Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

Good afternoon. The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. The hearing room is open for attendance of this hearing and it can be watched from a live stream on the Assembly's website. We encourage the public to provide written testimony by visiting the committee website. Note that any written testimony submitted to the committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted.

We will allow two minutes each for two primary witnesses in support and in opposition, and these witnesses must testify in person in hearing room. Additional witness comments will be limited to your name, organization and position. Those can be either in person or by telephone. We're going to start with the members of the public who are here in the room, and then we'll move to a blended phone line, meaning we'll hear opposition and support together.

To use our telephone service, the number to call is 877-692-8957 and the access code is 18501100. Finally, the committee, the Assembly 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 discussion of matters not related to the subject of the hearing, and other disruptive acts.

To address any disruptive conduct, I will take the following steps. If an individual disrupts our hearing, I'll direct them to stop and warn them that continued disruptions may result in removal from the 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 doesn't stop. I'll request the assistance of the sergeants in escorting the individual from the building. Thank you for your cooperation.

With that, we're going to begin our hearing. We do not have a quorum today. We'll take roll call when we have a quorum. We have five bills on consent and we will move the consent file, at which time, as we have a quorum. File item number two, AB 568, and file item nine, AB 540, will not be heard today. We're going to move now to our first bill, AB 276. Assemblymember Dixon, you may come to the podium with your witnesses and begin when you are ready.

You have to push the button. Thank you. Okay, try pushing the button.

There we go. All right. Good afternoon, Chair, Madam Chair and Members. I am here today to present on Assembly Bill 276. AB 276 will raise the cell phone laws that currently apply to those under 18 years of age to those under 21 years of age. Current California law prohibits motorists under age 18 from using a mobile device while driving entirely, regardless of whether it is operated in a hands-free capacity.

Motorists over the age of 18 may use a mobile device while driving, but it must be in a hands-free mode and only accessible by a single swipe or tap. AB 276 specifies drivers under the age of 21 because of the data. According to data from the Governor's Highway Safety Association, this age group is 1.6 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than older drivers.

On top of that, data from the CHP's Statewide Integrated Traffic Record System indicated that in 2020, there were 6,064 fatal and injury crashes involving teen drivers between 15 and 19 years of age. This age group has the largest ratio of drivers who were distracted at the time of the fatal crashes. The goal of AB 276 is to keep our road safe for all drivers.

I am a mother and a grandmother, and I know that even with educating your driver on the dangers of the road, sometimes they do not listen. The provisions of AB 276 are only--this is an important point--are only applicable as a second offense. Law enforcement would be pulling a driver over initially for another issue.

If they see that the device is in use or was in use as they approach the car, they can then issue a citation for the use of the mobile device. I do want to note that there is an exemption from these provisions for those that are required to use their phone for work. This policy targets the population at greatest risk of distracted driving-related collisions and removes the biggest distraction from their field of vision. I would like to thank Madam Chair for her support of this bill, and I can answer any questions you have at this time. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We have no witnesses on file in support or opposition, so I'd like to go to the room to see if there's anybody in the room who wishes to testify in favor or against AB 276. Okay. Seeing no one in the room, Operator, can you please open the phone lines for testimony supporting or opposing AB 276?

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero for support or opposition. And we have none on the phone.

Thank you very much. We'll go back to the Committee to see if there's any questions or comments. Seeing that I'll support your bill today, I appreciate you bringing it forward. And even with hands-free, we know that being distracted when you're driving is a leading cause of accidents and very dangerous, and this population certainly needs to focus on their driving. I'm not on being on the phone. There are technological fixes out there.

I wish the cell phone companies would deploy more of those and give parents and others the opportunity to use those types of technologies, but for now, I certainly do appreciate you bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

I thank you very much. Thank you, Members and Madam Chair, and I ask you for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Perfect. When we have a quorum, we will take a vote.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Next up, we have Assembly Member Papan. Since I don't see any other authors here--oh, no. I'm sorry. I take it back. I apologize. I will go in order. We do have Assembly Member Ramos is next on the file. I didn't see him there. Sorry to get you kind of excited. Thank you, Assembly Member Ramos. You may come up, and whenever you're ready, you can begin. Thank you.

And Mr. Ramos is here for AB 630.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. AB 630 aims to bridge the gap among tribes and Caltrans for the purposes of transportation related projects. The bill updates existing law to allow Caltrans to enter into contracts with entities owned by federally recognized tribes. As it stands, Caltrans is only able to enter into contracts with federally recognized tribes for the purposes of off reservation traffic impact mitigation projects or connections to the state highway system.

The law does not allow for entities owned by the tribes to enter into contracts and is limiting productivity and collaborations on shared interests. In many instances, collaboration between a tribally owned entity and a state or local government improves infrastructure and resource conditions for a traditionally underserved community.

AB 630 is necessary to promote more productivity capacity within traffic impact mitigation projects involving tribal entities due to a catastrophic flooding on the Tule Indian reservation here in the last couple of days. Our original witness, Chairman Peyron, and Vice Chairman Nieto, will not be able to speak. However, speaking on behalf of Tule River will be Pam Lopez, and on the phone for any technical assistance will be Kerry Patterson, attorney for the Tule River Indian Reservation.

Thank you, Mr. Ramos. Chairman Peyron is sorry that he can't be here today. Although Tule river experiences severe drought and drinking water shortages every summer, they are also plagued by severe flooding, and this winter have had several structures be destroyed due to severe flooding. So he's there taking care of that. As Assembly Member Ramos mentioned, tribally owned business entities often share the needs of the communities where they are located.

The Tule River Gaming Authority, which is in charge of the Tule River Casino, is located in the City of Porterville, California. By way of example, this is one community in the state of California that is traditionally underserved. The Tule river tribe wishes to enter a shared contracting agreement with Caltrans in order to work on traffic mitigation area issues in the City of Porterville that will benefit the entire community.

In the past, the Tule River Tribe has worked with state water entities and local water entities on water treatment facilities in the City of Porterville and the community of Porterville as well. So this is one example that's a good thing for the entire community. But Tule River hopes to fix this issue for all tribes statewide. I will just note that this bill also eliminates the required waiver of sovereign immunity pursuant to 2020 recommendations from the California Transportation Commission. A great step forward for tribes and tribally owned entities in terms of contracting with Caltrans. We thank you for your attention to this issue today.

Thank you very much. We have no witnesses on file in opposition, so I would ask anybody in the room wishing to testify for or against the bill to please come up to the microphone. Sorry, is the microphone on for witnesses? Yes. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Seeing no other witnesses in the room. Operator, can you please open the phone line for testimony for or against AB 630?

If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero again. That is one and then zero for support or opposition. And we have no one in queue at this time.

Thank you. I'll go back to the Committee to see if there's any questions. Okay. Well, I want to thank you for bringing this forward on behalf of your community. We absolutely want tribal governments to have equal access to state resources. And I very much appreciate your work with our Committee, addressing just the few technical concerns that we had. And I'm very happy to be able to support the bill today. When we have a quorum, we will take a roll call. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. And thank you for always being there to address the issues that are plaguing the most underserved population, the California Indian people. And moving forward on this bill, I ask for your aye vote when the time is appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, and next, we will ask Assembly Member Papan to come up with any witnesses for AB 756.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members. Delighted to be with you here today. This is a bill about chemicals that come off of tires, that get in the water--can you hear me? That then harm salmon. To build a strong, safe, and sustainable future for California, we must take action and preserve the health and safety of our aquatic ecosystems.

AB 756 will require the Department of Transportation to develop and implement a strategy to eliminate a toxic additive found in vehicle tires known as 6PPD from stormwater discharge flowing into salmon-bearing surface waters. 6PPDQ has been measured in California streams at concentrations above those shown to kill at least half of coho salmon in laboratory experiments. AB 756 will direct the Department to identify locations where highways cross salmon and steelhead-bearing waters.

Additionally, this measure will direct Caltrans to study the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of installing and maintaining bioretention and biofiltration systems. Fortunately for us, biofiltration and bioretention systems are readily available stormwater management practices that effectively treat the runoff of 6PPD in terms of both toxic chemical exposure and salmon spawner survival. With me today to testify in support of this bill is Mr. Sean Bothwell, Executive Director of the California Coastkeeper Alliance.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. Sean Bothwell. I'm the Executive Director for California Coastkeeper Alliance, in strong support of the bill. The issue and the concern around 6PPD is an emerging issue, but the science and the research actually around this concern is not new at all. In the 80s and 90s, scientists were starting to realize that coho salmon, particularly up in Washington, were acting strangely around spawning season, but they didn't really understand why.

In 2002, they invested some money and research into restoring streams, thinking that was the issue, and then they would function normally again, but yet that didn't work. The restoration of streams did not result in the coho salmon acting as they should have. In 2008, scientists started realizing that the direct impact was coming from stormwater discharges. They just didn't know what the pollutant was that was causing the salmon concerns and problems. In 2015, they honed in on the issue coming from cars.

And it wasn't until 2020 that scientists have realized that this chemical, 6PPD, is what is causing what's called coho mortality syndrome, which essentially, if it gets into the water, kills all the salmon in the nearby area. AB 756 commits the Department to study the most cost-effective way to address this concern and then puts Caltrans on a path to eliminate this discharge problem by 2037. The greatest part about this bill is the biofiltration, bioretention doesn't just address the pollutant 6PPD.

It addresses just about all the pollutants that are found in Caltrans's stormwater pollution for which they're right now legally responsible to address. Particularly microplastics is something that there's been a lot of attention on in this State Assembly over the last couple of years due to several bills, and a lot of science has been done to show the impact and the cause that microplastic has from stormwater discharges.

Biofiltration and bioretention is one of the really only ways we know to control microplastics from going into our waterways. So this isn't just about 6PPD, although that's the aim of it. So with that, I would ask for your aye vote, and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We have no witnesses registered in opposition, so I would ask if there's anybody in the room who wishes to testify for or against AB 756. Seeing no takers, we'll move to the phone lines. Operator, could you please open up the phone lines for AB 756?

Thank you. For support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again, that's one and then zero for support or opposition. For AB 756, we do have one. One moment, please. And we will go to line eight. Your line is open.

Hi. My name is Cody Phillips, and I'm calling on behalf of Clean Water Action, Los Angeles Waterkeeper, Humboldt Baykeeper, Santa Barbara Channelkeeper, Water Climate Trust, San Diego Coastkeeper, Trout Unlimited, and Orange County Coastkeeper, in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, and we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Thank you, Operator. Any Committee Member? No? Well, I want to really thank you for bringing this forward. This is such an important topic, and Californians care deeply about biodiversity. They care about the health of their streams, their fish population, their animal population, and we've been allowing this poisoning to go on for far too long. So I will be supporting the bill today. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your kind remarks. I couldn't agree more. We must eliminate these toxic nanoparticles and keep them from polluting our rivers and poisoning our salmon. Removing 6PPD is one step towards preserving the integrity, stability, and beauty of California's water cycle. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. As soon as we have a quorum, we'll take a vote. Appreciate you. Since we don't have another author, we will go to a Committee Member. Mr. Lowenthal?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I am pleased to present AB 1463, which is a privacy bill seeking to regulate how we handle the privacy of Californians and those seeking refuge in our state when it comes to automated license plate reader systems, also known as ALPRs. In 2019, the California State Auditor declared that legislative action is necessary to protect California's privacy rights. However, in three years subsequent, nothing has happened.

And now, with other states proposing laws that are now focusing on out of state visitors coming to California to seek reproductive and gender affirming medical care, it is vital that we implement privacy measures regarding ALPRs. AB 1463 does three things to ensure privacy for everyone. Number one, it requires public agencies operating ALPRs to perform an annual compliance audit as recommended by the State Auditor.

Number two, it purges geolocation data not associated with the investigation of any crime after 30 days, as recommended by the state's leading ALPR supplier, Flock Safety, and in line with the California State Auditor recommendation to limit retention to the shortest possible time. Number three, it forbids the sharing of geolocation data with out of state and federal agencies without a valid court order, subpoena or warrant. If this isn't clear yet, despite being in Trans this is a privacy bill. ALPRs are just one of the many surveillance tools that out of state police and antiabortion groups have available to them.

And these readers have become one of the most powerful tools available as other states have begun proposing laws that place bounties on a woman's head for seeking abortion in abortion-safe states and for trans people that are seeking life saving, gender-affirming care, it is essential that we establish appropriate limitations on the geolocation data of cars on California roads that we share with out of state law enforcement agencies. We must protect Californians and out of state residents seeking reproductive and gender-affirming medical care in California. With me today is Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy, the sponsors of AB 1463.

Yes, good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Tracy Rosenberg. I'm with Oakland Privacy, a citizens' coalition that advocates for the regulation of surveillance technologies and equipment with respect for privacy and civil rights. In 2019, then-assembly privacy chair Ed Chow brought AB 1782 to limit the retention of non-evidentiary license plate scans to 60 days. When we say non-evidentiary, we mean the 99.7% of them with no connection to any crime or criminal investigation.

AB 1782 passed the Judiciary Committee nine to one, privacy Committee eight to one, and the Assembly floor, 49 to 18, was held in the Senate after the JLAC authorized a state audit of ALPR programs. That audit was released in 2020. It said the program is currently operated, threatens the privacy rights of California, and that noncriminal scans should be retained for the shortest possible time. Two quick points. We did not pick 30 days out of a hat.

As Assembly Member Lowenthal states, this is the recommendation of the largest manufacturer of the equipment. They say, and I quote, as a part of our ethics-driven innovation, we recommend that all data not associated with a crime be automatically deleted after 30 days, so it is unrecoverable. One last point. In 2007, New Hampshire was the second safest state in the country. They passed a law that year mandating the destruction of scans that are not on a hot list instantly, was actually three minutes in statute.

Sixteen years later, New Hampshire is still the second safest state in the country. Their law did not have an adverse impact on public safety, and AB 1463 will not have an adverse impact on public safety. What it will do is protect the privacy of California drivers and those who drive into and out of our state.

Thank you very much. Do we have an opposition witness? Thank you, sir. In two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chairman, Members. Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in opposition to AB 1463. Law enforcement agencies across the state and nation have used ALPR data to solve crimes and apprehend criminal suspects, and continue to do so today. While some cases are solved quickly and perhaps immediately, as that term would be used in the context of this bill, these data can also be exceptionally helpful in solving crimes that may have occurred deeper in the past.

And to set a data destruction timeline, such as 30 days, will significantly hinder the use of a valuable law enforcement tool, because we don't always know when the data will prove useful. In other words, we don't always know when those data that are collected, those pictures of license plates, will be connected with the potential of an alleged crime. To be clear, California sheriffs, law enforcement don't want to see out of state entities using ALPR for things like reproductive rights laws or gender-affirming care laws.

That's never been our intent, and that's demonstrated by the fact in a bill that we sponsored last year, AB 2192, that we agreed to language that would have made that very clear, that an out of state entity could not use the data for those types of purposes. So we understand the concerns of their proponents, but we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone in the room wishing to testify for or against AB 1463? Okay, seeing no one. Operator, can you please open up the phone lines for testimony for or against AB 1463?

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero if you're in support or opposition. We do have a few coming in one moment. And this is for AB 1463. Thank you. We will go to line number seven. Your line is open.

Hi. Maggie with Teason Tech in strong support of AB 1463.

Thank you. And we'll go to line 18. Your line is open.

Hello, my name is J. P. Massar. I represent Mcgee Spalding Neighbors in Action in the Bay Area, and I am in total support of this bill. Also like to point out that the CHP has a 60 day retention period, so the arguments of the Sheriff's Association don't really make a lot of sense. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have no further support or opposition in queue at this time.

Thank you. We'll go to the Committee to see if anybody has comments or questions. Thank you. I mean, honestly, a lot of the most important issues around this bill are probably best handled by the Privacy Committee and also by Public Safety, where it's not going. The only reason it's here is because this is in the vehicle code.

But I do understand the desire to protect people's privacy, make sure that data that might be collected by out of state law enforcement is that we make sure that that absolutely can happen as they try to criminalize a lot of our basic civil rights and do understand the concerns of law enforcement as well. And I think that privacy is where you're going to have the most robust discussion over this bill. I will support it today to watch the conversation move forward. Do you have any closing comments?

Thank you, Madam Chair. To reiterate, AB 1463 is a more modest approach than previous efforts. It will ensure that an individual's right to privacy is upheld. For those seeking a safe refuge from oppressive reproductive and anti-LGBTQ laws, and that it is safe to come to California to seek out the care they need without fear. I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And I do appreciate you taking the Committee's amendments. And when we have a quorum, hopefully soon, we'll be able to take a vote. Thank you very much. Okay. We don't have any authors, so I'm going to take my two bills, or at least one of them, until we have an author. If you are someone who has a bill in transportation today, if you come, you will get to do your bill. I'm going to pass the gavel to Assembly Member Carrillo because he's close.

Thank you. Okay, we do have another author. Assembly Member Zbur, welcome. Okay. And we do have a quorum. So before you begin, I'd like to take roll to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Chair and Members, thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to present AB 1335 today. I'd like to start by thanking the Committee staff for their hard work. We've also been working with the staff and the Building Industry Association on some amendments that will be introduced at a later time that I believe will hopefully address their concerns. As you may already know, the Sustainable Community Strategies program, or SCS, is a local planning process that encourages more housing near transit to reduce our reliance on cars.

It's a bill that I'm proud to have worked on when I was at the California League of Conservation Voters, now California Environmental Voters. AB 1335 strengthens the SCS program by aligning the program with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA, process. RHNA is a critical planning process that is required of regional agencies and it's used to determine and plan for their local housing needs.

Currently, the assumptions and information used to develop the SCS are different from the assumptions that cities and counties use for the RHNA process. As a result, this discrepancy has led to an underestimation of housing needs for certain areas and along transit. AB 1335 ensures that the same assumptions are used for the SES and the RHNA processes. This bill will make it easier for cities and counties to create more housing near transit and meet their sustainability goals.

AB 1335 will also result in valuable information about the efficacy of the SES program and creates transparency around local progress towards sustainable development. With me today is Amy Hines-Shaikh on behalf of Abundant Housing LA, the sponsor of the bill, to provide additional information and assist with questions.

Thank you very much, honorable Chair Friedman and esteemed Members. My name is Amy Hines-Shaikh and I'm representing Abundant Housing LA, the sponsors of Assembly Bill 1335. Abundant Housing LA believes in housing for all, guided by the values of racial justice and equity. We believe that California can realize this dream through four pillars or approaches. Which are one, legalizing more homes. Two, making homes easier to build. Three, funding affordable housing. And four, strengthening renters rights.

AB 1335 by Assembly Member Zbur, was born from the pursuit of pillar number two, making homes easier to build. High housing costs are impacting each and every Assembly Member's constituencies. Similarly, the climate crisis is inescapable from any corner of our state. In fact, 38% of California's greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation. Our incredibly long commutes are to blame.

Attempting to address this problem, SB 375 from 2008 created a regional land use planning process called the Sustainable Community Strategy, which is part of the Regional Transportation Plan. This is commonly referred to as the RTP/SCS. AB 1335 is also known as the Strengthening Sustainable Community Strategies Act. There are two processes to plan for housing at the regional level, the regional housing needs assessment and the RTP/SCS. So, as Mr. Zbur had already explained, these two processes are frequently misaligned.

And in fact, in 2020, the lack of alignment caused logistical challenges at SCAG for the adoption of the RHNA, which ultimately caused a six month delay in the finalization of the RHNA numbers and halved the amount of time Southern California cities had to complete their housing elements. This was such a disruption locally that the state felt compelled to extend the deadline for a compliant housing element by passing SB 197 in 2022. Assembly bill 1335 addresses two aspects of this problem.

It recommends an alignment process for the RHNA and the SCS, while maintaining alignment with the SCS is voluntary. And additionally, it requires that local governments report on what progress they are making towards the SCS in their General Plan Annual Progress Report.

Sorry. If you could finish up, you're past the two minutes.

Sure. Enable local citizens who are interested in the topic to engage, and we very respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Hi, Bryan Sapp, on behalf of SPUR in support.

Thank you so much. All right, seeing nobody else. Is CBIA here or any of the other registered witnesses in opposition? I do not see them here. So if there's anyone in the room wishing to testify in opposition, you may come to the microphone.

Not opposition, so much as concerned. Bill Higgins with the California Association of Councils of Governments. The issues at SCAG were enunciated and to our knowledge, that's the only case of the instance happening. And the RHNA is already incorporated into the SCS and is an 8 to 10 year process, and the RTP is a 20 year process, so there are reasons for difference. We are in contact with the authors, folks. We have our own solutions. We'll be working with it. But in its current form, we would oppose.

Okay, is there anybody else in opposition in the room? Okay. Operator, if you could please open the phone lines for testimony for and against AB 1335. Thank you.

Thank you. For your support of opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero, if in support of opposition of AB 1335. And we do have one in queue. One moment with that line number. We will go to line 21. Your line is open.

Marc Vukcevich from Streets For All calling in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have no further support or opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Committee if anybody has any questions.

I do. But before I ask my question, I want to thank Abundant Housing LA for being so active during the RHNA allocation number. Through SCAG, I was part of the ECHD and you guys were very active in that process. Thank you. Did I hear you say that this would also help legalize existing homes, existing housing units?

But thanks for clarifying that. That's all I've had. Thank you, Madam Chair.

That is a goal of Abundant Housing LA. But they have four pillars and this is actually addressing the pillar to make homes easier to build. Unfortunately, not the other pillars.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, well, I'll be supporting the bill today. I trust that you will continue to work with the opposition to address their concerns. Would you like to close?

No, just look forward to working with the opposition to address their concerns. I think, you know, our goals, which is to make both the SCS and the RHNA processes are aligned. And I just thank you all and thanks the staff again and request an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Can we have a roll call, please?

The bill is do pass and re refer to a Committee on Appropriations.

[Roll Call].

Ten to one; that bill is out. Thank you. Assembly Member Ting, you are here for AB 1267. You can proceed when you are ready. And if there are witnesses in favor or opposed to the primary witnesses who registered, you are welcome to come to the dais.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Here to present AB 1267. First, let me thank you and the Committee for all their help on this bill. I'm bringing it back again this year. AB 1267 provides an additional incentive to drivers who use the most gasoline, expediting the switch to zero-emission vehicles. The transportation sector, as we're all aware, accounts for about 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and 28 percent of that comes from light-duty vehicles, which is about 80 percent of that 40 percent.

We know that California has a variety of incentive programs, but unfortunately, we haven't done a good enough job really working to incentivize working families, especially those who are our biggest super-commuters. So what we're asking the California Air Resources Board to do is to create an additional ZEV incentive award for gasoline super-commuters targeting our gasoline consumers in the state. It also would require CARB to measure the emissions reductions achieved by this new ZEV incentive program.

As we've made significant progress in moving toward electric vehicle adoption, we want to make sure as those who are using the most gasoline and those who are finding it the most difficult to afford electric vehicles aren't left behind, this additional incentive would really help that. An analysis from Coltura, who's my witness, found that superusers making less than 50,000 dollars per year spend, on average, 23 percent of their income on fuel. So this is obviously a very important segment of our population to assist. So with that, turn over to my witness. Thank you.

Hi. Thank you. Janelle London with Coltura. By helping lower income gasoline superusers switch to EVs, this bill maximizes the impact of EVs, and it helps the gasoline-burdened families who need it the most. Superusers are generally stuck using a lot of gasoline. Typically, they're living where housing is affordable, but they've got a long commute to where the jobs are, like Los Banos, a city with 6,800 superusers, 80 miles from San Jose.

Or they're driving for their work, like contractors and landscapers who are driving to various job sites each day. The majority of superusers are below the median household income. Spending on average, 15 percent of household income on gasoline is a crushing burden already for many of them. When you have like a gas price spike like we had this summer or an unexpected car repair, that can throw them into a financial tailspin.

Helping these folks get into EVs would shift that spending to more reliable, more predictable EV car payments and electricity. And because superusers are already spending on average 800 dollars a month on fuel and maintenance, most would end up having a chance to save on total monthly costs by switching to an EV, even with a higher car payment. But they still need the boost of an incentive and targeted outreach to get into the EV, which this bill would provide.

And the bill is also a win for climate; helping superusers switch to EVs cuts gasoline use faster. CARB, in its latest scoping plan, is calling for a 50 percent cut in gasoline use by 2030 to meet the requirements of SB 350, but Energy Commission's staff forecasts were only on track to cut gasoline use ten percent by then. So this would do that faster and with fewer total EVs.

In fact, if the biggest gasoline users switched to EVs first, we would need nine million EVs on California's roads to cut gasoline use in half. If they go last, if the superusers go last, it would take 24 million EVs.

Okay. That's over two minutes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. Anyone else who's here to testify in support of the bill?

Bill Magavern, Coalition for Clean Air, in support.

Tom Knox, Valley Clean Air Now, in support.

Thank you very much. We don't have any witnesses on file in opposition. Is there anybody in the room wishing to testify in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, Operator, can you please open the phone lines for AB 1267?

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero if you're in support or opposition. And we have none in queue at this time.

Thank you. With that, we'll go back to the Committee. I love how not talkative everybody is today. It's very unusual. I am supporting the bill today, as you know. I very much appreciate what you're trying to do with the bill, and certainly having that EV transition is very important. I do have some concerns. I would love for there to be more of a way to focus this on vehicles that really are necessary for people to use for work.

My concern is that we are sort of pushing people who might otherwise use transit and other more sustainable means to switch over to continue to drive and sort of taking away part of that incentive and also freeing people up to sort of have longer and longer commutes. And there's no way to filter out people who just want to go and drive around on the weekends and are high gas users because they love to go on long, leisurely drives.

So it's a bit of a blunt tool, but I understand where you're trying to get at, and the CARB report does not talk about a reduction in gas. It talks about a reduction in VMT, and there is a difference in the approach with this bill. That said, I will support it today, and I just hope that you do keep some of that in mind. Would you like to close?

Very much appreciate your comments and your thoughts. I think we are going to keep trying to get to the crux of your particular issue, but appreciate the Committee's work, your support today, and respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 1267.

Thank you. With that, we'll take a roll call.

AB 1267: the motion is 'do pass and re-refer to Committee on Natural Resources.' [Roll Call]. We have 13 votes.

13; the bill is out. Thank you very much. Mr. Kalra?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. AB 1082 would prohibit poverty tows when a vehicle is towed as a debt collection mechanism due to unpaid parking tickets. This bill would also prohibit immobilizing the vehicle in this case or sending just one unpaid parking ticket to the DMV to place a hold on the driver's registration renewal. Lastly, the Bill would make changes to the parking ticket payment plan program guidelines to make it more workable for low income Californians, thus encouraging more payment of accrued tickets.

Unlike a previous similar bill from the current city attorney of San Francisco, former colleague David Chiu, from 2019, AB 1082 does not include any changes to the 72 hours rule. This means cities will still have the authority to tow vehicles that have been idle for 72 hours or more to address situations like abandoned vehicles. Cities will also still have usual debt collection methods, such as referral to a collection agent and credit reporting agencies.

Furthermore, for debt amounts over $400, a city can enter civil judgment against a person and use those ordinary measures to collect the debt, such as bank levies and wage garnishments. And they can enlist a Franchise Tax Board to help them collect through interceptions of tax funds, lottery winnings, any way that someone may be getting resources from the state to ensure that their unpaid debts are paid.

That said, we fully intend to work with the League of Cities and other stakeholders to ensure there are no significant unintended consequences. California has been a national leader in ending policies that disproportionately punish people experiencing poverty. Recognizing that these laws do not make individuals more likely to pay, but instead trap them in debt, vehicle tolls and immobilizations result in snowballing consequences that threaten people's stability and well being, as well as undermine our state's economic equity goals.

It is an unreasonably reasonably harsh punishment that does not help public safety or help cities collect unpaid fees. With me to provide supporting testimony is Marta Roberts, who has personally experienced the loss of a vehicle due to poverty tow practices in Marin, and Rebecca Miller, Senior Litigator for Western Center on Law and Poverty, sponsor of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. I just want to remind all the witnesses, not just now, but for the whole hearing, that it's two minutes, and after that we will stop you from speaking. Okay? Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon. Thank you, honorable Committee Members. Western center is co-sponsoring AB 1082 because our coalition has seen the direct harm of debt tows on, for example, people fleeing intimate partner violence who need their cars for safety, but when their vehicles are towed, often based on tickets incurred by their abuser, for low wage workers who can't get to work without a car and therefore a tow makes it even harder to pay the ticket, for students and parents who can't get to school without a car, and for older Californians who can't go to medical appointments without a vehicle. A car is often a family's only asset, and taking it and selling it over what can be sometimes just one parking ticket is not in keeping with California's values.

Towing is also not cost effective. We issued a report with our advocacy partners called towed into debt, showing that debt tows cost cities more than they collect. Studies also show that cities can actually collect more money when they allow fees and fines to be paid over time, which is why making reforms to the parking ticket payment plan so they are more accessible is very important. Towing solely for parking ticket debt is also likely unconstitutional.

A number of courts have held that the Fourth Amendment doesn't allow warrantless community caretaking tows unless there is a public safety concern, and debt collection is not about public safety. We urge this Committee's aye vote on this common sense policy change.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Marta Roberts and I'm speaking in support of AB 1082. My car being towed last December went beyond extreme hardship. It made even the basics of human subsistence truly impossible. I'm a 71 year old woman living on a low income and have been coping since childhood with PTSD and ADD. More recently, I've been through one the roughest patches in 50 years of adult life.

My brother was diagnosed with late stage cancer and I lost two of my closest loved ones during the pandemic. During this time, I also had to find housing and move. The apartment I found is on a steep hill, so the layer that made it all unbearable was being faced with the impossible decision whether to risk driving my unregistered car and get towed or to not go to medical appointments and buy groceries.

At the time, I had received some parking and one traffic ticket that I could not afford to pay. Very quickly, the tickets blew up to $2,400. I could not afford both the tickets and registration, so I just paid the registration and smog. But the DMV would not give me the registration sticker because of my tickets. So I continued in a circular bind of needing to drive but not wanting to risk it until my car was towed twice.

Both times left me on the edge of destitution, potentially homeless and applying for help to pay my utilities. After the second time my car was towed, I finally had a nervous breakdown coming after moving and the deaths of my loved ones and the stress of having an unregistered car. It was all too much. Please stop these traumatic and counterproductive toes. I beseech you, please vote for this bill.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody in the hearing room wishing to testify in support of AB 1082 can come up to the mic?

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, proud co sponsor in support.

Good afternoon, Patrice Berry, representing End Poverty in California, also known as EPIC. Here to support as a co sponsor AB 1082. Thank you.

Hi, Evan Minton with Voices for Progress in strong support.

Good afternoon. Cynthia Castillo on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty in support and a proud sponsor. Also want to register support on behalf of ACLU, California Action and Tech Equity Collaborative.

Thanks so much. I think we do have registered opposition witnesses. If so, if you can come up to the podium. Thanks.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Matthew Siverling on behalf of the California Mobility and Parking Association, we understand the author's intent and applaud his goal of eliminating the consequences of a person accumulating too many unpaid parking tickets. We're all on the same page there.

However, CMPA is opposed to AB 1082, which would largely eliminate most, if not all, of the viable tools that local governments need to enforce parking, including the option to request DMV to put a hold on a driver's registration to address past due obligations, rather than delaying that action until the driver's situation has gotten completely out of hand, which the bill proposes, the ability for local agencies to boot or tow a vehicle that has accumulated numerous unpaid tickets, ironically mandating that a hold on a driver's DMV registration cannot be initiated until after the driver's accumulated six or more unpaid parking tickets will drastically inflate their deferred amount due when it could have been addressed months earlier.

We also agree with the valid concerns raised in the analysis regarding eliminating any tool to enforce parking laws on vehicles from out of state, as well as the issues with visitors to cities who have no incentive to pay for parking if there's no enforceable penalty until you've accumulated six tickets there.

We've worked diligently with our communities and our stakeholders over the years to assist individuals with addressing their amounts due through the use of reasonable payment plans, and as such, AB 1082 will effectively neutralize our parking enforcement efforts. For these reasons, we request a no vote today. Thank you.

Madam Chair. Thank you, Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. Existing law already provides significant opportunity for motorists to address either unresolved parking violations. We feel these statutes allow local governments to keep roadways safe and to address the use of local streets and roads as unlawful venues for long term storage. Also to ensure accountability among those who violate the law.

This bill would eliminate much of the motivation for people to take care of parking violations and creates further public safety challenges and opportunities for further violations. So we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody in the room wishing to voice opposition to the bill? If so, please come up to the microphone. Okay, seeing none, we'll go to the phone lines for testimony in favor of or in opposition to AB 1082.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again. That is one and then zero. For support or opposition. We will go to line 25. Your line is open. 1

Thank you. And next we will go to line 22. Your line is open.

Hi, my name is Lucy. I'm calling on behalf of rights allocates in strong support of AB 1082. Thank you so much.

Hi, on behalf of Free From which supports survivors of domestic violence. Proud co sponsor and in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And next we will go to line number nine. Your line is open.

Honorable Assembly Members and Madam Chair, for the record, my name is Jon Hamblin. I'm the President of the California Mobility and Parking Association. I regret that I could not be with you in person today, but I am here to register our opposition to AB 1082. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 23, your line is open.

Yes, hello. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Member Satinder Malhi with the CSU Chancellor's Office. The CSU does not have a formal position on the measure. However, some of our police chiefs have expressed concerns. That said, we have had some constructive conversations with the author's office and look forward to continuing to work with them as the bill moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go to line 24. Your line is open. Do you have us on mute? Line 24, please go ahead. All right. And we'll move on. And we have no further support or opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, we'll go back to Committee Members. Mr. GiPson.

Thank you very much. And to the author. Thank you very much. I have a question. So this Bill basically sets up a payment plan. And am I led to believe that there's no payment plan that exists currently for someone who encountered back registration and a boot is being placed on someone's car to allow them to pay the outstanding fees that are due? So that's the first question.

There's a bill by kind of somewhat of a companion bill to some extent that Senator Lackey did back in 2018 that was adopted and chaptered, that set up the ability to have payment plans. This one in particular in regards to parking violations, would allow low income Californians to set up a payment plan. For that alone. There has already been a set up for payment plans on debts. Otherwise, this further extends it if the issue that someone's having is regarding the parking tickets rather than impounding their car.

Okay, thank you very much for clarifying. So this bill, 1082, does it suspend any existing penalties besides creating the payment plan?

It's really about the towing and the booting and not being able to have someone's registration suspended based upon one ticket. We're trying to get rid of the egregious, what we believe are the consequences that far outweigh the incident or the citation. And so there are still plenty of different opportunities and ways that you can get, that jurisdictions can get their money, that they're owed.

But ultimately, we're saying is that if someone has two or three tickets, that that shouldn't be grounds for towing their vehicle, especially because it's more likely than not to be a low income Californian that's going to suffer from that. And ultimately, if they do exceed five and all the options on the table, but this does allow for a payment plan if they have two or three tickets, allows the opportunity for them to pay it slowly over a period of time because tickets have gotten a lot more expensive than they were 5-10 years ago.

Sure, I just had a flashback when I was a teenager, on my registration fee, but do we have any, and I won't belabor it, do we have any data or any numbers in terms of actually how many people this is affecting by way of the penalties that has been levied against individuals in California because of outstanding parking penalties?

We don't have raw numbers on how many. We do know, based upon some studies, that having your car towed doesn't necessarily lead isn't the best reaction in terms of creating good behavior. And it actually costs a city and tow yard a lot more. Typically, even if they put it up for auction, it usually costs them a lot more to go through that whole process than it does to even just completely forgive the debt.

In this case, we're not suggesting the debt be forgiven, but we'll take a closer look to see if we can get some data. I don't believe that we have on hand data with us, but we do have some studies that show that this particular mechanism is not a particularly effective one.

Sure. I will be voting for it today, and I would certainly like as the bill move forward to try to at least receive that data. So how many people this is affecting moving forward? Because I believe we create bills to help solve problems. And certainly those who are struggling, the parking meter runs out, they get a parking ticket, they may be looking for a job, and now they got another bill on top of that, the payment plan.

I get that we're not relieving a person from their debt or obligation, but it's a payment plan. And so I will be supporting it today and certainly would love if you can contact my office with this information, I would really appreciate it, which will decide on once the bill comes to the floor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Selling Member Nguyen.

Just to feed off on that. So I think I heard the opposition say that there are ready payment plans in place for those that are low income, that are not able to pay for their fees.

Well, they can also get the car towed. So you're talking about putting the discretion in the debtor as to whether a car is going to be towed or whether a city is going to inform DMV to suspend someone's registration based upon even one ticket. And so although there may be some places, debtors are free to set up a payment plan if they so choose, but they also, under current law, can allow four vehicles just to be towed, even for a first incident.

I'm sorry. And I wanted to see if I can hear from the opposition. Is that true that if there's just one incident, that, depending on the incident or the situation, is that how it works?

So the way it currently works, if there's one ticket outstanding, the person's registration can actually be withheld from being paid. So the person would have to rectify the payment on that ticket before they get their DMV registration. Prior to towing a car in a jurisdiction, you have to actually have five unpaid parking tickets to sort of hit that threshold where you actually can either have your car mobilized or towed at that point.

And so the payment plan, we, CMPA, other law enforcement agencies, went through some painstaking negotiations with Mr. Lackey over several years to set up and make sure that we cast the net as widely as possible to capture anybody that's characterized as indigent, which is a hugely broad definition.

We've waived all of the late fees for folks who have accrued a bunch of late fees, sort of deciding whether or not they wanted to go ahead and move forward to pay their fees, and worked out a $25 a month process for folks to kind of work their payments down. This bill actually caps the total fees that can be paid to $600 because it'd be $25 over 24 months period.

Currently, you can go much further than that just to continue to pay it off till it's gone, but it's a huge kind of step away from where we were going with the Lackey bill, which is why we're opposed.

Are you done? Okay, thanks. It's okay. Anybody else? Yes, Ms. Davies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If you could just clarify for just. We have a lot of HOAs in our area, and so we have a lot of problems sometimes people parking in guest spots. And I just wanted to know, is this exempt? With HOAs, if somebody parks in a place or overnight without a permit, they normally do a warning and then they're towed. Does this now go into HOAs as well?

Yeah, on private property, just like whether it's an HOA and private parking lot, just similar to a shopping center has a private parking lot. They have the ability to tow. And so it is under public jurisdictions that we're talking about. It doesn't impede a private owner, whether it's a shopping center, what have you to be able to, as you oftentimes see, if you're not here for business on the property, you could be towed similar to that, just like a mobile home or what have you.

Okay. Would you be open just to putting that in there as exempt for HOAs private?

Yeah, we'll take a look at it, and if we need to clarify it, we can certainly do that.

All right. Thank you.

Mr. Gipson.

Thank you very much. Just want to clarify in question from the opposition, did I understand you say that if a person gets one ticket, then their registration, vehicle registration can be held? Is that at the same time they're on a payment plan? Can you explain what you just said in terms of one ticket registration being held?

So essentially, if somebody gets a parking ticket and actively chooses not to pay it and that parking ticket sits for a year, people basically are being sent notices for payment. There's a late fee that's added onto that after a certain amount of time, and you're sort of notified by the mail that you have this growing problem.

At that point, the agency does have the option to refer that matter to the DMV, who then acts as a collections agency and withholds the registration until that ticket has been paid. But to your question, I'm not sure how often one ticket triggers that action. I could definitely get back to you with that kind of data, too. And I don't make any assumptions that there's a threshold that agencies are using, but by law, yes, one ticket can lead to that action.

I don't think poor people actively try to do this. I think it's really a financial situation for people, and I think the author is trying to get at trying to help those who are in a particular category in terms of their ability to pay for it and trying to get on a payment plan to at least pay their debt.

But I was concerned that if it's a year, which is indication, they can't pay it, but then that would trigger a person not being able to, of course, get their car registered, which is on top of that, another barrier for employment, looking for jobs, transportation. So that's what I'm understanding you saying, but also just want clarification in terms of if someone is on this payment plan and that occur, then it seems like they should still be able to get their registration while they're still making payments.

That's correct, yes. That basically freezes the whole process that we waive all the late payments and everything's put into motion as long as you're actively engaged in the payment plan.

Thank you.

Ms. Wicks.

Thanks. I just wanted to thank the author for bringing the bill forward. I think this is, while it seems like a small issue, it's actually a pretty big deal for low income communities who are disproportionately communities of color. So I want to thank the author. I would love to be added as a co author, and I don't know if there's been a motion, but I'll move it if there hasn't been.

Any other questions.

I will be supporting the bill because we're also forgetting the additional cost. If the vehicle has been towed, there is an additional fee to pay, and if it's on a Friday, you're going to pay at least three days. So that really puts another burden on the low income family. So we'll be supporting.

Anybody else?

So I actually think this bill is a little bit tough for some reasons. First of all, I totally appreciate what you're doing, and I agree that it's important and the bill should move forward because we don't want to be putting.

People who already are in a financial hole further down into a hole that they can't escape from. So that's why I'm going to support the bill. And I think it is important. But I think that we also need to keep working on this because cities do have legitimate reasons to keep people from parking illegally. It causes congestion. It takes up spots. It takes people out of transit. There's reasons why we have parking rules. And there are people who choose to park illegally. There just are.

There are, in my community people who risk getting a ticket. They know they might get a ticket. There are people who maybe they can't afford to pay, but they choose to not have registered cars, park illegally, and are not just doing it once or twice, but are parking in places they know are illegal for a variety of reasons. And cities have to have some tools to deal with that.

And my concern is that if someone gets 100 tickets under this bill, they still can't be towed and they can't be booted either, which is another way that you could enforce without giving people that huge burden of having to pay for a tow, which are ridiculously expensive for people. So I do worry about taking those tools away from cities. And maybe the answer is having this sort of mandatory payment plan that's not punitive.

And that offers people by law or by statute a lot of relief that if they show a certain inability to pay, then the payment plan is very low. But the question is why? Or if they're living on the street where they just can't avoid getting a ticket because they have nowhere else to go. Maybe in a different track. But the people who are choosing to do this, and they are out there, they may be a small amount, but they are.

I feel like we're going to make it a lot easier for them to continue this. And maybe they also were low income but still choose to do this just for convenience. And I just don't know what we tell cities. If they have people that are racking up 40-50 tickets, I understand they wouldn't get their registration renewed. I honestly don't know how many people drive around without a registered car either. I just don't know whether that's just a thing that kind of happens a lot.

I do have a couple of questions because without the booting or the towing, I also wonder how you're going to enforce people that have out of state plates. How will the DMV enforce? If you have an out of state plate, you're racking up a lot of tickets. You're not registering your car in California, so you don't have that mechanism of withholding the registration. So what do you do then if you're a city?

Is this as an invitation for people with out of state plates to just now park illegally everywhere?

Look, I think there's a lot of different scenarios that could come to play out of state plates. I think it's already a unique situation for cities are ready because they can't impact the vehicle's registration. But those are things that I'm more than willing to work on with you and your staff. I think that there are other ways for cities to gain judgments, especially if you're talking about out of place state.

For someone that lives in the jurisdiction or lives in California and is racking up all these tickets, there are other mechanisms, including civil actions that can be taken in order to get.

How would you take a civil action if they have an out of state plate? How would you even do that?

You can still take a civil action on the moneys owed if it's over $400, I believe.

Okay, so the bill as drafted allows for a $25 a month payment plan over the course of two years and then requires remaining fees to be waived. So how would you stop someone who's just going to opt to pay $300 a year now to not pay for parking like in downtown San Francisco.

I think that with that kind of payment plan we were trying to get something that we felt would be reasonable for most low income families to be able to catch up on their payments.

No, I get that. And I think for low income people who are trying to dig out from under this hole who somehow managed to rack up these tickets somehow, that makes sense. But what if I just am not low income and it's really expensive to park in downtown San Francisco and I say, hey, the most they can ask me for now is $300 a year under the payment plan.

So it doesn't apply in certain scenarios like parking garages. It also doesn't apply to high income people. There is an income threshold to be able to qualify and so you're not going to have the San Francisco lawyer parking on the street every day because they know.

Okay so a low income person, though, who might decide to pay $300 a year.

So, what's the income threshold for the payment plan?

I have, like, 40 pages here, I apologize.

It's the same as for a fee waiver for a civil action. It's if you're receiving public benefits, which the example that was just given, it can be someone on SSI, which is about $900 a month. And I think it goes up. It's 200% of the poverty level. So it's about $2,000 a month.

Okay. Right. Okay. So that might work. I still would love to see you keep working on this because I do think, at the end of the day, I'm going to support this, and I'm recommending everybody vote for it, because I do think it's important that we take this burden off people who just have no choice but let's say, living in their car or have absolutely no place to put it, and they're poor. I do think we have to make sure that we don't take all the tools away.

I would recommend that you look at the boot part again for people, because it doesn't have the same expense associated as towing. And under certain conditions, if somebody's really just choosing to park illegally, let's say a high-end, in a downtown area, for whatever reason, it may be appropriate at times. I know the City of LA, for instance, is trying to deal with these illegal RVs that are not owned by the people who are living them.

They're actually sort of like almost people buy fleets of them and they're renting them out. They're huge code enforcement issues. They're very dangerous and unsanitary for people who are living in them. LA is trying to deal with getting rid of them. I don't know if this impacts their ability, but they've been trying to boot those, find permanent housing that's safe for the people who are living them, but they're there because people are making money on them. They're sort of ripping people off who can't afford to do anything else. So I just want to make sure that they still have that tool as well.

Well, the City of Los Angeles, Madam Chair, is at a moratorium on towing and booting cars for five more unpaid parked tickets since February of last year. And certainly whether it's RVs or smaller vehicles, again, this does not impact the 72 hour rule. I know in particular, we see this in San Jose, a lot of different jurisdictions, you'll see larger vehicles, RVs that will be parked for weeks on end. This does not impact that.

It allows cities to approach, if it's unhoused community, they can approach it in the way they feel they need to, but it does give them the tool of the tow as well.

Right. Okay. No, that's good to point out that I think a lot of those are probably booted for that reason rather than tickets, although I don't know exactly. But again, I think it's a really important bill. And I do think that cities treat this very punitively.

And it's really hard for people to fight this if they're in that situation, just like with a lot of the moving violations and everything else, having to go to court if they're working, for instance, which often is impossible to do, and then seeing fines just pile up. So I certainly am supporting the bill today.

I just think that you may want to work with the cities, work with the communities to make sure that this is as narrow as it needs to be for the population that you're looking to help. We had a motion. I think we have a second as well. Would you like to close before we take a vote?

I really appreciate your comments, Madam Chair, and the work of your Committee with our staff, as well as comments and questions from colleagues as indicated during the conversation. In terms of those being able to kind of get away with it, what have you, we're talking about folks making $900 to $2,000 a month. So these are people that are in dire poverty for the most part in our state.

And the other aspect of it is that, oftentimes, low income households have one vehicle shared amongst many, many people. I saw this a lot when I was working as a public defender, where there'd be, one of the children would rack up some tickets and the mom trying to get to work, having her car towed.

And I think that we have to recognize the reverberation, that ripple effect that the towing of a car has on a low income family is far greater than on a higher income family, which can be a big pain, but it doesn't completely disrupt their entire life, possibly having them lose their job, losing them their way to school. And so that's why I believe this is really important. That's why I believe the punishment doesn't fit the crime currently. And I think we can do it in a better way. And for that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Very well said. Okay, we have a motion, a second, can we have a roll call, please?

AB 1082. The motion is due. Pass and refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

I'll vote for this, but I echo the Chair's comments, every single word. And I really, really hope you could work with our opposition because everything she said is a huge concern.

[Roll Call]

We have 10 votes. The bill is out. Okay. Assembly Member Cervantes, welcome. You and your witnesses may proceed when you're ready. Is your microphone on? You need to push the button. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members, for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 832, which is a follow up to my own Assembly Bill 179 from 2017. The bill was approved by this Committee and signed into law then. This bill does urge the Governor to make every effort to ensure that individuals with professional experience working in environmental justice are represented among the voting membership of the California Transportation Commission.

While Governor Newsom has heeded this call with his CTC appointments, there is no guarantee that future governors will follow his example, as existing law does not impose an explicit requirement on future governors to do so. This bill will provide this guarantee by requiring the Governor to appoint at least one individual with professional experience in environmental justice as a voting member of the CTC. This is merely an upgrade that states make every effort suggesting language to "shall require".

And this is an important issue for our environmental justice communities. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, as of 2021, 9.6 million Californians, or 24.3% of the state population, live in census tracts that are designated as disadvantaged communities disproportionately affected by pollution. It is vital that the CTC continue to have the perspectives of these disadvantaged communities when making important transportation policy decisions. This bill will make it a reality regardless of who occupies the governor's office.

This move would not be unprecedented elsewhere in the state government. AB 832 would merely align the CTC with the Air Resource Board as well as the Coastal Commission in guaranteeing environmental justice representation among its voting members. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I don't have any witnesses in support on file or in opposition. Is there anyone in the room wishing to testify in support of the Bill?

Bill McGovern with Coalition for Clean Air, in support.

Thank you. Anyone wishing to testify in opposition? Okay, Operator, can you open up the phone lines for AB 832 please

If you are in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero for supporter opposition. We will go line 24. Your line is open. Do you have us on mute, line 24? We will move on. And we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Thank you. We'll go to the Committee. Questions? Comments? Seeing none, we have a motion and a second. Did you need to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote on behalf of the communities across California that are asking for a representation on the CTC.

Thank you. I'm supporting the Bill and thank you for bringing it forward. Can we have a roll call, please?

AB 832, due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

It's nine to two. The Bill is out. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members.

I have my two bills. I'm going to pass the mic to a Committee Member until the Vice Chair returns. When the Vice Chair returns, I would request that the gavel be passed back to him. Mr. Carrillo was so excited before to be chairing. I'm going to give him his chance now.

Thank you, Assembly Member Friedman. Please, you can start when you're ready.

Thank you. I'm going to start with AB 6. Members, reports from the Legislative Analyst Office, the Strategic Growth Council, and the University of California Institute of Transportation Studies all conclude that legislative action is necessary to continue moving away from how we've traditionally funded our transportation infrastructure. Even more recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest report warns that Earth is likely to cross a critical threshold for global warming within the next decade.

The report from scientists around the world calls for an immediate and drastic shift away from fossil fuels in order to prevent the planet from overheating dangerously. And according to Hosang Lee, chair of the IPCC, the pace and scale of what has been done so far in the current plans are insufficient to tackle climate change.

With nearly 40% of California's GHG emissions generated by the transportation sector, the state's climate goals require urgently addressing how regions plan sustainable communities and promote improved transportation choices that reduce growth in number of VMT and GHG. In order to reach our state's climate goals, it's going to take state and locals working together at the same pace of change. This is the intent of these two bills, AB six and AB seven.

Now, SB 375 was authored by Mayor Darryl Steinberg nearly 15 years ago, and this bill is building off of that landmark legislation to ensure that land use planning is efficiently used to reduce the state's GHGs. The bill also, sorry, AB six, makes good governance changes in the SB 375 process by requiring CARB set regional GHD targets for 2035 and 2045. The bill also adds concrete timelines for MPOs, those who are planning organizations, to submit technical methodology, and the SES itself after adoption to CARB.

In addition, AB six requires, rather than encourages, MPOs to work with CARB as CARB reviews and approves the technical methodology. I want to be clear that this is an ongoing conversation as we refine and discuss the language, and I'm hoping that this new collaborative process, which we didn't really do last year, but we are doing this year, will yield the effective changes in land use that we need to meet our GHG reduction targets set under SB 375 nearly 15 years ago.

I want to thank the Committee staff and Mayor Steinberg for their hard work on the ongoing stakeholder process. And I want to thank the Members of that very large group, which includes representatives of the Environmental Justice, Local Government Housing and labor sectors.

Testifying in support this afternoon is Zach Yates, Chief of Staff for Mayor Steinberg, and Roger Dickinson, the Policy Director from Civic Well. Right now, we have no registered opposition in this bill, and I would respectfully request an aye vote from everyone so that we can continue to discuss this important topic. We have lots of motions, so my witnesses will be very brief today. Thank you. Whoever wants to go first. Yeah.

Mr. Vice Chair and Members, good afternoon. I'm Roger Dickinson, the Policy Director for Civic Well, previously the Local Government Commission. Assembly Member Friedman has described the bill well and the process that we're engaged in and want to thank her for her leadership. I've been deeply involved in efforts to integrate land use and transportation for multiple decades as a county supervisor, as a Member of the Assembly, and as a citizen to promote a stronger economy, a healthier environment, and sustainable communities.

While we have made important progress, the work is far from complete. Assembly Member Friedman, along with Mayor Steinberg, have brought together a full spectrum of interest to engage in the challenging and difficult conversations necessary to address how we can collectively advance our social, economic, and environmental goals grounded in how we develop our communities and apply our transportation resources.

I've worked closely with Assembly Member Friedman's staff to engage a stakeholder process that offers that possibility I'm encouraged that so many have joined the effort in good faith to try to find an approach that will build on SB 375 and result in identifiable and measurable progress to use our transportation resources more effectively to one, bring greater equity to those who have been historically overlooked and disenfranchised, two, to enhance mobility for people and goods and, three, meet the air quality and climate crisis that confronts us.

We're endeavoring to use this good work done in the previous SB 150 and AB 285 reports to lay a foundation for our work. We're listening to all voices and taking all suggestions. The process is time consuming and demanding, but with as much as 40% of our GHG emissions coming from the transportation sector, it is crucial to chart a better course. More than ever, the climate crisis compels us to act. I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you, Vice Chair, and thank you, Members of the Committee. My name is Zach Yates. I'm sitting in on behalf of Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg. As author of SB 375, Mayor Steinberg acknowledges that no legislation is perfect or untouchable and sees that there's a real opportunity here to ensure that our climate goals meet the requisite level of accountability, but also a level of simplicity, specificity, and funding to encourage smart growth while reducing GHT and VMT.

AB 6 and 7, which come in after, are means to answer the daunting challenges that our state, regional, and local planners face with the urgency that the climate crisis demands. Many of our local regional transit agencies face a real budget crunch. You all are working within a deficit budget, all while working to ensure future transportation projects support the high quality smart growth projects that address both our housing and climate crises.

So again, Mayor Steinberg applauds the Chair for bringing labor, environmental justice, industry and regional planning leaders to the table to work collaboratively on these issues and commits his continued engagement and support as the legislative process continues.

Thank you very much. We will now go to opposition. Is there any opposition that wants to come forward and speak?

How about support?

We're going to do that after the formal support and opposition. Go ahead.

Good afternoon, my name is Mark Watts. I'm here on behalf of Transportation California. I want to stress we are not in opposition. We did submit a work with author letter and we want to make a few comments. We understand and have very much appreciated being part of the stakeholder outreach group that the author mentioned. And I'd also like to point out that as we review those reports that report on the progress of SES, we see it a little bit differently, but not too much.

We think that the state must develop revenues to fund the supportive infrastructure that is necessary so that sustainable community plans can move forward and come to life. So with that, appreciate the opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness in opposition.

Bill Higgins. Not in opposition. We're also part of the stakeholder group. We have concerns, but we also believe in the process and appreciate the Member's leadership in bringing us together to have conversations.

And as an example of that, in echoing the last person, by the way, I'm not going to get up and say the same thing for seven. I'm just going to say this once. All right, is we're taking a look at an ARB document that has 56 recommendations for improvement. And I would just suggest for you all that 52 of those 56 recommendations involve state action and state greater state support for our efforts. And we're looking forward to diving into those issues with the Member. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We will now go to public testimony in support in the room. Please come forward. Me too is appreciated, but name, organization, and position.

Bill McGovern with the Coalition for Clean Air, in support.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else in the room, we'll go to the telephone lines. Those who would like to speak in support, please queue up. Operator, please proceed.

For support of AB six, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and zero for support of AB six. And we do have a few queuing up. One moment please. And we will go to line 27. Your line is open.

This is Marc Vukcevich, Co-Director of State Policy for Streets For All calling in support. Thank you.

Next witness, our next participant.

Thank you. Line 14, your line is open.

Hi, this is Zak Accuardi, Senior Transportation Advocate at NRDC, expressing our support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 17. Your line is open.

Hello, I'm Lucia Muñoz with California Environmental Voters to register our support for AB six.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 19. Your line is open.

This is Carol Weed, representing 350 Bay Area Action, in support.

Thank you. And we have no further support in queue.

Thank you. Those in opposition that want to provide public testimony, please come forward. Seeing nobody in the room. Operator, anyone who wants to speak in opposition, please proceed.

Thank you. For an opposition of AB six, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero for opposition. And we have no opposition queue.

Thank you. Operator. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Do any of the Members on the Committee have any questions? Senator Hart?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. And just a question for the author. I appreciate the intent of the bill and how important this is and the stakeholder process that you're working through. Just want to make sure that HOV projects would still be considered under bullet point seven, where they're applying for solutions for congested corridors program to make sure that they're not disadvantaged in that specific example.

Yeah, I would think that HOV projects are not considered capacity increasing projects. Rather, you could certainly make the argument that they reduce the amount of car trips because you're putting more people taking them out of multiple cars and putting them into one car. That would be my position on that.

I appreciate that.

Just for those, we don't know if the mic was working, but the question to the audience was on HOV lanes and whether they were included in this bill. Any other questions from the Committee? I do have a quick question, Madam Chair, in terms of, I know this bill is trying to reduce the need for cars, and you can clarify if that generalization is accurate.

For those of us who live in the rural areas in the Central Valley, we certainly are clamoring for improvements in the 99 and to the major congestion corridors and major supply and goods movement corridors. Does this type of analysis or review impact those types of projects?

Well, I think that the goal would be to see if your planning organizations have alternatives kind of out there and where they are in their priorities and in certain parts of the state they may not. There may not be an alternative to a capacity increasing project, but there also could be if it's a developing community.

So if it's a town, for instance, that's growing, it might want to encourage them to grow in a way that's more sustainable, more walkable, bikeable, rather than creating sort of a giant sprawl community near that more urbanized center. It's more about connecting those land use decisions with the kinds of transportation projects that are going to service that. It does not impact things like road safety, road maintenance, making sure that we have efficiency.

If you're wanting to create new vehicle infrastructure that reduces travel time, reduces travel distance, that would be something that this would be favorable towards. So it's not so prescriptive as to sort of say, you may not do this, that, or the other thing. It's asking our communities to say, are you growing? How are you going to support that growth? What are the transportation projects that are most likely to both support your growing population and do it in a way that doesn't radically increase GHG emissions?

I think we can continue to have that conversation. I think that's the concern, is that we want the 99 for safety reasons, but certainly for other reasons as well, for goods movement to have three lanes each way. We have a lot of rural communities that have unsafe two lane roads, that we want to add lanes each side, truck climbing lanes, or an area just for safety reasons.

So they just do serve a purpose as for safety reasons, but they also expand capacity, which I will respectfully say that is necessary in many instances. And so that I think is going to be kind of a challenge. But I appreciate your answers. I invite you to close on your bill if you wish to do so.

Just these are exactly the kind of conversations that we're having with stakeholders, and that's why we are including stakeholders from all across the state. It's the reason why my staff and I went to Fresno, as you very well know. We had a very nice time seeing you there as well, so that we can understand the different impact that the bills will have in different parts of the state. And we welcome and are seeking out that input from all the stakeholders that will be impacted by this. And we will continue to have those discussions as hopefully the bill is moved forward.

Yes.

Thank you. That reminded me of with the answer that you gave to the Vice Chair's question with planning for future development with land use and things that are going to be towards the future. The communities from Palmdale and Lancaster, about 60, 70% of the residents, commute down to LA, to Santa Clarita of San Fernando Valley. The 14th freeway has three choke points going down and coming up.

Would this be an opportunity for those choke points to be analyzed and see if that could be something that could be expanded so that there is no congestion along the 14th freeway?

Possibly. And certainly we want to make sure that parts of infrastructure that are increasing emissions because the existing traffic, for instance, is idling, or if there are safety issues, we certainly don't want the consideration of fixing that to stop. That's not the intent here. But the intent is also, while we're looking at things like a growing population in Palmdale, that we also evaluate bringing metro from LA to Palmdale in a way that makes it more convenient and faster for people, so that you give people alternatives.

And that's what's at the core of this, is what are we planning for? How are we planning for that equitable and sustainable mobility for everybody, for those low income workers who can't operate multiple cars in their family, but have many people who are going to work. For senior citizens in our aging population who we don't want to be driving at 80, 90 years old.

Like I said, it's not so prescriptive, but it is trying to also look at the ways that we can make our roads safer and also invest in the kind of projects that we know we need to have to be sustainable moving forward.

Could it then help in doubling the Metrolink trips coming to the Antelope Valley? Because there's already a Metrolink service going from Lancaster to Union Station. But the problem is that there's only one line of trucks which is mainly operated by Union Pacific, and that limits the number of trips that Metrolink can do up to the Antelope Valley. Would this then be a way to help in resolving that issue?

Well, part of the intent of this bill is to move funding into projects that are more sustainable, like mass transit. So I can't say that any particular project will be helped, but the whole idea here is that we take some of our funding, which is limited, we only have one pot of funding, and that we do try to put some of it into some of these projects, like exactly that.

But again, I can't speak to any particular project, but I would love to work with you, just in general, on how we help Metro and Metrolink increase their ridership, increase the convenience of their offerings, and so happy to continue to work with you into the future on that.

Thank you for that. Thank you, Vice Chair.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Seeing no other questions and we had to close. Do we have a motion? Second? All right. Sorry I came in a little late there. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

I have ten to three.

Ten to three, and we'll leave the vote open for absent Members. We'll now proceed to File Item 15: AB 7. Madam Chair, please proceed when you're ready.

So this is the second bill in this two bill package, and I won't repeat what I said before; all of the same intention is there. What's different about this is that this bill tries to align our project selection process for six transportation funding accounts to incorporate nine principles from the 2021 Federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. And the reason is because there's a lot of money coming from the federal government for sustainable transportation.

And if we better align our funding with the federal government's priorities, we stand, as California, to have a better chance at bringing federal money into the state for our transportation projects. With that, I would like to move to my witnesses; again, Mr. Dickinson from CivicWell, and now Bill Magavern for the Coalition for Clean Air.

First witness, please proceed when you're ready.

Thanks, and thanks, Mr. Vice Chair. I'm still Roger Dickinson, Policy Director for CivicWell, and just a comment or two on this. While we know that crucial land use and transportation decisions are made at the local level, enormously important direction is also adopted at the state and federal levels. Just as with AB 6, we want to work with that group of stakeholders to ensure that what happens at the state level with the use of both state and federal funds reinforces our equity, transportation, and climate goals.

While when we look at housing, for example, we know that the Legislature and the Governor have taken groundbreaking steps to permit and incentivize greater production of housing and patterns that will serve equity, economic, and climate imperatives. AB 2011 and SB 6 from last year are only two examples of that. Now we need to employ state and federal transportation resources to align with that work.

For example, consider all the older commercial corridors across the state, which can benefit from AB 2011 and SB 6 but need a complementary investment in transit and active transportation to meet their full promise. Just as you have elevated the state role in housing, AB 7 can provide both the resources and the direction to local communities to help them play an integral role in meeting the challenge. Our resources are obviously limited. Our time is clearly short. The state's commitment must be clear and unambiguous. I respectfully urge your aye vote, and thank you again.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please proceed.

Bill Magavern with the Coalition for Clean Air, with a few brief points. In California, transportation accounts for about 80 percent of our air pollution and about half of our greenhouse gas emissions when you include the upstream emissions. And in addition to that, we have too many Californians who do not have access to convenient and affordable and clean transportation. So we need to solve those problems. Electrifying transportation is essential, but it's not sufficient. We also need to provide our residents with better transportation choices.

And a number of reports, including some commissioned by this Legislature, have demonstrated that currently the state's transportation programs are not aligned with the need to deliver healthy air to our residents and to meet the targets that the Legislature has set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This bill would seek to address that by bringing climate and air quality and transportation policy into better alignment. So we support AB 7. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now move to the opposition. I don't have any listed, but please come forward. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Keith Dunn, here on behalf of the Self Help Counties Coalition as well as the District Council of Iron Workers. And again, I'd like to thank Committee staff and the author for the working groups. We have had productive conversations. I would like to say that anything that we do moving forward I think should be incentive-based.

I will point out that the local agencies spend 47 percent of our revenue, which is five billion dollars annually on transit and transit operations, and 150,000,000 give or take on ATP. So the locals are doing our share. It's unfortunate the Governor's budget currently has a reduction in the state's investment in active transportation and transit. We'd love to see an opportunity, and everybody tells me we don't have any money. I get it.

But we do have other opportunities to look at mechanisms like extending the cap and trade to allow for bonding. Anything that we do moving forward that starts to touch on redirecting local money is a nonstarter for us. So just to put that on record, and I've said this to our working group, anything that goes after local dollars will come out and be aggressively in opposition too. We're looking to encourage incentives. We think that there's opportunity for incentives.

We look forward to continuing to work down that road, and I think that there's a lot of options for Californians if we make the investments, and lining up our state, federal, and local dollars makes a lot of sense. So we're absolutely in favor of trying to get as much money for California as possible.

We think that Caltrans's Strategic Investment Strategies document, which is a new prism for which they're looking at approving projects, is a process that's moving forward that may be aligned with things that we're trying to do here with this bill that the Administration is looking at already. Certainly the Transportation Commission reviews and adopts policies for how projects are funded, and that's a process that has played out over time.

So it's concerning sometimes when we start looking at redirecting some of those decisions that have been borne out over SB 1 on the development of those guidelines. But again, we're here to participate in the process, and again, we'd look to encourage incentives that make either funding available or look for incentives in either moving a project to the front of the approval line, and I'm not going to say CEQA, but something like that. So thank you, Mr. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Next witness in opposition. Two minutes.

Thank you so much. Nichole Trujillo Rice, on behalf of the California State Building Construction Trades Council. We are not opposed. We are happy to be at the stakeholders' table and having conversations. We've been engaged with the author's office, but we do align our comments with Mr. Dunn and the other Building Trades affiliates that have been engaged. We need to be cautiously optimistic and again express our concerns with any redirection of transportation infrastructure funding. Thank you so much.

Thank you. For efficiency purposes, I'm going to ask for anyone who wants to testify either in opposition or in support or whatever position you have to come forward in the room. Please come forward.

Zachary Yeates, Mayor Steinberg's Office, in support.

Seeing no other individuals in the audience, I'll now go to the operator. Operator, if anyone wants to provide public testimony for AB 7, please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 7, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero for support or opposition. And we will go to line 17. Your line is open. Line 17, your line is open.

Hi. Lucia Menia with California Environmental Voters, in support of AB 7.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 19. Your line is open.

This is Carol Weed representing 350 Bay Area Action, in support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 14. Your line is open. Line 14, your line is open. Do you have us on mute?

Suzaku Cardi at NRDC, addressing our support.

Thank you. And we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Thank you, Operator. We'll now bring it back to the Committee for any Members who have any questions. No other questions? I guess my only question is kind of aligned to the previous ones. This certainly does kind of provide a reorganization of priorities, and again, in terms of traffic capacity in all those projects, do you envision a diversion of funds away from any of those projects?

Well, this is really about how the MPOs prioritize the projects that they have on their lists, and all of these organizations have a variety of projects, and the question is which ones rise to the top, right? And certainly we would like them to look at projects that are sustainable, projects that reduce GHG while meeting their transportation needs and the mobility needs of residents.

So again, we're not going to sit up here and pick projects for them, but we would like them to try to align their project selection with what the federal government has stated their priorities are and what the projects are that they're looking to try to help states fund. We think that there's a real benefit to bringing money into the state to align our priority kind of criteria with theirs.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.

But there will certainly be times when an MPO may only have one project, so it's not going to necessarily take money away from them and give them to another locality. They have a certain pot of money that they have access to. This is about the projects that they already have kind of on their wish list.

I appreciate that. I think there's a natural tension between there's only a certain amount of resources that's out there, and while I appreciate that in certain areas it is worthwhile to have more active transportation transit, in rural communities, we just need capacity, especially as we grow. And as you said before in your previous bill, the housing alignments, as more people move into my community, we're just going to have a need for that.

And the 46--I won't speak to my colleague in Lancaster, Palmdale--but 14, I've driven the 14 and seen that congestion. We don't want to prevent those expansion projects from happening because we need to build things that we can avoid that. I know we have a motion and a second. Madam Chair, would you like to close?

I guess I would just say that I live in a community where the highway right next to my daughter's school that's literally a stone's throw from an elementary school was expanded recently, and I don't think that if you went to bipartisan group of voters in my district, it would be pretty unanimous that they are kind of sorry that that highway was expanded. We have not seen free-flowing traffic. In fact, we see more congestion.

We see a lot of disruption to the houses that were around that, the properties that were around that highway, and it took about 15 years. So I would just say for communities that are growing, that you can look at the old sort of 1950s, 1960s highway expansion projects that were around Los Angeles and say, 'is that what we want our communities to be or is there a better way to move people around and a better way to develop?'

And hopefully they can learn from our mistakes as well and do something that is still meeting with the safety needs and the growth needs of communities, but do it in a way that avoids those past mistakes, and that's what we're hoping to have. Move those conversations forward as well. And again, we have a very large group of stakeholders and I would ask your indulgence to allow us to continue those discussions. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have a motion and second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 7: the motion is 'do pass and refer to the Committee on Appropriations.' [Roll Call].

Thank you.

That's ten/four; we'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Mr. Gipson is on a roll, wants to move through. I think that concludes our file. I'm going to hand the gavel back over to the Chair for that.

Thank you all. Can we have a motion on the consent calendar? We have a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

[Roll Call].

14 to zero.

Consent calendar is adopted. Let's to go to the top and start taking roll call on the bills.

AB 276, the motion is due pass and refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

We have 13 votes. The Bill is out.

AB 630 is due pass and refer to Appropriations. Friedman-

We need a motion we need a motion on that. We have a motion and a second. Okay, roll call. I'm an aye.

[Roll call]

That's 14. That bill is out. We're going to move to AB 756. Can we have a motion? Motion and a second. Roll call, please.

AB 756, due pass and refer to Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials. [Roll call]

10 to three. That bill is out. We're going to move now to AB 1436. We have a motion. Sorry, 1463. We have a motion and a second.

AB 1463, due pass and refer to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. [Roll call]

It's nine to four. And that Bill gets out, moving to file item six, AB 832. Call the roll. Madam Chair.

AB 832 is due pass and refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

10 to three. That bill gets out. File item seven, AB 1267. Madam Chair, please call the roll.

Okay, AB 1267 is due. Pass and re-refer to the Committee on Natural Resources. [Roll call]

15-0. That bill gets out. File item eight, AB 1335. Madam Chair, call the roll.

AB 1335, due pass and refer to Appropriations. [Roll call]

11 to three. That bill gets out. We're going to file item 10, AB 1082. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Okay, AB 1082 is due. Pass and refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

11 to two. That bill gets out. File item- We did 12 already. We're moving to file item 14, AB 6. Oh, I'm sorry. File item 12. Mr. Ward.

File item 12, AB 1463, due pass, refer to Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. [Roll call]

10-4. Bill gets out. Now moving to AB six, file item 14. Madam Chair or Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB six, due pass and refer to Appropriations. [Roll call]

11-3. Bill gets out. File item 15, AB 7.

I'm sorry. The vote count on AB 832 is 11 to four.

That was AB 6, file item 14?

File item six, AB 832 remains 11 to three. Sorry for the confusion. AB 6, file item number 14 is due pass and refer to Natural Resources. [Roll call]

11-4. That bill gets out and then file item 15, AB 7.

AB 7 is due pass and re-refer to Appropriations. [Roll call]

11-4. Bill gets out. I think Mr. Ward has to add on to a few more. So let's just roll through for Mr. Ward.

So file item one, AB 276. [Roll call]

14-0. We're number file item one. Oh, do we do consent for Mr. Ward?

Consent calendar. [Roll call]

15-0. File item four for Mr. Ward.

File item four, AB 630. Due pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

15-0. File item five.

File item five, AB 756. Due pass and refer to Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials. [Roll call]

11-3 for file item five. File item six, AB 832.

My apologies. I got a little confused on that one. AB 832 due pass and refer to Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

12-3. That bill gets out. I think we got everybody. All right. This Committee is now adjourned.