Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

Thank you very much.

Can we turn on the mic for Senator Blakespear? Thank you.

Okay, well, thank you. I'm happy to be here. My name is Senator Catherine Blakespear, and I'm pleased to present to you today SB 689. This Bill will reduce unnecessary delays in the building of bike lanes along California's coastline in already developed areas. During my time as the mayor of the City of Encinitas, we built several protected bike lane projects, amending the local coastal program, otherwise known as the LCP.

And commissioning the required additional traffic studies resulted in a difficult, expensive, time consuming, and at times needlessly contentious process for building a bike lane. Making biking easier, safer, and more common is a critical element in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as we confront the climate crisis. It's important for us as policymakers to ensure good governance throughout the state and eliminate any bureaucratic hurdles that may prevent or prolong projects that provide a net positive to society and our environment.

My team and I have had productive conversations with the Coastal Commission over more than a year about this effort, and I thank them very much for their engagement with my office. We are now on the same page about how to achieve this objective. This Bill does two things. First, it states that a new traffic study, which can be costly and time consuming, is not necessary for an LCP amendment when a local government is converting an existing motorized vehicle lane into a dedicated bicycle lane.

Secondly, it allows for the amendment to the LCP to be processed under a De minimis exemption when the Coastal Commission's Executive Director determines that this is warranted. SB 689 is a good governance Bill that will improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the Coastal Commission in the construction of bike lanes. With me today, I am happy to have Moira Topp from Topp strategies, and she's here on behalf of the City of San Diego, speaking in support.

Welcome. Thank you. You can come right up here to the table if you'd like. We're doing things a little differently. Unfortunately, we don't have remote testimony anymore, but we'll make sure. You're very welcome here, Ms. Topp. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I am Moira Topp. Here on behalf of the City of San Diego. Happy to be the sponsor of the measure before you. SB 689 is intended to reduce unnecessary delays in the development of sustainable bicycle safety transportation projects along California's coasts. This Bill will maintain important coastal protections and ensure broad coastal access, but replaces the current burdensome process and time consuming Coastal Commission process with one that is streamlined and purposeful.

The California Coastal Commission has begun to mandate that local jurisdictions amend their local coastal programs for projects that merely restripe the road for congestion reduction purposes. An LCP amendment process can take up to 18 months or even two years to complete and, of course, cost city resources. These restriping projects do not extend beyond the current right of way or have any impact on surrounding Flora or fauna.

Improving our bike lane network, especially along the curved coastal roads, will also lead to better bike safety and likely result in fewer fatalities along our coastal roads. SB 689 is intended to reduce the unnecessary, costly, and time consuming bureaucratic hurdles which have prevented local jurisdictions like the City of San Diego to pursue common sense traffic improvements. The measure will improve safety for all modes and assist in meeting our climate and traffic safety goals. On behalf of the City of San Diego, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. I believe you also have circulate San Diego. I don't know if they're here today.

No, they're not here.

Okay. It's just you. Great. Thank you so much for testimony. Now we'll bring forward opposition Livable California. Can they come forward? Are they not here? Ok.

I think their opposition was.

They're not on the telephone today.

I think their opposition was from the Bill from last year, because this is a two year Bill, so it changed in that year.

My apologies here. We had a mistake. All right. We have all support, which is fantastic. Okay, so anyone who'd like to come forward in support of the Bill, SB 689 or opposition, please come forward from the room. Okay, thank you. And just name an organization, please. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Sean Drake with the California Coastal Commission. The Commission doesn't have an official position on the legislation, but we really appreciate the Senator's collaboration on this language, and I'm just available for any questions. Thank you.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Carlsbad in support.

Thank you. Anyone else who'd like to come forward support our opposition? Okay. See? None. So we'll take it back to the dais. Any other questions from Members? Comments? Senator Archuleta?

Yeah, congratulations to the coastal City of San Diego and so on. I'm just wondering, we're talking about a lane that's going to be reduced, eliminated, and the bike lane will take its place and how many bicycle will be used? I mean, how many people will utilize.

Yeah. So thank you for your question. So a city looks at its whole road network, and when they're trying to implement their bicycle master plan or the other planning documents, sometimes there are roads that have two lanes in both directions, but the road doesn't have the capacity that they really need to have that other lane.

And so there are the requirement that in order for a city to make that decision, those are local elected people who are making decisions about where to put the bike network, the bicycle lane network, in order for them to make those changes, they were having to go through this really time consuming and costly process. So in any individual city, it will be different how many people are using that bike lane and also what type of bike lane? Is it barrier protected? Is it just paint?

What's the configuration of parking with bike lane, with travel lane? But these are decisions that are being made at the local level already. It's just that once they become made, then there is this multi year expensive process. And what that also does is it incites almost more controversy over bike lane projects, because if you can make programmatic decisions at a high level of where do we want our bike network to be?

But then at every individual stage, you need to have another hearing to talk about whether the bike study or the traffic study is accepted. It's needless. And so, luckily, our conversations with the Coastal Commission have resulted in a shared understanding about the fact that it needs to be easier to get through that part of the process.

Well, as a former mayor and Council Member in my city, we always ask Sacramento, give us back the ball, let us govern ourselves to a degree. And I think this is showing the joint venture between Sacramento and local communities. And I can see that because if each community along the coast will be able to decide among themselves, and it certainly make it a lot more financially feasible, because now it's only painting that we're talking about.

Right. And no construction. So I think it's a good one and I'll move it when it's appropriate.

Sounds great.

Thank you. Senator Dodd.

Maybe this is just early frustration. I can't even believe you need to have the Coastal Commission's approval for something like this in the first place. But that's the way it is.

Yes. I'll just share that as a mayor of a coastal city, we would try to design our entire bike lane around, avoiding the Coastal Commission. So saying, how can we not even take out one parking spot, or how can we replace, have the bike lane fit within a lane that was supposed to be for pedestrians because we need to leave the travel lanes as they are. I mean, some of these things, the contortions to avoid that regulatory burden and also the delay, really, it's substantial.

It has a substantial effect on what happens in coastal cities. That's really quite problematic. And so I'm happy that we were able to work with the Coastal Commission because their initial concerns were about Flora and fauna and other things that really aren't implicated because this is already a developed area, so these are already carrying people. It's just a question of what does the local city want in terms of the different actual built environment infrastructure.

Thank you. Next we have Vice Chair Niello.

Thank you. With regard to Senator Archuleta's question, I think we don't really know the answer to it. You state that San Diego knows that the road is underutilized, but there hasn't been a traffic study and nor would one be required. And we're really not talking about just this one road. What we're doing is authorizing it more broadly. I would agree that the process going through the Coastal Commission is burdensome, and I would agree that it would be better to try to do something about that.

But I wouldn't agree that there should be no traffic analysis because you really can't tell how traffic might along that road might be displaced. Many times I hear, I was telling Mrs. Topp about this yesterday when I was in local government, there was a proposal at the Air Quality Management District to restrict a traffic lane and make it a bike lane and that there would be no environmental impacts of that because people that drive there would just ride the bike.

And, I mean, honest to God, that was the conversation. And sometimes maybe that takes the conversation over a bit with some people. But the fact of the matter is there's currently traffic on a four lane road that's going to be restricted with only one lane on each side at this point. And we really don't know exactly what the impact of that is going to be.

But even if you do here, if we pass this Bill, we're authorizing this for all local governments not to be answerable to a higher power, but to not even have to do a traffic study.

Well, just to clarify, so traffic studies are already required. So there would have already been a traffic study done. The issue is when there is this LCP amendment that is happening because of a bike lane project, does a new traffic study need to be done? And so this isn't the wild west. I mean, the road network is heavily regulated, managed, and well understood. So whether a road has high volumes of traffic or not is something that will already be available as data.

This is just additional studies. And I don't know if you want to say anything more.

I think exactly. Through the chair, if I could. Traffic studies are done in myriad ways. They're done through our bicycle transportation plan. Most of these projects are also bound by CEQA. And so there are definitely the types of traffic impact studies that I think you're referring to are taking place. What's happened at the Coastal Commission is that even though there was no statutory requirement for a traffic study, over time staff had been requiring a traffic impact study, to the Senator's point.

And so this was simply to clarify for these simpler projects. We don't need to have yet another traffic impact study performed for the Coastal Commission, but they are still performed in other venues, and appropriately so.

With regard to this particular road. I suppose that's true. But my reading of the Bill is that in any other circumstance, this Bill would be authorizing a jurisdiction to go forward with a project like this without a traffic study. And if there is an existing traffic study, who knows how old it is? And it very well could need to be updated. But under this Bill, it wouldn't have to be.

Yeah, I mean, this does really go to the question of who has the responsibility and the jurisdiction to make decisions about very local roads. I mean, we have delegated that to local cities and their city councils who are responsive to the local population that has a very strong opinion about driving.

And so I think the issue of, do we want a Coastal Commission to be the one that's saying, actually, we want the traffic study that tells us what are the peak times of travel on this road? Are we going to get involved in the road network to the degree that we're saying that you can or can't have a bike lane based on some particular peak number of bicycles or cars at a certain time?

And, I mean, in General, the criticism and concern about the Coastal Commission is overreach. The issue of we want people to be able to access the coast. It's a public good, but how much are they responsible for telling cities how they can adapt their cities?

As we're trying to fight climate change and also sea level rise and other things that are particularly mean to me, the fact that the coastal mission actually agrees with this is a great recognition that there needs to be change and that also over time, there's been a creep of what is considered acceptable. And the Coastal Commission essentially can ask for nearly anything because the city wants to do it or the developer wants to do it. And so this is just limiting back a little bit what is possible to be asked for.

Okay, thank you, Vice Chair Niello. And before we move on to our next Senator, we have to establish a quorum. So, Madam Secretary, can you establish a quorum for us, please?

[Roll Call]

Okay, we've established a quorum. Thank you so much. Next we'll move on to Senator Dahle.

Just real quick. I saw this earlier today and had a question. So when you're reducing lanes. So the Coastal Commission, if you have one city and then the next city is right there and flow of traffic is critical to actually, I think the Coastal Commission's goal is to make sure that that works well, too. And the impacts of the earthquake. So when you're restriping to reduce lanes, is the traffic study. Same there like Senator Neillo was bringing up?

I mean, I think the example that the City of San Diego had, they weren't even actually reducing a traffic lane. They were just trying to build a protected bike lane and they'd already made the decision, allocated the money. And in the process of going through this long process, there was an accident where someone was seriously injured and there's a lot of hand wringing over that. Like, how come we couldn't get this built faster?

What is wrong with things when we have already decided to build it but we can't get through the process? I think the reality is that cities are making decisions about the types of the transportation element in any General plan for a city is something that is debated and decided locally.

There's also cogs, I'm assuming in a cog.

Right. Excuse me, I don't mean to interrupt you.

No, that's one of my, in my area we have SaCOG, which is Sacramento transportation. Right. And that's Roseville. It's all the flow. So I'm assuming you have the same thing on the coast. So does that play into this ability as well, or is it one city trying to just carve their way out.

Thank you. Senator, you're raising exactly the point of why we're here today, and that is because not only within the region, but within the city, we have a network that needs to make sense together. And what we found is that we have a network that as soon as you hit the coastal zone, all the rules have changed and we can't make the improvements that we want to make. So we don't have a cohesive network.

And then when you broaden it out even further within the full county, we run into an even larger problem. So, yes, we are here so that the process to make that continuity take place and occur is easier, faster and makes sense otherwise when we have these multi year delays. Well, Carl's bad. Could go move forward with their project while we continue to kind of him and haw on ours, and so then they don't end up actually creating a cohesive network. So that really you've kind of hit on exactly what brought us here.

And I'll just add that she represents the City of San Diego, which has parts of the city that are in the coastal zone and subject to the Coastal Commission and others that aren't. So they are dealing every day with that difference between a project here on this side of the road versus that side of the road. So it's a really good data point about the difficulties.

Thank you. Okay, any other questions, comments from Members? Okay, see, none. And we do have a motion by Senator Archuletta. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Senator Archuleta has motioned, so we'll go ahead and take the roll.

Allen, aye. Archuleta, aye. Archuleta, aye. Becker. Blakespear, aye. Blakespear, aye. Cortese. Six to one, we'll leave the Bill on call. Thank you so much. And we're waiting for our next author, Senator Glazer, who I believe is still chairing elections Committee right now. So, we'll take a short recess and we'll be right back. Thank you. Commercial break. So, you're going to present now on SB 827. Thank you so much.

Is this working? Maybe not. Okay. First, I want to thank the chair for her work with me and the stakeholders on this Bill. We had a robust debate last year, as you may recall, on this issue, and we've taken the time to try to reconcile the different views and I think come up with a path that hopefully you'll find satisfactory today. I also want to thank the staff, Mr. Chin, for really preparing an excellent analysis. I hope everyone's had the chance to read it.

Anyone listening to my voice and want to know the history of this issue; it really is exceptional for taking into account all the different opinions that have come before this Committee over the course of a number of years. And one thing that's noteworthy in the analysis is that in many ways, the proverbial question you've heard from me, which is, why do we need a state law? Can't we work this thing out locally?

And there has been efforts in this space to try to work this thing out locally. And in this analysis, it talks about the BART board and their deliberations on the charter for the Inspector General of BART going back to 2022. And so, it's noted in the analysis, and it's a continuing effort to try to find common ground in the work of the Inspector General. So, the Bill that's before you today, in some ways similar. In some ways different. Let me go through that with you.

It's similar in that it applies the existing statutory authority that we have for our Department of Transportation's Inspector General and applies that to the BART Inspector General. So that framework of taking what we have determined our appropriate powers and authorities for our state IG applies to the BART IG. Specifically, it provides the BART Inspector General with explicit access to records and property records and property and access to confidential records, unless state law explicitly precludes access. Don't want to do anything that interferes with that.

Now, in consultation with the chair and with stakeholders, I am proposing a couple changes. Under the existing statutory authority for the Department of Transportation Inspector General, criminal penalties are in play if you don't cooperate in the appropriate way.

I am taking out of this Bill amendments that you have been distributed to you, although we can't do it here in this Committee proposal to take out the criminal penalty element, in my testimony last year, I indicated I was willing to do that as well, but wanted to consult with the governor's office and other stakeholders to make sure that it wouldn't jeopardize the passage of the Bill. Ultimate passage of the Bill.

I mentioned at the time that in my Bill in 2022, I did not have criminal penalties as a power to the Inspector General, but there was subpoena power. So if someone wasn't cooperating, there'd be a way to have them come forward and at least get their testimony in the investigation that was being undertaken. So while I'm removing in these amendments the criminal penalties, I have spoken with stakeholders, the chair, and others that we do need to make sure that the IG can do their work.

And whether subpoena power is the avenue, it's something that we're going to continue to explore if, in your wisdom, this Bill does move forward today. And secondly, I am proposing an amendment.

Again, we can't take it here in this Committee, but it will happen if the Bill moves forward to specify that if anyone who is subject to an investigation, an employee who is subject to an investigation or may be subject to discipline or adverse consequences as a part of the investigation, that they would be afforded Weingarden rights. And that simply means that before that interview takes place, that they'd be informed that they could have representation from the union to participate in that inquiry.

And I don't have any trouble with that amendment. In fact, it was an amendment that I took in my legislation in 2022, and that's something that's also being added. But I just would want to note that this is an ongoing work of discussion, that it's my hope that the BART board and the office of Inspector General and the stakeholders in BART are continuing to have these conversations about a charter for the IG which they now, for years, have not been able to resolve.

And it's certainly our hope that that work will continue and will give us optimism as if this Bill does move forward about how it should be crafted or not to be determined. And finally, Members, when the Bay Area voters created the office of Inspector General, they certainly anticipated that that would be an office that could do their work, have access to employees, have access to records, and to be able to do whatever Inspector General and public agencies are able to do.

This Bill does provide the common tools in that space to allow them to do that work. And with that, again, with thanks to the chair, to the stakeholders who I've met with, and to all of you who've given me your feedback on this measure. I thank you for your consideration today and ask for a nigh vote.

Thank you so much, Senator Glazer. And I do want to thank you for your ongoing conversations with all of your stakeholders on this issue that I know is very important to you. So thank you for lining up all of those amendments. Those will be taken in appropriations due to the timing. And as mentioned, they are in section two b, which address the Weingarten rights, and section four, which address the criminal penalties that have been struck and also added in there.

All right, so with that we have support here. Any support I believe you have on file. Association of Local Government Auditors, Bay Area Council, livable California Mission street neighbors. Please come forward if you'd like to do a formal witness testimony. Okay, come on in.

This is Alex Torres, former Director of state government relations for the Bay Area Council. Now, Brownstein Hyde, on behalf of the Bay Area Council, proud to support this Bill last year. Want to again reiterate the council's support for accountability. Really excited to see the amendments taken here. We think it's a common sense compromise and proud to support it again today.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. Charles Watson, on behalf of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid District, or BART. Thank you, Senator, for your comments. We'll review the language and amendments that you're proposing.

We do have a support of amended position based on changing the provisions on criminalization to the subpoena power as mentioned, which we will review and follow up with the Senator, and also had concerns about the scope of work of the Inspector General with the office of Civil Rights for BART and the Office of the Independent Police Auditor. But we look forward to continuing to working with the Senator. Thank you all.

Thank you very much. Okay. Anyone else who'd like to come forward in support? Now we'll take on opposition, anyone who is neutral. In between which I believe these two.

Gentlemen are Madam Chair and Members, Matt Broad here. On behalf of the amalgamated transit union, I'd like to thank you and the Senator for convening us all together to talk about a path forward for this Bill that we think sort of balances the need to keep the pressure on us at the local level to negotiate the charter in good faith, but also takes into account our concerns about how the Bill was drafted, how it impacts workers on the ground at BART.

I would just say that from what we've heard at the local level, we're about 90% there in terms of getting a deal done on charter reform, and we're hopeful that happens before the first quarter, the end of the first quarter. And if that's the case, hopefully the Bill will have accomplished its goal of bringing us all to the table and we'll have a path forward without a Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Senators Terry Brennan, on behalf of SCIU California, first of all, happy new year. At the risk of alienating Larry David, but thank you so much for bringing the parties together. We actually had a couple constructive ideas come out of that meeting that we hadn't thought of before. So I look forward to working on this. We are not opposed to it moving forward and very hopeful that a local solution will be provided to this problem. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other support, opposition in between? Please come forward in room 1200. Okay. See? None. So we'll take it back. We'll start with Senator Blakespear.

Thank you. I appreciate the work that you've done on this Bill. And I just wanted to ask about the difference between this Bill and the Bill that the Governor vetoed. Is it the weing gardener rights that are the main difference between where it is currently with the proposed changes and where it was when he vetoed it?

And also, if you can just address why you think things have changed, because I understand he said in his veto message he encouraged the author to work with the IG and the BART board to resolve the issues regarding representative employees, basically. So just curious about that.

Thank you to the chair. Thank you, Senator Blakespear, for your question. The bills are different from 22 to this Bill. There was no criminal penalties in the original Bill, but there were subpoena powers. Now I'm taking the criminal penalties out of this Bill, but we haven't resolved the subpoena power issue. There were other elements. There was Weingarden rights in the original Bill.

I think the Governor and his staff, unfortunately, weren't able to see that because it addresses specifically his veto message and it provides an avenue for the unions to participate as the employee wishes. Nevertheless, there are some other differences.

And as I mentioned in my earlier testimony, rather than go through all the elements in 22 and the 22 Bill of what we've added, I decided just to mirror it to what we do for Caltrans to create some simplicity and hopefully some broader embrace for why we're not trying to do anything different.

And that's really the reflective of the outline of what you see in front of you today, with the changes being the criminal penalties being removed for now, as we continue these discussions and the assertion of wine garden rights, which are not part of the state law as it relates to the Department of Transportation's IG. So we're adding that in. It's responsive to the governor's concerns.

Okay, Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Senator, and congratulations for bringing all the entities together. If you recall, last year, I didn't vote for it, but the word on the street is you've been able to bring people together. Labor is on board. BART, everyone seems to have come together because of your leadership, and I applaud you for that. And I know if there's anything that's still pending. I feel very confident you'll work it out by the time it comes back to us.

So I will not only vote for it, but I will move it.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto.

Thank you very much. And I also want to chime in with a thank you for taking this issue on. It is an important issue, and it's difficult because of all the players that are involved in this. But the one player we haven't really talked about is the General public, because those are the people that get shortchanged when we hire people for an exorbitant amount of money to fix something and then they don't have the power to fix it.

And what your Bill does is it addresses these different issues with these different entities and allows the IG to do his job because that's what they're hired to do, is make sure that the service that the people are getting is what they are paying for and also that there's no corruption and all of those things. And that's what the public wants. It's not just what the union or the Inspector General or whoever else it is wants, it's what the public wants.

And I think you've done a really good job of kind of marrying all of those together into this Bill. So I'll be supporting your Bill today and look forward to seeing if hopefully it doesn't change a whole lot. But if there's stuff that continues to need work on, great. But please keep in mind that we want him to be effective at the end of the day. So thank you.

Okay, any other questions, comments from members? Okay, again, want to thank you. I think you struck a really good balance. Obviously, you've kept the pressure on, which is what you wanted to do to ensure that, as been mentioned, that BART riders are feeling safe. They're feeling it's reliable, but it's also ensuring that the financials are in place.

More importantly, while also sitting down with, I think, represented Members of the BART to hear their concerns and also work with them, hopefully to get towards that charter that we say is 90% there. So that is the hope. So thank you for that. Senator, would you like to close?

Just want to say two things in close. One, for the record, the BART board representative raised two additional issues, both of which I've committed to satisfying completely in terms of confidentiality and access to records. So I want to just make sure that's on the record. And finally, for many of us, I know many here in this Committee, investment and transit is really, really important. And people wonder why I end up commenting a lot on BART.

And that's really simply because it's so important in my district and for my people, not just for their ability to, in affordable way, get to work and their other responsibilities, but for what's good for the environment.

And as we try to find ways to invest in transportation, because we know we need to make greater investments, even at times like budget issues that we're facing today, that we have to have the confidence from the public that the money is being used correctly, because that's the trust that's a part of any kind of investment that we are able to make. And so that's the work that we have been trying to do in this area. Again, thank you for your consideration.

Thank you to the chair for her work. Respectfully. Ask for an I vote.

Thank you, Senator. We have a motion by Senator Archuleta. Madam Secretary, can you please call the role? This is file item number three, SB 827. The motion is dupas and re referred to the Committee on appropriations. Senators Gonzalez, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Niello. Aye. Niello? Aye. Allen. Allen. Aye. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Becker. Becker. Aye. Blakespear. Cortese. Dahle. Dahle. Aye. Dodd. Limon. Aye. Limon? Aye Newman. Newman. Aye Min. Serato.

Aye. Seyarto. Aye. Umberg. Aye. Umberg. Aye. Wahab. Wahab. Aye. Eleven - zero. Okay, Eleven - zero. Looks like that Bill is out, but we'll keep it on call. Thank you. We'll reopen the role for SB 827 really quickly. SB 827, the motion is due, passed, and re referred to the Committee on appropriations. With the chair voting aye, Vice Chair voting aye. Senator Slakesbeer? Cortese? Dodd, aye. Dodd, aye. When? Aye. 13. We'll leave the Bill on call for other Members to add on. Thank you so much.

So we'll go back to file item two, which is SB 689 by Senator Blake Spear. We'll reopen the role on that item. Madam Secretary, this is file item number two, SB 689. [Roll Call] Thank you. All right, that concludes our Senate Transportation Committee. We are in adjournment. Thank you.