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 in the Assembly's website. We encourage the public to provide written testimony by visiting the Committee website. Please 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 the hearing room. Additional witness comments will be limited to your name, organization and position, and they can be either in person or on the telephone. We will start with the Members of the public who are here in the room and then move to a blended phone line of support and opposition 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 disruptive conduct. I may temporarily recess the hearing. If the conduct does not stop. I will 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. I will announce that we will have 10 bills on consent. We will have AB 382, AB 971, AB 1320, AB 1349, AB 1435, AB 1738, AB 1711, AB 295, AB 1475, and AB 1250. And please note that AB 1349, while on consent, does have amendments that are in the Committee's analysis on the Bill. When we have a quorum, we will ask for a motion on consent.

We're going to go ahead and start with AB 464. Ms. Schiavo, you may come forward when you're ready. Before we get started, please note that we will not hear file item number five, AB 1044 today as the Bill has been re referred to another Committee. Okay, when you're ready. We have a motion in a second, but we don't have a quorum, so we'll hold on to that motion in a second and take a roll call when we have a quorum. And after you finish presenting.

Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, very excited to present AB 464 to you today. Housing insecurity takes many forms, and getting behind on rent payments means couch surfing, moving between multiple shelters. Some folks have to live in vehicles or makeshift tents, and some may have housing today and lose it tomorrow. As a result, it's not uncommon for identification to be lost or stolen.

Given the burdens of living in such unstable circumstances, it can be very challenging to recover vital documents such as personal identification, driver's licenses, and other paperwork when an individual is seeking employment, applying for assistance, applying for housing, enrolling in schools, health care, or social services. Identification documents of this sort are, in most instances, a requirement, as the analysis points out. Our estimates are that more than 150,000 Californians are experiencing homelessness, with 72% of those unsheltered, the highest unsheltered population of any state.

The analysis also does a great job of noting that cities with safe parking programs, which allow unhoused individuals to sleep in their cars, typically require a valid driver's license. AB 464 will reduce barriers for Low income folks and people experiencing homelessness who are working to get on their feet. AB 464 does so by eliminating costs for access to driver's licenses if they can verify their status as unhoused.

Additionally, AB 464 will also eliminate fees for access to vital records, such as birth certificates, death records, marriage or marriage, disillusioned records, and any individuals who are recipients of public assistance. For any individuals who are recipients of public assistance as defined by the welfare Institutions Code. As some of you may know, I co founded an organization working on homelessness in my community and did outreach every Sunday for over a year to encampments in the west San Fernando Valley.

And the number one thing I heard folks ask for help getting, aside from housing and food, was an ID. This is something that we, I think, often take for granted. But even to go across the street to the Secretary of State's building, you have to show an ID to enter the building. This is needed for so many resources, housing. You can't get a job.

You can't get on your feet if you don't have an ID. And so this is a way to make sure that folks have the tools that they need to get on their feet. We've already waived fees for state ids and AB 464 simply applies that fee waiver to the driver's license. And I respectfully ask for your. I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in support with you today? Okay, if there's anyone in the room wishing to testify in support of AB 464, please come up to the microphone. Seeing none. Is there anyone here to testify in opposition? Okay. Is there anyone in the room wishing to voice their opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Let's go to the phone lines. Operator, can you please open up the phone lines for AB 464?

Course. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak in support or opposition of a, you may press one, then zero. You hear a tone you can place into the queue. You will be given a line number, and you'll be asked to identify yourself once again. If you wish to make a comment, please press one, then zero. And there's currently no one queuing up, Madam chair.

Thank you very much. We'll come back to the Committee to see if there is any questions or comments from anybody. Well, I want to thank you for bringing this Bill forward. Having people who are homeless be able to get a free driver's license with the benefits in terms of verifying their identity is very, very important because that would much better be able to help connect people with services, especially if we are identified that somebody is homeless when the providers might otherwise not know.

So I think this is a very important step to getting these people housed. So thank you for taking this Bill on again. I was very sorry to see a similar effort vetoed last year, and I hope that this receives a better fate. We do have a motion in a second, and we will take roll call when we have a quorum. Do you have any closing comments?

No. Thank you so much for your time today, and we'll be watching for the vote.

Thank you. I'm going to present my Bill now. Nope. We have an author. Ms. Reyes, if you are ready, you can come up to the dais. You have a motion and a second. Although we don't have a quorum, AB.

241 will modernize the clean transportation program at the California Energy Commission and the Air Quality Improvement Program at the California Air Resources Board to support zero emission vehicles and infrastructure deployment for all vehicle classes, require dedicated funding to Low income and disadvantaged communities, and reauthorize the fees that support these programs. California has made monumental changes and investments in the clean vehicle sector. However, our original clean transportation programs have not received an update since they were last reauthorized in 2013.

Most notable is that the dedicated funding that supports these programs will sunset on January 12024 leaving these critical programs unfunded and unable to continue to help Californians and the transportation sector with the planning and execution of our zero emission transition. It's important to modernize these programs and reauthorize the fees that support the programs. California has some of the worst air quality in the country. Many of these air pollutants come from the transportation sector.

The San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast Air Basin are currently classified as extreme non attainment areas, the worst classification under the federal Clean Air act. Many other parts of the state, such as the Bay Area and Sacramento, range from moderate to severe non attainment. Opposition will probably say that there needs to be a carve out for their specific fuel type. But as the analysis points out, we have a large deficiency in battery electric charging infrastructure. The same does not hold true for hydrogen vehicles.

The Energy Commission estimates that with existing funding, they should be able to meet the 200 station goal that was established by Governor Brown and should have sufficient capacity to serve 273,000 fuel cell vehicles. This is over four times the amount of vehicles automakers expect to have on the road by 2028, at around 65,000 light duty fuel cell vehicles. Here to testify in support of this Bill today is Orville Thomas with Calstart and Bill Magavern with a coalition for clean air.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I'll try to keep it short for Mr. Berman to get lunch. Calstart is very supportive of this authorization to continue the existing fees and to modernize it to address equity issues. This has been a gigantic boost to the clean transportation technology industry to count on funding from the clean transportation program and others.

As Ms. Reyes pointed out, it shows the industry that California wants to continue to advance these technologies, to make them more even in costs, and to provide the necessary infrastructure to meet California's ambitious climate. And with that, I will seed my time to Bill, but available for any questions and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thanks, Madam Chair Members. Bill Magavern, voicing support from the Coalition for Clean Air and also the charge Ahead California campaign. California continues to suffer from the worst air pollution in the entire country, by far, despite the progress that we've made. And the leading cause is transportation. In fact, transportation accounts for about 80% of the most significant air pollutants in our state.

The good news is that we have cleaner technologies that really can severely reduce the harmful effects of transportation, and we just need to accelerate the transition towards those zero emission engines. These programs help to do that, and they also update this Bill would update those programs in important ways by focusing more on the adverse impacts of heavy duty transportation, because our biggest air pollution problem in California is toxic diesel exhaust coming from heavy duty engines.

And so this Bill would appropriately prioritize cleaning up that sector and also has very significant minimum guarantees for equity for making sure that we're focusing resources on disadvantaged Low income communities which have been bearing the brunt of the adverse health impacts of air pollution. Therefore, we strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody in the room wishing to voice their support for AB 241? You can come up to the microphone.

Madam Chair Members Dan Chia with omni government relations here for Flo EV Charging in support. Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Michaela Elder on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, Valley Clean Air now, and California Electric Transportation Coalition in support.

Hi Mariela Ruacho with American Lung Association California in support.

Melanie Morelos with the Green Lenny Institute in support.

Thank you to the speakers for demonstrating correct use of the too testimony time. Is there anybody who is wishing to give testimony in opposition? Please come up to the dais. Two minutes per person. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition and the California Hydrogen Business Council, in respectful opposition unless amended. Unfortunately, we are in this position unless AB 241 is amended to allocate 30% of the program dollars for a total of $300 million, that will create a self sufficient hydrogen fueling network of 1000 fueling stations.

This request aligns with CARB's 2021 hydrogen selfsufficiency analysis, which states that self sufficiency can be achieved in most representative scenarios by 2030 with $300 million beyond the current Clean Transportation program funding. This will also create a statewide fueling network providing access to 94% of the geographic state and 97% of disadvantaged communities, which is substantially more than what is in AB 241.

Hydrogen is a critical part of California's transition to zero emission vehicles, whether it's the costs associated with a charging only future concerns around availability of precious metals serving the 40% of residents that live in multifamily dwellings, supercommuters, single vehicle households, or drivers in larger vehicle classes. Excuse me. Hydrogen is a safe, nontoxic, non greenhouse gas option. Ready and willing to support California's energy and transportation transition.

California will not be able to meet its goals to get to 100% of zero emission vehicle sales by 2035 for passenger vehicles and 100% for medium and heavy duty vehicles sales by 2045 with just one technology.

The airborne's advanced Clean Cars package recognizes this by stating that California will need a minimum of 17% of their zero emission vehicle fleet to be fuel cells by 2034, a total of 1.7 million vehicles, which will necessitate well over the thousand fueling stations which we are asking for in our amendments to AB 241. The Clean Transportation program authorizing legislation 10 years ago specified that 20% of dollars be dedicated to hydrogen infrastructure.

You're over your two minutes. Can you finish up? Thanks.

I think I'm the only one, so I don't know if that. No? Okay. All right. So, unfortunately, we must remain opposed unless amended respectfully, to the author, unless this Bill is amended to allocate 30% or $300 million of the program dollars to create a statewide and self sufficient fueling network of 1000 fueling stations. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I'm going to take a moment to establish a quorum. Can we have a roll call, please?

[Roll call].

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to voice opposition to the Bill? Please come up to the microphone at this time. Okay, seeing none, I'd like to open the phone lines for a blended testimony in favor and in opposition for AB 241. Operator, can you please open the phone.

Lines as a reminder to express opposition or support for AB 241? Press 10 at this time. We will go now to line number 31. Go ahead, please.

Hello, this is Santiago Rodriguez with California Environmental voters calling in support.

And Madam Chair, we have no further commenters in queue.

Thank you very much. I'd like to take it back to the Committee to see if there are questions, concerns. Yes, Mr. Carrillo.

Thank you. I have a question for the support or the author in regards to the revenue that is required to go to hydrogen infrastructure. Will this Bill actually remove that funding that's supposed to go to infrastructure for hydrogen?

Thank you, Mr. Carrillo, for your question. The revenue wouldn't be removed as much as it's not a set aside anymore. The previous set aside was 20 million annually. This would now become a bucket that's available to all types of kind of fuel sources that are zero emissions. They'd still be able to apply for it, and the Energy Commission would take those applications and rate them.

But any future revenue will still keep going to that bucket or no.

This would be an extension of current fees. So the current fee structure and the new revenues on the out years would go into a total pool that would be available to them.

Okay. That's a concern for me, because even yesterday I had a constituent asking me, when is the state going to do more hydrogen stations? This is in Victorville. I represent a district that lacks even electric vehicle charging stations. So again, the concern with this is that if what the opposition stated, if it's not going to continue to put that money into that bucket, how is the state going to even have ability to have more hydrogen stations?

There would still be applications for hydrogen stations. It doesn't exempt any funding from going to hydrogen stations. It just wouldn't have a set aside to say, this money has to go towards a certain technology. Essentially, the state stops picking winners and losers on that and allows everyone to be agnostic and the applications and projects to speak for themselves.

Okay.

This funding will go to both hydrogen fueling and battery electric charging. I think we all agree that we need more of both. And this pot of funding would go to both of those?

It will go to both, yes. Okay. Is that the understanding of the opposition? Can I ask that question or no?

You can ask the question for the opposition. Sure.

Thank you for the question. Yes, I agree that the way this Bill is written, AB 241, it is, quote unquote, technology neutral. Unfortunately, what we've seen with the Energy Commission, who is responsible for doling out this money under this Bill, is that there is for sure a bend towards battery electric vehicles and charging. Right.

We've seen that 97% of the funding that the state has spent has been on charging infrastructure, and 3% has gone to hydrogen, which includes medium and heavy duty. So we're very concerned that without a legislative mandate for a percentage, hydrogen will continue to not get its fair share, which hydrogen is not now, arguably, even with the 20% set aside, and I.

Think I heard you say that that should be 30%.

That is correct. That is what our ask is, is for a 30% set aside which will get the hydrogen network to be self sufficient with 1000 fueling stations, which is not our numbers. Those are carbs numbers.

So is there a current percentage now that is going to that bucket? Is it 20%?

Under current law, it is 20%.

Okay. And again, this will keep the 20% set aside. No.

The program, as mentioned, is technology neutral when it comes to zero emission fuels. There's nothing in the Bill that excludes hydrogen from applying or would give preference to one or the other, one technology over another.

And you would object to include hydrogen being one of them. Just any other fueling.

Because it is technology neutral, as was mentioned. We don't have a winner. We don't have a loser. They both are able to apply.

Okay. So both will be able to apply either electric or hydrogen?

Correct.

Okay, no more questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else? Okay, well, I'm really happy that you brought the Bill forward, and I know that you're going to continue to talk to all of the stakeholders, and I do agree that it's appropriate that every application rise on its own. It could be 20%, it could be 40% hydrogen. In the end, if the CEC believes that that's what's warranted and what's needed, certainly we need more charging of all types, including hydrogen, particularly for heavy vehicles. So I'm looking forward to seeing that happen across the state. I'll be supporting the Bill today. Did you want to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I think that we had a motion in a second, correct? Did you have a motion? Did you record a motion? In a second. Okay. I just want to make sure. Yes. Okay, we have a motion in a second. Can we have a roll call, please?

[Roll call].

Bill is 7-2. Will leave the roll open for absent Members. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Gallagher, Mr. Lowenthal, would you mind pressing your mic and just saying aye into the microphone for the record?

Aye.

Mr. Gallagher, you may proceed when ready.

Present AB 1265. And the basic gist of it is this. We still have really done nothing to lower gas prices in California. And so in my continued commitment to bring you bipartisan solutions, I have brought you this Bill, which I think is a good compromise, a way to tackle this issue. And the way it does it is by removing fuels from cap and trade. Now, this is something that we've actually talked about in the past.

In fact, when we were first envisioning cap and trade, there was a question about whether or not fuel should be included. And the reason why is because we have the low carbon fuel standard. So in many ways, this is already accounted for by what we have with that standard. And by putting that in the cap and trade system, it adds anywhere from 17 to 21 cents a gallon. So by taking it out of cap and trade, we could then actually lower people's gas prices.

I think could be a good bipartisan approach. I'm open to ideas. If people have different approaches to that. But I think it's one way that we could help, one tool that we could use to lower gas prices. And if you think about it right now, we haven't suspended the excise tax increase that's going to happen in July. We're going to summer blend sometime soon here as well. Both of those things are going to raise gas prices.

So we need something. We need some type of policy change that could at least bring down gas prices, because otherwise we are looking at an increase as we go into the summer. And as you all know, we've seen gas prices up to $2.50 more a gallon than any other state. Prices reach as high as $8 a gallon during the largest spike last year in 2022.

The LAO, as of November 2022, says that the state excise tax adds 53.9 cents per gallon, the federal excise tax adds 18.4 cents a gallon, and state and local taxes, 3.7. So that's where the tax situation is right now. On top of those taxes, you have storage fees and other state policies and programs that do contribute to that higher price at the pump.

So this is something, if we could make this change, it could at least reduce some of that cost to the consumer at the pump. And you can argue this is a double tax because we're doing cap and trade plus having the low carbon fuel standard. So the other thing I'd like to point out is, look, and you guys highlighted this last week in your hearing on high speed rail. A lot of this money going in the cap and trade is earmarked for high speed rail.

So right now, drivers are paying $0.21 cap and trade gas tax, and 25% of those dollars are going to this high speed rail project that has a whole lot of problems. So you're asking drivers right now, today, to pay for that when, as you guys have highlighted, there's a lot of issues there that need to be looked at.

So AB 1265 creates a more nimble fuels market by requiring CARB also to grant variances from gasoline specifications, including for the import of gasoline from out of state whenever a substantial price increase is imminent due to a sudden supply interruption. So I think some good ideas here for us to help lower gas prices for people to pump, and I would appreciate your consideration of this proposal.

Are there any witnesses here in support of this Bill? Is there anyone in the room wishing to voice their support at the microphone? Is there anybody here to give testimony in opposition to the Bill? Is there anybody who wants to go up to the microphone and give testimony in opposition. Operator, can you please open up the phone lines for AB 1265?

As a reminder, to comment on AB 1265, press one, then zero at this time. Madam Chair, we have no callers queuing up.

Thank you. Let's go to the Committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair, I want to thank you so much for bringing this forward. I know we've been discussing this and it's so important that we as leaders try to give relief to all Californians, especially when it comes to something that is being used on a daily basis. As you had spoken, we obviously have the summer blend coming in there.

And if a lot of people don't realize when we switch from the winter to the summer blend, they have to hold back on the winter so they don't have a lot of supply because they are then making the summer blend, which means you're going to have supply and demand or you're going to have less. And so the price goes up during that as well. I believe that Californians pay much more than is needed. Again, I just came from North Carolina. It was $2.58 a gallon.

And so this is one way that we can do this. And I just think that all Californians deserve to get the money that they're paying taxes to, to really get a little relief so that they can put food on the table and gas in their car. Thank you.

I have a question.

Yeah.

My first question is if this Bill passed, exactly how much would people's gas price go down?

Well, the estimates vary. Right. But LAO estimated it's about 17 cents to 21 cents a gallon. That right now the cap and trade tax. And that could, as time goes on, as there's less allowances under cap and trade, that could go up to maybe 80 cents a gallon. So that's from the LAO's report. I'm sure you're going to say, well, hey, does that mean it's definitely going to get passed on to consumers?

Well, I mean, our experience with other taxes, for example, in Maryland where they got rid of their excise tax or suspended it temporarily, all of that savings went to the consumer. So I would imagine it would be no different here in California.

So you can't guarantee that that price would go back to consumers?

Well, I mean, when you reduce the overall cost, usually that's what results, is that that would be the price.

Well, you would think so. But in this case, we've seen evidence that gas prices in California have gone up while at the same time the profits for the oil industries have gone way up. So they're making money, but they're not passing for some reason that profit back to the consumers that are struggling with the prices. It's not like we've seen a track record of them passing the excess money that they've been making on gas prices back to consumers.

So I'm just kind of struggling when the industry, instead of giving the money to struggling Californians, has instead been putting it in their own pocket. I don't know. They haven't exactly made me feel very comfortable that they're going to do that. Did you talk to them about coming here today to maybe give us that promise?

Well, to answer your question, so, one, we don't have a track record of cutting any tax when it comes to gas. So there's nothing that we could show in California that's actually reduced the costs, either taxes or regulations that we could see a pass on. But we have seen it in other states, like Maryland, for example, not exactly a bastion of red conservatism, but they actually got rid of their excise. They suspended their excise tax and it resulted in directly that much savings.

So maybe the oil companies are better over there or something, but the bottom line is when you cut costs of fuel, that should directly result in lower costs to the consumer because in every, and in fact, they're the same oil companies in both of those places. But anyways, the bottom line is reducing cost and taxes associated with the gas would reduce cost to consumers. At least that's been the experience in other states that have done it.

Thank you. With an excise tax, you have a direct tax that you can say exactly to the penny how much impact that tax had on the price of gasoline to the gallon. With cap and trade, though, it's much harder to quantify.

But I will say that we did pass a Bill just a few weeks ago that will give us some transparency as to how these prices are actually set and what the impact is on all of the pricing and also what the connection is or is not between any fees and the cost of creating the oil that's used in gasoline and also the connection, or lack of connection to the huge profits that this industry has been reporting at the exact same time that oil prices have gone up, because unlike with a lot of other commodities, the price has not been controlled.

So to me, it's a little bit like if you have, let's say you had an emergency and all of a sudden, let's say you had an emergency and you had, I'm just going to say God forbid, but let's say you had an earthquake and all of a sudden every hardware store said, well, we're going to now increase the price of lumber three or four times. And then the response would be, hey, let's just not charge tax for a while.

At some point, you don't look at the taxes or the fees, but you look at the industry itself when it comes to price gouging. So I do think that we need to give the recently enacted legislation a chance to work to understand more about what goes into pricing. So I will not be supporting this Bill today. Okay. I will see if any of the other Members of the Committee have any other questions. Mr. Fong?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a question to the author. I think an important point that is missing is the fact that California is an energy island and that California has such a unique blend that the reason why this Bill is important is that it allows for gasoline that comes from outside California to come into the market.

So when we do have a supply and demand imbalance, which creates upward pressure on prices, which I think that's what we saw over the summer, is that what this Bill does is it allows for more supply. And I don't know if the author wanted to kind of expound on that.

Right. That's part of this Bill, as well as granting the variances from gasoline specifications, including import gasoline, because that's what we do see is that when we have these gas spikes, it's because of supply. Either one of our refineries goes down for maintenance, we need more gas coming in, we don't have a whole lot of the infrastructure to support that. But this is one of those issues.

What I argue is this allows us to be more nimble when those kind of situations happen so that we don't have the kind of spikes that we've seen.

And look, Chevron, they operate in California and they operate in Texas. They operate in Maryland. They operate in all those states, their gas prices are lower, you have to at least admit that part of this issue is, I mean, if it were simply just purely profit, why wouldn't they charge the same cost in every state? It's obviously related to the costs and taxes that are part of this state as well.

So we're trying to find some flexibility that allows us to reduce costs to consumers and allow us to respond better when we see these kind of spikes. Now, look, yeah, there is new legislation, but even by what was promised with that legislation, it's going to be years before we actually have this up and running and we have the kind of transparency, even if that works according to how everybody says it's going to work. Right? And there is going to be no relief to consumers.

Where's the relief to consumers? My question to you would be how soon is that going to result in lower gas prices for people? And I certainly can't quantify that.

I appreciate that. And I just want to highlight to the Members that in reading the report by Attorney General Lockheer back in the early 2000s, one of the solutions in the report by the Attorney General at that time was to look at expanding gasoline supply and allowing gasoline to come from other states. That the reason why the spike was happening at that time was because there was an imbalance. And of course, at that time they were complaining about gasoline being at $2.91.

So this is not an idea that has come out of thin air. This has been suggested in other reports. Thank you.

I don't see anyone else. One other thing I do want to point out is that we do switch to different blends of gasoline. And that's because we want to prevent people from the negative air quality impacts of using gas that causes more smog. Anyone who lived in Los Angeles in 80s or the 70s knows what a horrible impact that the dirtier gasoline had and the health impacts that it had on our population.

So we're not even sure if what your Bill is suggesting of allowing the waiving of that it would be allowable under clean air standards. But I want people to also understand that there's a real impact to our air quality, to our children's lungs, to asthma rates and everything else, and to just keep your eye on the industry that has been profiting off of people's misery here in California. It would be one thing if the industry was struggling.

They weren't making any money and they had to raise prices accordingly. But no one's arguing that that's the case. With that, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I realize we may just disagree on these points, but to your point that we do have this summer blend, right? That does make the air cleaner and we have the low carbon fuel standard, which is why I'm arguing the main part of this Bill, that because we have that standard, we really don't need it to be part of cap and trade and increase people's costs of the pump.

We could take that out because we're already accounting for that with our better fuel standards that are resulting in less emissions that are resulting in cleaner air. But sometimes when we have emergency situations, when we have spikes that we're experiencing, we need greater tools to address it. Right? And so that's why this Bill does allow for us to change those dates when we switch to blends if needed to help reduce the impact on price.

And I didn't hear anybody complaining about that when the Governor did it by executive order changing us out of summer blend earlier. But I think that those decisions should be made right here in this place, as you all know. And I think we can establish a policy that will give that kind of flexibility so that we can still provide for clean air, that we're still meeting emission standards, but we're also providing affordability to our consumers. This is just, again, it's a tool.

It's a set of tools that allows us to deal with these gas spikes and ultimately provide relief to consumers at the gas pump. And so I think it's a bipartisan thing that we could all get behind. It's reasonable. And I would ask for people's support on this. And again, I say this all the time. I'm a Republican. I can't steamroll this thing through if people have different ideas, ideas for changes, I'm always open to that. Let's work through that and arrive at the best policy.

But one thing is for sure. Nothing we have done is lowering people's gas prices. They're continuing to go up, and they're scheduled to go up in July. So we should probably do something that's going to result in lowering those gas prices. And I would ask for your help with that. Thank you.

Thank you. You do have a motion in a second. Can we have a roll call, please?

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

62. Will leave the roll open for absent Members. Thank you. I'm going to pass the gavel and present my Bill next.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, every year, tens of thousands of Americans die on the road. In 2021, more than 4200 Californians lost their life to a car, over 1000 of which were pedestrians. For too long, we've referred to most of these deaths as accidents. But I would argue that they're not really accidents because that just sweeps under the rug, those tragedies, as though they weren't preventable, but in truth, they were preventable deaths. Now, speed cameras are not new.

Since the 1980s, they've been used around the world to save people's lives and to slow traffic down. That's why the National Transportation Safety Board, the NTSB, the Center for Disease Control, and now the United States Department of Transportation, and the US Congress are advocating for their use to save lives. According to the NTSB, speeding is a factor in 31% of all traffic fatalities. If we want to tackle traffic fatalities, we have to slow down cars.

Slowing down cars and trucks is imperative to saving pedestrian and cyclists lives. According to the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, a pedestrian struck at 20 miles an hour has a 90% chance of survival. That number drops to only 20% if the car is traveling at 40. If the car is traveling at a high rate of speed, it drops to zero. Speed cameras have been proven effective at slowing drivers, reducing collisions, and reducing fatalities.

A 2005 systematic review of 14 studies of speed safety systems in Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand found crash reductions of five to 69%, injury reductions of 12 to 65%, and fatality reductions of 17% to 71% at speed safety system locations after program implementation. Now, unlike the old red light camera program, this Bill was designed with equity and privacy in mind. Red light camera tickets were criminal and carried the same penalty as if a police officer gave you a ticket.

Under this Bill, unlike a traditional speeding ticket, which carries a minimum fine of $238, a point on your license, and the potential for a misdemeanor failure to appear in court, the fines of this Bill start at just $50, and you have to be going at least 11 miles an hour over the speed limit. Those living under the poverty line must be offered either an 80% reduction of that fine or community service, as well as a payment plan capped at $25 a month.

Families of four making less than $54,000 a year must be offered a 50% reduction in fines. Cities are required to work with advocacy groups representing disadvantaged communities on the placement of cameras. Cities can only place cameras on our highest injury streets, school zones and areas where people have been convicted of street racing and motor vehicle sideshows.

Cameras can only take pictures of a person's license plate, and the pictures must be destroyed after 60 days after the final disposition of a violation, or five days if they capture images that do not result in a violation. The information captured can only be used to enforce speed limits and no other laws. The Bill protects residents from cameras being placed in areas to generate revenue. Warning tickets have to be issued for the first 60 days.

And under this five year pilot program, if the cameras are not reducing speeding violations for 20% within the first 18 months, a speed feedback sign has to be installed and a city has to start planning construction of traffic calming measures to slow cars down so they can't use the cameras anymore.

If construction has not begun in two years, cities can no longer use the cameras at the location and one of my favorite parts of the Bill, any revenues generated by the tickets must be used to administer the program and pay for traffic calming measures across the city to make streets safer. Cities are prohibited from using the revenues to backfill existing expenditures on traffic calming measures.

And if the city does not spend the money on engineering solutions within three years, the remaining revenue gets sent to the state for the active transportation programs to give other cities a chance to build projects to enhance pedestrian and cyclist safety, building better roads and slowing cars down using the cameras is imperative to protect communities of color who are disproportionately victims of traffic collisions. Nationally, African American pedestrians are more than twice as likely as white Americans to die in a traffic collision.

In Los Angeles, African Americans account for 16% of all pedestrian deaths, while only making up 9% of the population. Slowing cars down will reduce pedestrian fatalities. Speed safety systems are used in over 150 communities across the US, and most recently became eligible for federal funding under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act as part of a new nationwide goal to achieve zero traffic fatalities. It's finally time for California to join 18 other states and authorize the use of speed systems.

Members, this Bill has been very carefully crafted. We have removed almost all opposition to the Bill, and we have been getting support from all across the State of California. And lastly, I'd like to remind you that this is just a pilot program to give our cities, who have desperately been asking for more tools, the ability to pilot something that could save their citizens' lives. With that, I would ask for an aye vote. I am very proud to have two witnesses with me here today.

Makenzi Rasey the Director of Government Affairs for the City of Los Angeles, their Department of Transportation, and Pastor Patricia Strong-Fargas with Faith for SAFE Streets.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Witnesses, you may proceed. Just to follow in the Chair's precedents. Two minutes each.

Thank you. I like to thank you for allowing me to be here. I'm Pastor Patricia Strong Fargas, pastor of Mount Salem Baptist Church from Los Angeles, and also co chair of Faith of SAFER streets, which houses over 800 churches and leaders in Los Angeles. I come to talk to you because we're tired of burying people who have lost their lives from speed, who's lost their lives from street takeovers, who lost their lives from people who do not look at the lives as something that is very hurt and harmful.

Being a mother of losing a child and missing her sitting at my table and me attending a lot of other individuals who have lost their children, their brothers, their sisters from having horrific collisions like the one on LA Brea and Slauson being there, counseling them, burying them. I came today to tell you enough is enough. We talk about in our black and brown community that policing, we're tired through Black Lives Matter. We're tired of that. But what are we going to do?

We need to stop the over enforcement of policing, but we do need some enforcement. So I came to support this Bill, and I came to talk to you to tell you we need your help. We need to pass this Bill because it's the only way that we will have safety. Also, it will not enfranchise us in our black and brown community to, she's reported to you all the safety measures, all the privacy measures that we have taken care of. So again, I come with my heart. I come with the people from Los Angeles, a group of leaders saying enough is enough. So please consider this Bill and do more than that. Pass this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Members. Makenzi Rasey, Director of government affairs for the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, in strong support of AB 645. Last year, 312 people were killed in car crashes in Los Angeles. That is a tragic, record breaking high that mirrors both statewide and national trends. These crashes disproportionately injure and kill children, seniors, low income people, people of color and people walking. It is speed that determines whether a person is injured or killed in a crash. And Chair Friedman already said this, but it bears repeating.

Nine in 10 pedestrians will survive if they are hit by a car going 20 miles per hour. Eight in 10 will die of their injuries if the driver is going 40. Speed kills and it robs our communities of their sense of security and their quality of life. At LADOT, we are fighting this public health and safety crisis with engineering and street design where we focus investments.

We do see significant reductions in speeding and crashes, but these projects address specific locations and they take considerable time to engage our communities, design our projects, secure funding, and implement. We cannot reverse this trend citywide without also holding reckless drivers accountable. Speed safety systems provide reliable accountability for driving well above the speed limit. They rely on consistency to change driver behavior, not severe penalty. So these systems can reduce speeding with low fines, no marks on a license and no criminal penalty.

And they are proven to reduce fatal crashes by up to 71%. AB 645 would allow a small number of California cities to pilot this critical safety tool. We are very grateful to Chair Friedman for introducing this Bill to authorize speed safety systems with guardrails to ensure privacy and equity and to reinvest revenue back into safe street design. AB 645 will improve our community and save lives. We urge you to vote yes.

Thank you very much. We will now go to opposition. Is anyone in opposition that wants to come forward and testify? Seeing none. For those in the room that want to come forward and provide your Me Too and support, please come forward. Name, organization and position.

Good morning Committee Members and Chair, Mark Watts on behalf of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority in favor of this and we're appreciative of being included in the measure. Thank you.

Chair and Members. Alex Torres, on behalf of the Bay Area Council, in support.

Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco and the office of Mayor London Breed here in support and proud to be a co sponsor. Also wanted to convey the support of the City of West Hollywood. Thank you.

Damian Kevitt, Executive Director of Streets Are For Everyone, also co sponsor this Bill and also in support.

Good afternoon. Kiara Ross. On behalf of the City of Glendale and the Glendale Police Department, very thankful to the author for all of her efforts on this issue and very proud to be a co sponsor of the Bill and supporting. Thanks.

Hi, Katie Angotti. I'm from the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and I'm here to support the Bill. Thank you.

Hello, Rachel Clyde from the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and representing our 6000 plus Members, also here in support.

Good afternoon. Stephanie Estrada, on behalf of the City of San Jose, proud to co sponsors in support. Thank you.

Tara Petters, San Francisco resident here to support the Bill.

Bert Hill, Chair of the San Francisco Bicycle Advisory Committee and we have passed a resolution to the Board of Supervisors endorsing 465. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Before going to the phones, anyone in opposition that wants to come forward and state their position in opposition? Seeing none, we'll go to the phones for blended testimony. Not testimony, blended positions. So, for those who are in support or opposition, please be ready. Operator, please proceed.

Of course. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. We'll go to line 29. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Eric Rozell. I represent the Tenderloin Traffic Safety Task Force and live in a high equity priority community in the Tenderloin, and we strongly support AB 645. Thank you.

And next, we'll go to line 35. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. This is Steve Wallach. On behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, in support of the Bill, I also like to add that the Alameda County Transportation Commission's Legislative Committee has adopted support. It will go to the full Commission next week, so urge your support for the Bill. Thanks.

And next, we'll go to line 36. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Rick Gerling. I'm a Member of Families for Safe Streets, Walk San Francisco and the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition. As a victim of traffic violence, who still suffers 19 years after I was run over, I heartily support AB 645. Thank you.

And next, we'll go to line 28. Please, go ahead.

Good afternoon, Committee. This is Marc Vukcevich, Co Director of State Policy for Streets For All. We are a proud sponsor of the Bill. Thank you.

And next, we'll go to line 10. Please go ahead.

This is Warren Wells from the Marin County Bicycle Coalition in strong support.

And next, we go to line 16. Please, go ahead.

Hi, my name is Barnett Shazinski, member of Walk San Francisco, and I live in San Francisco, and I strongly support AB 645. Thank you.

And next, we'll go to line 30. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Becca Motola-Barnes. I represent Walk San Francisco, and I'm calling in support of this Bill. Thank you.

And next, we'll go to line 33. Please go ahead.

Hi. Jared Sanchez with CalBike in support.

And next, we'll go to line 34. Please, go ahead.

Hello, my name is Carol Brownson. I live in San Francisco and I strongly support AB 645 because I get around on a mobility scooter and I can personally testify that we really need this. Thank you.

And next, we'll go to line 38. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Sheri Albers, representing Lighthouse for the Blind in San Francisco, and I strongly support AB 645.

And next we'll go to line 41, please. Go ahead.

My name is Nancy Beam. I live in San Francisco, and I strongly support AB 645.

Currently. No one else in the queue at this time.

Thank you, operator. We'll bring it back to the Committee Members. Any questions for the author? Mr. Lowenthal.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Madam Chair, for bringing this forward. I'm a supporter of this Bill, and I certainly. Well, let me dial back really quickly. I appreciate that you're approaching this in a pilot context, and my open ended question for you is, have you defined what success would look like in the pilot? Have you already envisioned what the metrics you would want to see as a result of the pilot? Have you defined what those are? Or is the pilot more intended to gather data in and of itself so that you can compare those things?

As far as my understanding right now where the legislation stands, we haven't defined what success would look like, but I would expect that each individual city has their own expectations for what they would like to see out of their program. I'd like to ask my witness from LADOT to see if they've had that discussion within their city, because there are six cities that are each going to roll this out in their unique ways based on their needs.

Sure. Thank you so much. We'd like to see a reduction in speed on our streets and a reduction in crashes on our streets. I think in the cities that have implemented these pilots, we've seen significant reductions in both.

What does significant mean?

Up to 71% reduced crashes in some cities, very significant safety improvements. I think this is also the kind of program where success looks like we're not making any more money off of it. We're not taking in any tickets. We are putting ourselves out of a program because it's so successful that we're not issuing any more tickets. Right. We're talking about behavior change where drivers are no longer speeding on our streets.

And I'll add that failure means that you don't reduce the number of tickets the camera is issuing. And that's why the Bill has a trigger where if that happens, they have to make physical improvements or they can't continue to use the camera. So we've defined failure certainly by not changing that culture that's leading to the speeding.

Any more questions? Are you good? Mr. Gipson.

Thank you very much. Let the author know I support the Bill for a variety of reasons. I think that at least some of the Members on this dais know my story. Thank you, pastor, very much for coming and speaking one, how I define success is that no one is dying. We're saving lives. This Bill would not bring my son back, who was killed by a hit and run motorists. It will not fill the void that all of us are filling in our family.

Every birthday, every Christmas, every family gathering, where we gather and a seat is missing. That's how I define success. And so doing everything and anything that we can do to reduce and make our streets safer is, I think it's the way to go. And I think we should try every tool in our toolbox to make that happen. I'm carrying a Bill, AB 1551, dealing with DUI drivers and holding them accountable, even on a greater level.

And so I support this Bill and would ask the author, she would consider me as being a partner in this quest to get this Bill on a governor's desk and thank our witnesses for coming forward. That's how I define success.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Any other questions from Members? Mr. Berman.

Just want to thank the author for bringing the Bill forward. Happy to already be a co author of the Bill and look forward to supporting it here in Committee. I've heard from a lot of constituents about the importance of this Bill and appreciate you continuing to work on this important effort. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other questions. Madam Chair, would you like to close?

This is my third year working on this Bill, and I really hope that this is the year that we can get this to move through the Legislature and get it signed by the Governor. We have a public health crisis right now with what's happening in our streets. I don't exactly know what's going on, but I know that the amount of speeding, the amount of street racing is going up and up and commensurate with that has been injuries and deaths skyrocketing.

So it's high time that we give our cities more flexibility and more chance to pilot programs like this. This is reasonable. This is fair. This has been carefully crafted with stakeholders. As you can see by the lack of opposition in the room, I think we've hit the sweet spot with this Bill, and I think it's time to give it a chance to work. And so I would request an aye vote today. Thank you. And we're proud to have you as a co author of course, sir. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, secretary, please call the role. We have a motion and second.

AB 645 is do pass and to be re referred to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. [Roll Call].

The vote is 8 to 0 and I'll hand the Chair back the gavel.

Thank you, Ms. Baines, I'm going to have to pass the gavel back. I do have a meeting in a few minutes.

All right, Assembly Member, we are going to go to your Bill, which is file item 11, AB 1519. Please proceed when you're ready.

AB 1519 encourages drivers to get their catalytic converters marked with their vehicle's vin by making it a misdemeanor to remove the marking. This Bill also imposes a misdemeanor for possessing three or more catalytic converters which have had their vin markings removed over the last five years. Catalytic converter thefts have increased more than tenfold and California leads the nation, accounting for more than 30% of all claims filed with state farm.

While vehicles most often hit by thieves include suvs, fleet vehicles and the Toyota Prius, any vehicle can be targeted once stolen. Thieves typically flip Cadillac converters for $50 to $500, while victims can expect to pay anywhere from 1000 to 4000 to get their vehicles fixed. Unless a thief is caught in the act. Law enforcement have few tools to investigate this crime, as it is difficult to link an individual with any specific stolen catalytic converter.

Marking a catalytic converter with a vehicle's Vin is a best practice recommended by law enforcement agencies throughout the country, as well as the borough of automotive repair. This Committee saw several bills last year which would have required that catalytic converters were marked before sale, and this year the Committee will likely see SB 55 by Senator Umberg on that topic. AB 1519, however, represents an important piece of this complicated puzzle.

Under current law, there is no penalty for removing a vin marking on a catalytic converter, and there is no penalty for being in possession of a catalytic converter that has had its vin marking removed. The result is that even if a driver gets their catalytic converter marked, law enforcement are just as likely to be able to prosecute the crime. The thief would still need to be caught in the act to be held accountable.

AB 1519 solves this problem by establishing a scenario where either the Vin marking is intact and can be traced back to the original vehicle, or if it has been removed, possession itself can be prosecuted. This is consistent with the solution that the Committee passed last year and creates a real incentive for drivers to get their Cadillac converters marked AB 1519, is supported by Porak, the District Attorneys Association and the California new car dealers, amongst others.

Joining me today in support are Tim Chang from AAA of Southern California and Jonathan Feldman from the Police Chiefs Association. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. We'll now go to the witnesses in support. I just like to tell the witnesses this is a support support on both sides.

Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. I will be brief because I don't really have much to add on to what the author stated. This is probably the single greatest thing that Legislature can do to assist law enforcement in cracking down on this problem.

Because really, if we haven't seen the crime committed in our presence, even if we pull somebody over with 15 catalytic converters, all with the VIN numbers etched off, clearly suspect as to why they have that many in their possession, there's not much that we can do about it. So we greatly appreciate the author and her effort on this Bill and would request your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Yeah, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, Tim Chang with the Auto Club of Southern California. Yeah, this is a growing problem. It was 4000 thefts nationally in 2019. It was over 52,000 in 2021, and the numbers are still going up. Although we've adopted a few bills from last year, we still need assistance in addressing this problem. We believe that this is a 150,000,000 or 200 $1.0 million problem here in California, and we urge your eye vote.

Thank you very much. We'll now go to the opposition. If there's any opposition that wants to come forward and testify. Seeing none, sorry, you can come up now. We'll now go to the public testimony. Those who want to speak in support, name organization and position.

Kenton Stanhope with the California New Car Dealers Association in support. Thank you.

Seeing no other witnesses in support, is there any opposition? No one wants to come forward. Seeing none, we'll go to the telephones for blended testimony.

For those in support or opposition, please state your position. Operator. Please proceed. Once again, ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to make a comment in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. We'll be going to line 27. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Kim Stone. Stone advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in enthusiastic support.

And there are currently none other in the queue at this time.

All right, bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from Committee Members? Ms. Sanchez.

I want to thank the author for continuing to work on this problem, and I would like to be considered as a co author. Ms. Davies, thank you again. Thank you for bringing this. Any types of tools we can help with deteriorate theft is greatly appreciated, especially when you look at a good cost of about $4,000 or higher. And this is happening all over, including in my neighborhood. So I, too, would like to be considered for a co author and thank you for bringing it forward. And I'd make a motion to pass, if it hasn't already been there.

We have a motion and second already. Any other questions from the Committee? Seeing none, I invite the author to close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, we have a motion. Second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

This is do pass and to be re referred to the Committee on Public Safety. [Roll call].

That's 10-0. We'll keep the roll open. Thank you for presenting moving to Mr. Connolly, I see an author. We are now moving to file item 10, AB 1464. Senator, please proceed when you're ready. And Assembly Member. This Bill has a support, support on both sides.

Great. Thank you, chair and Members, I'm pleased to present AB 1464 today, which directs the Bay Area Toll authority and the Department of Transportation, ie Caltrans, to consider options to reduce traffic congestion and pollution on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge by opening the third westbound lane to vehicular traffic in a manner that considers expanding multimodal transportation, preserving pathways for cyclists, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Anyone who lives in the Bay Area, particularly in the east and north bays, knows how bad the traffic has gotten on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. Each workday, approximately 18,000 Bay Area residents cross this bridge. During peak hours, commuters face about 16 minutes of gridlocked stop and go traffic. This traffic jam doesn't slow commutes, it backs up local streets. And doesn't just slow commutes, it backs up local streets and roads in the City of Richmond, impacting many local families residing in traditionally disadvantaged communities.

According to air monitors in Richmond this morning, freeway backup is now the single largest source of Non Wildfire air pollution in the City of Richmond. It's worth mentioning that these air monitors are next to a Chevron oil refinery. Traffic studies and congestion data from satellite imagery reveal several key factors about this traffic issue. Commuters using the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge come from all over the East Bay and more than half commute longer than an hour drive every day.

These commuters are also driving to varying places of work in the North Bay and are widely dispersed throughout the region, meaning that other modes of transportation, such as public transit or cycling, are not always realistic options. The traffic backup starts from the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge toll booth backwards, ie East, which means the issue stems from congestion at the bridge.

Additionally, a study conducted by the Transportation Authority of Marin states that the commute is getting worse and will grow up to 24 minutes of backup per person in the next three years. Lastly, this congestion is undoubtedly causing greater air pollution impacts in the Richmond community, and the backup is flooding into neighborhoods where kids need to get to school and folks need to get to work.

The disproportionate impact that these traffic issues have on the traditionally disadvantaged communities of Richmond makes this problem greater than just your typical traffic jam. As previously stated, air monitors show that morning freeway traffic is now the largest source of air pollution in the City of Richmond. To address this issue, AB 1464 simply directs barrier, toll authority and CalTrans to consider options of reopening a third lane on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and expanding access to multimodal transportation.

For the record, this is not an effort to pit cyclists against single occupancy vehicles. With me today to testify in support of AB 1464 is John Grubb, Chief Operating Officer at the Bay Area Council, and Joe Fisher, President of the Coronado Neighborhood Council and a longtime resident and local leader in the Richmond community. John, I think we're going to start with. Right.

Great. So thanks, Damon. Good afternoon. Thank you. Chair Friedman, Vice Chair, Fong and Assemblyman Connolly, again, my name is John Grubb, the Chief Operating Officer at the Bay Area Council. In a post pandemic and remote work world, transportation in the Bay Area and around the state has changed. In many cases, blue collar workers who don't have a remote work option are suffering, as are their communities. What's going on at the Richmond Bridge is a primary example. And let me explain.

Again, as Damon said, each workday, approximately 80,000 Bay Area residents try and cross the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. We've looked at who they are, so 63% of them are people of color, 69% of them do not have a college degree, and the majority of them make less in the Bay Area's median income.

These folks don't, again, have a remote work option, since they often come from very long distances from all over the East Bay, and biking and walking and public transit just aren't practical for them, and we're forcing them to sit in 16 minutes of gridlock traffic. Right now, that's about to grow to 24 minutes per person per day. That's in three years. And as mentioned, it's backing up the local Richmond community roads as well. So it's not just those on the bridge.

And it produces three times the particulate and emissions pollution as a free flowing freeway. But we can change it. An abandoned third lane can be opened. It can be a lane for carpools and transit. And if we open this lane, it will help 90% of those stuck in the traffic. There is a bike lane.

But what some of them McConnell is proposing is actually to add an additional bike lane on the lower deck so that you can manage the bridge, and it becomes a more innovative solution on the bridge to allow them to operate. It allows the bridge to be shared, whether you're in a car, a pickup truck, a carpool, a bus, a bike, or even walking, everyone gets to use the bridge and resolves a situation. We need to help these local communities. We need this Bill.

And we ask, just want you know, your time is up.

Ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness. Two minutes.

Good afternoon to the chair, Members of the Committee for Transportation. My name is Joe Fisher. I'm the President of the Coronado Neighborhood Council, which is located only around a mile away from the entrance of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. And I stand here also as the President set here as the President of the Richmond and Marine Coalition for Transportation justice, in support of AB 1464. This will certainly alleviate a lot of the stress standing before in the street for this 1516 minutes. I actually fish.

And I will be fishing in the morning. And point Melody. Point Melody is situated right, the last turnoff before crossing that bridge. I used to work in this neighborhood, Point Melody, at the well station in the 60s. So now I fish there. And each morning, tomorrow morning, when I go fishing, I will be stuck in traffic, stuck in traffic, trying to get from my home. 15, 20, 30 minutes before I could make that exit.

This AB 1464 will not just for me, but for Members like John had mentioned. People crossing that bridge are people of color, people like me, without a college education, working below the medium income, going to an area to work, where they can't afford to purchase a home, stuck in traffic. We strongly encourage you to pass this Bill, AB 1464.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. We will now go to witnesses in opposition, if there's any. We don't have anything listed. Please come. Come forward and testify if you wish. Seeing none, we'll now go to public testimony. Those in the room, those in support, please come forward. Name, organization, and your position.

Sure. Alex Torres, also with the Bay Area Council. With permission of the chair, I'd like to read four names that are also in support here today.

Granted.

Willie Robbins.