill. Very proud to be. I think it is extremely appropriate for us to be asking these types of questions and to be supporting this type of legislation in an era where we haven't reached standardization and we don't have that type of oversight. And I think it's critically important.

I have a tech background, as a matter of fact, been a tech executive for the last few decades, and I believe that's critically important that we do have those standards in place. And I'm looking at the data. I see overall data on autonomous vehicles. I don't see data based on the different software standard or the different software that's deployed. And that would be things that I would want to be looking at. I also want to compliment Ms. Flocks on bringing up the issue of 500,000 jobs.

I spoke with the author of this bill to see if it would be appropriate if I brought this topic up, here in committee. And this is something that's of grave concern as a leader. California, my district, like Mr. Gipson's district, includes support which would be disproportionately impacted by this change so rapidly. I learned this morning, as a matter of fact, that I will be chairing a new Select Committee on Automation.

In that select committee, we can address so many of the issues, including the technology, including what standards we should be setting. We should be speaking from a visionary standpoint in a short term and long term, and what type of rules that we would want to have that would make all Californians feel safe and better about their system and ostensibly creates more jobs and how those jobs are created. So happy to do that, and anybody up here on the committee that would be interested in participating in that slot committee, please let me know. But as of this moment, I would be certainly in favor of supporting this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. Mr. Patterson.

Great. Thank you very much. My uncle is a truck driver, actually, and I think the concept is a good one, knowing what we know know. I remember being in Rockland.

I've been around this area for a while, and I used to be a staffer in the capital. You know when my friend used to work at high-speed rail? When he left, he wrote an op-ed in the Sacbee saying, saying at some point in the future, depending on how long high-speed rail takes, that technology and automation and things like that might make high-speed rail obsolete.

And so I think today, for the foreseeable future, I mean, I honestly can't imagine a situation right now where I feel very comfortable, but we might get to that point. And so I'm concerned outlawing it in perpetuity. And so I just wondered if the author had considered some kind of sunset, even 15 years or 20 years or something like that.

We have talked about having a sunset, and at this time, we just don't know what the technology will be demonstrated to be safe and when it will happen. So, we don't know when the transition will happen. So, with that, we are not willing to add a sunset date at this point.

All right. Thank you.

Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? All right. If not, then I would invite the author to close on the bill. Assembly Member Aguilar Curry.

First of all, I want to thank all of you. You had some really great comments today, and they were remarkable, and it gives me some food for thought. But I also want to thank the opposition because many came into my office, and they educated me on things that I thought were true. I ended up finding, well, maybe they're not. And it was a great conversation and we'll continue to have that. And I think this technology is really important.

I have never, ever said that I was against the technology. I'm just concerned about safety. That's my bottom line. When I talk to young students at high schools and stuff, they ask you, what's your job? My job is safety. I think everybody here will agree. We got to make sure that we keep that as our forefront. So with that, I request an aye vote.

Thank you, Ms. Aguiar Curry. We have a motion from Mr. Ward and a second from Mr. Gipson. Would the secretary please call the roll?

AB 316, do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Communications and Conveyance. [Roll Call]

We'll keep the roll open for absent Members and thank all the folks who testified. The next item we're going to bring up is AB 364. Mr. Bryan no, it's all right. Appreciate you. Good work all. Thank Assemblymember Bryan. Would you like to open on the bill?

Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's great to be with you and colleagues. I rise to present AB 364, a bill that will allow Cal Trans to compile street furniture data to enhance commuter safety and accessibility.

Currently, local transit agencies are not required to share their street furniture data, not their public trash cans, their benches, and not their bus shelters with the state. The General Transit feed specification system, the system we now use to give our riders real time arrival information, does not have that street furniture data either. As a result, trip planning apps like Google Maps cannot provide that information.

California's 2021 heat wave broke all kinds of records across the state, with some places like Coachella Valley reaching a scorching 123 degrees with an estimated 22 days of extreme heat by 2050. It begs the question, are we protecting California's transit riders from climate change? Shade infrastructure can lower the temperature of surfaces beneath it by 25 to 40 degrees, but a recent study at the number one public University in our state, UCLA, revealed that in Los Angeles alone, only 26% of bus stops have shade infrastructure.

When surveyed, 72% of participants indicated shade infrastructure as the greatest need for improvements at bus stops. At a time when we are investing in our public transit, trying to lower our greenhouse gas emissions, we also know that people use transit more when it is reliable, safe, and cool. As our state gets hotter, our transit riders are increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, and ignoring their health and safety becomes an issue of climate injustice.

Most riders are low income, and households making less than $50,000 a year are four times more likely to rely on transit than higher income households. The state does not track or make available to the public which bus stops provide shade, hamstringing our ability to protect vulnerable riders with safety investments. AB 364 would fix this gap. To give testimony today, I am joined by Marisa Garcia, organizing Director at Move LA, and Denita Stromgrun, an AARP Member and volunteer.

Good afternoon. My name is Marisa Garcia, and I represent Move LA. We support Assembly Bill 364 along with AARP climate plan streets for all the Aging and Disability Transportation network, NRDC, and several other organizations. Because we believe the state needs to prioritize shade as an essential need for low income transit riders, seniors and people of color who are on the front lines of climate change, street furniture is a public asset.

Similar to parks and libraries used by seniors as a rest stop, bus riders to protect themselves from the elements, and families seeking a cool spot during heat waves. Just like transit routes, this data should be easily accessible to the public via mapping programs and apps for Low income workers, seniors, and people with disabilities who rely on bus transit as their primary mode of transportation. Not having access to shade is potentially fatal, but shade structures can lower the temperature of surfaces by 20 to 40 degrees.

A study conducted by the Los Angeles Urban Cooling Collaborative found that one in four lives lost during heat waves could be saved with better shade and climate resilient infrastructure like street furniture, and that most of the lives saved would be in low income communities and communities of color. Bus shelters can also provide for the safety, convenience, accessibility and comfort of bus riders. Emergency call buttons, lighting, and real time bus schedules are some of the examples of critical safety features.

The lack of shelter deters people from using buses, which makes it harder for California to achieve its greenhouse gas emission goals. AB 364 stands to increase the use of public transit, improve conditions and accessibility for pedestrians, improve air quality, address inequitable access to climate resilient street furniture, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by making street furniture data available to everyone. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon. My name is Denita Stromgrun and I'm an AARP volunteer. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee for allowing me to speak on behalf of the 3.2 million AARP Members in California. And a special thanks for the leadership of Assemblymember Bryan on authoring AB 364. Older adults, especially those on fixed incomes, more frequently rely on the use of public transportation systems.

Driving a vehicle just isn't an option for many older Californians, taking public transit is more affordable and, when done right, can be enjoyed by people of all ages and abilities, both to visit friends, family members, and also for health appointments and other activities. AB 364 is an opportunity to ensure this becomes the customer norm in the public transit experience.

And it couldn't come at a more important time, because by 2030, a quarter of the state's population will be over the age of 60, which just is mind boggling according to the state's own master plan for aging. But here in 2023, public transit is woefully unprepared to accommodate the needs of older adults, both now and as we age in the future. Our members consistently cite the shortage of bus benches, shade structures and other amenities as reasons for not taking public transit.

For older adults who rely on public transit. These lack of amenities mean one less trip to the doctor's office or one less visit with family and friends. And these are two instances of social isolation that AARP research has shown to lead to harmful health effects. And speaking of health, these things we call amenities, such as shade structures, are, in fact, more essential than the word actually presumes.

With our hotter summers, our colder, rainier, windier winters that we're experiencing now, street furniture becomes less of a luxury and more of a necessity. Yes. This extreme weather affects especially our aging population. We must pass legislation like AB 364 to prepare for the normal as we all age. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of AARP Members, and we ask for your unanimous support in support of AB 364. Thank you.

Is there anybody in the room wishing to speak in favor of AB 364? Come up to the microphone. Just name and organization.

Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air in support.

Thank you. And we have no witnesses on file in opposition. If there's anybody in the room wishing to speak in opposition, you may come up to the microphone. Okay, we're going to go to the phone lines for witnesses in support and opposition for AB 364. Operator, can you open the phone lines?

Thank you, Madam Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to AB 364, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero. Only one time. And we have several people who've queued up signaling that they wish to speak. We're going to go to line 31. Your line is now open.

Good afternoon, everyone. Marc Vukcevich, Director of state policy for Streets For All calling in support. Thank you,

We will now go to line 94. Your line is now open.

Hi, this is Axel Santana, associate at Policy Link, and I'm strongly in support of AB 364. Thank you.

We will now go to line 93. Your line is now open.

This is Amy Thompson with TransForm in support.

Line 32, your line is now open.

My name is Shauntiara Williams. I work for Youth Vs Apocalypse, and I am in support.

Madam Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Thank you very much. We have a motion and a second. Are there any questions or comments from Committee Members? Excellent. Excellent. So, I support the bill. I will say that I recommend that you continue working with stakeholders, particularly with CalTrans. I am concerned about the bureaucracy that's embedded in this bill, particularly about the inventory. And I'm worried that you're not going to make it through appropriations, if we don't find a way to kind of streamline this process. But I absolutely commend what you're trying to do.

And not having good infrastructure is definitely a reason why people don't want to take transit. So thank you so much for trying to address that, and I will support the bill today. Do you have anything you want to say before we finish?

No, I just want to thank you, Madam Chair, for your comments. Definitely going to work this bill all the way through the process. And also on the privacy Committee. It's a mobility bill. It's a climate justice bill. It's a disability rights bill. It'll help people plan accessible bus routes currently, but even more importantly, it will help us make data informed investments in the future about street furniture and bus shelters in particular. I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Terrific. Can we have a roll call, please?

AB 364. The motion is do pass and we refer to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. [Roll Call]

The bill has 12 votes. It's out, and thanks again for bringing it. And we'll keep the roll open for this and all the other bills for absent Members. And now I would like to welcome Assemblymember Aguiar Curry back again. Thank you so much for your patience with me. This is a bill that I have a particular interest in, so I really wanted to be here for the entire bill process.

Thank you, chair Friedman and Members, I'm here today to present Assembly Bill 350. This Bill makes a simple but important change to the process for updating the Sacramento Area Council of Government's next regional transportation plan and sustainable community strategy. Specifically, AB 350 extends the timeline for SACOG's next sustainable community strategy update from November 2023 to December 2025.

And so if you can come up with your witnesses and support and opposition is welcome up to the table. And with that, you may begin at your pleasure.

The Bill also allows SACoG's current plan to remain in effect until the revised deadline. There are two primary reasons for this change. First, this schedule will better align SACoG's timeline with those of its neighboring regions, the San Joaquin Council of Governments and the Metropolitan Planning Commission. Together, these three regions make up the Northern California mega region, and aligning the planning schedule will help facilitate planning for major infrastructure projects.

Second, AB 350 will allow SACoG to expand and enhance its community engagement efforts during this important planning process, especially in disadvantaged communities. If approved by the Committee today, I am committed to continue engagement with all stakeholders, including the California Air Resources Board, as this advances. I am joined today by two witnesses to testify in support of AB 350 and provide further detail on SACoG's mega regional planning efforts and community outreach.

With me today are supervisor and SACOG board Member Bonnie Gore of Placer County and Deputy Chief of Staff Zach Yates from the Office of Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair Freeman and Members. Guess I need to turn on the microphone. All right, let's take two. So I am very happy to be here on behalf of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, the sponsor of AB 350, through my role as Placer County's Representative to the SACoG board of directors, I also serve as the chair of the Northern California Mega Region Working Group. As noted by the Assembly Member, the mega region includes the Bay Area, the Sacramento Region and San Joaquin County. This 16 county mega region includes 136 cities and a total population of nearly 11 million people.

Through our work group, elected leaders and staff from each region have been collaborating to advance interregional projects that support quality of life, transportation and economic growth. In 2021, we collectively developed our mega region dozen list to prioritize transportation projects that connect our communities. Improvements to the Capitol Corridor railroute is one of those 12 projects.

The Capitol Corridor is an inner city passenger train system that provides a convenient alternative to traveling along the congested Interstate 80 and it extends along 170 miles corridor from Placer County to Santa Clara County. Currently, only one train a day round trip goes from Roseville, connecting Placer County to Sacramento and the Bay Area. And through our mega region work, we are working together to prioritize the project to include a third track between Sacramento and Roseville.

Our hope is that we will increase it to three round trips a day, up to 10 round trips a day in the future. So that project will provide congestion relief along the Capitol corridor, improve travel time and reliability, and improve air quality. So this project is just one example of shared planning and prioritization that reflects the increasing connections between the Sacramento area, the San Joaquin regions and the Bay Area. AB three, if you can finish up, please. That was your two minute. Thank you.

So AB 350 will facilitate moving up the SCS for our communities to allow us to work a little bit better together to prioritize our interregional projects. Thank you. Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you. Good afternoon chair and Members. My name is Zach Yates. Here today on behalf of Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg in strong support of AB 350. As you all know, then Senator Steinberg authored SB 375, which requires regions to develop sustainable community strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the land use and transportation sector. At the core of SB 375 is a recognition of the interconnection between land use and transportation.

SACOG's mega regional work further recognizes that housing, transportation and the broader economy are increasingly connected between Sacramento San Joaquin county and the Bay Area. In addition to supporting mega regional planning among SACOG and its partner agencies, AB 350 also provides SACOG more time to meaningfully incorporate with partner agencies. Sorry. To partner with partner agencies and incorporate additional robust outreach and engagement of underresourced communities.

In the SCS update, SACOG adopted its racial equity plan in October 2022 to guide the organization towards the vision for a safer and more equitable Sacramento region. Part of this work includes a new program SACOG and its Members are building after receiving a federal raise grant in August of 2022. The raise grant will help create a model for equity centered infrastructure project development that will be co created with community.

So with the additional time provided by AB 350, this work will be able to inform SACOG's next SCs update. And so, for these reasons, Mayor Steinberg and the City of Sacramento, respectively, ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the room wishing to testify in support of this Bill, in support of AB 350? Just come up to the microphone.

Good afternoon, chair Friedman and Committee Members. My name is Tyler Gurlak with the Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce and we are in support of AB 350.

Good afternoon. Karen Lang, on behalf of the Placer County Board of Supervisors, in support this afternoon. Thank you.

Jack Plattner with the Sacramento Metro Chamber representing over 600 Member businesses in the 6th county region, and we are in strong support of the plan and the Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Paul Gonsalves, on behalf of the cities of Elk Grove and Roseville, in support. Thank you.

Yes, Mark.

I misunderstood your direction, so I apologize. I'll be very quick. I represent the San Joaquin County Council of Governments and they are very laudatory for the outreach and the collaboration between the regional partners and their strong support. And I'll stop there.

Thank you very much. I'm assuming there's no oppositional witnesses here on file. So is there anyone in the room wishing to testify in opposition to AB 350? Anybody opposed? Okay, seeing none. Operator, can you please open the phone lines for any testimony in support or opposition for AB 350?

Thank you, Madam Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to AB 350, please press one, then zero. At this time, press one to zero only one time. As you press one, then zero a second time will remove you from the comment queue. Once again, please press one, then zero. We have several people who've signaled that they wish to speak. Just a moment. We'll now go to line 73. Your line is now open.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Roger Dickinson, Policy Director for Civic Well in support. Thank you.

We will now go to line 14. Your line is now open. Solvi Sabol, Placer County Transportation Planning Agency. We support AB 350.

Line 19, your line is now open. Greg Fishman, senior community relations officer with Sacramento Regional Transit District. We're in support of AB 350. Thank you.

Line 23, your line is now open. Hey, good afternoon. My name is Gary Bradford. I'm a Yuba County Supervisor, SACoG Board Member and chair of the SACoG Land Use and Natural Resources Committee. We strongly support AB 350.

There is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from the Committee Members? Yes.

Well, thank you to the author and bringing in one of my favorite county supervisors as well, Supervisor Gore. I used to sit on the greater Sacramento Economic Council and this mega region concept was something that we were working hard on. And I think Sacramento is one of the few places to have the alignment, or the region has the alignment with neighboring areas to make transportation work.

Just today, my wife traveled to the Bay Area for her day job, and it's always an interesting thing getting to the Bay Area. So I think the vast majority of people moving to our area in Placer County are from the Bay Area and still have jobs there. So this is really important and I think it's a great Bill and I look forward to supporting it.

Thank you. Anyone else? So I have a couple of questions and a couple of comments. So, as many of you know, I'm very interested in ensuring that our transportation investments also help the state achieve its climate goals. And I have two bills that I've introduced this year, AB 6 and AB 7, that you will all be voting for that work towards achieving those goals.

And I understand the need to extend deadlines so that SACoG, so that their regional transportation plan and their sustainable community strategies is meaningful and works together. And I really do appreciate that. But I am a little concerned that having more time will also provide for an opportunity to advance capacity, increasing projects that ultimately will increase vehicle miles traveled rather than decrease it.

So, Sacramento, just as you all well know, Sacramento just had a ballot measure for local transportation sales tax called Measure A that included capacity increasing projects. By your staff's own analysis, 3.5 billion of the 8.5 billion in revenue to projects were not included in the current sustainable community strategies, and most of those projects would have added capacity.

One of those projects in the southeast connector was the Southeast connector corridor road that would increase road capacity at the edge of the SaCoG region and also enable sprawl and lead to even more emissions and an area that would have been very hard to serve through meaningful public transportation. Unfortunately, that Ballot measure failed, but I'm concerned that the Sacramento region might seek to continue to advance that project and other projects with this additional time.

A recent board meeting on the connector included three agenda items to authorize the JPA immediately seeking federal, state and local funding to build portions of the Connector Expressway. Is this your understanding and if funded, do you believe these investments will increase VMT and greenhouse gas emissions or decrease it? That would be my first question for whoever wants to take it.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Chris Lee, Politico group here today on behalf of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. I think the analysis that you referred to contains the answer to that question. So yes, there were some capacity projects in that measure that would increase VMT.

Okay. And I understand that SACOG's currently adopted SCS barely meets the California Air Resources Board's greenhouse gas reduction target, and you essentially meet it by rounding up from about 1.5% to 19%. If the Southeast Connector project is funded while you're still updating your plan with the extra time provided by the Legislature in this Bill, do you think that it will make it easier or harder for you to meet your target in the next SCs?

In other words, are you going to use that time to try to lower emissions and to try to reevaluate capacity increasing projects and replace them with projects that will help you reduce your emissions goals? Or is the idea here to try to buy more time to do more of this project and other projects like it?

Thank you, Assembly Member. I would point to two things on that. The first is the green means go process in the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. And so a big part of SACOG achieving CARB certification of the last SCS, which this Bill would extend until 2025, was developing a program whereby they would identify zones where future infill growth needed to happen in order to reduce overall VMT and greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the region.

So I would say that is really the primary tool and the item that we are most focused on achieving funding for is to build that infill infrastructure and really change the pattern of growth in the Sacramento region to support housing, but to support housing that's near jobs. So I don't have any specific details about the performance of any specific project that's either included in the 2020 SCs or not included in the 2020 SCS.

We'd be happy to bring that information to you, but I would point you to the specific language in the Bill about this. So it's on page 17, paragraph three, sub paragraph A. Essentially what the Bill does is says that the plan that was adopted in November 18th, 2019 that's the current 2020 SCS, will continue to be in effect until the revised deadline. So that's for all relevant purposes, including consistency determinations with the SCs.

So projects that are consistent with the SCs today, that would still be the threshold against which they are measured until 2025 under this Bill. So projects that are inconsistent would continue to be inconsistent.

Are others in the SACOG region seeking funding to advance the Southeast Connector project? And how do we know that this time, this extra time, won't be time that's used to try to find other sources of funding to make that connector project possible?

I think the provision that I just pointed to, which is saying that for the purposes of consistency with the SCS, the benchmark will be the plan that was adopted in November 2019. That will be the threshold. I would point you to kind of a recent decision, for instance, Golden Door Properties LLC versus County of San Diego. There's a lot of discussion in that case, really, about the specifics of what it means to be consistent with adopted plans for the purposes of CEQA analysis.

So projects that are not consistent, I think, face a pretty high bar of getting added to the regional plan under that precedent.

Okay. Well, I'm still concerned that some of the key parties in the SACOG region are still trying to find funding and to move capacity increasing projects forward. And I understand that there certainly are different goals from different parties and that there's been a lot of great infill work done in Sacramento.

I do hope that this time is used to evaluate all of the projects in the region and hopefully find ways of increasing growth, increasing housing, and then doing it in a way that is sustainable and that making sure that our mobility projects don't unlock the potential for more sprawl that would increase GHGs.

So I'm going to support this today, and I feel like this is something that can be used for a great purpose in the end or it could be used to actually kind of go in the wrong direction in terms of our sustainable community strategies and the transportation projects that we fund. So we'll all be watching. I just wanted to put that all on the record of what my concerns are, the concerns of my Committee. And like I said, I am going to support this today.

Do we have a Motion? We have a motion. Do we have a second? We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

AB 350. The motion is due. Pass and re-refer to the Committee on Natural Resources. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

We have nine votes. The bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Thank you again. Thanks for letting us take you a little out of order. Okay, next up is AB 436. Alvarez, if you would come forward with any witnesses in support, and then if there is anyone in opposition, those two witnesses can come forward at this time as well. And whenever you are comfortable and situated, you can begin.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity. It's great to be here in front of the Committee. We're here today with AB 436. Last June, when I had the opportunity to come and I took office, I was proud to support ACR 176, which was unanimously approved by the Assembly. It was authored by Assembly Member Luz Rivas, and it encouraged cities to repeal their bans and recognize that cruising holds a cultural significance for many communities. That was only a recommendation. It was a resolution.

It was not law, but it was unanimously supported by the Assembly. AB 436 will fully incorporate that acknowledgment by the Legislature by unbanning or by lifting the ban that exists locally on cruising. And it highlights the role of cruising and creating community, expressing love for art, and bringing unity. In addition to making a change to the vehicle code as it relates to vehicles, those who are cruising should have the ability to cruise without the fear of being stopped or judged.

Since the 1950s, car clubs and family members have converted older cars for cruising, for shows and for competitions at events. Cruising is a historic and important part of culture for many multicultural communities. This bill will allow for the historic legacies of cruising to continue for the many generations to come. There have been many who have paved the way. That got us to the point. Today, many cities and local communities who have, although they had the authority to ban cruising, have actually lifted those bans.

What we are hoping to do today with this bill as this moves forward is to not just encourage, but make sure that no city can ban this type of activity, because there are still some cities that continue to do so. I really want to thank the Members, bipartisan members of the Legislature who have co-authored this bill. It's a bipartisan, supported bill, and I welcome those who haven't had a chance to co author to join us today.

We have two witnesses in support today, Joe Ayala and Olivia Fonseca. They are both with the Sacramento Lowrider Commission, who will also be available for any questions. It's not often members that we get a chance to actually not add another law to the books, but actually remove one. This is one that does that. It's a common sense approach to acknowledge the significance of cruising into these classic cars, and I hope to earn your support today. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think our testimony from our witnesses. Thank you.

Okay. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Joe Ayala. I'm an attorney here in Sacramento. Resident, actually, of Stephanie Nguyen's district and car owner, 1970, Monte Carlo. Got involved with the Sacramento Lowrider Commission last year when they had already started an effort to repeal the local ordinance here in Sacramento. They were successful. And then we found out that there's a resolution, a concurrent resolution, so we figured, hey, why don't we continue to follow up on that?

And similar Member Alvarez introduced the bill this prior year. We think it's important to remove this as a force of law enforcement to stop people, since as, unfortunately, what we've had, in certain instances, law enforcement can use it as a pretense to stop people. And as we've seen in the past, sometimes tragedies occur after that for minor traffic violations. So we urge your aye vote on this bill. Thank you.

Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Assembly Transportation Committee Members. My name is Olivia Fonseca, board Member of the Sacramento Lowrider Commission, Member of the California Lowrider Alliance. I want to especially thank Assemblymember Alvarez for champion AB 436 that erases discrimination, that targets people of color. And because of the type of vehicle we drive, all our drivers, as mentioned earlier, are multicultural. We're black, we're brown, we're white, we're Asian, and we are ladies of Low Riding.

As AB 436 screams out to cities and counties, stop discrimination just because of a person of color and because women drive slow and low. No mass, no more ugly street signs that hang over us as we cruise the boulevards in the cities of California. No more discriminating against low riders because of what we look like and what we drive. No more reminding us that we are unjustly criminalized for our lifestyle of cruising.

AB 436, in passing, will tell cities and counties, repeal those no cruising ordinances now. Passing AB 436 brings smiles to low riders and car enthusiasts on the freedom of cruising low and slow without getting a ticket, getting searched, arrested again because of what we drive and what we look like. You've seen our beautiful cars. We have art on wheels. We are in parades, commercials, movies, and the Super Bowl. We cruise. We don't burn rubber. We don't do donuts or kill bystanders. There are laws for that.

It's the exhibition of speed. There's really a law for sideshows, and you passed that bill a couple of years ago. Vehicle code 13352. We are low and slow. You can jog faster than some of our cruising cars when we gather, we are magnets for social gatherings and spending. Yes, bringing economic revenue to businesses that maintains our cars, feeds our cars, and fills our stomachs. Business associations even call on us to come cruise on their boulevard because we bring economic prosperity.

Law enforcement is a key to our success in cruising as well. Many of the associations that I mentioned are working with law enforcement enforcement to make sure that we are following the laws of the street. By passing 436, you are announcing an end to discrimination. By passing AB 436, you will be saying, in California, cruising is not a crime. I'm Olivia Fonseca, currently a criminal for cruising for the past 53 years in a '52 Chevy.

So I gave you about 30 extra seconds because that was so good. Thank you. Okay. I don't know that we have any witnesses on file against this bill, but anybody who wants to speak in favor, come up to the mic.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members. Christopher Sanchez here in my personal capacity as a child and grew up in the Duke's Car Club of Orange County and strong support.

Anyone else in support in the room? Okay. Is there anybody in support? Okay, come on up.

Good afternoon. Thank you. Thank you, Alvarez, and all of you, for being here. My name is Francine Mata, proud chair of Sacramento Lowrider Commission, proud member of the California Lowrider Alliance, and I strongly approve this.

Okay, anybody else in support? We don't have any opposition witnesses on file. Anybody in the room opposed to the bill would like to come up and speak in opposition. Okay, can we go to the operator, please? Operator, can you open up the phone lines for testimony for or against AB 436.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to AB 436, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero. Only one time. One moment. And we have several people who have signal that they wish to speak. Just a moment, please. And just another moment.

Good afternoon. My name is Carlos Reese and I'm the treasurer for the United Lowrider Coalition of San Diego and a retired criminal investigator. And I am support of AB 436.

Line 20, your line is now open.

Hi, I'm Jerry Thompson, Modesto and supporter of 436 and also home of Modesto graffiti and George Lucas, and representing the lowrider and hot rod community of Modesto and Stanislaus county. Hope you will vote in support also.

Line 97, your line is now open.

Hi, my name is Marie Obanya and I am a board member of the United Lowrider Coalition in National City, San Diego, California, and I support AB 436 and urge all of you to do the same. Thank you.

Line 102, your line is now open.

Hello, my name is Aida Castaneda. I'm with the United Lowrider Coalition and the California Lowrider Alliance, and we urge you to support yes on AB 436. Thank you so very much.

Line 16, your line is now open. Line 16, your line is open. We're going to move on to line 25. Line 25, your line is now open.

Hi, my name is Edna Cruz. I'm an advocate and I am in support of AB 436. Thank you.

Line 30, your line is now open.

Christina Romero, California Lowrider alliance, Los Angeles County Lowrider community, in favor of AB 436. I encourage you to support it. Thank you.

Now we're going to move on to line 53, your line is now open.

Hi, excuse me. Hello, I'm Lorraine Quinonez, the California Lowrider Alliance, and I am part of the East Los Angeles community, and I urge you to vote Aye in support of AB 436. Thank you.

Line 66, your line is now open. Line 66, please respond. Okay, we're going to move on to line 90. Line 90, your line is now open.

Hi, my name is Trinidad Segura, organization Tu Sabes, in support of AB 436.

And once again, ladies and gentlemen, for those of you who wish to speak in support or opposition to 436, please press one, then zero at this time. We're going to try line 66. Your line is now open.

Hello, my name is Jose Santos with Sabor Car Club. I'm in favor of AB 436.

Line 89, your line is now open.

Hi, this is Veronica Andrade from Modesto, California, and I'm in support of AB 436.

And Madam Chair. Just a moment. We have other people who've signaled they wish to speak. We're processing them through. Just a moment. Line 86, your line is now open. And once again, line 86, please respond. We're going to move on to line 104. Pardon me, 186, please go.

Okay. Hello?

Yes.

Hi, my name is Steve Rayfeld with Tu Sabes Car Club, and I am in support of AB 436.

Line 104, your line is now open.

Yes, my name is Tina Tatayo and I support the Bill, AB 436.

We're going to try line 66. Line 66, your line is now open.

Hello?

Yes.

Yes. My name is Jose De Santos. I am with Sabor Car Club. I'm in favor of AB 436. Thank you.

Madam Chair, there was no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Thank you very much. We'll go to the Committee to see if anyone has questions or comments. Assembly Member Wicks.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. I think it's great and I'd love to be added as a co-author.

Assembly Member Carrillo.

Same here. Thank you for bringing this. This is of cultural significance throughout the state. I do remember late '80s, early '90s, watching those along with a boulevard in East LA. Thanks for doing that. And if you would consider me be a co-author, I appreciate that. Thank you.

Okay, Assembly Member Lowenthal.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would also wish to be added as a co-author. Very proud when my Latina children went to the Smithsonian and see the lowriders on display at the American History Museum at the Smithsonian. And so it is very, very appropriate that we codify this into law here in California. Thank you.

Member Nguyen and Davies.

Thank you. I'd asked to be a co-author as well, too, and really excited to see this because I grew up seeing this up and down Broadway and Old Sack and whatnot. And so I'd always enjoyed it. And now in our region here, there are shows that happen around the area. So I think this is going to change the way things happen here now all across the state. So thank you so much.

Assembly Member Davies.

Thank you so much for bringing the Bill here. And I would like to co-author, and I had made a motion to move the Bill. Thank you.

Anybody else want to co-author, you can just raise your hand. You got one there, Mr. Berman. We'll put that on the record. So I support the Bill.

Cruising is a part of the culture of my district in the San Fernando Valley, and my home City of Glendale has had a car show called Cruise Night for many years. So we have a very large section of lowriders and we definitely need more people riding slow. So certainly support that. And we do have laws in the books to deal with any kind of disruptive behavior. Those are already on the books. We can certainly deal with it under that.

I am a little concerned about the safety concerns of law enforcement, about cars that are very low and might provide a safety hazard if they drive that way under normal conditions at higher speed. So I urge you to work with law enforcement just to address that, because there may be a car that's not actually a lowrider, it's just too low that they want to give maybe a fix-it ticket to.

So just to make sure that people can still be warned if their vehicle is actually posing a genuine safety risk. But I would also like to be added as a co-author. I think this is a terrific bill, and I think it's actually kind of a joyous bill. I think people like learning about this. They like hearing about it. It's something that has brought a smile to many faces in this room, and we'd like to see more of this in our areas.

So thank you for bringing it forward. And do you have any closing remarks?

I would say thank you to all those who added co-author. As I've learned more, this is happening throughout the state. It's a beautiful part of culture, from LA to Long Beach to the Bay Area to Modesto, that we heard from testimony, all the way to San Diego and National City. So thank you for the feedback. I take that, and we will make sure to address that and appreciate all the support. Thank you.

We have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call, please?

AB 436. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll call].

[Roll Call]

We have 12 votes. The bill is out. We will leave the roll open for absent Members. Thank you. Next up, we have AB 610. Assemblymember Holden, you and your witnesses may approach the dais. And if there's any. We don't have any opposition witnesses on file. So if you can come up with your support witnesses, you may begin whenever you are ready.

We have a motion in a second, and that is something to think about. If you're here to testify or calling in.

We'll take your lead. First of all, I'd like to thank the chair and Committee Members for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 610 today. This bill establishes the U Transit Pass Pilot program, a grant program for transit agencies to design to fund fare free transit passes for California students. Under AB 610, transit agencies are encouraged to collaborate with educational institutions on the grant application and use of the funds.

Working together, these public agencies are best positioned to create robust student transit pass programs for students and their service area for students access to transit and inseparable from their capacity to pursue their education, support themselves and their families, and attain the California dream. Study after study has shown the positive benefits of expanding fare free transit programs for both students and the transit agencies they serve. I wanted to take a moment to address some of the concerns raised in the Committee analysis.

We are all aware our state revenues look a little different this year compared to last year. In May, the Governor will put forward his revision for the budget he introduced in January. The Assembly will put forward our proposal. In the meantime, it is our hope that this bill and its merits move forward to the Appropriations Committee for fiscal consideration. We invest roughly 40% of our General Fund in education. Let's work to ensure that our students are able to attend school to receive those benefits.

Today is the time to act because AB 610 is a win for our students, our climate, and our transit agencies. Here today with me is Marisa Garcia from Move LA and Angelica Campos, a student at City College of San Francisco. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Marissa Garcia and I'm here today on behalf of Move LA in support of Assembly Bill 610. Many students in California find themselves facing a decision which no student should have to make. They are forced to decide between buying a transit pass to get to school or buying breakfast, a choice that they face because they are simply unable to afford both.

That's a serious loss for students, schools, and transit, but a loss that free statewide student transit passes could fix, bringing relief to many students and families across the state while also improving educational outcomes. We are asking the state to invest $94 million annually to implement a free statewide student transit pass program, which would help California to achieve our education, antipoverty, climate, and transit goals. The benefits of such a program cannot be understated.

Providing free transit for up to 1.3 million California students would result in a $375 million annual savings to California families. These are some of the same families whose children are having to decide between transit and breakfast. It would also help to slow down climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions by over 105,000 metric tons per year and reducing vehicle miles traveled by 239 million miles in its first year.

We believe that a fare-free transit program is key to turning student riders into transit riders for life, which we must do if we're serious about getting out of our cars and onto trains and buses, reducing VMT, fighting climate change, cleaning our air, and achieving our educational goals. Thank you for your time and consideration.

All right. Good afternoon, chair Friedman and honorable Members of the Transportation Committee. My name is Angelica Campos, and I am a first generation student at City College of San Francisco, as well as student leader within my community, as well as formerly within the student Center for California Community Colleges.

Public transit means that we will be better able to move people, in this case students, around more efficiently, and we will also be able to reduce the carbon footprint that people may be able to may rack up, whether they're using car or any other personal vehicle, simply per each bus and train trip.

More people on public transit and more students on public transit also equals lesser cars on our roads and lesser congestion that backs up our California highways and roads, which oftentimes can cause delays for students transporting between areas. In my area, it would be San Francisco, and many of our students are actually coming from East Bay, parts of San Mateo, and many other parts of California, even students coming as far as from the Central Valley into the Bay Area.

With the implementation of free, fare-free student transit passes, students like me will no longer have to choose know grabbing a bite to eat and paying for a bus ride, because oftentimes students like me have to make these important and crucial decisions in order to succeed. Go to school, get to everyday things in their life, such as doctors appointments and work. And those barriers brought on by transit passes or the costs of transit often make our lives and our educational journey a lot more inequitable.

AB 610 is critical for providing access to transportation for students that will transform the way we navigate our education and time outside of the classroom. When I first heard of this bill, I was extremely excited because of the opportunity the transit agency that transit agencies across the state will have to establish future or lifelong transit writers.

And we can see that with AB 16, Trans agencies will potentially have a 9 to 28% increase of ridership within two years, as well as a 38% increase of ridership within 10 years. Ss a student, public transportation has been pivotal in allowing me to have better access to my community. Access to fare-free transit isn't just about not needing or owning a car. It is about having access to school, to medical care, to work, recreational activities, and our family and community.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the room who would like to testify in support of this bill?

Melanie Morelos with the Green Lightning Institute in support.

Nune Garipian, on behalf of the Community College League of California, in support. Thank you.

Sophia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air in support.

Madam Chair and Members. Andrew Antwih. I'm a little bit of a tweener. We have a support, if amended, position. I've had a chance to talk with the author about the bill. And the issue is the formula factor that's used for distribution. We'd like to see something that gives greater weight to population as opposed to farebox. And that's really the heart of bill. Metro has a long track record of pioneering fareless. We actually have a go pass program that's been pretty successful through the pandemic.

And so we're on record in support of the goals of the bill. For those reasons, support if amended. Thank you.

Thank you. And I let him speak because we didn't have any opposition on file. Don't think I'm going to let everybody speak like that. Okay, thank you. Is there anybody in the room who is opposed to the bill who would like to speak? Okay. Operator, can you please open up the phone lines for AB 610 for witnesses in support or opposition?

Thank you, Madam Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to AB 610. Please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero at this time and press it only once. We have several people who've signaled that they wish to speak. Just a moment, please. We're going to go to line 31. Line 31, your line is now open.

This is Marc Vukcevich, the Director of state policy for Streets For All calling in support.

Thank you. Line 44, your line is now open.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzalez with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter, in strong support.

Line 58, your line is now open.

This is Santiago Rodriguez with environmental, California Environmental Voters. And we are in support of this bill.

We're now going to move on to line 110.

Marissa Wu, on behalf of UAW 2865 and UW 5810 in support.

Madam Chair, we have four more people who have signaled that they wish to speak. One moment, please. We're now going to go on to line 57.

Teresa Brown. This is Teresa Brown with the California Community College's Chancellor's Office, in support of AB 610.

We're now going to go on to line 101 or 101, please go ahead.

Yes, hi, this is Denny Zane, founder of Move LA, in strong support of AB 610.

Now go on to line 112. Line 112, your line is now open.

This is Darius Rigo with the UCLA student government, and I am in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

And we'll now go on to line 100.

Hi, this is Heather Brandt, working student, parent and mother of three, as well as a full time California community college student, currently serving as a student chancellor on behalf of City College of San Francisco and a delegate on behalf of my college within the student Senate for California community colleges. And I strongly support AB 610 and urge you all to do the same. Thanks.

And, Madam Chair, we have one additional person who signaled they wish to speak. Just a moment, please. Just another moment. Line 51, your line is now open.

This is Belen Hernandez with Mid-City Community Advocacy Network in strong support of AB 610.

And there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Thank you. Go back to the Committee for any questions or comments from anybody in the Committee. So, obviously, this is something that's important to a lot of people and a really great idea. It's a population that often lacks financial resources, given that they're students and children. We don't have busing in most of our school districts, and this is a great way for people to bring their kids to school and for older children and young people to be able to get safely to school.

And, of course, we develop transit riders, hopefully for life by encouraging them to take the bus and the train everywhere. And if you're 15-16, that's a lot of mobility. That, if you don't have to pay for that, could be for boba at the mall. So there's a lot of really great reasons to support this, and I urge everyone in the Committee to support it. But not to be a debbie-downer.

We also need to figure out how to pay for this at a time when our transit agencies are facing fiscal cliffs and not having the money for their operations. I do wonder whether the school districts themselves and the colleges themselves are better equipped financially out of their funding to offer these passes to their student population.

But whatever the answer is, we need to figure out how to get our transit agencies on the path towards fiscal sustainability, for one thing, and that this, I think, is going to maybe struggle a little, given their financial concerns. But I think it's important enough that we shouldn't let that be the reason that we don't do this bill. And I hope that it gets through the process and the Governor signs it. I think it's that important to get this population onto transit.

So thank you very much for bringing the bill forward. Do you have anything you'd like to say in closing?

Yes, I would agree with everything that you said. Policy is very solid. We've been at this for five or six times now. But I do think it is worth fighting for. And it's unfortunate that the fiscal elements of what we're dealing with are what they are right now. But I think that the educational institutions are strong supporters as well.

And I think that your point, how we might be able to thread the needle may be some approach that looks at balancing the scales a little bit differently. And as I've already committed to the transit agencies, that we'll be working with them.

And should this bill move to the Appropriation Committee, that it's our goal to make sure that should it move from the Appropriations Committee to the floor, that these kind of issues have been given great weight and thought, and that there's a solution that threads the needle.

Well, I really admire your leadership and your stick-to-itness, and I hope that fifth time is a charm.

I had hair the last time I started this.

Yeah. All right. With that, I think. Did we had a motion and a second or no? Okay, we had a motion and a second. Let's have a roll call, please.

AB 610, do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We have 12 votes. The bill is out, and we'll hold the roll open is Mr. Lowe. Thank you very much for being here. Okay, Mr. Lowe, you are here for AB 639. If you and your two witnesses could please approach. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second, so let's not talk people out of their support, either. Okay? Thank you. I think you need to push the button.

Sorry, getting a little rusty. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Committee Members, for allowing me to present a Bill that this Committee and our body has seen before with respect to helping on reciprocity with a number of other countries commensurate with 30 other states. And I respectfully ask for our vote when you have the opportunity. With me here today in support are representatives from the consulates of Japan and Korea, who I know will also make their comments very brief. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Kazumi Okuyama, and I am here today to testify on behalf of Consul General of Japan in San Francisco, Yasushi Noguchi. I will now read a statement prepared by the Consul General. Madam Chair, honorable Committee Members, good afternoon. I'm honored and grateful for the opportunity to express our opinion about AB 639 on behalf of the Japanese government. As of today, Japan has memorandum of cooperation with 29 countries and reason for exemption of driver's license examinations.

Japan currently has MOC's with seven US states. The local Japanese Chamber of Commerce in those states have expressed their appreciation for the exemption. Therefore, the Japanese government is very interested in pursuing such an MOC with the State of California if made possible by this Bill. Since Japan is the largest foreign investor in California, many Japanese business persons have come to reap and work here. Last year, Prime Minister Kishida established a five year plan for fostering startup aimed on increasing startup creation tenfold in Japan.

In light of those efforts, the Japanese government planned to increase the number of people dispatched to Silicon Valley. I hope this Bill, if it come into effect, will further encourage Japanese companies and entrepreneurs to operate in California and vice versa. However, I would like to draw the attention of honorable Committee Members to one point. This Bill required driver's license issued in foreign countries to be surrendered to California authorities or destroyed.

This could cause a major problem for those who return to Japan after a period of residence in California. The MOC with the other seven states do not include this content. It would be greatly appreciated if this issue could be considered in future negotiations. In closing, I'd like to reiterate our support in principle for AB 639 and the Consul General of Japan in San Francisco stand ready to cooperate with the State of California in any way that it can. That concludes the statement from the Consul General. Thank you.

Thank you.

Honorable Assembly Members. I am Hyun Choi Gong, Deputy Consul General of the Republic of Korea in San Francisco. On behalf of the people and government of the Republic of Korea, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the honorable Assembly Members for giving me this valuable opportunity today. This year marks a significant milestone in the bilateral history between Korea and the United States. It is 120th anniversary of immigration of Koreans to the United States, and also the 70th anniversary of the Korea US alliance.

This political, economic, security and people to people ties will be further reinforced by the state visit of President Yoon to Washington, DC late in this April. The two presidents will highlight the importance and enduring the strength of the ironclad Korea-US alliance as well as the United States unwavering commitment to Korea. During the 70 years, Korea has grown to be one of the top five trade partners of the State of California.

Korean government has pursued a systemic, systematic strategy to offer favorable environment to boost up foreign investment from Korean companies to other countries. This environment is concretized by a package of bilateral agreements on investment, taxation, social welfare and the driver's license exchange programs. For the long period of friendship, Korean and US governments succeeded in signing major economic agreements and today we are witnessing the finer part of the package, namely the driver's license. Effective and mutual recognition of driver's license saves a lot of precious time for investors.

This is why Korean government has already signed driver's license exchange programs with 136 countries all over the world and also 23 states of the US. Now, many Americans from these 23 states can exchange their license freely with Korean license with a simple application whenever they travel or stay in Korea. I checked up the official history of this issue in California. Korea government officially proposed exchange program to the State of California in 2011. So this year is our twelveth year of endeavor to make this happen.

If I'm not wrong, I will say that the same Bill has passed in the Transportation Committee of the Senate in May 2018, Transportation Committee and Assembly March 2019, Transportation Committee of the Senate July 2021, Operations Committee of the Senate in August 2021, and now we are here again. Korean government has so far made its best efforts at its part.

We have already wavered behind the wheel test for California driver license holders in Korea so that the Californians can get a Korean license just with written and hearing visual examinations. Today's Bill, AB 639, will be a good example of the principle of reciprocity. And in September 2019-

I'm going to have to stop you. We're way past the two minutes, but I appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Okay, anybody else in the room wish to testify and support and thank you.

My name is Keijiro Hora, Executive Director of the Japanese Chamber of Commerce, Northern California. So on behalf of the chamber and also the Japanese Business Association of Southern California with the 3500 Japanese company in California, we strongly support this Bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And I hate to cut everyone short, but we have to be fair and equal to everybody.

My name is Paul Cho, President of a Korean community in Sacramento area. I strongly support the Bill. AB 639, thank you.

My name is Samuel Kim. I support AB 639.

My name is Young Soo Kim and I support AB 639.

My name is Jimmy Chen. I'm an attending physician and associate Professor at UC Davis Medical center and VA Mainstream Hospital. On behalf of the Taiwanese communities in California, I'm in support of AB 639. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone here who wishes to voice any opposition to the Bill? Please come up to the microphone. Okay. Seeing none yet. Let's go to the phone lines. Operator, could you open up a testimony for and against AB 639? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for those who wish to speak in support or opposition of this Bill, please press one, then zero at this time. Press one, then zero. Madam Chair, it appears that there's no one who signaled that they wish to speak.

Thank you. Is there anyone in the Committee who wishes to speak? Assemblymember Davies.

Just a quick question to the author. Under the current law, right now, you have to show proof of insurance before you do take your driver's test. So what type of proof would they show it? They wouldn't be doing their driver's test if it's waived.

Well, thank you for that question. Similar to the analysis, we still would have the written, visual and hearing portions of it as well. And to allow for the DMV to look at something which is substantially similar with respect to other jurisdictions as well. And so with respect to insurance, that is still going to be required specifically. But it's just the behind the wheel if it is substantially similar with respect to the other countries.

Anybody else? I think that this is a very good Bill, and I support it, and I appreciate you're bringing this back year after year. We do have issues with the DMV in terms of the liquidity of their motor vehicle account, and I think that's probably the problem that you've been running into. It's hard for me to imagine this having a huge policy concern.

I think that there are fiscal issues that DMV has to deal with, regardless of your Bill, and I hope that they can solve that. But I do think that it would be wise, given certainly other states'actions, that we do try to allow and encourage DMV to form MOUs with countries that have similar licensing to the United States to make it easier for travelers. So I appreciate everybody taking the time to come here today. I'll be supporting the Bill, and I think. Do we have a motion? We have a motion. We have a second. Would you like to close, Mr. Lowe? Okay, can we have a roll call, please?

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Bill has nine votes. It is out. Thank you very much for being here. And with that, I'm going to call any absent Members with an earshot to please come and vote and add on. We're going to take the roll now starting at the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

13 votes. The consent calendar is adopted.

File item number two, AB 316. Current vote is 10 to 15. The motion is do pass and refer to the Committee on Communications and Conveyance.[Roll Call]

The bill has 12 votes. It's out.

AB 350. The motion is due. Pass and re-refer to the Committee on Natural Resources. [Roll Call]

It's 14 votes. The bill is out. Wait, what are you voting on? Well, we'll have to start at the top. Just wait for us, and we'll go back to the items you missed. Thank you.

File item number four, AB 364. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. [Roll Call].

Okay, that bill has 15 votes. It is out.

File item number six, AB 436. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll Call].

That bill has 14 votes. It is out.

Next Bill. File item number seven, AB 610. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

13 votes. That bill is out.

File item number eight, AB 639. The motion is do pass and re-refered to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

10 votes. That bill is out.

Okay, the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

The consent calendar has 14 votes. It's still passed.

File item number three, AB 350. Do pass and re-refer to Committee on Natural Resources. Gipson, aye.

That bill now has 15 votes. Okay, great. With that, we are adjourned.