Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

The Senate Transportation Committee will come to order. Subcommitee, good afternoon. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via teleconference service for individuals who'd like to provide public comment for today's hearing. The participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code code is 387-4380. We are holding our Committee hearings here in O Street Building. So we ask again, all Members that are part of this Committee be present in Room 1200 so we can establish a quorum.

We have 18 measures on today's agenda and we are starting, as you know, very late. Unfortunately, we've had some little budget things to do. So I hope you all understand. I know with some of the measures there are many supporters and opponents. Due to constraints regarding the length of hearings and technology considerations, we're going to Institute time limits on testimony. The two primary witnesses for each side will be allocated two minutes each.

All others who would like to testify must limit their comments to their name, affiliation and position on the measures only, please. And so we'll establish a quorum once we receive more Members here in the room. Right now we'll start off with our first file item, which is number one, AB 99 by Assemblymember Connolly. Welcome. Thank you so much for being on time and we appreciate it.

Thank you. Chair and Members, good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here. I wanted to start by just saying I appreciate all the work and thought you, Madam Chair, and your staff spent on this Bill. I would like to accept the amendment relating to CAL FIRE and respectfully not accept the amendment relating to local ordinances. My goal with this Bill is to decrease pesticide use by Caltrans.

Technically speaking, Caltrans has a policy of Integrated Pest Management, or IPM, as we'll call it in this discussion since 1992. Yet they've not made meaningful reduction in their pesticide use. So without the local control language, I don't believe we will make the progress we should all be expecting. However, I understand your concern over the workload this might place on Caltrans to have them identify when a local jurisdiction might have adopted an IPM policy that Caltrans will then have to implement.

In order to address that concern, I would like to amend AB 99 to specify that a city or county must submit to Caltrans a written copy of their IPM policy before the local ordinance section is operable. And again, a huge thank you for brainstorming with me personally on this yesterday for our staffs working together to come up with language which hopefully has been shared with the Committee in relation to that proposed amendment.

This change will place the burden on the locals to initiate this process instead of having Caltrans figure out which city and county have adopted IPM policies. I really appreciate the work of this Committee and your dedication again to this issue with me to testify in support of this Bill. I have Megan Cowen with Healthy Highways Coalition and Sonoma Safe AG Safe Schools, and Patty Clary with Californians for Alternatives to Toxics. With your permission, I'd like to call on them to testify.

Thank you. Please come forward.

Chair Gonzalez, and Members of the Committee. AB 99 would put the right policy in place to curtail Caltrans unnecessary pesticide use. Caltrans admitted in their 92 Eir that an 80% reduction was possible. Looking at Caltran spray data, it's clear that the state may be over purchasing and overusing dangerous chemicals on public land. It's fitting to quote Rachel Carson this week, which is the 61st anniversary of the publication of Silent Spring from this book. The irony of this all out chemical assault on roadsides is twofold.

It is perpetuating the problem it seeks to correct for. As experience has clearly shown, the blanket application of herbicides does not permanently control roadside brush and the spraying has to be repeated year after year. As a further irony, we persist in doing this despite the fact that a perfectly sound method of selective spraying is known which can achieve long term vegetation control and eliminate repeated spraying in most types of vegetation. The best and cheapest controls for vegetation are not chemicals, but other plants.

Once properly treated, an area becomes stabilized, requiring no respraying for at least 20 years. When taxpayers understand that the Bill for spraying the town road should come due only once a generation instead of once a year, they will surely rise up and demand a change of method. Carson's words show us that we already have the tools and wisdom we need to manage our roads with very little chemical input. We know how to use grazing animals and controlled burning to rebalance and tend our roadside lands.

We know how to plant pollinator highways to outcompete invasives. Florida DOT is saving 30% on their maintenance costs and realizing 500 million in ecosystem services by doing just that. What we seem to have forgotten is how powerful our efforts can be when they're aligned with natural processes instead of fighting against them. In Caltrans region one, they've used very little or no herbicides for 35 years. Caltrans knows how to do this.

The only thing That's kept us from making this change is a lack of awareness and leadership. I thank the enlightened leaders who have carried AB 99 to this Committee today and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Your next witness, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Gonzalez and Members. I'm Patty Clary of Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, a regional organization based in Arcada since 1980. My background in IPM. The basis for AB 99 includes four years membership of the Methylbromide Technical Options Committee for the Montro Protocol for Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. In this very complicated IPM alternatives practices worldwide. We ID alternatives protectant of high value products on which economies of many nations were balanced.

Critical use exemptions for methyl bromide competing were completely canceled because viable alternatives over time were identified as complicated a challenge as managing Caltrans rosai vegetation management may appear practical. Experience shows that solutions can be found if there is significant incentive to do so. Having in place AB 99 will provide the necessary incentive for Caltrans to modernize, reaffirm its declared but failed IPM promises of the past, and adopt a working IPM to achieve reduction of its significant herbicide usage.

Regarding building Caltrans vegetation Management IPM, the Caltrans District one roadside vegetation management Committee, of which I was a Member for 21 years, trialed potential viable alternatives which could be used in an IPM program by Caltrans. For pilot programs, Caltrans can look to Humboldt and Mendocino counties, where it hasn't used herbicides to manage vegetation for 34 years, and Del Norte, Trinity and Lake counties where Caltrans herbicide use is very limited.

I urge you to vote in favor of AB 99 to move the transition to sustainable vegetation control statewide. Its future is one of the most vitally important agents of our state and further California's leadership in environmental protection. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That concludes your lead witnesses in support. So we'll ask anyone else who'd like to come forward in support of AB 99?

Go ahead. Madam Chair and Member Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for the counties of Humboldt, Napa and Marin, all in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Kira Ross on behalf of the Marin County Council of Mayors and council Members in support. Hello Madam Chair and Members, Melissa Gunn on behalf of the pesticide action network and Californians for pesticide reform in support. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Keith Dunn, on behalf of Save Our Goats. We have an issue with one of the most voracious eaters of these toxic weeds that we can address in this Legislature. I hope that we do, but in support of this Bill, AB 99.

Thank you, thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support of AB 99? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to lead witnesses in opposition.

Please come forward. Good afternoon, Madam Chaired. Members Taylor Roshan on behalf of Western Plant Health Association and a coalition of business and agricultural associations. I'll be presenting for the totality of the opposition in the interest of time. Unfortunately, we are here in an opposed position to AB 99. Conceptually, we agree with the author's effort to specify Caltran's exercise IPM. IPM is a systems approach that requires the users to review the issue and select what tool or suite of tools works best.

And to be clear, pesticides are a part of the IPM tool set when necessary. But rather than follow IPM, as the analysis notes, AB 99 goes beyond the use. He defined and adopted practice by prohibiting the use of pesticides both organic and conventional, with very narrow exemptions in high fire severity zones and for addressing invasive plants and even in those exemption circumstances only if no other alternative has been proven effective with respect to the first exemption.

While we appreciate the allowed use in high fire severity zones, we know that the zones are not the sole indicator of wildfire risk. With the significant amount of late winter rainfall, new vegetative growth, and the start of a very hot summer starting this weekend, there will be significant new fuel loads in areas of the state which have not historically been identified as high fire risk zones. And within those areas, pesticides would not be available for use under this Bill.

As an example of what happens when this restriction goes into place, Caltrans may have to resort to weeding I'm sorry, mowing, which might spread weed seeds, exacerbating the problem. Mowing would need to be done on a monthly basis, requiring more equipment and putting more Caltrans crews, which is already an incredibly dangerous job at further risk. When considering the risks and realities, AB 99 would conceivably restrict the safer and more sustainable approach to pest management.

This Bill also states that pest AIDS can only be used when no other alternative has been proven effective in the coalition. We have questions about what kind of process would be required to make this decision and who makes that decision. From our perspective, we believe that licensed and trained Caltrans crews should be allowed to use their professional judgment and expertise to select the best and most effective method.

Additionally, AB 99 states that Caltrans will follow the policy but must deviate from that policy if a local jurisdiction has a more restrictive standard. California has 58 counties and 482 cities conformance with these standards, even if the cities and counties report to Caltrans will result in significant new resources needed for Caltrans to adapt. And we question the point of a statewide policy if the law requires a patchwork approach.

Finally, AB 99 requires Caltrans provider 24 hours notice in advance of pesticide applications, identifying the location and the time of the applications. We want to note for the Committee that this Legislature approved $10 million for the Department of Pesticide Regulation last year to create a statewide pesticide use notification system. So we believe that's redundant. We believe the author and our coalition want the safe thing.

Same thing the safe, judicious use of pest management tools used by Caltrans that are the lowest risk options when balanced with the most effective approach to managing our pest loads. And unfortunately, we don't believe with the narrow exemptions we can get there with this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That concludes lead testimony and opposition. So we'll move forward with anyone else who'd like to oppose AB 99 here in the room.

Sorry, Dennis Aviana, California Seed Association and California granted feed in opposition. Good afternoon, Abigail Mile. On behalf of the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District here with an opposed, unless amended, position some minor amendments to allow for the full suite of IPM treatments and I thank the author's office for continuing to work with us. Thank you. Hopeful that we can remove that. Thank you. Nico Molina, on behalf of the California Forestry Association with the opposed position. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Matthew Cyberling, on behalf of the California Agricultural Commissioner and Sealers Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in opposition? AB 99? Okay. See? None. We'll move over to moderator. We'd like to entertain anyone who'd like to support or oppose AB 99?

Of course. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to make a comment in support or opposition, please press 1 and 0. You'll go to line 100. Please go ahead.

Thank you, chair Members, my name is Noah Whitley, speaking on behalf of the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. We are in support of this Bill.

Okay, we do have several others that have just queued their line. Number is being taken right now. Next we go to line 87. Please go ahead.

Hello, this is Andrea Ventura with Clean Water Action in strong support.

Next, we go to line 71. Please go ahead.

Hey, I'm Jesse McKnight. I'm a beekeeper in Monterey County and I'm in strong support.

Next, we go to line 81. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Matthew Allen with Western Growers Association in opposition. Thank you.

Next, we go to line 76. Please go ahead.

Lindy Purcell with families advocating for chemical toxic families advocating for chemical and toxic safety and strong support.

Next, we go to line 89. Please go ahead.

Lori Mcbride from Redwood City, Emerald Hills area of San Mateo County. I'm in strong support.

Next, we go to line 79. Please go ahead. And.

79. This is Luke Chapman, resident of San Mateo County. Coastide and Strong support.

This is Chris Rogers, Executive Director for. Sonoma County Conservation Action in strong support.

Next, we will go to line 90. Please go ahead.

Next, we'll go to line 102. Please go ahead.

Christina Mohabir with Californians Against Waste in support.

Next, we go to line 107. Please go ahead. Jason Greenwald. Keep Petaluma wild strong support. Next, we go to line 91. Please go ahead. Piper Primrose with nontoxic schools in Marin County and strong support.

Next, we go to line 75. Please go ahead.

Madam Chair. Frank Acre, former Seventer, mayor of Fairfax, the owner of Casadera Winery in Hillsburg, California, and a longtime Member of the Democratic Central Committee of Marin. I urge you yes, vote aye. Please. Vote aye. Thank you very much.

Next, we go to line 82. Please go ahead.

Paddy may all protect our watershed. San Mateo County. Strongly support. Thank you.

Next. Go to line 77. Please go ahead.

Theodore Rutledge Jr. A Member protect our watershed San Mateo County in strong support of AB 99 thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 68. Please go ahead.

This is Carl Lucia Brink in the Honda in San Mateo County. Voicing support for the AP 99.

Next, we'll go to line 67. Please go ahead.

Joel Folman in the beautiful Santa Monica mountains with poison free Malibu. Strong support.

Next, we go to line 95. Please go ahead.

Michael upon Pacifica San Mateo County. Strong support.

Next we'll go to line 74. Please go ahead.

I'm Sue Brenton from San Mateo County. I strongly support. Thank you.

Next, we go to line 98. Please go ahead.

This is Andrea Moss from Woodside with Protect Our Watershed, San Mateo County, and strong support.

Next, we go to line 112. Please go ahead. 112.

Hi, would you like to support or oppose AB 99, please? Pardon me. This is Anna Lisa Agrin, Monterey County resident in support of AB 99. Thank you. Thank you.

There's currently no one else in the queue, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Moderator so we'll take it back to the dais. And before we do that, I want to thank the Assembly Member. We had a great chat the other evening about this. I know this is very important to you in working with our Committee, understanding that there were concerns about the burden on Caltrans to be able to implement this Bill.

So, just to be clear here, we have added a provision to specify that a city county must submit to Caltrans a written policy of their IPM policy, again preventing Caltrans from having to monitor the various ordinances of every city and County of the state. So I thank you for bringing that forward. And then, secondly, a technical amendment that clarifies high fire severity zones should be identified by CAL FIRE, not Cal Trans, which we thank you for taking as well.

So with that, I will open it up to any questions or comments. Senator Blakespear.

Yes. Thank you. Thank you to the author for this Bill. I want to say I really support this Bill, and I think it's very important. And the reason for that is that our state's large agencies need to be environmental leaders and we need to be protecting our sensitive ecosystems and modernizing, to use the words of one of your lead witnesses. I think the reality is that I come from San Diego County and we had a great relationship with Caltrans, and I think they were very responsive.

But as a large agency, they're doing what they have always done in the way they have always done it. And if we want something different, we can't expect that that's just going to happen on its own. So having a stricter approach to what it is that we are allowing in the Caltrans right of ways, I think really makes a lot of sense.

When I come from being the mayor of the City of Encinitas, and we banned neo nicotinoids and pesticides and herbicides, and our parks went all organic, and there is a transition period, and there are times when you can't keep to that exactly, but you're working toward that. And then we're posting and letting the public know what's going on. And the reality of having cities that are stricter with state agencies that aren't can make it a really uncoordinated system.

And of course, the public doesn't know when you're in the right of way of Caltrans or when you're on a city street, or even then when you're in an HOA sidewalk or the whole variety of ways that we maintain what people perceive to be public spaces. It makes a lot of sense to me that we would do this. And I'm grateful that you brought it forward as a Bill.

I just want to say that I really hope that as we have more and more and more high fire severity zones that we don't allow the exceptions to swallow the rule. So even in high fire zones, I think that we can have a management practice that would allow for this greater natural species diversity, better control of invasive species.

And all of the tools, the mowing weeding, hand removal goats, all the different ways that we manage what grows on our land is something that we need to do in high fire zones as well as lower fire zones. And it also strikes me, as I was listening to the testimony, that every state in this country is managing their freeway right of ways using state agencies.

And we here have what was described in the staff report as wild vegetation that turns dry and becomes an ample fuel for fires or could serve as a vector for invasive species.

But you think about the states on the East Coast or even northern Oregon and Washington that have huge amounts of rain and grass growing and trees growing and just the amount of vegetation that they are having to manage compared to the seasonality of us having some green and then a lot of dry that we have to manage. It's just not that much of a burden.

I really feel like our Caltrans State agency should be able to manage that and we shouldn't feel like that's an overwhelming amount to do to manage the dry brush. And so I recognize how much space they have, and I also really value Caltrans space. I think it is the wilderness that many of us drive through and we look off and have a really nice experience of the aesthetics.

And when the Caltrans right of ways are not well maintained with trash or other things or just in General not well maintained with their weeds and brush, it's significantly less good. And that's our responsibility. So we are the state and we should make sure that our agencies are in line with our environmental policies. So I very much support it. And when it comes to the time, I'll make a motion. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. Senator Seyarto.

So I wasn't going to say anything, but now I have to. So I live inland from Senator BlakeSpears area, and I have about the 15 and the 215 corridors. The entire district, especially starting now and then through November, is a high fired danger area. The freeways are constantly needing to be maintained by Caltrans, and they have a hard enough time now trying to maintain those rights of ways.

There is no goats that get to go onto the freeways on the sides of the freeways or the medians. And a lot of times the fires are started by cars that come off of the freeway and get into the higher brush, and then it spreads and goes up into the communities. So I hesitate when we're talking about limiting what Caltrans does everywhere, because this works in some areas, because in areas like mine, it doesn't.

And they need to use all the tools in their toolbox to ensure that our communities stay safe and they stay brown because otherwise they just turn into what looks like Mars after the fires. That's my concern with this, is that it does limit Caltrans. It may work in areas like my good colleague from Encinitas, but it certainly doesn't work in my entire. So I hesitate to have those tools taken away.

Sure. And I think we have a few answers from Senator.

Thank you for raising that. And I would submit that that's the value of this Bill is it's not a one size fits all. It's actually very directed and narrow toward communities that have developed IPM and come up in a thoughtful way with restrictions, so to speak, that may not make sense everywhere. So this purposely does not impose a one size fits all approach. I would push back, though, on the suggestion that That's somehow a negative that was put forth by the opposition. We're talking about IPM.

There's not a lot of variation, and I think locals are leading the way. And at the same time, this allows for the recognition that other areas may have different needs as well.

Thank you, Senator Dahle.

Well, thank you. This is actually an area that I do a lot of work in. Quite frankly. I think I'm the only state Senator that has an applicator's permit, and we are certified organic on our farm, which is something very hard to do, and it's very difficult to do at the same time. So I want to maybe not so much focus on fire, because that seems to be a lot of the talk. But I want to talk about noxious weeds.

As a person that has now representing 15 counties and several state highways and federal highways going through my district, noxious weeds are something that those of us who farm organically have a very hard time controlling. And there's different ways to do that. There's competition, there's hand weeding, which is very expensive. There's never enough sheep or goats when you're trying to get them in the time frame that you need to get them.

And so I want to think about this as a statewide proposal that the tools that are available in the time that you have to do it in is a very narrow window. So by the time that the weed is flowering and aggressive, you're not going to be weeding that thing. Nothing's going to eat it. It needs an application with the herbicide and so to do best practices. That's what this is.

I'm assuming this Bill is I haven't read the whole thing, but I just want to caution the fact that if you have, I could name off a whole list of noxious weeds that are all along I5. I drive I5 every week. There's morning glory. There's goat grass. We call it goat heads that stick to your tire and get transferred all over the place. And so controlling those along the freeways is very advantageous to everybody That's out off of those freeways.

The weeds can be transferred really easy, just a matter of pulling off the road you can grab. Goat grass is one of the things that we really fight in our crops because it's the same seed size as an Ira seed, and it's very hard to get out, and it's a noxious weed. And without herbicide, it's very difficult and timing. So I'm concerned about, yes, we want to do best practices.

We know that we want to be sensitive to the environment, but to ask these agencies to do it in the windows that they need to get it done in, it's not practical to think that we're going to mow or graze or hand weed all these areas. There has to be the ability to be able to use herbicides to manage those pests. So I'm going to vote no on the Bill today.

I do understand where you're trying to go, but I think that the common sense approach or the ability to be able to do what we're trying to do here is a very small window, and it's going to be hard to achieve.

Thank you. And before we move on, we're going to establish a quorum at this time. Madam Secretary, please call the role Senators. Gonzalez. Here. Gonzalez? Here. Niello?

Here. Niello? Here. Alan Archuleta. Here. Archuleta? Here. Becker Blakespear. Blakespear here. Cortese. Dahle. Dahle here. Dodd? Dodd? Here. Lamone?

Here. Mcguire. Newman. Wynn. Wynn here. Seyarto? Seyarto here. Umberg Wahab.

Okay. Thank you. We've established a quorum. Thank you very much. Would you like to respond to that, or would you like to respond in your close?

Sure. Would be happy to. And I can hit a few of the other points if that would be helpful, or focus on that.

Okay, sure.

Yeah. So, just to be clear, and I'll just tick off a few of the things I heard, this policy is consistent with UCIPM standards. It would not require Caltrans to resort to mowing, quote, unquote. There are several ways that the goal can be accomplished, including the use of herbicides. In those situations, the approach we're talking about will be safer. We've heard safety at every turn as this has moved through the process.

In fact, I would argue that the Caltrans workers will be safer by not being exposed to toxic, cancer causing chemicals. Plus, as mentioned, there are a number of ways to achieve IPM, some of which we've heard today. Again, to emphasize, locals are leading the way on IPM. This is a targeted, narrow approach to build on that progress. It actually arguably would be more costly for Caltrans to have to go statewide all at once. We estimate there are about six to eight counties doing this right now.

So it's almost a pilot, if you will, right now. And I think the right balance approach, and thus it will not require significant new resources. We know Caltrans can do this. They're doing it in Humboldt County right now. And we know this will not result in the alleged patchwork approach. Quite the contrary. Appreciate the commentary on the importance of addressing high fire. Noxious weeds. The next stop for this Bill will be at the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. We look forward to continuing conversations with stakeholders.

And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member. And I know you'll be taking these amendments in the next Environmental Quality Committee, so thank you so much for being open and receptive to our Members and for taking the amendments. And so we have a motion by Senator Blakespear. Okay. And we'll go ahead and take the roll call, please. The motion is do pass to Environmental Quality Committee. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Niello?

No. Niello? No. Alan. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta? Aye. Becker? Blakespear. Blakespear. Aye. Cortese. Dahle. Dahle? No. Dodd? Aye Limon. Limone. Aye Mcguire. Newman. Wynn. Wynn. No Sayarto Umberg Wahab. Five to three.

Oh I'm so glad you said that. Welcome.

Okay, five to three. We'll leave the Bill on call. Thank you. Assembly Member all right, next we'll move on. There she is. File item three, AB 473. Assembly Member Aguiar - Curry with the easiest Bill on the file today.

No one's heard this Bill.

I'm sure That's right.

Well, thank you, Chairman Gonzalez. And Members. And I'm here to present AB 473, which will update the rules governing the relationship between auto dealer franchisees and their manufacturing franchisers under the California new motor vehicle franchise know we have met with your staff, the manufacturers and their Association repeatedly, and we will continue to do so. We feel we have made significant progress in understanding each other's positions, exchanging language, and have already taken significant number of amendments during the process.

There are several of complex issues that we need further negotiation refinement, and we will continue to work with the opposition. And we have agreed to remove the most contentious issue dealing with time allocations for warranty and recall work from the Bill, which should simplify our discussions. Knock on wood. AB 473 represents the latest and necessary periodic updates to the motor vehicle franchise law to break this Bill down. In the simplest of terms, AB. 473 is about fairness. Global automakers are massive.

Multinational corporations are in a much stronger position to negotiate of their agreements with local dealerships. Even as car sales fell during the supply chain issues, automakers have increased their prices and profit margins. As a result, in the third quarter of 2022, domestic manufacturers reported 32 billion in profits, the most since 2016. I do not provide this information as an attack. However, I want you and your colleagues to understand the dynamics between California's car dealers and their franchiseors.

Dealers are important local businesses in all of our districts and are wholly independent of auto manufacturers for the supply of cars to sell and the parts used in repairs. This is why we need to rebalance from time to time. Simply stated, asking our dealers to work it out with their manufacturer partners is asking them to bite the hand that feeds them.

Like any complex law governing a dynamic industry, periodic updates of the franchise law are needed to address changing behaviors and conditions and the level playing field in the relationship. We are prepared to answer Members questions about the Bill, but given your full agenda, I will focus my opening remarks on a few provisions. One of the biggest provisions remaining in the Bill protects franchisees from the direct competition at the hand of the franchiseor.

This provision is meant to keep manufacturers from creating or acquiring companies that will remain in their control and directly compete with the franchisees. As the automotive industry changes, it is important to expand the language that is currently in existing code because current protections are limited to cars that are the same line make. But as California transitions to electric vehicles, manufacturers may not use the same line make anymore and shift sales away from the dealer franchise model.

This leaves consumers without local dealerships available to service their vehicles and will result in the loss of jobs and small businesses in our districts. This protection does not hinder innovation or investment in the EV space. Manufacturers are free to invest in EV startups. However, they cannot use those startups to undermine the franchise system and our local dealers. We have already amended this piece of the Bill to make sure that consumers can get software updates to service their vehicles over the air.

We also amended the Bill to make sure that the new companies can be integrated into the franchise model and assure you and the Judiciary Committee Chair, we are working with our opponents to reduce our differences and we will keep working on this issue. Another important provision in the Bill provides needed protection for consumers by specifying that auto manufacturers can only charge consumers subscription fees for vehicle features that require ongoing work and cost of the manufacturer. That is fair.

Unfortunately, manufacturers plan to use ongoing subscription pricing for automotive features that are already built into the car, cost nothing to activate, and require no additional work by the manufacturer. Hiding the actual consumer costs. Members, think about it. Think about how the airline industry has evolved to change a new fee for every aspect of travel. Luggage fees, seat fees, boarding fees, even fees to sit near your family when your family are the new junk fee standard.

Ongoing costs for automobiles, especially for features that improve safety, should not be hidden as ala carte items when a consumer has already paid for them as they drive off the lot. Disclosures do not solve this problem. It is unreasonable to expect a consumer to fully grasp the additional cost during a process of signing dozens of documents during a purchase. In the interest of time, I'll stop at that. But I am of course, happy to answer any questions with respect to those and other issues.

I want to thank you, Madam Chair. With me today to testify and support AB 473 is Kenton Stanhope of the California New Car Dealers Association and Anthony Bento of CNCDA is also available to answer technical questions.

Thank you. Welcome.

So, for the Chair, we only have one primary witness. Okay, go right ahead. But M Chair and Members Kenton Stanhope on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association, sponsors of AB 473 first, I'd like to reiterate the commitment of the author to build upon the hours of negotiation and the many changes that have already been made to this Bill. Most notably the removal of time, the warranty issue, which was the focus of the opposition's concern.

Rest assured on the other issues that remain in the Bill, CNCDA will continue to work with our auto manufacturer partners to resolve the main issues to the best of our ability. The author summarized the Bill and the amendments well. So I will focus my comments on the number one priority for the dealers of the remaining issues in the Bill, which is competition. Current law prevents any franchise manufacturer or their affiliate from competing with franchisees in the same line make.

Unfortunately, a loophole in current law allows manufacturers to simply rebrand a line make or create a spinoff subsidiary that sells different line makes and circumvent the franchise law entirely, seriously jeopardizing the dealer business within that network. I would ask the Committee Members to keep in mind that individuals choosing to invest and operate these franchise dealerships in your communities do so with the very reasonable expectation that their own franchisors will not directly compete with them.

If the franchiseors breach that expectation, which we are starting to see in the real world today, then the existence of the dealerships that have invested so much in their businesses and in your communities is called into question. We are grateful that many auto manufacturer partners have indicated they have no intention of competing with franchise dealers in this manner, but some intend to do just that.

Unfortunately, and precisely what is in this Bill is seeking to address by preventing franchise manufacturers from spinning off brands and competing directly with their dealer. If a company is not an affiliate of a franchise or manufacturer defined under current law, AB 473 does nothing to prevent them from vertically integrating and selling direct to consumer, as Tesla and Rivian have done in California to date.

Nor does AB 473 prevent a subsidiary or affiliate from using their established dealer network established franchise dealer network of the manufacturer parent company to sell the rebranded vehicles in California. In some, AB 473 takes a measured approach to resolving what is a serious threat to dealers and the businesses in your community. CNCDA respectfully requests your. I vote on AB. 473. With me is CNCDA's Chief Legal Officer Anthony Bento. To answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, that concludes your lead witnesses in support, so we'll move on to opposition. We've got the Ottawa Alliance if they'd like to come forward with their testimony. Please.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, John Moffatt on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. We'd just like to thank the Committee and the chair for work, the author and the sponsors for the amendment taken in this Committee. As noted, that is an important issue that is now resolved, and we appreciate that. But there are many issues that remain in the Bill. A lot of time has been spent already on competition. Competition out in the marketplace.

And we, like our dealer business partners, believe in a level playing field. And competition out in the California marketplace. And new auto sales and new auto manufacturing is a competitive business. The challenge is we don't have a level playing field for competition in the State of California. Manufacturers support the franchise dealer system that we have. It's turned out to be a very good system both for our dealers and for us.

But there are automakers selling cars directly to consumers in the State of California right now, and they are not using a franchised dealer system. That's a big issue. And that's going to be an ongoing issue and something that needs lots of discussion and at some point is going to need to be addressed here in the state.

But I will say there is one discrete part of the non competition language That's in the Bill that is brand new and has never been a part of the competition language in the franchise law. And that's competition over service and warranty service, that has never been there. That is new and we think has significant impacts beyond new vehicle sales and line make and all of those things.

Many fleets, including government agencies, do their own warranty work and are reimbursed by the manufacturer for doing that warranty work. The Bill, as drafted right now will create a monopoly that all of that work now has to go to dealers. We think that needs to be addressed moving forward, in addition to a number of other issues, we think the subscription provisions of the Bill are premature and more than happy to talk about that and many of the other issues as the Bill continues to move forward.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Taylor Roshan on behalf of CarMax in support. James Lombard on behalf of the California. Motorcycle dealers Association in Sport. Thank you. Victoria Rodriguez Nielsen. Marcus, on behalf of Enterprise and Opposition.

Thank you. Thank you very much. That concludes support and opposition lead witnesses. So we'll move forward. With anyone else who'd like to support or oppose AB 470? Excuse me. 473, please come forward.

Madam Chair Members, Theo Peos, on behalf of Ford. Still opposed? Thank you. Chair and Members Kurt Kimmelshue on behalf of Scout Motors with an. Opposed and less amended position. Thank you, chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman with BMW in opposition. Good evening. Matt Kloppenstein on behalf of Volkswagen group in opposition.

Volak Tang with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in opposition. Lawrence Gaiden on behalf of the California. Manufacturers and Technology Association. In opposition. Madam Chair and Senators Cliff Costa, on behalf of General Motors in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support or opposition? Okay, see? None. We'll move over to moderator. Would you queue up anyone who'd like to support or oppose AB 473, please?

Of course. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to make a comment in support or opposition, please press 1 and 0. You'll go to line 117. Please go ahead.

Walker. On behalf of the Motorcycle Industry Council, the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, and the Recreational Off Highway Vehicle Association, we have an opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

There's currently no one else in the queue, Madam Chair.

Okay, well, first I'd like to thank the Assembly Member and her team as well as all of the parties involved. I will tell you, I think I've spent a great deal on this Bill as well, just ensuring that we actually had some sort of alignment in some of the language, and I know it's not perfect, certainly, but I also want to thank the new Car Dealers Association as well as all of the manufacturers who I've connected with directly in getting to someplace that feels somewhat good.

I know, again, it's not perfect and there's still conversations going, but I would still urge that all parties come to the table. I think this became a lot later than historically from my understanding. So as we knew, the warranty time guide issue was the biggest issue. And I think having the dealers come forward and make that concession was huge.

I think in addition to that, as the remaining issues are still on the table, incentives, as you've mentioned, EV, charging competition, which I believe the competition piece, absolutely. As I think Mr. Moffat said, it's a larger issue that this committee may have to deal with at some point later down the road. The direct-to-consumer issue, which I think is a mega issue for another date that might be more appropriate.

But overall, I think that my team as well, putting in the time and effort to ensure that we got parties to the table, I think is a big feat in and of itself, and I thank you again for doing that. Again, still much more work to be done and I'd love to continue to stay updated on how the discussions are continuing at all levels. So with that, I will entertain additional questions. We have Senator Archuleta and the Senator Blakespear.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And, of course, Assembly Member as a co author, I just want to thank you and the Chair and the Committee working so diligently. It's an all out effort because we've got two entities that I keep telling them and I've met with both sides, "Let's get to the 50 yard line", and I think we're there. And the opposition that you've worked with obviously are listening.

And I'd like just to share with you that in the City of Cerritos, that is one of the largest new car dealerships in the state of California, which was once my district, we redistrict and I picked up the City of Industry, which is another area with new car dealerships. Thousands upon thousands of employees across the State of California working in these dealerships. And I appreciate the ownership of these dealers because of the fact that they work diligently with their employees, their families, well-paid jobs.

And I think that the franchisors and franchisees in this case are getting closer and closer. But I also want to point out that we can't forget the human factor in this, and that is the jobs that are here in California. We want to keep that together. So I want to thank you all for the work you've done, and I'm proud to be a co-author, and I'll move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. Well, I want to recognize the author for the efforts to resolve a dispute here because we tried to solve problems, and so I really appreciate the effort there and also to the chair of the Committee and the staff for working on this. I've had several meetings about this topic too, and I think the Bill probably is better than it was. I'm not able to support it today, and I want to explain why.

I think one of the things that's important to note here, and this is basically paraphrased from the committee consultant report, but both the manufacturers and the car dealerships are making record-breaking profits. So it's not that one is making money and the other is somehow disadvantaged. They're both making record-breaking profits. And it says in here that the record profits for the industry are the result of consumers paying an average of 20% more for cars than in 2019.

So we're in an industry where there is a lot of money that is going from consumers to this industry and then it goes on to talk about how the manufacturer's relationship with their dealers is governed by franchise agreements. Sometimes these franchise agreements break down, and periodically business issues arise and then it says, this puts the legislature in the position of resolving business disputes between Fortune 500 companies and wealthy independent businesses. And then, unfortunately, this Bill is not an isolated case.

And I guess, philosophically, I don't want to be in that position with a Bill like this. It doesn't feel like the right place for us to be in the middle of this dispute. And I'm very concerned about some of the things that the opposition testimony said, like creating new dealer monopolies on warranty work. That very much concerns me.

It also concerns me that the EV direct-to-consumers would be hung up in this and that this isn't a secondary issue that needs to be addressed later at a different bill or in the future, but is a current issue at this moment, and that we would be making a decision that would substantially affect this business.

I think it's also important to know that while there have been these negotiations, this Bill applies to all manufacturers and dealers, irrespective of the terms of their franchises or the relationship that they currently have. So some of them have good working relationships and others don't. So all of these things concern me, and I'm not able to support this. And I'll just say that I know, as a courtesy, we sometimes lay off and don't vote no.

But when things don't get a no-voting Committee, then they can go on to consent on the floor, and I don't want this Bill to go onto consent. So I will be voting no today. But just wanted you to know that. And I do appreciate all the efforts that have gone into it. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator Allen.

Well, I guess I'm going to do a bit of a mirror of what Senator Blakespear is doing, which is to say I'm actually in the Judiciary Committee, which is going to be hearing this Bill next week if it gets out. So I am willing to vote for today. Largely in reflection of how much progress has been made so far. Folks from both sides of this Bill have been meeting with each of us, incessantly, for the last two weeks. And I've noticed a great deal of progress.

They got us to the point where a great deal more progress than I'd seen at the very beginning and so I'd like to kind of respect that progress. But still, there are a lot of outstanding issues. I think Catherine does a good job of bringing them up, others have as well. And I'm hopeful that you'll be able to make additional progress before the Bill comes to Judiciary.

And I'm certainly reserving my right to vote one way or another there based on the progress that I see, the Chair sees, that we see, over in that Committee. I know this has been a tough issue. There's lots of issues you're trying to resolve. There's several standalone issues. The franchise issue, obviously, there was the time guides issue that has been addressed, and then the standalone issue that we know the folks from Scout have EV issues, et cetera.

So I know you've been working hard to get to a resolution, and hopefully you'll be closer to it by next week.

Thank you, Senator Newman.

And thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Allen. You fairly well articulated my position as well, so I share your concerns, but also your general take. I'm willing to support the Bill today. I do think, as judgeman, there are several issues outstanding, one of which is rendering clarity around competition and the dealer franchise relationship and what constitutes an independent participant or not. Right.

So we probably need some language that makes clear whether or not somebody's, to what extent somebody can hold an equity position and still be considered an independent player. But I do think that's a legal issue for the most part. With that, I'm glad to support the Bill today with my hope that I know the author will continue working with all parties to get clarity on the outstanding issues. Thank you.

Okay. I don't think there's any other questions or Senator Dodd?

Yes, I agree with Senator Blakespear and many of her comments and also my colleagues to my right here. One of the things, when you hear about these bills early and you have people come into your office and ask if you'll co author, I did. So I will be supporting the Bill today because I believe the author will continue to work on this Bill. But I do have the issues around Scout and the issue around the warranty, monopolies on warranty concern me.

I think we cannot continue to go down a pathway if technology is going to get us to a place where our consumers pay less for something or companies can pay less because they have a lot of mass and they buy 30 or 40 trucks, which probably aren't factory direct. And so I really think we need to be looking at those things so that California isn't the highest-priced leader in the country on every single commodity we do.

And I know I feel confident the author will continue working on the Bill, and I'll support it today.

Thank you, Senator Dahle.

I would just like to say that, as all of us have, as both sides have been to our offices for a long time, I was looking for fair. At the end of the day, That's really what I am focused on. And I want to thank the author for working diligently and the chair on the amendments so far. I'll be supporting the Bill today, and we'll see what happens when it comes out of Judiciary with the remaining items that are still out there.

Thank you.

Okay, that concludes discussion. I again want to thank you, Assembly Member. I know this was not easy for any of us. You heard the membership loud and clear. We still want the parties to come together and discuss. I think at the end of the day, as many of my colleagues had mentioned, that we're focused on the consumers as well. I mean, That's what a lot of what this is, we get tied into this.

But at the end of the day, we want to ensure that it's the best outcome for consumers and hopefully with agreements that make sense and then looking ahead. Absolutely. I think I share the concern on the Scout issue and the direct-to-consumer issue, where we have to tackle that at some point. And so I know you're committed to that as well, and we look forward to continuing our work together. But with that, would you like to close?

I sure would. Thank you. And I really appreciate everyone's comment. They are important.You know members, I took on this Bill because my own local dealer has been telling me for years about the problems, and this Bill was hopefully going to solve some of those. And we've already taken lots of amendments, and I will undoubtedly continue working with all of you to make sure we get it as balanced as possible.

This Bill simply says that automakers who have existing franchisees cannot create a spin off company to go around their dealers. And I want to just address this quickly. The opposition claims that Scout is a separate company, but it is owned by Volkswagen, run by executives who come directly from Volkswagen and is funded by Volkswagen. And the key here is that Volkswagen has control over Scout and can use Scout to make its dealers obsolete as California transitions to fully electric vehicles.

But remember, this Bill does not prevent automakers from investing in new and exciting vehiclesstartups. You know, we know that there's a company, Ford, previously invested in Rivian, but it is not owned at Rivian. And as a result, Rivian's direct-to-consumer sales are not impacted by this Bill. And I look forward to continuing working with all of you. Continue the conversations, I hope you don't get burned out along the way.

The opposition today, I'm asking you to support your local businesses and their employees who work every day to make sure all of our communities can access and service motor vehicles. You know, wouldn't it been nice that all the dealers could line up here, but they won't. Think about it. With that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Assembly Member, we have a motion by Senator Archuleta. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Nine to one. We'll leave the Bill on call. Thank you.

Thank you. And thank you for all your help.

Thank you. All right, next we have file item eight, AB 645 by Assemblymember Friedman. Welcome.

Thank you. Ms. Chair and Members. I want to start by saying that I accept all the Committee amendments. The amendments are described in the analysis on paragraphs seven, eight, and 10 and specified with a mockup of the amendments that have been provided from my office to Committee staff. This is the first time that a speed camera Bill is passed with bipartisan support out of either half of House of the Assembly, with the support of both the chair and Vice Chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee.

This has been a Bill that we have worked on now for three years. And there are a lot of concerns that have been brought up throughout the last couple of years about this Bill. And I understand that because we all saw the failure of the red light camera program in California, and we wanted to make very sure that we didn't follow along the same path and lead to the same failure.

We wanted to make sure that we addressed all of the concerns that have been brought up around speed cameras, all of which, by the way, are legitimate concerns. And we've been working with stakeholders up and down the State of California with every single interest group on a way to craft this Bill that can give the cities that want to pilot it the six cities, the tools that they feel that they need to save lives and slow down this increasingly bad trend of street racing, egregious, reckless driving and the spiraling deaths that we've seen for pedestrians and cyclists across the State of California. So I would like to actually go through the concerns about the Bill and how this Bill seeks to address all of those concerns.

First, we have heard concerns from law enforcement that speed cameras are going to replace them. I can tell you in my community that there's plenty for law enforcement to do besides ride traffic tickets. But we negotiated with Porak amendments to limit cameras to be able to cover 25% only of the highest injury streets in air's jurisdiction. In other words, less than 1% of streets. And remember, this is a piloted that we agreed with law enforcement to limit to six cities. Concerns were raised that this Bill would target low individuals, low income individuals and harm them.

So we took amendments to lower fines and provide even lower fines based on people's income. So, unlike a traditional speeding ticket, which carries a minimum fine of $238, that escalates very quickly based on how fast you're going and a point on your license and the potential for a misdemeanor failure to appear in court. The fines in this Bill start at only $50 for going 11 miles an hour over the speed limit.

And you have to be going at least 11 miles an hour over the speed limit to get a ticket from these cameras. Not less than that at least 11 miles an hour over so that we really are going after people who are really speeding. And that $50 fine is reducible if you're low income. A middle class driver would have to receive five speeding tickets before it costs more than a single ticket issued by a police officer.

Those living under the poverty line must be offered either an 80% reduction in that $50 fine or community service, as well as a payment plan capped at $25 a month. A Low income driver would have to receive 25 tickets by a speed camera before it costs more than a traditional speeding ticket given by an officer. Under the proposed amendments, families of four making less than $69,000 a year must be offered a 50% reduction in the fine.

Those families would have to receive 10 tickets with a speed camera before it costs more than one ticket issued by a police officer. Concerns have been raised that cameras could be for generating revenue rather than improving safety. The speed trap argument. We amended this Bill to protect residents from cameras being placed in areas to generate revenue under this five year pilot program, if the cameras are not reducing violations by 20% within the first 18 months.

In other words, if they don't decrease the number of tickets they're given, a speed feedback sign has to be installed, and a city has to start planning construction of traffic calming measures to slow cars down before they can continue using the program. If construction has not begun in two years, the cities can no longer use the camera in that location.

Revenues generated by the tickets from this, and this is very important, revenues generated by the tickets given by these cameras have to be used to administer the program only and pay for traffic calming measures across the city to make streets safer. It can't be put into the General Fund. It can't be used for any other use. It has to be used to slow cars down. Cities are prohibited from using the revenue to backfill existing expenditures that they've already planned for traffic calming measures.

And if the city does not spend the money on engineering solutions within three years, the remaining revenue must be sent to the state for the active transportation program to give other cities a chance to build projects to enhance pedestrian and cyclist safety. This Bill allows cities to use a limited number of cameras based on a city's high injury network only.

The cameras can only be placed to protect our children in school zones, on the streets, within a jurisdiction with the highest number of injuries and deaths, using a mathematical formula developed by Caltrans, and in areas that have had at least four calls for speed contests and sideshows. In other words, those areas where people are street racing. Now concerns have been raised that the cameras would impact privacy and create a surveillance state. We take that very seriously. We don't want to do that.

We took amendments so that the cameras can only take pictures of a person's license plate. There's no facial recognition technology used in this Bill, and the pictures must be destroyed 60 days after the final disposition of the violation, if there's a violation, or five days after taken if the images do not result in a violation. So we don't hang on to this data.

I tell you have a lot more to worry about from the parking tickets that are being given in those readers than in this Bill because they're so heavily restricted. And again, the information capture can only be used to enforce speed limits. There is no allowance of any facial recognition technology. Concerns have been raised that the cameras would create gotcha moments again speed traps.

We took amendments requiring that the exact addresses of where the cameras would be placed, a requirement for signage indicating a camera is in place, and a publicity campaign before the program can take effect. A 60 day warning period before we use the cameras. And now with the Senate amendments, the first ticket that you get from these cameras has to be a warning. So our goal is not to be punitive, not to issue more fines. It's just to slow the traffic down.

Concerns have been raised that the cameras would target people of color. We took amendments requiring that the cameras are evenly placed throughout a city, not concentrated in any one area, even while we note that the people primarily being killed by traffic violations are people of color. Now, speed cameras work. It's why the National Transportation Safety Board and the Center for Disease Control and now the United States Department of Transportation and US Congress are all advocating for cities to use speed cameras to save lives.

According to the NTSB, speeding is a factor in 31% of all traffic fatalities. If we want to slow down this increasing amount of deaths we are seeing for pedestrians and cyclists, we have got to slow down traffic. Slowing cars down is imperative. A pedestrian struck at 20 miles an hour has a 90% chance of survival. The number drops to only 20% if the car is traveling at 40 mph. Speed cameras have been proven effective at slowing down drivers and reducing collisions and fatalities.

A 2005 systematic review of 14 studies of speed safety systems in Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand found crash reductions from five to 69% and injury reductions of 12% to 65% and fatality reductions of 17 to up to 71% at speed safety system locations after program implementation. Beyond saving lives, speed cameras are incredibly effective at increasing compliance with speed limits. New York City's speed camera program has seen a 73% decrease in speeding.

Nearly half of drivers who received a speeding ticket in both New York City and Chicago never received a second ticket over the course of at least three years of the cameras operating. And remember, here we're giving them warnings for the first ticket. Another 19% of those in New York never received a third ticket. In Chicago, more than 80% of drivers never received more than three tickets. Speed cameras will save lives and increase compliance with the law.

To make things safer for everyone on the road, I would like to introduce my witnesses Jeffrey Tumlin, Director of Transportation from SFMTA, and Pastor Patricia Strong Fargas with Faith for Safer Streets.

Thank you, Assembly Member my name is Jeffrey Tumlin. I'm the Executive Director of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, and in this role, I am responsible for the safety of all street users on the streets of San Francisco. This last year in the United States, we faced the highest number of pedestrian fatalities since 1981, with fatalities up 77% just in 2010 through 2022.

Similarly, in San Francisco, we faced the deadliest year since 2014, with fatalities up 28% during COVID Among these fatalities, speed was the most common factor contributing to the crash and to the severity of that crash. This staggering loss of life is a preventable tragedy. As a city, we are using all of the tools currently available to us. All of our street capital projects are for safety, and we prioritize resources on the 12% of our streets that face the 68% of severe injury and fatal crashes.

Individually, these projects have been successful, and they've cut bike and pedestrian severe injuries by about a third. But it is simply not enough in San Francisco, people hit by cars are disproportionately black, brown, seniors and people with disabilities. We are grateful that AB 645 breaks new ground on equity, including privacy protections, fines graduated by income, and a shift from criminal to civil fines. Cities all over the world and around the US have demonstrated the safety benefits of speed safety cameras. We implore you to support this limited pilot project for the deadliest streets in six California cities. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Tumlin. And welcome, Ms. Fargas.

Hello everyone. So my Senator, Gonzalez, I'm in your area and I came to speak on AB 645. And as I walked in this room, a question came to my mind. Why are you here? What are you doing in here? So I came to answer that question for you. I represent 800 houses of worship in Southern California. I'm a co chair of Faith for Safer Streets. I'm a VP of Baptist Ministers Conference. And if you know that, they don't do women too much.

But now I'm a VP of a Baptist minister's conference. I also represent World Impact, but I also represent families that have lost loved ones. And South LA Stateholder where we have more collisions and more deaths on our streets. In fact, Monday morning and if anyone else can vouch for this, if you saw it on TV, five bodies were laying on the freeway from speed missing from their kitchen table. Safety and enforcements are missing from our streets.

School zones have faced 65% of drivers speeding over 6 mph over the speed limit. In the school zone. In 2021 alone, 4,258 Californians lost their lives to traffic collisions, a 10.7% increase from the previous year. I don't know what's going to be in 2022, but it's counting in 2023. It has become the wild, wild west on the streets of Los Angeles and other areas. And the citizens are being the victims and held captives under speeders, takeovers, collisions, hit and run. I came.

That's why I'm here, to testify. The need for change and care about people lives. Some say infrastructure is the answer. Well, I have a witness to that. It took me 10 years and four deaths before I could get just a simple pedestrian light. We're in process in South LA trying to get more pedestrian lights, but it's buried in bureaucracy, the covenant, not enough funds. So we are praying that no one else gets killed before a simple light could be put in place. Why am I here?

Well, I'm glad you asked me that. Do anyone care? Well, we do. Enough is enough. A group of pastors and parishioners of Southern California have agreed with this. AB. Six, four, five lives are important. Only way to change speeding these feeding drivers is a behavior change. Number one, they have to acknowledge that they are speeders. They have to acknowledge that they kill people. They have to acknowledge that it's wrong and they have to be accountable for their actions.

The only way that can happen is that they realize that their license plate was on a speed camera. How do I know the camera can change? Well, as it was stated, New York has 15% reduction in crashes, 17% decrease in severe injury, and 55% decrease in fatalities. Portland, Oregon, has 54% reduction in traffic fatalities. Chicago, Illinois, has 15% reduction in fatality and severe injury crashes. Scottsdale, Arizona, 63% reduction in single vehicle crashes, 48% reduction in sideswipe crashes. Overall, 54% decrease in fatalities. Washington, DC.

70% decrease in fatalities. Montgomery County, Maryland, 39% reduction in the likelihood of crashes. Charlotte, North Carolina, 15% reduction. Cameras help save lives. Why am I here? Just to testify. Let's save lives. Lives is more important than fines. Lives is what we come to do. And That's why we elect you to help us save lives. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Fargas. And I will say I'm very proud that you're a constituent of mine. So thank you so much for testifying. I appreciate that. So that concludes lead witnesses in support. So we'll move on to lead witness. Well, actually okay, I see people moving forward, so we'll take on anyone else who'd like to come forward in support of AB 645, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair Steve Cruz on behalf of the City of San Jose, one of the proud pilot cities of the program and pleased to support the Bill and hopefully get support from this Committee today. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange on behalf of San Francisco Mayor London Breed, who is a co sponsor of the Bill as well as the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Member Silvia Solis Shaw, here on behalf of the City of Los Angeles in support. And also on behalf of the City of West Hollywood in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Damian Kevitt, Executive Director of Streets are for Everyone. Also speaking on behalf of Marin County Bicycle Coalition, Norwich United's, Move Santa Barbara County, Cal Bike, Santa Monica Spoke, Active San Gabriel Valley, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, San Diego Bicycle Coalition, Association of Pedestrian Bicycle Professionals, Conor Lynch Foundation, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance, SPUR, Livable Cities, SoCal Cycling, Lyft, Bike LA, Bay Area Council, Bahati foundation, Kids Safe San Francisco, Berkeley Path Wanderers Association, West Hollywood Bicycle Coalition, Livable Communities Initiative, Streets for People, Tenderloin Community Benefit District, Investing in Place, Abundant San Francisco, Historical Society, Japantown Task Force, the League of American Cyclists, Los Angeles walks, South Pasadena Active streets, Global Government Affairs for Cruise, Climate Action Santa Monica, Families for Safe Streets San Diego. All in support.

Guinness World record for most organizations represented. Thank you very much.

Kyra Ross, on behalf of the City of Glendale, co sponsor the Bill. Very thankful to the author for her multiple years of efforts on this issue.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Niccolo De Luca, here on behalf of the City of Oakland, in support. Very grateful for the author's work. And the City of Berkeley, also in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair Members, Amy Brown. On behalf of the City of Long Beach in support.

Madam Chair and Members Duncan Mc Fetridge on behalf of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. In support.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support? Okay, now we'll move on to opposition. I believe we have someone here from the ACLU.

Thank you, Becca Cramer Mowder, on behalf of ACLU California Action and respectful opposition to AB 645, we applaud the author's goal of eliminating traffic fatalities caused by speeding. However, we have concerns about the way AB 645 tries to solve the problem. And while we appreciate the author's efforts to include some privacy and equity provisions, there are other effective ways of eliminating speed based traffic fatalities, such as the traffic calming measures highlighted in the Bill, which do not have AB 640 five's inherent privacy and equity problems.

Yet, rather than center these, the Bill instead relies on surveillance, automated enforcement and increased ticketing. We recognize that traffic calming measures cost money. However, AB 645 also has costs instead of cities and counties in paying the bills though, AB 645 transfers the burden to vulnerable Californians, automated enforcement mechanisms often disproportionately target drivers in communities of color and communities experiencing poverty.

When ending Rochester's Automated Ticketing through Surveillance program, for example, the mayor noted it was a program that, quote, disproportionately affected the poorest of city residents and was, quote, counter to our efforts to reverse Rochester's troubling rates of poverty. In Cleveland, black drivers received 61% of speed camera tickets, despite making up only 38% of drivers. And we have seen in other cities that the programs that start small end up ballooning, with one city averaging a ticket every 11 seconds.

AB 645 surveillance enabled automated enforcement based solutions will recreate these same problems we have seen across the country and go against the recent reforms to California's ticketing laws to reduce the well documented economic harm caused by mass ticketing, even when the tickets are of a lower price. The need for reducing speed based traffic collisions does not warrant the creation of a new mechanism for government collection of large amounts of data on Californians.

And we have seen in other surveillance contexts that despite prohibitions on sharing information collected from these surveillance technologies, they still get shared. For example, you might have seen the plethora of articles that came out just before floor session last month where ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation sent letters to over 70 law enforcement agencies in California who, despite the law being very clear that automated license plate reader information cannot be shared out of state, were still sharing ALPR information with states that criminalize abortion. On behalf of the foreseeably harmed communities, we respectfully request you pursue traffic calming measures directly and ask for your no vote on AB 645.

Thank you. Thank you very much. For your testimony. So we'd like to welcome anyone else who'd like to oppose AB 645, please.

Good evening. Tracy Rosenberg, on behalf of Oakland Privacy in opposition. We appreciate the author's efforts with this Bill, but we are still opposed to speed cameras. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members Randy Perry with Aaron Read and Associates on behalf of poor Akinwer in opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in opposition? Okay. Seeing none. Moderator, we'd like to queue up anyone who'd like to support or oppose AB 645, please.

Of course. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to make a comment in support or opposition, please press 1 and 0. Going to line 108. Please go ahead.

Line 108. My name is Gina LeBlanc. I'm a bereaved mother of Kyle who was killed by a speeding driver in San Jose. In strong support of AB 645.

Next we'll go to line 101, please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon. This is Steve Wallauch on behalf of the Alameda County Transportation Commission and the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District in support.

Next. We'll go to line 104, please go ahead.

Michael Bane with Spur in strong support.

Next, go to line 94. Please go ahead.

Genesis Coronado with Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Next we'll go to line 124, please go ahead.

This is Marc Vukcevich, Co Director of State Policy for Streets for All, one of the sponsors of the Bill. In strong support.

Next go to line 129, please go ahead.

San Francisco Bicycle Coalition in support.

Next go to line 123, please go ahead.

Jay Beaver speaking for Safer Streets LA and National Motors Association in respectful opposition.

Next go to line 105, please go ahead.

Madam Chair and Members Robert Debalo from San Mateo County, on behalf of United Motor Vehicles of California in strong opposition. Thank you.

Let's go to line 106, please go ahead. 106 your line is open. Next we'll go to line 122, please go ahead.

122. Your line is open. Please check to make sure you're not on mute. Next. And then we'll go to line 128. Please go ahead.

Yes, this is Rosemary Kamei, vice mayor of the city of San Jose. In support.

Next, we'll go to line 130. Please go ahead.

Hello ma'am. We'd like to find out if you'd like to support or oppose AB 645, please.

Hello, I'm Doyle from San Francisco District 5. I strongly support. Thank you.

All right, next, we'll go to line 119. Please go ahead.

Topher Mathers with Active San Gabriel Valley. Strong support.

And there's currently no one else in the queue, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you, moderator. So, first, I'd like to begin by saying thank you very much to the author. I know you've been working on this for quite some time, as you mentioned, three years.

I think if any Committee in the Senate really is devoted to equity, I think this is one of the committees that certainly has been working on adding additional amendments to ensure that, to the opposition's point, that we aren't going out after these drivers who are predominantly black and brown and in underserved communities. And that is very, very important to this chair, of course, to this Committee and to many of the Members, as I'm sure you'll hear from.

It also includes, we've added provisions to adopt this Bill in a public hearing, in a public setting, ensuring that the cameras are placed in geographically diverse communities, reporting back. So there are a number of elements that have been added. Of course, as you mentioned, first violation is a warning, so people know what is actually happening first and foremost. And again, all with the outcome of ensuring, again, traffic safety.

I think here in Long Beach, we just encountered, I think we're now over as Ms. Vargas mentioned, we're now over 50 deaths. Primarily those are pedestrian deaths. And so I can't go back home and say, well, we didn't get another speed camera Bill or at least try for it back home, because what am I going to say to those families? And I think to Ms. Vargas's point, Mr. Tumlin's point, and to your point, is absolutely right.

I mean, we've done all the traffic calming we can do in many of these cities. We need one more tool in our toolbox to ensure that we actually get the data and we do the right thing. I feel that this is one step in that direction. So with that, I will continue to work with you on this Bill. I would love to just see where this continues to go.

Obviously, we'll get the data back and then learn from these behaviors and see where we can go to reduce fatalities and injuries at the best. With that, I will open it up to questions. Senator Newman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to amplify the chair's comments and commend the author I don't think anybody does traffic calming and vehicle safety measures as well as this author. And I appreciate that you've been working on this long and hard, but also very thoughtfully, and I would agree there is a problem. Right to Ms. Vargas, thank you. You eloquently described it, and there's a constant theme of many of the bills that we're discussing. Cars and trucks continually get bigger and faster, bigger and faster.

And that takes the form of significant safety issues all over California, but particularly in cities. I do think that there is not only a value but a need for the deterrence that comes with the enforcement that cameras can bring. And I do appreciate that you're doing this deliberately as a pilot, that you are more than willing to look at the data at the end of the pilot.

I think that should give everybody the comfort that these are a bunch of questions that are not only deserving of exploration, but once we have answers, we can, in an objective way, take next steps, if that's warranted. I do have one very quick question about the license plate provision. How do you account for that situation where somebody makes the assertion that that was my car, but I was not driving it?

Well, we moved this violation away from the current violation in law to the same section and code where parking tickets lie. So if you think of it like a parking ticket, it's not an excuse to say, hey, my kid parked the car there, not me. You still have to pay it. And it's the same idea with this. And that's why there's no points in anyone's license plate, why it's a nominal fine.

In fact, the first one's a warning so that if your child is driving and they're speeding, you get that first ticket. It's a warning, and you can maybe take the keys away. So that's why there's no facial recognition technology. We can't both not use facial recognition technology and then sort of care who's driving. So that was the trade off that we made.

And if I may say, just to the ACLU's argument, and by the way, being on the opposite side of the ACLU is an unusual place for me to be and an uncomfortable place, because usually I'm on the same side with them. But the concern they had about law enforcement sharing this license plate, I want to just point out again that in our Bill, it's probably the only time in law right now where you have to purge that data within five days. It has to be deleted.

So in some ways, we're setting a new standard of not maintaining the information. Whereas now, if you get a parking ticket in Pasadena, they're using license plate readers. They may be keeping that data indefinitely, and in this Bill, we make them delete it.

I appreciate that. I will stay out of Pasadena, and I'm glad to support the Bill today.

Thank you. And I will say that many of the privacy concerns will be dealt with in the next Committee, which will be judiciary. So Senator Blakespear?

Yes, thank you. Just briefly, because I know we're running late here, but I just want to make sure and say that I am personally concerned about vehicle violence, as I know so many are, and the effect on pedestrians and students and older people and minorities and all the categories that you listed. Vehicle violence is catastrophic for families, and we could be doing better.

So, to me, this Bill is really great, and I appreciate all of your efforts to address the many concerns that plagued the red light camera programs that we had. And it feels sufficient, the things that you've done, and I think it strikes the right balance, and I'm happy to support it, and I would move it if you need it.

Thank you. And I'll move on to our Vice Chair, Senator Niello.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, so many times we recognize the same problem in this exercise of public policy that we do. We recognize the same problem, we agree that that's a problem, and we develop entirely different solutions. And I think this is a good example of it. I have significant concerns about this approach, but as I've stated in other hearings, I am appalled at the driving habits that have developed in my observation since the Pandemic.

And I don't know why, but the behavior of drivers on the roads is, as I said, appalling. It's dangerous. It scares me, quite frankly. Just this morning, driving in, there was a lot of traffic, and I had to slow down to get in the right lane to get an exit. And a Chevy Camaro, no offense on the brand of car - it's the driver, came up really fast behind me, would have hit me, but rapidly turned into the lane to the left and then honked at me.

And now I'm recognizing that the aggressive and horrible drivers don't even realize that they're aggressive and horrible drivers. So I agree with that. This Bill eliminates most of the roads where I see this happen. It does not include any areas patrolled by the CHP. That's unincorporated areas and freeways. What happened to me this morning was on the freeway. And on the freeway is where I notice a significant amount of this aggressive and dangerous driving.

And then, in my observation, also unincorporated areas, because when I'm not in the City of Sacramento, that's where I usually am. So we eliminate a significant portion of this dangerous driving, and I believe that what we need is more enforcement. The consequences of a ticket given under this approach are, quite frankly, not enough. And you just mentioned the records are eliminated. No points are added. The offender gets a little notice in the mail and has to pay a fine.

That's not a particularly intimidating experience to be stopped by a cop and pulled over and have a cop especially be irritated because of the nature of the driving out there is a far more consequential experience for a driver. These drivers, the one this morning thought that he was, or she was, right, not me. They think they're right in driving that way. There needs to be much more serious consequences to the sort of driving that I'm seeing.

And I don't see this approach, even if it were applied in the CHP enforced areas. It isn't- The consequences are not enough. We need more enforcement. I know that costs money. I know we have a budget problem, but we need more enforcement. I don't believe that this approach is the right approach.

Senator Becker.

Well, thank you. Chair, just in the interest of time, I won't go into all the pieces of the Bill. I just say I've shared some concerns as well about the implications of enforcement and gives me some concerns that PORAC opposed because normally I think they'd be supporting a Bill like this. But I do appreciate the arguments that were made and I appreciate that this is a pilot and I appreciate the efforts by the author.

This isn't as wonky with as many acronyms as some of your other transportation bills that I love. But I will support this today and look forward to discussing going forward.

Okay? Any other questions or comments? And I know one other comment I'll make is that I would hope that the cities would engage the Members of this Committee as well and that they'll do their due diligence in doing that. So that way everybody feels engaged and there is more proactive measures to include their thoughts as well with these six cities that should be doing that nonetheless. So with that, we'll entertain a motion by Senator Blakespear and we'll allow you to close. Assembly Member.

Thank you. I really appreciate the very thoughtful discussion. I appreciate all of the concerns that have been raised not just in this hearing, but for the past couple of years working on this Bill. We will continue to work on it as the Bill hopefully moves forward today.

I will just say that I have very rarely worked on a Bill that's had this much public interest, this many people from across California being very enthusiastic at the chance of having their cities, again it's only six cities have another tool to try because like me, they're afraid for themselves. They're afraid for their children. My daughter just turned 10 last week. She just got a bike for Hanukkah last year. And I'm scared every time she goes out on her bike in my neighborhood.

So this is something that I think we should be trying. We will refine it. We'll continue to refine the Bill as it moves forward, and I'm sure we will continue to refine the program. But given that we're going in the wrong way in terms of speeding and in terms of public safety. I do think it's time that we added another tool to the toolbox. And with that, I would request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Do pass as amended to a Judiciary Committee. [Roll call]

Seven to four. We'll leave the Bill on call. Thank you, Assembly Member. Okay, we'll move forward with file item nine.

That is AB 752 by Assembly Member Blanca Rubio.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, for allowing me to present AB 752 relating to state highway and worker safety. Construction workers engaged in working long roadways and highways face risks not inherent to traditional job sites. These are risks inherent to being exposed to vehicular traffic. Advances in personal electronic technology, especially in the cellular phone space, have led to unprecedented increases in roadway construction side vehicular intrusions. The three largest causes of fatal accidents are lane departure, speed management, and impaired driving.

In 2020, over 102,000 work zone crashes were estimated to have occurred, resulting in over 45,000 injuries and 857 fatalities. Between 2013 and 2020, highway construction work zone fatalities increased over 45%. Every injury or death for workers alongside roadways and highways is one too many. Existing law provides that the Department of Transportation has full control of all state highways and authorizes the department to construct, improve and maintain state highways.

Caltrans has identified the use of positive protection devices as an effective strategy to improve work zone safety through the use of positive protection, which will place a physical barrier between the workers and the flow of traffic. This Bill will bring an additional layer of safety to highway construction work zones, preventing further intrusion from vehicles into the construction sites. Positive protection reduces the risk of vehicle intrusions into the workspace and can be covered up to 90% by the Highway Safety Improvement Program and other federal funds.

This Bill is a common sense and cost-effective method of safety reform that will prevent death and injuries of workers on roads and highways. Here with me to testify is Beverly Yu on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, and James Thuerwachter on behalf of the California State Council of Laborers.

Thank you. Madam Chair and members. Beverly Yu on behalf of State Building and Construction Trades Council. We are a proud sponsor of AB 752 to increase safety of workers in construction zones. We would like to thank the author for her hard work on this Bill to champion a practical solution. Construction sites, as you know, are inherently dangerous. But when located alongside busy highways, the risks are magnified due to being exposed to vehicular traffic.

That is why the implementation of positive protection measures is critical to ensure that our members return safely home every day. The risk of severe injury or death for an individual struck by a vehicle increases with speed. For individuals struck by a vehicle traveling at 23mph average risk of severe injury is 25% and the risk of death is 10% as the speed increases to 46mph the risk of severe injury if an individual is hit reaches 90% and at 15 miles per hours, the risk of death is at 75%.

Positive protection is a measure or device placed between the worker and motorized traffic that contains and or redirects vehicles. These safety barriers reduce the risk of vehicle intrusions into the workplace and is covered up to 90% by the Highway Safety Improvement Program and other federal funds. Implementing positive protection is investment rather than expense. By preventing injuries and deaths, not only do we safeguard workers, also the state from costly lawsuits.

In 2019, Caltrans paid 37 million to settle a lawsuit that paralyzed one construction worker and left the other disabled. Positive protection can also allow the Department to do certain tasks with a significant reduction in time equipment by 50% to 80%. Mobile barriers require little to no setup and carry applicable power and lighting. They keep traffic moving at the zone speeds and reduce accidents.

The Golden Gate Bridge Safety Net Project has saved two to four hours a shift by using mobile barriers which prevent delays and move traffic along. Under this Bill, positive protections will be utilized in long-duration work zones, projects with high anticipated operating speeds in areas in which workers are placed one lane from traffic, where the work zone will have significant roadside hazards and other circumstances appropriate for workers safety.

Unless department determines that positive protection is not required, positive protection measures ensures that no worker should pay the ultimate price for a job. We have witnessed far too many workplace accidents that could have been prevented with these common-sense safety measures in place, we urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please.

Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair and members. James Thuerwachter with the California State Council of Laborers. I also want to extend our gratitude to the author for her continued leadership on this important proposal. We're the proud co-sponsor of AB 752 and our organization is comprised of 70,000 men and women throughout the state, and we build California's energy, water, and transportation infrastructure.

Recent increases in federal and state transportation funding have created many new opportunities for women, people of color and formerly incarcerated individuals to enter into the construction trades. In fact, traffic control, lane delineation and flagging are three of the fastest growing occupations for women entering the construction field. Unfortunately, this is inherently dangerous work and it's getting progressively worse. The number of deaths and injuries associated with speeding texting while driving and driving under the influence is steady on the rise.

Over the past five years, California has suffered over 600 fatal crashes within active work zones, over 1600 work zone injuries and at least 25 construction worker fatalities. AB 752 addresses these troubling statistics by prioritizing worker safety. Although many contractors voluntarily employ similar safety mechanisms into their highway project plans, the lack of a mandate to do so leaves many to cut corners, and that is often at the expense of the workers.

This Bill will require that positive protection and/or other protective barriers are put in place in active zones where workers are exposed to operating vehicles, where there are no means of escape or anticipating operating speeds are high, among other criteria. The need for stronger, positive protective measures on highway work zones cannot be understated and implementation should not be delayed. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support of the Bill, please come forward.

Thank you. Ma'am, Chair Keith Dunn on behalf of the District Council of Ironworkers in support.

Tyler Munzing on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies. In support.

Great, thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support? Okay. See none. And you don't have any registered opposition, which is great. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in opposition to the Bill, please come forward. See none. So we'll take it to the moderator. Do you have anyone in the queue who'd like to support or oppose AB 752, please. Ladies and gentlemen.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to make a comment support or opposition to we currently have no one queuing up at this time, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you very much. We'll take it back. Senator Archuleta? Yes.

Thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this forward. Obviously, in California, we've seen an excessive amount of speed with the vehicles. We've heard it with the big SUVs, pickup trucks, drivers that are competing against one another on the roadways and freeways. But let's for a moment think about the families who were in the steps of the Capitol not too long ago. All Caltrans workers and families having a memorial for the number of Caltrans workers that were killed on the highways. This is something we can't forget.

Family after family, placing flowers at the steps of the Capitol, reminding all of us that Caltrans workers, they put their life on the line every time they put up the barriers and repair our work or repair our roads. And that work is required, no doubt. But the protection in the Bill will enhance lives, and it will enhance all of us to slow down. And I think That's what we're trying to do.

So obviously, with the support that we've heard, the support that's here, I think California will be safer. The drivers will be acknowledged for their safety. And I think that when we're talking about slowing down and reducing the speed on a construction site, I think it's so very important, and I would be happy to move the Bill when it's appropriate.

Great. Thank you very much. No other comments or questions. I too want to thank you for bringing the Bill forward. I think as Senator Archuleta meant, it is very somber to be able to see the memorial with hundreds of workers that we've seen have passed. And so anything extra we can do to support the workforce on our roads is the best thing we can do. So with that, I'll take that as a motion by Senator Archuleta. Would you like to close? My apologies. Thank you.

I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

That's nine to zero.

Okay, nine to zero. We'll leave the Bill on call. Thank you. All right, next, we'll move on to file item 11, AB 824 by Assemblymember Calderon.

Good evening, Madam Chair and Members. Assembly Bill 824 establishes the Highway Greening Act, which would task Caltrans with developing a strategic plan to increase highway greening with native plants 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. We know that 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 in utilizing plants native to California. Greening efforts will also increase drought tolerance and require 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. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Assembly Member all right, and you have a lead witness in support at this timer.

Due to a scheduling conflict, my witness won't be here today.

Okay, no problem at all. That's all right. Thank you so much. Anyone who'd like to come forward in support of AB 824, please come forward in room 1200. Okay see none. And you don't have any registered opposition also? Great. So anyone who'd like to come forward in opposition? Okay, see none here in the room. We'll move to the moderator. Moderator, do you have anyone in the queue that like to support or oppose AB 824 at this time, please.

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 19 team, please go ahead. I seem to be having minor technical difficulties. One moment.

Okay, thank you. Moderator so we'll take it back for any questions or comments. Senator Dodd.

I know this is a very controversial Bill, but I'd like to move it, okay? Absolutely. I know this one was a tough one. All right. Senator Archuleta. Yes.

Able to hear me? Line 119. Your line is open. Yes. Thank you. Topher Mather speaking on behalf of Active Sangura Valley in strong support. Thank you. Next comment, please. We currently have no one else in you, Madam Chair.

Well, thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this forward. For those who don't know, we share our districts side by side, so we often work together. And I'm so proud of this Bill because of the fact that where we're located in LA. County, we've got every conceivable freeway running through your district, my district together. And so having green highways, green freeways is so important to public health. And I'm so proud you're bringing this forward. And I'd like to be a co author.

And I agree that I think all of us need to see greener prettier freeways along our state highways and so on. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so we'll take well, we have Senator Dodd motioning, and I want to thank you as well for bringing this forward. This is a great Bill. So Senator Dodd has motioned and, Madam Secretary, can you please call the role? But before that, if you'd like to close Assembly Member Calderon, we'd love to.

Yes I want to thank the Committee for their Help working with my staff on the Bill. I appreciate it. And also respectfully ask for an aye vote.

To Pass to Appropriations Committee. Senators Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Niello. Niello? No. Allen Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta? Aye. Becker. Blakespear. Blakespear. Aye Cortese. Cortese. Aye Dahle. Dahle? No. Dodd. Dodd. Aye Limon. Limon. Aye Mcguire. Newman. Newman. Aye Wynn. Seyarto? Umberg Wahab. Okay, seven to two. We'll leave the Bill on call. Thank you, Assembly.

Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.

All right, while we're waiting for additional authors, can we please take the consent calendar first and foremost? So we'll go ahead and do that, and then we'll move on to Senator Cortese. All right, so we've got 10 of the measures proposed for consent. Would anyone like to remove anything off consent at this time? Okay. Seeing none. So we've got items 2, item 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 17, 18 proposed for consent. Can I get a motion on consent? Senator Dodd?

Motion.

Senator Dodd, thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the role in consent.

Senators Gonzalez? Gonzalez aye. Niello? Niello aye. Allen? Archuleta? Archuleta aye. Becker? Blakespear? Blakespear aye. Cortese? Cortese aye. Dahle? Dahle aye. Dodd? Dodd aye. Limón? Limón aye. McGuire? Newman? Newman aye. Nguyen? Nguyen aye. Seyarto? Umberg? Wahab?

Okay. All right, we'll leave consent on call. Thank you so much. Welcome, Assemblymember Kalra. We've got file item 13 AB 1082, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to start off by accepting the Committee amendments and thank the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. AB 1082 would prohibit poverty tows when a vehicle is towed as a debt collection mechanism due to unpaid parking tickets. This Bill would also prohibit the immobilizing the vehicle in this case, or sending just one unpaid parking ticket to the DMV to place a hold on the driver's registration renewal.

Lastly, the Bill would make changes to the Parking Ticket Payment Plan Program guidelines to make it more workable for low-income California, thus encouraging more payment of accrued tickets. Unlike a previous similar Bill, AB 516 from 2019, AB 1082 does not include any changes to the 72-hour rule, which I know at that time caused a lot of heartache for folks.

This means that cities will still have the authority to tow vehicles that have been idle for 72 hours or more to address situations like abandoned vehicles. Cities will also still have usual debt collection methods, such as referral to a collections agency. Using tows to collect unpaid parking tickets is a costly method that does not make our streets safer and does not generate revenue.

As the analysis cites, a 2022 report by the Auditor of the City of San Diego found their towing program cost the city about $1.5 million a year. They also found that 27% of all tows resulted in a lien sale, leading to unrecoverable costs. Towing for parking tickets is not only a money loser, but is also likely unconstitutional. In a recent case in Los Angeles, the court denied the city's motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that Los Angeles late parking ticket tows are unconstitutional.

As a result, the city immediately instituted a moratorium on boots and tows for five or more unpaid parking tickets. Additionally, San Francisco has stopped 82% of late parking ticket tows in response to litigation, as now before the California Court of Appeals, where the court is expected to follow every other California State and federal court in holding that these poverty tows are unconstitutional, warrantless seizures.

Earlier this month, they issued a favorable tentative ruling where the court expressly rejected the city's argument that their interest in deterring parking violations and non-payment of parking fines justifies warrantless seizures of vehicles.

California has been a national leader in ending policies that disproportionately punish people experiencing poverty, recognizing that these laws do not make individuals more likely to pay, but instead trap them in debt. Vehicle tows and immobilizations result in snowballing consequences that threaten people's stability and well being, as well as undermine our state's economic equity goals.

With me to provide supporting testimony is Marta Roberts, who has personally experienced the loss of a vehicle due to poverty tow practices in Marin, and Rebecca Miller, Senior Litigator for Western Center on Law and Poverty, sponsor of the Bill.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Marta Roberts and I'm speaking in support of AB 1082. My car being towed last December went beyond extreme hardship. It made even the basics of human subsistence truly impossible.

I am a 71 year old woman living on a fixed low-income and have been coping since childhood with PTSD and ADD, ADHD they call it now. More recently, I've been through one of the roughest patches in 50 years of adult life. My brother was diagnosed with late-stage cancer and I lost two of my closest loved ones during the pandemic. During this time, I also had to find housing and move.

The apartment I found is on a steep hill, so the layer that made it all unbearable was being faced with the impossible decision whether to risk driving my unregistered car and get towed or not go to medical appointments and buy groceries. At the time, I had received parking and traffic tickets that I could not afford to pay. Very quickly, the tickets blew up to $2,400.

I should mention there was no court during COVID. I could not afford both the tickets and registration, so I paid the registration and smog, but the DMV would not give me a sticker because of the tickets. So I continued in a circular bind of needing to drive but not wanting to risk it until my car was towed twice. Both times left me on the edge of destitution, potentially homeless and applying for help to pay my utilities.

After the second time my car was towed, I finally had a nervous breakdown. Coming after moving, the deaths of my loved ones and the stress of having an unregistered car, it was all too much. Please stop these harmful and counterproductive tows. Please vote for AB 1082. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Western Center is co-sponsoring AB 1082 because our work in coalition with other organizations has seemed the direct harm of poverty tows on many of the communities that we serve.

This includes people fleeing intimate partner violence who need their cars for safety but often lose them based on tickets incurred by their abuser. Low-wage workers who can't get to work without a car or work using their car and therefore a tow makes it even harder to pay the ticket. Students and parents who can't get to school without a car and seniors like Ms. Roberts who can't get to medical appointments without their vehicle.

A car is often a family's only asset, and taking it to collect unpaid parking tickets is not in keeping with California's values. For low-income Californians who every day have to choose which basic necessity to pay for, unpaid parking tickets can be the start of a financial crisis that quickly spirals and can end with them losing their vehicle. In addition to causing great harm, towing vehicles is not a cost-effective way to collect unpaid parking tickets.

Together with our partners, Western Center issued a report called Towed into Debt, showing these debt collection tools often cost cities more than they collect, which was also confirmed in the San Diego study where they audited their own towing program. Studies show that cities actually collect more money when they allow fines and fees to be paid over time and reduce them based on someone's ability to pay. That's why AB 1082's reforms to making park a ticket plans more accessible are so important.

Towing solely for parking ticket debt is also likely unconstitutional. A number of courts have held that the fourth amendment doesn't allow warrantless tows for unpaid parking tickets. It doesn't allow them unless there's a safe tows, unless there's a safety concern, and debt collection is not about public safety. We urge this Committee's aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, and we'll move on to opposition at this time. Any lead witnesses in opposition of AB 1082, please?

Good evening, Madam Chair and Members. Matthew Siverling on behalf of the California Mobility and Parking Association, in opposition. CMPA is opposed to AB 1082, which would largely eliminate most, if not all, of the tools that local agencies, cities, special districts, and other entities that enforce parking have at their disposal to actually make a collection of payment when all other avenues have been exhausted. As the author pointed out, the option to request a DMV hold on a driver's registration to address past due obligations would be eliminated.

I know there's been an amendment to extend that out to 2027, but that would be coming. The ability for local agencies to boot or tow vehicle, which is what we're talking about here, that's been accumulated for five or more unpaid tickets to be eliminated. And capping the total amount cities could collect would be tapped out at only $600 over 24 months. Eliminating all the other amounts due would be part of the Bill that would present challenges for cities.

Again, a city's option to tow or mobilize a vehicle can only be exercised after five or more unpaid delinquent parking tickets. In each case, a citation was placed on the vehicle at the time of the violation. A copy of that citation was sent to the residence of the owner or car within a week, and a warning notice was sent out 21 days after that initial issuance.

All in all, a total of 15 different attempts to contact somebody, to instigate some sort of action on their part to make good on the parking tickets that they received as part of that violation, have been ignored, or largely a silence has been between the agency and the driver. Each step of the process, in all those 15 interactions, the driver is urged to apply for a payment program.

Enrollment in a payment program and activity in the payment program automatically removes you from the threat of being towed. It removes you from the threat of your DMV registration being held, and essentially puts you into a place where you can start working away at what you do owe for the parking tickets that you did accrue. That payment program is capped at $25 a month per the statutes we've worked on with past authors over the past few years.

So it's not onerous and is designed to be workable. Again, we've worked diligently with our communities and stakeholders over the years to assist individuals to address these issues. And AB 1082, unfortunately, will effectively neutralize our municipal parking efforts. And for these reasons, we request a no vote on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone who'd like to come forward in support or opposition of the Bill, please come.

Good evening, Madam Chair and Members. Damon Conklin with League of California Cities. We sympathize with the author's intent, but regrettably must oppose the Bill. Echo the comments that were made earlier. Obviously, this Bill removes one of the few mechanisms that locals have to manage their streets. And the arbitrary five tickets for defining an habitual offender is, in our eyes, too high, as well as the cap of $600, which unfortunately, in some jurisdictions, makes it more of an incentive to avoid parking, paying for parking, than to use this mechanism as a workaround. So for those reasons, we oppose.

Thank you so much. So we'll take any other folks who'd like to come forward and support our opposition, please.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, co-sponsor of the Bill and on behalf of ACLU Cal Action in support.

Cynthia Castillo on behalf of Western Center Law and Poverty. A proud sponsor in support.

Anyone else who'd like to come forward? Okay, we'll take it to the moderator. Moderator, do you have anyone in the queue who'd like to support or oppose AB 1082, please?

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to make a comment in support or opposition, please press one and zero. We'll be going to line 108. Please go ahead. Or 109. Apologies. 109.

Thank you. Elise Fandrich from TrattenPrice Consulting, here on behalf of the Center for Responsible Lending in support of the Bill. Thanks.

Next we'll go to line 134. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Magali Sagal on behalf of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence in support.

And there's currently no one else in the queue, Madam Chair.

Okay, thank you. So we'll take it back to Members. Any questions or comments? And I'll start by saying thank you for bringing this forward. I know it's taken on a few different iterations, but I know nonetheless you're committed to ensuring that folks see some relief from this issue. Senator Cortese? Okay, Senator Cortese moves the Bill. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Senator. If I could just respond, because I think that the Bill has been amended. It's a much more moderate version than the one that from a couple of years ago and even from when we introduced earlier this year. A city can tow for violation of any ordinance they pass as long as they post signage as a towable offense, they can still tow for safety reasons. And we've reduced the number required for a DMV hold down to three tickets.

So I think $600 for indigent individuals, that cap will certainly cover three parking tickets, and it just allows them to pay $25 a month until it's paid off. And if they have unpaid parking tickets, that has to be resolved when they have to re-register. So this is not a matter of folks not being getting away with having parking tickets.

It's really about ensuring that we're not taking vehicles away because individuals have unpaid parking tickets, especially families where you have two, three, four people using a car, and you take that one source of mobility away from them because maybe the kids picked up a couple of tickets or someone else did, and now you're trying to play catch up. And then that debt spiral occurs once they take the car away. And now you can't get to work or can't get to school and what have you.

So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for the clarification. We have a motion by Senator Cortese. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Do pass as amended to the Public Safety Committee. Senators Gonzalez? Gonzalez aye. Niello? Niello no. Allen? Archuleta? Becker? Becker aye. Blakespear? Blakespear aye. Cortese? Cortese aye. Dahle? Dodd? Dodd aye. Limón. Limón aye. McGuire? Newman? Nguyen? Nguyen no. Seyarto? Umberg? Wahab? Archuleta aye.

Seven to two. We'll leave the Bill on call.

Thank you, Assembly Member okay, next we have file item 14. That would be AB 1175 by Assembly Member Quirk - Silva. Welcome

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening. Is it the 7th inning stretch? All right. Remember, I was an elementary teacher. Get our energy back. Right? Thank you. All right. Good evening. I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee's proposed amendment and sincerely thank the chair and Committee staff for their work on this Bill.

AB 1175 would allow a city or county or both a one year window of opportunity to apply for a two year extension for on premises signs in the redevelopment in areas from the California Department of Transportation. My Bill is modeled after SB 684 by Senator Hill, which was passed and signed into law in 2013. That Bill had a sunset date of January 1, 2023, a date which has now passed. Meanwhile, the signs and redevelopment areas are still relevant for local communities and local government coffers.

In one of my cities, Hawaiian Gardens, one of my smallest cities in Los Angeles, they rely heavily on this sign to help them get bottom line customers into their Gardens casinos. AB 1175 only applies to existing advertising displays that were constructed before January 1, 2012.

While established signs play a crucial role for cities and counties, attracting both locals and visitors to business centers and destination places, these signs serve as beacons, guiding individuals into restaurants, outlet shops, and discount warehouses, stimulating economic activity, and driving revenue generation. And just a small fact. One of my cities, the smallest city in my district, Hawang Gardens, up to 80% of their revenue comes from this Garden casino.

My Bill provides more time for our local governments and helps protect their General Fund tax revenue dollars, which often help pay for community programs and services that our mutual constituents rely on. With me here today in support of the Bill and help answer any questions the Committee may have is Mr. Ed Manning on behalf of the Gardens Casino.

Welcome, Mr. Manning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members. And thank you to the author. The author, Ms. Quirk-Silva, highlighted most of the points I was going to make, so I'll keep it short. Bottom line is this sign is critically important in our case. And there are signs like this throughout the state, somewhere between 40 and 60 that are in former redevelopment areas that about a decade ago we did away with. These signs are otherwise compliant with the law in terms of size, et cetera.

But because the Hill Bill that this Legislature passed expired January 1, they were deemed out of compliance and are subject to a $10,000 per day fine unless the signs were altered or taken down. And on behalf of my clients business, the sign on the 605 freeway, not exactly a beautiful area of the highway, promoted the Hawaiian Gardens Casino and now just says, welcome to Hawaiian Gardens, which is a nice sign, but not effective for our business or the city.

Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez.

Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Paul Gonzalez here today on behalf of the cities of Hawaiian Gardens, Milpitas Southgate, and Signal Hill. I won't repeat what the author had already said. And first, I'd like to thank her for her leadership on this issue.

And there are similar signs throughout the state, and in particular, the two years will be beneficial to let us try to come into compliance with the law. So happy to answer any questions and ask for your support. Thank you.

One thing I wanted to point out, this does not allow for new signs. This only affects existing signs. And it's really to retain these investments made by the public and private entities. So in the case for Hawaiian Gardens, the casino in Hawaiian Gardens makes up 70% of their General Fund revenues. So it is crucial and critical for this city and a lot of these other cities that have these same signs.

So we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. And it looks like you had opposition, but I think I don't know if they'd like to come forward. California outdoor advertising industry. There may be a change. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. So Steve Cruz on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association, and we do have an opposed unless amended, position.

With the acceptance of the amendments by the author to reduce it to two years, we would remove our opposition now, I would say doesn't entirely eliminate concerns about the loss of federal dollars for having non compliant signs. There's a competitive advantage that would exist relative to our Members who have to have signs that comply with size and spacing and lighting. However, we think that with two years give them time to try to get them into compliance, it does mitigate that risk somewhat.

So therefore, we'll be removing our opposition today. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support or opposition of the Bill? Good morning, Chair Or. Good evening, Chair. And Members Kirk Blackburn with the City of Inglewood in support. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in room 1200? Okay, seeing none, we'll move to the moderator. Anyone who'd like to support or oppose AB 1175, please.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to make a comment in support or opposition, please press 1 and 0. There's currently no one queuing up at this time, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this forward. As I was shifted out of Hawaiian Gardens, you were shifted in. And when I was shifted in and I was elected, the first thing I did was get money. That was what we needed for the park and everything else.

Okay, thank you. We'll take it back to Member Senator Archuleta.

Because, as you mentioned, 70% of the revenue comes from the casino. And Hawaiian Gardens is one of the hardest hit communities after the pandemic. And it was imperative that we brought money into it and we did a few years back. Now, I'm really happy that you jumped on board to get that sign permanently there, at least for the next two years, because it will bring in the revenue.

And as you drive by the freeway and it does say, welcome to Hawaiian Gardens, but that doesn't do anything for the casino, doesn't do anything for the community. In reality, we need to go ahead and post what that sign is there for. Welcome to the casino. Welcome to a great time of entertainment. So I will be happy to be a co author and move the Bill.

I think we've got a motion by Senator Dahle or yes, I think yeah, we're going to fight for the motions here, so I'll make sure I'm coordinating correctly. Senator Wentz. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the Assemblywoman. We've working this together and why I think we should actually we started out 10 years. Now we're five, and now we're two. I'm quite disappointed in it being two, but I understand and the compromise, but I think, though, is not just like Hawaiian Garden.

I have other cities in my district that relies on this sign. One of my city actually, 100% of the revenue from their sign goes to the nonprofits, not just in that city, but in the surrounding areas. So you're talking about $600,000 have now just vanished. And so these nonprofits, whether it's the Boys and Girls Club, whether know organizations within know I've got two military bases in Orange County as well. And I do have Senator Archuleta. I have.

And so it's not just the northern part of my district, but the central and southern part of the district is also affected by this. And I think is that as we move forward, this is an RDA. This is something that a lot of areas, not just in Orange County or that northern part of my district in LA. But other areas in Los Angeles, whether it's, you know, all these other cities do rely on this sign.

And so I hope that we could, as we move forward, to looking for a permanent solution to this issue. And so thank you again for your hard work and efforts on this. Thank you. All right, any other questions or comments from Members? Just a comment. I'm really sorry that I'm going to miss Mr. Manning and Mr. Cruz fighting over this in two years. I know. It's so unfortunate, isn't it? Okay. I'm so sorry. Senator dawn. All right, we have a motion by Senator Dahle. Assembly Member.

Would you like to close? Just respectfully ask for an aye vote. All right. Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll motion is do pass as amended and reaffirmed to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Niello. Aye. Niello? Aye. Allen. Archie letta Aye. Arch letter. Aye Becker. Blakespear. Aye. Blakespear. Aye Cortese. Cortese. Aye Dahle Doll Dodd. Aye. Limon. Limon. Aye Mcguire. Mcguire. Aye Newman. Newman. Aye. Min. Aye. Min. Aye Seyarto. Umberg Wahob. That's 11. Support. Okay, 110 will leave the Bill. Okay, 110.

11 zero, we'll leave the Bill on call, thank you Assembly Member. Okay, go on to our final item here. File item 16, AB 1385 by Assembly Member Garcia, but presented by Senator Cortese. Thank you, Senator, for pinch-hitting for him.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. I'm proud to present AB 1385, it changes the RCTC sales tax authority from one cent to one and a half cents per dollar, giving Riverside County voters the option to increase local sales tax revenue in the future.

I do not know if we have a witness here. She can self-identify. Thank you.

Okay, yes I believe we do. Anne Mayer with RCTC.

Yes. Thank you very much. Good evening, Chair Gonzalez and Committee Members. I'm Anne Mayer, the Executive Director of the Riverside County Transportation Commission, also known as RCTC, the sponsor of this Bill. And it is my pleasure to be here with you this evening. Our thanks to Assembly Member Garcia for his ongoing support for regional mobility and for authoring this Bill.

And thank you, Senator Cortese, for presenting the Bill for us today. We appreciate it. Riverside County is the fourth most populous county in the state and the 10th most populous in the country. We've been tasked with building more than 167,000 housing units by 2029, and our population is expected to reach 3 million residents by 2048, up from two and a half million in 2022. As a self-help county, our residents have twice elected to tax themselves to invest in transportation infrastructure programs and services.

Thanks to the voter approved half cent sales tax measure A, RCTC for nearly 35 years has generated thousands of jobs and efficiently provided more than $4.1 billion for all modes of transportation. Promises made, promises kept. Even so, RCTC in 2020 identified over $8.8 billion in needed mobility improvements outside of Measure A. And as you know, project delivery costs and how people move have changed dramatically since then.

AB 1385 updates RCTC's sales tax authority from one cent to one and a half cent per dollar, keeping our options open if we are to match historic state and federal investments, to address our infrastructure needs and build a 21st century multimodal transportation system. It is important to note that this Bill does not change existing Measure A, and it still would require a vote of Riverside County residents to approve a new tax measure in the future.

The Commission represented by elected officials from the Board of Supervisors in 28 cities, so that's 33 elected officials on our board have voted to sponsor this Bill. The transportation industry is also supportive. Thank you for your time today. I'm happy to answer any questions and respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you, Mayor. Appreciate it. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support of AB 1385, please?

Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Kiana Valentine on behalf of the Coachilla Valley Association of Governments also in support.

Good evening, Chair and Members. Mark Watts representing Transportation California, in support as well. Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chair. Keith Dunn, on behalf of the Self Help Counties Coalition, I'd point out that every Member on this dais has gone to your voters to ask for this approval. The same authority also here on behalf of the District Council of Iron Workers and the State Council of Laborers asking for your support.

Tyler Munzing on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies, in support. Thanks.

All right, thank you. We'll move on to opposition. I believe CalTax may be in opposition. I don't know if anyone is here from CalTax. Okay. See none. Anyone else in the room who'd like to oppose the Bill? Okay. See? None. So we'll move on to the moderator. Would you queue up anyone who would like to support or oppose AB 1385, please?

There's currently no one in the call on the phones to queue up.

Okay, well, thank you so much. We'll take it back to Members for questions. Senator Newman?

I want to commend the presenter on his presentation. Ms. Mary, it's nice to see you. And I want to commend you all--somebody has to go last. You went last. I'm glad to support the Bill. Happy to move it. Okay. Thank you, Senator Newman. Vice Chair Niello.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a familiar thing for me. When I was in the Assembly, I would go back and forth with our policy consultant. There would be attempts by local governments to circumvent the super-majority vote requirement in various ways, but the advice would always be--recommendation would be no. The requirement is that the people vote on it and with the super-majority as is indicated. And then proposals would come through like this, and the recommendation would be no. And we went back and forth on that continually. If a local jurisdiction wants to tax itself under the rules that we have for passing such measures, why should we stand in their way? So, I support the measure.

All right, any other questions or comments? Seeing none, we have a motion by Senator Newman. Senator, I know you're pinch-hitting, but would you like to close?

Yeah, just to say that the measure is subject to a two-thirds vote of the voters, if it's put on the ballot, and I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you very much for presenting. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

Motion is due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Governance and Finance. [Roll Call] 11 to one.

Eleven to one, we'll leave the Bill on call for Assembly. Member Garcia. Thank you very much. All right, we'll take it back to the top. We'll start with consent calendar.

So again, Members, if you can come down to room 1200 so we can complete our agenda, that would be great. We'll start off with a consent calendar for the Members that are here. We've got 10 items on consent. Again, those are items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 15, 17, and 18. Madam Secretary, can you please call a roll on the consent calendar?

[Roll Call]

Okay, has 12. We'll leave that on call. File item one, which is AB 99 by Assemblymember Connolly.

[Roll Call]

Seven to two, the Bill is on call. Still, we've got file item three. AB 473 by assemblymember. Aguar curry.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave the Bill on call. File item excuse me. File eight AB 645. Assembly Member Friedman.

Current vote is seven to four. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave the Bill on call. We've got file item nine, AB 752. Assembly Member Rubio. Current vote is nine to zero.

Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call].

Okay, 14-1. We'll leave the Bill on call. We have file item 11, AB 82. Four by Assembly Member Calderon.

Current vote is seven to two. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call]

We'll leave the Bill on call. Yeah, we have one. Okay, file item 13, AB 1082 by Assembly Member...

Current vote is seven to two. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. [Roll Call].

Okay, 10 to three, and we'll leave the Bill on call. We have file item 14, AB 1175 by Assembly Member Quirk Silva.

Current vote is 11 to zero. Both chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

16 to zero. The Bill is out. Okay, we have file item 16, AB 1385 by Assemblymember Garcia,

The current vote is 11 to one with both the chair and the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

13 to one. We'll leave the Bill on call. Everybody's voted. Okay, everyone's voted. So that Bill is out. Okay, we'll start from the top with a consent calendar. I think we've got a few Members that have stayed off, so we'll start with a consent calendar. Madam Secretary?

Yeah. Okay. Consent calendar. [Roll Call]

16-0 consent calendar is adopted. We'll go on to file item one. AB 99. Assembly Member Connolly.

Connolly's. Current vote is seven to two. [Roll Call]

10 to two, the Bill where do you want to wait for Newman? I don't know if he wants to I think he left when we opened it. Okay, and we have zero, he is we have 10 to two on that. Yeah. Okay, 10 to two. The Bill is out. All right, file item three. AB 473. Aguiar Curry.

Current vote is 12 to one. [Roll Call]

13 to one, that Bill is out. All right, file item eight. AB 645. Friedman

Current vote is 10 to five [Roll Call]

11 to five, the Bill is out. All right. File item nine, AB 752. Assembly Member Rubio. I think That's already out. Correct?

No, we still have, Umberg with you. Okay, my apologies. [Roll Call]

Okay, then we've got file item 11. AB. 824. Calderon.

Current vote is 12 to three [Roll Call] Okay.

Okay, 12 to three. That Bill is out. All right, file item 13. AB 1082 Kalra.

[Roll Call]

10 to three. The Bill is out. File item 14. AB 1175. Quirk-Silva. That one was out. That Bill is out. Okay, and then finally, AB 1385, which is file item 16. Assembly Member Garcia. That's also out. That Bill is out. Okay, great. That adjourns our Senate Transportation Committee. Thank you, everybody. We'll see you next time. All right.