Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

Good afternoon. The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. Welcome, everybody. The hearing room is open for attendance of this hearing and it can also be watched from a live stream on the Assembly's website. We encourage the public to provide written testimony by visiting the Committee website and note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered a public test testimony and 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 the hearing room. Additional witness comments will be limited to your name, organization and position only, and those comments can be either in person or on the telephone. We're going to start that part of the testimony with the Members of the public who are here in the room and then move to blended testimony on the phone line to use our telephone service.

The number to call is 877-692-8957 and the access code is 1851100. Finally, 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 process, I will direct them to stop and warn them that the 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 have to temporarily recess the hearing. If the conduct doesn't stop, I will request the assistance of the sergeants in escorting the individual from the building.

I thank you for your cooperation, and as soon as we have a Member of the minority party, we can bring in our hearing. We'll wait on roll call until we have a quorum today. We're going to have 11 bills on consent, and then we will again call for that vote. Once we have a quorum. We're going to have seven bills to discuss today. And just for the public to know, file item number 10, AB 832 by Cervantes will not be heard today.

Okay, we've just been told that we can go ahead and start. We've been given permission by the Vice Chair, so we're going to start with our first Bill, AB 413, by Assembly Member Lee. Mr. Lee, you and your witnesses may approach and you may begin whenever you're ready. And I want to thank Mr. Fong in his absence.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I want to begin by saying I will accept the Committee amendments in RN 231-293 which disallow parking within 15ft of intersection if there's a curb extension. California's pedestrian fatality rate is almost 25% higher than the national average. AB 413 will make the intersection safer by increasing visibility using a strategy called daylighting. Daylighting is a traffic safety measure that restricts on-street parking. There are 43 other states that implement daylighting.

AB 143 disallows parking within 20ft of intersections or within 15ft if an intersection. If there's a curb extension. The desire for parking must be balanced against the need to protect people from dying and preventable traffic collisions. There is research showing that low-income areas are hurt the most by pedestrian deaths, with pedestrian crashes are four times as frequent in low-income neighborhoods. This Bill will increase traffic safety and save lives.

With that, I'd like to introduce my two witnesses, Mark Vukcevich on behalf of the Streets for All and Andreas Ramirez on behalf of the City of Fremont. So, Mark, do you want to go first?

Absolutely. Good afternoon, Committee. My name is Mark Vukcevich and I'm the Co-Director of State Policy for Streets for All. We're an organization that advocates for statewide for safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation and we're the proud sponsors of AB 413. AB 413 requires daylighting at crosswalks. It's a small tweak that saves countless lives.

This Bill will improve pedestrian and cyclist safety on California's roads. This proposed legislation would prohibit vehicles from parking or stopping within 20ft of a marked crosswalk, a practice known as daylighting. AB 413 would make intersections safer by widening sight lines, giving drivers better vision when looking out for pedestrians, and allowing people to more safely and comfortably cross at the most dangerous part of the street, the intersection.

In California, pedestrian fatalities are over 25% higher than the national average and in 2021, pedestrian deaths in the U.S. reached a four-decade high with California topping the list. Daylighting is a proven safety technique for everyone, especially for shorter folks who are shorter than a car, like kids and folks in wheelchairs who are peeking out behind the parked car when trying to cross at the crosswalk, leading to a dangerous situation. And that's what daylighting solves. Daylighting is widely accepted.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proven it to be effective in reducing pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and injuries. And the National Association of City Transportation Officials, a group of engineers and transportation planners who dedicate their focus on street design standards recommend daylighting with a 20 to 25-foot treatment. And that's exactly what we're doing in this Bill.

And to address the opposition who want us to exclude very large trucks, that's the problem right there is that we can't see our kids or sometimes even the stop signs behind those large trucks that are parked at a crosswalk right there. So this safety measure is affordable and will cost little to none, making it a practical and effective solution to improving the safety at intersections, which to say again, is really the most dangerous part of the street, the intersection.

We ask for your support on this life saving Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to pause the testimony for a moment so that we can establish a quorum. Can we have a roll call, please?

[Roll call].

Okay, we have a quorum. Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Andres Ramirez, on behalf of the City of Fremont here to express the city's very strong support of AB 413. Little background, the City of Fremont adopted a Vision Zero policy in 2015, which is a comprehensive approach to the implementation and planning of roadway infrastructure that considers the loss of life from traffic crashes to be unacceptable.

Part of this policy and subsequently adopted program has resulted in significant reductions in traffic fatalities, over 40% in the City of Fremont, through the use of daylighting and other improvements. Fremont has implemented numerous daylighting projects, particularly in school zones, through the use of parking restrictions as well as quick-build curb extensions, both of which have proven to be quicker and easier to build than traditional infrastructure projects while also being significantly more cost-effective as previously noted.

As previously noted, in 2022, a seven-year-old boy on a bicycle was struck by a vehicle and killed in his Fremont neighborhood. The limited visibility between the boy and the motorist at the intersection where another vehicle was parked close to the corner was identified as a contributing factor to the tragic incident. Incidents like these shock communities and daylighting improvements not only increases the actual safety, but they increase the public's comfort with participating in active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking.

In response to some of the opposition concerns noted in the Committee analysis, usually, commercial vehicle parking and loading demands occur in industrial areas, and industrial areas do tend to have other parking options that reduce the need to be parked at a street corner on a standard block. Additionally, we concur with the Committee analysis that larger size of delivery vehicles and trucks is even more likely to significantly reduce the visibility this Bill intends to provide for drivers, pedestrians, cyclists for safety purposes.

In all, the city firmly believes that the simple modifications to improve intersection safety, as AB 413 has identified, is a good practice that will save lives of many Californians, especially young pedestrians and the elderly, and foster communities in which residents are willing to walk and ride more frequently. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and happy to answer any questions that the Committee may have.

Thank you. And we're going to wait until the very end of all the testimony for questions. Is there anybody in the room wishing to add their support for this item? If so, the witnesses in opposition are welcome to come up to the table at this point, but we'll ask for support witnesses in the room to please come up to the microphone.

Hi, Jared Sanchez with CalBike and we're in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room? Okay, seeing none, we'll move to the opposition witnesses two minutes apiece. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Friedman and Committee Members. Chris Shamoda with the California Trucking Association. CTA must unfortunately oppose AB 413 unless amended to allow local government flexibility to exempt short-term commercial vehicle loading and unloading. Daylighting has traditionally been implemented on a limited basis in high-traffic incident intersections to increase pedestrian and bicyclist visibility. Expanding this practice to all California streets would decrease already scarce curb space for commercial deliveries by at least 40ft per city block or an estimated 15% overhaul.

A 2023 survey by the American Transportation Research Institute found that lack of parking is the number one issue for America's truck drivers. E-commerce and mixed-use development will continue to increase demand for deliveries in dense urban areas where curb space is already scarce. While we understand and as noted in our letter, support Assembly Member Lee's intent to improve roadway safety, a further 15% reduction in curb space for delivery drivers would greatly exacerbate the number one issue for America's truck drivers.

For these reasons, we must respectfully oppose AB 413, unless amended to exempt commercial vehicle loading and unloading. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Shane Gusman, on behalf of the Teamsters. First in opposition and first, I just want to apologize for our late opposition. We were told on Friday afternoon that amendments wouldn't be taken to the Bill, so we had to get our opposition in late. Nonetheless, we share the concerns of the Trucking Association about having adequate place to get a place for our delivery drivers to get out of traffic. For us, it's a slightly different take on it, though.

It's not so much about convenience, it's more about the safety of our members. If you drive in any urban area, you'll see double-parked folks who are delivering products, delivering packages to consumers, the corner grocery store. A lot of times, if there's no parking space for them, they're out in the middle of traffic. They're either double parked or parked in the middle of. When there's one of those suicide lanes and they're carrying carts of products across busy streets.

And for us, every space you eliminate for them to get closer to the curb is just more instances of our folks out in traffic in harm's way. We totally get wanting to protect pedestrians. We share that concern. We have no doubt that that's the intent of the Bill. Our concern is that it shouldn't be one of those we'll make you safer at the expense of making someone less safe.

And I think we could probably work together to come up with some sort of solution that works for our members. But as the way this Bill is currently drafted, we feel it makes our members less safe.

Okay, thank you. And now we'll move to any opposition that's in the room. If you are opposed to the Bill, please come to the microphone. Okay, seeing none. We're going to go to the phones for both support and opposition to the Bill over the phone lines. Operator, if you could open up the phone lines for AB 413, please?

Ladies and gentlemen, if you are in support or opposition, please press one, then zero on your phone. You will then receive a line number and be placed back into the queue. If you have a speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing your numbers. Once again, if you are in support or opposition of AB 413, one then zero. And we do have a few queuing up here, so it'll be just one moment. Okay. And it looks like we will go to line number 10. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon, Chair and Committee. This is David Azevedo with AARP California in support.

Thank you. Next, we will go to line number 25. Please go ahead.

This is Heather Delamartin from Disability Rights California and we support AB 413. Thank you.

Thank you. We will go to line number seven. Please, go ahead.

Topher Mathers, Active San Gabriel Valley. We support AB 413.

Thank you. Next we will go to line number 23. Line number 23, your line is open.

In south LA in support of this Bill. Thanks.

Okay, and then next we will go to. Let's see here. We have line number 14 waiting here. All right, we will go to line number 14. Pease, go ahead.

Hi, my name is John Kerr and I support this AB 413.

All right, thank you. We do not have any more in the queue, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Then we're going to move to questions and comments from the Committee. Any Committee Members wish to speak on this item? Yes.

I do. Thank you. I understand the pedestrian safety. I think that that's something that we should all keep in mind. I also understand the concerns from the opposition as far as making goods deliveries. Nevertheless, I think that we should be planning for pedestrians. I'm a city planner by profession. I have experienced how zoning codes typically favor vehicles based on parking requirements and those kind of things. For that reason, I think that I am going to support as proposed.

But I do see here that an amendment is being proposed. Is that 20ft going to go down to 15ft? Is that going to be? Thank you.

Any other Committee Members? So this is one of these discussions where the Trucking Association and the Teamsters certainly have a very valid point. And I think all of us are sympathetic to what we've seen in our streets, especially with the increase in e-commerce and delivery, with trucks having to deliver in places that were not designed for trucks to deliver, and the struggles that those drivers go through sometimes, I would say very valiantly, to try to serve customers.

And we all recognize that there are certainly problems by lack of parking in a lot of our areas. On the other hand, we have seen, unfortunately, fatalities because of the lack of visibility. And all of us have had the experience of stepping behind, particularly a large truck into a crosswalk and just knowing that we're going to have to just sort of put out an arm and maybe a head and try to sneak out, because the drivers just can't see. So I am going to support the Bill.

I would encourage the author to continue to work with the opposition to see if there are any ways of addressing any of their concerns along the process. And if there's any areas where clearly pedestrians just aren't going to be, that maybe can be carved out of this as well. Private property, places where there's walls, that sort of thing. With that, I will support the Bill and ask for a roll call. I'm sorry, first of all, would you like to close? And then we do need a motion as well.

Yes, I would just like to say thank you for the Committee Member's support and the Chair's support of this Bill. I think that, well, obviously California has 25% higher pedestrian fatalities than the rest of the country. We clearly have a problem, and if we are giving up some parking spaces. I think it's a small inconvenience to save a lot of lives. So I respectfully ask for Ivo.

Okay, do we have a motion? We have a motion. Okay, we have a motion in a second. Can we have a roll call, please?

[Roll call].

10 to two. That Bill is out. Thank you. We're going to take a motion on the consent calendar. Can we have a motion, please?

We have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call on the consent calendar?

[Roll call].12.

The consent calendar is 12 votes. It has been adopted. We're now moving to AB 591 by Assembly Member Gabriel. You may begin when you are ready, sir.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and colleagues and I want to thank you first and your Committee staff for their helpful feedback and thoughtful assistance on this Bill. The premise of this Bill is just that we need a lot more EV chargers in the State of California, and we have offered a number of solutions to that this year, this being one of them. And also starting from the premise that charging your EV should be as easy as filling up your tank at a gas station.

And unfortunately, that is not currently the case. EV charger connectors, which determine whether a vehicle can charge when it arrives at a charging station, remain fragmented across different vehicle and charger models. And so this Bill would mandate that all new and retrofitted publicly available EV chargers have universal connectors and be publicly accessible to all types of EVs.

That is essential not only for increasing driver confidence in our state's charging network and addressing range anxiety, which is a significant impediment to people buying EVs, but it's also essential for reducing carbon emissions and meeting our ambitious climate goals. This Bill builds on recent federal action taken by the Biden-Harris Administration that outlines new nationwide plans for creating convenient and reliable electric vehicle charging networks. So this Bill is, we think, an important step forward.

And with me to testify today are Leslie Aguayo from the Greenlining Institute and Anthony Sampson from the California New Car Dealers Association. Thank you.

Thank you. And each witness will have two minutes. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Friedman and Committee Members. My name is Leslie Aguayo. I'm the Senior Program Manager of Climate Equity at the Greenlining Institute and a co-sponsor of AB 591. At Greenlining, we work towards a future where communities of color can build wealth, live in healthy places filled with economic opportunity, and are ready to meet the challenges posed by climate change.

To be ready to meet the challenges posed by climate change, it is imperative to ensure all Californians have equitable access to clean and reliable transportation options. This means, as we move towards fulfilling our state's goal of reaching 100% zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035, we must ensure EV drivers can meet the demands of this decarbonized future and have access to easy and comprehensive charging infrastructure. Unfortunately, EV charging stations are currently not universally accessible and do not allow for a standardized user experience.

Depending on vehicle models and charger type, EV owners are left with a splintered network of charging stations that do not alleviate range anxiety nor incentivize EV ownership. And this inconvenience only compounds for low-income and disadvantaged communities in California who are disproportionately exposed to pollution and emissions from a transportation sector and who face greater barriers to entry in the EV market.

AB 591 would alleviate the range anxiety EV drivers experience by creating a system of universally compatible public charging stations at retrofitted and new sites, thus accelerating our EV sales targets and our greenhouse gas reduction goals, all while ensuring equal access to cleaner and healthier transportation options for all Californians. With billions of dollars for transportation decarbonization being invested in California from the Federal Government through President Biden's ambitious electrification policies, California is uniquely positioned as a state to lead the way nationally on climate justice.

This means ensuring we reach our climate goals through a process that prioritizes the health and quality of life of marginalized communities while rectifying the harms of past transportation and public health harms, AB 5091 is a meaningful step in the right direction towards achieving an equitable transportation future where EV charging is accessible and reliable to ensure clean mobility does not inhibit economic mobility. For all of the reasons stated above, the Greenlining Institute respectfully requests your Aye vote on this measure.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members Anthony Samson with Samson Advisors here on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association, pleased to support this measure today. CNCDA supports this measure for a very simple reason, and that is that they are committed to the transition to EVs. And in order to be able to facilitate that transition, consumers need to feel comfortable that they are going to be able to purchase those vehicles and be able to charge them in a very clear, consistent, and accessible manner.

This Bill helps us get there. We feel confident that those who are coming into dealerships today and who have indicated to dealers that they have in-range anxiety and are concerned about buying electric vehicles, we're confident that this Bill will help give and instill the confidence into those consumers so that they start purchasing those vehicles at a higher rate. For those reasons, we appreciate it and support the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone in the room wishing to testify in support of this Bill? Please come up to the microphone.

Sophia Aficova with the Coalition for Clean Air in support.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in support.

Good afternoon. Will Brigger, 350 Sacramento, in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone in opposition to this Bill? Please come up to the microphone. Okay, seeing none. We'll go to the phone lines. Operator, if you could open up the phone lines for AB 591, please?

Ladies and gentlemen, if you are in support or opposition of AB 591, please press one, then zero. That's AB 591. And we do have somebody here. Line number 12, please. Go ahead. They took themselves out here. Let's hold on. Let's try this again. Okay. Line number 12, go ahead. Your line is open. Line number 12?

This is Carol Weed on behalf of Sustainable Rossmoor in support.

All right. And we do not have any more in queue, Madam Chair.

Thank you. We'll go back to the Committee to see if there's any questions or comments. Assembly Member Carrillo.

Thank you. I want to thank the author for bringing this to this board. I think this is just another step closer to equitable EV charging infrastructure. I've experienced that myself where there's just a lot more EV charging for Teslas and not for the hybrids that we all drive. I've experienced that in the own district that I represent. I want to thank you for bringing us a little bit closer to equipment infrastructure. Thank you for doing that. I'm support of the Bill.

Thank you, Assembly Member Davies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, want to say thank you so much for bringing this forward. I think anything we can do to relieve anxiety so that people feel comfortable and confident that they can continue to drive is a great idea, and I'd be happy to be considered as a co-author. Thank you. And I'll make a motion to move.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. I don't see anyone else wishing to speak. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully request an Aye vote. Thank you.

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

[Roll call].

We have 12. This Bill is out. Thank you. I see. Assembly Member Schiavo, if you'd like to come up.

Madam Chair and Members, I am so excited to be here today to present on my first bill. No, you better let me talk about it. It. So I want to thank you for this opportunity to present on AB 823.

The bill identifies a new direction for the state to support the ever increasing fleet and zero emission vehicles by funding projects to build electrified streets and parking lots. Basically wireless charging while you drive or are parked, called inductive charging. It's based on the same magnetic coil system that we charge our phones wirelessly. We know California's charging infrastructure does not serve everyone the same. For renters, multifamily apartments, and older buildings, access to charging and at home is challenging, if it's possible at all.

When I purchased an EV last summer, I didn't have charging at my home for the first three months, and I quickly found that the whole north San Fernando Valley only has five fast chargers. Two of them are always broken. There's a line at the other two all the time. And so know, as a single working mom also running a campaign, I would spend hours trying to get a charge every day. And sometimes I just have to give up.

For heavy duty trucks, buses, and public transit, there are challenges with battery range, weight, and recharge times. The Committee analysis points to successful deployments in Washington, where electric buses are wirelessly charged at bus stops. Not only were operating costs cut in half compared to diesel, but the moments of charge that they received on stops and layovers provided enough range to stay in service for 12 to 14 hours a day, which led them to call the wireless charging a game changer.

Michigan also recently invested in a charging infrastructure pilot that integrated roadways to allow wireless charging on the go for your car and truck. By focusing on high traffic areas, new technologies can serve more car owners as they drive, wait for lights, deliver goods, and more. Four other states have started in road pilot projects as well.

And one of the reasons I started looking into this technology is because I drove with my daughter from LA to Sacramento for Thanksgiving last year, and it took us four extra hours when we stopped to charge from just LA to Sacramento. On the way back, we got a little more efficient, but it was still three extra hours, and my daughter on the way up was crying in a parking lot in the mall at 11:30 at night because it was taking so long for us to get there.

And she just wanted to see her cousin. So you can imagine that a world where you could instead charge while you drive on the five would be a game changer. Or in downtown LA or at ports where roads could be electrified. AB 823 allows us to reimagine how the state expands electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

And with federal investments in infrastructure, this is a perfect moment to look at how we can support getting to zero emission in a sustainable, long term way and help meet our massive charging infrastructure demands. I recognize that the Clean Transportation program is undergoing reauthorization, and I look forward to working toward that effort and ensuring that this technology is included in the framework. Thank you for the opportunity to present today, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Well done. We have no witnesses in support. Is there anyone in the room who would like to testify in support of the bill?

This is Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in support.

Thank you. We have no witnesses registered in opposition. Is there anyone in the room in opposition to this bill? Seeing none, we'll go to the telephone lines. Operator, if you could open up the line for AB 823.

If you're in opposition or support of AB 823, you may press one and then zero. Again, that's one and then zero for support or opposition of AB 823. And Madam Chair, we have no one in queue at the time.

Thank you. Is there anyone in the Committee wishing to speak? Member Carrillo?

Again, just want to reiterate, thank you, the author, for bringing this in, and thank you for thinking of the future, where we're going to get there and get those infrastructure that we need. Thank you for doing that again, getting us one step closer. Thank you.

Thank you. I have to mention I actually found out about electrified roads from one of your constituents who works in Pasadena, lives in the AV. She only has a range of 80 miles, and she has to stop three times on her way home to charge. So she's the one that illuminated me to this when we were standing there waiting to charge at a charging station together. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, I am not surprised to see the Chair of the Select Committee on Electric Vehicles and Charging Infrastructure leading the charge.

That's a good one.

That's why I'm Chair, the good jokes. So we have a motion. We have a second. Did you want to close?

I just respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we have a motion and a second. Can we have a roll call vote, please?

Oh, I'm sorry. It's do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Your bill has 12 votes. It's out. Good luck with it. Thank you. We're going next to Mr. Bennett with AB 673. You and your witnesses are welcome to come forward.

You may begin when you are ready. Thank you.

Thank you. How about that? Great. Yeah. So thank you much, very much, Madam Chair and Members. I want to thank the chair and most importantly the Committee staff for the work that they've already done on this Bill. Really appreciate it. As we evolve from a fossil fuel carbon economy to a fossil free, carbonless economy, I believe that California will be much better off if we maintain a healthy competition between as many technologies as possible in as many places as possible as we're moving into the initial phases of this transition.

And I hark back to the 1950s, the early 1950s, when the internal combustion car companies purchased up all of the patents and all of the model electric cars and literally crushed the industry. They just stopped it in its tracks.

At that point in time, how much better off would we have been back then if some Members of Congress would have said, that's not good for the United States, that's not good for the world, if 75 years later we would have had a healthy competition between battery technology fueled cars and internal combustion cars? Well, I think we're at the same spot here in terms of a transition with our transportation sector as we're moving to ZeV vehicles.

I completely acknowledge that light duty is being dominated and will likely continue to be dominated by battery technology.

Just like most people say, heavy duty is being dominated, most likely by hydrogen technology, but that to the extent that we can maintain some healthy competition in all of those areas, from light duty to heavy duty between both of them, we Californians and I believe the rest of the United States and the world benefits, and we're seeing that in other places in the world, but we just don't know. You already had assemblymember Shiavo.

Just talk about the complications of charging in terms of electric charging just now and the challenges that are out there. Who knows what's going to happen with lithium mining, with recycling of batteries, with rare earth minerals that are out there, et cetera. And so I have no leading horse in the race that I really favor. But what I favor is the best thing for California, which is to try to keep the competition alive. So with that, AB 673 simply directs the CEC to consider.

That's all we're doing. We're not mandating it at all, just to consider whether it's appropriate to require additional light duty stations when they're putting in those big heavy duty and medium duty stations. Just to consider that. I remember back more than 40 years ago when we purchased a rabbit diesel vehicle, a little tiny rabbit diesel. We relied on the truck stops to get around.

And if that's what hydrogen cars need to do, I think that that's far better than not having hydrogen out there as a competition. And I could go into details in terms of that. If any of the Committee Members need that information before they voted on this, the final thing I would point out is that the administration's already stated a year ago in budget sub three that they are going to put substantial funding into hydrogen, into zev vehicles at the medium and heavy duty level.

And the CEC has recognized that a significant part of that will be hydrogen. And all I'm trying to say is to make sure they at least consider light duty where it's appropriate, only in the stations and the places. What I see is sort of a pathway along interstates five and 99, the major freight quarters, being able to handle both of those. And with that, I open it up for any questions and certainly appreciate this attention.

Thank you. Is there anyone in the room wishing to testify in support of the Bill? If so, please come to the microphone.

Chairwoman, may I testify as a tweener? A supportive tweener. Teresa Cooke on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition, I want to thank the assemblymen, his staff and Committee staff for constantly trying to find creative ways to make sure that the development of hydrogen fueling infrastructure meets the incoming demand that we suspect and are seeing in the industry.

We are working with the assemblymen on a couple of technical elements and are grateful for the opportunity to do so, but generally very appreciative of the work under consideration. The one thing that I would offer, though, is, as it relates to heavy duty, while we tend to think that it's more dominated by hydrogen, unfortunately, the Energy Commission does limit incentive funding to 30%. So always an opportunity to do more, and I'll welcome that opportunity. Thank you so much.

Thank you. We do have an opposition witness on file. If the witness could come forward, please. I don't see them here, so if there's anyone in the room who wants to testify in opposition, if they can come to the microphone. Okay then. Operator, can you please open the phone lines for AB 673? If you're in support or opposition of AB 673. You may press one and then zero again. That is one and then zero if you're in support or opposition of AB 673. And.

Madam Chair, we have no one in queue at the moment.

Thank you. Any comments or questions from the Committee? No. zero, yes. Ms. Davies.

Just real brief. Thank you so much for bringing this forward, and obviously we have to be ready with other options all the way. We have to make sure we have balance at a good level. So thank you so much and I'd be happy to co author this Bill. Great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. I would like to also thank you for bringing this forward to help clarify some of the discussions that we had last year in budget sub three. And. Do we have a motion? I'll take Ms. Davies as a motion. Do we have a second? And we have a second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Great. My favorite closing statement. Can we have a roll call, please?

The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Natural Resources. [Roll call].

Thank you very much.

Next we have Ms Calderon with AB 824. If you and your witness could please. If you have any witnesses, come to the-If you can please come and you may begin whenever you're ready. Welcome. Thank you. We have a motion and a second.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Assembly Bill 824 establishes the Highway Greening Act, which would task Caltrans with developing a strategic plan to increase highway greening by at least 10% in urban areas.

Vehicle emissions are elevated near major highways where fuel evaporation, car exhaust and road dust contribute to poor air quality. Low income Californians and communities of color disproportionately inhale high concentrations of air pollution due to their close proximity to highways, where the cost of living is often more affordable. As a result, these communities are more likely to suffer from increased rates of asthma, lung cancer and premature death. As California grapples with increased extreme weather events, climate resilient greening policies are imperative.

This bill also requires the use of plants native to California in greening efforts for increased drought tolerance and minimal maintenance needs. AB 824 supports the state's transition to a sustainable future by mitigating air pollution, promoting the use of native plants and cooling vulnerable communities near highways. I'd like to thank the Committee staff for their work and input and assisting my staff on this bill and offering recent amendments which I was happy to take. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Any Committee Members have any questions or comments? Oh, I'm sorry. Is there anybody in the room wishing to testify in support of the bill? I know that there's at least one. I jumped the gun. I was so excited by the bill.

This is Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in support.

Thank you. Anybody wishing to testify in opposition to the bill? Very good. Operator, can you please open up the phone line for AB 824?

Thank you. For in support or opposition of AB 824. You may press one and then zero. Again that is one and then zero for support or opposition. And we will go to line seven. Your line is open.

Topher Mathers, Active San Gabriel Valley. Support.

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

Thank you. Anyone on the Committee? Mr. Fong.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Certainly as someone who represents a number of rural communities, I'm concerned from the standpoint of the shifting of resources, potentially from rural areas to urban areas, especially when it comes to road funding and the state's gas tax. Is there a mechanism or what do you envision, I guess, with this strategic plan?

So we're still waiting, working with Caltrans on cost in terms of this, just supporting urban areas. I think that if there's a need for rural greening too, then I'm open to that.

The reason I'm focused on urban areas is because they tend to be more densely populated, heat islands, lower income. But I'm definitely open to considering that. And we are still waiting on the cost, dental cost.

Certainly appreciate that. I guess that's just my concern. I wanted to lay it out there in terms of we're always in rural areas, you know, we are always looking for more resources, especially when it comes to road safety and other things.

And so I fear is that whatever strategic plan that Caltrans comes forward would somehow shift those resources around. So for the time being, I can't support it. But hopefully, as amendments are developed, maybe we get to a different spot.

Sure. I mean, I can say that in the 2021 budget, there was like 1.1 billion allocated for the California Clean Initiative, and that's to address litter, infrastructure and beautification. So I'm not sure how that money is going to be spent or if that answers your question.

Sure. Absolutely. I mean, that funding, my understanding was one time. But if it continues forward, I think that certainly is an area of conversation that we could have to ensure that there is a balance between rural areas and urban areas. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Well, I really want to thank you for bringing this forward, and I understand the Vice Chair's concerning question, but in my mind, rural areas tend to already have a lot of green space around the highways.

And in urban areas, particularly in economically disadvantaged communities, there often is a real lack of any green space at all. And the heat island effect, as you mentioned, is very profound in those areas. And this does give us an opportunity to add some very much needed green space and oxygen producing plants and habitat in areas that are already overrun with concrete in many cases.

So I do think that focusing on urban areas is appropriate given the specific, um, allocations that are called on this bill, which is, this is not about cleaning up pollution, it's not about picking up trash. It's really about trying to green areas that are not already greened. And that's really an urban issue in most cases. But I do encourage you to keep talking with Mr. Fong and others who have a similar concern. I want to thank you personally for adding native plants to this bill.

Loss of biodiversity is something that is not thought of as much always by the general population, but a profound concern as we're losing insects, we're losing pollinators, we're losing habitat, we're losing thousands of species across the planet. So by including native plants in this, you're not only reducing the maintenance needs, but you're also providing some habitat for some of these animals.

And I have been frustrated with Caltrans in the past because I've done a bill in the past about trying to encourage more natives, and I've yet to see it really been really instituted. I still see Caltrans planting ice plants and lots of non native succulents that are not well adapted to a lot of these climates. So I want to thank you for that. I would like to be added as a co author to this bill, if you would have me.

And I think we do have a motion and a second, so would you like to close?

Yes, I'd be honored to add you as co author. Thank you, Madam Chair. And aye respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Roll call, please.

The motion is due pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

12 to one, the bill is out. Thank you very much. I don't see Mr. Brian, so we're going to move on to Mr. Ward. If you would like to approach the podium with the witnesses in support and the witnesses in opposition, please approach the dais. And whenever you're ready, Mr. Ward, you can begin.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members. The Governor's Highway Safety Association projects that drivers struck and killed approximately 7,500 pedestrians in the United States in 2021, the most pedestrian deaths in a single year in four decades. While pedestrian deaths have risen by 54% over the past decade, all other traffic deaths have increased by only 13%. At the same time, the size and weight of vehicles sold in the United States has also increased dramatically.

While the rise in pedestrian fatalities has many causes, there's growing evidence that the increase in vehicle weight has played a role. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, when struck by a SUV at speeds of 20 to 39 mph, pedestrians had a 30% fatality rate, compared to 23% when struck by a car. But at speeds over 40 miles an hour, the fatality rate increases to 100% when struck by an SUV, compared to 54% when struck by a car. Force equals mass times acceleration.

It's Newton's second law. Another study covering all fatal vehicle collisions in the United States from 2000 to 2019 over the two-decade period concluded that if we replaced all light trucks with standard-sized cars, it would have averted more than 8,100 fatalities. Now, we're not going to go there.

But in response to these alarming studies, the California Transportation Commission concluded in their '22 report to the Legislature a recommendation requesting that the Legislature authorize the Commission to convene a task force to study the merits of a weight-based registration fee on passenger vehicles similar to those already in place in 14 other states.

While results in those other states have been promising, ranging from Florida to New York to both Dakotas, many aspects of a weight-based fee in California require further examination to understand the potential impacts and benefits and possible support for safety infrastructure. Therefore, AB 251 here codifies the Commission's recommendations, providing the Legislature with tools needed to craft evidence-based policy to consider our next steps.

We owe it to all Californians to look into the connection between these vehicles and fatalities so we can create an environment where everyone, including drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists, all feel safe on the roadways. For witnesses and support, I have Mark Vukcevich with Streets for All, and Jared Sanchez with the California Bicycle Coalition. And I would respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

You have a motion and a second, so your witnesses, please.

Good afternoon, everyone. Mark Vukcevich again from Streets for All. We're here today as proud sponsors of AB 251, which studies the relationship between vehicle weight and pedestrian deaths and sees what can be done about it in relation to vehicle registration. As I said in my earlier testimony, our state is facing a pedestrian safety crisis. Pedestrian fatalities reached a four-decade high last year in the United States, and California has the most on our roadways.

In addition to advocating here at the Capitol, actually, I work on the local level in Orange County. And one of the number one concerns I hear from local voters is my kids are stuck inside because they can't go outside safely because all the dangerous cars in front of my house. And those parents are right. The vehicles are moving too fast for the drivers to react quickly. They're too large to see the kids, and they're too heavy with too much momentum to stop.

Something needs to be done. Numerous studies have pointed to an Association between vehicle weight and pedestrian deaths. This Bill will study the relationship between weight and traffic violence so that you, all, our policymakers, can make policy decisions that will make safer roads and streets for all. This will bring together safety advocates, the DMV, the automobile industry, and others to form a task force to see if our existing registration fees need to be adjusted.

This is a matter of life and death, and we need to do everything we can to protect vulnerable road users. And that's like our kids biking to school. It's our grandparents walking to the senior center, and it's our brothers and sisters who can't see too well or can't hear too well. Everyone, whether young or young at heart, deserves to feel safe and not feel threatened by cars that are too heavy to stop safely.

AB 251 is an important step towards the increasingly urgent issue of making our road safer for pedestrians and cyclists. I want to thank the Committee for their nuanced consideration of this Bill, and I encourage an Aye vote.

Hello, Committee. Jared Sanchez, Policy Director for CalBike. Cal Bike strongly urges you to support AB 251. Pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and injuries have been increasing. Cars and trucks pose the greatest danger. The traffic violence caused by heavy vehicles on vulnerable road users needs greater attention by state policy. Data is clear. The larger the vehicle, the greater the risk for pedestrians and people on bikes.

Vehicle weight has dramatically increased since 1980, with the average car sold in the U.S. weighing around 1,000 pounds more than it did then, a 33% increase. Study after study show that collisions between large vehicles and pedestrians and people on bikes are more likely to result in serious injury and death. Because these vehicles are taller, they are more likely to hit vulnerable road users higher on their bodies around their torso.

The increased weight means these vehicles take longer to slow down, and they collide with more force than smaller cars. Additionally, larger vehicles also take a heavier toll on the state's infrastructure than smaller cars, requiring more frequent road maintenance. And their weight contributes to increased cancer-causing particulate pollution resulting from brake and tire wear and increases in carbon consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Charging by vehicle weight is not unique. At least 13 states, including New York and Florida, charge a weight-based vehicle fee.

It is now time for California to start the process by developing a state specific study so that further policy action can be taken. We hope you can support this important effort. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and Member Sylvia Solis Shaw, here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica, in strong support. Also here on behalf of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. We are in support. We would like to follow up with the author regarding a potential amendment, but here in strong support today. Thank you.

Sofia Rafikoa with the Coalition for Clean Air in support.

Good afternoon. Mikayla Elder, on behalf of CALSTART, a California-based, internationally recognized transportation technology consortium. While we support Mr. Ward's efforts to ensure safety for pedestrians and other.

Just name and your position.

Oh, we're here in support.

Thank you very much.

If amended. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm sure the author will talk to you about your concerns. With that, is there an opposition witness here? I don't see one coming forward. Is there anyone opposed to the Bill who wants to come up to speak at the microphone? Okay. Seeing none. Operator, can you please open the phone lines for AB 251?

If you are in support or opposition of AB 251, please press one, then zero on your phone. Opposition or support of AB 251. We do have about five queuing up here, and we will start with line number seven. Please go ahead.

Topher Mathers on behalf of Active San Gabriel Valley. We support.

Thank you. Next, we will go to line number 30. Please go ahead.

Patricia Bellwood from Bike Culver City, and I am in support of AB 251.

Thank you. We are waiting for the other couple to queue up here, get their line numbers. And we will go to line number 26. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Justin from Bike East Bay and we are in support.

Thank you. Next, we will go to line number 13. Please go ahead.

Justin Behrens on behalf of the California Transportation Commission. The Commission is pleased to support this bill and want to thank the author for his leadership on this issue.

Okay, thank you. Now we will go to... the last one in queue is line number 28. Please go ahead.

Joshua Cooper from North Hollywood in support.

Thank you. And there are no more in queue, Madam Chair.

Thank you. I'll go back to the Committee to see if any Committee Members want to speak. Well, I just want to say I think this is a very important Bill, and I actually believe that the National Highway Safety Association should be doing this on a national level.

But if they're not going to keep people safer, then it's certainly appropriate that California does what they need to do. I would be very honored if you would consider adding me as a joint author to this Bill. Can we have a motion? Oh, I'm sorry. We had a motion from Mr. Gibson. And we can have a second from anybody. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair, I'm happy to add you as a joint author. I want to thank Committee staff for your thoughtful work as we worked on this together during our research period, and Streets for All, as well, for your leadership in the space. Happy to respectfully request your Aye vote.

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

The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call].

The vote is 10 to two. The Bill is out. Thank you very much. And Mr. Bryan is here with our last Bill.

We always save the best author for last. Sorry, I'm not trying to play favorites. I'm trying to make him feel better. We have a motion. And we have a second. Strong signal there. All right, you may proceed.

No pressure. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I come before you today to present AB 825. In California right now you can be cited for riding on the sidewalk, even where no safe bike infrastructure or mobility infrastructure exists on the streets. And despite no evidence that suggests that sidewalk riding differs by race, nearly all citations are people of color. In fact, over 70% are Latinos exclusively.

Bicyclists should have the autonomy to decide for themselves whether it's safer to be on the street or on the sidewalk where no safe bike infrastructure exists. We've been working with pedestrian groups and disability rights organizations to ensure that there's a speed cap on riding on the sidewalk to prevent any kind of collisions.

But all of the data shows that we lose nearly three cyclists a week in California to deaths on the street, and my team and I in the past month couldn't find a single case of a pedestrian on the sidewalk who lost their life to a bicyclist. This is smart policy. The answer to this is mobility infrastructure. But in the absence of it, criminalizing black and brown people for riding on the sidewalk because they believe it's safer than riding in the street is the wrong approach.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me today, Streets for All, you're making a lot of appearances. I've got Bubba Fish with me, and I've also got Jared Sanchez, the Policy Director for the California Bike Coalition.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I'm Bubba Fish, Co-Director of State Policy for Streets for All, the proud sponsors of AB 825, the right to ride bill authored by Assembly Member Isaac Bryan. This bill prohibits localities from restricting cycling on the sidewalk on streets where safe bike infrastructure does not exist, allowing Californians to ride where it is safest for them and the people around them.

I was recently riding my bike to UCLA, where I'm a graduate student, when I was routed onto Pico Boulevard, a seven lane street with no bike lanes. Cars zoomed right past me, going 50 miles an hour. So, fearing for my life, I took refuge on the sidewalk, which thankfully, is legal in the City of LA. But millions of Californians are forced to make the choice between riding their bicycle on deadly streets or breaking the law.

Criminalizing cyclists who ride on the sidewalk for their own safety rather than a street with no bike lanes, leads to unneeded and biased interactions with law enforcement. In fact, an LA Times investigation found that between 2017 and 2021, bike riders in low income, minority communities were stopped and cited far more often than those in more affluent, wider parts of the country, county, excuse me.

This kind of profiling is not just unfair, it also creates a barrier for communities who already face challenges in accessing safe and affordable transportation. This is a matter of life or death for many folks who use a bicycle to get around. In California, as Assembly Member Bryan just referred to, 130 cyclists die each year, and between 2016 and 2018, cyclists deaths hit an all time high of nearly 500 deaths over a three year period. This bill keeps cyclists and pedestrians safe.

Cycling on the sidewalk has already been legalized in at least 14 California cities home to over 6 million people, and still serious bike on pedestrian collisions remain exceedingly rare and fatalities from those incidents almost nonexistent. We worked with disability and walking advocates like California Walks in the design of this bill, and added a provision that cyclists must yield to pedestrians on sidewalks and adhere to a 10 mile an hour speed limit. Furthermore, the bill establishes that pedestrians always have the right of way on sidewalks.

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

Yes, of course. AB 825 removes barriers to cycling, reduces unnecessary interactions with law enforcement, and helps prevent needless deaths on our road. It's a crucial step towards creating safer and more equitable streets for all Californians. So we respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thanks.

Thank you. Next witness.

Hello again, Committee. Jared Sanchez of CalBike. CalBike channel urges you to support AB 825. Is sidewalk riding ideal? No. Ideally, we have safe, connected, protected bikeways, creating convenient transportation networks throughout California and its communities. Most streets would be complete streets with safe facilities for all modes of transportation, but that's not the reality today. And even if California would fully fund our active transportation needs immediately, it would take years to transform every dangerous roadway in California into a safe route for biking.

In the meantime, people on bikes must, at times, travel on streets with fast traffic and no bike lanes. AB 825 allows bike riders to share spaces with pedestrians safely, rather than two ton speeding vehicles. Beyond the reality of traffic violence on our streets, sidewalk riding is often used as a pretext for police to stop and cite people on bikes. Police disproportionately target black and Latino men, stopping them for small infractions, inciting them.

Marginalized neighborhoods are more likely to lack safe bikeways, forcing people to ride on sidewalks. Decriminalizing sidewalk riding protects vulnerable populations from police encounters in addition to shielding them from traffic violence. Lastly, I have personal experience with this issue. In 2016, I was stopped, searched, and issued a citation by the LA County Sheriff's Department claiming I was riding my bike on the sidewalk.

In fact, I was walking my bike on the sidewalk, and only after my insistent protest, the deputies relented by admitting they thought they saw me riding on the sidewalk. I can only imagine the thousands of other people on bikes are unfairly stopped. The recent LA Times investigation only underscored my personal experience when police use minor infractions to target vulnerable people and further damage trust between law enforcement and people of color. We hope you can support this important bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone in the room wishing to testify in support of this bill? I don't have any witnesses on file in opposition. Is there anybody in the room wishing to testify in opposition? Seeing none, we'll go to the phone lines. Operator, could you please open the phone lines for AB 825?

If you are in support or opposition of AB 825, it is one, then zero on your phone. That's in support or opposition of AB 825. And we have about five in queue, and we will start with line number 26. Twenty-six, your line is open.

This is Justin Hu-Nguyen from Bike East Bay. And we are in support of this bill.

Thank you. Next we will go to line number seven. Please go ahead.

Topher Mathers, on behalf of Active San Gabriel Valley, we support.

Thank you. Next we will go to line number 31. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Isaiah Madison with Livable California in South Los Angeles. Opposed. Thank you.

Line number 28. They got themselves out of queue, so we will move on to line number 30.

Yes. Patricia Baibut from Bike Copper City in support for AB 825. Thank you.

Thank you. And there are no others in queue, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Operator. We're going to move to the Committee now. Mr. Ward.

Great. Thank you. I want to thank you for raising this issue. It reminded me of some of my own experiences when I was on local government, on City Council. And like you, I absolutely, agree. It's not ideal to be moving. We must do everything we can to make sure our roadways are safe for bicyclists as well. And I get the need to have to make that decision for safety, to be able to move over to a sidewalk where you're feeling less likely to be hit.

And the bicycle is injured or killed by a vehicle. And then we get into another space right where we're talking about pedestrian versus bicycle conflicts. And we did see some of that. Two issues kind of arose from a local government perspective. One was bicycles that were moving over to use a sidewalk were encountering imperfections or other issues on that sidewalk that maybe a normal pedestrian wouldn't have had, say, like a trip hazard or something.

But it caused an injury, and it caused a lot of millions of dollars of payouts from cities because they were arguing in court that this also should have been allowed. I think providing clarity where it does or should or shouldn't be allowed is certainly helpful. But sometimes they won, sometimes they didn't won.

And so I want to be cautious knowing that if we're shifting more people to a sidewalk, that we could also be shifting liabilities to cities or counties and unincorporated communities for use of that space as well where a sidewalk isn't necessarily built for a bicycle in its kind of original design. The second issue is that we do have, especially in very highly urbanized areas or very tourism areas, we do have sidewalks or pathways that will have a high volume of pedestrians.

And so you get then into maybe, fortunately, no injuries, but you get into a lot of conflict. And so what I'm hoping for is if this bill is able to move forward, if the author could consider really two things for me to have support for it on the floor is one, looking into indemnification for cities when a bicyclist is choosing to use a sidewalk for bicycle purposes.

And the second thing is to look for narrow exemptions from this prohibition where certain conditions might be established under local ordinance, that a local walkway or boardwalk or other highly used pedestrian space just might not be suitable for non pedestrian vehicles as a part of that as well. I just encourage you to maybe think about, and I'm happy to work with you on that, looking at narrow exemptions as well. That could make this work in a very developed landscape.

Happy to work with anybody on all parts of this. I think the liability issue is definitely a cost benefit analysis we could do now because we know that cities are paying massive liabilities in the streets. And so the idea that there would be liability concerns on the sidewalk, I think, are probably negligible compared to some of the stuff that's happening on the streets currently.

On some individual cases, they've not necessarily been negligible when they amassed a seven figure payouts.

Well, San Diego paid $5 million this year in seven suits, two and a half million to one person in street collisions, paid 1 million to two different women who got hit by a police car on the street downtown. And so it's a trade off. And I think we could do the analysis to try to figure out if it's worth trying to counterbalance or if we're actually saving money. The more people transition. But I would definitely work with you on that.

And look at, there are ways to keep people off of certain particular areas, although it's not a requirement to ride on the sidewalk either. So if the cyclist doesn't feel safe in a super crowded sidewalk, I couldn't imagine that they would. But if it's easier to try to give some local controller ideas to make that more easily understood. Happy to work with you on that. I appreciate your comments.

No, I appreciate that. And then I also noted for the Committee's analysis as well, too, the intent of this, to try to try to deter or give some relief to Californians of color that are being disproportionately--fully get that and appreciate that.

And it's kind of an open question if you're moving this over to a situation where even though, yes, you must yield to a pedestrian or, yes, you must stick to under 10 miles an hour, do they? Or even with no pedestrians around, do they kind of feel the freedom to maybe hit 12 or 15 miles an hour and then get dinged, get stopped and cited just for that? Is this going to increase citations or watch activity?

It's a really big unknown, but just something I would want to think through as well, that we don't actually increase the exact intent of what you're trying to be able to decrease in our public interactions with law enforcement out there as well. So happy to be a support of this. Happy to work with you as well as this bill moves forward.

Appreciate it.

Thank you. Mr. Gipson.

Thank you very much. I want to thank the author for bringing this before this Committee. I'm supporting the bill. I certainly understand and know the statistics that surrounds this. And thank you very much for your witness.

But I will also, I think there is a responsibility that Caltrans have, as your witness has indicated, certainly when Caltrans is deferring or rerouting traffic, they should in fact consider and placing in it should be a no brainer for bicyclists because we do make sure we know changing our streets and making sure that it's bike friendly. We have bike friendly lanes and they should absolutely take in consideration. So it should be done as a no brainer.

So I would love to see Caltrans, or you work with Caltrans, at least bring this to Caltrans' attention to making sure that when they're diverting traffic that this is already included without placing pedestrians and riders in jeopardy. There's no reason why he should have been in traffic going 50 miles an hour. So thank you very much and please consider me as a co-author of it, the bill.

Accepted.

Mr. Fong.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Quick question. I know there's a lot locally, there's a lot of internal discussion about e-bikes and allowing them on sidewalks and whatnot. Can you provide me a little more background on why you allow e-bikes on sidewalks?

I think that's a conversation that I'm actually still open to having. I think the 10 mile per hour prohibition applies to any and all bicycles on the sidewalk. I think you could argue that an e-bike could better even gauge that speed because of the reporting back on your speed on many e-bikes, but that's a conversation I'm open to continuing to have with you.

Okay. I think that's one of the many concerns. I mean, that being also that this is kind of a top down approach to my colleagues at certain local government. This has always been kind of a local jurisdictional issue, and to now kind of have the state come in and prohibit or override local control is something that is problematic for myself. But I respect your passion about this area, and I'm just trying to kind of understand what the best path forward is. Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Mr. Lowenthal.

Assembly Member, first of all, applaud you totally and completely for bringing this bill forward, and I support it wholeheartedly. I do have a question for you. My district, there are four cities. One of those is Avalon Catalina. It has only a few thousand residents and over a million tourists every year. It also has virtually no cars. It's almost exclusively what are called autoettes, effectively golf carts, the way that get people around.

And so most of the people that are on bikes are either the residents, but on any given weekend, it's almost entirely tourists, and the community needs them to stay in certain areas. Actually, it's kind of the converse of this. Is there already exemption or room for exemption for a specific tourist district like this that may not fit into this? Because, like I said, the intention of this bill, to me, is so desperately needed, and I'm in support regardless.

But wondering if we can, much like Mr. Ward brought up, if there's ability to have exemption.

I'm open to all conversations, but I think one of the fundamental principles to establish is that bicyclists would rather ride on the street. Bicyclists would rather ride on a safe bike lane or a safe mobility lane. The preference isn't to go on a sidewalk for all of the reasons that were mentioned by our colleague from San Diego. Right.

It's not the preferred way to ride, but in the absence of a safe pathway on the street, would be the only reason that a bicyclist would be empowered to make that determination of whether to try to zigzag through cars or to go this way. So we could definitely talk about exemptions. I don't know that it would be entirely necessary if there's no cars and the streets are open.

Tourists from countries X, Y, and Z may not be under the same mentality that we're speaking of right now. And that's a unique and special place in this district. So we talk about it.

You've got a beautiful district.

Yeah. Thank you.

Anybody else? Ms. Davies?

Thank you. This is obviously one of the issues that we deal with a lot in my district, and just a few concerns, because I understand, too, safety for the bike rider, safety for the pedestrian. We're having a major problem with kids riding their bikes on sidewalks. And we've got a lot of suburban area where people are walking their dogs, their babies, their kids, every day, and they're coming in there.

And we were having accident after accident happening mainly because of the children not knowing the rules of the road. Number one, not following the rules. And to say you can't go more than 10 miles an hour. We know that a lot of these bikes, class two, class three, can go up to 30 miles an hour. They're not paying attention. And we can't put a police officer to sit there and put a little thing and monitor them going. So I understand where you're going at.

What I ask is not to make this one size fits all, because we know that things that are happening in my district aren't probably happening in your district. We have different things. The one we have the same is public safety. And we know that we're 100% always on the same topic with that. But putting something like this out there is going to be harmful to my district because we're already having problems. We're sitting here with our students.

We've got classes going on, education of the road, where they should be riding their bikes, where they shouldn't be riding their bikes. But right now they don't care. They're going everywhere. And we're having people injured. We're having seniors injured. We're having mothers with babies injured because they're just going on there and they're not staying in the sidewalk, in the street. And we do have bike lanes. And so that's the problem, too. So all I do is listening to Lowenthal.

If we can just make it where perhaps it's a regional, let them make them decide. If you know what, you have the right to do this if you want, but don't put that across the board, because it will just cause even more injuries in my district.

So, respectfully, as a member, if you have bike lanes, this bill does not apply to you at all. Everything stays the exact same. If you have bike lane infrastructure, this only applies to places that do not have safe bike lane infrastructure. So this doesn't touch?

No, and I understand that, but we do have areas where we don't have bike lanes. Again, updating infrastructure and things like that. So I just ask that if it's something you can say, listen, if a city wants to opt in on that, they can do it. At least see what happens before just putting that across to every city. Because you'd have to come down just like citizens. We've had the beach areas. You know what? It's dangerous. You've got tons of people walking on these paths.

And to have ebikes going 2030 miles an hour. And then again, how do we actually monitor them? So I appreciate it. Just take those considerations in. Thank you so much.

I don't see anyone else we knew this was going to be a tough bill, quite honestly. And we had a lot of discussion about it in our committee, what you're trying to stop, and that's the sort of punitive ticketing of people who are just trying to protect themselves. We agree that it's really important that we get the police to stop harassing people, really for very little good reason. There are sometimes when people do deserve a citation.

I mean, I've seen people ride recklessly enough on a sidewalk in some urban areas to where I wish that they had been a police officer to ticket them. When I lived in New York, bike messengers were usually the main offenders of that. We don't have a lot of them here in California. I myself occasionally do ride on sidewalks because places like Los Filos Boulevard in Los Angeles, there's a lot of places where I am just not going to ride in the street.

And so I feel that I should be able to make that decision. On the flip side, I have a friend who got killed because he was riding on the sidewalk. He popped into the street when the cars couldn't possibly see him. When my daughter and she also, I let her ride on the sidewalk because parts of my community, I don't feel safe with a nine year old being on the street. And I worry because those sidewalks often have absolutely no visibility because of shrubs.

And those driveways are terrifying to me. So it's really a trade off. Right. But I agree. I think if someone was to ticket her, for me making that choice as a mom, this is safer than that. That would seem really punitive. So I'm going to support the bill, but I would like to keep working with you on it, if you don't mind, even after passes out of this committee, because I do think it's important we get this right.

I do worry about the liability, and I am curious what's happened in places like Los Angeles and Sacramento that allow it. Because like Chris, I come from local government and I've seen multi $1.0 million payouts, over half one inch sidewalk offsets. So I can imagine even a smaller offset for a bicycle could send someone flying. And is that increasing the liability for cities?

And maybe that's something that we can do through some sort of hazard within the law, sort of known hazard language we can put in that would help cities with that sort of thing. The last worry that we had was that cities might use this as an excuse to not put in bicycle infrastructure and say, hey, we don't need to, because now they can just ride on the sidewalk. Why should we do it when the state says, hey, you're safe over there. So I hope they don't.

I hope that maybe the idea of keeping everyone separate would help them put the bike lanes in if they think that that's a problem. So I'm going to err on the side of thinking that that would be more of an incentive than a disincentive. But I do think that there's reasonable concern to this, where either way, the bottom line is if cities aren't putting in safe bicycle infrastructure, they've put everybody in a no win situation. Right? Pick your poison.

Is it more dangerous to be in that horribly crowded street with cars going fast, or is it more dangerous to be on a sidewalk that wasn't designed for faster moving traffic and where there's very little visibility with one driveway after another? It's kind of a no win for people who are cycling in a lot of these areas.

And my hope, and I'm sure it's your hope at the end of the day that there are cities out there listening to this discussion and saying, we've got to do better to protect people because they're failing my daughter, they're failing the bike riders, they're failing even the drivers by not getting the cyclists out of their lanes on a road that's designed for faster moving traffic.

So with that, I'm going to support the bill, and I do hope that at the end of the day, we at least remove these really egregious fines and harassment of people who are just trying to get to work safely. So do we have a motion? Ok, we have a motion and a second. We have roll call.

The motion is do pass and re referred to the committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

The vote was 11 to 4. The bill is out. Thank you very much. And with that, we're going to call roll for absent members and we'll go through the bills from top to bottom. Yeah, we'll start with the consent calendar.

Consent calendar. [Roll Call]

15 votes. The consent calendar is adopted.

All right.

AB 413, the motion is do pass as amended and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

11 to 4, that bill is passed.

Okay AB 591 the motion is due, pass and re referred to the Committee on Appropriations [Roll Call] 15.

What was it?

15.

15:0 that Bill is out.

Okay AB 673 the motion is due, pass and re refer to the Committee on Natural Resources [Roll Call]

15:0, that bill is out.

AB 823 the motion is due, pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations [Roll Call] 15:0.

15:0, that bill is out.

AB 824 the motion is due, pass and re refer to Appropriations Berman, Berman aye.

12 to 1, that bill is out.

I think that's it.

Okay. Oh AB 251.

AB 251 the motion is due, pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations [Roll Call] 11:3.

11:3, that bill is out with that we are adjourned.

Okay see you later. Have fun. Bye transportation good job. Bye.