Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

The Transportation Committee will come to order. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome. We do have a large agenda today with 17 measures on the agenda. I know with some of these measures, there are a lot of supporters and a lot of opponents. So we can complete today's work on a timely basis. We're going to have time limits on testimony. Most of you are used to that. The two primary witnesses for each side will be allowed two minutes each.

For all others wishing to testify, please limit your comments to your name, affiliation and position on the measures. Let's establish a quorum Committee assistant, please call the roll.

Senators Cortese.

Here.

Cortese here. Niello. Niello here. Alan. Alan here. Archuleta. Blakespear. Blakespear here. Dahle. Dahle here. Dodd. Gonzalez. Laird. Laird here. Limon. Newman. Nguyen. Portantino. Portantino here. Seyarto. Seyarto here. Umberg. Senator Dodd is here as well.

All right, we do have a quorum. Before we hear from authors, a couple of announcements. Item 12, SB 1276 by Senator Archuleta, is off. We will not be hearing that today. We also have two measures proposed for consent today. The proposed consent items are item three, file item three, which is SB 1285 by Senator Laird, and file item 11, SB 1158, by Senator Archuleta. Does any Member wish to remove either of those items from consent? If not, can I get a motion for consent?

The motion from Senator Dodd. Can we get a roll call on the motion, please?

This is the consent calendar. Senators Cortese.

Aye.

Cortese aye. Niello. Niello aye. Allen. Allen aye. Archuleta. Blakespear. Blakespear aye. Dahle. Dodd. Gonzalez. Dodd aye. Laird. Laird aye. Limon. Newman. Nguyen. Portantino. Portantino aye. Seyarto. Seyarto aye. Umberg. 81.

So there's eight aye votes, and we'll leave the consent calendar on call. Now let's go to our first author. The file item number one is SB 898. Skinner. Senator Skinner, please come forward and you may present when ready.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, the bill will have these author amendments that the uv window filtering will now apply to specified large trucks and bus driver side windows, not to passenger car and trucks. And the effective date is moved to 2032. So those are the amendments. So why am I introduced? This bill, SB 898, deals with the fact that in our vehicles, the windshields have UV filtering, but the rest of of the windows the do not.

And as a result of the lack of UV filtering on all other windows in a car, we have an interesting phenomenon of a large occurrence of left side skin cancers. So in the US, it's left side skin cancers because the driver, it is their left side. So this can be on their face, their arm, that is on facing that window that does not have this filtering. This same phenomena occurs in Australia, but on the right side.

So it is a factor of the lack of UV filtering. Now, if we were to add this UV filtering to all of the windows on all vehicles in the US, we would avoid 200,000 cases of skin cancer a year. 200,000 cases. So this bill is a health protection measure, a consumer protection measure. But with the amendments, it will now primarily protect those folks who drive for a living.

But I hope as time goes on, that other members, and maybe the car manufacturers themselves, will add this UV filtering to all of our windows to protect all the passengers in a car or in a vehicle and all the drivers. Let me have my witnesses for support. Oh, let me just make this other point. There are two researchers. They will not be my main witnesses, but they'll probably be add ons as me, too, and support.

But these two researchers were diagnosed with left side skin cancer, which caused them to begin to research this. So they are two of the main researchers that have added to our body of knowledge about this factor, that the lack of UV screening on windows is causing these cancers.

But meanwhile, allow me to have Louis Costa, from the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation workers to testify, as well as Dr. Christopher Zachary, who is a professor and chair emeritus of the Department of Dermatology at UC Irvine.

Please come forward. You can come on in. Thank you. You may proceed in whichever order you prefer. And you'll have a couple minutes each. Thank you for being here.

Thank you very much, Senator Cortese and colleagues. As I said, I'm professor and chair emeritus of the Department of Dermatology at UC Irvine. I'm an academic dermatologist. In fact, the last 26 years I've been at UCSF and UC Irvine, and I'm an expert in skin cancer and melanoma, having treated about 20,000 cases of skin cancer, including about 3000 melanomas. I actually had skin cancer myself, left side of my face, and my daughter had melanoma.

And I'm sorry to say that many of you are likely to get skin cancer, or maybe you've already had skin cancer in your lives, and you probably know a few people who have had melanoma and might have passed from it. The cause of melanoma is complex, and it's not all UVA. I just want you to understand this. But UVA is an important factor in the development of this, particularly in this country.

Peer reviewed journals from the NIH, from the American Academy of Dermatology, the American Medical Association, the British Association of Dermatologists have consistently confirmed a left sided predominance of melanoma as being a real phenomenon. Sadly, skin cancer kills, and especially melanoma, which tends to spread to the lungs, the liver, the bone, the brain, and it is a difficult way to pass, in fact, particularly since it would be possibly prevented by an avoidance of UVA at risk of those who drive for extended periods, particularly truck drivers.

Their left side of the bodies is subject to 200% more UVA light than the right side. UVA blocking glass is available. Some vehicles already have it. If we use this on all vehicles in the US, it would virtually eliminate skin cancer related vehicle related to vehicle transportation. That would be 200,000 cases in the US and about 4000 deaths by melanoma. The fact is that there will be a reduction in skin cancer if UA UVA blocking technology is installed. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon, Chairman Cortese, committee members, Louis Costa with Smart Transportation Division, proud sponsor of SB 898. As Senator Skinner stated, SB 9898 will require new trucks and buses sold in California to have driver side window protects us 98% of the UV rays to protect our operators and truck drivers from the consistent exposure. Smart Transportation Division represents thousands of bus operators in California, along with all the other tens of thousands of operators and truckers. Protecting the health of our members is the most top priority.

Our members, as part of their daily jobs, operate buses and other vehicles for many hours a day, while the average American only drives or sits behind the wheel 55 minutes a day. A truck driver or a bus operator could be there upwards of 600 minutes a day, greatly increasing their exposure to uv radiation and the associated risk of skin cancers. Some of our members, both during a lengthy career and after retirement, have developed skin cancer.

The exposure from the unprotected driver's side window was undoubtedly a factor in those cases and presents a continuous health risk. To our operators over the rest of their lives.

By requiring vehicle manufacturers to create simple filtering on the driver's side, SB 898 will provide much needed protection for these essential workers out there, providing essential service to other California workers day in and day out, and they'll protect them from the ultraviolet radiation of the sun. We want to thank Senator Skinner for bringing this legislation forward. We thank you, Mr. Chairman of your committee, for their work. We thank the committee for hearing us today, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there others in the committee room wish to come forward with a support position?

Mr. Chairman and members, Scott Wetch, on behalf of the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers and the State Association of Electrical Workers, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Don Schinske, on behalf of the California Society of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, in support.

Zong Lore with the California School Employees Association, in support.

Hello, Scott Brent with the Smart Transportation Division here representing 36 locals throughout California, 7600 members and we are in support. Thank you.

Helmer Lazardi, on behalf of the California Labor Federation, in support.

All right, thank you. We do have a primary opposition witness? Curt Augustine, I believe. Would you come forward? Welcome again. You'll have a couple minutes?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hello.

My name is Curt Augustine. I'm the senior director of government affairs for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the trade association of the auto industry, as well as many of the technology providers for automobiles. We still maintain an opposed position to the bill, but do appreciate the efforts that the center has made to removing passenger car vehicles out of the. But our main issue is the definitions are a little vague and it would, I think unintendedly still include many of the larger pickup trucks based on weight.

And we would like to work with the committee and the chair to fix this. So we focus the exemptions on what I believe is the Senator's intent to do that. There is also still some concern as well, depending on how that could be worked out, having to produce a California only type of vehicle. And that's going to be somewhat unworkable. And again, there are some extended concerns with the thicker glass about law enforcement and first responders being able to do that.

I think this can be worked out. But again, we are seeking those tighter definitions to really implement the vision that this senator is espousing. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Are there others in the committee room who wish to come forward, forward and express an opposition position? Seeing none, we will come back to the committee at this point. Yes, Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have some questions. Starting off with the statistics, the staff report indicates that 53% of skin cancers occur on the left side of the body. That means 47% do not. That's not exactly an overwhelming proof, frankly, of anything. That's a pretty relatively even distribution of the occurrence. And then further, while you cited the, it was an Australian study, or was it New Zealand where they drive on the other side of the street?

Well, it was in the, I used Australia as the example, but in all countries where the driving is on the opposite side as to how we drive, they find the same kind of pattern of occurrence of skin cancer on their right side versus the left side.

Not according to the staff report. It says that, however, no studies have conclusively proven this link. In fact, a more recent study of thousands of cases found that melanoma was more commonly found on the left side of the body in the US and in England, Finland, the Netherlands, Scotland and even Australia. So I'm wondering why there appears to be this overwhelming proof when the statistical distribution is not that convincing.

And then conflicting studies where they do drive on the wrong side of the street, excuse me, the other side of the street, still the predominant side of the occurrence, is the same as in the US.

Well, I can't speak to the exact citation of the staff's report. There are, however, studies that have shown the correlation that I described, but additionally, the left side, if we're talking about the pattern of left side, that is the driver. Right? And so, while my bill. Now, my bill originally was for all windows, because I was trying to protect everybody, but it makes sense for drivers who. People who drive for a living to be protected, especially because they're going to be in a car more.

However, as the passenger, you are still, if you're in the car just as much as any driver or your kids, then they are getting that UV through whatever side of the car they're sitting in. So if they're in a car for a long time. So this may address why the discrepancy on, you know, that left side may not be as dominant, because, again, it would be. You are getting this uv through any window now, other than the windshield in most vehicles. Not all.

Some vehicles have the tinting everywhere, but not all.

That's interesting speculation. The problem is, I don't see where the data proves it, particularly the. Now, one could say that the 53, 47 distribution of right side, left side is because all of it's caused by people being in vehicles, and therefore there's going to be a certain incident of passengers being inflicted also. But I don't see anywhere in here or in your information, proof that this is causation, other than it seems to be based upon physical evidence.

And the problem is that we're having a significant impact on the production of vehicles, which might end up likely affecting the rest of the country, also increasing the cost of vehicles for something that appears to me to be tenuously supported by the evidence.

Well, you will note that I did not assert that all skin cancers come from this factor.

Precisely my point.

But the point is that there is a higher incident of the left side cancers. And again, there's, you know, I could pull up, we could have a little, you know, data fight about, you know, how many studies there are and how many. Right. But basically, the literature that my staff and I reviewed and that are witnesses, including the dermatologist and the Dermatological Association, and plus the researchers that are here shows this correlation.

Now, will this in any way, and let's say we are, let's say my bill was back to all windows, would it eliminate skin cancer? No, I would never assert that. But I think we mistakenly think that somehow we're safe in our cars. We realize, well, not everyone uses their sunblock. I think we've all had enough warnings that if we're outside and in the sun, that we should be using at least SPF 30 to protect ourselves from skin cancer.

But we may not even think about that when we are in a vehicle, and it is already the fact that this uv protection is in windshield windshields. So this would add it for only certain classes of vehicles that are usually driven by people who work for a living to just that driver side window.

I'm still skeptical of the data.

All right, thank you, Senators. Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. I appreciate the bill. I recognize it's been skinny down, but it seems like it's still a benefit and maybe it will expand later or it will happen automatically when car manufacturers decide to do that for safety reasons. I wanted to just ask you to clarify for me what is the relationship between making it UV protective and the tempered glass, or the type of shattering that happens in the windshield so that it falls into little blocks instead of it being in sharp shards?

I just wanted to understand if there's a corresponding reduction in safety from having uv protection or if there's no effect.

There are some. Some auto glass with UV protection is difficult to break. And so there have been some safety concerns that if the standard were to be the kind that is difficult to break, that you are, that we would be creating another unintended consequence of less safety. So we're trying to achieve that balance of providing the UV protection while still ensuring that safety to be able to, if you have to break the window to get out, that you can still do that.

Right. But so I understand what you're saying about it being more difficult to break, but when it is broken, is it the safety glass or is it the less safe when second glass, the question. Of it being tempered glass. Right. I just don't know if everyone knows the definition of tempered, you know? Yeah. In little blocks. Yeah.

I was going to address this bust out.

Apologies.

Oh, it's okay.

Ask the science fellow. The kind of glass, the kind of UV protection we're specifying would allow for the window to be broke, in effect, not into shards, but in effect, in one piece.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, Senator Seyarto.

Kind of along those lines. If you've ever tried to break out or punch out a windshield, you'll find you can't, you can stick a pickaxe through it and it'll just make a little hole. And it takes a lot of energy and a lot of effort to try and get that window out. That's why generally, unless the window has been popped out by major trauma to the car, we don't usually try to use the front window if we don't have time.

If we have time, we can do it, but a lot of times we don't have time. I'm talking ems and public safety. This side window, those windows, you can simply take out a little punch, tap it, and the window falls into little beads and falls out of the way. And when that's important is when you do have car fires associated with an overturned vehicle or something like that, if the window isn't broken out, or a lot of times it'll break out already.

And that gives them an escape path. The issues I'm concerned about is if it doesn't break out and it just stays in one sheet and a person is trying to get out, and that's their only escape path, what do they have to go through?

Because they only have a couple seconds before the smoke overwhelms them to get themselves out, and much less when we get there or when law enforcement or fire get there, and they go through the process of trying to figure out how to extract a person, especially under duress like that. So I guess my question for the persons who are going to manufacture and place these into the side windows, is this going to affect the ability of that side window to break into the little beads?

Because that's where we're going first, because there's always a driver or is it going to hold it into a sheet?

So it is not without the bounds of the motor manufacturers to actually do this in a manner that won't put much weight on the car, would hardly cost any more, maybe $0. And yet it has the impact to help a lot of people.

Now, according to the staff report, which had one paper in which it compared melanoma in England, Scotland and several European countries where, by the way, they drive on the right, it was a small numbers and we should be looking at something like the Sears report, with 100,000 patients still be able to get the support. What we're looking at here is actually, we gave the minimum numbers, we said a 5% difference between those who get melanoma with Uva and those who don't.

It's probably a lot more than that. It's probably more like 15%. And in any event, I would say. I would suggest that we look at the papers with much larger numbers.

I have a question for him. Follow up?

Yeah, that's fine. I want to just make sure the Q and A... I know you have a desire to answer all the questions that have been asked that you've heard, but we need to keep it just to the...

Thank you for that.

To the current question. And, you know, in the interest of time and efficiency.

So I can quickly understand that laminate versus. So the Federal Transportation Safety Board has recently released something indicating that a laminated glass can be safer for escape purposes. So there obviously still lots of research being done on that. But in crafting the amendments and in designing it, we were aware of the safety concern and did and are doing our best to address it based on the research that is available.

Okay, thank you. In your studies, did it also discern between people who drive? Because a lot of people drive with their windows rolled down and their arm hanging out. When I'm driving and the sun is shining, I use the thing to keep the sun off my face. If I'm driving with my top down or something like that, I always have sunscreen on. So there's a lot of human factors that people can do to go ahead and address those issues.

And in fact, at work, when we're out in the sun and we're going out, we have to put sunscreen on. That's part of our safety protocol. So there are some jobs where there is a safety protocol. There is nothing that will protect us if we roll the window down. And so it just seems like there's a lot going on here that probably doesn't have to go on at all.

I think the industries themselves, because when their workers get sick, they usually respond with new protocols for workers that are either driving or being exposed. And I think that's where this kind of lays is it's in the purview of the person driving and the people working. If we start modifying vehicles away from quick access, then we're going to have issues. But there's also, you know, we have the screening devices. Have you studied those to see if they adequately block the UV rays from devices?

When you say the screening devices, what specifically are you talking about?

Well, there's devices you can put on. They have little suction cups.

Oh, I see. It's noted. I'm sure it cuts down on the amount of UVA. And I will tell you that that is noticed in the papers. But no, they have not specifically looked at that. What I would say is let's not look at the northern climes where the sun doesn't shine. Let's look in this country, particularly in the south where there's a lot of UVB, UVA to look at the relative...

I look at Southern California, that's where I grew up. And it shines a lot down there.

Down here. But in Finland, for instance, or wherever, or in northern England, as you know, I was brought up in a country where the sun doesn't shine.

Okay.

We won't ask you to go any further.

That's all. You know, that's all. I'm fine, thank you.

Anybody else?

Mr. Chair, I just was wondering if Mr. Augustine might have anything to add to our discussions.

Yeah, I can address Senator Seyarto's question. Under the proposal, the window, driver's side window would be like the windshield and it would have that same challenge of breaking into it. So that's spot on. And that's where our concern is, is under the way the language is currently drafted, there are many pickups that would be, are sold today that would have to meet this qualification.

So the exemption is not as broad as... There are regular size pickup trucks that would be required under this bill to meet this standard. So that would create two different standards within the country and would cause a lot of different design problems with the doors and all that. And not to mention the glass issue.

Excuse me, hold on. The bill does not specify that that side window on the vehicles that we've now amended would affect has to be the exact type of same glass of the windshield. It can be tempered. So I want to put that in the record. That is the way the bill is designed. So, to Mr. Augustine's point, it is not the fact that the bill is written to require.

I'm going to bring it back to the Committee. There's no other questions on the floor, so we're done with questions and answers. And to the author, I appreciate you working with the Committee. This bill has gone through significant iterations and amendments already, and I trust that you can confirm that you'll be, you'll continue to work on these issues. I think I've heard you say that in your presentation.

Yes.

That's our understanding here amongst the Chair and Committee staff.

Yes.

All right, thank you, and you're welcome to close.

Appreciate your aye vote.

Thank you. We'll ask the Assistant to call the roll call, please. Do we have a motion? Do we have a motion? Thank you, Senator Archuleta.

This is file item number one. The motion is do passed and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, the vote is four to three, and we'll keep the bill on call. Thank you. Next up, we have file item two, Senator Laird. Welcome. You may present when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm presenting Senate Bill 930, which establishes the Memorial Highway Signage Fund to promote equity in memorial highway designations. Last year, I had a resolution to name a highway in California for one of our late colleagues who had been a Legislator on the Central Coast. I thought it would be a good idea if I got co-authors of everybody still in the Legislature that served with him.

And I had trouble for a while getting everybody to sign on because, of the 642 memorial highways or transportation structures in the state, 82% are named for men. And as a result, there are some Members that aren't enthusiastic about stretching that inequity further. So what this bill does is set up a fund, because signs can cost between eight and $10,000, and for some that may not be attainable. And then we move to try to get toward equity in the naming.

And this does not mean we don't name, continue to name, transportation items for fallen officers or others that are men. It means that we have a process for equity to try to move up and make sure that, over time, we catch up. Because we all know, whether it's Sally Ride, the first woman to walk into space, or Dianne Feinstein, the longest serving us Senator in history, or Maya Angelou, noted author, that there are plenty of qualified people we should honor as we move toward that equity.

I want to be clear that I want to thank the Committee staff for working with my office on this. I will be accepting the Committee amendments clarifying that the Legislature should determine if a highway naming should draw from the established fund rather than Caltrans. As the bill continues through to the Assembly, I'll work with both policy committees to ensure alignment. Were having conversations with Caltrans and we'll work on funding separately from this bill. So this bill has no costs. The bill has no registered opposition. I would respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I have no lead witness.

All right. No lead support witness. Is there anyone in the room who wishes to express a support position? Seeing no one come forward. Are there any opposition witnesses? Seeing no one come forward. We are going to bring it back to the Committee. Yes, Senator Dodd.

I'll move the bill at the appropriate time.

Senator Seyarto.

Yeah. My concern about the bill is that currently it's pretty much fallen officers that get honored on a memorial thing. I, frankly, personally don't believe that it needs to be extended to public officials or other people that should be just singled out to be on a highway thing. There's plenty of other memorials that can be done that way. As far as the racial and gender equity, we're doing a section of freeway down in our area.

It was after Darnell Calhoun, who was a black officer from my city that was shot and killed last year. Up by Davis, that section is named after a female officer who was killed up there. So I think that's kind of because there's been not as many females in those lines of work. I think that issue is kind of separating itself out. But I really hesitate to start naming every structure after every person.

You know, not every person, but people that we're going to single out as symbolic of greatness. Hopefully, that's not what any of us are here for. I certainly, if that ever happened in my city, I would raise up out of my grave and go speak out against it, and so don't even try it someday. So, anyway, I'll be laying off your bill today. I'd rather this just be for the officers that patrol our streets and highways and die in the line of duty. Thank you.

All right. Seeing no other request to speak, we do have a motion from Senator Dodd. And we'll call the...

Mr. Chair, could I close?

I'm sorry. Yes, you can.

Thank you. Because I would like to just make the comment that the cat is out of the bag. If you are in my district, the Watsonville freeway is named after Oscar Rios, a former mayor. The highway is named after Henry Mello, a former state senator. Bizz Johnson has a highway named for him that is in Sonoma. Frank Belotti, a former Assembly Member, has a highway name for him. And I imagine if I had a list, I could get easily to a substantial number.

And so there are numbers of highways named for people that were not fallen officers, firefighters, or Caltrans workers. And we do need a process to have equity in that. And I get the fact that, maybe next year, when we finally have a majority of women in the State Senate, we will finally get to the point that we will have more eligible candidates for equity if we name it for legislators. But I think that this inequity is felt acutely by the Members of the Legislature and people that are in the 18% and not the 82%. This gives a good process. I ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you, Senator. Appreciate your work on this. And the motion by Senator Dodd is do pass as amended to Approps. I'm sorry, that's the wrong bill. It would be do pass. It is do pass as amended to Approps. That's where both your bills are going to end up.

Well, no, they're not going to end up there. They're just going there next.

We'll see. We wish you the best, of course. Assistant, go ahead and call the roll, please.

This is file item number two, SB 930. [Roll Call]

All right, the vote is 72. We'll keep the Bill on call. Thank you. Item four is next up, Senator Wiener on SB 960. Welcome, and you can proceed whenever you're ready, Senator.

Thank you very much, Mister chair. I'm here today to present SB 960. I think a few of you, Senator Porntino and Senator Dodd, may remember this is a. We did a similar version of this Bill when we all first arrived in the Senate. Worked on it for a few years, and we're continuing the work today. SB 960. Will require Caltrans to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety as well as public transportation on our state highway system. And the focus of this Bill is the state highway system.

That any normal person would just say that's a city surface street. That's the real focus of the Bill. We are in a traffic safety crisis. About 4000 Californians die every year on our roads, and many of them are pedestrians. Many of them are drivers and they're cyclists. And we have 1100 pedestrians who die just because they're walking on our streets. Our state owned roads, many of which function as main streets even in local communities, are all too often quite dangerous.

Many lack sidewalks, many lack crosswalks, any kind of bike infrastructure, and many facilitate high speeds. These local streets often host important backbone public transportation lines in our community, where buses are stuck in traffic and not prioritized in any way, where people are waiting for the bus in a situation that's not very safe. In 2019, after several years of work, the Legislature passed a Bill that I authored, SB 127.

That Bill would have required Caltrans, as the owner and operator of these state owned roads, to implement bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements as it was repaving and rehabilitating these roads. The Governor did veto SB 127 that year, but directed Caltrans to develop policies to accomplish these goals. Caltrans issued such a policy. Unfortunately, in the last five years, that policy has all too often not been followed, and so it's time to put this policy in legislation.

We still see many local street projects on our state roadway system in the State of good repair program, the shop that are just exempted by Caltrans from the policy. So they're doing the work, they're doing the rehabilitation and not putting these safety features in place while they do that project. In addition, the Department is not taking stock of transit priority facilities like bus lanes through its asset management program or setting performance targets for transit priority improvements.

Public transportation is a key part of a complete street, and Caltrans should be doing more to make transit more effective and accessible to riders. SB 960 seeks to increase Caltrans investments in bike and pedestrian improvements and direct the Department to start planning for and systematically investing in transit priority improvements on the state highway system.

The Bill does so by requiring all shop projects, starting with the 2026 shop to include pedestrian and bike improvements and for projects commencing with the 2028 shop to also include transit priority improvements. SB 960 requires engagement with local communities, especially underserved communities, in the development of these projects. The Bill does not require such vulnerable road user improvements on portions of the state highway system, where access to pedestrians and bicyclists is legally prohibited, what we would traditionally think of as a freeway.

Nor does it require the implementation of a pedestrian or bike facility that would cause a substantial, unavoidable safety risk to pedestrians or bicyclists. The Bill will also require Caltrans to develop by 2026 a transit priority policy. And finally, SB 960 requires Caltrans to establish a dedicated project intake, review and approval process for jurisdictions, including cities and transit agencies, that are trying to implement complete street projects on the state right of way or facilities that are intersecting with the state right of way.

Our colleagues time has come for the state to play its part in improving safety on our streets. SB 960 will do that, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote with me today to testify and support are Jeannie Ward Waller, representing the California Bike Coalition, and Danita Stromgren with AARP.

Welcome to the support witnesses. You'll have a couple minutes each and proceed in whichever order you like.

Good afternoon. My name is Danita Stromgren and I'm an AARP Member volunteer and also happen to be a resident of District three at the City of Davis. Thank you chair Kurtazzi and Members of the Committee, for allowing me to speak today on behalf of the 3.2 million AARP California Members. Traffic related deaths and injuries are a severe public health crisis impacting older Californians, basically for two reasons. The first is safety.

Pedestrians age 65 and older are more likely to die or be seriously injured in traffic violence, especially on streets that do not have complete street improvements like protected bike lanes and high visibility crosswalks. The second reason is health and well being. Older adults thrive when they can safely walk, bike and take public transportation, and studies have shown that active transportation communities with complete street investments have increased life expectancies, reduced healthcare costs and end up with happier residents.

For these reasons, AARP was proud to sponsor California's first complete street act in 2008. However, six years 16 years later, we're disappointed to see the lack of progress in making our neighborhoods safer and healthier through meaningful active transportation investments. SB 960 is urgently needed not only to address where we are now, but where we are headed. By 2031, in four Californians will be over 60. For those of us who aren't there yet, we all will be there at 1.0.

What we're doing now clearly is keeping our state maintained roadways safer for older adults. SB 90060's complete street requirement is necessary for state agencies to prepare for a safe, healthy future for generations of older adults to come. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of AARP's Members in California in support of SB 960, and we ask for a unanimous aye vote.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. I'm Jeanie Ward-Waller with fearless advocacy on behalf of Calbike, one of the co sponsors of SB 960. As you've heard, we face an alarming rise in roadway fatalities as well as a climate emergency caused by an overreliance on personal vehicles. To address these crises, we urgently need a stronger mandate for Caltrans to build a comfortable, convenient, multimodal system. SB 960 requires Caltrans to implement their own policy and plans for walk, bike and transit priority facilities on the state highway system.

Caltrans adopted its first complete streets policy in 2008, and all 12 districts completed active transportation plans in 2021. Based on these plans, Caltrans identified 15 billion in need for walk and bike facilities on the system and set a target to invest 3 billion over the next 10 years in those facilities. However, despite ambitious policy and planning, Caltrans has a long way to go before their investments in projects reflect these goals.

Calbike investigated the 2024 shop, the State Highway Operation and Protection Program, which is Caltrans 21 billion investment in maintenance and rehab projects over the next four years. We found that 600 projects in the 2024 shop will only add 215 miles of bike lanes and 30 miles of sidewalk compared to Caltrans targets. That's less than 8% of the target to build bike lanes and 2% of the sidewalk target that will get built in the next four years.

Caltrans is even further behind in identifying and implementing transit priority. These projects have the potential to get buses out of traffic, make service more reliable and attract riders out of personal vehicles. However, Caltrans developed a policy last year that has yet to be adopted, and the districts are just beginning work on transit plans that will take several years to complete.

Shop repaving projects present the best opportunity to cost effectively build walk, bike and transit facilities rather than having to come back and build them as standalone projects. Caltrans budget is larger than ever thanks to SB 1 and the federal bipartisan infrastructure law. With this influx of funds, Caltrans should not miss opportunities to make our system safer, greener and more accessible for all users. I urge your support on SB 960.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in the Committee room wishes to speak in support? Please come forward.

Good afternoon. Rafa Sonnenfeld with YIMBY action on behalf of East Bay YIMBY, Mountain View YIMBY, Northern Neighbors, Peninsula for Everyone, San Francisco YIMBY, Santa Rosa YIMBY, Sloco YIMBY, Urban Environmentalists, Grow the Richmond, Ventura County YIMBY, Streets For People, Southside Forward, How to ADU, People for Housing Orange County, Progress Noe Valley, South Bay YIMBY, and Napa Solano for Everyone in support. Thank you.

Melanie Morelos on behalf of the Green Lining Institute and support.

Laurel Paget-Seekins for Public Advocates in support.

Jonathan Cole for Climate Action California in support.

Marc Vukcevich on behalf of Streets For All in support.

Seamless Bay Area in support.

Steve Wallach on behalf of the Napa Valley Transportation Authority in support.

Kathryn Charles on behalf of Housing Action Coalition in support.

Zach Tych Kuros on behalf of transform in support.

Thank you Jamie Pugh with NextGen California in support.

Thank you Laura Tolkoff, Transportation Policy Director with Spur happy to co sponsor also and respectfully request your aye vote also here on behalf of Move LA who couldn't be here today offering their support.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in support.

Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air in support.

Jodie Medeiros, Executive Director of Walk San Francisco and also representing San Francisco Bay Area Families for Safe Streets. We support.

Robin Pam on behalf of Kids Safe San Francisco in support.

Audrey Ratajczak from Cruise Strategies on behalf of the City of San Jose in support.

Dan Allison in support.

Georgia Dohrmann on behalf of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Support.

Silvia Solis Shaw on behalf of City and County of San Francisco. Mayor London breed in support. Also on behalf of the City of Santa Monica and the City of West Hollywood, all in support. Thank you.

Carol Taylor from Genesis in support.

All right, thank you. It looks like that concludes support witnesses and we're going to move now to opposition. We have primary opposition witness Mark Watts. He may come forward.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm pleased to be here today, and I just want to point out that I understand Senator Skinner's Bill very well. As a kid, I had a sports car with no roof, and I have the beginnings on the left here. So, I figure it's all true. But today my main purpose of talking to you is to oppose this Bill.

My organization, Transportation California, was one of the leaders in putting together from the public sector side, the private sector side, SB 1. We worked for years getting to that point. And at that point, when we were working on that with all the Members here, such as Senator Newman and others, we knew we couldn't fully fund the reconstruction needs of the State of California, let alone local streets and roads.

As a consequence, we put together collaboratively with the Governor and the Legislature a package of taxes that accomplished about a third of what we needed to in any one of those three categories, state, local streets and roads, and transit. And as a consequence, the state program, mostly dedicated to reconstruction, rehabilitation, is receiving on an ongoing basis something less than 5 billion of what it needs.

So when you dedicate new programs later in the process to items that are very needed, such as complete streets, we believe they need to find their own source of funding rather than depleting the State Highway Program system of funding, because at this point, we're just not seeing the equity in the, the policies.

So as a consequence, our organization, representing the folks who build, plan and construct the highway system in the State of California, as well as the transit system in California, are strongly opposed to this measure at this point in time. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. Are there others here in the Committee Room who wish to come forward and express opposition to this Bill? Seeing no one come forward, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Questions or comments? Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. I appreciate this Bill and its ambition, and I wanted to just make a couple comments and then a couple questions. So in my District 11, when I served as the mayor of the City of Encinitas and also the chair of the Transportation Agency, we had a really great relationship with Caltrans, and I felt like they did build a lot of complete streets, active transportation projects.

I understand that statewide it's variable, and part of this is to establish a really strong basic foundation for what projects would be built. One of the things that I wanted to try to understand, which I wasn't able to from the Committee consultant report, was what exactly are the roads that are not freeways that are considered, these state highways that are not local roads, or are the local roads included?

Yes. So, and I'm glad that Encinitas has had a great experience. This is not about demonizing Caltrans. There are good projects that have happened. I know the City of San Francisco has had ups and downs and some great collaboration and other very problematic situations. So life is complicated as per the norm.

So, for example, in San Francisco, Van Ness Avenue, if you've ever been there, state highway, 19th Avenue, state highway, Park Presidio state highway, Santa Monica Boulevard in LA, or at least stretches of it, is a state highway. And so, we have, all across. So, in big cities, you'll have major roads that you look at it, you're like, this is a city street. No, it's actually technically a state highway. It's owned by Caltrans. The city, the local government cannot just go out and do work on it.

Only the state can. And so we've had challenges in San Francisco, even, like doing traffic re-signalization along 19th Avenue. You had to get permission from Caltrans to do it, and it would take forever, but for an enormous number of small towns. And I know it's just because we had, when we did this Bill last time, all these small-town folks from rural areas would come forward and say things like, our main street is a state highway. I live two blocks from my kid's school.

My kid cannot walk to school because there is literally nowhere to cross the street. That should never be words. Those should never be words that come out of a parent's mouth, and that is Caltrans responsibility. And again, I want to be clear. This is not about saying you have to start a new project there. This is about when they are already doing a project. They are already resurfacing, reconstructing, saying, while you are at it, do these other things. You don't have to do all of them.

They can do an evaluation, but they can't just ignore it. With all respect, I was involved in SB 1, too. SB 1 was not just about driving. It was also about biking and walking and all of these other things, and transit. And it's not taking money away. It's ensuring that when we do this capital work, we're looking out for all users.

Yes. Thank you. And just to clarify, so in Encinitas, we did have friction with Caltrans, like for example, the freeway on ramps and the timing of the lights. And there were various things that would come up, homeless encampments and the Caltrans right of way. I mean, there are many different places where government agencies need to work well together. But the point is that this sets a framework for when there's already work being done, that it be brought up to a certain standard.

And I think, given the reality as well, that a lot of the active transportation money is being cut, proposed by the Governor in his proposed budget, you know, there potentially are fewer active transportation projects that will be coming forward. So having more of them from inside of the Caltrans right of way is really important. Especially, of course, to meet all of the goals around mode shift and emissions reduction that we're going for across many policy areas.

I wanted to know if you could just directly address, because I've heard this before, that the opposition's statement and the core of what he was saying, which is basically, we just don't have enough money to do this. If we do one project and it balloons in cost, then that means we can't do these 10 other projects. And the state of good repair is also a really important value. So, I'm just wondering if you could address that.

Yeah, so. And then I'll ask Miss Ward-Waller to talk about it as well. Of course, we all want to address the full need, and no one's claiming that SB 1 and so forth, like, solved the entire problem, but we infused a huge amount of new investment into the system with SB 1. And I'm proud of the work that this Legislature did to get there. And so, we have resources, and when we are already doing a project, we should be.

It is way more efficient to include additional elements in a project. And sometimes it's as simple as a crosswalk, way more efficient to include it rather than treat it as a separate project. This whole notion that the State Highway System, and again, we're talking about city surface streets, effectively, that that's somehow separate from complete streets. I just don't agree with that. And it's much more efficient to do it all together.

Okay, thank you very much. And when the time comes, I'll move the bill.

And I think Miss Ward-Waller can probably add to what I was saying.

Please do.

Yeah, I just love to briefly add, in addition to SB 1, and I think the opposition didn't address this directly, we also have federal formula funds from the bipartisan infrastructure law, which were also added, have been added the SHOPP additionally. And that law also had provisions about addressing things like climate inequity and safe streets. So, we feel like that's very appropriate money and it can be used flexibly. Of course, it's in this pot for state highway operation and maintenance.

But that pot also had provisions in SB 1 that said every time Caltrans does a project, take every opportunity to improve bike, walk, and transit facilities. And that's what we're saying in this Bill we're not seeing yet. So, we want to push harder.

Thank you, Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Senator. Question. Neighborhoods, you know, the streets need to be redone. We hear it all the time when we're as mayors or council Members. When are you going to redo my street? Now are you talking? Are the municipalities going to be able to actually step in and consult with, or vice versa with Caltrans in their priorities, in their neighborhoods, rather than a thoroughfare that maybe be a highway, who's going to have the say for the overall appeasement of the constituent?

Yeah. So obviously, there are a lot of communities where there's a mix. There are local streets, which are purely the responsibility of the city, and then there's what looks like a local street, but is really a state-owned road, and then Caltrans is responsible for that.

The Bil requires, and one of the things that we're really trying to do is to really, really get Caltrans to consistently and deeply engage with and work with the local community, which, again, I'm not broad brushing that does happen, that collaboration. But we want it to be even more because a lot of times, cities will put together plans for an entire area that includes some state roads. And we want Caltrans to be collaborating closely with the city because we don't want these to be sort of siloed.

That's not helpful to anyone. So we want that collaboration, and ultimately, cities really know, like, what works in terms of that street safety for the entire network. And so that collaboration is very important.

Well, thank you. I just want to make sure they're included.

Yes.

I'll move the Bill if no one. We got it? Okay. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Anybody else? All right, we do want to give the author an opportunity to close, and then we'll go to the motion.

I think we've... I think we've effectively closed. So I respectfully asked for an aye vote. And I also just want to acknowledge we did... They came in as author amendments before the analysis. I want to thank the Committee and for working with us on amendments that we already put into the bill. So thank you.

We know you did a lot of work on it with the Committee. Appreciate it very much. And we do have a motion from Senator Blakespear. And that motion is... I'll let you read it out.

This is file item number four, SB 960. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, the vote's at six to three, and we'll leave it on call. And we'll move right to item five, Senator Wiener. That's SB 961, as you know, and you're welcome to present on this one.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And again, I want to thank you and your staff for working with us. And we've taken a number of amendments as author amendments ahead of time, but they were worked out with the Committee, and we really appreciate that. And just to be clear, the most significant of those amendments is taking the bill from what we call an active speed governor requirement to a passive speed governor requirement. Active means that you are physically impeded from going above a certain speed.

Passive means that you are notified and reminded when you are going above a certain speed. So the bill is now passive. So SB 961, like the bill we just heard, addresses the traffic safety crisis in California, and does so this time not from a street design perspective, but from the actual vehicle. SB 961 requires this common sense technology, a passive speed governor, which has already been recommended.

Just to be clear, the National Transportation Safety Board, the NTSB, which is here today, which is the top transportation safety agency in the country, has recommended this technology for all new cars in the US and has submitted a letter supporting this bill. And you'll hear from the NTSB today.

SB 961 will require all passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses that are manufactured or sold in California to be equipped with passive speed governor, otherwise known as an intelligent speed assistance system, to warn the driver when they are traveling faster than 5 miles an hour above the speed limit. Half of vehicles manufactured or sold will have to have a passive speed governor by 2029 and 100% by 2032. So I want to be clear that this is established technology. This is not some sort of new technology.

It's established technology that is already in vehicles in this country and other parts of the world. The EU has required speed governors. The City of New York is in the process of equipping its entire municipal fleet, thousands of cars so far, with active speed governors. And that has gone very, very well with a very high degree of accuracy in terms of the GPS. And we should do so here in California for all new cars manufactured or sold here.

4,000 people a year dying on California roads, as I mentioned with the last bill, nearly 50,000 people a year in the US. That is an increase both in California and nationally over the last five or six years. And I want to be very clear, it's not normal, and we should never accept this as normal. Every one of those people who dies is someone's child, parent, friend, spouse, and it changes their family forever. And the numbers are going up.

And when you compare the US to other wealthy nations, we are definitely not normal. We are an extreme outlier. It is not this way in other countries, and we know that speed is a significant factor. And I understand that people like to be able to go as fast as they want to go. And all we are saying is, let's do a reminder when you are going significantly above the speed limit so that you can be reminded to slow down. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And I also neglected to mention the other piece of the bill in terms of side guards for trucks. And we're actually passing around a photo of what it looks like when a car and a truck collide and the car ends up underneath the truck, which significantly, dramatically increases the risk of the person dying or being very seriously injured. And this is, again, existing technology that will prevent cars from going underneath the side of the truck. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today to testify are Ellen Lee with the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, and Marc Vukcevich with Streets for All.

Welcome, Ms. Lee and Mr. Vukcevich. You may proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair Cortese and Members of the Committee. My name is Ellen Lee, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak here today on SB 961 and in support of NTSB's recommendation on the implementation of intelligence speed assistance, or ISA, systems in all new vehicles. The NTSB has long supported ISA and since 2012 has recommended the adoption of the technology. Speed is a contributing factor in nearly 30% of all roadway fatalities. This is unacceptable.

The NTSB continues to investigate major crashes where speed was a causal or contributing factor, including one in Avenal, California in 2020. Some of these involve drivers going double or triple the speed limit. We recently investigated a crash in Nevada where a speeding and impaired driver ran a red light, causing nine fatalities.

This led the NTSB to issue new recommendations, one to NHTSA to require ISA technology in all new vehicles that, at a minimum, warns the driver when the vehicle exceeds the speed limit, and one to vehicle manufacturers to implement ISA as standard equipment in new vehicles. Broad deployment of ISA will reduce the frequency of speeding and speeding related crashes like this one, saving lives and preventing injuries.

While this technology may sound too new to require an all new vehicles, it is already an option offered by many US manufacturers for commercial and passenger vehicles and has been available in European countries for years. ISA will soon be mandatory in all vehicles sold in the European Union, yet NHTSA has been slow to take any meaningful action. ISA is a proven countermeasure that, if widely deployed, will save lives on California roads, and we applaud you for considering this policy. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon. Marc Vukcevich, Streets for All, sponsor of the bill. I'm here today because of one simple but devastating fact. Traffic violence has become the number one cause of death for California school aged children. It's not drugs. It's not guns. It's getting hit by a car. And for context, the societal cost of car crashes is more than the cost of wildfires. It's more than the cost of cancer. Pedestrian deaths in this country have shot up 77% since 2010.

And that fact I mentioned earlier was actually incomplete. Traffic violence is the number one killer of all people from the age of five to 44. And that number one factor in car crashes is not impaired driving or texting, but speed. And the public at a high level is aware of this. I believe that if the public was asked, they'd want the Legislature to tackle the number one killer of adults and children in California.

The largest factor that parents cite in allowing their children to walk to school or not is not whether that child is going to get kidnapped on their way to school. It's the worry that their child's going to die walking to school. After fuel efficiency, safety is the largest factor people cite when choosing whether or not to buy a car. The public has a right to feel safe on our roadways, and I believe that the public contract is broken on our roadways.

Has anyone driven on the highways recently? The madness. It's madness the way people are driving right now on our roadways. The Legislature cannot pass a bill tomorrow to cut the amount of cancer in half, but the Legislature can act on this issue area. That's what the European Union has done, requiring this on all their vehicles in their 27 member countries with a total population of 440 million people. And that's with countries that have a car culture like Italy and Germany.

Speed assistance technology is just like seatbelt warning signal technology that, like airbags and rear backup cameras, was also opposed by the auto industry but has saved countless lives. Lastly, I'll leave you with some numbers. In just 2021, in Pico Rivera, 221 people were injured or killed on the streets. In the City of Napa, 327 people were injured or killed on the streets. And in the City of Fullerton, 988 people were injured or killed on the streets. I ask you to take action. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there other support witnesses in the committee room who would like to come forward and express their support? If so, please come on up with name, affiliation, and support.

Jeanie Ward-Waller with CalBike in support.

Grace Nelson on behalf of Streets for Everyone, I support.

... Support.

Laura Tolkoff, SPUR, in support.

Jodie Medeiros, Walk San Francisco, one of the bill sponsors, in support.

Robin Pam, Kid Safe San Francisco, in support.

Zack Deutsch-Gross, TransForm, in support.

Dan Allison in support.

All right, I'm seen no other support witnesses. We'll move to opposition now. I believe we have Curt Augustine, Alliance for Automotive Innovation, and Chris Shimoda coming forward. Welcome, gentlemen. You can proceed as soon as you get situated. A couple minutes each, please.

Mr. Chair and Members, my name is Curt Augustine. I'm the Senior Director of Government Affairs for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. Thank you for the opportunity to do this. We are in opposition to this bill, not because safety is not the highest priority for the automobile industry, but it's a premature solution. This is not our sole position, but it is the position of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to which the Board has made its recommendations. With all due respect to the prior speaker, NHTSA on April 3 issued a letter saying that they are researching this important topic.

They have ongoing research right now to do so, and they believe that ultimately the technology will be in place. But to do, as their role as the regulator for traffic safety, believe it is premature to do so. Many of the reasons that they cite are because the technology is developing, but it's also because that our infrastructure, unfortunately, here in the United States, is not up to par as to what it is in the European Union.

The European Union signed in their member countries, signed the Vienna Convention, that makes all their signage the same, makes all this program available. We have manufacturers who sell the same exact car in the United States and in Europe, and because of the lack of proper infrastructure and regular infrastructure here in the United States, they have to turn these features off because they don't work or customers are so annoyed with the false warnings that they find it, excuse me, very troubling.

So this is an important issue that is premature. And finally, the rules are for the European continent. Germany does not have a separate set of rules. France does not have a separate set of rules. It is for the entire continent. So for California to have one set of rules and having all the other vehicles coming into our state, it's an unworkable solution. It's premature. Let's let NHTSA do their work, and we are working with the Administration to set real rules for safety for our roads. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Cortese and Members. Chris Shimoda with the California Trucking Association in respectful opposition to SB 961. So, as the Committee analysis notes, pursuant to the National Motor Traffic and Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and successor federal legislation, NHTSA, which has already been referenced, is charged by Congress with writing and enforcing federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The Act expressly preempts states from adopting their own standards, and NHTSA has taken the view in an opinion letter cited in our opposition letter that Congress intended the agency to occupy the field of motor vehicle safety, even where NHTSA has yet to promulgate a standard. For trucking, in the case of both underride guards and speed notification or limiters, NHTSA currently has open rulemakings.

CTA's federal partners at the American Trucking Associations are on record supporting the federal rule on speed limiters and are participants in NHTSA's Underride Advisory Committee, which is currently meeting and was mandated by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation on safety regulations to reduce underride crashes and fatalities related to underride crashes.

This work will inform underride solutions for dozens of use cases with unique equipment as diverse as port chassis, fuel tankers, construction equipment, ag equipment, refuse haulers, as well as many more, dozens of others. As with all federal rules, NHTSA will base its rulemaking on extensive quantitative research, data, and analysis. Rather than creating a competing process with NHTSA, which is a billion dollar agency with over half a century of experience establishing motor vehicle safety standards, we encourage the author and sponsors to continue to support NHTSA's ongoing research and rulemaking. For those reasons, we respectfully request a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there others here who wish to express an opposed position? We see folks coming forward.

Yes, Mr. Chair and Members, Brian White on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. We have an opposed unless amended position to exempt intermodal chassis from the side guards. Thank you.

Steve Wallach on behalf of the Institute of International Container Lessors in opposition.

Karen Schmelzer with Motorcycle Industry Council, opposed unless amended.

Christian Robinson with SEMA, the Specialty Equipment Market Association, opposed.

Dylan Elliott on behalf of Shasta County, respectfully opposed.

Dean Talley with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, respectfully opposed.

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

Melanie Perron on behalf of the Associated General Contractors in opposition.

David Gonzalez on behalf of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association in opposition.

Brady Van Engelen on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition.

Theo Pahos representing Ford in opposition.

Mister chairmember, Dominic Demari here on behalf of BMW in opposition.

All right. Seeing no other opposition testimony at this time, we'll come back to the Committee. Questions and comments. Senator Archuleta?

Senator, I'd like to tell you I'm going to have to lay off this Bill. It should be a two part Bill, one pertaining to the Governor and being able to slow the vehicle down because of safety and speed and so on. And I'm all for that. But the Bill also includes the fact that we have the trucking industry, that in Southern California, and you have it here in Northern California, the trucking industry that's got to move goods from the ports.

And these trucks that you pictured, these 18 wheelers, the truck itself, they stack them up and they move them on rail. And with the guard things on the side, they're not going to be able to stack them. So it's going to cause a problem when they're mandated to do that. So I recommend that you separate the Bill and we look at that separately and then I could probably go on the Bill. So with this, I can't. So I'm going to have to stay off on that.

Yeah, I appreciate it. If I could interpret that as a question and respond.

Whichever.

Okay. No, I just, I appreciate that. We did, the trucking industry came in, it was about a week and a half or two weeks ago, to meet with me, various stakeholders from the industry and did raise the issue about stacking in ports. We've actually distributed a photo that shows them being stacked with these underguards and, but we committed to the trucking industry to that. We, listen, I don't want to pass an aspect of a Bill that can't be implemented. I would, I don't want to do that as a lawmaker. And so we are actively looking into their concerns and have committed to continue to engage with them on it. But I appreciate that feedback.

Thank you.

Senator Nehlo would be next.

Thank you, Mister chair. So it seems like every transportation Committee meeting we have, we entertain proposals to try to control the crazy driving that's going out on our streets right now. And I've talked about this just about every time because it's not just speeding, it's reckless driving. Rapid lane changing, tailgating seems almost habitual with some, seems almost a deliberate lawlessness.

And I've begun to conclude that because when I'm driving in, in the morning, when traffic is heavy and the hov lane is moving quickly, I'm looking in my rearview mirror to the passenger seat of, of the vehicle that's going by me, and my unscientific estimation is that roughly half of the vehicles do not have a passenger in the passenger seat. That is a deliberate violation. I'm not a big fan of hov lanes, but it's the law and I observe it, and that is a habitual violation.

A lot of upscale cars have the heads up display on the windshield, and it does show the speed limit in the area you're driving. Sometimes it can be inaccurate, but on the freeways it's accurate. And a lot of the cars that I see speeding by me at 80-90 miles an hour generally are more expensive vehicles. And I suspect a lot of them already have that heads up display, and they don't care. They're deliberately breaking the law.

Over time, probably more cars will have that, as they do in Europe. But I'm unconvinced that it's going to make a difference. And every time we entertain these proposals to try to control the crazy driving that's going on, I say that because it's not just speeding. I've yet to see a proposal that we increase enforcement, and we are hundreds of positions shy of our Highway Patrol force, and the Governor has even diverted a bunch of them to retail theft enforcement, which is not their mission.

And I'm waiting for somebody to come say, we need more cops on the road. We need to stop people more for this driving behavior. And I think eventually I realize that's costly, we have a budget problem, but I'm convinced that eventually that's the only solution that's going to work.

Next up at Senator Newman.

Thank you, Mister chair. Senator Wiener, you and I spoke, I think, last week, and we were talking about the intelligent speed assistance system. And my understanding is that you've taken an amendment to go from active to passive. But my question is that passive system, would it be persistent or would it be momentary where, you know, when I exceeded some limit, would I get a beep or would I get a persistent alarm?

The Bill language is not hyper prescriptive in terms of what that has to be. And so there would be flexibility there. And so we're not trying to sort of micromanage what that would be. And again, this is existing technology that's in cars now. And there is a spectrum. Right. It could be like every time you exceed the limit, it reminds you it could be on a more persistent basis. But we're not overly prescriptive in the language of the Bill.

It seems like from the driver's experience, there's a huge difference. There especially on the highway. Mister Augustine, could you speak to this?

Yes, Senator Wiener is correct. A lot of these features are in cars, and our automakers are proud to have developed and put them in there. But because of the differences between the European system and again with the uniform signage and better other technological issues, these challenges that exist about with the warnings, they're often wrong.

Here in the United States, they will continue to remind you, the vehicles are designed, you can shut it off, but it's been our company's experience that, and in fact, there are many people in this room who have anecdotally told me they have these features on their car and they turn them off because they don't work well here. And so that's, it's, again, it's a challenge for our country to properly implement this, and it's not something that just one state is able to solve on its own.

All right, thank you.

And Senator? Yeah, I just want to sort of respond to that. So as I mentioned at the beginning, New York City is equipping its entire massive municipal fleet with active governors. What we took out of our Bill, active governors say already several thousand vehicles have already been equipped. And according to New York City, the accuracy rate in terms of the speed is, I believe, over 99%, if I recall correctly. It's very high. And so I don't agree with the argument this is somehow some sort of untested possible to do it well in the US. I don't know if you want to add to that.

I would like to add as well that as of, I believe, the 1940s or 1950s in the United States, we have something called the manual on uniform traffic control devices that regulates that. Every single signage in the entire United States on city roads have to be conformed to the same exact standards. And that's what the entire United States, every single state, including Alaska and Hawaii, have to meet those standards. And so on that note, I'm a little bit confused about the opposition's comments as well.

And additionally, most of these speed Governor systems on the intelligence side, that they also use geolocation, it's a GPS based system. So additionally, on the signage, I just want to add that it's duplicative. Lastly, I'll say that in our Bill, it specifically mentions that if there is any type of momentarily confusion that the system has, that it reverts to the highest speed limit in California, essentially so that there is no moment of kind of getting a persistent warning that you're supposed to be driving 20 mph while you're on a 45 miles per hour road.

I appreciate it. I guess the thing I'm kind of wrestling with is how drivers will actually respond to what they will receive is really invasive technology. Right. So, to Senator Wiener's example, if I drive for a company, I have to allow that the company has some oversight over my behavior as a condition of my employment.

But if it's my car, it seems unlikely to me that a lot of Californians are going to buy a car where the speed alarm is persistent, where you can't turn it off. It seems to me that they will either figure out a way to disable that or find a third party to disable that, or they won't buy that car. So it raises the question, is that the best solution to that problem?

Well, there have been studies, and I don't have them at my fingertips at the moment that these systems actually do cause people to drive.

I know, and I saw in the notes that the study in Europe saw no significant difference between a momentary beep, you've exceeded the speed limit, versus a persistent beep. But I guarantee you the persistent beep is not the car that people want to buy.

Right.

So the base of my question is, would you allow for the least common denominator there, which is the non persistent beep as part of your amended version?

Yeah. And we're happy to have that conversation with you, Senator. I know we started it, like, right now. The Bill is not prescriptive. We're trying to provide some flexibility, but we're happy to have that conversation. I don't know if the NTSB has any thoughts on that particular issue. You don't have to if you don't want to.

We have not been prescriptive either, in terms of the types of warnings. Generally speaking, warnings are most effective when they're multimodal. So if you have a visual and an audio warning versus just one or the other, but our recommendations are not specific to that.

I appreciate it, thanks.

Senator Portantino.

Thank you, Mister Wiener and Mister chair. Many people know that I'm an avid bike rider and share the concerns of street safety and road safety, safety and the spirit behind the Bill. I do have a couple questions, because my hope, obviously, is if the Bill passes, it's implementable, it's doable. It's not just a concept. And so, a couple questions, by the way, in my own household, the intermittent complaints of my family in driving with me is more powerful than persistence, just for the record.

But the analysis and the Bill references a report from Caltrans back. Is that on the effectiveness of the warning system or on the side guards? What's the reports that are coming back? The study, the pilot, is it on both? How are we going to measure the effect of this? That's question number one. It says Caltrans is going to report back.

Okay. The Bill also requires a pilot program for state vehicles. And that's the report back.

And the pilot is on the warning system or on the effectiveness of the side guards.

The state fleet pilot program, is it active speed, Governor?

So just on the state fleet, that's the requirement.

We put that in. It's not a mandate for the entire fleet. It's a pilot program. We put that in because in our work with the Committee, we took out active and put in passive. And so we decided let's have a pilot program of state vehicles so we.

Can, you know, so that's on the active system?

Yes. For this, for the state vehicle fleet pilot program.

Is there going to be any analysis of the passive system or on the effectiveness on the system side guards?

It's not in there now, but I wouldn't have a problem with that, so.

Just, that's something you may want to look at.

Yeah, we're happy to consider that. I don't have any issue with that. Data is always a good thing.

Data is always good. And then on the federal issue, are you at all concerned with federal preemption and how, how will this mesh down the road when the Federal Government weighs in with specificity?

Well, okay. A couple of things. First of all, if, if the Federal Government were to say, we're going to implement this nationally and preempt everything at a state level, I would applaud that because that would mean not just 40 million Californians, but 330 million, I think Americans would be protected. So the Federal Government does have the power to preempt a safety standard like this. The Federal Government has not done that.

And in fact, when the Federal Government recently, I don't know how recently enacted truck rearguard requirements for vehicles. The NHTSA acknowledged that most states, I think a majority of states already had state level truck rearguard requirements and that it was preempting those requirements. So it is not new for a state to get ahead of the Federal Government, the Federal Government to catch up and preemptively. I did some research, actually, last night about this. I've been looking into the history of seatbelt requirements.

I believe Wisconsin was the first state to require seat belts in new cars. In 1961, Wisconsin enacted that. I believe the Federal Government mandated seat belts in the front seats of cars in 1968. So again, Wisconsin got ahead of the Federal Government and I'm assuming, assuming there was a preemption in 1968.

All right. And then my final question is along the lines of what Mister Archuleta raised on the stacking issue and the drayage transportation. Again, if it turns out to be infeasible to do from a practical perspective, you're open to exempting out those particular.

Yes, so we are. I made a commitment to the trucking industry when we met with them a week and a half, two weeks ago ago that we would look closely at the concerns that they were raising around feasibility. I have no desire to be the author of a law that has an infeasible provision in it. I would never want to do that.

And so we have, I have committed and I keep my commitment and reiterated today to work with the trucking industry to figure out what's actually happening here. We've showed that photo where they are stacked, but.

And obviously they have one where they can.

Right. And so if it turns out that there's something that's infeasible, we will absolutely address that because I'm not going to try to force someone to do something that's impossible to do.

And that brings me to my final question is, so what will be the arbitrator of that final decision? Who will decide whether it's feasible or infeasible? If at the end of the day one says yes, one says no, who makes the final decision on whether it's actually implementable?

Legislature.

Legislature. I'm just talking about as the author of the Bill, how would you resolve an impasse in that particular?

I think we need to figure out what the facts are and what that impasse is. My hope is that there's not an impasse because hopefully we're all rational actors and so we're going to continue our conversation with the trucking industry and the industry has my commitment on that and.

I just want that, that particular piece to be honestly brokered and we will.

Keep you in the loop on it and you as well, Senator.

Next is Senator Seyarto, followed by Senator Blakespear.

First I wanted to talk a little bit about the protection guards on the trucks in the long haul. A lot of times on those trailers they have a big tail swing and if you're going over hills or down through dips, those can actually catch and basically high side, what you call a vehicle. We had a fire engine get stuck on a hill like this because it couldn't make the dip.

And so it was stuck there until we could get a crane large enough to try and pull it out. Addressed. Has that been addressed in the studies that are talking about these things? Because there is uneven terrain that a lot of vehicles have to go through, especially trucks, when they're delivering into neighborhoods or areas where there's uneven terrain like, say, Baldwin Hills.

Yeah, I'll ask Mister Brooksburg to talk about that.

I don't have research to cite, but you're mentioning tail swings. And I just want to clarify that these devices are placed between the two wheel axles, and so that tail swing issue isn't going to necessarily be affected by this particular issue. I'd also mentioned that these wheels don't, sorry, these devices don't go below the length of the wheels. And so it is kind of the expected horizontal axis that the truck is expected to be driving. And I say this as someone who used to be driving at least box trucks, not big rigs.

From the trucking industry what's your take on what I was talking about?

Senator? That's exactly what we referred to in the testimony. There is a federally mandated Advisory Committee on underride guards. It consists of crash experts, safety advocates, as well as the industry and the manufacturers to go through every facet of underride, every different type of equipment of, to figure out what the proper solution is for each of these various equipment types.

And I stated some of them in the comments, but there are literally dozens of different types of trailers that need to be dealt with in an eventual rule, and NHTSA is currently deliberating on those.

Okay, great. Thank you very much. Now onto the speed, the thing that lets you know that you're going too fast. And I might have missed part of this, and I apologize. I was trying to watch most of it on the screen while I was doing what I was doing. So you're going down. Let's just choose a freeway. The 50, everybody's doing 75 if they're not doing 80, and everybody knows it.

If you have one of these on your vehicle, is this going to be constantly beeping at you as you're going down the freeway, or is there a way to disable it, or you have to turn your music way up?

You can always turn your music way up. But we did discuss this, that the language of the Bill is not hyper prescriptive, so there could be a range of approaches to it. So it's not, we intentionally were not hyper prescriptive about, about what the exact frequency would be. Right.

Because that seems like a huge distraction, especially as you're going through some of the areas of the freeway and people are in pretty close proximity to each other. And when the thing starts beeping at you and people start honking out there for various reasons, and those are distractions from a person that can cause them to not be paying attention. And especially when they're going at those speeds, they really need to be paying attention.

Well, it would be safest if they were not driving 90 miles an hour, for example.

Right.

I just want to, when we're talking about safety, that's sort of the fundamental issue. And I also want to, and Senator Niello raised this earlier.

Yeah. And a different issue about, you know, about just people are doing their thing and violating the law in a lot of ways. I do want to say, though, that especially with newer cars, it's really easy, even when you don't realize it, to be going a lot faster than you think you're going. The new car, it's just so smooth and it's quieter. And so there are times when people are not even intending to drive at an excessive speed and they just are.

I was here.

And there are people who. Yeah, exactly. New cars. And I think there are a lot of people who would appreciate being alerted, like you're going too fast. So I don't think everyone who's speeding is doing it intentionally because they want to violate the law. Some people don't even realize it. And warning them will cause them to slow down.

Right. And if they do the drastic slowdown, though, to respond, respond and stop the beeping, the rest of freeway is still going 75-80 miles an hour. Now what?

You're a traffic hazard and traffic impediment.

It doesn't have to.

Well, I mean, people slow down all the time. There are times when people realize, zero, my God, I'm going 85 miles an hour. I don't want to do that. And then they slow down. Doesn't mean they don't need to slam on their brakes, you can slow down,.

You just take your foot off the pedal. That's what I tell people.

Yeah. You just smoothly, you know, so I don't, I don't see that as a slowing down and speeding up as a normal thing.

If you're doing 55 and the speed limit as opposed to the 60 or 65 and you go to 65 and everybody else is doing 80, you're a hazard. So you either have to speed up or get way over in the slow lane and you're still a hazard on some of the freeways. I drive. So I can, I can see it. So that's my concern is I think everybody knows when they're speeding, there are enough telltale signs.

And I don't think that this is necessarily going to do anything but distract people and could potentially cause accidents. And if they're the only ones going not with the flow of traffic, they become a hazard themselves.

I also just do want to point out that this is not just about freeways. This is also about city surface streets, where if someone is driving even 10 or 15 miles an hour over the speed limit, which we tolerate more on freeways, but happens on city streets, kids can be playing out on the streets. Seniors are crossing the street, and that is incredibly dangerous. And it's good to warn people that they're doing that.

Yeah. And then you have the thing going beep, beep, beep while you're trying to navigate all this and keep an eye on everything.

You slow down.

Yeah. And you still get distracted. So anyway, thank you very much. I appreciate your answers.

Let me go to Senator Blakespear, and then I'll come back to you. Senator Archulata.

It's brief. Thank you. I have had some outreach about the guardrail provisions when it comes to waste hauler trucks, and I know there are lots of different things that would be considered, but I don't know if you have anything specific on that, that particular type of truck.

I don't think we've gotten specific outreach. I'm looking at my staff. I don't think we've gotten specific outreach from the waste haulers. We're happy to talk to them.

Senator Archulata.

Okay thank you.

You know, we heard about the beeping noise and the warning and so on, but if I made to my colleagues in the experts, a Governor actually stops if you can push on the accelerator all you want, and it's not going to respond because it's set to a certain speed. The question is, where's the technology on my car? When I'm in a school district, there's a little sign in school zone, and it points that out.

And I go into a business zone and there's a little sign on my dashboard. Zoning. But as I accelerate to get on the freeway, I have the power to accelerate, but if there's a Governor on there, it's going to stop the acceleration. Would you, with your witness there, give me some definition of that? A Governor truly is something that, a mechanism that prevents the foot pedal, the accelerator, go down and yes.

Yes, that is what a speed Governor. An active does Governor. An active Governor, which is not in this Bill.

I was going to note so there are, I'll answer your question, then I will add just what Senator Wiener said. So, yes, a Governor would control this, the speed, and it sets a maximum thing. And there are those devices on vehicles, especially on commercial vehicles. They don't want their employees driving over certain speed limits. And to Senator Weiner's point, that was the essence of the original version of the Bill. That is, to be fair, that is not what is in the Bill currently.

So it's just the warning.

Yes, yeah. And then the other thing, I thank you, Senator, for bringing this up, because we had an incident in my city with this huge cement tube that is going to be used, and the truck, the bottom of the trailer goes like this and up, and it hit the railroad embankment and stopped traffic. We had the Highway Patrol there, the sheriff's there, fire Department there, because it got stuck and the train was coming. And literally it was finally moved within minutes when the train didn't.

So somebody didn't tell the train and it went by. So I did witness that. So there's a lot of obstacles still there. And I talked originally about the stacking, which has to do with economics and moving cargo, but then there's the others. So there's still issues in the Bill. And that's, again, with all due respect, I'm going to lay off.

Yeah. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Appears to conclude Committee comment other than the chair. And I just want to thank the author for, again working with us. And I know you mentioned that at the outset of your presentation to get your own author amendments done. There wasn't a lack of interest or concern by the Committee staff or the chair regarding the side rail issue, for whatever that's worth. But I do think it's important to put on the record.

I think we had our hands full dealing with the passive intelligence speed system in trying to help work out appropriate language there. And it was presumed that as you move along with this, that you'll sort out these issues regarding the side rails. But we were made aware of concerns, and I know that we had some discussions about that. And again, I just wanted to get that on the record. I appreciate your indicating that you'll continue to work with folks on that as the author. And with that, you're welcome to close.

Thank you, Mister chair. Colleagues, I really appreciate the robust discussion. I think we can all agree we want our roads to be safer. We shifted from active to passive. We heard feedback from colleagues that people were not comfortable with an active physical barrier to going above a certain speed. And some of the sort of scenarios, sometimes ed cases, but nevertheless scenarios where people might need to go at a higher speed.

We listened, we heard, worked with the Committee and changed it to a passive to make sure that people are aware and reminded so that they slow down. And I will reiterate on the trucking piece that I am deeply committed to continuing engagement with the industry and that I am not going to be pushing to pass something that is infeasible and, we'll continue that work. Like I said, I had my first meeting with them about less than two weeks ago. We'll continue that engagement. You have my commitment. They have my commitment. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. All right.

Thank you. We will come back. Did we have a motion on this item? Senator Portantino moves the Bill and I'll have the Committee assistant formalize the motion and call the roll, please.

This is file item number five, SB 961. The motion is do pass and re referred to the Committee on appropriations. [Vote].

All right, the vote currently is three to three and we'll leave the Bill on call. We are going to recess before taking up file item six, hopefully for a short time, and we'll be back as soon as that recess is over to pick up in the file order with file item six. Thank you.

All right, Senate Transportation Committee has reconvened after the short recess that we had. We are going to pass on item six pending some paperwork that needs to be done on that item. So we'll move to item seven, SB 983, Senator Wahab. Please join us up here, and we'll release at the podium, and you may proceed when ready.

Thank you. This is a lightweight bill. So Chair and Members, California lacks the infrastructure needed to make zero emission alternative fuels a realistic option for consumers by 2050. In fact, our climate goals are actually even far more aggressive at 2030, and some will even argue at 2027. SB 983 will create the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Task Force. This task force examines how we can preserve the competitive nature of gas station pricing and just convenience, and how we can integrate alternative fueling into existing gas station infrastructure.

Current investments into alternative fueling infrastructure are only half of what is needed to transition by 2050 or earlier. This task force will determine the most cost effective path forward for zero emission fuel alternatives, both electric as well as hydrogen, while using our existing gasoline infrastructure. To meet Governor Newsom's mandate to transition vehicles to zero emission sources by 2035, SB 983 is a crucial step. I do want to highlight a couple of things.

We always argue about we need to transition, we need a cleaner, greener environment and efforts around that. Yet no realistic option has been presented. I want to highlight that the reason why this is important is because communities of color and largely disadvantaged communities and renters, like myself, don't have a place to charge their vehicle. They don't.

So if you live in a multifamily complex, unless that property owner installs an EV hydrogen station, you are going to have to struggle as to how quickly can you charge your car, can you work on it, and much more. Especially as companies like Ford are creating all electric Ford F-150 pickup trucks and much more. And we need to do better.

And I think that this is a viable option to create a task force to really understand how we can make EV and hydrogen at our local current setup and infrastructure. So that is the bill. I would like to also introduce my witness, Keith Dunn, with the State Building and Construction Trades Council, as well as my other witness. But with your permission, Chair.

Okay. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Dunn, I guess you'll proceed first. You'll have a couple minutes, and then we'll go to the other witness.

Thank you. Keith Dunn, State Building Construction Trades Council. Like Senator Wahab said, transitioning to a carbon resilient economy is going to take a lot of time. This bill will establish the studies that we need to make sure that our workers are not only building the charging stations of the future, but also that they cover our entire state. As we've seen, there's not equity right now in some of the rural and even in urban areas with charging opportunities.

Our workers, principally that go to construction sites, and for them to have the opportunity to drive electric cars, are going to need the charging stations to get there and to get home. They don't exist today in some areas of our state. We think that this is a equitable approach to make sure that we have the type of information that provides the eventual building of that infrastructure in a manner that addresses the gas station owners and others that are going to be transitioning to different fuels.

We also think that having the opportunity to cover the entire state the way that the bill is laid out, I think is a very equitable approach to make sure that we have rural representatives, urban representatives, independent gas station owners, and others that really are going to be impacted as we transition to this climate resilient economy. To be included in that discussion, to make sure that it's covered statewide, to make sure that our workers have the opportunity not only to get to work if they're driving a F-150 Lightning electric truck, but also to charge it if they need to while they're there. So we think this is a great approach. We think that we've done a good job in working with the author and others to cover statewide, and we just ask for your support.

Okay, thank you. Next witness.

Thank you, Senators. Teresa Cooke on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition, very pleased to be here in support. As many of you know, fuel cell electric vehicles offer a really unique zero emission vehicle opportunity for our folks that live in multi-unit dwellings, for our super commuters, and for our drivers that need to drive in larger classes of vehicles. So also, I would say the Ford fuel cell electric truck is also, you know, on its way to market.

Equally important for our transition to zero emission vehicles. The network of 8000 existing fuel and gas stations today is where hydrogen infrastructure is going to go. So I can't stress enough on behalf of the hydrogen community how very important this bill is in terms of getting ahead on figuring out what we can do to smooth the transition between the fossil fuel infrastructure that we have today, but the rather minor retrofit required to turn that into hydrogen fueling infrastructure for these zero emission vehicles. And so for these reasons, we are exceptionally pleased to be here in support and encourage your support of the bill. Thank you.

All right, thanks for your testimony. Others wishing to express support, please come forward.

Good afternoon. Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities, as well as on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Brady Van Engelen on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, here in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jack Yanos on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance in support.

All right, we don't have any registered opposition listed. Is there anyone in the committee room who wishes to express opposition? If so, please come forward at this time. I'm seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Yes, Senator Archuleta.

Okay, thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. As California is going into hydrogen, it's going into alternative fuels, and I think the gas stations that you're talking about, the infrastructure is already there. So it's a win win for California to look ahead. So I'm hoping that as we move in that direction, that we realize the infrastructure that we have, that we need, and this is part of it. And I'll move the bill when appropriate.

All right, we have the offer of a motion. Is anybody else wishing to be recognized? Seeing none, Senator, you can close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, we'll have the Assistant state Senator Archuleta's motion and call the roll, please.

This is file item number seven, SB 983. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, it's at 5-0, and we'll leave it on call. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Item number eight is Senator Durazo's bill. Is she present? Do you not see, Senator... Oh, got it. All right, we will take item 10 out of order out of deference to the other authors. We'll pass on item nine for the moment. Item 10 is SB 936, Senator Seyarto.

Thank you very much, honorable Chair. And I'm here to present SB 936. First, I would like to thank the committee for working with my staff to bring this bill to the committee. And I accept the committee amendments. So, car crashes are consistently a top cause of unintentional injury or death. And for Californians, thousands of people lose their lives or suffer life changing injuries annually in automobile collisions.

California traffic fatalities surged 22% from 2019 to 2022, while severe and fatal traffic crashes have resulted in $166 billion in economic and quality of life costs for Californians in 2022 alone. A 2022 study from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found disparities in the risk of travel for low income communities of color as well.

Recently, a devastating crash involving a drunk driver speeding at 104 miles an hour in a 45 miles an hour zone claimed the lives of four Pepperdine University students on Pacific Coast Highway on a stretch that is known as Dead Man's Curve. Over the last 10 years, there have been 4000 collisions on Dead Man's Curve. Serious road safety improvements have been neglected on Pacific Coast Highway, along with other unsafe stretches of road throughout the state.

Caltrans and regional transportation agencies receive federal and state funds to build, maintain, and develop highways and road improvements. My bill requires the Office of Planning and Research, in coordination with the Department of Transportation, to develop and publish a report detailing the needed safety improvements of the 15 highways in California with the highest number of collisions. With this report, the Legislature can examine means of addressing these locations and how best to expedite safety improvements.

SB 936 is a step forward to a proactive plan to address our most dangerous highways and will give the Legislature the information needed to save lives. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And I did not bring any witnesses.

As is your tradition.

As is my tradition.

All right. Is there anyone here in the committee room who wishes to express support? Please come forward.

Marc Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All. We originally had in oppose unless amended position to the bill in Senate EQ. After the amendments made in that committee, we're really supportive of the bill. So I appreciate that, Senator. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing no one else come forward. We do not have a registered opposition witness. Is there anyone in the committee room who wishes to express opposition? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Senator Archuleta has offered a motion. Niello? Was that Senator Niello? Alright. Thank you for the correction. Anyone else want to be recognized on this bill? It's file item 10, SB 936. We'll go to the author for his opportunity to close.

All right, well, I just respectfully ask for an aye vote and want you to take note of the brevity of this issue. Thank you.

Thank you. And to the Committee Assistant, we'll ask her to restate the motion and call the roll, please.

This is file item number 10, SB 936. The motion is do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that bill is 7-0, on call. We'll move to item 13. File item 13, SB 1418. Senator Archuleta, that's your bill. If you'd like to present, you're welcome to do so at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Committee Members. I am submitting Bill 1418 regarding hydrogen and fueling stations. As Chair of the Select Committee on Hydrogen Energy, it has come to my attention the pivotal component of our transportation and transition towards cleaner, more sustainable mode of transportation, hydrogen fueling stations, are at times not being built or unnecessarily delayed due to an overly burdensome permitting process.

The permitting process is new to a lot of municipalities, so it will take a little time for them to understand that California is going in that direction, and all the support we can get from the state to encourage them to go forward is essential. Senate Bill 1418 addresses the important issue, as hydrogen has shown great potential toward decarbonizing our heavy duty transportation sector. Senate Bill 1418 transcends simple local ordinances or municipal concerns and, rather, addresses the statewide imperative.

This bill recognizes the need for consistent standards across all jurisdictions to facilitate the prompt and cost effective deployment of these crucial zero emission fueling stations. Senate Bill 1418 underscores our legislative commitment to fostering zero emission vehicle infrastructure while mitigating barriers to the installation of hydrogen fueling stations by municipalities. Senate Bill 1418 brings parity to the electric vehicle permitting process by streamlining the administrative approval process for hydrogen fueling stations in the same way that we do for charging stations.

Specifically, Senate Bill 1418 mandates that cities and counties must adopt an ordinance and checklist that creates an expedited, streamlined permitting process for hydrogen fueling stations. This directive is designed to expedite procedures and ensure that citizens have access to clean energy options without unnecessary administrative hurdles. While Senate Bill 1418 streamlines the permitting process, health and safety remains a top priority. My previous bill, Senate Bill 1291, which passed and was signed by the Governor, ensured hydrogen fueling station permits adhere to stringent health, safety, and performance standards.

Senate Bill 1418 keeps the core components in place. Furthermore, to address fiscal and procedural concerns, Senate Bill 1418 phases in its requirements so that most cities and counties in the state will not have to develop an ordinance until September of 2026, well after GO-Biz releases its model ordinance and checklist for hydrogen fueling stations permitting. In conclusion, California has more fueling or more fuel cell electric vehicles and the hydrogen stations necessary to fuel them than any other state in the nation.

And with California's recent success in securing substantial federal funding for clean renewable hydrogen initiatives through the Alliance of Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems, also known as ARCHES, the timely passage of Senate Bill 1418 is essential to take full advantage of these federal dollars to expedite the development and development and movement of the hydrogen infrastructure into the future, in turn facilitating our state's transition to a cleaner transportation future.

Senate Bill 1418 represents a pivotal step towards realizing our environmentalist stewardship obligations and advancing our sustainable transportation objectives. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And here today in support is Teresa Cooke, representing the California Hydrogen Coalition, who can also assist in answering any questions.

Ms. Cooke, you're welcome to begin.

Thank you, Senator. I would just point out, to Senator Archuleta's point, California also has the very worst ratio of fuel cell drivers to fueling stations available today. So that is something that, you know, we look forward to working with this Committee on to improve through this bill. Teresa Cooke, pleased to be here on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition and the California Hydrogen Business Council. We appreciate your consideration of legislation easing the build out of hydrogen fueling infrastructure.

As my friend and colleague Damon with the League will point out, permitting is not the only challenge facing hydrogen. But as ARB's 2023 AB 8 report notes, permitting does play a role in the station delays that we see today. Our station developers are particularly excited for the checklist required by this bill. Early awareness and transparency into each permitting agency's demands for hydrogen fueling stations will not only shorten build times, but also reduce overall costs. As many of you know, California's hydrogen hub is transportation focused.

The program could not be possible without the $12 billion from the private sector deploying 8,000 trucks and 5,000 zero emission fuel cell electric buses. Bills like 1418 go a long way to support our collective efforts, and for these reasons, we encourage your support today. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Are there others in the committee room who wish to express support for this bill? Please come forward. SB 1418.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jack Yanos on behalf of California Fuels and Convenience Alliance in support.

Lisa McGhee with Tom's Truck Center in full support of this bill.

Thank you. We show no registered opposition. Is there anyone in the committee room who wishes to express opposition? You are registered opposition? All right, well, come on up. You'll have a couple minutes. I apologize.

Hear me? Yeah. Wonderful. Damon Conklin with League of California Cities. Thank you very much. With respect and regret, we have to be opposed unless amended. California Cities, we support the state's transportation and climate goals, and cities across the state, we are, in many circumstances, prefer hydrogen technology over electrification, especially for medium and heavy duty.

This is class 2b and up sized vehicles for our public fleets as well as our transit. Seeking to extend the streamlined process for EV charging to refueling in the hydrogen space that came about from 1291, cities are squarely and narrowly limited in their scope of review to only health and safety. And since 1291 has passed, have we seen a big tsunami of permits across city desks? No, we have not. Currently, we have 18 permits under review across the state.

I would say, in fact, last month there were more permits withdrawn than there were permits submitted for hydrogen. And why is that? Hydrogen is exceedingly expensive to produce, store, transport, and dispense. It requires complex structural, mechanical, and engineering and electrical code compliancy. We are not opposed to the permitting and moving along of hydrogen, and we want to see hydrogen hubs built up across the state.

But a one size fits all approach for a local municipality, regardless of their size, their capability, and their resources, what may work for a larger city or a city that has a transportational hub versus a city that is in a remote area that will never see this permit across their desk and yet is going to be held to the same standards, we think is unfair and unequitable.

So for those reasons, we're looking for an amendment that would just squarely kind of put these bills maybe 5 miles from a freeway and a highway so that we're making sure that it's applied to those very cities that most likely are going to be seeing those permits. So for those reasons, we respectfully oppose unless amended.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. If there are others here who wish to express opposition, you may come forward now. Alright, seeing none. We will bring it back to the Committee for discussion. Yes, Senator Niello.

Excuse me. For reasons stated by the League and local control purposes, I would, taken in isolation, oppose this. But since the situation with electric chargers receives an exemption, I am a supporter of hydrogen being part of the mix, and I would see that as unequal treatment of the opportunity for the facility. So I'm just going to lay off.

Anyone else wish to be recognized? Senator Dodd.

Yeah. The concerns relative to the cities notwithstanding, I just think this is an important policy. I'd like to be at it as a co-author at some point in time when that is opportunity avails itself. I have seen in my district where the municipality just had no understanding of what was going on and took just enormous amounts of time and money by the developer. And at some point in time, there are consultants at these cities and or counties. I'm not just laying it all on cities. Have the ability to go out and hire the expertise that they need to feel comfortable about the health and safety issues, whether it's hydrogen or anything else. Thank you. So I'll be supporting the bill.

Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. I'm struggling with this bill mostly because whenever we talk about streamlining a process at the cities, you could put it in line with the other 15 whatevers that need to be streamlined. And so when you're looking at something like this, it's like which part of the process can they streamline more?

Because the studies, the CEQA stuff, all of those things are what causes the delays. Because it's however long it takes somebody to put something out and that, you know, they contract those studies out, however long it takes to get those studies back in, those are kind of mostly where the delays are. If we're talking about cities that are not permitting these just because they don't want them, that's a whole different animal.

I don't know if streamlining is going to fix that, but I'm not seeing how superseding or pushing this to the front of the line of streamlining with is beneficial to the other people that also have streamlined processes that have been enacted by our Legislature, how we can choose one over the other. I, too, am in favor of this technology as being part of our umbrella solution for our future fuel requirements. But I don't know that the streamlining process that is outlined here is going to make, is going to have the desired effect unless they also address the other issues that are causing the delays in the first place.

May I respond?

Yes.

Okay. Well, I'd like to get you off the fence, because you didn't give me a hard no. You said you're kind of on the fence. Well, let's go ahead and get you off. And let me...

Would it help if I told you where I was?

Don't spoil the surprise.

Let me just.

Let me just share this with you. As you just said yourself that as hydrogen is becoming part of California's future, a bill we just heard with Wahab was using some of the gas stations out there that will open their doors up to hydrogen, the infrastructure. And what brought this about is the hydrogen stations that we do have, the municipalities that finally made the agreements, what they did is they didn't talk about parity with electric. They just made it so difficult for that individual to...

Well, you got a rancher here. When anything's very difficult to conduct your business... Well, they made it so difficult that they made him put in sidewalks, trees, fire hydrants, all kinds of things. He spent $300,000 before he even got anything started. And then the file sat for two years. So in here we got $1.5 billion coming from the federal government so California can start moving its hydrogen and trying to do what we're supposed to do, take care of our environment.

So here we have the opportunity, and we're taking baby steps. And as we take these steps forward, yes, we're going to have to tell municipalities, if you get someone who wants to put one in your neighborhood, your city hall or wherever it's going to be, well, grant it. But if you don't get anybody who wants it, well, then it doesn't apply because it's not going to go across the State of California overnight. This is going to take a few years to get this thing done.

But as it goes through the system, we don't want anyone in the industry to feel that the municipality is being punitive and putting that file down below. And that's what we're talking about. And the fact that the infrastructure that we're looking for, there's millions upon millions of dollars that are going to be invested in California. So as we move along, there will be other bills that will pertain to transportation into manufacturing, into cost savings, and so on. So we're at the threshold of opening up this new environment that will include hydrogen and so many other things for the future. And this is just that one first step. If there's anything that my consultant would like to add to that.

Thank you, Senator. I would just say during the permitting process, there is probably more back and forth and changes and surprises throughout the sort of iterative process to make sure that these permits qualify for the local government satisfaction than I think the hydrogen industry might prefer. And so to have as much kind of upfront notification as possible about what we can do to be the best neighbors possible, I think goes a long way for us to do our part in this.

Thank you for those answers. And I understand that because that is with a lot of industries. Thank you.

And I also think, if I may, Mr. Chair, that, as California keeps going forward, we're going to find more and more people... GO-Biz is really involved with this now. California would not have sought out to get that $1.5 billion if we didn't think we needed it here in our state, and we wouldn't have been competitive to win that amount.

And now that we have it, we have to implement policies and procedures to actually, as I mentioned, to create a flow to the consumer, and that's where the manufacturing, the transportation, municipalities have to work together. So it's going to be a long process, and this is just the beginning. And with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you for the close, Senator. And Senator Newman. Go ahead. We're going to reopen, and we're going to have to allow Senator Archuleta another close, you know, but go ahead.

Anyway, sorry about that. I'm actually a principal co-author of this bill, and I am a frequently challenged driver of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. But I actually do think Mr. Conklin's proposed amendment is interesting. Ms. Cooke, if you could reply. I mean, it does make sense, especially as you look forward toward higher intensive uses medium duty, heavy duty trucks, to spot hydrogen refueling stations within 5 miles of a major thoroughfare. Does that make sense? Because it does seem like a reasonable amendment.

I think I would want to know how much of our current fueling infrastructure is located within a similar kind of footprint. Right. Like, I think Damon and I were chatting earlier, far flung stations not in maybe major travel destinations are a top priority. It's not really a goods movement corridor per se. But as you know, there are a lot of residential areas that may be outside of that five mile area that still should be considered.

So I would, just out of curiosity, want to learn a little bit more what that looks like. What is that density within 5 miles off of a highway versus everything else outside of it? Because it may very well make great sense, or it may be kind of evenly distributed, in which case we might not have a great solution.

Right. There may be some other parameters that might be useful. Right. So, you know, so, you know, I would urge the author, I mean, I'm a principal co. I think it's a good bill, but I'd urge the author to work with the League to see if there's kind of a matrix that might be applied to solve that problem.

Yes, I can see doing that. And again, you mentioned 5 miles off. The idea is if the Wahab takes hold, then we have stations that are close to the highways and freeways, which is a good thing. Taking them off 5 miles, then you're going into a municipality, then it comes up to the local government that would be able to jump in. So however we do it, we've got to be part of the future, and hydrogen is there. So once again, Mr. Chair, I urge an aye vote.

All right, we have a motion by Senator Newman. And I refrain from my comments, and I'm going to continue to refrain, but I would associate my thoughts with Senator Dodd's earlier comments, which I find to be very true. Thank you, Senator. And we have a motion. If you'd like to restate the motion, Committee Assistant, and call the roll. He did. He closed twice. Thank you though. Thank you. Maybe three times.

This is file item number 13, SB 1418. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, that Bill is at seven ayes, zero no's, and we'll keep it on call, Senator. Thank you. Appreciate your presentation. All joking aside. Senator Durazo. And we appreciate the witnesses. Thank you for being here. Senator Durazo, file item seven? Eight. File item eight. If you're following along SB 1488, Senator Durazo, welcome.

Thank you.

You may begin presenting whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. First, I accept the following Committee amendments. Delete the contents of SB 1488.

Two, revise Business and Professions Code, Section 5272 E1, to replace one year with 120 days, and three, add a new section to the BMP Code in the Outdoor Advertising Act, which states, when the Department is formally renegotiating an agreement with the Federal Highway Administration on California's obligations under the Highway Beautification Act, the Department shall, among its priorities, support for advertising displays at arenas as described in Section 5272. As amended, SB 1488 will reduce the length of time for a marketing contract from one year to 120 days, which more accurately reflects outdoor advertising opportunities.

This Bill provides stadiums and arenas revenue streams that do not rely on public funding. The arena exemption was first established by the Legislature to help fund the construction and the operations of the states' stadiums and arenas, which are an important both economic and cultural regional centers. Stadiums create thousands of permanent local good construction jobs and generate millions, hundreds of millions, in state and local taxes, especially through the permanent service jobs.

These message boards also play a vital role in helping to direct traffic around stadiums and providing public safety alerts. Arena operators are not granted an unregulated privilege. They must comply with state and federal law. And this Bill does not provide a financial advantage for sports arena billboards. It is important to remember that there are over 8,500 outdoor billboards in the state and of those, nearly 500 are digital signs.

I remain committed to working with the opposition, bringing together all parties as this Bill moves forward in the legislative process. Today I have Angie Minetti to provide brief remarks in support of SB 1488.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members. Angie Minetti here representing the Los Angeles Dodgers in support of the Bill. Outdoor advertising provides a way to diversify our revenue streams and also provides less reliance on public subsidies. While the Bill no longer provides an outdoor an exemption for arenas from the Outdoor Advertising Act, we still believe, we still support it because it gives clear directive to that outdoor advertising is prioritized during the federal state agreement discussions.

We thank the author, the Chair and Committee staff for working with us and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the committee room who wishes to express support for this Bill? This is file item eight. Seeing none, we're going to go to primary opposition, which I believe is Steve Cruz. You may come up if you're here.

If we have more than one person, that's fine. All right, just please identify yourselves and proceed. You'll have a couple minutes each.

Great. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, Steve Cruz. On behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association. We have had an opposed position on the bill, but wanted to be here in Committee today to express our appreciation for the Senator in agreeing to the amendments that she outlined today, and so wanted to thank her for that and the Committee for their work. So we don't have an official neutral position today, but felt it was important to acknowledge the progress.

And I'll just quickly say that our fundamental concerns, which are highlighted in the analysis, is that the approval of these exemption bills that put us out of compliance with state and federal law and the corresponding threat of federal highway dollars, that's been our primary concern. And then additionally is the concern about the unlevel playing field that it creates with our Members in terms of how they cite their boards.

Now, having said that, I think the much improved with the directive, we want to understand what that directive means and how should there be additional parameters around it. Does it isolate one policy, in this case the re-exemption, to the advantage of other media policies that either the industry or the state wants to advance in those conversations. So again, not officially neutral, but, much improved. And so thank you, Senator, and look forward to working with you as the bill moves forward.

Thank you. You'll have a couple minutes if you choose.

Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Korbe Palmer from Lamar Outdoor Advertising, also a Member of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association. I agree with and echo the comments that Steve brought up as to the concern of risking federal highway funds with these one-off exemption bills.

But I also want to emphasize how similar policies that the Association has opposed in the past create inherent unfairness for operators who are bound to comply with the federal Outdoor Advertising Act, such as ourselves, which regulates how large signs can be, how far apart they can be, etcetera. That said, once again, we're thankful to the author willing to work with this and look forward to continuing discussions.

All right, thank you for being here. Is there anyone in the Committee room who wishes to come up and express an opposition position? Seeing nobody moving forward? We'll come back to the Committee for any questions or concerns. Members? Yes, Senator Archuleta and then Senator Nguyen.

Okay, being a Dodger fan, let me put that out there. But knowing Dodger Stadium, give me an idea of the footprint and where these signs would be in the future. Where exactly would they be? Would anybody know that?

Hi, Senator. That hasn't been determined yet. Obviously, since the bill doesn't provide for an outdoor arena exemption, we haven't had those discussions. But certainly those proposals would have been taken to local LA City Council and at the local level to be determined signage placement, if that is something that the Dodgers could continue to pursue, which is not permitted at this time.

Okay, good. Thank you.

Others wishing to be recognized? Senator Nguyen, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the advertisement or the outdoor. We hear this all the time. Okay, I mean, every time there's a bill that comes out that has to do with billboards, especially on the freeway, that's the same answer you give. I mean, what can we do to move forward so that we can actually, you know, allow, and not just allow an exemption for one industry? What can we do?

Thank you for the, thanks for the question, Senator. You know, there are bills that have been approved by the Legislature. I mean, there were a few last year.

I was an author. I was one of the co author of that bill last year.

Yeah, you know, there have been a few, but I understand your point. And so I know that part of the negotiations with the federal government is to have a discussion around about the policies in California. There is an opening to have that conversation, which is, I think, why our remarks were around. I think let's have a robust conversation about what that directive would look like. But I think you're right. That has been the policy.

Ours has been fairly consistent with the administration and that it would threaten federal highway dollars. And so our position has been consistent there and it's been consistent on, like, when there are exemptions to the rules, where does that leave us that have to comply with the existing rules. And so that's, that's why we've been, I think, pretty consistent over the years. But we are willing to have, like, conversations and our Association is, in fact, going to be involved in those conversations with FHWA. I hope that answers.

I hope so because we've had exemption bills that has expanded 10 years, five years, and we hear the same comments, same concerns 10, 15 years ago, and we're still here. Let's find a solution so that we can all work this through together so that we're not having to do one singular bill for an industry every time.

I hope that if there's anything that we can do up here to move that process so that it works for you guys and it works for everybody else in California.

That's fair. Thank you.

All right, we're going to see if there's anyone else who wishes to be recognized. I make sure I look to my right this time. All right. Seeing none, Senator Durazo, you have an opportunity to close.

Thank you very much. And we will continue to work on this. But I want to remind us that this exemption is not part of this bill. That's really important for folks to walk away with that understanding. And we hope that as good Senator just said that in negotiate renegotiating an agreement with the Federal Highway Administration that will give it the priority that it deserves so that we could come up with something that makes sense for everyone. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you. We'll bring it back to. We have a motion, I'm sorry. The motion was by Senator Archaletta, and we'll have the Committee assistant formalize that and call the roll, please.

This is file item number eight. The motion is do pass as amended, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations.

Senators Cortese? Cortese, aye. Niello? Allen? Archuleta? Archuleta, aye. Blakespear? Blakespear, aye. Dahle? Dodd? Dodd, aye. Gonzalez? Laird? Limon? Newman? Newman, aye. Min? Portantino? Portantino, aye. Seyarto? Umberg? Six to zero on call.

All right, the vote's six to zero on call. Thank you. We'll move now to item 14. That would be SB 1216. And that would be Senator Blakespear. You may present whenever ready, Senator.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair and colleagues, I am pleased to author SB 1216, which will improve safety for cyclists on our roadways by limiting the overuse of sharrows in class three bikeways. You are being distributed a picture of a sharrow so you know exactly what it is. Sharrows, as some may know, are a painted symbol on a roadway to indicate that bicyclists and drivers are sharing a lane. These types of bicycle facilities are used all throughout the state to connect bike networks.

Building out our bike network is very important as the state prioritizes active transportation as a core component of mobility. However, our roadways are filled with bigger and heavier vehicles, more distractions than ever, and are inherently dangerous, especially when mixing bicycles and cars. According to the California DMV, each year in California, over 100 bicyclists are killed and over 10,000 are injured in collisions.

Just last year in the City of Encinitas, a 15 year old boy named Brody Champlain Kingman was killed because he was sharing a roadway on his e-bike, and there was an accident with a van. With the ever increasing prevalence of e-bikes and adoption of cycling as a mode of transportation and recreation. We have to do better by our residents and prioritize the safest bike infrastructure possible, especially with limited funding.

Our state encourages active transportation and has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to implement safe bike infrastructure through the ATP or Active Transportation Program. But it's clear that there are safer alternatives to sharrows, and our state funding sources should prioritize those without physical separation from large, sometimes distracted and fast-moving vehicles. An inherent danger exists for cyclists of all ages and abilities.

Also, a simple observation is that sharing the roadway with cars prevents many from seeing cycling as a reasonable or viable option for getting around, and this further forces us into seeing cars as the only way to get around. We have to do better by ensuring our state prioritizes the safest bike facilities possible and this bill does two things to make cycling safer. First, it prohibits sharrows and class three bikeways on highways with a posted speed limit over 30 mph.

This is in alignment with design guidelines published by Caltrans earlier this year that class three bikeways should only be used in very low speed and low volume locations and as a last resort when no other viable alternatives exist.

I recognize that many sports cyclists who ride along scenic highways with higher vehicle speeds feel safer when drivers are aware of their presence, and therefore this bill still allows signs that say bicycles may use full lane, which is the state law, so long as the signs are not considered a class three bikeway for the purposes of evaluating bicycle or complete streets targets and goals.

The second thing this bill does is it prohibits active transportation funds from being used to create sharrows or class three bikeways when the design speed is greater than 25 mph. ATP funds should be used to encourage active transportation and finding ways to reduce injuries and fatalities. These funds shouldn't be used for projects that don't actually make biking safer, like simply adding markers without including any other features to slow traffic or to create a safer environment.

The bottom line is that we need our roadways to be safer for cyclists and for the state to prioritize the safest types of bikeways possible. With me today, I have Marc Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All, and I also have, oh yes, and he is right here. So thank you for coming.

All right, I told Senator Cortese here to step out, so Mister Vukcevich, please proceed.

You guys can call me whatever you like, it's fine.

It is Vukcevich. Soory, Vukcevich?

All good. SB 1216. It's pretty simple. Sharrws had an important role to play in the evolution of safe street bicycle transportation policy, but it's been over 20 years now since Willie Brown presided over the first sharrow outside of San Francisco city hall, and the best practices for bicycle infrastructure have evolved for its time.

While research have shown that sharrows may offer some improvement for experienced cyclists, there's little evidence that they encourage more people to adopt cycling, particularly women and children and nonrecreational riders, due to the lack of meaningful features to slow traffic or eliminate potential collisions. Cyclists are safest when physically separated from vehicles have shown that sharrows have a small effect on reducing dooring, but do not have a large effect on preventing car-bike collisions.

And in fact, a 2016 study by civil engineers at the University of Denver showed that streets with sharrows performed worse than streets with on street markings at reading collisions. Kind of the gist of the matter is that FHWA, Nacto, and even Caltrans themselves don't allow or don't encourage sharrows on streets above 25 mph. Our Bill says 30 to allow for more local flexibility. And really, the question before you is not where cyclists are and are not allowed to ride.

Cyclists are, according to the vehicle code, allowed to ride anywhere on any single roadway. The question is where the state should be telling cyclists to ride. And that's the question before you that I'd like to say I close. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Miste Vukcevich. Are there any other individuals here in the hearing room who would like testify in support of this measure? Please come forward.

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

Thank you. Anybody else? I understand we do have a primary witness in opposition, Chris Lee, on behalf of the Nevada Transportation Commission. Mr. Lee, you can come to the table, depending on, oh you're good.

I'll be brief. Good afternoon, Chair, Members. Chris Lee here on behalf of the Nevada County Transportation Commission, have an opposed position. Appreciate the amendments. We think they improved the bill a lot, but still have two minor points of contention that we'd hope to work out. First, I think we have a slightly different interpretation of the prohibition. We do think that the bill would prohibit the installation and maintenance of class three bikeways other than sharrows.

And in a county like Nevada County, where you have limited right of ways, you have a lot of low-volume rural streets that are likely never going to be widened. We do think that this is something that we should have in our tool chest to show that cyclists can be present. They're going to be on the facilities, and we think it's an option that shouldn't be precluded by state law. Second point on the grant funding.

These are not the type of facilities we typically would pursue grant funding for, but we do think that they should be allowed to be considered, except for perhaps the sharrow example, on a high speed facility as part of a broader grant application. So hope to resolve those two remaining issues. Again, I think the amendments move the bill in a better direction, but currently have an opposed position.

Thank you. Other members of the public that would like to express an opposition position?

Damon Conklin, on behalf of League of California Cities. We have concerns, just echoing the earlier statements that were just made by Chris Lee. So we've been working with the author's office and we feel that we're moving in the right direction. We've got some good collaborative conversations there that I think we'll be able to live with. But I want to thank the author for having open door policy and working with us.

Thank you. Any other opposition? Seeing none. Let's come back to the Committee. Colleagues, any questions or concerns for the author? Seeing none. Do we have a motion on the measure? Senator Blakespear, if you'd like to close.

Okay, thank you. I guess, in summary, I just want to say that we want to have our active transportation funds used toward projects that actually lead to mode shift. So people deciding to ride a bike when they were maybe taking a car before. And so those projects need to be safe, they need to be separated. And I have seen many examples of sharrows painted in roads that are not actually creating the active transportation that we want and the network that we need. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, we can entertain a motion at this time. Senator Archuleta moves, and we will have the committee assistant formalize that. Call the roll, please.

This is file item number 14, SB 1216. The motion is do pass, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Cortese?

Cortese, aye. Niello? Allen? Archuleta? Archuleta, aye. Blakespear? Blakespear, aye. Dahle? Dahle, no. Dodd? Dodd, aye. Gonzalez? Laird? Limon? Newman? Newman, aye. Nguyen? Portantino? Portantino, aye. Seyarto? Seyarto, no. Umberg?

All right, the vote on that Bill is six to two, so we'll keep it on call. Senator Niello is over in Judiciary, so we will move to item 16, Senator Newman, SB 1372.

Can we flip flop the order?

We could. We can go to 17 and then back to 16. File item 17 would be SB 1387. Again, Senator Newman.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1387, which would update the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project, or HVIP, to include medium-duty pickup trucks and independent contractors who depend upon these vehicles for their livelihoods. As you're all by now more than well aware, California has fully committed to the ambitious and aggressive goal of moving beyond gasoline-powered vehicles.

Despite this, there are still no medium-duty, zero-emission pickup trucks available in California on the market today, and all of the state zero-emission incentive programs. Of those, none currently provide grants toward the purchase of a medium-duty work truck for farmers, laborers, landscapers, independent contractors, all of whom tend to use medium-duty trucks such as the Ford F-250 and the Dodge Ram 2500.

The state's accelerated zero-emission transition is not just another routine business expense they can adapt to, but there is still a massive cost associated with these vehicles, and that cost could represent the line between purchasing them and deploying them in their businesses or not.

SB 1387 would update the state's leading medium and heavy-duty ZEV incentive program to extend grants for the first time to both fleet and individually owned Class 2B and Class 3 medium-duty pickup trucks, of which there are an estimated 4 million in California alone. With me to testify is Damon Conklin, on behalf of the League of California Cities, and Lisa McGhee, are you not? No, you're not. Lisa McGhee is my lone witness here.

And with respect to all of our time, on behalf of the state's leading HVIP dealership, Tom's Truck Center, I am respectfully asking for your aye vote today.

Thank you. You may.

Yes, welcome. Thank you. My name is Lisa McGhee, and I'm the ZEV Programs and Affairs manager. I'm with Tom's Truck Center. We're a highly active HVIP dealership. Last year alone, we supported over 288 HVIP vouchers. Over 150 of those were hydrogen. Senator Bill's.

Senator Newman's Bill is instrumental to fleets that operate as independent contractors, such as landscapers, e-commerce delivery drivers, subcontractors, electricians and plumbers, laborers that are interested in e-mobility trucks, officers, all which are not eligible to participate in HVIP, regardless of the truck size. Yet these fleets operate and use these trucks for commercial business purposes over 50% of the time. However, the HVIP implementation manual states it needs to modify and remove the following if used exclusively for commercial and not personal use.

This is flawed and excludes the fleet contractors from participating in being eligible for HVIP vouchers, which and its intent is making commercially available ZEV commercial trucks affordable. Please include independent contractor fleets to be part of our climate policy solution. I can share an experience that I'm dealing with this week with a contractor that has been in business for over 20 years, pays his taxes, has a California contractor's license and submitted an HVIP voucher for a Ford Transit EV cargo van.

HVIP rejected his contractor license as a valid business. He went and got a DBA business license, and we are pending a response. SB 1387 is necessary, making ZEV purchases possible for independent contractors who can't afford these investments. HVIP immediately reduces the upfront investment which the upfront investment is critical. The Inflation Reduction Act and or the CVRP program do not. These fleets should be eligible included. I urge you to please support SB 1387. Thank you.

Thank you. Other support witnesses please come forward.

Damon Conklin with League of California Cities as well as on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. We are in big, strong support of this Bill. Class 2B, this is your F-250 vehicles. This represents the plurality of public fleets. We really appreciate the incentive and the ability to offset some of those hard upfront costs transitioning. Thank you very much.

All right, the rest of this is me too.

Teresa Cooke, on behalf of the California Hydrogen Coalition, California Hydrogen Business Council. Happy to be in support. Thank you.

Jay Snike on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, also in support.

Curt Augustine with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation in support. Thank you.

Shane Lavigne, on behalf of First Student and National Express, in support. Thank you.

All right, we have no registered opposition. Is there anyone who wishes to express opposition? If so, please come forward in the Committee Room now. All right, seeing no one, we're going to come back to the Committee. Questions, concerns? Just a minute. Before we entertain a motion. I have to get back to the Senator. Sorry, Senator Archuleta. Senator Newman on the amends.

We need to get a statement from you as to where you're at on.

I'm sorry. Yeah. We are more than happy to take the amendments proposed by the Committee. We thank the Committee for their work on them.

All right, thank you. We'll come back to you for a close. Now, I'll come back to. Senator Dahle moves, moves the Bill as amended. Anyone else? All right, we're going to go ahead and call the roll.

This is file item number 17, SB 1387. The motion is do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]. 10-0 on call. 10-0.

All right. That bill is at 10-0. We'll keep it on call. Senator Newman, are you prepared to take.

I am so. Thank you. And thank you to my witness. Appreciate it.

So this would be file item 16, SB 1372.

That's not my writing. So I'm told the opposition is not ready, but I'm not sure that's my biggest concern.

I don't think that's your problem.

At the moment. Apparently, they're stuck in line at the airport. You'll see what I'm referring to at some point.

Okay, Mister Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1372, which would ensure equal access and equitable treatment for users of California's commercial airports by requiring third-party expedited screening services such as Clear, to adjust their current operating model and offer a dedicated screening lane in order to operate at California airports.

In light of my place in the agenda and keeping in mind that I've spoken to most of you about the merits of this Bill, I'm going to spare you what would have otherwise been a doctoral-level dissertation on the origins, operations, and imperfections of the Clear service. But some background and context is needed, so bear with me for just a moment. In the aftermath of the 911 attacks and the impact it had on air travel, Congress passed the Aviation Transportation Security Act of 2001.

This legislation led to the creation of something called the Registered Traveler, or RT, Program. Congress' goal at that time was to both enhance airport security and improve the traveler experience. In 2006, under the Federal Registry Notice, multiple RT providers began operations. But in the wake of the Great Recession, virtually all of those RT providers became unviable as businesses, and by 2008 had ceased operations.

In 2010, a former fund manager named Karen Seidman Becker and an asset manager named Ken Kornick purchased the assets of one of those failed ventures, a bankrupt company called Clear. They relaunched the company in 2012 at an especially opportune time, as the Transportation Security Administration was finally seeing some success in streamlining the screening process, including the launch of a new service that we now know as TSA PreCheck.

In 2019, Mister Kornick submitted testimony before the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Security under the heading of improving security at America's airport stakeholder perspectives, and in that testimony, he made the assertion that Clear's secure enrollment platform establishes an impermeable link between one's identity and biometrics achieved through digitally authenticating a traveler's government-issued identification, establishing that the person enrolling is the person on such document through the use of challenge questions driven by commercially-available data and capturing biometric data including fingerprints, iris image, and face.

What they really do is they capture the information that's associated with your face, and they associate it your driver's license, which is exactly what the TSA agent at the gate does. But Clear's ostensibly high-tech methodology and proprietary technology, according to Clear, has allowed Clear to foster what it describes as a strong public-private partnership with TSA, a partnership which represents a win-win for all stakeholders, driving innovation, enhancing security and efficiency for all travelers at zero cost to taxpayers.

There's only one flaw with this otherwise very compelling narrative. None of it is actually true as it relates to security beyond confirming a traveler's identity. Clear's kiosk-based system is not tied into TSA's secure screening database, and so it has very little bearing on the security of a Clear traveler as they pass through the line. In 2022, Clear's verification service actually allowed an airline passenger using a false identity to pass through its system. That passenger was also found by the TSA to be carrying ammunition.

In 2023, two incidents occurred where individuals not enrolled in the company's security program were actually escorted through a TSA security checkpoint without having presented valid identification. And one of those incidents actually involved a passenger who had apparently used a boarding pass picked out of a trash bin. When it comes to improving airport efficiency, Clear doesn't do that either.

Every Clear customer who has escorted past travelers waiting in either of the standard TSA or TSA PreCheck lines winds up at the exact same place as those who don't use Clear, at the entrance to the conveyor belt where your personal items are screened. Throughput from that point remains totally unchanged, the only real difference being that those not using Clear are understandably annoyed about being shunted aside by those who do use Clear.

As it relates to the third proud claim about driving innovation, I suppose Clear actually has done that. In the proud American business tradition of making something out of nothing, Clear has built a thriving business around doing things quite well, providing passengers willing to pony-up an additional dollar 189 a year, an opportunity to cut in front of their fellow travelers who either won't or can't do that themselves, and building partnerships with airports that let those airports generate the additional marginal revenue that this opportunity creates.

Proof of this clever innovation are the swarms of commission-incentivized Clear personnel that you meet as you join the line of the airport, especially where the line is long. Who upsell you on the benefits of cutting the line with Clear. And I'm among those who don't think that's especially honorable or fair.

And what this Bill seeks to do on behalf of all the airport travelers who are continually inconvenienced or annoyed by this service is to create sufficient motivation across Clear and its nine current California airport partners to simply re-engineer their traffic flows to separate Clear subscribers from other non-Clear travelers, thereby sparing the rest of the traveling public from its off-putting and irritating impact. So, I have grudgingly accepted the Chair's proposed amendments.

Let me make that clear, although I am concerned that by softening the business Bill, we are reducing the likelihood of its ultimate success. In addition to hearing from the opposition this afternoon that Clear is a wonderful, useful, and universally loved service, you're also likely to hear that having TSA reconfigured screen procedures to allow for a dedicated line for Clear is beyond its control.

Excuse me. Or that the conduct of airport screening is a federal function outside California's jurisdiction. As a practical matter, neither of those things is true. At LAX in fact, Delta Airlines has recently lost its own branded premium security line called Delta One, which completely bypasses the public TSA lines, and which is staffed by a combination of Delta and TSA employees.

Equally importantly, the State of California has a very clear prerogative to exercise oversight on the activities of airports within its jurisdiction, to include ensuring that every traveler, not just the wealthy or the privileged, can be assured of equal treatment and the best travel experience possible. So let me make that clear. Thank you. Very clear, no pun intended, that the goal of SB 1372 is not to put Clear out of business. It is not to banish Clear from California.

It's simply to guide them toward realigning their business practices with those very straightforward ideals. With me to testify today is Christy Rivera, on behalf of the Association of Flight Attendants, and Gilbert Galam, on behalf of the American Federation of Government Employees. They're making a big entrance to our witness area here. I am respectfully asking for your aye vote this evening.

Thank you, Senator. We'll welcome your witnesses, and they may testify in whichever order they prefer. Yes, that's fine. You'll have a couple minutes each.

I'll go first. Hello, my name is Gilbert Galam. I'm the Local Secretary for American Federation of Government Employees Local 1230. I represent 1,200 TSA screening officers at all airports in Northern California from major airports such as Sacramento International Airport, Oakland International Airport, and San Jose, Mineta International Airport. I am here in support of Senate Bill 1372. Currently, as it stands, Clear is a major headache for our TSOs. The service adds no value to security or efficiency for the traveling public.

In fact, after talking to several of our workers, they brought up some of the common problems that come up while interacting with Clear. Many screeners have reported to us of many instances where Clear employees brought passengers to travel document check and dropping them off at the front of the security queue without actually communicating to TSA that the passenger was verified through their service. This creates confusion during the screening process, imposes a security risk, as well as inconveniencing passengers in the security queue.

Along with this, the travel document check position routinely involves officers needing to juggle multiple parties competing to be at the front of the line. At any given time, they may be verifying airline employees, airport employees, passengers with disabilities, along with regular and Clear passengers at the same time. The addition of Clear as a priority party adds to the already large mental load that our screeners undertake during the screening process.

Our officers also report that they have seen many arguments between Clear customers and the regular passengers that they skip, often leading to very contentious conflicts as they enter the security checkpoint. These scenarios create distractions for our screeners and pose a security risk for the traveling public.

Their biometric technology, intended to automate the process in which a TSA officer validates a passenger's boarding pass and ID, has never been found by the TSA to improve aviation security, and unlike TSA PreCheck, Clear customers do not undergo any form of background check or pre-screening. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security reported that in 2023, Clear was responsible for two major breaches of airport security.

In one incident, Clear employees escorted an individual carrying ammo under a false name through the security, and in another, an individual who used a boarding pass found in the trash. At roughly 12 times the cost of TSA PreCheck, Clear is nothing more than the luxury resale upcharge of space in the airport security queue where the well to do and can pay to skip the line at the direct expense of every other traveler.

While Clear may save time for its paying customers, non-customers suffer from Clear's aggressive sales tactics and longer security queues as they get pushed aside to make way for someone with means. Supporting this Bill would be a win for security as well as equity among the traveling public.

Excuse me. Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Christy Rivera. I'm a 33-year United Airlines flight attendant and on behalf of the Association of Flight Attendants, CWA, AFL, CIO, with nearly 50,000 members and roughly 6,000 of those members based here in California. We support SB 1372, which would require a third-party expedited screening service provider like Clear to operate in a dedicated screening lane independent of those used by non-Clear travelers at California airports.

SB 1372 is needed because of continuing reports about irregularities in the verification of passenger identification by Clear, which raises concerns about the integrity of aviation security. One such egregious event reported involves a traveler using the fake identity that was discovered when TSA screeners found ammunition in his carry-on luggage. In another incident, a passenger was escorted through security using a board he passed retrieved from the trash can.

As I'm sure you're all aware of these over 14 million people are enrolled in Clear, but the TSA found approximately 48,000 travelers who did not complete a facial match as part of their registration. Clear is not TSA. TSA PreCheck is the federal program that collects biometric data, fingerprints, and photos, which verifies identity documents and expedites screening for low-risk passengers. Clear doesn't add any enhanced layer of security to airport operations.

TSA PreCheck. Clear members must also register for TSA PreCheck if they want to take advantage of any expedited screening. Instead, Clear is just a pay-for-play way to cut the screening line. SB 1372 would restore equal access and treatment at airport security checkpoints by requiring companies like Clear to operate in a dedicated security lane separate from the general travelers and TSA PreCheck members.

The separation would preserve Clear's ability to operate in California, but in a way that streamlines the security processes and for everybody moving through California's airports, Clear customer or not. For these reasons, AFA, the Association of Flight Attendants CWA, supports SB 1387.

All right, thank you for your testimony. Are there others here who wish to speak in support of this Bill? If so, please come forward. We'll move now to opposition. Opposition witnesses you're welcome to come forward.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members. Jim Lites, on behalf of the California Airports Council, representing the 31 commercial airports in the state, notwithstanding multiple entertaining conversations with Senator Newman, we are opposed to the bill, and the airports in the state do not control the checkpoint that is controlled by the TSA. And so the desire that there be a dedicated TSA officer to handle those that are clear customers is not something that the State of California can compel the TSA to do.

We are happy to work with Senator Newman to talk to the TSA about those desires, but at the end of the day, what this bill will do is cut off revenue for the nine airports that have clear today, and it's not clear from the amendments that we've just had a chance to take a look at.

If the airports that do not have clear today are going to be able to bring clear in before the provisions of the bill take effect, we certainly would not want to see airports turn into haves and have nots, those that got in under the wire to have clear, and those that all of a sudden are prevented from doing business with Clear in the future. So we remain opposed to the bill and would ask for your no vote.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Jessica Ng, and I'm the director of state and local public affairs for Clear. Clear is a secure identity company operating as a qualified anti-terrorism technologies since 2010 under the Transportation Security Administration's Registered Traveler program.