Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

Senate Transportation Committee will come to order. Good afternoon. Welcome to the first Bill hearing of this Committee for 2024 and my first hearing as the chair of the Transportation Committee. We have 23 measures on today's agenda, and we're starting a little late. Through no fault of the colleagues who are here, there's some caucus activity today that went a little bit over. We appreciate everyone's patience. I know, with some of these measures, there are many supporters and opponents.

So that we can complete today's work on a timely basis, I want to go over some time limits on testimony. The two primary witnesses for each side will each be allowed two minutes. So a total of four minutes each side. For all others wishing to testify, please limit your comments to your name, your affiliation, and your position. Just those three things. We are unable to establish a quorum at the moment. We will do that as soon as we are able. A couple of announcements.

I think this is in order at this time before we hear from any authors. Item seven, which is SB 1505 by Senator Stern, is off. We will not be hearing that today. We also have 13 measures proposed for consent today, and the proposed consent items are as item one, SB 1068 by Senator Eggman. Item four, SB 1394 by Senator Minn. Item six, SB 1487 by Senator Glazier. Item nine, SCR 102 by Senator Alvarado-Gil. Item 11, SB 932 by Senator Sciardo.

Item 13, SB 1021 by Senator Archuleta. Item 15, sCR 115, also by Senator Archuleta. Item 18, SB 1417 by Senator Allen. Item 19, ACR 85 by semi Member Villa Padua. Thank you. Item 20, ACR 87 by Assembly Member Taw. Item 21, ACR 92 by some Member Sciavo. Item 22, ACR 93 by some Member Dixon. Item 23, ACR 98 by some Member Lackey. I am not hearing any request to move any item from consent.

Clearly, before we once we have a quorum and we can take a vote on the consent calendar, we'll make sure that opportunity is provided again. And let me just check and see if we have any author prepared or present. None yet. So we will pause and take an informal recess here until we get an author coming in first. One who arrives will get the opportunity to present. All right. We will end our informal recess and resume the proceedings of the Transportation Committee at this time. Senator Menjivar has arrived. You're welcome to begin your presentation if you're ready, Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Subcommittee, Transportation. First, I really want to thank the Committee for working. Mr. Chair, you yourself, for working with my team on this Bill, I know it's been days and weeks that we've gone back and forth. I appreciate the attention to this matter. I will be accepting the Committee amends SB-1193 is looking to phase out the sale of harmful leaded airplane fuel, also known as avgas. It endangers our public health, and particularly the long-term health of children.

This Bill also improves mitigation measures to minimize lead exposure for airport employees and the public. A lot of you, like myself, have more than one airport in our district. In my district, I have three airports within a 10 mile radius, concentrated in disadvantaged communities, continuing to create negative impacts on their health.

Just last year, in October, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency announced its final determination that emissions of lead from aircraft that use leaded fuel causes or contributes to air pollution that endangers public health under the Clean Air Act. Now, I wanna be very clear. There is no evidence that shows that there is a single threshold of safe lead exposure. Absolutely no level. Regardless how low the emission is, there's no safe level.

Lead in aviation fuel is most commonly used in small piston engine aircrafts and is not used for commercial flights. Lead has already been phased out in most of our products for its danger to the public, including in paint and gasoline. And in fact, when California phased out lead in gas for our vehicles, they did that before the Federal Government made a move. And once the Federal Government moved, California was exempted for our stronger protections in this area.

SB-1193 is in line with public health recommendations and the federal-level approach to phasing out leaded fuel. I recognize that there is currently a federal-level program, EGLE, that was announced in 2022, that also aims to do this. But like I mentioned before, we've acted before on several issues. This could be another issue California can be a leader on. And as California goes, so does the nation.

We want to align state law with US EPA's determination that leaded airplane fuels endangers the lives and safety of children by banning the cell. There have been several leaders across the state, one-off solutions that have looked to address this. Mr. Chair in your district, Santa Clara has banned the sale of this in their airport. Long Beach Airport has looked to subsidize. In LA County, they have approved measures to sell unleaded fuel in several of the airports. Recognize that there are several stakeholders, producers, who are looking to make this commercially available.

To that note, one of the amendments is to push back the first phase into 2027 to further provide availability and produce unleaded fuel of octane of 100 because right now there is only commercially available for 94. So specifically, this Bill will ban the sale of leaded aviation fuel in or adjacent to disadvantaged communities by January 1, 2027. Then by January 1, 2028, in areas adjacent to urban growth boundaries. Then lastly, ban the sale all across the state by January 1, 2030.

We will also instruct the Department of Transportation to publish guidance for airport operators to minimize the environment and public health impacts of lead exposure. Our team has been a meeting with our opposition. I think we are close to about 10,000 meetings with them. We want to really work side by side with them in ensuring that this Bill gets to its intent. If you sat with me in other committees, I have said that I'm not here for headlines.

I want to make sure that the implementation process is achievable, that we will get the end goal. I've committed to continuing to work on fine-tuning the language to get to a point that it gets to the end goal. This came out of what I'm seeing in my district. in one of my airports, I have 37 daycare centers and schools within a mile and a half of this airport.

And we know kids who are within that close of a distance have a 21% higher chance of having lead in their blood, Mr. Chair, with that, and lastly, the second amendment I took is to create an opt-out options for counties to pursue if they find that unleaded alternative is not available. Again, if there is no solution, I don't want that to be a dead end.

There is an opt-out opportunity for the airport to pursue with their counties and for the counties to allow for a one-year extension. Now here to testify, Mr. Chair, I'd like to now turn over to two individuals if you all want to come up. We have Maria Reyes and Jerett Yan.

Thank you. Why don't you go ahead and self-introduce and go in whichever order you'd like. Please. Thank you. You'll have two minutes each.

Senator Manjivar, on behalf of all minority communities, thank you for introducing this long overdue Bill on unleaded Afgas, and thanks to the Senate Rules Committee for referring the Bill. As a brown, Spanish-speaking Latina. I am honored to address the California Legislature today. My name is Maria Reyes, and I have lived in Cassel Community for over 52 years. My home is less than 1 mile from Reid Airport, and my neighborhood is densely overcrowded.

Our local elementary community shares the schoolyard fence with Reid Airport, and we have approximately 21 schools and daycare centers within a 1.5-mile radius of this airport. Most of my neighbors, no hablo ingles, work in construction or the fast food industry. Survival is a daily struggle. This struggle includes raising our kids and working for justice, working for a world free of racial discrimination. Racial discrimination thrives in communities like Cassel, Tri-Valley, and Pacoima.

Afgas lead emissions are dangerous to our health, and yet no one takes responsibility for the neurological and physical impairments caused to our families. In 2021, Cassell rallied, and we won an action by Santa Clara County. They stopped selling leaded fuel. But this is not enough. My community is asking for racial justice. As parents, we all want to protect our children. If your children lived in my community, how long would you wait? We are all able to help children.

We all are able to change the life of a child. What are you willing to do to change the lives of our children? Our families are not statistics. We are human beings who deserve to be treated with respect, dignity, and inclusion. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Senator Menjivar, Members of the Committee. My name is Jarrett Yan. I'm a Deputy County Counsel with the County of Santa Clara, and I'm a Counsel to the Airports Department. So Santa Clara County owns and operates two airports, Reid Hillview Airport in East San Jose, which Maria here is referring to, which is one of the busiest general aviation airports in the State, as well as San Martin Airport, which is a smaller, more rural airport.

In 2018, with the support of then Supervisor Cortese, and in response to community concerns, the County commissioned a study examining the effects of lead emissions from Read Hillview Airport on the surrounding community. In 2021, we completed that study, and the results were as terrible as they were unsurprising. We found that there were strong correlations between general aviation activity at Read Hillview and elevated blood lead levels in children in the surrounding communities.

In response to this public health crisis, the Board of Supervisors ceased the sale of leaded avgas at the two county airports starting January 1, 2022. Our study has since been published in 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. So since 2022, Unleaded Avgas has been the only aviation gasoline available for sale at the county airports, and we consider this transition to have been an unqualified success.

There have been virtually no impacts on airport operations, and as a result of the county's actions, we've prevented over a ton of lead emissions into the surrounding communities. The EPA recently invited the county to participate in a study administered by the National Academy of Sciences that is studying best practices for transitioning airports to unleaded fuel. And we were working as quickly as we can to be one of the first airports in the country to sell 100 octane unleaded avgas. So I thank you for your attention, and I urge your support for this Bill.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. Are there other support witnesses in the room? You may come forward and you can state your name, affiliation and your position, which would be support in this case.

Bill McGovern, with the Coalition for Clean Air. Strongly in support. Also one of the sponsors. Big thanks to the Author and the Chair.

Good afternoon. Kim Lewis representing Children Now. In support.

Fatima Balziwayer with California Environmental Voters. In support. I'm also doing a me-too in support for Clean Water Action, Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, CleanEarth4Kids, Grandparents for Action, North County Equity & Justice, Interfaith Coalition for Environmental Justice, North County Climate Change Alliance. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Whitney Francis, on behalf of the Western Center on Law and Poverty We are proud to co-sponsor and support this measure. Additionally, on behalf of the Shutdown Whiteman Airport Coalition in Pacoima, California. We strongly support.

Matt brought on behalf of the California Teamsters. In support. Thank you.

Kevin Insko with the Friends Committee on Legislation of California. In strong support.

Shirley Lewandowski with Tri-Valley, on behalf of the four million people who are suffering under lead exposure. Thank you. I strongly support SB 1193.

David Ramirez, on behalf of the San Fernando Valley Young Democrats in support.

Raquel Welch, Santa Clara County, in the flight path of Reid–Hillview. These are my grandchildren and myself. We all have lead.

All right.

I strongly support. Thank you.

Tom Welch with Casale Group, strongly support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Orlando Fuentes with LULAC Council 2862 Sacramento. On behalf of the California League of United Latin American Citizens as co sponsor, in strong support.

Paul Dyson, Burbank resident, former Burbank Airport Commissioner, strongly support.

Thank you. We'll now move to opposition witnesses. You may stay here if you like, or make room as you like in case there are questions for you later from any of the Senators here on the dais, or you may come back if you'd rather sit in the theater seats. You can come back later to answer questions. Thank you. I understand this is Jared Yoshiki and Chuck Street, is that correct?

That's correct, sir.

Proceed in whichever order you prefer. You'll have two minutes each. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair, Senators. Jared Yoshiki with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, on behalf of our coalition, the California Pilots Association, the Experimental Aircraft Association, the National Air Transportation Association, and the National Business Aviation Association, we respect the author's intent to amend this Bill, which we really appreciate. We still must remain in opposition to this measure. I would like to thank the Committee staff for their excellent analysis, which encapsulates, I think, the complex issue we're dealing with with leaded aviation fuel.

And we also want to thank the author again for her willingness to listen to our concerns as well as to understand the complexities of aviation. We really do appreciate that. While there are conflicting studies out there when it relates to lead, no one is here defending lead. Me least of all, I am not here defending lead aviation fuel.

In fact, we want this Bill and this discussion to be about how we can focus on working together to find a suitable replacement for the current version of avgas. Collectively, we have been working with the FAA and hundreds of other industry stakeholders, fuel suppliers, distributors, through the Aliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions Initiative to find an industry approved replacement by 2030.

While the EPA has identified leaded aviation fuel, it only reaffirms what we, the general aviation community, already know to be true, which is that lead needs to be removed from aviation fuels but in a safe and smart way. The transition is underway. But I'd like to remind also the Committee that we are doing this on a national level, not just on a state level, because there are 2000 airports across the country that are going to need this fuel at some point.

The analysis correctly identifies the numerous hurdles the fuel industry faces in making a recently approved 100 octane unleaded aviation fuel commercially available and in sustainable quantities. While the aviation industry is not looking to follow the auto industry's 20 year transition to unleaded fuel, 2030, less than five years away, is not an unreasonable timeline.

This transition to unleaded fuel needs to be accomplished safely while ensuring adequate off ramps and airport infrastructure improvements in place to meet the needs of this critically important industry in our state. The transition could affect the cost of flight training for young people seeking lucrative careers in the airlines when aviation programs are already extremely expensive.

You'Ll have to wrap up.

It can affect nonprofits like Angel Flight West that offer free flights for healthcare. And lastly, 2030 as I've already stated, is not on a reasonable timeline to do this transition prudently and safely. And for these reasons, we must continue to oppose this Bill. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Okay, thank you. Next witness.

Thank you, Senator Cortese and Members of the Committee. On behalf of Vertical Aviation International (VAI), representing nearly 400 members in California and recognized as the nation's leading vertical flight association, we express our strong opposition to SB 1193. While we appreciate Senator Menjivar's initiative to address the transition from leaded aviation fuels, we must oppose this measure. Our industry has diligently pursued a safe and effective alternative fuel through the EAGLE initiative in collaboration with the FAA with a target of 100 low lead replacement fuel by 2030.

Currently, only one unleaded fuel has received FAA approval for use in all piston fixed wing aircraft. However, the FAA has not yet approved this fuel for use in helicopters. While we expect approvals for helicopter use, approximately 25% are dependent on leaded aviation fuel. This includes helicopters operated and manufactured by major employers like the Robinson Helicopter Company in Torrance and numerous police agencies throughout California. While VAI supports the transition to unleaded fuels, we advocate for a safe and responsible approach.

By adhering to the FAA's 2030 timeline, we can ensure sufficient infrastructure and supply chains are in place to facilitate a safe and efficient transition. We respectfully request the Committee to oppose SB 1193 in its current form. Furthermore, we urge the Committee to seek insights from Caltrans regarding the state's readiness for this transition. Thank you for listening.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there other opposition witnesses in the Committee room? If so, you may come forward and state your name, your affiliation, and your opposition.

Jim Lites on behalf of both the California Airports Council and the Association of California Airports. We are opposed unless amended.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Apologies for not getting our letter in on time. Jack Yanos on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon. Zach Leary with the Western States Petroleum Association. We have an opposed unless amended position on SB 1193. Thank you.

Steven Devine, representing young pilots everywhere. This Bill will hurt our training and our ability to produce pilots. I am strongly opposed to SB 1193, and it will kill an industry.

Thank you. We are going to bring it back to the Committee at this point in time, but before we take up any Committee discussion or debate, I'm going to ask the Committee assistant to call the roll, please, to establish a quorum so we can actually vote on the Bill.

[Roll call]

All right, we have established a quorum. We'll come back to the Committee on this Bill before we obviously take up any other business and have further discussion amongst the Committee Members. Senator Becker.

Thank you. I want to thank the author. I just want to say I represent Santa Clara County along with our Chair. And as was mentioned, the Reid-Hillview airport has been an issue for many, many years, and significant increases in lead in the blood level of children living nearby has been known for many years. And the County became the first jurisdiction in the country to ban the sale of leaded aviation gas starting in 2022.

So the county only sells unleaded AB gas that is available on the market now. And I can just report that the two general aviation airports have seen no operational impact thus far. So I do believe this Bill takes a measured approach. It allows the fuel to be available. There are a couple companies we know that are on the brink of coming to market.

And so by beginning facing 2027 and having an opt out, I feel those are things I think that you've taken into account to give the industry more time. So we do know also, you know, as evidence, you know, in our experience, it is communities of color, and we've all heard that today that have been impacted. So again, I appreciate this. I think I just want to amplify again that Santa Clara County has done this and has had no operational impact, and I'll be supporting the Bill today.

I'll move it when appropriate.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Have you talked to public safety about their airplanes and what they use for aviation fuel for both their helicopters and their fixed wing aircrafts?

No. So far we've been getting TA from, obviously, this Committee and also local gov. But I am committed to working on language regarding to helicopters to find a way to not impact that area whatsoever.

Right. Because when you take a helicopter down for its regular routine service, that helicopter will be down for six months to a year. There's a planning that has to go with it. When you're transitioning anything mechanical, whether it's an airplane or a helicopter, there's a transition process that it has to go through. You can't just- it's not like a car where you just go change the engine out. They have to go through that every few years anyway.

And that's what I think their transitioning is, and that is a safe way to transition. I have a question for- are you a pilot by any chance? I do have a question for you. When you are flying, there's a route that you have to register, correct? And if so, if there's airports that don't have the fuel that your aircraft takes, what happens? Do you have to plan for that and not go to those airports and extend your travel somewhere else?

Absolutely. I mean, if we can't have a usable fuel in the aircraft, or we do not have a supplemental type certificate to use a new fuel, we cannot use that fuel. The example I'll give you is if California were to even ban low leaded fuel in 2030, let's say, you would still have pilots coming from Arizona, Nevada, Arizona, into the state that maybe could not refuel if they did not have a supplemental type certificate for an unleaded fuel.

So that is definitely going to be an issue if there's even a patchwork of different unleaded fuels, whether it's the Swift 94 that's been discussed by Senator Becker, excuse me, or if it's the GAMI fuel that's 100 UL, there's going to be a different process by which the pilots are going to have to plan their routes because we don't know if there's mixability between different fuels.

And we also don't know if counties approve an unleaded fuel, if the adjoining county is going to approve the same fuel, a different fuel. And so there could be misfueling opportunities, or again, that fungibility or mixability option that may or may not work for the aircraft itself.

So there's a technology component to this that isn't quite there yet, but the federal regulations that are due in five years is what people have been. Basically, that's what they're planning, and that's some of the elements that they're trying to get through right now between now and then, so that in the bigger scheme of things, national wise, because air flight isn't just California. A lot of people fly because they can fly to Utah and work here.

So I think that it's important for us to make sure that we're not trying to do something so far ahead of what the national level is doing, that we're making it more dangerous for other pilots who are coming into California. One of the other things I want to kind of dispel just a little bit. You know, a lot of these discussions start with it over-impacts just minority communities. I lived under the flight path of Brackett Field Airport.

In fact, I couldn't even fly my kite that high because of the flight path for the airplane. It is not a disadvantaged community, and neither is Upland, where Cable Airport is. Neither is Torrance, where Torrance Airport is. Neither is Santa Monica, where Santa Monica Airport is. So these airports are actually located throughout. And whatever issues that there are with the leaded fuels and whatever, they affect everybody. It's not just disadvantaged communities. They affect everybody.

And that's why the Federal Government has stepped in to make this transition. But for me, these are airplanes. These aren't cars that you get to pull over if the engine starts pinging. These are airplanes that if their engine starts pinging and their engine gives out, they get to go down, a lot of times, head first into the ground. I was on one of those in Lancaster, Cable Airport. Ran out of gas into the ground.

I think it's important that we allow, especially in some cases like this, we allow a process that's already in place, that is well planned out, that is well coordinated to occur before we start pushing something that might be a little unrealistic but more than that is entirely unsafe when it comes to ensuring that the transition happens in a manner, especially when you're talking about aviation, in a manner that ensures the safety and the reliability as we transition from one type of fuel going into engines to another type of fuel going into engines. The purpose of the lead that's in engines for cars and for the purpose of that lead, it had a purpose.

And that purpose was to make sure the pistons got sealed okay, and it reduced wear and tear on the engines. So that's why it was there in the first place. So now they want to make that transition. They've got a plan to do it. I think the plan, I mean, it is only five years, and that is not a very long time. So I feel like pushing it a little bit faster, especially for air and especially for public safety.

And I'm talking about public safety, fighting fires and things like that. We don't have answers for that. So I think it's a little premature to start putting timelines and mandates on something that we don't have answers for and then start fining people when they can't meet the mandate. Until the infrastructure is in place, there's no way that we should be fiddling with the process that's already in place.

And that's what I feel like we're doing here, is we're pushing it up, not because we're going to save a bunch of people from lead. It's because it sounds like we're trying to be the tip of the spear. Well, the spear is already out there and it's nationwide. And that's where I think this needs to stay, is a nationwide effort. It'll be done in five years. That does it safely. And so that's my concerns with this Bill. I think we're going to a space that we don't need to go into. Thank you.

Senator Dahle. Can we save your responses?

I actually have some questions that I'd like to have answered. I'm with the opposition. I don't want lead. I worked with Assemblymember Christina Garcia on the ag side and EQ for years trying to figure out what's going on with lead. So I have a couple questions. Number one, in the older planes, piston driven planes, the lead was there for a lubrication, I believe.

I want to just talk about that for a minute because I think that's critical to this discussion, and we haven't heard about that yet. So if you go to 100% octane, are those older planes still going to be, are they grounded or can they fly 100%? Help me with the technology there.

So I think to answer your question, Senator Dahle, a 100 octane fuel would work for any potentially approved engine by the FAA. So whether it's on a 1966 Piper Cherokee or if it's on a, you know, 2022 Cirrus SR22.

So safety wise, that's not the issue then?

Correct. Safety wise, as long as it's approved. And as long as it's approved, and the FAA says it will work in the engine, technically it can work. That's correct. Now, that also has to be validated by the manufacturers and it has to be again approved by the FAA for use in those engines.

Okay. With that being said, is there any that would be knocked out? So how do I say this? There's a lot of times when we pass a law and they say, well, they can do it, but they just don't do it because it's not enough of them. And the technology or the scientists, whoever behind it doesn't do it. Will there be some, they'll be knocked out?

So to my knowledge, no. It's not to say that that's a 100% guarantee, but as Mr. Street indicated with the helicopters, we don't have an approved fuel for helicopters. So those are the only technically aircraft that would be not able to currently use an unleaded fuel because they are not approved by the FAA.

Fixed wing. Yes.

Yes. Spark ignition engine.

Yeah. Okay. Good, thank you. Now secondly, to the author. On the study that was taken for the area, I don't remember which, I think it's your district, wherever they did the lead base. So how did they determine that the lead was actually just coming from the airplanes that was causing this spike?

Is there an excise situation where we had a smelting pot close by, or we had lead based paint or we had pipes that have lead so that we could really get a good analysis of why it's so high there?

Right. So I'm going to have my witness answer, but I'm going to try some of this. So there are several studies that show just communities around airports, not specifically to just the airport in my district. The example I gave was just that there are 37 daycare schools around one of my airports. So if the studies show that this happens across California, you can assume that it's happening there. Additionally, there have been specific studies that I think my witnesses can talk about.

So thank you for your question, Senator. The County of Santa Clara did a study of Reid-Hillview airport. We hired a nationally recognized expert, Sammy Zahran, from Colorado State University, to examine the links between general aviation activity at the airport and the blood lead levels of the children in the surrounding communities. So Dr. Zahran studied, I think it was 17,000 blood lead samples from the California Department of Public Health that were taken between, I believe, it was 2011 and 2020.

And mapped those against a number of different other data sets that we know about related to general aviation. Were the children living closer to the airport versus farther than the airport?

Were they living upwind? Were they living downwind? Were there a lot of planes flying the month the sample was taken, were there not a lot of planes flying? What were the volumes of avgas that were sold at the airport? And also controlling for a number of other factors, such as what is the age of the house they were living in, trying to get at, well, could the lead in their blood have come from paint or another source?

And each one of those factors that we studied demonstrated a strong correlation between the general aviation activity and the blood lead levels. So there were different differentials, but upwind was lower than downwind, closer was higher than farther. A lot of planes flying. You got higher samples than when there were not a lot of planes flying.

And we find that that study is consistent with other studies that have been done in North Carolina and in Michigan that have looked at the blood levels in kids relative to the distance that we're living from airports. And the EPA's ultimate finding this past October that found that lead emissions from general aviation piston engine aircraft endangers public health and welfare.

Well, if you're in Flint, Michigan, it's the pipes. So that's really what I wanted to get to, is that disadvantaged communities typically do not have upgraded water lines and faucets and all those things as well, which contribute to. Right. So that's why I wanted to make sure that we, if the study, I mean, we can, studies can be, you can manipulate a study to get the answer you want, if you want to do that.

But we really want to have good science to find out where it actually is coming from, because if we pass this Bill and it's really the pipes, it's not going to change the situation for the constituents who have lead in their bodies. So that's why I wanted to ask those couple questions. On the helicopters, what's your thoughts?

My thoughts is I completely agree with Senator Seyarto. Public safety is really important for me, and I am committed to working with the opposition to find language that will not hinder public safety whatsoever.

Thank you. Anyone else? Any of you recognized? Senator Newman?

Yeah, I just hopefully, briefly, we touched on it, but I want to hear a little more on supply chain and availability. So best case scenario, realistic scenario, is there a realistic expectation to expedite the development of this market and the delivery of non leaded fuels to a sufficient number of airports to meet this deadline without grounding a whole bunch of planes?

Thanks, Senator Newman. I think it depends. Not being the fuel supplier myself, it would be hard to gauge where the currently approved unleaded fuel is in the production process. To my knowledge, they are starting to make fuel. But the end to end infrastructure, getting it from Houston to California, has become a hurdle. How they're going to solve that hurdle, I wouldn't have an answer for you and don't want to speculate what that answer would be.

Based upon the definitions of the Bill, it would include approximately 50-ish percent or so of the airports in California would need to have this fuel by 2027. If that production line is a million gallons every six weeks, California approximately burns 12 million gallons a year. So the economies of scale might, depending upon how they produce it faster or quicker, would really depend on how they're going to do that. So I would hate to speculate, Senator, I'm sure I can get an answer for you from the field suppliers, if you would like.

Mister Chair, I'd like to also respond.

Before you do, I assume this is something you are concerned about, right? So please do.

Absolutely. We've actually talked to the producers. There are actually two companies right now. GAMI is set to have 100 unleaded fuel ready by this spring, before summer, additionally, and they believe that they have enough, they will produce enough for the entire California's fleet, not just 50% of the 2027. Additionally, the second company is Swift. That is on track to have commercially available 100 unleaded fuel next year, 2025. That is still two years ahead of my first phase in year.

To Senator Seyarto's kind of broader points, what's involved in converting the fuel system over from leaded?

It's a drop in for piston engines. It's a drop in replacement. Nothing has to be adjusted for any piston engine aircraft.

No. But for the fuel systems. Did they use the same pumps also?

A drop in all the same. All drop in.

All right.

There will be no maintenance revamping of any distributor of any- this is not the correct technical word- holding system of that fuel in the airport, nor of the aircraft.

Okay, thank you. Yes, Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Senator, for being so protective of the general public that is so important in your Bill. My question and concern would be the availability to go ahead and supply all the various small airports in California by that time. Are we asking too much of the production side of it all? Will we be able to meet it?

This is why I was very mindful of doing a phase-in approach. You've heard that the FAA, you know, they're working on a potential. Their intent is for in 2020 nationwide, for this to be replaced with unleaded fuel. You've also heard from the opposition that some of the opposition, they don't believe that's enough time. We do need to pull a little bit of fire or incentive to ensure we get this going faster.

I do believe, and I've already committed, I don't want a Bill to just have a Bill. I want a Bill that is going to actually happen in 2027. I am here. I will be here in 2027. I will come back if really there is no commercially available lead, I will come back in 2026-2027 to do a cleanup of my own Bill.

I also have an off ramp mechanism, should an airport not have available fuel, that allows them to petition their county to be able to get an extension. I've been very mindful to ensure that I'm not just doing an umbrella one size fits all for every single airport. I also would take note that you are not the only Senator that's brought up to me ensuring that we get this fuel to our smaller airports.

We want to make sure that it's not going to hinder their distribution route and so forth. So will continue and I will look to my opposition to help me on ensuring that we have availability of pathway to get this fuel to our smaller airports.

Yeah. And Mister Chair, follow up question.

Yes, sir.

You had mentioned a couple of companies. Are there others out there that are converting that will, when we get closer and closer, there will be a multitude of companies that there's never a backlog of supplying the aviation industry the fuel that's required.

Right now we've only heard from two companies, unless anyone else has heard of anything. But even with just those two, one alone is telling us that they can address or meet the needs of the entire fleet. So having two would be great. I do anticipate, Senator, that by 2027-2028 that this will be the norm for us in California, that more and more will come forward and make it available.

Very good. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Senator Portantino.

Thank you, Senator. I know you've been putting a lot of work into this. I know it's an important issue with you. And I appreciate the conversations that you've been having with the Committee and with the advocates on all sides. The relief that's within the Bill. If the technology, if the product isn't available, there's an automatic ability to extend the current use of fuel within the Bill. It doesn't require cleanup because you had mentioned cleanup legislation, they'd be happy to come.

But embedded in the amendments that I think the Committee is taking allows airports to have an automatic extension of the current use of fuel.

There is already, but I'm still committing myself to say I don't want to impose bureaucratic process when something is so far out that it would require everybody to come in every single year because something is 10 years away, which I don't think will happen. But that's my commitment. Should I need to come back and add further off ramps? Because it's not enough since we're at 2026, and we're nowhere near to having commercial available on leaded fuel by 2027.

Right now I feel comfortable with the off ramps that the Committee and my team and I have worked on. But should anything not move forward with Swift or GAMI or any other company, then I will come back and readdress that in future legislation.

But you're also committed to continuing the conversation with all of the interested parties as this Bill moves?

Oh, 100%. And they're spending a lot of time in my office with my team. My lead staffer on this, I think, is a complete expert on this topic. And we are committing the helicopter part. Public safety is really important for me. We're continuing conversations on other provisions, on the guidelines and so forth, and pathways to ensure that our small airports will have access to unleaded fuel, 100%.

So if this gets to the floor, hopefully, if we get out of this Committee, it will look different, because, again, I want this to be as successful as possible.

I was going to use a bad pun. So we haven't landed on the final language.

We have not landed. We're still soaring in the air.

Right.

But we haven't run out of fuel. So we haven't. We're not dipping.

There you go. So obviously, I appreciate your willingness to work with the interested parties. I think all of us want to get something that's doable, that protects the communities, that is good for the environment, that's good for everybody, but also doesn't ground the industry as well. So I appreciate your commitment to work.

And I don't want to kill this industry. Right. I recognize we could all survive without that industry, but that's not my intention whatsoever. It seems like it's fun. I'm scared of heights. I would never do it, but it seems like it's a lot of fun. And it's not something I want to kill.

Thank you.

Anybody else on the Committee? I see none. We'll give you an opportunity to close, Senator Menjivar.

Mister Chair, again, thank you so much for working with me on this Bill. And to each, every single Member, there's a lot of you that I spent the weekend chatting with, today chatting with. For your questions, concerns. We are taking all of those back and looking to ensure how we can add and further make this Bill even more beautiful than it already is. This is really about safety of public health. And I know, Senator Seyarto, you mentioned the safety of the pilots. I understand that.

But even if not an ideal situation, if we don't get to that point, we can always land the planes to fix something, right? We can't halt lead poisoning our children. That's more difficult to do. And I'm prioritizing the safety of children zero to six and the communities. Communities that, in California, the top 10 airports that pollute the most are in our districts. The Committee Members and mine. The first one is in Long Beach. The second one is my airport in my district.

Senator Allen, Senator Blakespear, Senator Niello, Senator Becker, you all have airports that are top 10 most polluting airports in our state. This would directly improve the public health of your constituents. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. Thank you, Senator. We'll ask the Committee assistant to call the roll at this time. Oh, was there a motion? Senator Becker offered the motion earlier. Is he here present? He is not. We probably should have a motion from someone present. Motion by Senator Archuleta.

This is file item number two, SB 1193. The motion is do pass as amended and referred to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll call] Eight to three on call.

Eight to three?

Yes.

All right, the current vote is eight to three. We'll leave that Bill on call. And thank you, Senator. Thank you to the witnesses.

[Roll Call]

All right, we have 13 aye votes, and we'll keep it on call. Thank you. And now SB 1271 is Senator Min's Bill, and you're welcome to make a presentation if you're ready, Senator.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Committee Members. After that very long bill presentation before us with bad metaphors in mind, hopefully this will be a much zippier and peppier bill about e-bikes.

SB 1271 would modify the definition of e bike classes to clarify what the appropriate class for a switchable quote unquote, e-bike is, if any, and would also enhance the safety and regulatory compliance of electrical bicycles and electric scooters by requiring all e-bikes and e-scooters to be manufactured with batteries that meet the stringent standards of the European Union and underwriters laboratories.

In recent years, of course, we have seen a widespread adoption of e bikes and e scooters, and this has, of course, raised concerns around two main potential speed and fire risks with bad batteries. Of course, most e-bikes and e scooters are powered by lithium ion batteries, and reports of fires linked to these mobility devices have been on the rise across the country due largely to poorly manufactured batteries or abused batteries.

SB 1271 would protect consumers and the public by removing Low quality powered personal mobility devices from the market. In addition, to addressing the problem with batteries. It would also address a problem with switchable e-bikes. Many manufacturers have developed bikes that can switch between different modes, allowing a bike to move from a slower class two throttle mode to a faster class three pedal assist mode.

These class three devices are not technically considered e-bikes in the vehicle code and can cause confusion with regard to policing these vehicles. As class two, e-bikes follow different laws of the roads and classes three e-bikes, which can go up to 28 mph. This measure would help parents, in particular by modifying the definition of e-bike classes to clarify what the appropriate classes for switchable e-bikes are.

Today, I have with me Mark Vuxevich, advocate for streets for all, to testify in support of SB 1271.

You may proceed.

Good afternoon, Committee. I'll be brief. E-bikes are the fastest selling electric vehicles on the market. They're very popular. People like them. They replace car trips. They bring a freedom of mobility for if, you know, if you can't ride up a hill otherwise, and using that motor to help you. But there are two problems. So on the battery side, as Senator Min mentioned, these are lithium ion batteries. And as you're riding a bicycle, they rattle. They can get sand and dirt inside.

They can get water inside. They go from hot temperatures to cold temperatures. And the risk of fires has been documented in both San Francisco and New York City. And so what our bill does specifically is allow for two different regulatory standards that would reduce the likelihood of fires by reducing, basically the shoddy e-bike market the bottom of the barrel. And this will prevent the powerful thermal runaway that happens with lithium ion batteries.

That takes a lot of water to put out compared to a similar sized device. The second thing that this bill does, as Senator Minh mentioned, is kind of clarifies the definition of e-bike in a way that fundamentally doesn't change the definition, but I think clarifies it within the vehicle code that tries to address these devices that we've been seeing that are essentially mopeds or motorcycles that are being ridden by children.

Verifying that we're trying to ensure that the market is filled with just reputable devices while still balancing and not trying to instill kind of a process of regulatory capture, still trying to allow for a competitive, diverse market that's very important to streets for all. We love e bikes at streets for all, while still ensuring that the consumer has safe products. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the Committee room who wishes to express a support position? If so, come forward at this time and indicate your support, along with your name and affiliation?

Hi, Meghan Housewright with UL Solutions. With the changes outlined in our testimony, we are supportive.

Thank you.

Jeannie Wardwaller, on behalf of Calbike and support.

Thank you. Seeing no one else come forward, we'll ask for opposition witnesses. Was there a lead opposition witness? Seeing none. Come on forward. You can. Oh, there is a lead opposition witness. Please come forward. Sir, come forward. You'll have a couple of minutes. Thank you. Please identify yourself.

My name is Bob Mittelstaedt. I'm with E-Bike ACCESS. We are a Marin County group of e-bikers. We're strongly in favor of legitimate e-bikes. We're strongly opposed to illegitimate motorcycles that are being mislabeled as class two throttle e-bikes. I am speaking mildly in opposition to the bill for the limited purpose of saying that it doesn't go far enough. The problem is that there are some manufacturers, and to say a name.

Super 73 is the primary one that is selling as a class two e-bike, a bike that it calls "multi-class" or "multimode", and it purports to have class one, class two, class three capability, plus a fourth mode, which is up to 30 to 35 mph, which is way over the 20 miles per hour limit. They try and justify that by saying, well, they ship it in the class two mode and it's on the rider.

The 10 year old kid, if he pushes a button, like changing the volume on an Iphone and shifting into these higher modes, it's like if the law were that children of any age could drive a car if it were limited to 10 miles an hour. And Ford ships a manual transmission car in first gear and says, we've complied and it's on the kid if he shifts into 2nd, 3rd or fourth.

So the problem is, some manufacturers have tried to take advantage of the three class system in making these multi class bikes. I have asked the proponents, is there any legitimate bicycle on the market now that is limited to the three classes? And there is none. You can't go from a class two to a class three because class two is the only one with a throttle. If you go to class three, you can't do it if you've got a throttle bike.

Only reason anybody's talking about multi class is because they want these fast bikes. So what can be done about it? I think I would go back to what was in AB 1778, Damon Connelly's Bill from my district, where he just says at the end of each class, regardless of mode, that clarifies it takes care of the problem. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else in the Committee room that wants to come up to the microphone and express opposition? All right. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee at this time. Comments or questions? Senator Allen and then Senator Newman after that.

Yeah, I'd like to get some response to the comments that were just made. I mean, we all want to encourage more e-bikes, but for those of us that are usually on our human powered bikes, there's safety issues associated with folks going by. Certainly in class three, I'm interested in these. I'd love a response to some of the issues.

Mr. Chair, do I have permission to have my witness speak on this?

Yes, sir.

Senator Allen, I appreciate the question and I fully respect the witness. And so what I will say is this is what we're trying to solve with our bill. What our bill does is it says that a class. So right now, the vehicle code said a class one bicycle must be this. Must be this. It must be this.

In an effort to address this issue of how bicycles are claiming to be multi-class, even though are technically in violation of the law, regardless, we are saying that bicycles may not, in a class 3, may not have a throttle. That is what we've added with the Committee. We may not be, may not hit 28 mph if it's a class two. And by clarifying those knots, they may not do that. We believe we are effectively ending this multi class bicycle issue.

And that's what our full intent is. So while we don't explicitly say that multi class bicycles exist, what we believe we're defacto doing is ending this elicit use of the term multiclass bicycle.

And just to interject my understanding and tell me if this is right, Mark, is that, is that if a bill does go, if a bike does go over 28 miles an hour and or does have a throttle, it would be classified as a class three bike, right.

If it has, if it goes above 28, has a throttle, it would not be classified as an e-bike at all? Right. It would be above an e-bike. It would be, I guess, essentially a moped.

Right.

Did you want to. The problem we have is, and I'm glad we're actually on the same page, and it's just a matter of how to implement it. If you don't want to have multi class bikes, the way to do that is to have a new subsection that says you can't have multi class bikes. The problem we have now is Super 73's and the others are the most popular thing being sold with a throttle. And there is very lax enforcement.

It's very difficult for the police to enforce. I've talked to local police, and the last thing you want to do is chase down a kid on something that says is class two. I've worked with school districts to ban these bikes and they say they're marked class two. Who are we to say they can't be class two? So I think the simple way to resolve this and to make clear that multi class e-bikes are not permitted is to say multi class e bikes are not permitted.

I would accomplish that perhaps a little more elegantly by saying the specifications, maximum speed of 20 for a throttle bike is regardless of mode. But it'd be even more explicit to say, and you can only have one class. Has that been considered, this prohibition on multi class bikes?

The challenge is, and I appreciate everything the witness is adding, the challenge is that a class, and we're getting really into the minutiae here with class two e-bike, which has a lot of permissions. It has a throttle, but gets maxed out at 20. It can effectively be a class one bicycle, because a class one bicycle is a less powerful device. A class one cannot be a class two, but a class two can act as a class one.

It can act as one, just to be clear, and I think that's where the challenge is, is that we're not trying to allow class three e-bikes to class three being the ones that can hit 28 mph. We're not trying to allow class three e-bikes to be expanded. We are limiting that in the way that we've written the bill. But the problem is that just by the inherent nature of the definition existing in the vehicle code, class class twos can function as class ones.

And that's not a bad problem. It's not the problem we're seeing with the super 73 bicycle. And that's not a problem that I would say bike advocates are really feeling. The problem is class threes. The class three is going 28, then class three's with a throttle, as the gentleman mentioned. That is not an e-bike. And that's what we're trying to solve.

Do you need to hear from the other witness again? I'm trying to avoid redundancy a little bit here, Senator. This has nothing to do with you. This is as long as you avoid.

I won't be redundant. The problem is not class three. The super 73s are class four, which they call unlimited. And that's when you get up over 28, to 30 to 35. And a class two cannot be a class one. If an e bike has a throttle, it can only be class two. So you can't go back and forth between 2 and 1, unless what they're saying is, zero, we'll just rely on the child to turn off the throttle. But that's not going to happen. Everyone can always bike slower, you know?

Yeah, yeah.

And the focus is on the capability of the motor anyway. Hopefully you guys can all get together.

I appreciate that, and I think Senator Newman a lot. Mister chair, go ahead.

Senator Newman. So Senator Allen started with my line of question, but I want to ask, following up, assuming we put this legislation into code, what do we do about enforcement? How can law enforcement or other parties identify visually the difference between a class two and a class three in a way that will make a difference? Has that been considered?

Yeah. So I would say, first, just to address some of the issues that have been raised earlier, I think that part of the nuance that went into the drafting of this bill with the back and forth was trying to shape a framework for dealing with these problems without deterring e-bike adoption generally. And those are the competing principles behind this.

And so I think going forward, we'd certainly like to consider other fixes to this fundamental problem of things that look like non bikes, that look like mopeds or something other than a bike. And how do we get that under control? That is part of the goal of this problem. But how do we do that in a way that does not deter e bike adoption overall? And so we'll continue working and figuring out what makes sense.

But with respect to the specific question, I'll defer to, again, my witness, if you might testify.

Right. So, I mean, again, I suspect that you respect what we do here, that the conversation will continue and it will be about enforcement, about.

This will not be the last e -bike bill that.

Well, I mean, it may be about technology, but I mean, clearly, to Senator Allen's point, this is a big problem in all of our communities. To use a really kind of coarse example, you know, when you buy a toy gun, it's got orange on it. Right. So is there some consideration? Can we make this clear, you know, what conforms to which classification so that you get a greater likelihood of enforcement and hopefully deterrence through that? Anybody?

Senator Newman. And I just want to, I'm not a humbler, I don't have the bill in front of me, I believe, and I'm willing to be corrected by the Committee consultant or that we have a classification marking standard within the bill that says that it must be marked at its capability. And so it's not a panacea answer to your question, because there are devices right now that look indistinguishable from a non e-bike, right?

I guess. Is the marking like the serial number of that, or is it something more visual?

It's a point marking that has a certain kind of font size requirement that has to be manufactured onto the bicycle itself.

You have to put a little label, put a little label that says class two on it. The problem is, is that you have a manufacturer, Super 73, and others who are sticking that label on even though they know full well it isn't. The CEO of Super 73 has said on record that they are flying under the radar because nobody is enforcing the law.

My proposal would be to put something in this bill that is sort of like a private attorney general's provision, but anything short of that, we do need.

To stick to that. We have a bill. I appreciate the input. We've gotten lots of suggestions. And to answer your question, Senator, I mean, the way I think we envision the bill is that it gets away from the problem. Is this class two? Is this class one? Is this class three? It would be clearly marked at its highest performance level.

And so if, for example, a law enforcement officer saw a kid, you know, going 28 miles an hour doing some dangerous stuff and pull them over, ask them questions, they could see that the bike was class three immediately and recognize that. So that would be part of it. Now, again, this is not a panacea as to your point and Senator Allen's point, this may be the beginning of a series of bills.

And I'll just say that last year this same body passed a bill of mine that authorized the Mineta Institute of Transportation to come up with a set of best practices and recommendations around e-bikes and an e-bike framework. And these questions are complicated. And right now, what's happening across the state is that each local jurisdiction is coming up with their own patchwork things. And so again, this is one fix. It's not a one size fits all problem.

I'm sure there are other things we could do better, but this is a bill designed to address some serious problems and in ways that I think will have immediate impact.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and we'll come around to you. We've got several people who would like to ask questions on this. I guess there's nothing. Second bill in over an hour of Committee here. So far, all I'm asking is that we don't I respect everybody's right to ask questions, just like I will have an opportunity. But to avoid witness redundancy, we're going to go now to Senator Blakespear, followed by Senator Nguyen, Senator Archuleta, and then Senator Seyardo.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate the author for bringing this forward and the sponsor. We are a five e-bike family, and we have class 1, 2 and 3. And it seems to me like the problem, and I see on our streets all the time, the problem is actually the class two, which is the throttle, not the pedal assist bikes, the throttle, and then taking the governor off of that so that it can go far beyond 20 miles an hour.

So, you know, the kids who are racing around on those with the throttle, they want to have a motorcycle or a moped. They don't, they really don't want to be pedaling, and they largely are not pedaling. And so what I want to, it seems to me like it do is true that this is one bill and there are many other bills that are needed, and we need to deal with that core problem.

But we also need to not chill e bike use, especially for kids who are from age about 10 to 16, because those are the kids who can go to soccer practice and school and everything without having to be driven. In my community, that's largely the group that you see, because when they get to be 16 and they can get a car if they want to and can afford it, they do.

So what I wanted to really understand is what exact problem, if it's labeling to the top level, which is, which you're calling class three, because it goes up to 28 miles an hour, what is actually the benefit of that? Because to me, the class twos are actually the bikes that are the bigger problem, not the class threes.

Again, I'll defer to my witness here, but I think the problem is it's bikes that are multimodal, right. That they could be a class one, class two, or class three, but, you know, the kids will typically take them to class three. So I think it's the same problem you're describing with the class two, where they take off the governor and allow it to go super fast. This is the same problem with these multi modal bikes, as I understand it.

And so what we're trying to do, the problem is, is that when you have kids, you know, riding quote unquote class two bikes that have been designed to be able to be easily switched to class three and go much faster, there's not a real fix for it. Because these are technically class two bikes. And so the problem that this is trying to address is to address, to basically clearly label that this bike shall be labeled at the top performance level that it could be classified as.

And so by doing that, you say, okay, you can't ride this or there's certain things, you know, certain all the prohibitions and restrictions that potentially come with class three bikes. But Mark, go ahead.

Senator Blakespear, while I appreciate the concern you're bringing up about throttle e-bikes, class two e-bikes, I guess the issue to be specific are these bicycles that are claiming to be both class 2 and 3 at the same time, which means that Throttle gets you very, very fast and those bike bicycles are capable of 28. This, as the witness mentioned, this is, it's not legal what this e-bike company is doing.

And so what we're trying to do is clarify in that aspect that there should not be a bicycle that both lets you throttle and hits 28. So the issue I think you're raising about class two s is one that we're open to discussion and learning more about and like in dealing with potentially as well. But that's not exactly the precise issue we're trying to handle at this price wise moment.

So you feel like your bill, it doesn't allow a bicycle to have a throttle and go to 28 miles an hour because if it is labeling it at its highest classification, then it could have the throttle and say it's just class three.

In the class three definition that we worked on with the Committee, we said that a class three bicycle that may go 28 mph, which is existing statute, may not have a throttle. That is what we've added in our bill.

Okay. Thank you, chair.

Thank you, Senator Nguyen, you're next.

Thank you, Mister chair. My question is actually in the batteries. How do you enforce that? I mean, batteries are sold on Amazon. Batteries are sold. How do we enforce it to making sure that it's tested and that it's not? I mean, quite frankly, a lot of them are coming from China and they're not going to go through the testing that we are requiring here or asking for. So how do we enforce that?

I think like we'd enforce any other law we have prohibiting certain types of products. Right. But again, I defer on the specifics of my witness. But this is a set of prohibitions, right?

I think that's right. But my further answer to you, I mean, so it's the law now. So the law has to be followed. My further answer is that companies like Amazon tend to, they usually try to follow the law with their manufacturers and try to require that those batteries meet certain standards.

And so we believe that if we pass this and this legislative body passes that the Amazon company will follow that law and so they'll enforce that on the manufacturer side, on the sales side as well. And then we also have further language that we're still developing and we're going to work on this in the next Committee around requirements of the state fire marshal as well.

Thank you.

All right, we're going to go to Senator Archuleta, followed by Senator Seyardo.

In the interest of time, Mister Chairman, my questions were answered. Thank you.

Mine was on the battery issue also. Is this going to reduce the amount of fires that are being, that are currently a problem, as you mentioned, because we had a bill last year, 712, that said people can store these inside and the landlord can't do anything about it. So is this going to reduce that? Because that's, that's really important.

Is this going to supersede the last year's law requiring the tenant, the landlords allow their tenants to store the e-bikes inside?

No, it's not going to supersede, but it's going to reduce the amount of fires that are occurring by having the higher quality batteries. Because if that's a real problem, we're back to her question. How are you going to enforce that?

So again, I think that the goal is we believe it will reduce fires because many of the fires, and I don't know if there's quantified data on this, but it seems anecdotally, most of the fires that are occurring are among the cheaper batteries that are contaminated, manufactured. Yeah, exactly. So as far as enforcement, again, I'd repeat Marc's point. I mean, how do we enforce any law is the question. But, you know, we have a certification process, we have prohibitions.

And if it became an endemic problem with a bunch of small offsite manufacturers flooding the market with batteries, we might have to come back to the drawing board. But again, sites like Amazon have a lot to lose by basically blatantly violating the law. I guess we'll cross that bridge if we get to it.

Yeah. I would have probably liked to see. This before we did the other one. Thank you.

All right. I'm going to see no one else that wishes to be recognized at this time. Senator Niello, you do?

All right, just very quickly, when I first read this, I thought you had a good idea, but the solution maybe needed a little work. But it's interesting that the entire discussion here has been about classification of bikes, but I think your primary intent was safety. So it kind of clouds the issue a little bit.

And if the bill is going to address that, it needs work, and I can tell by the discussion, the safety aspect of it I endorse wholeheartedly, but I'm going to lay off the bill because I don't know where it's going to end up. Then the discussion sort of supports that.

Well, again, I think while we're open to further suggestions, I think the bill is a good bill as is. It's already been subject to a lot of negotiation with stakeholders. We've already seen at least one group come off of its opposition, and we're balancing priorities around civil liberties, around e to bike adoption. So public safety is the goal of this, but it is a balancing act with other priorities as well. I think this bill is as is. I know there's other ideas out there.

It seems like we've heard quite a few today on how to also make e bikes safer in other ways, and those could be the subject of future bills. But I think this bill is probably, we hope, going to stand alone as is. We don't anticipate a lot of future amendments on this.

All right. Thank you, Senator Min. Much of this Committee's focus was on the classifications and not on the enforcement issues, which at some level might be another bill, but back to the classifications or amendments requested. Do you take those amendments?

Yes, we do take your amendments. Sorry, I should have said that at the outset and want to thank the staff for working with us.

I just want to make that clear. With that, we can entertain a motion on the bill if there is one. Senator Newman moves the bill. The motion is do pass as amended to rules.

This is file item number three. [Roll Call]

All right, the Bill has 11 aye votes and we'll leave it on call. Thank you, everyone. We're going to move ahead to item five. And welcome, Senator Ashby, to present on SB 1313.

All right, I've watched several Senators come tell you they'll be quick, so I'm not even going to say it. I don't jinx myself.

Read the Bill.

All right. Thank you, Mister Chair. Today I am here to present SB 1313. It's the Safe Roads Act. It addresses the misuse of safety technology in vehicles, specifically driving assistance and monitoring systems. The Bill prohibits individuals from using, purchasing, possessing, manufacturing, selling, distributing devices designed to interfere with a vehicle's safety monitoring system. Violations would constitute infractions under the vehicle code, with penalties escalating for repeat offender. Advanced driving assistance systems are becoming increasingly common in our modern vehicles.

They aid in alerting drivers of dangerous lane departures, lane centering, and warn drivers of possible obstacles in the road. You know, this car beeps at you when you get too close to something in front of you. Additionally, these systems detect if a driver is distracted. These systems include cameras to monitor the driver's eyes, their head position, and the sensors that detect their hands on the steering wheel. All of these systems require full attention and engagement by the driver.

Unfortunately, there are drivers who are circumventing these safety systems through the use of aftermarket devices or by using homemade techniques. Entire online marketplaces are dedicated to selling what they call nag reductive devices, reduction devices designed to stimulate a driver's hands on the wheel by applying pressure. Other drivers resort to using weighted magnets, water bottles, hair clips, and various other items to achieve the same effect, which is to bypass important safety features.

The lack of legislation to deter this behavior has led to the increasing availability of these devices, undermining efforts to promote road safety. It's vital to ensure our roads are safe from accidents caused by distracted driving. You know that SB 1313 addresses this issue by updating California's traffic laws to keep pace with technological advancements in our vehicles and deter misuse of safety technology, and also to deter manipulation. I do have a lead witness with me today. Chairman, this is Kurt Augustine.

He's the Senior Director of the State Affairs for the Alliance of Automotive Innovation.

All right, Mister Augustine, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members, again, my name is Kurt Augustine. I'm the Senior Director of Government Affairs for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which is the Trade Association of the Auto Manufacturers, as well as many of the tech technology providers for vehicles. The Senator has done an excellent job of laying out the Bill, so I'm not going to go into that. I'll quickly summarize that. We're proud to be the sponsor of this Bill and to work with the Senator.

Automakers have developed multiple safety systems that she addressed in her remarks, and they're important for road safety, pedestrians, passengers, vehicle drivers, etcetera. Again, millions of dollars have been spent on this, on these safety devices. Unfortunately, we're here to talk about something that's completely contrary to that, things that are to defeat those safety devices. So these devices offer nothing but trying to override safety. They have no legitimate purpose at all. If you do a quick Google search, you will find many places that are selling these online.

Now, surprisingly, California does not have a law preventing the use or sale of these devices. There have been other states that were in the same place, and we have worked in those states to secure passage of those bills. So we simply want to summarize and say that automakers support any effort to maintain the proven safety features and to help eliminate these defeat devices that override safety and simply would ask for your support of this measure. Thank you.

Mister Chair, Members, Andrew Antwih with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange here today on behalf of Tesla, in support.

Thank you. All right, we'll move to opposition. Is there a lead opposition witness on this Bill? Wasn't made aware of one.

Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the Committee room who wishes to express a support position? If so, please come forward and you may state your name and affiliation your support.

There's not

Real quick. So I have a Toyota that has lane centering device, and it took me a while to turn it off in the mountains. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that well, when you corner, it reads off the white line, and it's trying to turn you back into the traffic when you're trying to go around the corner. So you're only talking about aftermarket devices.

Seeing none we will ask if there's any opposition in the room. You may come forward. Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee at this time. Questions or comments or concerns? Senator Dahle.

If you use manufacturer approved items or you have worked with the manufacturer or the manufacturers approved aftermarket entities, that's fine. This Bill would be more like, Senator, if you used a bungee cord.

Thank you. Anyone else? I see none. We can entertain a motion. All right. There's a motion by Senator Newman, and the motion would be do pass to appropriations.

Right. Okay.

Roll Call

All right. Do you have 13 aye votes? So leave the Bill on call. Thank you very much.

Thank you all very much.

Is Senator Stern in the room? I see him there. All right, we're moving to file item eight, which is SB 1509, Stern. And we'll welcome Senator Stern. You can go ahead and present whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair. And I want to appreciate your diligence on this legislation and all the sort of back and forth that we've had between Committee. I want to accept the, let me make sure I get my rhetoric right here. But I want to accept the chair's recommendation to amend the Bill. So accept the Committee amendments to ensure that this Bill only applies to 55 miles per hour zones or less.

So if you're following along not freeways, but any road or highway, that's 55 and under.

For passenger vehicles.

For a passenger vehicle. So I can go back to that in a second if Members have questions. But look, this is, this is a bigger problem in California even than homicides right now. More people are dying on our streets every day from traffic-related fatalities. The numbers are astounding. Since 2020, even, we've seen almost a 4x spike. So about.

So 1,228 people died from traffic-related deaths in California in 2020. Last year, the data is still being shored up, but it's over 4,000. People are not driving with other people in mind. And there are other tools I know this Committee has been exploring and working on that I'm very excited about. And some of the, these stakeholders here have elevated traffic calming measures, more funding for active transportation, pedestrian opportunities, but there does need to be some penalty.

There needs to be some public understanding that if you're driving over 60 miles an hour in a 35 zone, you're putting life at risk. And we're not saying we're going to take away your license. This Bill would add two points as opposed to that one point you may get to those kinds of incidents. There are too many victims to run through. Emily Shane was someone that I grew up with in my hometown, and her dad's here to tell you her story.

Ryan Coppell was, you know, about to take my niece to prom. And there's. Ryan Coppel is no more because someone was driving 85 on a 40 in the middle of San Fernando valley. That person, under current law, is not necessarily, not only not required to get points on their record, they're not even necessarily a reckless driver, and yet they're driving a deadly weapon and killing people. Take LA For example. We know that this affects communities of color and low-income people disproportionately.

So we've seen in LA alone in 2023, 336 deaths, but 179 of those deaths were pedestrians and another 24 were bicyclists. So people who are waiting at the bus stop, people who are riding along the road, everyday working people who don't have the luxury of, say, being in that car, they're the ones truly at risk. I know the Members on this Committee have been leading on these issues, and I think this is a crucial piece of the formula.

I want to lastly acknowledge my conversations and the good give and take I've been having with some of the opposition who are worried about what their drivers are doing when they're not commercially driving. So whether you're a school bus driver, a truck driver, or an ambulance driver, this Bill, if you were extreme speeding and you got points for that incident, would still affect your ability to be a commercial driver. It wouldn't automatically take away your license in every case, but there would be an impact.

And I guess you all as Members, and we have to wrestle with that and say, when folks are off duty and they're a school bus driver, do you want them to be the one driving 61 in that 35, do you want them to be the one driving at those rates? And I'm sensitive, I guess, to the overall welfare of that community.

I just, I don't know, kind of run out of sympathy on the speeding and maybe it's being a dad or losing people I know, but I think it's time for a change. I would say that we've got a pretty good framework here, but I also want to express openness to other directions. The original analysis had suggested, for instance, dropping the cap to, say, 40 miles an hour and only covering streets and roads and not highways. I was open to that.

But as it stands right now, this is 55 and under, so no freeways, but those faster highways, like the deadliest one of all, Pacific Coast Highway, are still in this Bill. Happy to take questions and really appreciate your support here. Highway Patrolmen are coming in for me too, as second lead support, but we're going to let Michelle take the mic here for them for afterwards. Thank you. Mister chair.

Please proceed.

Good afternoon, my name is Michelle Shane. I'm here today as a concerned citizen, a grieving father, and an advocate for change. You see, my youngest daughter, Emily, was tragically killed on PCH in Malibu by a reckless driver who chose to prioritize speed over safety. This senseless loss has left an unforgettable mark on my family and my life.

But I'm here today not just to share my pain, but to shed light on a pervasive problem that claims countless lives every year, the endemic of speeding and reckless driving. Every day, individuals make the irresponsible choice to put lives at risk for mere moments of thrill. This is not just unacceptable, it's a crisis that demands our urgent attention. As a filmmaker, I'm trying to bring awareness to the dangers of PCH and Malibu through my award-winning documentary, 21 Miles of Malibu.

But the heartbreaking truth is that this highway has claimed 60 lives, caused 110 severe injuries since Emily's death in 2010. This is not a statistic. These are lives cut short, dreams deferred, and families devastated. The roots of this crisis run deep. PCH has been a playground for dangerous driving for decades, fueled by popular culture, a troubling disregard for human life.

We see this in the countless car crashes captured on social media, the reckless stunts performed on public roads, the aftermath of blockbuster movies that glamorize speed and aggression. As a society, we must reckon with the fact that our actions and media have helped to create an environment that encourages deadly behavior. I urge you, esteemed Members of the Committee, to recognize the urgent need for the legislation of Bill SB 1509.

This Bill would establish meaningful consequences for reckless driving, conveying that we value human life over momentary thrills. By supporting Senator Stern's Bill, SB 1509, you would honor the memory of those we have lost and take a stand for the safety of all road users. I know you cannot undo the pain I feel every day. But by passing SB 1509, you can help prevent other families from experiencing the devastation mine has endured.

You can ensure that no parent has to bury a child because someone chose to drive recklessly. You can make our roads safer for everyone. So I implore you, for the sake of all of us who have lost and remain, please support SB 1509. Give this Bill the attention it deserves. Because when it comes to speeding and reckless driving, the cost of inaction is far too great.

Well, thank you for your testimony. We appreciate you being here. Other witnesses who wish to express a support position?

Mister Chair and Members Randy Perry with Aaron and Read associates, on behalf of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, in support.

All right. Seeing no others coming forward, I don't suppose we have a lead opposition witness? We do. Please come forward. Mister Broad, welcome. You'll have a couple minutes.

Mister Chair and Members, Matt Broad here. On behalf of the teamsters, in respectful but strong opposition. I want to lead off by saying that, you know, we are a union of professional drivers. We are sensitive to roadway safety. We're sensitive to traffic fatalities. It's something that we take very seriously and I think our record in Committee over the years shows that. I think that this is a Bill that requires some nuance. And the nuance here is there are different ways to get it speeding.

This Bill, the method in it is to assess two points for a violation, speeding 26 mph above the speed limit. I hear there's amendments that the author plans to take. The reality is that other two point violations under the Vehicle Code are for DUIs, they're for speeding above 100 mph. We think that those are clearly reckless and that when you look at the two and compare them, they're just different levels of culpability. And we think that the law needs to sort of reflect that.

You know, we're particularly sensitive to points on licenses. Commercial drivers have a points magnitude of 1.5 for every point. These points also carry on their personal license. So you get a point on your personal license, it's on your commercial license.

And so with respect to what Senator Stern said, we disagree that this doesn't mean it's the end of someone's job, because functionally it is. What we've seen with even a single point, people have an increase on their insurance premiums, commercial insurance premiums. Best way to handle that is to fire the driver. And so, you know, my commitment to Senator Stern was to work with him on this, this issue.

We're all in favor of traffic calming devices, ways to slow speeding down. We just think that points potentially have a disproportionate impact of people who spend the most time on the road. And again, we're very sensitive to them. And so with that, we would respectfully ask for a no vote on this Bill today. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. Others in the Committee room who wish to come forward and express an opposition position.

Thank you Mister Chair, Committee Members. Louie Costa with SMART Transportation Division, and for the very reasons then Mister Broad spoke of, we have concerns and we are in respectful opposition. Thanks.

Mark Vukcevich with Streets For All. We're currently neutral on the Bill, but actually potentially supportive with the amendments, but currently expressing our neutrality on the current language.

Good afternoon Chair Cortese and Members. Brian Maramantes with American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. We do align a lot of our comments with Mister Broad, with Teamsters as well. We are opposed unless amended. And we do appreciate the author's willingness to work with us and we'll take a look at the language and hopefully get to a neutral position for the amended language. Thank you.

All right, thank you. That concludes the testimony. We'll bring it back to the Committee now, Senator Newman. Senator Seyarto is ahead of Senator Newman. Then we'll come back to him.

Commercial driver's license comes with an additional responsibility. I had a commercial driver's license so we could drive our firetrucks. 0.08 for most people driving drunk is 0.04 for commercial driver's license. So you can get your license suspended if you're pulled over in your regular car for 0.04. Being a commercial license, our driver has with it, I mean, there's training that goes with that. So you're a trained driver.

You understand the rules of the road, and you also understand the hazards that you're out there driving. I think there's an additional responsibility with that to set the example for other people. And whether you're in your car or in your commercial vehicle, it doesn't matter. If you're going 26 miles an hour over the speed limit through a residential neighborhood, you know darn well that you're going way too fast for what's safe.

And I think two points on your, on your record for doing that is a loud and clear message that you shouldn't do it in the first place. So that's the best way to keep the points off of a record is the personal responsibility that people take. And that's what this is. And this isn't.

This is something that probably could have been done years ago, but people have let it go and let it go, and now it is ridiculous out there where we get to witness on a daily basis people racing around town. They need more responsibility. They need to have more consequences for that irresponsible decision-making. And that's all this does. It doesn't hurt people that are law-abiding citizens.

It doesn't hurt people going five or six miles an hour over the speed limit and get pulled over and get a ticket. This is people that knowingly are going way too fast for the conditions in the area they're in. And I think it's a good attempt at finally, finally, reeling this in. People are tired of watching their friends die. I know I am. And that's why I'm going to be supporting this. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto. Senator Newman.

I just want to say I blame the fast and furious movies for all of this, but I actually do want. I'm kidding, Henry. So I blame him. I do have some concern as expressed by Mr. Broad and others that, you know, we're transferring the point, or, you know, as the point get applies, it could jeopardize somebody's employment. And I want to ask the author, I know you've had discussions, but how do you think about this and to what extent should we make some accommodation that does seem like a rather severe de facto result for two points?

I would say, first, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe you get an appeal on that instance. So there can be mitigating circumstances and it doesn't, what I was saying earlier, it's not an automatic end of your job. There are certain, you know, you can go appeal the points. You can't mask a point like a regular driver can, but you can appeal the underlying violation.

So if for some, you know, they got your speed wrong, if they, if there's a mitigating circumstance, I think those still apply. So we're not exempting any of those sort of additional recourse that commercial drivers would have. We can't. I had thought of should we exempt class C commercial drivers in general from this.

But no, I mean, to clear the scenario that's described, is somebody driving 26 mph above speed limit in their personal vehicle, having it go on their class C license and effectively losing their ability to make a living? Have you considered maybe the ability to negotiate down from two to one in some scenario?

Yeah. Or looking at the multiplier? I don't know. We've just started to dig into the details. They had also mentioned changing the limit and not making it 26 and bumping that number up higher. I don't know exactly what that perfect number is. We were basing this on how current laws applied. So we just pulled that off the shelf so we could look at bumping it up. We could look at, again, not doing highways and just roads and streets. Right. 40 miles an hour and under.

Right. But again, your point is it's about this very specific sort of secondary consequence. Correct?

Through the chair. That's correct. I think, you know, it philosophically comes down to points as a deterrence as well, is a big issue for us. You know, I wish there a way to just sort of easily exempt commercial drivers. My understanding is there is not potentially because of federal point guidelines about how it carries over between the licenses and I think as a precedent to Senator Seyarto's point, we do agree that commercial drivers should be held to higher standard.

When we talk about points in general, what's of great concern to us is that maybe you mask one, even on a personal vehicle, not on a commercial license, you're left over with a point that's an insurance premium. We're just not convinced that that's an effective deterrent on speeding in the first place, which is why we prefer stuff like traffic calming instead. The amendment that we had offered to Senator Stern and his staff was instead of doing 26 mph, we bump it up to 50 mph.

So if you're speeding 50 mph more in a 25 zone. Let me finish, please. You're free to disagree with me, Senator, that you would still be moving the ball forward, right? Because right now, reckless speeding's 100 mph or higher, and so you would catch someone who was speeding 75 in a 25 zone. We would agree that's reckless. Senator Stern said, pick a number. We picked a number. We're open to discussing the number. The reality is right now, 26 mph above the speed limit does not feel like a 2 point violation to us.

It doesn't feel akin to DUI or speeding 100 mph over the speed limit. I think reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements about that, but that's our position. And again, we're very sensitive to this because we can't just get out of it because we're a commercial driver. People make mistakes and we don't think that if, God forbid, someone makes a mistake, that that should be the end of their job. And so that's the position we have and why we are here today.

So my understanding is this applies to non highways. Right? Right. But it's 55 below 55, 26 miles per hour. So.

Sorry, what he was saying, if I may, Mr. Chair, just to. He was saying if, if you were in a. So right now the bill applies. If you're driving on a road that's 55 mph under. What Mr. Broad was offering was saying, if you're in a 35 and you're driving 86 miles an hour or over, then that would qualify.

To recap, that's where Senator Allen almost lost his mind. Okay, yeah, we get it. So you may have somebody to say, so I'm going to support the bill, but I do think there is merit in considering how to articulate a standard so that it is both clear and reasonable as it relates to the prospective consequences. And maybe it's a multiple as opposed to fixed number above. Because I will say to the earlier, everybody's made them point in residential areas. It's crazy, right?

How, and it's not speed so much, it's speed differential relative to the environment. So this is a very narrow example. There aren't that many class C drivers, but I think it's worth trying to consider how to meet that concern. So thank you.

We'll go to Senator Portantino next and then Senator Allen.

Senator, there's Committee amendments, and then you're proposing additional amendments. If you could walk me through what the Committee is actually asking to do versus what you're then going to do subsequent to that. So I understand exactly what the plan is.

Should I take a shot again or do you want to?

Yes, go ahead. And you, in your opening, you went over those.

But then you also referenced additional amendments. That's what I'm trying to understand. Is there more proposed than what the Committee is?

I think he's referring to working on additional amendments going forward, Senator.

But do they, but are there specific proposals? I guess is what I'm trying to get at.

There are amendments you will be taking today, correct?

Yes.

And, you know, the amendment that should have been distributed here on a highway with a post and speed limit for passenger vehicles of 55 mph or less, a conviction would, a conviction for 26 mph or more in that zone would lead to a 2 point violation on the DMV side.

Now, let me just say, Senator, I don't want to take, you have the floor, but let me just say that the Committee initially, I would say it's fair to say, had an aversion to trying to deal with this problem through the DMV point system and took very seriously the opposition's point of view on that. But we worked with Senator Stern, with the author on trying to navigate this issue by working on the speed limit.

And obviously, as you heard, there's been some discussion around that the two sides didn't come together on that, but that going forward on the bill, there would be opportunity for him to continue to try to navigate this issue, including the commercial license implications. So those need to be taken seriously. The bill, I think, probably needs to be narrowed going forward, but we got it in the shape we could get it in here in First Committee.

So subsequent to that, you're committing to work with folks, you're not proposing anything specific on top of what the Committee has asked for?

Nothing specific at this moment. A very, very open. For instance, the original Committee idea, some of the other things that have been floated here, and obviously,

I checked with my staff and we didn't really get any feedback from either the author's office or the opposition prior to this meeting. So apologies.

Apologies. At least we both get to a point.

That's why I shame both sides, because no one, it's a wash. And so I do share concerns. Obviously, I ride my bike every day and I'm out there and I've had constituents who've had a family member who've lost their life in residential neighborhoods.

And so I share the desire to try to make things safer, share the concerns about impact on working people, and really, really want you to work much more collaboratively on trying to figure out how to land this and hit the sweet spot here because there are a lot of implications. And so I'm going to support it today. But I want to see what happens with this down the road. Also want, obviously, I want you guys to come talk as well.

So I want to hear, and I'm happy to even sit on a conversation between the two different sides to see what we can do to try to figure this out because the concerns are legitimate on both sides. We want safer streets, but we don't want to put people out of work at the same time.

Happy to commit to that, to work with you and work with opposition and sit down. Thank you.

Senator Allen.

Well, let me first by start by apologizing to the witness for my reaction. I guess it was very visceral, though, and 50 miles an hour just seems so out of whack to me. And if you'd said something like 30 or 35, I don't know that I would react it that way. But, man, I guess I just want to strongly support the bill, encourage you to work with the opposition because I think we're talking about different things.

It almost seems as though the issue here more has to do with the utilization of the point system as it impacts your members. What Henry's trying to get at is what Senator Stern's trying to get at is the real epidemic of deaths on highways like the PCH and in residential areas. I strongly encourage you not to move down from 55 miles an hour. We want to have the PCH included.

I mean, the situation there is so untenable as it is on highways up and down the state. I appreciate Senator Seyarto's comments. We all know how many of our communities have been just devastated by the impacts of reckless speeding and how many deaths have come from that. That's what we're trying to address here.

So I really do hope you were able to work together and figure out some of these issues that professional drivers have but I also just want to make sure that pedestrian safety and human safety is at the heart of all discussions that happen moving forward today. So in that spirit, I'd love to move the bill, and I just want to applaud you for your work on this and just ask you not to make sure this remains robust.

However, that enforcement mechanism, whatever you land on, maybe you can work on some flexibility on the miles per hour. Maybe there's a different mechanism for enforcement. I don't know what that looks like. You're deep in the weeds on this. You're going to engage in conversations with the Committee and folks from the teamsters. But we know that the status quo needs to be changed. There is truly an epidemic of death on our streets, in our highways.

We all have experienced memorial services and ceremonies in our own districts. Our colleague Senator Newman just gave an absolutely tragic return to memory just last week of a whole family wiped out by someone screening down the street in his district. They were just waiting for the bus to go to the zoo or something like that, you know? Senator Wiener? Yeah.

Is that what I said? Okay. I don't know. Yes, it was, Senator Wiener. I'm in San Francisco, but I apologize. But anyway, so I just want to. I strongly support the bill, and I hope we're able to get something really meaningful to the Legislature this year on this topic.

Senator Archuleta is next, followed by Senator Dodd.

Yeah, I agree that this is so strong in bringing it forward that our safety for our children and our communities, and I think most of us don't have speed limits that are 50 miles an hour within our small towns and so on. But whatever it is, that's something that you'll have to work out.

My concern is that we got to find a happy medium for the teamsters, the men and women who drive these trucks, that they supply a wherewithal for their families to live and so on. And I understand the point system. If something happens, the points can move up to as much as three and a half points. Is that correct? Because there's a calculation to that. Would you answer that?

Yeah, sorry. That's a math mistake. It's 1.5. I made a mistake in the letter. If you get two points, it's worth three points, not 3.5. But there is the magnifier there that even if it's on your personal license, you get in your personal time, it impacts your commercial license.

Well, I think we've got to go ahead and get everyone who drives cars, my children, your children, everyone that we've got, we hear the tragedies all the time and we've got to slow down. That's the bottom line. And we've got to be safer. And if anybody's going to take the lead, I would imagine the professional drivers, the teamsters, let's get them on board with us that they can participate and we can all participate to save lives.

And you know, I'm hoping that the bill moves along so we can really fine tune it so there isn't a punitive action against our teamsters and professional drivers, but an awareness that they've got to be a participant, a partner to keep our roads safe as well. So I'm hoping you can continue working with that, both of you. And as my colleagues point out, there is a need to slow down and this might be the first step.

But I will tell you this, that if we don't take action and bring everyone on board, there will be tragedies again and again. So please convey to the teamsters that we're trying to help. And I don't think they should be addressed as the victim or not or the criminal in some cases, but to be a partner because I know they have families as all of us do.

So I look to Teamsters to take the lead and I will go ahead and look for the forward motion down the road and that you're working together. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator Dodd, if you could defer for just a moment. Senator Allen, I just want to follow up his comment.

Just one little follow up. I know that Senator Newman was kind of said he was joking about the fuss and furious. The truth is there's evidence to suggest that it actually is a big part of the problem, this glamorization of speed media. You know, Mr. Shane has done a lot of work on this space and we're happy to share it with folks.

Senator Dodd.

Yeah. You know, it's hard to find fault with what anybody has said here. I was a county supervisor for 15 years when we had serious problems like this. We got enforcement and we got enforcement out of the road. CHP, deputy sheriffs, city police, that's how this stuff is handled. The more enforcement you have, the less accidents. There's absolutely evidence that shows that. And I guess even in Napa County most recently they had a number of deaths at the 116 and 29.

And so now they've got speed cameras there and they're putting speed cameras at a number point. I'm not a big fan, but those are the things you kind of do. And so I guess my my concern is I'm going to support the bill today because I want to let you see if you can run with this. I Reserve the right to not support it the next time I see it.

But I just think if every time there is a problem in a specific area, we're changing the driving code, these people that are doing this don't give a rip how many points they have. And I think the ticket themselves increasing, you know, for the multiple, you know, tickets may be another way out, but enforcement works.

Thank you, Senator Dawes, Senator Limon.

Thank you. This has been a robust conversation, and I think one of the things that sticks out to me is how much we are dealing with two compelling issues. One, the issue of safety. And you've heard, I think, from a lot of members in a very bipartisan way that safety in our neighborhoods and highways has become an issue that is rising to this level of discussion on a bill like yours.

But I think that one of the pauses certainly is some of what the opposition has raised in terms of trying to figure out how we achieve the outcome of safety through a mechanism that's a little confusing to maybe myself, maybe no one else on here in terms of whether the points, that system alone is going to be enough of a deterrent to increase safety. The point system right now isn't deterring enough of the behavior we need.

So we are grappling, I think, with, you know, wanting an outcome but understanding that we have to change certain behaviors to reach the outcome. I am supporting, I'm going to be supporting the bill today, but I also, I don't just want to ask, you know, the opposition and the support to necessarily kind of come to the table and figure it out. I actually want to ask the opposition if there are ways that we can achieve this outcome. I mean, we are really seeing this.

You have a lot of legislators here who are saying we can go back to our district and point on issues where people are driving way too fast and it is causing deaths that we are all concerned about. So if we're not, you know, getting it exactly right, then what is the right solution? Because my concern is that we cannot continue to see some of this without some fixes unless, you know, we're going to ultimately have to say we're going to pick a side.

And we don't really necessarily want to do that because we think there's valid arguments to what you've raised as opposed to like, well, what's the fix? We need people to drive not as fast in our neighborhoods and highways. So how do we grapple that? So I think that that's just, you know, what, I'm sharing in my reasons. It is the first Committee. So I am hopeful that this is something that is a work in progress.

But I do want to just highlight how many people have talked about the safety issue and how that is going to be a very compelling issue as this bill moves forward and usually wanting to see some type of solution.

All right, thank you again. You know, the authors work hard, as have the opposition, in terms of communicating with the Committee staff itself. I just want to get that on the record. I know Senator Portantino probably accurately described that as big, especially as big as this Committee is in terms of composition. Not everybody got a communication or a call.

There was a lot of this, in this particular case, was moving late in terms of actually getting some language that we felt was worth bringing to the Committee, frankly.

But as I said earlier, and I think we've heard it from many colleagues here, Senator Stern, many of your colleagues of mine, that there's a desire to keep supporting the general direction you're going, but a need to narrow the bill and the need to address the commercial driver issue, which would at some level be an unintended consequence, I think, of the general intention that you had, especially when you talked to me, of trying to get to the real outlaws who are reckless and are not driving for a living, but are out there putting people's lives in jeopardy every day.

So that's what got me to come to a support position and a support recommendation to this committee going forward. But I know you have a big bill package. This one's going to take some time, I think, for you to work on going forward to try to address concerns. And I would say there are several of us that I've heard here today, they're implied or expressly say, be tough to support the bill later in the exact condition it's in right now.

So with that, you do have, of course, my support today, as you know, and we'll give you an opportunity to close, and I think you've said enough times that you accept the amendments, but if you could say that one more time in your close, that would make everybody happy up here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I am committed not only to accepting these amendments here today, but working directly with the opposition and not just the sort of open ended, we'll sit down and talk about it again. But I think this has been an illuminating hearing. I really appreciate the members digging in, the mechanics of this nots process, this point system at DMV is sort of new to a lot of people.

And when I first approached this bill, I was looking at, at criminal justice penalties, right? At looking at, you know, can we strengthen reckless driving? And in cases of involuntary or voluntary manslaughter, we've ended up here in sort of world of DMV and points. And the reason I was compelled to do that is really what the analysis says. The deterrent effect may not be enough.

But the most recent report from DMV found that the probation hearings that can be triggered through that second point resulted in a 15% reduction in crash risk. That there's something, I mean, the prospect of potentially losing your license. Just to be clear, you have to do this twice under this bill to lose your license. So it wouldn't be once. So you'd have to do this twice for any normal driver. But that interface with DMV, as uncomfortable as it is, people hate DMV.

They especially hate it if they're going in there for speeding. And the hope is that without having the hammer of jail time or criminal penalties, that we do need that to strengthen that, to turn effect. I'd like to see more than a 15% reduction in crash risk. I think we can do better. And we're going to be working with the DMV to see if we can really amp up on our existing work. Yeah, we've got to do something.

That's why I'm bringing you all a tough bill and wrestling with this, because I just. I do not feel like we can sit tight. So you have my commitment to working with the opposition, looking in the mechanics on either the knots program, the actual limit established by the Committee. And I will mostly commit to you, Mr. Chair, that we're not going to get away from this Committee. We're going to stay very close to you and your staff.

I do appreciate the long hours you put into this. So I'll wrap it up and just ask for your aye vote.

All right. Is there a motion? The motion would be do pass as amended to appropriations.

I moved it.

Senator Allen did move it. We'll call the roll call.

This is file item number eight. [Roll Call]

All right, that's 10 aye votes. No opposition votes will keep the Bill on call. And I do want to take a point of prayer privilege and just acknowledge both witnesses, but also particularly want to acknowledge the support witness today for the mission you're on. Those of us I have four young adult children at this point and there's not a night I sleep with both eyes open and I can't put myself in your position. I don't think most of us can.

But we can certainly sympathize and appreciate your courage in trying to move solutions forward to make life safer for our children and our grandchildren. Thank you. Senator Dodd, it's your turn if you're ready, SB 904. thank you Mr Chair and members.

Thank you Mr. Chair and members. Today I'm presenting SB 904, a measure that updates the enabling legislation of the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District, or SMART train, to remove obsolete references, raising to raise bidding amounts thresholds, and authorize smart special taxes to be imposed by a voter initiative.

The SMART train is an incredible example of multimodal and multi jurisdictional project that advances many of our state's top goals, increase rail and bicycle use, transit oriented development and collaboration by local governments at a regional scale. Since coming into service just over six years, SMART has overcome wildfires, floods, and a global pandemic that devastated all of public transit. Despite those obstacles, they keep chugging along and at the end of 2023 became the first transit system in the Bay Area to recover their pre pandemic ridership numbers.

This bill also empowers the voters of the special district for the first time to pursue their own ballot measures through a voter initiative. A voter approved qualified initiative process has the potential to provide an opportunity to enhance community engagement and help inform and affirm the development of an expenditure plan, providing greater accountability and direction for how best to dedicate future resources to operate the SMART system.

As the bill analysis notes, SMART was recently designated by the Federal Railroad Administration as part of the Capitol Corridor network, and the state rail plan projects that it may 1 day connect with Amtrak services in Seattle County, further strengthening our state's rail transit system. This train is a model for how we do transit right. I have here with me today Eddy Cummins, who is the GM of SMART, and Matt Broad, representing the California Teamsters to speak in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Dodd. Witnesses if you're ready, please proceed. You'll have a couple minutes each, in whatever order you prefer.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Cortese and members. I'm Eddy Cummins, the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit district general manager, and I'm speaking in support of Senate Bill 904. This bill updates the procurement bidding thresholds for supplies, materials and equipment, which has not been updated since 2003, long before SMART became an operating railroad. It also creates flexibility for the siting of new stations in underserved areas of north Sonoma county and removes obsolete references to the North Coast Rail Authority, which no longer exists.

Finally, the bill authorizes the smart board to place a qualified voter initiative on the ballot. In 2008, voters in Sonoma and Marin County approved a quarter cent sales tax known as measure Q, providing roughly $50 million annually to build, operate and maintain the SMART system. This measure expires in 2028.

SMART has operated since 2017 and currently SMART has the highest ridership recovery rate in the Bay Area and is one of only a few transit agencies in the country who have a higher ridership rate than pre pandemic. The average trip length on SMART is 22 miles, and approximately 25% of smart riders are senior and youth who utilize the system to get to and from schools.

Ridership among this demographic is expected to increase substantially in the coming months as the SMART board of directors recently approved a free fair pilot program for both seniors and youth. SMART has leveraged over $500 million in state, federal and local grants to expand the system. Needless to say, it is critically important to renew the measure to protect the community's investment and sustain operations. Sustained operations will help address climate change, mode shift, traffic congestion and mobility options, especially for underserved communities in the region.

SMART wants to be accountable and inclusive as possible. Based on community feedback, local voters request the opportunity to protect their investment. The language in Senate Bill 904 is intended to respond to that request by allowing the citizens Initiative process to run its independent course with SMART, placing it on the ballot should it obtain the qualified signatures. SMART would not gather or pay for signatures, but act as an entity to place the item on the ballot for further consideration by voters.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote Mr. Chair and members.

Matt Broad here on behalf of the California Teamsters. Good to be back. Back with you after such a short break. I'll just make my comments quick. We're in strong support of this bill. We represent the workers at SMART. Obviously, growth of the system is in our members interest, but also in the community's interest. And we think this bill gives sort of the needed flexibility on the procurement adjustments as well as the ballot measure. And with that, we'd ask for your aye vote thank you.

Thank you to both the witnesses, other support witnesses who wish to express their support position.

Chris Lee of Politico Group here on behalf of the Sonoma County Transportation Authority. Regional Climate Protection Authority, in support.

Thank you.

Jeanie Ward-Waller, on behalf of Transform, in support.

Steve Roberts, Royal Passenger Association of California, in support.

Thank you. I know we have opposition on the bill. Is there a primary opposition witness? We did not have one confirmed. We do not see anyone coming forward to take that role. Is there anyone here who wishes to express an opposition position? Name, affiliation and opposition see none. We'll come back to the committee at this time. Comments, concerns by the committee? All right, there's a motion by Senator Archuleta and the motion is do pass to elections. Elections Committee. Is that correct?

All right, do pass to elections Committee would be the motion. But before we take up that motion, we'll give the author an opportunity to close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, we'll call the roll call. Please.

This is file item number 10. [Roll Call]

All right, that Bill is at currently at 7-2. Leave it on call. Thank you. I don't see, thank you to the witnesses. I don't think Senator Gonzalez has arrived to present. She would otherwise be next. So we're going to pass go to Senator Archuleta. This would be file item 14, SB-1081. Archuleta.

Okay. Oh, she just walked in.

Do you want to defer, Senator? That's your call.

Senator? Okay. Only because our witnesses are sitting down and ready to go. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and of course, Senator, for allowing me to jump in your spot here for just a moment. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for allowing me to present my Bill. Mr. Chair, thank you for working with me and the Committee and everyone else. Today I'm presenting Senate Bill 1081, which will establish optional driver's license legislation in California.

In doing so, California will join over 40 other states and territories that utilize the DMV to effectively ensure that residents comply with the Federal Selective Service Requirements. Specifically, Senate Bill 1081 would allow a person that is required to be registered under the Federal Military Selective Service Act and who will submit an application for a driver's license, identification card, or renewal through the DMV to be deemed to have considered to be a registrant and with the United States Selective Service System.

However, an individual who does not wish to be enrolled with the Selective Service will be given the choice to opt out of the registration. Senate Bill 1081 would additionally prohibit the DMV from making or distributing a list of those persons who did not consent to register. Very, very important. In addition to the legal requirement, that most all males, registered men, who fail to register with the Selective Service cut themselves off from future benefits and opportunities.

Job opportunities here in California and across the nation working for the Federal Government. If they do not register by the age of 26, men permanently become ineligible for all federal jobs, as well as federal job training programs, including those funded by Workforce Innovation and opportunity acts. Failure to register may additionally cause delays in citizenship applications for immigrants who have not registered.

Immigrant men who do not register by the age of 26 must wait until they are 32 to proceed with naturalization and the process to obtain citizenship. Unless they are able to present sworn declarations that failing to register for Selective Services was not due to willfully avoiding the requirement. Notably, both House of Representatives and Senate versions of the DREAM Act also condition eligibility on registration with the Selective Service.

California currently has one of the nation's lowest rates of eligible residents who have signed up for the Selective Service. As of October 2023, the Selective Service System estimates that only 74.6% of eligible Californians have registered, in contrast with other larger states, including New York, Texas, and Florida, that have implemented the Drivers Enrollment System that we're seeking today, see enrollment rates as high as 90%.

When people choose not to sign up for the Selective Service, they often do so without being aware of the potential risk of future employment. And it falls in the category, in many cases, of not even realizing that they were supposed to register. So the DMV has an opportunity to help everyone along in doing this. California must take action to ensure that our residents do not disproportionately make themselves ineligible for jobs and benefits because of the inability to enroll people through the DMV system.

And with me today who came in from Washington, DC, we don't often have witnesses that fly in from one end of the country to the other. It is so very important, and we all agree they should be here. With me today to testify is the Acting Director of Selective Service, Joel Spangenberg. Additionally, we have Deputy Associate Director for Legislative Intergovernmental Affairs, Jacob Daniels, here for technical assistance, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Gentlemen, it's the first time I've been across the table from the Selective Service since June 4, 1974, so I'm eager to hear from you, as I'm sure everyone is, so you may proceed in whatever order you like. You'll have a couple minutes each. Thank you.

Great. Good afternoon. Chair Cortese, Vice Chair Niello, and Members of the Senate Transportation Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of SB-1081. My name is Joel Spangenberg. I'm a Veteran of the United States Navy and a Senior Appointee of the Biden Administration, also serving as the Acting Director of the Selective Service System.

The Selective Service System is an independent federal agency that maintains a system that, when authorized by the President and Congress, rapidly provides personnel to the military during a national emergency in a fair and equitable manner, while also managing an alternative service program for conscientious objectors. Federal law requires that virtually all men register with the Selective Service System within 30 days of their 18th birthday. Men can no longer register when they turn 26 years of age.

Based on our most recent annual data, just under 75% of California's men from 18 to 25 years of age registered as required by law. This being said, about a quarter of California's men in this age range are at risk of missing out on important benefits that could help them in life. Men who fail to register with the SelectiveService System become ineligible for federal employment, including with the US Postal Service. For context, in California, there are over 180,000 federal jobs that require registration.

Those who fail to register are also ineligible for federally funded job training, which is administered by several organizations throughout the state. Immigrants who fail to register may face up to a five-year delay in obtaining us citizenship. Both versions of the DREAM Act, as we heard about earlier pending in the US House of Representatives and the Senate, condition program eligibility on registration with Selective Service System.

Furthermore, many states require men to be registered to remain eligible for government employment, as well as to receive state-based student aid. Men from California could be at a disadvantage if they ever move out of state. The Selective Service System wants to help ensure that men register. It is not only the law, but it helps protect their future. That is why we are grateful that Senator Archuleta introduced SB-1081, which provides an option through the California Department of Motor Vehicles for registration with the Selective Service System.

We endorse legislation like SB-1081 as it supports making the registration process easier. 45 states and territories have similar laws linking DMV applications with registration. In those states, registration rates increased, protecting their resident's access to valuable benefits. If SB-1081 is signed into law. Putting this proven approach into action, we anticipate similar results in California. In summary, the selective service system supports this Bill.

It will make it easier for California's young men to register and protect their eligibility for government benefits that will help them achieve their goals in life. Thank you for your time and consideration. Chair Cortese, at your discretion, I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much. We will give the Committee an opportunity for that momentarily. Are there any other support witnesses in the room who wish to come forward? Seeing none. Are there opposition witnesses in the room? Yes. Are you a lead opposition witness? Please come on forward.

Thank you for being here and please introduce yourself and you'll have a couple minutes.

Thank you. How long do I have? Up to four minutes.

Two minutes.

Only two?

I apologize. I've been corrected. You are the only opposition witness so you'll have the full four minutes.

Thank you, Senator Cortese and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to speak in opposition to Senate Bill 1081. I'm Kevan Insko, Director of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, an advocacy group founded by Quakers in 1952. As you may know, Quakers have a testimony of peace and nonviolence. Today I join with my colleagues from immigrant rights and civil liberties organizations, peace and justice centers, faith-based groups, and with hundreds of individuals, including veterans and young people who have registered their opposition.

And we ask you to vote no on Senate Bill 1081. Under this Bill, a young person as young as 16 years old would be asked to make the decision to register for the federal selective service system, the draft, when they signed to apply for a California driver's license. These two functions are completely unrelated. The purpose of licensing drivers is road safety. The DMV already has an enormous responsibility, and California should not be using our limited state resources to enforce the Military Selective Service Act.

The selective service system is currently already receiving information about people who apply for a driver's license in California, which it can and does use to do its own outreach. Federal laws should be enforced by the Federal Government at Federal expense. The Bill proposes that those who do not accept the automatic registration may proceed to sign the driver's license form and check a don't register box on the application application.

However, checking such a box could be considered self-incrimination because it is actually the knowing and willful non-registration that is the grounds for civil sanctions that were described, and federal prosecution. SB-1081 purports to restrict access to records of those who opt-out, but this provision could be easily overridden by a federal subpoena for evidence of knowing and willful non-registration. Many people have sincere religious objections to registering for the draft.

This Bill would force them to violate their conscience or sign a confession of a crime to get a driver's license. Many others would be confused and not know what to do. Others might unthinkingly sign without the opportunity to consider what this decision means to them, or they might click a box that would actually show willful non-registration and therefore make them more likely to have sanctions.

Undocumented immigrants, in particular, have concerns about sharing sensitive personal information with the Federal Government, and that's why you'll see opposition from the leading immigrant rights groups in California. This could present future problems for them if they check that they are declining to register. And there is also an issue with the Selective Service, which says that those who are required to register are those that have male listed on their birth certificate, and that does not track with the way gender is defined for a California driver's license.

A few years ago, when my son was still in high school, I helped him apply for financial aid through the FAFSA form, which required selective service registration. We were surprised by this, and he needed time to research his options and make a decision with thoughtfulness. But that's changed now because young people no longer have to register in order to apply for and receive federal financial aid, and the new FAFSA form no longer carries the Selective Service registration information.

And in 2021, the California State Legislature itself, your colleagues, took away the requirement of registration in order to receive Cal Grants. Let's not go backwards. There is an argument that other states do something like this in some way. There are also states that are similar to us, including New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. And in any case, California has never been afraid to stand out among the states for our extra protections for privacy, equity, and, immigrant rights. Again, why would we go backwards?

You'll have to wrap up.

Legislation like this will put unnecessary pressure on young people at a time when they just want to become licensed drivers. for many reasons, we ask you respectfully to vote no on SB-1081. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone here in the Committee room who wishes to express opposition? Please come forward. Name, affiliation, and opposition.

Yes. Good afternoon. Dale Richter. I'm here on my own behalf. I am a veteran of the Vietnam War that was drafted into the war in April of 1968. So I experienced all the personal turmoil and suffered the consequences of that whole experience with that Vietnam War under this system. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Chloe Steck with the California Immigrant Policy Center. Here in opposition.

Great, thank you. I see no one else come forward that would conclude our testimony at this point. We bring it back to the Committee for questions, some concerns, comments. Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. I appreciate the folks who flew in from Washington, DC and also drove in, and I appreciate your testimony. I recognize and thank the author for his efforts here. I'm going to be voting no on this, and as I mentioned to you, I'd like to explain why that is so. I am persuaded by the fact that I think that this is completely unrelated to what the California DMV should be doing. And so registering for the draft is a federal obligation, as was stated.

And I think that the Federal Government should be responsible for that. We are facing this budget deficit that we spend many hours discussing how we can reduce costs. So the idea of asking the DMV to do more, I know it's been suggested that it would be a negligible cost, but I find that to strain credibility, because almost everything we ask the DMV to do costs a lot of money, and they are already dealing with a lot of difficulty even doing the basic functions.

So I understand that the Selective Service System is working on Federal Legislation that would remove the requirement to affirmatively register at all. So I think there are different ways to get at this goal, and I just don't see it as the DMV's responsibility to manage this. So for those reasons, I will be voting no to today. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Blakespear. Anyone else wishing to comment or ask questions? Yes, Senator Becker.

I just had a question regarding the witnesses' concern. You and I spoke, too. And you said that someone could opt out. Right? Because they could also register another way. Right? They don't have to do it here. But the opposition was raising concern that would actually. Right? Opting out would be a willful disregarding of the law. Do you disagree with that?

I do disagree with that, yes. And again, if I may, Mr. Mayor. I mean, Mr. Chair, may I answer?

You can.

Okay. Again, the Bill is simply to allow a pathway to adhere to the law, which we all agree is on the books. And maybe one day it won't be on the books, but it's on the books now. And we've heard from our experts that it allows the men who wish to obtain the path of citizenship down the road. They'll be within the law. Those who want benefits will be within the law.

Those who seek a job in the future within the Federal Government will be within the law. And again, if they don't wish to opt out, if they wish to opt out, they can. And again, the question is, what is your name? What is your address? What is your date of birth? Didn't ask for your Social Security number. Didn't ask your blood type? Didn't ask anything. Just those three questions, period.

And in reference to the costs, the Federal Government is going to augment some of the costs here for the State of California and doing this. So DMV will be able to receive the funding to do that as well. And it is nothing that we not done for years and years past. I'm proud as a veteran, you all know, I served with the 82nd airborne, and I am a combat veteran.

And I'm proud to present this for the men who are serving this country, as my two sons are right now. So I think that it just opens up a door that puts everybody back in check. And again, it is something that we all could be proud of, that California is joining the other 40 states in helping these young men to adhere to the law. So I think it's an opportunity for us to go ahead and go forward with this.

And again, if there's any further questions, of course, we have the experts here, but I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you, Senator. I do have a question, and I'll come back to you in case you want to close beyond that request. The question I have is, it's my understanding, hearing from the Committee work, that regardless of what happens at this DMV stage in terms of registration, if you will, that things like conscientious objection to an actual draft or conscription are still available. Could you just spend maybe a minute just explaining what happenes next in terms of due process?

Okay. Great question. So, in times like right now, when we're not at war and in peacetime, our agency actually serves as an advocate at the federal level to take concerns about the conscientious objector community. So we actively do reach out to peace churches and other conscientious objector organizations, and we do pay attention to what they have to say. Another thing we also do, because we actually don't have it built into registration. That's not part of conscientious objectors. That is not part of registration.

That only comes if we were in a situation where we had a return to conscription. But what we do in peacetime is we build the infrastructure so we can handle that very responsibly. We take this as a very serious part of our mission. So what we do in peacetime is we work to make sure we have our local and district appeal boards fully staffed with volunteers who are trained to hear claims from conscientious objectors nationwide. And these are people appointed from their community.

So we, like I said, we take it seriously that they know what to do and they know how to hear conscientious objector claims. Also, another thing that a lot of people don't know about is we do work with federal agencies, and we also work with states and territories, for example, to make sure that if we ever did have a return to conscription, we would have opportunities available for conscientious objectors to go and do work in the national interest.

So we have these systems that we do spend a lot of time building now and if we ever did have conscription we would actually work to protect their views and they would have a chance if they were selected through a lottery to present their claim to be heard before one of the local boards.

Thank you for walking us through that. The other concern I have, which is hopefully not vague is concerned maybe about the Selective Service being over-reliant on, you know, the automatic registration through the DMV for example.

We're seeing more and more young people forego getting a driver's license in the first place and, you know, there could be some concern over a false sense of security that you don't have to worry about that and I know you do have to worry about it and I know there's severe consequences especially if we return to conscription for, you know, someone who didn't get their driver's license at 16, 17, 18, you know, lives someplace in an urban community like New York or Downtown Los Angeles where they're using, you know, the subway or alternative transportation.

They don't need a motor vehicle license. How are those folks going to be treated when they come walking in late? Is that a court-martial or is that? During Vietnam, that was serious business and I just want to know how you're going to treat it going forward.

Okay, so one thing we are very concerned with is helping to make sure people register and we also do take steps to help find ways to get them to register. So we have found that this sort of legislation, which we call driver's license legislation is our most effective means of helping men register and that's why 45 states and territories do it. But we're not done there. We do work to have a robust outreach campaign to reach out to influencers like coaches, parents, teachers, school administrators.

So they're aware. And as you may know if you see a lot of young people today, they're very much in their phones and on social, social media, media. We also work through different apps to help remind them to register that way. So, this isn't all we do, but it's like we are trying multiple means so we fulfill the law at the federal level to help remind young men to register.

But we do know that if we look at our statistics something like 63% of registrations do come through things like driver's license legislation and that has been found to be very successful and we do see big uplifts in registration. But that's a good point. People may not drive as much and they may try to take alternative transportation. But like I said, we do find other ways to help make sure that they can register. In a time of conscription. That would be a different situation.

And, you know, that does get us into more serious territory with having to refer people to the Department of Justice. So I would have to contact the Attorney General in that case if people are potentially violating the Military Selective Service Act. So that would go down a different road. But my whole position here is let's do our due diligence now to take care of people, to help them register and help them fulfill the law.

So that's why we're leaning forward to try to work with as many states and territories as we can.

I appreciate your response. I mean, clearly, on the one hand, the automatic registration would avoid penalties for a lot of people or allow them to avoid being sort of asleep at the wheel, no pun intended, and getting themselves in trouble. On the other hand, an over reliance on it seems to me to be problematic as well. So hopefully that's going to be thought through. And I am supporting the Bill, and I appreciate the author's work on it.

And I know you asked for an aye vote if you'd like to close.

Well, again, Mr. Chair and Committee Members, I thank you so very, very much for helping the young men here in California to get an opportunity to get registered and be complying with the law. And with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

All right. Is there a motion? All right, the Bill is moved by Senator Newman. Call the roll.

This is file item number 14, SB-1081. The motion is do-pass. We refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, Bill has 7 aye votes, 2 in opposition, and we'll leave it on call for the absent Members. Thank you all for being here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right, we're going to backtrack on our file order here to Senator Gonzalez.

I'm here. If Gonzalez left again, I have a Bill that I could do.

Senator Blakesbury, come on up. I'm sorry. I thought Senator Gonzalez was here and maybe she left again or maybe I imagine that, but, Senator Blakespear, if you're prepared, we'll hear you on SB-1098, which for those following would be file item 16. Thank you.

Ready?

Please proceed. If you're ready. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair and Colleagues, I am pleased to be presenting SB-1098, which responds to the urgent need for coordinated planning and improved services along the Coastal Rail Corridor in Southern California. Rail services are an important part of the state's multimodal transportation ecosystem, and increased commitment to expanding train and transit trips is central to meeting our state's climate goals.

In Southern California, the Los Angeles, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, or LOSSAN Rail Corridor, runs 351 miles and connects six counties that account for nearly 45% of the statewide population. However, the realities of climate change, sea level rise, and extreme weather events continue to threaten rail services and the Southern California coastline. We can no longer continue to plan and operate as we have.

The rail corridor that supports the Pacific Surfliner, Metrolink COASTER, and Freight Service has been closed five times in the last three years for many months at a time due to unstable hillsides and erosion along the tracks. That means service disruptions for more than half of the last 500 days. This existing rail corridor that serves nearly half the state's population is existing. It is historic. It has already received billions in state, federal, and private investment over many decades.

We should not allow it to deteriorate and to fall into disrepair under our watch. We know what is at stake. Now is the time to act and position the corridor for long-term success. SB-1098 begins to do that by bringing together state and local action under a common goal and vision. What this Bill does first is it directs the state's transportation, environmental protection, and natural resources agencies to identify needed improvement projects along the corridor and report that back to the Legislature.

This requirement for State Executive Branch prioritization is based on a request that was made by local agencies for greater state leadership. The local agencies will also make recommendations to the Legislature on how best to support rail and resiliency planning in the corridor. We need to hear the latest in planning, see data and the best available science from experts at the State Transportation Agency and the Coastal Commission. Second, there are many local partners with an important voice in the future of the coastal rail corridor.

That's why we're forming a working group with a diverse representation from transit partners, planning agencies, and community environmental and labor organizations, among others, to make locally identified recommendations that result in improved service performance, reliability, and ridership. And lastly, we're adding new reporting requirements to the Legislature and tasking the transportation secretary to provide the guidance, recommendations, and to ensure coordination that is needed between local transit agencies. The cost of inaction couldn't be clearer.

Track closures, short-term emergency repairs, and service disruptions cannot be a normal part of passenger rail service in Southern California. Local communities are relying on us at the state level, and we can get this right by working together to protect the shoreline and ensure that rail service along the corridor is successful. SB-1098 is the first step and lays the foundation for revitalized rail in Southern California. With me today, I have Steve Roberts, President of the Rail Passenger Association of California and Nevada. Chair, is it okay if my first witness or my witness speaks?

Thank you very much, Senator Blakespear, and if you're ready, you may proceed. You'll have a couple minutes.

Thank you Chair and Committee Members, for the opportunity to address you. My name is Steve Roberts and I'm President of the all-volunteer Rail Passenger Association, California and Nevada. Since its founding in 1978, RailPAC has taken a keen interest in leveraging the full potential of the Southern California's rail network, including the San Luis Obispo, Los Angeles, San Diego corridor, to improve the quality of life for Southern Californians.

As a focused step towards the goal of a high frequency, high-performance rail network throughout Southern California. Rail Passenger Association of California Nevada supports SB-1098 and recommends the legislation move forward. There's urgency for revisions to the network governance and accelerated actions. The importance of California's Clean Air Act and greenhouse gas goals post-COVID changes in travel patterns and geologic Earth movements present a clear challenge to the rail network and its traditional product mix.

RailPAC is concerned that the current market positioning, operating boundaries, and project deliveries structure is simply not up to the task. The current situation is unique to California, results in a hyper-local influence on making rail investments and their impacts without a countervailing analysis of regional benefits. RailPAC feels that Caltrans needs to provide the leadership in participating in a broader perspective, providing support and guidance for local stakeholders. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. I'm going to turn the gavel over to Senator Newman temporarily because the chair and Vice Chair will be out for a few minutes, and we'll just do that at this time. Thank you.

Apologies. I have always aspired to be the chair of this Committee. This is awesome. So please proceed.

Okay. What we're doing now is going to me too's for those.

Let's do that. Are there any other witnesses here in the hearing room would like to speak in support of the measure? Please state your name, your organization, your position.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and Members. Moira Topp. On behalf of the Orange County Transportation Authority, we're a little bit of a tweener. We don't have a position on the bill, but as representing the county that has experienced the breaches, the challenges over the last year and resulted in significant closures along the rail line, we are very appreciative of the author. She has spent enormous amounts of energy and time focused on this issue, and we've worked with her on this bill so far.

We look forward to continuing to work with her. Again, we don't have a position, but we are very, very grateful for all the work. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Topp. Next, please.

Good evening. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the San Diego Association of Government SandAG. SandAG also doesn't currently have a formal position on the bill, but we really wanted to express our appreciations, Senator, for her leadership in advancing a long term planning for resiliency of the LOSSAN rail corridor is a vital lifeline for the San Diego region as it serves as the only connection between it and the rest of the state and the nation.

SandAG has been partnering with the state to invest in the San Diego segment of the corridor, to stabilize the bluffs along the tracks and ultimately move the trucks off the bluffs. And San Diego looks forward to continue to work with its LOSSAN partners to build a shared vision of the quarter and want to thank the center again.

Thank you. Next, please.

David Martinez. On behalf of Streets for All, with a position of support if amended to include California high speed rail. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Congratulations on chairing, Chairman. Thank you. Andrew Antwih. On behalf of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, otherwise known as Metrolink. We are also a tweener, but we're supportive and we're actually grateful for the level of coordination that this bill's brought. And the Senator's efforts go beyond coordination. And the details in the bill conversations are happening up and down the corridor, which probably otherwise wouldn't and so we're grateful for that, as this is a bread and butter corridor for Metrolink. So thank you.

Thank you. You gave the record today for the most tweeners. Is there anybody here in the Committee room would like to testify in opposition? The measure seeing none. Let's come back to the dais. Members, any questions or comments for the witness or for this honor? I've got a motion. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. Of course, being Southern California, that you. We both are. And we know that whether it's traffic or whether it's freight. But I'd like to point out that this bill gives us a report so we can see how and we can prevent suspending of that rail line. Five times in five years is too many. Five times in a lifetime is too many because of the fact the freight and also the military that uses it as well.

And as you know, that these emergencies, closures that, you know, maybe can be prevented if we are being proactive. So I am 100% with you and I will move the bill at the appropriate time.

I think we had a motion from Senator.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Anybody else with comments or questions for Senator Blakespear? Senator Blakespear, would you like to close? Oh, yes.

Thank you. This bill is really important to lay the foundation we need for future success. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Please call the roll. We have a motion from Senator Seyarto.

This is file item number 16, SB 1098. The motion is do pass re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you. That Bill has 7-0. We will leave that on call. What's next?

934.

Senator Gonzalez with SB 934. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mister chair and Members, I'm here to present SB 934, which will coordinate the infrastructure build out needed to transition California's freight sector to zero emission technologies, especially for medium heavy duty vehicles, whether charging or refueling infrastructure. The barrier was identified in the California Transportation Commission's recently published Clean Freight Corridor Assessment, which recommended that the creation of a state level entity to take lead on infrastructure network development, coordination of various stakeholders and agencies, among many other things. And it builds.

The Bill builds off of this recommendation by creating a central delivery team for freight zero emission vehicle infrastructure at the CEC and CTC testifying in support of the Bill. Today, I have Megan Meckleberg representing Calstart. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and Members. Megan Meckleberg here. On behalf of Calstart, a global nonprofit organization dedicated to the advancement of the zero emission vehicle and infrastructure technologies, we want to thank Senator Gonzalez for her continued leadership when it comes to zero emission vehicles, especially in the medium and heavy duty space. As you all know, short and long term planning for the infrastructure is essential for California to meet its climate goals and ZEB deployment goals.

The creation of the zero emission Freight central delivery team would encourage greater coordination among state agencies and result in best practices and recommendations to expedite infrastructure development to ensure the state can meet the needs of medium and heavy duty ZEV fleets. SB 934 also ensures that there will be a coordinated workforce, which will be necessary for long term sustainability of ZEV infrastructure and the freight industry more broadly. For these reasons, Calstart also asks for your support.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses here in the Committee hearing who would like to testify in support of the measure? If so, please come forward. State your name, your organization and your position.

Good afternoon, chair Members. Bernie Seimence-Krieger, on behalf of the California Trucking Association, in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the measure? Seeing none. Let's come back to the dais.

Yes.

I've got a motion for Senator Archuleta. Members, any questions or comments for Senator Gonzalez or her witness.

If I may.

You may. Senator Archuleta.

If I may, read a comment, because I studied your Bill and I appreciate what you're doing. And as you know, I am the chair of the Select Committee on Hydrogen Energy. I'm always pushing for investments in our zero emissions infrastructure. I think the delivery team created in this Bill will ensure investments in zero emissions infrastructure are timely and being installed in the best locations. And for these reasons, and I'm happy to support the Bill, and I would also like to be a co author and never forget our hydrogen. That's in that realm as well. Thank you.

Indeed, the most abundant element. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? No, I'm seeing none. Would you like to close?

I had no idea that some. Senator Archuleta was so enthused about hydrogen. I'm just kidding. But, Mister chair, I just respectfully asked for an I vote. And I thank Megan for being here as well in her testimony. Thank you.

Very good. Madame Gonzale, please call the roll.

This is file item number 12, SB 934. The motion is do pass. And we refer to the Committee on Energy, Utilities and communications. Senators Cortese, Senators Niello. Allen.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has six votes. Four, three against. We'll leave it on call. What is next, Senator Allen? All right, Senator Allen, I believe you're next with SB 1297. Welcome to your witnesses. You may proceed when you are ready.

Well, thank you, Mister interim chair.

Thank you.

Members, this is a Bill relating to some of the same issues that came up in the discussion over Senator Stern's Bill. Though it's a different Bill and different remedy. Let me just start by accepting the Committee's amendments. I want to thank the chair and the Committee staff, especially Mister Chin, for working closely with my office on this Bill. Many of you know the wide open and winding Pacific Coast highway. It's one of the most famous and picturesque roadways in the world.

It draws millions of visitors to the small beach City of Malibu every year. But every couple of months, literally every couple of months, and sometimes more frequently than that, the community is devastated by yet another fatal traffic accident, with all sorts of serious crashes and near misses interspersed in between.

One of the more recent nights of tragedy in our community happened on October 17, 2023 when a young man speeding at 104 mph on PCH in Malibu lost control of his vehicle and he killed four young Pepperdine University students who were standing on the road side of the highway. The wild thing is, since Michelle's daughter, Emily was killed back in 2010 one of our students, when I was on the school board in Santa Monica, Malibu.

Since then, 60 people have been killed just in this one town alone, on this one road. And the crazy thing is, we have had to update these talking points. We've had to increase the numbers several times, as we have sent in various documents relating to this Bill. The author statement, the fact sheet, because most recently, the pedestrian was struck by a vehicle on March 29, 2023. Crash data from LA County sheriff reports 127 property damage collisions, 93 injury collisions, seven deaths that year.

And a primary factor in every one of these incidents was high vehicle speed. So the whole City of Malibu has about 10,000 people, and yet it's in the top 25 small cities in the country with regards to worst crash fatality rates in the country, fatality rates for crashes.

So among 100 similarly sized California cities in 2021, the Office of Traffic Safety ranked Malibu number one in total injuries and fatalities, number one in pedestrian injuries and fatalities, number one in speed related injuries and fatalities, number one in motorcycle injuries and fatalities, and third in bicycle injuries and fatalities in the state. NHTSA, The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, reports that in 2022 alone, traffic accidents killed over 4400 Californians.

According to our National Transportation Safety Board, speeding is a factor in a third of all traffic fatalities. The faster a car is traveling, the greater the risk of serious injury or death. A pedestrian struck by a vehicle traveling only 40 miles an hour has an 80% chance of death. Now, one proven way of slowing folks down is automatic speed camera enforcement. The NTSB, the Centers for Disease Control, the Federal Highway Administration, they've all recommended using speed safety cameras to enforce speed limits.

Speed cameras are even an authorized expenditure under the federal Infrastructure Investment Jobs act. Our FHA, the Federal Highway Administration data, shows speed cameras reduced crashes on urban streets by 54%. An NTSB review of speed camera programs around the world found cameras to be an effective tool in reducing fatal collisions. So this Bill, as amended, will create a speed camera pilot program for PCH in Malibu, just as one road in one city modeled significantly on the Bill that we all passed last year, Assemblymember Friedman's legislation.

The amendments you see in front of you may look significant, but they copy most of the language from last year's legislation, and they were done with that spirit from the Committee. The amends include some privacy and equity and reporting requirements as last year's legislation, the same ones as last year's legislation. There are two specific changes for the City of Malibu. First, the city so it goes further for the City of Malibu. They have to post speed feedback signs at each camera location.

These are the signs that show drivers their speed as they approach. Second, the city has to maintain its existing contracting with CHP and the LA sheriffs for patrols, and the city has agreed to do that. So, Members, it was just a devastating time for us in the Malibu community going through yet another series of fatalities. This moment, where these four wonderful young women were mowed down, I think became a really important inflection point.

We know that this Bill can make a difference in preventing more unnecessary deaths. Along the Pacific coast highway in Malibu, reducing speed is imperative to saving lives and speed safety cameras make this possible. So here today, I have two gentlemen who are bonded together, as none of us ever hope to be. They're both fathers of who's lost their girls on the PCH. So we have, first, Barry Stewart, father of Peyton Stewart, one of the Pepperdine University students killed last year. Michael Shane.

Michelle Shane, who you heard from earlier, whose daughter Emily was killed in 2010 on the PCH. He's also the producer of the powerful documentary 21 miles in Malibu. And let's start with you, Mister Stewart.

Okay. Good afternoon, chair and Members of the Committee. Thanks for letting me testify in support of SB 1297. As Senator Allen said, I'm Barry Stewart. My daughter Peyton, was one of the four Pepperdine students killed on PCH Malibu. Their photos are in front of me. Peyton's think this one? Yep. No, that's not her. She's here. Deslynn, Asha and Nev, they were all very good friends, sorority mates. All had a bright future ahead of them. This is a needless tragedy.

It's left me, Peyton's mother, our younger daughter, with unspeakable and permanent hole in our lives. The same is true of her three classmates and their families. These young women were standing on the sidewalk in a residential area. And I stress, residential on PCH Malibu, where a 22 year old Malibu resident driving 104 miles an hour in his mom's BMW M5, mowed them down. The speed limit there is 45, which itself is unsafe.

The LA Sheriff's Department tells me that speeds over 60 miles an hour in this residential area are commonplace. Some people drive over 100 miles an hour in that residential area every weekend, as was told to me by captain Setu of the LA Sheriff's Department. So guess what happens? 60 people have been killed in PCH Malibu since 2010, most of them in a roughly two mile stretch, including the so-called dead man's curb, where my daughter died.

Sheriff's Department stats indicate excessive speed is the primary cause of these deaths and injuries. Since Peyton died, I've attended meetings with CalTrans and City of Malibu elected officials who told me safety is our number one priority. By enabling electronic speed enforcement and providing safeguards against its misuse, this Bill indisputably supports the government's responsibility to safeguard law-abiding motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians in other jurisdictions. These systems have been proven effective, efficient, and implicit partial. They work around the clock. They're inexpensive, they don't discriminate.

They ticket all the drivers exceeding the limit by a preset amount, and they don't ticket all the other drivers. They change behavior. Once drivers know they'll be automatically fined for speeding, they slow down. Some say that electronic enforcement will cost law enforcement jobs. That concern is unfounded. Again, the LA Sheriff's Department, Malibu, has funding to hire more deputies, but they can't get enough candidates in LA County deputies are retiring faster than they can be replaced.

Electronic enforcement would free scarce personnel to handle other offenses, the ones that require actual live deputies. This Bill is California legislators opportunity to save lives without harming anyone and without curbing the freedom of any, any law abiding Californians. I implore you to support this Bill so future families avoid the agony my family, Michelle's family, and 58 other families of people killed on PCH Malibu have experienced since 2010. I respectfully ask the Committee to move forward SB 1297. Thank you.

Thank you both for being here again. Yeah, go, sir. oh, I apologize. You didn't. No, no problem. Sorry.

Thank you again. I'm here today to share my heartbreaking story of loss, grief, and devastation caused by reckless driving. My name is Michel Shane. I'm a resident of Malibu, a father of three children, a filmmaker. 14 years ago, my beloved daughter Emily was cruelly taken away from us in senseless traffic violence incidents caused by a speeding driver on PCH.

Emily was just 13 years old, full of life and promise. When she was cut short, the pain and devastation followed her death was immeasurable. Our family, her school, her community were all deeply affected by her loss. One of Emily's friends, who was just 13 at the time, struggled with guilt and grief for years, forever marked by this loss of her best friend. No one should have to experience the trauma of losing a child or friend to reckless drive. This is not an accident.

It was a deliberate choice by a reckless driver who prioritized speeding over human life. His callous disregard for the law and human life resulted in the loss of an innocent young girl, leaving a void that will never be filled. Since Emily's tragic death in 2010, there have been 170 fatal fatalities, severe injuries to passengers and drivers, pedestrians along PCH and Malibu with speeding is the primary factor in nearly every case.

The CHP has issued 727 speeding citations along PCH in Malibu in the last three months, highlighting the urgency of the matter. From April 2010 to now, 60 people have died in Malibu alone due to reckless driving. While efforts have been made to improve safety along PCH over the year, more needs to be done. That's why I firmly support Senator Allen's Bill, SB 1297, which proposes establishing a pilot program for automated speed enforcement along portions of PCH.

Such systems have been proven effective in reducing speeding, resulting in fewer collisions and saving lives. I urge you, esteemed Members of the Committee, to recognize the urgent need for this legislation. Look at the data, hear the stories, do what is right to protect the lives of our most vulnerable citizens. The time for action is now. I respectfully ask you to support SB 1297. Together we can make our roads safer, save lives, and you'll never have to walk in either Barry or my shoes. Thank you again.

Thank you both for being here and under emotional circumstances, to say the least. Are there others in the Committee room who wish to express the support? Position, name, affiliation and support, please?

Good afternoon, Senators. I'm Doug Stewart, mayor pro tem, City of Malibu. We fully support this. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Steve McClary, City of Malibu City Manager. And again, the City of Malibu strongly urges your support of this Bill. We appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

Hi, everyone. Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy. We are tweeners on this Bill. No opposition to the Bill. We just wanted to make the statement that AB 645 was negotiated with a number of advocates for a number of years. I believe it was over three different legislation, legislative sessions.

We're not taking testimony from at this point, just name, affiliation and position.

Well, we are tweeners, so we're just trying to express the concern that the legislative negotiations were ample and lengthy and that we don't want to see this Bill become the first of many changes to that agreement.

Thank you. The proper process is to let us know you want to speak as an oppositional witness so that the Committee knows that's happening. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify in opposition? I'm sorry? In support? I don't believe we have a lead opposition witness, do we? Then I will call anyone, any witnesses who wish to express an opposition position, name, affiliation and opposition. At this time, seeing none, we'll come back to the Committee. Committee Members, comments, questions. Senator Newman.

So glad it's worth the Bill. I really I just want to say I'm always just amazed that people who've experienced such loss can turn that loss into advocacy. And we thank you for it. I'm glad to support it. It's very brave.

Thank you, Senator Newman, Senator Seyarto and Senator Niello, in that order.

Thank you. Question for the author. The previous studies that were supposed to be done, what are the results from that? There was supposed to be another pilot project for this.

Oh, you mean from the Friedman Bill.

Right.