Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

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

Depending on the number of people wishing to give testimony, we'll either offer each witness one or two minutes each in support and opposition, depending on the number of people who plan to comment after the presentation and discussion of each item. So we're going to allow for public comment after each particular item. We're going to start with witnesses in the room, and then we're going to proceed to the telephone to use our telephone service.

The number to call is (877) 692-8957, and the access code is 1850-1100. Finally, the Assembly has unfortunately experienced a number of disruptions to Committee and floor proceedings in the last few years. Conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing is prohibited.

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

We will also document on the record the individual involved and the nature of the disruptive conduct. I might have to temporarily recess the hearing. Hopefully not. And if the conduct does not stop, I will request the assistance of the Sergeants in escorting the individuals from the building. I want to thank all of you in advance for your cooperation. With that, we're going to begin our hearing.

Today, we're holding an informational hearing on five of the ten proposals regarding major public infrastructure projects related to transportation that the Administration released on May 19th, 2023 and that the Administration has requested a quick action on and feedback from. The proposals, according to the Governor, are intended to speed up delivery of major infrastructure projects and shorten the amount of time certain projects spend in courts.

Today will be an opportunity for the Administration to present their proposals, to hear from the Legislative Analyst Office, to allow Assembly Members to ask questions and to hear from stakeholders. As we consider these, I think it's important to, to hold in mind always trying to remember what the actual problems are that we're trying to solve with the proposals.

What the demonstrated evidence is of implements and bottlenecks and how what is being proposed would fix those problems and speed up the projects that we all want in California. What are the trade offs that might be associated with the solutions? And could some of those problems be addressed more incrementally? And of the proposals, what are the near term could be done with minimal harm? What should be considered for a medium timeline and what we've considered for a longer timeline?

And is this process a good one for solving the demonstrated problems? I will just say that I shared the Administration's desire to get things moving in California and to get us building. And I think that we do have to listen to people who have concerns about any unintended consequences and take those seriously so that whatever comes out to the floor of the Legislature is the absolute best legislation that it could be. With that, I'd like to see if any of my colleagues have any opening remarks.

Assembly Member Carrillo.

I would just say that I agree with you in supporting those projects. Looking forward to working on those. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, so we are going to then begin. I'd like to invite representatives from the Administration and the LAO to the table. I believe we have. Gayle Miller, Senior Counsel on Infrastructure and Clean Energy Finance, Toks Omishakin, Secretary of the California State Transportation Agency, further to be known as CalSTA for the rest of the hearing.

Mark Tollefson, under Secretary of CalSTA, Mike Keever, Chief Deputy Director of Caltrans, Rachel Elhers, Deputy Legislative Analyst, Environment and Transportation, and Frank Jimenez, Senior Fiscal and Policy Analyst. So we're going to first hear a presentation from the Administration on each proposal. And then after that, we're going to ask the LAO if they have any comments. Then, I'm going to have Members ask questions about the proposal to whoever they like on the panel.

And we'd like all of you to stay up here, if you can, when we open up the comments to the public at that point. Okay, so the items that we're going to be hearing is- We're going to start with item number one, accelerating environmental mitigation. You need to push the button for the microphone.

Thank you, I appreciate it. Hi, I'm Gayle Miller. I'm the Senior Counselor on infrastructure and clean energy finance and also Chief Deputy for policy at the California Department of Finance. Really grateful that you're opening this up and allowing us an opportunity to talk about the proposals. In general, is it OK with you if we do kind of a broad overview and then we'll have CalSTA speak to each of the proposals as well?

Absolutely, so we were- So if you're saying that they're going to speak to each of the proposals, we were going to take the proposals one by one and ask for comment separately from the public.

Got it. Okay.

If you think there's a better way to do it, we're open to that. But we thought some people want to weigh in on one item or a different item. So this would give everyone a chance.

No, that's great. Is it okay to do the whole thing at once? Just given the timing. But we'll all be here to answer specific questions. So I think just wanted to start with how we came up with this proposal. Obviously each of you on the Committee have worked to ensure that we are building as much as we can, as fast as we can in California.

So what you'll hear with this whole package is we really maintained all of the pieces of CEQA mitigation and public process. What we tried to work on are pieces that the Legislature has worked on in the past to really affect the amount of time, the amount of documents necessary, and cost savings. So a lot of the questions I know and what you'll hear from Secretary Omishaken today is why the urgency? Why now?

So we'll actually give you some specific examples of how we in fact do think that specific projects will move forward faster than if this were to be passed in August or January, that these really do make a difference. And of course it's both for the federal funding and you'll hear about competitive funding. I do want to be really clear that even the infrastructure funding from the IIJA, about 39% of that money is competitive. So it's not all formula funding.

And then, of course, much of the Inflation Reduction Act is competitive. So as we get more and more information from the Federal Government on competitive programs and grants and NOFOs and applications, we really are seeing the questions, how long will it take? And we want California to really be able to answer that question. And then the second piece, and you'll hear this from developers of clean energy, of housing.

It's that water and sewer systems and streets and roads all support general infrastructure, and we need those in place in order to get things built. So we do in fact think there is a real urgency and of course look forward to really working together to see this as part of the Governor's budget. So you're going to hear kind of three general categories. The alternative delivery methods you'll hear a lot about.

This Committee has already worked so much on that. We've seen Broadband, for example, go from 33 months to 11 months, just from pieces that many on this Committee worked on. We'll hear about the expedited environmental review and the permitting streamlining, all of which, I think, and we'll get you more and more information with our colleagues at the LAO or have started to review all of the NOFOs coming up, all of the information listed on federal websites.

So you're really getting this real time information as we get it, so that we can be as transparent as possible in terms of what we think can be built a lot faster. So again, the timing absolutely makes a difference. Everything we do in California, unlike any other state in the nation, is with the country's most ambitious climate goals in place. As the Governor said, we don't expect to see this kind of infrastructure investment again in the very near future.

We have $180 billion we can invest, 400,000 direct and indirect jobs. You'll hear a lot about the folks that we're hoping really get put to work through this project. So, grateful to be here. Know there's a lot of questions. Just really thankful for the opportunity and if it's OK with you Madam Chair, to turn it over to Secretary Omishaken, who can be a little more specific and then obviously want to answer as many questions as we possibly can.

But thank you again.

Thank you. Thank you Gayle, for those opening comments. Chair and Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to present on Governor Newsom's Transportation Trailer Bill package this afternoon. Before I start sharing more information on why this package is so important, I'd like to share a little bit about what drives our work in transportation today in California. Transportation systems are about people and ultimately improving their quality of life.

Our work at the agency CalSTA is driven by four priorities we call the Core Four: safety, equity, climate action and economic prosperity. Transportation policy, done right, creates well-paying jobs, is a good steward of the environment and powers our economy. The state has already made many steps in the right direction in recent years, beginning with the adoption of the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure, also known as CAPTI.

By adopting CAPTI, the state committed to investing billions of discretionary and formula transportation dollars annually to aggressively combat and adapt to climate change while supporting public health, safety and equity. Therefore, it is imperative we continue to make progress. The Governor's infrastructure package represents another ambitious effort and aims to maximize taxpayer dollars and deliver results while creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs and working towards achieving California's world-leading climate goals.

This package would expedite a number of transportation projects from routine highway maintenance and safety projects to innovative and complex transportation improvements that take years to implement and require costly and time-consuming permitting and mitigation. Accelerating projects will allow Caltrans to obligate funds on more projects through earlier contracting opportunities and will avoid inflationary impacts of delay. Contracting out more quickly, accelerates projects, shows the state's readiness and makes them more competitive for federal grant funding through notices of funding opportunity.

There are at least a dozen federal grant opportunities available now and dozens more to come, creating hundreds of millions of dollars of opportunity for California infrastructure projects and potentially even billions. For example, billions are expected to be made available nationwide this summer through the Mega, INFRA and Rural surface transportation programs. In addition to federal programs to reconnect communities, create grade separation projects, and rehabilitate aging bridges across the state, this package would make the state more competitive for these upcoming grant opportunities.

Progressive Design-Build authority, for example, would allow for earlier contracting out as early as the environmental review phase, then Design-Build, which requires 30% design before contracting out. Additionally, job order contracting will save months off of project delivery, allowing Caltrans to task on-call contractors sooner for routine highway work. Moving this package through the budget will allow Caltrans to get contracts out quicker and accelerate project delivery during the next construction season.

The past two budgets made unprecedented investments in our state's infrastructure, including 12.8 billion in clean transportation. Combined with funding from the Federal IIJA and IRA, California will invest up to $180 billion over the next decade in clean infrastructure, which will create 400,000 good jobs while helping meet the state's climate goals. These investments will add to the continued revenue made by the Historic Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, also known as SB 1.

By streamlining permitting, cutting red tape, and allowing state agencies to use new types of contracts, these proposals will maximize taxpayer dollars and accelerate timelines of projects throughout the state, all while maintaining the state's robust nationleading environmental standards and ensuring appropriate environmental review. If you don't mind, let me just quickly go over just five of these proposals that we've set out, that the Governor set out for us to take on. I'll try to be as brief as I possibly can be on these five different areas.

First of all, Job Order Contracting. As I mentioned earlier, this proposal would allow Caltrans to use Job Order Contracting for routine highway and facility maintenance, safety projects, and repair of active transportation facilities across the state. Independent studies from other states show using this method allows up to 8-16% cost savings and time savings of around nine months by using this method,

This proven streamlining method in use by many other public work agencies in California and across the country, would allow Caltrans to essentially have on-call contractors to perform authorized work in certain areas of the state using standard design and specifications. Number two, Progressive Design-Build authority. This proposal will authorize Caltrans to pilot the Progressive Design-Build method of contracting up to eight projects through 2030.

This is an innovative strategy to reduce project delivery costs and shorten completion schedules by as much as a year. Once sufficient pre-construction work is complete on a project, the progressive design build method would allow Caltrans to negotiate contract for any remaining pre-construction work, as well as construction. Number three, Accelerating Environmental Mitigation for Transportation. This proposal will implement several recommendations of AB 1282, Transportation Permitting Task Force report to accelerate environmental mitigation for transportation projects, which is a time-intensive process that faces many administrative barriers.

Number three, direct contracting authority for I-15 to wildlife crossings. This proposal would allow Caltrans to directly contract with Brightline West to develop, design and construct three wildlife crossings as a part of their project in the median of Interstate I-15. NEPA. This proposal removes the current sunset provision and permanently authorizes the consent of California to the jurisdiction of federal courts and waiver of immunity by the California Secretary of Transportation in regards to the performance of certain environmental responsibilities under NEPA.

Through this proposal, the state's federal agreement will remain in place, project delivery will continue to accelerate, and California will continue to benefit from NEPA assignment. So, in conclusion, Governor Newsom's proposal will streamline projects to unleash construction activities across the state, accelerating the building of clean infrastructure, so California can reach its world leading climate goals while creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. These proposals represent an ambitious effort to cut red tape.

It's time to make the most out of our taxpayer dollars and deliver results while creating hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs. I'll be here to take a few questions from Committee Members or the audience, but also present with me from our team at CalSTA is the undersecretary, Mark Tollefson, sitting to my right. And sitting to my far right is Caltrans's Chief Deputy Director, Mike Keever as well to take on more detailed questions as well.

But I'll be glad to stay for a little bit and take some questions from Members or from the audience. Madam Chair, good to see you again. And thank you.

Thanks for being here. So, the nice thing about an informational hearing is we can kind of change things a little on the fly. So we had this vision of doing each of these independently, but clearly we're not doing that. So that's fine. We weren't sure if it was going to make sense that way anyway or if it would make more sense this way. You've told us basically that it makes more sense doing it this way.

So I just want to let everyone know that

If you don't mind, Madam Chair.

The great thing about being Chair is I can just decide. And so we're going to do them all at once, the way you just did. And so we'll let everyone speak on whatever it is you want to speak about with any of the five areas. And then we will go to the public and take testimony on any of it.

And because we're only going to go to the public now once, we'll give two minutes to any member of the public who wants it, you don't have to use your two minutes. You don't have to, you can just say I don't like it, or I do. You can keep it as short as you like. But we will give each member of the public two minutes. So thank you. And who are we going to next with your group?

We're all here now, Madam Chair, to answer questions. So we're done with the Administration and we really appreciate the indulgence of hearing all of the proposals.

No, it worked out very well. Thank you. And I wanted to see if the LAO has comments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Members. Rachel Ehlers with the LAO. We think that the Governor's proposals focus on some really important issues. Namely, how can we reduce barriers to building projects that we really need to build as part of our wide ranging state goals. Whether it's increasing our resilience to the impacts of climate change, trying to reduce those impacts of climate change, increasing energy reliability, building more housing. These are really important issues to focus on.

So we think the expressed intent has a lot of merit and some of the content of the proposals likely has merit, and could result in really important benefits for California. But I think our concerns are really around the timing and the proposed timeline of when you are getting these proposals and when you are being asked to act on them. The Governor, in the press conference to announce these changes indicated that the Administration has been working on these proposals for over a year.

But they're asking you to take action in less than a month and we think you would benefit- Maybe you need a year, maybe you need more than a year, maybe you need less than a year. But you need the time that you need to understand what the implications of these proposals are, what the benefits might be and what some of the unintended consequences or impacts might be. We have spent the last week reviewing these proposals in depth.

We got additional information, as Ms. Miller noted, even just today, that we've been working with the Administration to try to understand. So far, based on our review, we haven't seen evidence that's compelling that justifies you needing to act immediately on these proposals. There certainly are competitive federal grants. There is one question on these applications, as we understand from the Administration asking how will California implement these projects quickly? That will be a narrative response. So it could be that these proposed changes help implement projects more quickly.

It could be that indicating that to the Federal Government could yield some advantages in our application. But we haven't seen instances where kind of how many extra points would that give us? How specifically is this weighed in the applications? That level of kind of compelling evidence and specificity we haven't seen. So I think our guidance to you at this point, based on what we have seen is to take the time you need to consider these carefully, to hear from stakeholders, to weigh the implications.

We don't think you need to consider all of these together as one package. You could take different timelines for the different pieces, depending on your comfort level with what the proposals are, the weighing, the trade offs of what the benefits of the proposals are with what some of the potential implications or trade-offs might be, whether that's in public input, whether that's in environmental protections, whether that's in legislative involvement. There are a lot of trade-offs involved with these proposals.

And so just making sure you're comfortable with what all of those potential implications and trade-offs might be before you act. As I said, we have been learning as much as we can in a very short time period, but my colleague, Mr. Jimenez, and I are here to answer questions to the best of our ability as we can. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else on the panel who wants to add anything at this time? Yes.

Yes, I just want to add a brief comment, Madam Chair. On average nationally today, a major transportation project takes about 13 years to complete. When you look at the cost for delays in that, in those projects, you're talking about, on average for a $100 million project, you're talking about on average $5 million annually. So for a $50 million project, it's $2.5 million in delays for every year that that project is delayed to completion.

So when you think about 13 years to actually get a major project done, that means a child that is entering kindergarten today, by the time that project is complete, they will be a sophomore in college by the time that we see that project come to completion, that's how long it takes. So any opportunity we can take to improve our processes within transportation, to deliver projects in a more timely fashion is something that we're always looking for. And so that's why, again, this is very important.

We're two years already into IIJA. We only have three years left of this federal funding. So it's imperative that we figure out again ways and tools like we've identified here to get projects done in a more timely fashion for California. Thank you.

So I really appreciate you adding that comment and it actually leads me to two questions. So I think we're ready to start our portion where we're going to ask questions and I'll lead off. So, you mentioned the federal money that's available. How much of the timing of bringing this forward now is because of us competing against other states for that federal funding, and how much of an acceleration would this give us for projects in general?

Yeah, thank you. I think we're going to answer that in two ways. One, as the Federal Government and the White House puts out their own streamlining packages. The direction to us is, and I think we quote one of their press releases, that 'to build at the speed and scale needed to adequately address the climate crisis requires strategic reforms that improve the way such projects are cited and permitted at the federal, state and local level'. So that was their direction in April.

And so that's in part how we started. But I think to speak to, Secretary Omishaken can speak to specific NOFOs, a dozen or so, 10, that we know of right now that we think we need to show that we can build it faster. So completely agree with Ms. Ehlers that it is this narrative question that because we're competing against states that can, I think, probably not correctly site in 24 hours.

What we're trying to show is a state that has traditionally taken longer than other states in the country that we are, in fact, going to go faster and have all the protections we need, but also be able to deliver the project at a faster pace. So that's where the balance that we're really trying to create with this package is.

But I think hearing about the specific NOFOs that are coming up, the notice of funding availability, federal availability, if we can speak to some of those specific ones from the CalSTA team, I think Mr. Tollefson, I think that would be helpful.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair and Members. So Mark Tollefson, undersecretary with CalSTA. So coming up this summer, we expect a number of different opportunities at the federal level to compete for funding. We're talking about hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, being made available nationwide. So in terms of the project or the different NOFOs that we're talking about, the secretary mentioned in part of his initial comments the INFRA program, the Mega program, the Rural program, the Bridge Investment program.

Lots of these opportunities where, yes, we have competed, but as we round into year two, year three, year four, we want to make sure that we can demonstrate from the California perspective that we can actually deliver on these projects. So not only from a state perspective do we want to get things done quicker, at the federal level, at the national level, the White House wants to see projects move quicker. In terms of the White House, they put out their Biden-Harris action plan for accelerating infrastructure back in October.

A couple of the big themes there were making sure that projects are on time, on task, on budget, while Ms. Elhers had mentioned that some of the criteria is just more in narrative form.

I think at the end of the day, being able to tell that story of California, to tell that story, that we are able to add additional tools to the toolbox to get projects done quicker, is going to put us on another level in terms of competing for those funds.

Separate from the federal funds, I do want to just mention, in terms of our own delivery here in California, even with the unprecedented investments, and thank you to the Legislature for the 12.8 billion of clean infrastructure projects that we had in the past budget, this will allow us to move projects quicker.

So on things like Job Order Contracting, if we were to have that authority July 1st, we'd be able to move projects this late summer, this fall, because with job order contracting, a lot of times we're able to take a small project, for a lot of that routine-type work of a procurement that may take nine months. We'd be able to shave that down to approximately four weeks. If we're talking about different themes like Progressive Design-Build; if we were to have that authority now, we'd be able to start that procurement today.

And if we were having to wait, unfortunately, until next year, we could very well miss a complete construction season to utilize that tool to move projects quicker. So I will pause there. But I think it's really important not only from a federal perspective, but also just a California project delivery perspective to move some of these tools forward.

Thank you. So I'm going to move to the Accelerating Environmental Mitigation section. How will the proposal impact current Caltrans mitigation projects and funding in the Advanced Mitigation program? And does it help at all to ensure that there's sufficient funding for mitigation?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mike Keever, Caltrans. So, with the Advanced Mitigation Program, what we have found is that we have opportunities, but there are places where we can't seal the deal. And so we asked, we worked together with the banks and Mitigation banks with CDFW, where are we hitting our roadblocks? And those specific roadblocks are what was introduced into the proposal. And so there are different banks, they have different rules. At Caltrans, we have certain restrictions on what we can do.

And even though we had a willing partner, we're having a difficult time completing the process. So we have bottled up several really good proposals, and we'll work through and try to find that path that allows us to get through. But it's time consuming. We're kind of beating our head against a wall sometimes. How can we move these things forward when we have a willing partner? And this is what we're asking through this proposal, is where are the roadblocks and how do we break them down?

So the concept, I think, has broad support, but it's a matter of execution. And that's what this allows, is the execution.

Thank you. For NEPA, there's a section- We got this really just about a week ago. I haven't had a chance to do a deep dive and analysis with my team yet, I'll be honest. But is there something about the NEPA process with local agencies? And if so, can you explain what the rationale is behind that and how that's intended to operate?

So in general, with the NEPA assignment, Caltrans takes on the federal role. And so we do that now with the local transportation projects. And so I'm not sure if that answers your question, but as far as the local projects, Caltrans takes over the role of the Federal Government.

Madam Chair, this is NEPA assignment, so we essentially sit and take the liability from the Federal Government. And we say, as a state, that we'll take all those responsibilities. CEQA is sometimes greater and we take all those responsibilities. This is an extension of a sunset that's in place. So since Caltrans, and Mr. Keever can correct me, my data says we processed over 16,000 approvals under this assignment since 2007. And the final environmental impact statements showed 124 months of savings.

So this is one where it's been in place for a long time, this idea of NEPA assignment. Obviously, this is just for the CalSTA ability, not for any other project here. But we think this has been effective in the past and this is an extension of that sunset. This idea of assigning responsibility, federal responsibility to the state.

And then, Madam Chair, to your question about how this specific proposal will, I guess how we will engage with locals on it, what I will say is that we are in the process of working through an updated MOU with Federal Railroad Administration currently. This proposal would allow us to explore other opportunities to work with locals to take on that NEPA assignment on their behalf. So process wise, we're still working through ultimately what that would look like. So we are negotiating an update with Federal Railroad Administration. We would also have to kind of work with Federal Transit Administration if there was a transit project, that would be that this proposal would benefit. So those are all conversations that we are continuing to have at the federal level and would essentially develop a process for locals to bring projects forward to us as this authority is for Kausta to take on the NEPA assignment for rail and transit projects.

So that's helpful. That's a very helpful explanation. Can you just explain briefly, how does that speed up the process, though? How does that make it go faster?

So, as Ms. Miller mentioned, we can use the Caltrans assignment that they've had for highways as an example where we've been able to process I think the number was 16,000 different environmental documents on behalf of the Federal Government. So a lot of this at the end of the day, ends up being bandwidth. So to the extent that we submit documents to the Federal Government, if we actually have control over that, to take on that responsibility on behalf of the Federal Government, we have more control over the process. The other piece, in terms of the local engagement, locals are much closer to the issues that are actually impacting that project and therefore, just by that inherent knowledge of the project, that also speeds up the process. So we have seen significant time savings through our own NEPA delegation up to this point, where we're seeing for kind of smaller projects, a year of savings for larger scale projects, two plus years in many instances where we've been able to take on that authority. So I would say that we have the experience on the highway side. We have done some of this on the rail side already. But it really is about being kind of closer to the project and knowing the issues that helps us advance this forward and also having the bandwidth here on the state side.

So I want to move to the I-15 wildlife crossings, something I'm very two things I'm very excited about. One is Brightline and the prospect of having a great fast train to get from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. And the second is wildlife crossings. Something else I'm very passionate about. Is there anything in the language of these agreements, of the agreements that were previously entered into by Caltrans and CDFW and Brightline that makes the construction of the three wildlife crossings legally binding?

So I'd say that in terms of our language, there isn't anything that makes it legally binding. This is really in support of that MOU that you referenced that was executed back in January, where we have three partners, Fish and Wildlife, Caltrans and Brightline, all agreeing to move forward with three wildlife crossings along that I-15 corridor. What this proposal does, it allows us to directly contract with Brightline to incorporate those three crossings into their design as well as the construction of the project. So we're not essentially having Brightline and Caltrans doing simultaneous projects, which would lead to inefficiencies as well as potential conflicts. So this language that you're seeing that you're acting on would essentially help support that MOU that was done back in January.

I think that if there are other environmental issues associated with that particular set of projects, some of these other tools could absolutely help. But not knowing the specific nature of those two projects is a little hard for us to say.

And so what role does Caltrans or CDFW or Brightline, what role does each have in the actual design and the construction? How is that breaking down? And are all the agencies paying for those crossings? And what is the funding mix or mechanism?

Yeah, so appreciate the question. And at this stage, we do envision this as essentially a state, private, and federal partnership to get this done. In addition to some state funds that we have made available for this purpose, we do anticipate going out for a federal grant. Notice of funding opportunity is already out on the street with applications due in August. We do intend to hopefully be successful in drawing down some of the federal funds for this as well. Brightline, as part of that agreement, plans to essentially provide those in kind resources to do the design, do the construction. Caltrans would obviously have the oversight role over that construction, but this is intended to be essentially a three way partnership.

With Brightline sort of in the lead, it sounds like, with design and construction.

That's right. With Caltrans oversight.

Got it. Thank you. That's helpful.

And Madam Chair, my understanding is that that contract, Mr. Teleson, has to be executed by fall of 23.

For the Progressive Design build. Are there already specific projects that you are considering for those?

Mr. Keaver can provide some details on that. We're looking at the shop at Caltrans. We don't have a specific list of projects yet, but there are some projects within the shop that we're exploring. But Mr. Keever, any additional.

And when you do, can you also talk about the timing? What does adopting this now, what does that do to the shop or to any specific projects that you're considering?

Yeah. Thank you, Chair. So it offers a couple of opportunities for us. One is there are well, more than the eight slots of opportunity, I think, for us. And so we would have from our current palette of projects, we would choose those that are going to benefit the most. The other, if you think about it, with the NOFOs that are coming forward, with Progressive Design build, you get to vault forward. We actually get to erase time. We get to go back in time, if you will. We can put that money to work earlier because it's earlier in the process. So as opposed to Secretary Oma Shaw talked about it with a standard design build, you have to be at 30% of your design here. We can actually bring the contractor on board. We can take those funds and we can start collaborating with them. And also, frankly, from the environmental standpoint, you can have that contractor help you to find the best path forward and work with the permitting agencies to talk about what that contractor can do in order to minimize the impacts of a construction project. And so there's tremendous benefits both from the environmental side on the permitting and the timeline there and then getting the money put allocated onto a project earlier.

Thank you. And my last question for now is about the job order contracting. And you had mentioned broadband, and I'm wondering, given the broadband experience, if there were any drawbacks that you saw additional lawsuits, any of those unintended consequences yet?

To my knowledge, unless Caltrans knows of.

Any, no, we just got authorization. Excuse me? We just got authorization in 2021 to do both broadband and clean California projects. So it's only been two years, but we're seeing how it's benefiting us in being able to deliver Clean California projects quicker. And it's going to definitely help us on the broadband front. But to my knowledge, to our team, nothing from a legal standpoint as far as challenges related to job audit contracting so far, but it's very helpful too.

Great, thank you. I want to turn to my colleagues. Let me go to my Vice Chair. Okay.

Thank you. No, this is exciting. I have to say that I'm a city planner by profession, and looking at all these five points here, it's like a dream come true for a planner.

You're going to help us answer the question?

Well, I'm not that quaint on specific questions. I do have some questions, but generally this is really a package that I think is exciting for California. I think that this gives us a second chance to prove that we can do things right and quickly in a timely manner based on what we experience with high speed rail. I'm very excited about Brightline. I've talked about that before, and I think that this is the right approach. The public private partnership. I think that's what's been done in other nations that have been successful with high speed rail. And I think one of the questions was how much time can we get to get to this point, being a new member just coming in? You said 30 days. I'll be excited to do that in 30 days. But I know that's going to be something that is not going to be possible just because of the way things work. But I think that we can accelerate this process. If I understood correctly, it's upon this body to see how long we can have this come to us to approve it or what would be the process in getting to that point? That's the question I'm asking the chair.

I think the process is going to be that we're doing this series of hearings. There's the hearing today, there's another hearing on Wednesday. I think that there's maybe another hearing as well. And we need to first make sure that all of the members that are going to be voting on these proposals fully understand them, that we understand the public's concerns about them, and that we make whatever feedback we can. Try to talk to the Administration about any changes that we want to see as a body so that when we move forward, hopefully they can come to the floor and be adopted. So that's the process and it really, it's going to take as long as it takes.

Okay.

Certainly there's an urgent sense of urgency from the Administration. They've articulated, I think, very well why they have that sense of urgency. They've explained how long they've been working on the policy and on the other side for 80 Members of our body and 40 on the other side. We haven't seen these before and they're very deep policy changes to the state. So we'll be continuing these and having discussions, I think, online and offline with stakeholders and with the Administration. And I would also always suggest to any Members, ask questions here, attend other hearings if you want ask the Administration directly, you can always ask them questions. Transportation staff is also available to intervene and translate and ask questions. And if you're having trouble understanding or getting responses, back the team up here. And with all of the other policy committees that will see these bills, it'll be the same thing whether it's natural resources or water or ledge. All of those committees will also be engaged and their staff on getting questions answered.

Well, just the fact that [inaudible] could be accelerated is a big win, as you know. That's something that it's lengthy, takes time and a lot of effort. But I think that's something that we should keep in mind is the events happening in LA. The Olympics and the World Cup coming. People coming to LA are going to want somewhere else. Maybe they want to go to Vegas. They can jump on the train and get there and come back. Same thing with the World Cup. Those are big events. And I say that because in Barcelona in 1992, when the Olympics were there, that was the catalyst for Barcelona to be what Barcelona is today. So those are the things that as much as we can do, as much as I can do, I should say I'd be willing to do that because this is historic, this is something that we should take advantage of. And again, I really see this as a second opportunity to show the world that we can do things right and all of these five things, I think, is the way that we should start thinking about making this a reality. The billions of dollars that are coming to the state. It's another reason why we should be working as much as we can to make sure that we can deliver to the people of California so that we can demonstrate it once again, that we can be able to do something like this. On another note, separate to Brightline, is there an opportunity through these mechanisms to accelerate works in not building new freeways, but fixing safety points on several highways throughout the state? I am very interested in the 14th Freeway, the choke points that are there. There's a lot of residents in the Antelope Valley, same thing on the Victor Valley that drive down the hill, as we say. But there's a real challenge, and it's a safety concern because of the choke points that are there. Will this be available to fix those choke points?

Thank you, Assemblymember and not being exactly familiar with those particular projects, what I will say is something like a job order contracting opportunity could be used for those types of projects which are more of your routine maintenance or kind of some safety projects. If it's a guardrail project, for example, or kind of other features that, again, could be done through that mechanism that would ultimately allow us to speed up that process to get contracts out for delivery.

Okay.

One last question. Through my experience, Caltrans can be a little lengthy to work with. Caltrans can have different ways to make things go through in a faster way. How committed is Caltrans that building these kind of projects is going to be something that Caltrans will really be working with those third parties like Bryan and other contractors that will come to the table?

Yeah, just Assembly Member just real quick. And Chief Deputy Keever may have some additional thoughts on this, as well as he helps to lead the Department. And also, by the way, thank you for those initial comments you made about how excited you are with your planning background to see efforts like this move forward. It's a different day at Caltrans today. I had an opportunity to work there during the initial years of the Newsom Administration. Issues like accelerating project delivery are absolutely at the core of how the Department does its work today. So bringing efforts like this forward, as Ms. Miller mentioned as an example, NEPA assignment is something that the Department has had for a long time. She mentioned the 16,000 number. Things like that are now ingrained in how the Department does its work. So every project is looked at not only through the lens of that core four that I mentioned, safety, climate, action, equity, and economic prosperity. But how can we get it done in a timely fashion for the people of state, not the usual red tape. So giving us the authority to do more things like this is going to help us, like the undersecretary mentioned with the federal money that's coming and also the state dollars from SB 1 and from Governor Newsom over the last few years. So this is at the core of how we see our function today, unlike some of the challenges that we may have had in the past.

And Assembly Member, just on apologies, Mr. Keeber, if you want to go, but on the Route 14 at 138, is that the project you're talking about in the City of Lancaster? And we will get you this packet. It's one of the projects from the raise program that would benefit. It's listed on here. And we're happy to get that to you. Obviously we're also putting this together in real time as we learn more. Is that the project you're referring to?

Yes, but we don't have to get into detail with all the precious.

We're happy to follow up on that specifically.

And lastly, I think that we should also take into account the opportunity to create so many jobs. Projects like this will hire a lot of people, priorities estimated to be completed by 2027. Not only the number of jobs that will create, but the demand on those local municipalities for housing and economic opportunities. That's another reason that I'm really excited about this, because the high desert is just hungry for opportunities. Brilliant. Going through the high desert will be a catalyst for the high desert. With that, I'll close my comments, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. I actually want to expand just on a question from something that the Assembly Member asked and also a comment that was made earlier when we were talking about the job order contracting. Someone, I think it was Mr. Secretary, had mentioned routine work. So I just want to be clear about the job order contracting. How routine work are you planning on using this mechanism? Chokeholds are one thing, those can be major projects. But there's also a lot of just minor things that go into maintenance. So I think it's important that we understand what the parameters are around the job order contracting and what you're envisioning. So can you give us a little bit of clarity here on what kind of projects you're talking, what would be considered and what would absolutely not be considered.

Yeah, Mr. Keever, he's going to help us with this question.

Yeah. Thank you, Chair. And so what we're talking about is not really the work that the Caltrans maintenance crews do. What we're talking about is what we have our contractors, the contractors that bid on our projects do. But what's unique about the job order contracting is say you have some pavement that is starting to have degradation. We certainly saw a lot of that after the winter storms this year. You have to identify where it is in order to start procuring a project and have somebody come out to do that work. With job order contracting, you already have them under contract. Once you see the degradation, you can just simply write your task order, say, go out there. Now, we don't have to put that package together because we already have them. And so it would be things like that degradation that we're seeing on the pavement. It could be clearing trees as we're trying to prepare for wildfires. It could be on our bridge decks, putting methacrylate, but basically making our bridge decks last longer. So it's things that are repeatable that we see around the state. And you could say, go out and do this here.

So that is really helpful. I'll just make the comment that I think that the language needs to be a little clearer as we move forward to just to clarify that so we don't have that confusion going forward. Thank you. Right in the Bill, Mr. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I'd like to compliment you on the job order contracting proposal. I actually carried the Bill AB 2996 in 2018, actually to expand job order contracting, so five years before it was there. So I appreciate you bringing that proposal forward. I don't know if it helps you with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I think it's a good idea and I think it will. I do concur with the Chief Deputy Director of Caltrans that actually is going to be very useful with that authority. In terms of the accelerated environmental mitigation, I like to flesh out what projects we're looking to complete with this authority. Do you have any projects in mind.

I'm going to Mr Vice Chair, get a chance to briefly see you today. I'm going to let Mr. Keever answer that question. I'm late for a 04:00 P.M., but I want to let you know that at any point, if any members want to engage me directly on this Bill, on this package, I'm willing to have a meeting or discussion at any point to discuss this.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Absolutely.

And specific examples for job order contracting?

No, for accelerated environmental mitigation. What projects are you looking to complete with this added authority?

Really any project that would require that mitigation. So after we received the authority to do advanced mitigation, we have done a statewide review of the projects going forward and trying to identify where is it likely that we will have certain things. Maybe it's waters, habitat, specific species. Where are our projects going to be and then where should we could we invest in the advanced mitigation in order to do this work? Again, upfront, which significantly reduces that timeline. And so whether it's through the advanced mitigation program or second best, you do it specifically for your project. Either way, this would streamline those opportunities. So it's really any project.

So I guess you haven't identified any projects that would benefit from advanced mitigation.

I just don't have a list of them for you. But we do have a list that we could provide.

We'll get back to you on that.

Yeah, I'm just trying to think that's a very broad I mean, not that I'm not criticizing you, I'm just like that's a very broad list of potential projects. And so from my perspective, I like to have an idea in terms of, like, are these highway projects? That's the big one, right? I mean, are we looking at using accelerating environmental mitigation to streamline road rehabilitation? Are we looking to do road capacity? Are we looking to do what are we looking at?

Yeah, we have many highway road projects that would benefit specifically from this. Our first choice is to try to avoid the impacts, but we have lots of projects where unfortunately, we do have impacts that we need to mitigate. And so this would allow us the opportunity.

Sure, absolutely. Someone who lives in, I represent rural communities, and so, of course, trying to do a road safety project in a one lane, two lane road situation, there's definitely an area there I could see where this could actually help try to facilitate a road safety project, for example. I just didn't know if that was something that you're envisioning or whether because I certainly don't want to impose. I would impose, I guess, if you allow me to, but what my views or what my projects would be. If you're looking at this type of authority.

Yes, we'll get you some specific examples. This proposal specifically came out of the Ad 1282 Transportation Permitting Task Force from this Committee. So in order just to keep mitigation but streamline it. So we're happy to, though, provide additional details.

Okay, thank you very much. And then in terms of kind of building on the chair's question on Progressive Design Bill authority, you mentioned that the eight projects would come out of the shop list. Is there a particular criteria in terms I know my colleague from Vanilla Valley mentioned highway 14. We certainly in the Central Valley on a bipartisan basis has wanted to finish highway 99. Highway 46 has been an ongoing challenge. You're very aware of that. So I'm trying to get a sense of is there a criteria in terms of determining what those eight projects would be?

Very similar to what we do with our design build authority and our CMGC authority? We would look at those opportunities given that there's a certain number of slots and where do we get the greatest benefit. But it comes often, it's in terms of where is there innovation opportunities, where does the contractor's means and methods have a significance on what you are able to do. And then I talked earlier about the environmental impacts and where the contractor can help you to try to limit or get your permits because of the ability to provide certainty on how the work is going to be performed. So those are all examples of the types of things we run through. We select the projects.

And just so I understand the process, if this authority was granted, would it be you that would determine the eight projects, or is there a stakeholder process or how does that work?

So currently, as I mentioned, for the design, build and the CMGC authority, we work with our local agencies. A lot of them are going to be locally sponsored types of projects, and we would get that input, but ultimately, it is the Department that makes the final decision on how to use those slots.

Okay, thank you very much. And then in terms of the NEPA delegation, certainly have been supportive in the past of the use of NEPA delegation in terms of highway projects. And then you've had this on the rail transit side. My experience having done transportation projects in the Central Valley Centennial Corridors was one I'm sure you're familiar with in the Bakersfield area. The challenge has always been clearly most, if not half, of the money that was allocated to that project has been eaten away when it comes to environmental clearance and review. So clearly shortening that time frame would be very beneficial, though I've seen firsthand that the challenge is not the delegation per se, but it's trying to meet the CEQA side of it because our CEQA criteria is more aggressive than NEPA. Of course, we aren't hearing the CEQA side of this proposal here, but could you kind of elaborate? Is there any CEQA streamlining that is being proposed in addition to the NEPA delegation that would allow kind of us to fast track even more?

You're right. That part of the reason we're doing this is because CEQA in many ways is superior to NEPA in terms of how much review there is. So, as I mentioned at the beginning, this package really maintains all of the mitigation and public process around CEQA. There's two proposals that will be heard later this week in the Assembly. The Administrative Records Review is one proposal that I believe is being heard on Wednesday in a Joint Hearing between Assembly Judiciary and Assembly Natural Resources, and that is a question of which documents need to be retained as part of the administrative review process. And it's documents that have had only the documents that a decision maker has actually read, so staff communication wouldn't be included. That's one. And then the second is the incidental take process. Being administrative rather than legislative is also a second. Neither changes CEQA per se, so there is no CEQA reform. This is all really streamlining and permitting reform.

So it changes the timelines, the litigation, the opportunities to build, but the actual process of the analysis and public process CEQA is maintained.

Okay.

Thank you for that. I don't know if I would go.

Hopefully I'll see you on Wednesday.

I don't know if I'll go as far to say that CEQA is superior. I think CEQA is actually a bigger roadblock than NEPA nowadays. I think my colleagues, if you talk to them on the housing front, would probably agree with me.

The Governor has signed 20 bills on that, so.

I appreciate that sentiment. I think that this is certainly a first start. There are ideas here that I think would certainly accelerate road projects. I think this is an area by my colleagues in Vanilla Valley. We have a lot of deferred maintenance and need for new capacity. And so my hope is, as we develop these streamlining processes, that it actually would go to actually building things and especially building road capacity, especially for road safety in rural communities. Thank you very much.

Assembly Member Hart. I'm sorry. Yeah. Assembly Member Hart.

Go ahead. Well, I think this is a really important hearing, and I appreciate everybody being here to talk about these substantive issues. It's an advantage, I think, for us to be having this conversation first about the transportation projects, because the nexus between what we're trying to do, get the federal funding and make these projects happen more quickly is more obvious here in this space, because you've got the NOFOs coming down, and we need to be in a position to be able to compete effectively. But and I do think we actually have a really good story to tell in California about the things that we've been doing to make the case to the Federal Government that we've turned the corner. We're doing things in a more effective, efficient manner and starting off with the NEPA delegation. I think that is part of the narrative that we want to tell the Federal Government that we have taken this responsibility on. We're only one of six states in the country that have that authority. And because our CEQA standards are more rigorous and more protective of the environment, having these processes combined does make the process more efficient. We're not lowering the bar with our CEQA standards, but we're integrating the two processes. So we're not duplicative. And I think that in telling the story, we have to be direct and clear about what California's advantages are. And this, I think, is one of those that we can speak clearly to. In my former job, before I was elected to the Board of Supervisors, I was the Executive Deputy Director of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, and we're one of the projects championing the 101 multimodal HOV project in Santa Barbara County. And it was a progressive design build project, and it has been very successful. I have great understanding of that process. And the advantages is that it provides big projects. You get the expertise of the contractor in the design phase of the project to help design a better project that's easier to construct, that has fewer impacts, that can be done more quickly. So I think that's also something that we can talk about with the Federal Government having that authority, having the projects that we've already done is demonstrating that we know what we're doing. So having this conversation about expanding that lens is appropriate for the purposes of having us be more effective in getting these federal funds. Not sure exactly how the job order contracting refinements relate to those federal funding opportunities. I mean, I think it potentially does increase bandwidth at Cal SDA and at Caltrans. And I get that because the routine maintenance projects that we're talking about, the safety projects, I don't think are going to be great candidates for the federal funding projects. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see that as being a critical timing path issue in regards to these NOFOs that are coming out. And I think that's the key in this broader conversation that we're having about these proposed changes is we're doing this through this extraordinary process to do it fast, to be ready for these federal funding dollars. I think that's the imperative here. And so there's a tension, as the Legendalist office described, between doing it right now and doing it right. And we need to be careful about that. And that's where I think it's important for us to distinguish between these things that need to be urgent and need to be immediate and things that can take a more deliberative process. So if there's something you can tell me about the job order contracting that raises its urgency in relation to this federal funding, I'd like to hear about that.

I absolutely understand the questions about urgency. The Governor does consider this entire package urgent. And obviously the federal funds are what motivated us to look at our infrastructure writ large, how we're delivering projects and this need to go faster is really important. But as I mentioned, even the drawing down of our state dollars, tomorrow in Water Parks and Wildlife, you'll hear about water projects and SB 1 dollars that still haven't been spent. And so I think that when we look at development, it's hard to do it in these silos and piecemeals. What we're trying to say is that we're going to have the entire infrastructure we need so that we can deliver the rest of these faster. So I'll turn it to Mr. Keevers specifically for job order contracting. But a lot of this is what we've learned from the Legislature and the Legislature's involvement with broadband, for example. Job order contracting was introduced there and that's how we've seen these timelines decrease. So it is absolutely true that we're trying to maximize federal dollars, but also deliver all projects faster so we can have the support. There's not a lot about housing in this project, but when we have the roads and we have the water projects. That's how we're able to develop all the infrastructure in the state. So it's absolutely a global perspective on how to ensure that we have this infrastructure that hasn't been seen since Pat Brown. Mr. Keever?

Yeah, thank you. And I think it's a very good question. And so a lot of the federal funds are there's a good deal that we want to go after and be as competitive as possible for what's up there for grabs. But we also received significant amount by formula, right? So they distributed to all of the states and we already received our share. But we want to take those funds. And the secretary talked about the cost of time, so that is part of it. So we want to take those funds and put them to work as quickly as possible. You also get the benefits earlier, but if you can use those federal funds, it also gives you the opportunity. There's another pot that comes up for grabs in August with August redistribution on the federal side and that if you have space, if you've used your money, you can go after those funds as well. So California has been very successful in the past. We fortunately have some very good people that manage our funds for us. And their sophistication in how they do that allows us to go after those federal funds. And so there is a benefit in having that velocity of the funds going out to make space for more money to come in behind it.

Well, that's exactly what I was thinking was the purpose. And that makes perfect sense regarding the wildlife corridors on the I-15 project, the Brightline West project. It makes perfect sense to coordinate those projects. The key is to make sure that they get built and to make sure that there's contractual obligation that they be built and that prevailing wage and labor standards that California expects are also applicable to those projects. And is that going to be the case with you intention?

Caltrans has set aside our contribution. And so since these are public works funds, if you will, federal and state funds, the same obligations that we have with our projects would be included in that. So, short answer? Yes.

And then as far as the advanced environmental mitigation, I think this is a really complex issue. I think everybody wants to achieve the goals that you're talking about. But there's already been a lot of work done under the advanced mitigation program. It's been in effect for a while. Your point that you haven't been able to seal the deal, I think is exactly what the Legislature needs to understand is what is the problem specifically that's happened. And I know that there are reports that are required to describe that. I think there's only been one during the time that the program's been in existence, and it's been almost six years. So more regular input from you about the experiences that you're having would help us inform the way to handle this the best. And there are some really specific things about this. The language that you've offered seems to treat credits from Mitigation banks, conservation banks, or an in lieu program as equal. But those things are different and they're nuanced, and it's important for them to be understood as to how they would be applicable in this instance in your proposal. And shouldn't the language there reflect the distinctions? So I think, again, we're in this tension between doing this quickly in a month versus doing it thoughtfully and carefully through the regular legislative process. I think the burden is on you to show us why you need to do these things and what level of precision is being proposed in the proposals that you're doing to give us confidence that we know what we're doing.

If I may, with regard to that, I think there is broad support for the advanced Mitigation program. I don't want to presume, but I do personally believe it's a very good program. It allows for better environmental outcomes because you can plan how you're going to take that mitigation and then work with those Mitigation banks with CDFW to say, how do you take this and create a conservation area that is planned as opposed to one project at a time? That postage stamp size mitigation for just that project. You bring them all together and you create better habitat. With the banks, each bank has their own rules. And what we're trying to achieve through this is to say if Calcutrans can have the flexibility that we're trying to include in this proposal, we can make these deals with the banks so we're able to take the funds and get clarity that we don't need to go to Escrow, for instance, to maintain a wildlife crossing. We can already do that. But there are questions with some of them say, well, maybe we need to work this out. And so they're asking Caltrans to create an Escrow Fund in order to do that. It's not necessary or, the ability to invest through the banks and not necessarily buy the property directly ourselves, but be able to go out and invest with them. I do believe we've tried to define each of those terms, but if there's a need for clarity on the definitions we want to try to close those links to allow us to complete the work that I believe we've been asked to achieve in working with, on the environmental side to achieve better outcomes and accelerate our projects. Because it is time consuming when you hit those roadblocks.

Yeah, I don't think we want there to be impediments to doing environmental mitigation. We want to make that as streamlined as possible. But the example that you used about an Escrow account not being necessary, I mean, that's technically right, but there's a certainty with that too, that there's a trade off in that. So I think all these things deserve careful analysis. The time frame that we're looking at makes that difficult.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm a little bit concerned when we start thinking about accelerating a process, streamlining processes, because sometimes our most marginalized populations and minority contractors and others tend to get left in the dust.

And I am always reminded about the pandemic when we tried to look for the efficient ways to do things and we began to create disparities unintentional, but yet it happened. What are we doing to making sure that as we look at streamlining these processes or allowing projects to go faster, making sure that we don't lose out in making sure that various communities are also having access to contracts and opportunities?

I'm so happy you asked that, actually. So two things. One, job order contracting is actually a really good example of helping disadvantaged businesses and minority owned businesses and smaller businesses. It's a way to get more contractors into the game. I think Mr. Tollefson and Mr. Keever can go into more detail on that. And then what overlays, obviously everything in California is the environmental justice work that the Legislature has helped us with so much.

And then also the federal funding, the Justice 40 program, which says 40% goes of all these funds go to disadvantaged communities. California really does hope to exceed that amount, and we're tracking that. On the administrative side, we'll have dashboards to share with you in a few months and real accountability to make sure that equity, both environmental justice and equity, is embedded into everything the state is doing.

And I'm happy to meet with you and let you know all the ways we're thinking about measuring that and holding ourselves accountable because we do think that's a really important part of what we're doing. I would love for CalSTA just to speak a little bit about all the ways that we're thinking through how to get more contractors because we know that historically that has been an issue in California, and we're really mindful of starting to change that. So Mr. Keever, I don't know if you want to speak to other examples.

Yeah, thank you. And Assembly Member, I think you raise a very good point. This is something that's a point of emphasis for CalTrans, and the Secretary who unfortunately had to step out, has certainly also been driving us to continue to work to make progress in this area. And so on the federal side, we have a Disadvantaged Business Program and currently 24% or so of the dollars this year are going to disadvantaged businesses.

We're also, though, on the state side, we have the ability to focus on small businesses, and we're expanding that. We're currently doing a pilot to have small business goals in addition to what we have for our federal projects with our disadvantaged business goals. And as Ms. Miller was mentioning job order contracting actually can be very good for small businesses. The type of work tends to be the work that is repeatable. We're also providing working.

We have a small business council working with them to try to bring more small businesses in. I recently went to a graduation in Oakland where we had a number of new small businesses. Some of them, the testimonials, I'm sure we could provide that to you, but they talked about how their business has grown since they've partnered and started working on CalTrans projects. So we're seeking to expand those that are participating on our projects and we will be providing more of that type of work through our small business goals that we're expanding.

Thank you very much, and I would love to have a personal meeting to go through that. Particularly, even some of my colleagues that are members of the Black Caucus definitely want to learn more so we can be better educated on some of those things. A lot of times we talk a lot about climate change and environmental justice, but we also know that unfortunately in the past CalTrans has been involved in racialized project making.

For instance, I grew up partly in the City of San Bernardino in which the 215, when it was drawn, it was drawn in a way to exclude the African American community from having access to economic opportunity. By, usually your exit is on the right hand, but this time, when it came to the African American community, it was put on the left hand side. So now people when they exited they didn't have the opportunity. Luckily about 10 years ago that was finally corrected to allow for that.

But California has so many times have so many projects in the past that had been built to negatively affect communities of color. And I'm wondering, when we talk about creating opportunities, deciding how to prioritize projects, how are we making sure that we are utilizing these opportunities to also atone from the harm that some of these existing or past projects has done in the past?

Yeah, thank you Assembly Member, and that's something that definitely CalSTA and CalTrans take to heart. That is something that we are absolutely mindful of. Thank you to the Legislature for putting 150,000,000 in the past budget for our Highways to Boulevards program, which definitely is intended to complement the Reconnecting Communities Dollars that are coming out of the IIJA. So there are a lot of opportunities where we are not only looking at capital projects to help right some of those wrongs, but also some of the planning dollars that can help communities really kind of have a from the ground up process to look at opportunities to provide more connectivity where some of those past projects have cut through communities and created barriers.

So I would like us to make sure, and once again this is just the beginning of a conversation of course, but making sure that we help to promote or to incentivize the expediting projects that also help to make past corrections from the past.

I just want to make sure that we are also having our equity lens when it comes to what type of projects we are prioritizing, what kind of projects we are promoting, especially when we're using federal dollars to have an opportunity to do things that we may not have an opportunity in the future to do. And so looking forward to more conversations when it comes to that.

And then lastly, obviously, when we think about contracting, we're also talking about a lot of times, in order to have higher scores on their projects, they subcontract with a minority owned business. But then later on, we find that those minority owned business were not truly utilized the way they perhaps would have been shown to do in the initial application.

What are we doing to making sure that if they are using minority owned businesses as subcontractors, that they are indeed being used the way that they are proposing to? Is there a quality control mechanism? Will there be a way for subcontractors to be able to report on these things when they're being used for their name but not utilized enough for their work?

Thank you for that question. How do we make sure that subcontractors, Mr. Keever, if you want to talk about the way we ensure subcontractors are actually part of the overall project.

Yeah. So we have an Office of Civil Rights that has roles in this, as well as our construction staff that are in the field, and they monitor that. And we're also putting in place some, maybe it's a little too wonky, but some new software called B2G Now, but that will help us in order to track so trying to be more data focused to help us flag where we see trends that aren't in the direction where our intent is. And so we do monitor that. But does that mean it doesn't happen? I unfortunately cannot say that. So we're looking to increase our vigilance and make sure that we follow through on the commitments that are being made.

Is there a way to even provide greater strengths to the Office of Civil Rights to be able to help with continued or even strengthen the monitoring process or accountability process?

Yes, we have. And we're continuing to look at that now. And so we've added additional staff to the Office of Civil Rights in order to strengthen their role in this area and others, also, as I mentioned, in bringing more contractors into the fold, if you will. Trying to let people know the opportunities. Hey, you may have worked with CalTrans in the past, but give us another try. Come back. We want to see you be successful here. And so we have expanded our staff in Civil Rights in order to try to do that.

Thank you very much. Looking forward to the continued conversation.

Likewise. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Assembly Member. We'll now go to Assembly Member Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And appreciate my colleagues for their thoughtful comments and questions, many of which I share. And on the last point, and I think kind of the sentiment of it being a new day for CalTrans, we have a lot of us coming from local government, Assembly Member Carrillo referred to the relationships that we've had that are varied. But I think that we'd all welcome a new day for CalTrans, quite frankly, in a good way.

And so the more that we can ensure that, I think to the last point, kind of the idea of also welcoming in contractors that may not have had opportunities before, certainly, or may have been rejected in the past 5, 6, 7, 10 times, but to be welcomed back in would be a very positive thing.

And it'll be actually, I think, interesting to get any kind of comment from the Attorney General as well in terms of commitment from the AG's office, in terms of the support of the bolstering of the Civil Rights Division. In terms of ensuring that we have responsible contractors and opportunities and not folks that are being taken advantage of. In terms of the, and I think I'm sitting in two more of these hearings.

So I have a couple of comments here, and I'm kind of trying to absorb everything as well at the same time. To Assembly Member Hart's point earlier, we're a co-equal branch of government and a lot of streamlining legislation. A lot of things we've done, we've done through our House, through the Senate and brought to the Governor, brought to the Administration.

But we're being asked now, I think, on a number of really important issues that are all important, all things that we work together with the Administration on. But we're being asked to not go through a more deliberative legislative process. And so I think that's where I think the understandable concern and questions come from, even if the sentiment, generally speaking, is that the intentions are good from all parties in terms of what we're trying to achieve.

In terms of the NEPA delegation, my understanding, I believe the current authority doesn't expire until 2025. I guess the first question is why do we not do this through the legislative process? And is it because the further extension of delegation to local jurisdictions? Is that of enough import for us to move more quickly on, or are there other reasons for that?

This is specifically, Assembly Member, I was just trying to use the example of how it is working. This is specifically for rail and for the Memorandum of Understanding that folks were talking about with Brightline that we're hoping, I'm allowed to say this, for the fall of 23. So it is a current need. So I just wanted to make the connection between how useful it's been and how useful we expect it to be. So I'm sorry, for that confusion.

Okay, thank you for that. And in terms of job order contracting, and I've done legislation for a local agency regarding job order contracting as well. So I do think that there are situations where it definitely can increase efficiency and what have you. But Assembly Member Jackson already raised the point of ensuring that there is broad access to some of the contracts, and even beyond that, protections to ensure that work that should be done in-house by union workers is not contracted out under job order tasks.

Those are all the complications that I think are important that can be seen from some as creating another hurdle. But I think there's a reason why those hurdles are there to ensure that we're protecting the good quality in-house jobs and when we do contract out, making sure those jobs are well protected also.

And so, I guess that really just speaks to kind of the parameters of when job order contracting is allowable and ensuring that we're cautious when it comes to contracting out work that could otherwise be done in-house. I don't know if there's any thoughts on that or is that part of the ethic of looking at this to begin with?

Yeah, I think that's a really good point. Mr. Keever can get, I think, the specificity that you provided earlier I think is helpful. And to Ms. Friedman's point, I think maybe we can offer that level of specificity here. But certainly, it's not just for routine work. It is specifically for highway maintenance, work safety projects, facility repair, and replacement of active transportation, the complete street facilities, installation of stormwater pollution and control devices. So we can get you some very specific examples but we wouldn't use it just for everything and have worked with our labor partners to make sure that that language is...

Yeah, I mean I appreciate the specificity. Sorry.

But certainly understand that the detail Mr. Keever went into was helpful so we'll provide that as well.

Yeah, no it is helpful, and I appreciate the specificity but it's also pretty broad range categories. You know, it does cover a lot of potential work cumulatively, certainly, throughout the state. And I'm a big fan of design build from my time in San Jose with the airport expansion and venture center and then with VTA and kind of the transit projects.

I think it absolutely reduces the likelihood of design defects because I've also seen the other side of it where at the cost of many millions of taxpayers when it was a design bid build project. So I think that there's great opportunity to continue the expansion of design build. I think it leads to lower cost typically. I think a big part of what we're talking about is streamlining and kind of speedier outcomes.

And the key aspect of it, again, is the lowest responsible bidder to make sure that it's not just doing it on the cheap but making sure that the firms that are being approved of, because it is far more technical, have the expertise to do it. And when we talk about doing a design build type, we're talking about doing these kinds of contracts as well.

I do want to further reiterate the importance of contracting with companies that have strong relationships with labor and don't have active judgments against them and what have you. I've seen that. The occasions where I've seen design build not be successful is when contractors that have shown a practice of conduct, whether it has to do with quality or has to do with wage theft or other kinds of kind of job safety concerns those are the certain situations where design build then ends up costing you more.

And so I know we have very strong kind of standards when we do these kinds of projects. But I just want to put that on the record that as we go more in a design build because it is far more complex. Although I think everyone that has had experience that agrees it's better than design bid build.

In a far majority of cases. Because of the technical nature, the more complex nature of it, and the fact that you usually have to have numerous contractors you're engaging with, all somewhat at one time, including subcontractors. Sometimes things can get lost in that. And so making sure we have as strong of a process as possible to make sure we don't allow nefarious actors to get access to these contracts.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Any final comments before we go to the public? Okay, then I would like to ask for anybody who's in the room who wants to testify to please come up to the mic. I'm going to give everyone up to two minutes, and we will time it. But don't think that your testimony is any more powerful if you use those full two minutes. If you want to, just say, I agree with the person who went before me, we will love you even more.

I promise. With that, if you can also start by giving us your name and any affiliation that you want to offer. And we're going to be hearing, this is not a for or against kind of lineup. This is really any kind of testimony you want to give on the items. Thank you so much.

Madam Chair, I've actually got two sets of clients to testify on behalf of. On behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, California State Pipe Trades Council, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, and the California Coalition of Utility Employees. My labor unions believe that there's not anything more important this legislative year for the Legislature to act on than the Governor's package of streamlining across all of the infrastructure sectors.

And we've been for 25 years at the point of the spear in protecting CEQA and many other of our key environmental laws in California. We think the Governor's package strikes a very good balance between environmental protection and making sure that we expedite these projects. I do want to mention the elephant in the room that none of the people in the Administration will be able to mention. What's important about expediting these projects is not simply about competing against other states.

This infrastructure money was on the cutting room floor in the debt limit negotiations just this month. It will be back in the crosshairs in the very next budget negotiations and the budget negotiations after that. And let me remind you that we have a very key election in this country in 2024. So this is about getting and spending this money on California projects before it's gone forever because there will be a major effort to claw this money back, make no mistake about it.

I'd also like to testify in strong support on behalf of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which does all things transportation in the nine Bay Area counties. Many of the projects that will benefit from these streamlings will be within the Bay Area region, and we see it as very essential. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Keith Dunn here on behalf of the 25 Self Help Counties Coalition delivering $5 billion of infrastructure in partnership with the State of California. I want to speak in support of the Progressive Design Build Program. We have sponsored legislation this year which seeks to extend those opportunities for project delivery to the local agencies. I also had the pleasure of working on it for local water districts before. Both saves time and money. As Mr. Wetch mentioned, we do have a time crunch on the federal dollars.

Having just spent some time back there, I can tell you that it's a very real effort to claw back those dollars. It's going to be ongoing. I also want to appreciate the administration's efforts to do some streamlining with CEQA. As Mr. Wetch also know, labor and iron workers, who I also represent, utilize and appreciate the protections under CEQA. We have had and have enjoyed NEPA processing by CalTrans for local agencies for a number of years.

I can tell you each one of you on the dais has projects within your district that have saved both time and money by having the Department act as the NEPA delegation authority. We have protections that were built in in negotiation with the environmental community to set liability standards. So there are protections for the environment that exist when the state does that NEPA delegation. But it's critically important, and it saves time and money. And I think 1600 was the number that was mentioned. I can tell you that there are protections that still exist, but we can't get enough opportunities to use it. So thank you very much.

Madam Chair, Members. Brady Van Engelen, California Chamber of Commerce. Here in support of the package writ large. I'd like to commend the Administration for putting together something that I think actually will help us cut green tape and help the business community move towards meeting our shared climate goals, sooner timeline rather than what we're anticipating. I think there are a lot of obstacles in place. CEQA is certainly one of those obstacles that we've found in the business community. And any opportunity we have that could actually help us maintain our environmental protections, simultaneously moving our timelines forward, are well received on our end. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Committee. Norlyn Asprec on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. CBIA strongly supports the Administration's proposals. We believe that these proposals will help collectively expedite development of housing in the state. For those reasons, we support this package. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Chris Micheli on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and share the comments of the Cal Chamber and support the Governor's efforts to streamline infrastructure projects in the state. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Honorable Chair Friedman and Committee Members. My name is Artie Valencia, and I'm speaking on behalf of Restore the Delta and environmental justice communities. We oppose the proposed trailer bill for the NEPA Delegation Authority and the additional trailer bills as they remove much needed provisions that require federal agencies to assess the environmental impacts for proposed actions and projects. Most of all, it could expedite the construction of the Delta Tunnel and to do this, environmental impacts and environmental justice protections will be bypassed and ignored.

NEPA exists to prevent or terminate projects that harm communities and the biosphere. Restore the Delta has advocated for the EIR and EIS to include water, air, and climate impacts, but the documents still fall short on analysis. Meanwhile, Stockton is an AB 617 community, with the majority of our city being afflicted by high asthma rates. In Delta, we also have tribes with ties to the land, and they need to be able to review transportation projects to protect their historic sites and the remains of their people.

NEPA instead must be enhanced to include these groups, tribes, and especially must make an effort to include tribes both recognized and unrecognized. Acts like these are in place to include the public in legislative process to ensure that their home, families and families are being protected and prioritized. We need to work towards a future where we implement projects that will not harm the quality of life for communities who already deal with the past negligence when it comes to environmental reviews. These trailer bills in some expedite inadequate plans and inhibit Delta communities and tribes of using their voice and strips their right to a fair process. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, good afternoon. James Thuerwachter with the California State Council of Laborers. On behalf of our 70,000 members statewide who work in the heavy construction industry, we'd like to thank you and the Committee for holding this robust discussion. We'd also like to thank the Administration for remaining committed to this bold and very pragmatic proposal. We believe that streamlining legal review of sustainable transportation projects is critical, not just for the environment.

But it also helps us support our laborers by building on our success, by putting additional women, people of color, and second chancers to work and creates a real pathway to the middle class. So with that, we look forward to working with you and the Legislator and the Administration going forward. Thank you.

We all support. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members. Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We're here today in strong support of the Administration's package of bills. Wanted to ensure to urge you all to support. Hopefully we can keep this within the budget process. These are very important projects that are being contemplated and hope to move them forward. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Alex Torres with the Bay Area Council here, representing over 300 employers in the nine county Bay Area, and strong support here today for this proposal. Also here today, as part of the New California Coalition, a statewide coalition of California business leaders. We submitted a letter with over 80 business organizations also in support of this proposal. I'll leave with the Sergeants for you to review at your own leisure. This proposal is critical to helping meet California's infrastructure needs in all the sectors mentioned. I do want to call out in a follow up to Cal Chambers' comments on CEQA. The proposal's cap of certain lawsuits filed under CEQA to nine months.

A Chapman Law Review article published this year underscores the need for these provisions in all the sectors. Notably, water infrastructure was the top CEQA litigation target during the 2019-2021 period. Transportation projects were not spared either, including 15 roadway and two transit projects in at least 10 different counties. So want to call out those provisions as especially impactful for the business community. We appreciate the discussion the hearing today. Great opportunity to do a deeper dive on the proposal and happy to be one of the many voices that you'll hear from the business community in broad support of this. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Committee. Marc from Streets for All here. I want to bring in a kind of different perspective here. I think ultimately Streets For All's perspective is that project delivery reform is a critical piece of our infrastructure needs. The question is, are we expediting the correct projects for the sake of environmental concerns and climate goals? I haven't heard that within the discussion today. And I think what I ask is, and I implore all the Members here is ask questions around.

Is all of the highway and roadway capacity that we're looking for critical? You look at something like highway 101 in Santa Barbara County is an immensely important arterial that serves and served at the time during the Thomas Fires and the mudslides. It's a critical piece of infrastructure. But is all the highway widening we're doing actually serving the underserved communities that we want to speak of?

If we're widening for the sake of getting rid of homes, increasing VMT, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing particulates from tires in people's lungs. Are we actually doing something that's bettering the community by doing these progressive permitting reform systems? So while we believe that this is essential, while I have mentioned, I think there's a lot of work to be done, especially potentially in the LOSSAN Corridor and other rail infrastructure, I'm not convinced at this time that this is going to be working and equitable in the way it's being proposed. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Manny Leon, California Alliance for Jobs. The Alliance is in support of the Governor's infrastructure package. We echo many of the comments from our industry partners that were just speaking right now. And we also want to note that the proposed package will provide a significant or will provide significant economic benefits throughout California and that this will result in a generation of well paying construction jobs that will support a strong, vibrant middle class in our state. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Adam Quinonez on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies, here in strong support of the Governor's proposal to streamline infrastructure. Just want to thank the Governor and Administration for leadership on this issue. In particular, I want to call out one proposal, the Progressive Design Build proposal. I don't think it was mentioned, but that would also apply to the Department of Water Resources, which we think is really important.

As most of you know, the Department of Water Resources manages one of the largest water delivery systems in the world. The State Water Project provides water to over 27 million Californians throughout the state. They manage over 700 miles of pipeline, many pump stations, and energy facilities. And so expediting any of those types of projects can be hugely beneficial to the state's water supply. To highlight, as most of you know, we are right now experiencing the impacts of climate change on California's water delivery system.

We went from one of the driest periods on record to historic rainfall and snowpack and flooding throughout the state. And so we really have to invest now. We view the Administration's proposal as really, not undermining environmental review, but instead creating a pathway for the state to invest in infrastructure at the pace and scale that's needed to respond to the impacts of climate change. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Todd Bloomstine, representing the Southern California Contractors Association. SCCA is a trade Association of all union contractors. We're signatory to the operating engineers, the laborers, the carpenters, as well as the teamsters. We're very supportive of the package. We do have some cautions to share with the Committee, specifically regarding Progressive Design Build. It highly favors large contractors, usually in the $150,000,000 range and up project. Now remember, when a contractor has bids on a project, they have to provide bonding performance and payment bonding that requires a contractor to produce 10% of working capital just in order to bid that project.

So that means on $150,000,000 project, a contractor is going to have to produce $15 million of working capital, usually liquidity. That really favors very large contractors. There's probably only around 10 California contractors that would be able to bid that project. Of course, there are national contractors that would likely come in and bid on that work.

Also, one of the problems that we see with progressive design build is it works against the premise that good on time projects have good design plans and good specs. It's somewhat dangerous to start working on a project when you only have 30% of the plans completed. Believe it or not, California has gone down this road before. In 2000, in 1999, check out AB 405. That was a bill that authorized design sequencing for CalTrans, and it was something of a mixed result, as I recall.

So that's a caution. And finally, out of the spirit of the public contract code, take a look at PC 100 that simply says that public work should provide all qualified contractors the opportunity to bid. So we've always advocated for a range of contracts, not necessarily extremely large ones. By having that range, you maximize... Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition in support of the Governor's infrastructure package. I want to thank the Governor for including hydrogen projects in his executive order in the creation of the task force and ask the Legislature to move this forward. Thank you.

Melissa Romero with California Environmental Voters. It's great to hear all of the support for accelerated climate action. It's something we've been pushing for for a very long time now. But I do have to say that California Environmental Voters has significant concerns with the budget trailer bill package. These bills would make significant changes to existing environmental laws, and the language has been drafted without the input of subject matter experts in the environmental community.

We ask that the Legislature move these trailer bills through the regular legislative process, allowing for ample public review and comment, full discussion of solutions, and transparent considerations of amendments to address the significant concerns expressed by many environmental, justice and conservation groups.

The infrastructure proposals are missing very important policies that should also be looked at and discussed, such as improving planning and sighting of projects, more robust upstream community engagement to avoid unnecessary delays altogether, increased investment in permit for staffing at agencies, and more coordinated and efficient approvals of transmission and other key infrastructure needs that are essential to our climate resilient future. Again, these are issues that we have been pushing for for many years now, and the proposals in these policies have some really deeply concerning changes that really need to go through the legislative process. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Erin Norwood on behalf of the Almond Alliance, representing the 7600 growers and over 100 processors of almonds in the state. Transportation infrastructure plays a crucial role in the movement of nearly 3 billion pounds of almonds a year.

That's 80% of the world's supply and 99% of the nation's supply to ports across the state. As we've pioneered a multimodal strategy, highway improvements, rail transportation investments, and the enhancement of port infrastructure are all examples of projects that could be streamlined with these proposals, benefiting the hundreds of thousands of people that make up our industry and our community. And for these reasons, we are in support. Thank you.

Good evening, Members. Rob Spiegel, Senior Policy Director for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, or CMTA. And for CMTA, we view the infrastructure streamlining package as critical to accelerating California's climate, critical energy, excuse me, water and transportation infrastructure projects that we will need in order for California to achieve our climate goals. But it's also about preparing California's economy for our future and also providing thousands of good jobs in the construction industry, as well as the manufacturing industry in the state.

California's manufacturers are about a $300 billion entity to the state's economy here in California, and we need the very best world class infrastructure to be able to compete on the international level that we are. Combined, we believe that these proposals will streamline permitting, cut the red tape, reduce time consuming litigation, and make other changes that will take years off the timeline of projects, while also saving taxpayers, state and local governments and businesses hundreds of millions of dollars per year. On those points in particular, Members, CMTA is in strong support for these proposals. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla. I'm with Restore the Delta. President Biden has put forward an executive order centering environmental justice communities and their needs in response to the Inflation Reduction Act related projects. This is important to know because the Delta is a majority disadvantaged community, BIPOC region by a significant percentage, and we are ground zero for all of the projects proposed in these budget trailers. Carbon capture sequestration, hydrogen energy, a port expansion, road expansion, and the Delta Tunnel.

We are ground zero for all the environmental impacts to mitigate climate change for the rest of the state. The Delta Tunnel will require new roads, bridges, widening projects in the Delta due to the thousands of trucks that will be part of construction over 15 years. Yet the Delta Tunnel EIR presently fails to address air quality impacts, especially for Stockton's AB 617 community near the Port of Stockton.

Expediting environmental review and mitigation of these related row projects will leave sizable EJ communities at a great disadvantage to even respond to these projects because of the number of projects that we are responding to presently in the Delta. Accelerated mitigation banks with CDFW will not be implemented in the Delta until construction is complete 15 to 20 years later with the tunnel. What species will we lose by then? Smart, clean transportation projects need to be expedited. We favor that.

But what will be lumped under climate change necessity with road construction, especially without a list of projects, in the Delta to us is very questionable, especially for NEPA protections for federally recognized tribes tied to the Delta, which have direct relationships with the Federal Government.

If you can finish up your time.

Policy changes need to move through regular legislative process. Thank you.

Good evening. Kim Delfino representing Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon California, and the California Native Plant Society. I think we would align our comments with the comments made by Melissa Romero with California environmental voters. I think we have significant concerns with some of the policy changes that are being proposed in a very rapid fashion through the trailer bill process. And so we would definitely urge close consideration of all of the nuances associated with these bills.

There'll be others speaking. With respect to the package in front of you today, because there will be hearings tomorrow and Wednesday. We certainly have issues with the CEQA changes and fully protected species. But here at the Transportation Committee, we would just echo the concerns that Neal Desai with the National Parks and Conservation Association, a few people behind me, will make regarding the I15 Wildlife Crossing. We share those concerns.

As with respect to the environmental, accelerating environmental mitigation, I think, generally speaking, we understand and support the concept that's being put forward here. We do have some concerns with some of the language. We think that it should be accurately including mitigation credit agreements. It's missing in one provision and it's in another provision. Maybe it's a drafting error, we don't know.

And then with respect to the change to the Endangered Species Act proposed in the trailer bill, we have questions about why it's drafted the way it is. In terms of talking about presuming adequacy of a fund that we don't actually know how much money is actually in that fund for maintaining the highway crossing structures, and why it's only with respect to the structures and not the habitat on the structures.

I think these are questions that maybe are not reasons not to move a bill forward, but they are definitely questions that need to be resolved in order to get to a place where people feel good about the legislation that they're ultimately going to be passing and understanding what the implications of them are. So we would urge that those issues get addressed. Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, Members Andrew Antwih with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange here today on behalf of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, we support this package. We think the Committee has done good work today to provide this review to aid in the public's understanding of what the Governor has put on the table in Los Angeles County. We think the combination of these proposals will allow a metro to meet its own goals in reducing VMT and climate emissions.

On top of that, we think it will help us do that in a more efficient manner. And as we prepare the region and the state to highlight several large scale events, including the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 games, we think these can be tools that are at our disposal in order to make sure that the region is ready and will have benefits well beyond the games, just from mobility within the region and statewide. So for those reasons, we support.

Hi, good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Neal Desai with the National Parks Conservation Association. Thank you so much for holding this hearing. We were one of many organizations that have called on the Legislature to fix the problems with the I-15 Wildlife Corridors. Bill, the fact that we are here five months after the state created an agreement with Brightline with the party saying, guess what?

We don't have statutory authority to even do this work, is one of the many significant holes that are within this agreement. And the Legislature has an obligation to fix all of these holes, not just the ones that the Administration has identified. The biggest one being, as the Administration has admitted today, that these wildlife crossings are not guaranteed. There is an intent to do it, but they are not guaranteed.

And we need an amendment to ensure that these wildlife crossings are constructed by the state prior to or during construction of the rail project. If any of you care about seeing this rail project developed, you should care about wanting to remove any administrative and legal challenges. This has been an issue that has been floating around for many years. I think I'm the one who brought this issue to the state many years ago. So we need to fix it. And the fix is very clear.

And so I'm hoping that this is something that the Administration will not resist. Generations of people have worked to protect our California desert. We are not going to allow a rail project that's 20 years in the making to ruin that investment that we have made. There are numerous other concerns that are also easy to fix in the trailer Bill. I mean, the language subverts the state's own agreement by allowing public funds, state and federal funds, to be funneled to Brightline West to do design work.

But the agreement calls on Brightline to actually Fund that work. So it's things like that. The Administration today mentioned an upcoming federal grant opportunity.

Your two minutes are up.

Okay, thank you very much. Let me know if you have any questions at later date.

Thank you so much.

I'm always the shortest one in the room. Ok. My name is Susan Jordan. I'm the Director of the California Coastal Protection Network, and I just want to emphasize what I consider to be the threshold question for this entire package of bills, including transportation, which you'll all have to vote on all of them. Is the budget trailer process in just a couple of short weeks the appropriate process to evaluate the significant policy changes these bills contain? I don't believe so.

And neither do over 100 of my colleagues. I don't believe that. I guess for where I come at this, if I was sitting in your seat, the Administration could have chosen to include the Legislature and other stakeholders in their development of these proposals. They did not. They could have introduced their proposals via policy bills much earlier in your legislative session. They chose not to. So my concern is both on substance and process.

This highly truncated process that the Administration is pushing, I believe represents a significant departure from legislative practice that I have observed over the last 25 years. We saw it last summer with the Diablo Canyon and AB 205. But to have 11 bills dropped at the last minute, honestly, I consider it to be outrageous.

And what I fear is that this process, this approach that the Administration is taking to last minute budget trailer bills that have significant policy issues, I believe it undermines the Legislature's authority and also your responsibility to carefully vet these bills. There's a lot of unanswered questions here. Just some of them came up today. There'll be three more hearings this week. I believe you owe it to your constituents to do this in the proper way, and it's not through the budget trailer process. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Beverly Yu. On behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, thank you for holding this hearing and the robust discussion on this panel. Today we commend the Governor for his efforts to maximize federal funds through programs like the Inflation Reduction Act and tackling the bottleneck for projects like Sites Reservoir. We support these efforts and overall intent of the Governor's infrastructure package. For the items on the agenda today, we are seeking amendments specific to job order contracting and progressive design-build.

We are supportive of the other items. Regarding job order contracting in 2021, AB 846, authored by Assemblymember Low, extended the sunset for utilization in schools and community colleges to 2027 and also included a new requirement to utilize the skilled and trained workforce. We believe the utilization of job order contracting for the projects identified in this proposal should mirror what was in the requirements for AB 846.

Similarly, for Progressive Design Bill, it is a topic that has been addressed previously by the Legislature. In 2016, AB 2551, authored by Assemblymember Gallagher, first provided local agencies the ability to use progressive design-build for specific water projects. This Bill prohibited a contracting entity from being pre-qualified unless it provided an enforceable commitment to the local agency that the entity and subcontractors would use a skilled and trained workforce.

In 2022, SB 991, authored by Sandra Newman, expanded the use of progressive design build and the related prequalification process with strong labor standards. We believe it is critical that the Legislature build upon the work that it has already done and approved, so we look forward to working with this Committee, the Legislature, the Administration, to make sure these pieces are addressed.

We have provided your Committee with the language that we are seeking, and we look forward to working with you on Sequoia Judicial streamlining language as well. Thank you so much.

Thank you. At this time, seeing no other witnesses in the hearing room, we will move to the operator to take testimony for the Assembly Transportation Committee's hearing on the Administration's infrastructure package. Operator, can you please tell us how many calls you have in queue?

Yes. For public comments, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and the zero. For public comment, we have about 15 in queue. We will go to line 11. Your line is open.

Good afternoon, Assembly Members. I'm Stephen King with Environment California. We released a letter last Friday outlining our position on the Governor's Infrastructure Trailer Bill package, in which we acknowledge the urgent need to build clean energy infrastructure in California, but also expressed concerns about abandoning our bedrock environmental protections like NEPA and CEQA, which play a fundamental role in minimizing harms to the environment and wildlife while developing infrastructure.

We need common sense solutions for more energy efficiency, conservation, and clean energy in California, while ensuring environmental protections that govern infrastructure projects remain strong. To that end, we support some of the specific bills being discussed today that accelerate environmental mitigation, delegate MIPA authority to the state, and allow direct contracting and job order contracting. These bills will collectively streamline transportation projects, accelerate time intensive environmental mitigation, shorten delivery schedules for public works projects, and avoid delays.

Thank you, and we look forward to working together on solutions to build more clean energy while keeping environmental protection strong. Thank you for comments. Is there anybody else on the line?

Thank you. Line 23 a line is open.

Yes, thank you. This is Olivia Seidman, Climate Policy Coordinator with Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. Thank you Chair and Members, for the opportunity to comment. Today leadership Council would like to ensure that progressive design-build, judicial streamlining, and other streamlining measures for transportation projects include language that excludes highway or other major artery expansions or interchange expansions from eligibility for judicial streamlining, PDB and other measures to fast-track these projects.

These projects often promote industrial development near and cut into disadvantaged communities, as we've seen in multiple instances in the Central Valley, including South Central, Fresno and Masini tracks in Tulare County. While these projects purport to reduce congestion in the medium and long term, latent induced demand means that they do not actually reduce congestion and often incentivize more freight traffic and undermine the state's racial equity commitments. As such, these expansions should not be included in streamlined projects.

Consistency with captive is insufficient to prevent these projects from being streamlined, because reducing congestion, improving safety of an intersection, or other principles that are in line with captive are often used to excuse these expansions that increase VMT and air pollution. Without explicit language prohibiting expansions, we run the risk of streamlining these expansions using captive principles, as we frequently see already.

Finally, I want to make the point that transparency is also very key to ensuring that equity is achieved through this Bill package, and there should be publicly available information pertaining to which transportation projects are being considered for progressive design build at Caltran, beyond simply saying that they will come from the shop list, which is quite large. So that's all. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you for those comments. Anybody else?

Thank you. Line 24, your line is open.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Committee Members, and panelists, for your time today. I'm Zach Accardi, Senior Transportation Advocate ant NRDC. Our position on the transportation elements of the Governor's proposals hinges first on ensuring that these proposals will streamline shovel-worthy projects that advance our state's equity goals, reduce traffic deaths and injuries, and clean our air, transformative bus rapid transit projects, robust sidewalk, and protected bike lane networks, building out zero emissions vehicle infrastructure at scale.

These are the kinds of projects that foster healthy, thriving communities, and these are the kinds of projects that we need to prioritize as a state, especially under any streamlining proposals. We need transparency on which projects will be put forward, firm commitments to exclude highway capacity projects from any streamlining, and a commitment to complete streets design in any streamlined maintenance projects.

Second, we'd like to see the Legislature work with the Governor's office to implement appropriate safeguards to ensure that these new streamlining authorities will continue to be used for shovel worthy projects by future administrations who may or may not share this administration's or this Legislature's goals. Finally, we're concerned about using the design build approach to advance the Delta Conveyance project. Making it cheaper and faster to maintain the status quo is precisely the path that we must avoid.

The status quo of transportation infrastructure investment in California has given us the highest greenhouse gas emitting sector. 4000 Californias killed on our roads annually, dependence on cars as the most expensive mode of transportation for California households, divided and displaced communities, and yet with congestion as bad as ever, and we all pay the price with an ever increasing road maintenance cost burden.

The only way to advance our shared goals under these proposals is to include clear legislative guidance that ensures these tools are used for the exclusive benefit of shovel worthy projects that clean our air and center the needs of most impacted communities. Thank you.

Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Anybody else in the line?

Thank you. Line 27, your line is open. Yeah. Thank you. I'm Michael Pimentel, Executive Director of the California Transit Association, representing 85 transit and rail agencies here in the state. The Association and our Members support the package of proposals that Governor Newsom and his Administration has advanced and specifically would like to show our support for the NEPA Delegation Authority proposal before the Committee today.

Of course, we look forward to supporting the administrative record reform and judicial streamlining proposals that will be before your colleagues in the Judiciary and Natural Resources Committee later this week. We see these proposals as being critical for moving clean transportation projects forward. They are in keeping with past actions that this Legislature and the Administration have signed off on, including SB 922, SB 288, and SB 44. And so, for those reasons, we'll urge your support at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else?

Thank you. Line 39, your line is open.

Good afternoon, Stephanie Stroud, on behalf of San Jose Mayor Matt Maham to express my support for the Governor's proposal of the structure package to accelerate critical clean infrastructure projects. Thank you.

Thank you. What's next? Anybody else?

Thank you. Line 40, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Chair, Members of the Committee, Alex Leumer with the Environmental Law Foundation, echoing the theme that many of the previous comments have raised. These bills will make significant changes to existing environmental laws and the language that has been drafted without the input of subject matter experts in the environmental community. We ask the Legislature, move the trailer bills through the regular legislative policy process and allow for ample public review and comment and a full discussion of the solutions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else?

Thank you. Line 25, your line is open.

Good afternoon, Christina Scarring for the Center for Biological Diversity, referencing written comments submitted last week, along with 23 other organizations urging the Committee to include amendments for legally binding and enforceable mandates to construct wildlife crossings. These organizations are among many who've advocated for years for three wildlife crossings in the proposed Brightline West high speed rail project. These are critical wildlife corridors wildlife can and do already cross I 15.

Brightline's proposed twin concrete barrier walls would completely block wildlife movement across nearly 150 miles of fragile desert ecosystem. It would be devastating to bighorn sheep and mountain lions, among other species. The currently proposed mitigation isn't enough agencies, experts and elected officials have agreed these crossings are imperative. Brightline's annual operating profit projections apparently approach $1.0 billion, and they're requesting hundreds of millions in tax-exempt bonds from the state, as well as 3.75.0 billion in federal subsidies.

With zero allocation for these wildlife crossings. Brightline asked federal agencies not to include the three crossings as mitigation. In February, this private company entered an agreement with California agencies to shift about $100.0 million in nondesign costs to the state to California taxpayers. We need a legally binding agreement for Brightline or the state mandating construction of the three wildlife crossings. The administration's admission today in its fact sheet on the trailer Bill raises more doubts describing potential issues around project authority, conflicts, delays, and costs. The Legislature must hold all parties accountable to ensure these crossings timely completion. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else?

Line 34, your line is open.

Good afternoon. My name is Aaron Wooley, speaking on behalf of Sierra Club California. We have significant concerns with moving this package forward through the trailer Bill process. The proposed trailer bills include legal and policy issues that should be moved through the regular legislative process and not rushed forward as part of the budget.

These bills make significant changes to existing environmental laws, and the language was drafted without the input of the environmental or environmental justice community and with extremely limited time for the Legislature and the public to review it. We asked that the Legislature move the trailer bills through the regular legislative policy process instead to allow for ample public review and comment, full and transparent discussion and debate, and consideration of amendments to address the significant substantive concerns that have been expressed.

Several of the proposals directly implicate significant water related projects, and I also would urge the Legislature to adhere specifically to the SB 626 requirements regarding the Department of Water Resources Design, Build Authority. Again, these proposals are missing important policy considerations and should be moved forward through the legislative process where further discussion and public input can be included to address these concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in line?

Line 42, your line is open. Good afternoon. My name is Zach Lou and I'm the coalition manager for the California Green New Deal Coalition, which is a statewide alliance of community, environmental, justice, environmental, and labor organizations. While we understand the need for the rapid buildout of a climate-resilient and clean energy infrastructure, we share some of the concerns that have already been expressed about the proposed infrastructure package undermining crucial environmental regulations.

In addition to that, we really want to underscore the glaring omission of equity priorities in the infrastructure policy package, as the coalition was co sponsors of AB 2419 last year, the California Justice 40 Act, authored by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan. We pushed for the state to establish crucial labor and equity standards in the implementation of federal funding.

So as the state now considers a set of proposals for priorities and infrastructure development, we really urge the Legislature to use this as an opportunity to include policy to implement strong labor and equity standards that both align state agencies with and allow us to go above and beyond the minimum floor set by Justice 40.

At the federal level, we hope to work with the Legislature to establish these strong standards to ensure infrastructure investments, address the legacy of racist policies and disinvestment, while also advancing environmental justice and creating good jobs. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Anybody else?

Thank you. Line seven, your line is open.

Good afternoon, I'm Mariela Ruacho from the American Lung Association, California. When it comes to transportation projects, we would be concerned of approving projects that don't reduce VMTs and would therefore not further increase pollution. We don't want to see pollution projects fast-tracked. There is a lack of information for moving these policies forward. In addition, 98% of Californians already breathe the most polluted air in the nation, with transportation being the main source. So again, we are concerned about some of these moving forward. So thank you.

Thank you for that. Is there anybody else?

Thank you. Line 12, your line is open. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Chris Wilson with the Los Angeles County Business Federation. We want to thank you for holding this very important informational hearing. Members, over the next decade, California will be investing $180.0 billion with the b into infrastructure. This is a big deal that deserves swift action. The governor's proposal will ensure that these monies will not get held up by unnecessary red tape and endless lawsuits.

Earlier today we heard that a major transportation project in California takes about 13 years. 13 years. And that's on a good day, that figure alone should give us the reason to act now and with intention. I also want to compliment the Committee conversation earlier around job order contracts in the governor's plan here in SoCal. Studies show that the 710 Freeway is one of the most dangerous freeways in the state and that is because of a lack of safety, infrastructure and enhancements.

Alongside the corridor, the Governor's plan will help ensure and leverage fast track resources to keep usage of the highway safe and our goods flowing. We urge this body to act swiftly, quickly, to support the Governor's package that will remove hurdles that delay construction of clean energy, transportation and other critical infrastructure projects. California. Thank you so much, Members.

Thank you. Is there anybody else?

Thank you. Line 32, your line is open.

Hi. My name is Suzie Gold. I'm a voter. I live in South Pasadena and I support the governor's infrastructure package. I think it's odd how many environmental groups are here are standing against this package, considering it's integral to bringing our plans for a zero carbon future into reality. Timing seems to be important with these measures, and I think we should pass legislation now so we don't miss our opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Is there anybody else in line?

Thank you. There's line 35, your line is open. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your understanding and patience. My name is Mark Watts with Transportation California, a coalition of contractors, materials suppliers and allied labor. We do congratulate the Administration for presenting this very comprehensive proposal. Transportation California supports the approval of the package within the budget timeline.

We have been supportive of many aspects, similar aspects of Project Streamlining in the past that are represented here, and we feel that it's appropriate to move forward and we thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else?

Thank you. Line 43, your line is open. Mr. Chair and Members, this is Matthew Hargrove with the California Business Properties Association. We stand with the many business and labor groups that you've heard from today in supporting the Governor's infrastructure package. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody else?

Thank you. We have no further public comment in queue at this time.

Well, thank you. Not seeing anybody else wanted to come and comment on this. I just want to thank the presenters, thank you for your time. This was very informational and I look forward to working with you with that. Do you have any closing statements or.

No, no, just thank you, Assemblymember Carrillo, and obviously to the team of Assembly Transportation. I know how hard it is to put together such an incredible background in such a short amount of time. So we're really grateful. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And with that, we'll adjourn this meeting. Thank you everybody.