Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

It looks like we are waiting for some additional Members, so calling all Members to transportation to if you serve on this Committee, we'd love to see your face so we can get started even in an informational capacity. Thank you. The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. Good afternoon and welcome everyone. The hearing is open for the attendance of this hearing, and it can be watched from a live stream on the Assembly's website. We encourage the public to provide written testimony by visiting the Committee's website.

Please note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. We will also allow two minutes each for two primary witnesses in support and opposition, and these witnesses must testify in person in this hearing room. Additional witness comments will be limited to your name, organization, and position. With that, we will begin an informational hearing. Just to note as members do arrive and calling all transportation Committee Members to this room.

Assemblymember Berman and Lowenthal will not be in attendance today and will be replaced by Assemblymembers Ortega and Valencia. The first file item we have for discussion is AB 3151. This item will be heard as testimony only, and we will not be taking a vote on this measure today. To the author at your convenience. And as they gather, I'll note also that file item 12, AB 2744 by McCarty, has been pulled by the author and also will not be heard today.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 3151 for testimony only, which would require marine ocean marine terminals to conduct an intermodal rotability inspection program for intermodal chassis to ensure public safety. I first want to start off by thanking the Committee.

Thank you very much for working with us to get us to this space and allowing us to present this Bill for testimony early and also to the countless times that I met with the chair and had conversation around this policy. And I look forward to working with this Committee and strengthening this in the near future and bring it back. Many of you may or may not know that I chair the select committee on Ports and Goods movement in the State of California.

In the Assembly, I have visited nearly every portion of port in the State of California over a nine month period of time. We have one final port, and that's the Port of San Diego. I can confidently say that top priority for all the ports, we've had conversation with, is safety. Safety of the workers and the surrounding communities is paramount. What has been communicated with me and to me and all to the Select Committee on Ports and Goods movement who joined me.

In and around my district, specifically, the two ports in my district is the Port of Los Angeles, and the ports of Long Beach are surrounded by dense urban areas that these chassis are driven up and down the street on a daily basis. These areas includes businesses and schools that face potential risk to communities facing chassis are not consistently or frequently inspected.

A letter that was submitted to the Committee by the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long beach stress the importance of these inspections and why they are absolutely necessary. We also receive letters from surrounding businesses that are on the front line of these issues that I've spoken about, and I want to quote what some of them have said. Staff is at risk every time we get on the road and deliver goods in the port complexes in these two ports.

I think we can fully be aware that our ports are absolutely imperative for our economy to thrive and grow in industry surrounding the ports, including truckers and also terminal operators, play an essential role in the port's success. But this cannot come at a cost of safety for surrounding communities as well as the men and women who serves our ports.

We have seen that there is problems with these chassis and that they must be changed and made to make sure that inspections and the inspection process is given to making sure that we have safe communities and also our ports. In a report by the Federal Motor Safety Administration, over 1400 chassis have been involved in accidents, some of which have ended in fatal death. While it is true that chassis are safe or safer, that some are still not so safe.

And the purpose of this is to make sure that we have optimum safety in our ports, which, of course, means our community and those who work in our ports day in and day out. Why I say this, not saying that this Committee takes safety in a very cavalier way. This is a way just to bring it to your attention. Why this Bill is important and this conversation is important.

That is why I am committed in my office to continue the conversation with stakeholders, again, committing myself to continue the conversation with stakeholders, the Administration, to create a policy that is sufficient for all parties that will increase safety of our surrounding ports and communities. And it's a hard conversation, but we're certainly willing to have that conversation. With me to provide supporting testimonies of President of ILW Local 13, Gary Herrera, and also another representative from ILW who will self interduct, introduce themselves. Mister President.

Committee, thank you so much for having me here today. I truly appreciate it. This is a very important issue. My name is Gary Herrera. I am the President of ILW Local 13, which represents around 10,000 Members, plus 6000 part time workers that work on the waterfronts between the ports of LA and Long Beach. Assemblyman has just explained all the things that I basically was going to talk about, but I guess I really get to stress home the importance of why we're fighting for this.

Over the last 20 years, I have seen two longshoremen die because of container falling off of a chassis. And one of them, he was driving at night and there was no brake lights on the chassis, and the truck came to a complete stop and he has had over 10 different surgeries just to be alive today. You know, there was something that was said in the opposition letter that says that no chassis exit the facility and go out defective.

Well, I could tell you here today, in the last month and a half, here's plenty of information and testimony to all the chassis who have left the terminal defective. We're trying to get ahead of the problem today. When you have a Vincent Thomas bridge down in the port of LA, it's going to be resurfaced, and you're going to have the Olympics coming up in four months. You're going to have traffic and all kinds of construction around the neighboring communities.

These trucks are going to wind up in the neighborhoods of our communities, and if they're not fixed, then they're going to kill an innocent child, a family, and like Mister Gibson said, over 1400 incidents since 2019. All we're trying to do is make sure that these chassis are inspected and cleared to go off into the road. We are not looking to detain any trucker. In fact, we made amendments to that. We're not keeping them 10 days. We're not keeping the trucker there.

We've made amendments all the way down to allowing a owner or a long term lease driver leave the facility to go fix his chassis. But that container which carries the most burden while being on a bad chassis shall stay at the terminal until he or she gets their chassis fix. So we've made amendments over the last month. So I just want to say thank you.

I appreciate your time, and we hope that you guys see that this is for safety of all our communities, not just of our industry.

Hello. My name is Anthony Garcia. I'm currently mechanic for the LW 13 local 13. I've been a mechanic for just three years. Formerly, I was with the California Highway Patrol as a motorcare specialist, which the areas I was responsible for were both the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. To address the questions raised by the Committee, we have offered these amendments to the Committee, which are not reflected in analysis, we offer to delete the 10 days.

Instead of retaining these chassis, we offer to flip the containers. We have shared these amendments with the California Trucking Association as well as the CHP and are currently awaiting feedback. While the pandemic is over, the next cargo surge can happen anytime which will result in defective chassis going on the road into our communities through all this.

This will not increase turn time and this is why, by implementing a systematic inspection procedure ensuring these intermodal chassis are kept in a safe and proper operating condition, part of them leaving the terminal, it will make things more efficient and in turn reduce the wait time. We ask that this issue be addressed.

All right, looking thank you for the testimony. Looking to members of the public who would like to offer me two comments in the form of name, organization and position.

Chair and Members Nate Solov on behalf of the Port of LA and support. Since this does help ensure safety in our port environment. Thank you so much to the author, appreciate it.

Marvin Pineda on behalf of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union representing all the port workers at all ports. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Now we'll move on to members, I'm sorry, members of the public opposed the primary witnesses in opposition. As a reminder, two minutes and you can start at your convenience.

Thank you. Chair Wilson and Members Chris Shimoda with the California Trucking Association first want to state that while we are in opposition to AB 3151, we are committed to working with all stakeholders, including the Committee, Select Committee, chair, sponsors and law enforcement, to address chassis safety. Chassis, like all commercial trucks and trailers, are subject to the bit program, the nation's most stringent commercial vehicle inspection program.

In 1994, AB 1633 created a safety incentive program for marine terminals housing more than 1000 chassis with two consecutive satisfactory bit inspections to allow for visual inspections of chassis while exiting the terminal to be performed in lieu of a standard 90 day safety inspection required of all other trucks and trailer owners. However, since 1994, ocean carriers and their marine terminal agents have divested ownership in chassis.

Third party chassis leasing companies, truckers and shippers now own the equipment and the associated responsibility for maintenance under the bit program. AB 3151 seeks to amend AB 1633, but due to shift in ownership of these chassis, proposes two unprecedented provisions. Most problematically, AB 3151 would allow marine terminals to seize and perform repairs to chassis without authorization or knowledge of the rightful equipment owner.

Second, AB 3151 would authorize the terminal to detain drivers for the purpose of performing a safety inspection on equipment it has no ownership interest in. There is no statute that we're aware of that grants this authority to non law enforcement personnel elsewhere in the code.

In conclusion, we look forward to continuing this discussion with the Committee, the author and sponsors, and our partners in law enforcement, and want to thank the chair and Committee staff for their work in bringing together parties to find common ground to ensure the safety of the motoring public. Thank you.

Madam Chair Members Brian White with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association with which includes ocean carriers and marine terminals operating at California's public seaports. We have a long history working with Assemblymember Gibson and we appreciate his continued leadership in advancing initiatives that address challenges with our state supply chain and goods movement in addition to protecting our ports competitiveness.

Unfortunately, we must respectfully oppose AB 3151 in principle because, as currently written, it imposes an overly prescriptive mandate on marine terminal operators to inspect intermodal chassis, which is currently enforced through inspections by CHP. But this Bill would shift that responsibility and add new criminal sanctions on marine terminal operators to enforce the chassis inspections, even though we don't own the equipment.

That being said, we do look forward to working with the author, the Committee, the sponsors and other stakeholders to address these issues concerning chassis safety, provided there is agreed upon solution that is based on safety data that is apparent and readily available, that demonstrates a need for a tailored approach going forward. Again, we appreciate the author's work, intent to maintain the improved on road safety, and we look forward to future conversations. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Now, looking to members of the public who are also in opposition, who would like to offer me to name, organization and position.

Good afternoon. Steve Wallauch on behalf of the Institute of International Container Lessors. In opposition unless amended.

Thank you. Seeing no others moving to Members of the Committee who might have any questions, comments or concerns, I'd like to say welcome to Assembly Member Ortega to the Committee. All right, seeing none, I'll move to. I want to show my appreciation to the author for not only the discussions we've had in the past, but agreeing to continue to discuss this Bill. As is noted, the Bill significantly expands the existing intermodal rotability inspection program at the ports.

It would allow non law enforcement personnel to inspect and detain a chassis with the potential of creating a misdemeanor charge if a chassis is not fixed within 10 days. Now, the stated purpose of this Bill is safety. However, California Highway Patrol, who oversee both the basic inspection of Terminals program and the Intermodal Roadability Inspection program, has just been brought into the negotiations at the prompting of this Committee.

Additionally, it is unclear that there are new or increasing safety issues at the ports that require this specific solution. Information from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration indicates that the number of intermodal container chassis involved in all crash events in California has decreased by over 100 incidents between 2019 and 2023. I do appreciate the testimony from witnesses and support regarding the issues found exactly on the terminal itself. Safety is of the utmost importance to the state and every stakeholder at the port.

I encourage the author to continue to dive deeper into what the problem of safety with regards to intermodal chassis and to work with the appropriate stakeholders to come to a common conclusion. I believe there is one. I look forward to the author keeping both myself and staff updated. Working with the Committee, CHP and all relevant stakeholders on this particular policy. Give you an opportunity to close before we move on.

Absolutely. And Madam Chair and to the Committee, thank you very much. And certainly it's my desire to work with stakeholders and as early as they are available, to moving this conversation forward, to making sure that one we provide something, that one we can wrap our arms around, and also one that continues to promote safety, which is our first and foremost.

And I know that those who are opposing it talked about some of the previous iteration, but I shared with you and your team that we're willing to make consistent, considerable concessions and amendments to this Bill to get us all to a point where safety is placed in the top of our conversation and the top of this Bill. Thank you very much for your time and look forward to it and appreciate this moment.

Thank you so much.

We have an Kumbaya moment right now.

All right. We do have several Members who are in transit, whether physically here, because they're in the building, or actually via several modes of transportation, including a plane. And so we will continue an informational hearing till we get a quorum. We would just ask that as those members either arrive to the building or in the building, that they do make great haste to come to the Committee hearing room so that we can establish a quorum. With that, we will move on to.

Let's see, let me see my order. Item number five. AB 2086. Yavo. Oh, sorry. Is he here? Oh, there he is. I'm sorry, I have to, have to move back. Are you fine with that? Okay, item number five. I was looking in the middle. Former Vice Chair Fong.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Fong.

At your convenience.

Thank you. Madam Chair Members, I am grateful for the opportunity to present AB 2086 to you today. AB 2086 brings accountability and transparency to California's transportation investments. It requires Caltrans to update an existing public online dashboard displaying how annual project investments are advancing the vision and goals of the California Transportation Plan. Public lawmakers and top transportation decision makers will be able to access and understand how the full set of Caltrans programmatic investments are impacting their communities and upholding the state's goals.

AB 2086 also advances transportation accountability by adding key reporting elements to the California transportation plan. It serves as a policy framework that provides a shared vision, goals and roadmap to advance effective, equitable and transparent, transparent and transformational transportation. That's a lot of t's in a row decisions in California. Yet the current reporting in the California Transportation plan is not directly tied to the roughly 30 billion in transportation investments that the state makes per year or progress towards the goals laid out in the plan.

AB 2086 updates the California Transportation plan to include a financial element that summarizes the full cost of the plan implementation, a summary of available revenues through the planning period, and an analysis of what is feasible with the plan if constrained by realistic projections of available revenues. AB 2086 is good governance and it ensures fiscal oversight, particularly in tight budget years. California needs to be maximizing the return on every transportation dollar spent and demonstrating results to voters.

From the beginning of my office, my office and sponsors have had a broad set of stakeholders and agencies to the industry to ensure that this design of this legislation can address any concerns and ensure it's aligned with their goals and efforts. With me to testify in support is Hana Creger with the Greenlining Institute and Zach Deutsch-Grosso. Yes. Yay. Okay, good. With transform. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Greenlining works thank you. Greenlining works to build a future where communities of color can build wealth, live in healthy places filled with economic opportunity, and will be ready to meet the challenges posed by climate change. AB 2086 is key to ensuring that lawmakers have the critical information they need to make important decisions. Despite California having a wide range of stated transportation goals, the evidence shows we are not meeting them. For example, in recent years, there have been an increase in traffic deaths and an increase in vehicle miles traveled.

The state is still not on track to meet our climate goals, and none of this information is being collected in a way that's actually tied to our transportation investments. Furthermore, even if this information was being collected, the state does not have a sufficient way to show how this data is being done in a clear, comprehensive, and consistent way. For example, the existing rebuilding California dashboard website showcases how the state's gas tax and federal infrastructure dollars are being spent.

However, when you navigate onto the site to your respective districts and you click on any individual projects, you will see that the information provided is very scarce. It simply shows a point on a map, the dollar amount, and a very short description. There's no information around the number of jobs created. If there are benefits related to local economic activity, climate or safety, and it does not describe which communities are benefiting, you can't filter projects based on disadvantaged communities.

Without this baseline data, it is impossible to track progress towards if we're meeting the state's many goals, I want to stress that rebuilding California is a great start. It's a needed tool, but it's currently not living up to its full potential because it's not reporting on the state's broader transportation goals, and therefore it's not telling a compelling story about how the billions in transportation investments are benefiting each of your communities. Thank you for your time.

Good afternoon. Zach Deutsch-Grosso, policy Director at Transform Transform works to ensure people of all incomes thrive in a world safe from climate chaos. We envision vibrant neighborhoods transformed with excellent sustainable mobility options, affordable housing where historically marginalized communities have power and voice. We are proud to co sponsor AB 2086 as an important tool to increase transportation transparency and accountability.

By tying the state's annual transportation program investments to an existing public dashboard and an established reporting process, we can demonstrate to voters that we're making progress towards our shared goals. And these are enumerated in the California transportation plan, including safety, climate, equity, accessibility, quality of life and public health, the economy, environment and infrastructure. While there have been commendable transparency efforts so far, such as SB 695, CaPTI and SB 1 reporting, these are piecemeal and don't provide a comprehensive understanding.

Additionally, the California Transportation Plan provides a common framework, but its implementation is focused on process, not outcomes, and it is not fiscally constrained. That's why AB 2086 is the solution, by requiring Caltrans to provide an updated online dashboard and that displays how project investments are meeting our state's California Transportation plan goals, the financial element also gives us a clearer picture of how what additional transportation investments are needed to advance our shared goals. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Now moving on to Members of the public in the hearing room who are also supporters of this Bill. Name, organization and position, please.

Sophia Aficoa with the Coalition for Clean Air in Support.

Zach Accardi for NRDC. The Natural Resources Defense Council in support.

Melanie Morales on behalf of the Greenlighting Institute on behalf of Environmental Defense foundation and the Center for Community Action, Environmental Justice.

Santiago Rodriguez with California environmental voters in support.

Jamie Pugh with Next Gen Policy and on behalf of the Planning and Conservation League in support.

Hi, I'm Will Barrett with the American Lung Association. Also in support.

Marc Vukcevich, on behalf of Streets for All who in support.

Thank you. Now moving on to any primary witnesses and opposition for this Bill. None? All right. Is there any Members who would like to note in abbreviated form, opposition to this Bill, name, organization and position? All right, seeing none, moving to Members of Committee. No comments. I would, and we can't do a motion in a second or anything like that. We are an informational.

But I'll just note, I appreciate you for working so closely with Committee staff and opposition on all the amendments that were taken. This Bill grounds the California Transportation plan from an aspirational planning document to help create implementable targets by requiring fiscal constraint and requires greater transparency regarding how the goals of the California Transportation plan are being met. And I appreciate that. And when it's appropriate time, I'll be supporting this Bill. Give you an opportunity to make any closing remarks.

Thank you. Just appreciate an I vote when there's. The ability to do that. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Now heading to the, to the top for there's items three or just item three, AB 1978 Fong at your convenience. You can begin.

Thank you, Chair and Members. It is weird not being on the dais with you, but thank you very much. I want to thank the Chair and her staff, certainly working diligently with you all to create amendments, which are now in print, that keeps communities safe by cracking down on street racing while protecting innocent bystanders who are not involved in these dangerous acts, which I know the Chair was very, very much concerned with.

So we all know that street racing is an epidemic that has led to the preventable deaths of countless people across California. California has seen a sharp rise in illegal street racing, as street racers take advantage of highways, parking lots, roads, and roads through forcibly blocking cars from using these roadways. These illegal street racing activities is not only dangerous, but it often has fatal consequences for participants, pedestrians, commuters, and law enforcement alike.

Law enforcement struggles to effectively curb side shows and exhibitions of speed, as oftentimes these side shows just continue in different intersections with the same participants after law enforcement breaks up these original events. In 2019, AB 1407, which required vehicles to be impounded for street racing, passed with strong support from Members of this Committee. This bill, AB 1978, will allow peace officers to seize a vehicle that blocks a road to facilitate street races without taking the owner of the vehicle into custody.

This will ensure that speed exhibitions will not continue in a different location once a street race has been dispersed by peace officers and law enforcement and will keep roads, pedestrians, and other drivers safe. This bill is supported by many groups aiming to protect innocent bystanders, such as as Street Racing Kills, the Conor Lynch Foundation, and SoCal Families for Safe Streets. I respectfully ask for an aye vote, and joining me to testify in support of this bill is Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the City of Bakersfield.

Great. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Sharon Gonsalves. I'm here on behalf of the City of Bakersfield. I want to begin first by thanking Assembly Member Fong for his continued efforts to address this evolving trend of street racing and the traffic implications that we're facing in our city. The City of Bakersfield has seen a steep rise in reckless driving calls for service, which includes reports of illegal street racing and exhibitions of speed.

Illegal street racing is incredibly dangerous and can have fatal consequences for anyone who happens to be in the area. The City and the Bakersfield Police Department continue to engage in new and innovative special enforcement operations to try to detour these operations. If law enforcement is able to impound vehicles, we can take away the tools that create these dangerous events and stop participants from merely moving to a new location.

To protect pedestrians, commuters, and any bystanders, we need to explore all solutions to prevent sideshows from spreading in our communities in the first place. So, in an effort to create safer streets for all, the City of Bakersfield encourages your support of AB 1978, and it asks for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm assuming me too versus another... Okay. All right. Because you get two witnesses. With that, moving to members of the public in support adding on, name, organization, and position.

Christian Robinson from SEMA, the Specialty Equipment Market Association, in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association in support.

All right, now moving on to the opposition. Are there up to two witnesses who would like to testify in opposition? Seeing none. Moving on to any abbreviated. Are you coming up for abbreviated or are you coming up for... Okay. All right. Name, organization, and position. And because there's not one in witness, if you wanted to make additional statements, you can.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Carmen-Nicole Cox on behalf of ACLU California Action in very strong opposition. As noted in our letter, we're very much concerned about taking away a very important asset to folks who are earning low incomes. Also to folks, young people, it's not their car, it's their parents car. And also, how do the officers know who is aiding or abetting? This is just a grand expansion of seizure by law enforcement, and we are opposed. Thank you.

Anyone else for name, organization, and position? Seeing none, moving back to Members, moving to Members of the Committee. Questions, comments, or concerns? Seeing none. I go back, I'll make a few remarks and then give an opportunity for you to close. So I'd like to thank you for working with the Committee on the amendments. I was particularly concerned, as you noted, even in your testimony, about law enforcement sweeps of individuals that were only watching speed contest or motor go vehicle, motor vehicle exhibitions of speed.

Under the amendments taken prior to Committee, only individuals physically blocking off an area for a sideshow or race can have their cars taken without the individuals themselves being taken into custody. And so with that, I'll be supporting the bill today. Although we don't, we're in an informational stage. Give you an opportunity to make any closing remarks.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to address the specific concerns of the opposition. This, the amendments that were drafted and accepted remove the aiding and abetting provisions and specifically say that this bill would apply when someone is obstructing or placing a barricade or obstruction upon a highway or in an off street parking facility for the purpose of facilitating a motor vehicle speed contest.

So we very much focus on, as in the debate in Public Safety Committee, on someone who is blocking a road or intersection specifically for this purpose. So hopefully that clarifies the concern and so that we were able to specifically focus on that. So this bill certainly provides law enforcement with that tool deterring side shows by allowing a peace officer to impound a vehicle in this specific circumstance without taking the individual into custody. I believe that will save lives, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And I believe we still do not have a quorum. Okay. Thank you. When it's appropriate, we will do that. Moving on to item number six, AB 2102, Patterson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2102. First of all, we are accepting the Committee amendments. We also want to say thank you to the staff for working through and educating themselves and this Committee with respect to what we are attempting here and how we can help these youth camps provide the experience on the water, at the same time making sure that safety is a high priority.

We also want the Committee to know that we have had productive conversations with the California State Sheriffs regarding amendments that they are in the process of preparing as outlined in our discussions. We probably will be willing to accept those amendments and likely that their opposition may be removed. As I said, these discussions were in somewhat detailed and that we are anticipating amendments that we can readily accept.

They make sense without doing damage to the basic effort here to try and make sure that these camps can find good people, do it safely. And the reason for AB 2102 is to address a regulatory burden that these youth camps face while trying to provide a safe boating experience for kids. And currently, youth camps need a for-hire boating license whenever they take four or more of our kids out on the water.

Now, it's the hurdles that they have to go through in order to get to this place. To obtain a four hire boating license, you have to be 18 years or older, pass a physical, pass an online test, pass an in-person test, and have one year's experience operating a boat. That is the fundamental problem that these camps face.

Finding a qualified candidate with a year's worth of experience and with a for-hire boating license is a very difficult task to fulfill because the position is for a two to three month period in the summer season, usually. Obviously, those that perhaps have that for-hire license, and they are the skippers of trawlers or fishing boats or other kinds of boats. It is difficult for them to say, okay, well, I'll forego that and we'll go to a 2-3 month season.

And so here's what we're trying to do. AB 2102 would exempt youth camps from the for-hire boating license, but it also requires the camp to do the following: carry liability insurance, ensure regular maintenance and safety checks for the vessels, administer a skills test to all persons who operate a camp, a vessel, and they must keep written records.

AB 2102 would still require the vessel operator to be at least 18 years old, possess a boating card, obviously wear a life vest, give a safety briefing to all passengers prior to the boarding. AB 2102 is an attempt and a holistic approach to easing the employment and regulatory burdens that oftentimes keep camps in a difficult circumstance while trying their best to safely put kids on the water for an enjoying experience.

And particularly those camps that operate opportunities to get kids into the, into the water, into beautiful scenery who have come maybe from difficult circumstances, and inner city kids with limited opportunity, those kinds of efforts. So we believe this is a holistic approach to easing the employment and the regulatory burden, but also we believe that it maintains stringent safety standards and accountability, as I have outlined here.

Here with me to testify in support of AB 2102 is Andy Mesherger, legislative chair of the California Collaboration for Youth, and Katherine Barrinken, the Executive Director, California Collaboration for Youth. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Andy Mesherger. I'm here representing Gold Arrow Camp and the California Collaboration for Youth. AB 2102, as currently amended, provides a common sense solution for a problem that faces summer camps. As Assemblyman Patterson said, we want to get kids safely into California's spectacular outdoor spaces and we want to do that for as many kids as we can.

And the current regulatory structure is hampering the number of kids we can serve because it's so difficult to get this for-hire license. The situation currently, if we have three people on a boat, a boat driver, a lifeguard, and a kid water skiing, the boat is governed as a recreational vessel. I put a second kid in the boat. It legally transforms into a for-hire vessel. I need a for-hire operator's license. The process to get this is burdensome for many reasons.

But as the Assembly Member noted, the major one is a year of documented experience for boat drivers. We hire a bunch of 18, 19, and 20 year olds to work a 12 week summer season. Finding somebody who qualifies as a near peer mentor and has a year of documented boat driving experience is very difficult. This bill would allow us to still do that testing and that training, but it would remove that year worth of experience.

It would also the other major issue we face is the state currently has one person who can proctor the in-person exam for for-hire operators, which makes scheduling very difficult when all camps are trying to train their people in the same two or three weeks in early June.

This bill would allow us to certify that. We could do that testing in house and certify to the Department of Boating and Waterways that they had met the requirements and then Boating and Waterways would issue us a permit to operate. Camps are already among the safest vessel operators in California, with the largest camp insurer providing statistics.

They have zero boat driver liability claims in California for more than a decade. This bill codifies the procedures that camps already have in place that have allowed for that kind of safety. It would continue to hold camp operators to a higher standard than other operators on California waters, especially those who use rental vessels, which are required to have no licensure or training whatsoever. We appreciate the collaboration amendment suggested by Parks and Recreation, which strengthened the bill and added additional safety measures to protect our campers.

You have to wrap up.

In that case, I'll ask for an aye and I'll pass it over.

Madam Chair, Members. Cathy Barankin with California Collaboration for Youth. I would just, I guess, double what Mr. Mesherger just mentioned. And that is you can go up to Lake Tahoe right now, rent a boat. You don't have to show that you had any experience, that you even know how to start the boat and you're good. Take the boat, take all your friends, go. And our camps are already training our drivers. We're making sure that they're keeping the passengers on the boat safe.

And we've been really, for the last 10 years, been arguing that we do not believe that our boats are for-hire. We don't take them someplace and drop them off. We're not a vessel that transports cars or anything else that a for-hire type driver would use. So I would just emphasize that we feel like we're going over the net here by saying we're willing to buy a permit from Boating and Waterways.

We're willing to make sure that everyone is tested and that our boats are operated safely. But without this bill, we feel very committed to the fact that we're going to have to cut back or drop our boating programs. It just won't be feasible because we won't be able to find boat captains. So with that, I ask for your aye vote. And thank you for your time.

Thank you. Now moving to members of the public who are also in support of this bill, this would be appropriate time for me too: name organization and position. Are there any? Seeing none. Now we'll move to primary witnesses in opposition. Feel free to come forward and then start at your convenience. Before you start, I forgot. Thank you, Majority Leader. We now have a quorum, so let's establish the quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Great. With that, you may begin.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, unfortunately still here in opposition today. We have had conversations with the author and sponsor. I think they have been productive. At this time, we remain opposed to the bill. We have, as the author said, have been working internally to see if there's something we can offer that would be in line with our safety concerns and ease the burdens on the camps. We are working on that.

As the author said, again, just to make clear, our concern here is the safety of those operating the vessels, those riding on the vessels, and others who use the waterways that are used by the vessels in question here. The sponsor or the witness mentioned the distinction between three or four passengers and what those passengers are doing or that sort of thing. We have been working. There's a distinction between state law and federal law on how many passengers make you a for-hire vessel.

We would like to see that conform. The Coast Guard definition is if you have one person on a vessel and there is a commercial interest, that's a for-hire vessel. So there's already some lack of clarity in the law that we think should be addressed. So again, happy to continue working with the author, the Committee, and thanks for your consideration.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who are in opposition who would like to provide add-on testimony, that's name, organization, and position? Seeing none, I move it back to Committee for any questions, comments, or concerns. Seeing none.

All right. Well, thank you to the author for working to alleviate burdens on camp programs across the state while ensuring safety and adequate licensing for the use of vessels at camp. I encourage the author to continue working with the California State Sheriff's Association on the bill moving forward. Noting you mentioned taking Committee amendments, but we were able to get to a good place well in advance. So they're actually your own amendments.

So we are looking at a complete document today, but recognizing that you are going to continue to work with the Sheriff's Association to be able to provide amendments as you move forward with that. I'll be supporting this bill today, and so looking to the Committee, if there is a motion. It's been moved by Wallace, seconded by Jackson. I will give you an opportunity to close before calling for the vote.

Thank you. Again, appreciate the sheriffs and the discussions that we've had with respect to some other amendments. As I mentioned before, the outline that they presented to me in my office not long ago is an outline that if it was brought to us for amendment, then we could remove the opposition, or at least maybe go to none. We would be willing to accept those. I want to say that those discussions.

I believe that the sheriffs can begin to understand that what we are proposing here keeps the high threshold of safety while allowing them to go find people that don't have to make a decision to go off of a commercial vessel where they're paid a substantial amount year in, year out, and go to a camp and go for a couple of months in summertime. And the other thing is, I think that it's important to note, we were very, very interested in determining the safety of these camps.

You can go to the Water and Boating website, and they have all of the listed boating accidents up and down the State of California. You cannot find one instance in that reporting of these youth camps having those kinds of difficulties. So they take it very seriously as well. We've outlined what they must do to continue. We appreciate the staffs working on this, and we are grateful for the Chair's understanding and recommendation. And with that, I will ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That has eight votes. We'll leave the roll open for Members to add on. It has eight votes. We'll vote leave the roll open for add-ons. Yeah, we're waiting till everyone's here, but yeah, our threshold is the majority. Thank you. All right, we'll dispense with consent calendar. I'll call them out, but we have a first by Aguiar-Curry and a second by Papan. We have File Item Two: AB 1882: Villapudua, Item Four: AB 2186: Vince Fong.

Item Eight: AB 2281: Soria, Item Nine: AB 2385: Alanis, Item 15: AB 3055: Bonta, Item 16: AB 2645: Lackey, Item 20: AB 3168: Gipson, Item 21: AB 3243: Ta, Item 25: AB 3093: Ward, Item 26: AB 3278: Transportation Committee. We have a motion, as noted, made by Aguiar-Curry and a second by Papan. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

For the consent calendar.

Consent calendar: [Roll Call].

Sounds good. That is--that is 11. We will hold that open, the roll open for Members to add on. We're going to move backwards before we go forwards, starting with Item Number Three: AB 1978: Vince Fong. We have a motion by Aguiar-Curry, a second by Wallis. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1978.

The motion is 'do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.' [Roll Call].

That has 11 votes. We'll hold the roll open for Members to add on. Moving on to Item Number Five: AB 2086: Schiavo. It's been moved by Aguiar-Curry. Is there a second? Second by Wallis.

Moving on to item number 5, AB 2086, Shiavo. It's been moved by Aguiar-Curry. Is there a second? Second by Wallis. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 2086. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

That has 11 votes. We'll leave the roll open for Members to add on. Please note item number 13.

Item Number 13: AB 2480 by Garcia has been pulled by the author and will not be presented today. All right, moving on to Item Number Seven: AB 2234: Boerner. At your convenience.

All right, moving onto item number 7, AB 2234. Boerner, at your convenience

Good morning. Good afternoon chair and members. AB 2234 would authorize a four-year opt-in pilot project in the county of San Diego banning e-bikes for anyone under the age of 12. Consistent with data from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the County of San Diego and cities within the county would have to pass an ordinance or a resolution to implement the pilot program. With reporting requirements mirrored in the Racial and Identity Profiling Act known as RIPA, e-bikes are becoming an increasingly common mode of transportation for both recreation and commuting. E-bikes offer a zero-emission accessible way to travel, especially for children and adults who don't drive.

Okay, good morning or good afternoon, Chair and Members. AB 2234 would authorize a four-year opt-in pilot project in the County of San Diego, banning e-bikes for anyone under the age of 12.

However, concerns about e-bike safety have been raised due to the maximum speed that they're able to reach with less effort. Class one, class 1 and 2, e-bikes can go up to 20 miles an hour, and that's not even counting your downhill speed. And class three go up to 28 miles an hour. With a surge of e-bikes, injuries have occurred more frequently than with serious consequences and injuries.

In August 2022, the Carlsbad City Council approved an e-bike emergency proclamation due to a 233% increase and accidents involving e-bikes and bicycles. The proclamation includes the implementation of several traffic safety efforts directed specifically towards making the city's roads safer for cyclists. Shortly thereafter, in May 2023, a teenager at my son's school in the City of Encinitas lost his life in an e-bike collision with a motorized vehicle.

As a response, the City Council approved Carlsbad-specific rules for e-bike riders, which provide Carlsbad police officers with more enforcement options, including e-bike safety training, what we also know up here as diversion programs similar to traffic schools for bikes, where e-bike riders have the option to complete an e-bike safety course after an e-bike citation. Similar e-bike safety programs have been established in the cities of Encinitas and Coronado.

With the continued popularity of e-bikes, AB 2234 would allow the County of San Diego to establish a pilot program banning e-bike riders for under the age of 12 to capture data about whether such policies would improve public safety of our roads, both for e-bike riders and vehicle owners. I respectfully ask for an aye vote today I have here with me Scott Chadwick, city manager to the City of Carlsbad, the sponsor of this bill. Thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Scott Chadwick, city manager for the City of Carlsbad. First, I'd like to express her sincere gratitude to Assembly Member Tasha Boerner for sponsoring the bill, as well as chair Lori Wilson and the transportation committee staff for their work on this bill. AB 2234 the San Diego County Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot Program is a crucial initiative enabling cities in San Diego County to regulate e-bike use among children under 12.

By allowing us to enact local ordinances, this bill would provide our cities the tools to implement a $25 fine or mandatory safety training for e-bike violations, addressing a critical gap in our current enforcement capabilities. In Carlsbad, we witnessed a staggering 233% increase, 233% in bike and e-bike collisions that ultimately between 2019 and 22, including two tragic fatalities in August of 22 that led to the city declaring a local state of emergency. This alarming trend highlights the urgent need for more structured safety protocols.

E-bikes can reach speeds up to 28 mph, matching the speeds of cars on many of the city streets. Given these high speeds, improper use of e-bikes can be extremely dangerous. By requiring e-bike users without a driver's license to obtain a skills waiver, demonstrating their knowledge and ability to operate these vehicles safely, we can significantly reduce the risk of collisions and fatalities.

The introduction of AB 2234 is not just about regulation, it's about ensuring our children receive proper training and awareness about the safety operation of e-bikes, further safeguarding our community. The State of emergency enabled Carlsbad to swiftly reallocate resources and take decisive actions to mitigate the risks the rising threat from e-bikes. However, for a sustainable impact, statewide awareness and standardized training requirements are essential, which is understood. I thank you once again for your attention and for considering our strong support for SB 2234.

Through the chair, if I may. I didn't say it in my opening statement, but of course we're accepting the recommended the committee amendments that were recommended to us.

Thank you. Now moving to members of the public who would like to add on their support with noting their name, organization and position.

Good afternoon. Kyra Ross on behalf of the City of Carlsbad, very thankful to the author for her efforts on this and in support of the bill.

Is there anyone else? Now moving to opposition, are there any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Moving forward to any members for brief any members of the public for a brief opposition name organization position.

I'll be brief, Mark Fukzovich on behalf of Streets for All. We definitely recognize that there's an issue with e-bikes and fatalities on the roadway. The reality, though is, based on the data, is that e-bike riders are getting hit by cars, and that's where those deaths and fatalities are. The vast majority of those are coming from.

And the answer that we have as an organization is better infrastructure and, frankly, better training of drivers, rather than putting a prohibition in front of e-bike riders and children themselves. Last thing I'll mention is that Streets for All did support a bill last year, SB 381, by Senator Min, which required the Legislature to fund a study on best safety practices for e-bikes. And we thoroughly look forward to the results of that study before we make significant policy change. And that's what we'd encourage. And if that result of that study shows that this is the best policy, we will look forward to supporting that and sponsoring that in the future. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. With that, moving to members of the committee for any questions, comments and concerns, starting with Ward.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. While I tend to be prejudicious and reserved when it comes to how far we prohibit or regulate, I think this has been developed in a way that is very common sense.

The idea that those under 12 years old should be operating something as quick and sophisticated, sometimes a power under their feet that kind of gets away from them, is a no-brainer for me. Based on the evidence that we are already experiencing because of the proliferation of these vehicles in our communities, for your pilot to be able to monitor safety and harmony, I guess, for children and for the communities around us, I think it's a sensible approach in our county.

And as a colleague of yours, as a neighbor, I would very much like to move this item and appreciate your work on it. Thank you.

Vice Chair Davies.

Thank you so much for bringing this forth. I mean, now that we've had this discussion, because the district that I represent has been dealing with this for some time, and the real problem is the rules of the road.

And I respectfully disagree with the last person talking in regards to it being the car, because I can tell you that a lot of this is these kids, even if they're 12, 13, 14 they don't know the rules of the road. And I see this every day. I was just walking the trail, actually, on Saturday and had two of them come by full speed and almost knocked down two seniors that are walking on there. And I think that's really it is about education.

We've been working on this for years about education and changing the code so that we could work with law enforcement, we could work with agencies. And to me, I'm so glad, because every time I go out there, they're like, we need the tools given to us by the state so we can do this correct. You know what? We understand this is a great activity. We understand people use it to get where they need to go.

But when you've got a 12 year old, 13 year old, even then, I know this is under 12, they don't know the rules. And you know what, a lot of the parents don't either. So it really is education. And I'm just grateful to be able to see that there's an opportunity here. Because you know what? This is what gives us to each city because right now all our cities are making different decisions.

And you really want them to hopefully come cohesive and come into one rule of road, so that when you're going from one place to the other, there's consistency. And we want the kids and the parents to be educated. So I thank you so much for bringing this forward. All this does is really keep her kids safe. And that's really what this is about, number one. So I would be honored to be a co author and you already have a second, but we do have an odd second as well. Thanks.

Seeing no other comments, I'll just note my own before you close. I appreciate the safety concerns you are raising for electric bikes and children's using them. However, I am concerned about criminalizing the child for writing a device their parents purchased for them.

Under this bill, a child who had their parent purchase them an e-bike would be subject to a law enforcement interaction and a dollar 200 ticket. If the child fails to appear in court for the ticket, they may be subject to a misdemeanor for failure to appear in court. I do not believe the data exists to warrant making e-bikes illegal, and at some point, we should place responsibility on parents to make better choices for their children.

However, like AB 1778, which also establishes a pilot program to limit the use of e-bikes by younger persons, I was willing to allow pilot, so as long as the Members who represent the area were okay with that approach. However, I cannot support imposing a requirement that I have strong feelings about, that I would not be comfortable imposing on my own district and will be voting against this bill today.

There's been a motion made by Ward and a second by Ting give you an opportunity to close or speak to any comments before we ask the secretary to call the roll.

Thank you. And I really appreciate working with the committee. I know we went back and forth several times on how do we get there? You know, the fine in this bill does limit it. Any traffic violation to dollar 25 that can be worked off with the diversion program.

So just like we do with traffic school for cars, there's traffic school for bikes. That was really, really important for the equity aspect. Several years ago, I got $10 million in the budget for e-bike vouchers for low income Californians. I think that's really important. I think we're seeing early adopters and you're seeing these problems on the coast first. But my fear is they'll expand outward as e-bikes become more popular in other areas of the state. And so really appreciate working with that. And with that, I accept the committee amendments and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Before we call the roll, I'd just like to note that the $25 is the base fine, but with the additional fees of 197, it does come up to over $200. With that, Madam Secretary, call the roll.

AB 2234 the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is has 9-1 votes so far. We'll leave the roll open for other Members to add on as they arrive. Right, moving on to looks like item number 18, 2892 Low. You can begin at your convenience.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and colleagues, for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2892 which is attempts to stabilize increasing costs for transportation companies. With respect, ask for aye vote, and have Andrew Govenar here to answer any technical questions.

Andrew Govenar, on behalf of MV Transportation, in support of the measure.

Okay. All right, we do have a motion made by Ting and a second by Vice Chair Davies, but we will move to members of the public who would like to add on. Are there any? Name, organization and position. Seeing none. Moving to any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Would anyone in the public like to go on record an opposition: name, position and organization? Seeing none. Moving to Committee questions, comments, concerns? Seeing none. As was stated, there's a motion made by Ting and seconded by Davies.

Thank you for working with the stakeholders in Assembly Assurance Committee to get this bill to a good place. I'm supporting it today. With that, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, Madam Secretary.

AB 2892, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill has 10 votes so far. We will leave the roll open for Members to add on. As we move to item number 22, AB 1717, we'll also do a cleanup. Item number six, a cleanup on votes. Item number six, AB 2102.

AB 2102, do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill has 11. We'll continue to keep the roll open for Members to add on.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here to present AB 1777, which is a bill which has been crafted, talking to a variety of stakeholders, including local government, autonomous vehicles companies, as well as our state stakeholders. As you know, autonomous vehicles have been on the road in my city in San Francisco for quite a while. They recently, in the last couple years, have been able to actually be on the road without drivers picking up passengers.

And this has led to a variety of issues that, of course, you can only sort of discover after the fact. We've had no way that law enforcement can cite an autonomous vehicle. Everything in the Vehicle Code cites a driver. There's no authority in the Vehicle Code to actually cite a company or to cite a car. Also, what we've seen is with these cars, they also end up interfering with our public safety officials or various incidents they've ended up in construction sites.

You might have just said there was confusion when one company just got the authority to be on the freeway and there was some congestion on an on-ramp, and so as we are sort of the guinea pig here in San Francisco, we wanted to put forward a bill that really just does a couple things. It allows law enforcement to cite companies similar to the way that we would be cited should we have a variety of issues. It also standardizes communications with first responders.

So first responders would have a phone number that they could call, because if they are trying to engage a car, they can't really talk to the car, there's no way to move the car aside, so actually having that phone number where they could talk to the company to actually move the vehicle off the road or to move the vehicle to a safer location.

We also give DMV authority to modify permits, and we also ask them to do, or to at least be a repository for data collection. Currently, most of the data goes directly to the federal government, to the agency of NHTSA, and as a state and as local governments are trying to get also access to this very important data. I have here Deputy Chief Darius Luttropp with the San Francisco Fire Department, as well as Tilly Chang, who is Executive Director of our San Francisco County Transportation Authority.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Committee Members. I serve as Executive Director, as Assembly Member Ting mentioned, of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, which serves as San Francisco's County Congestion Management Agency, and I'm pleased to convey our support for the need for AB 1777. We are charged as the CMA with monitoring and improving transportation across our diverse multimodal network as other CMAs across the state.

For over a decade, we have collaborated with some of the most innovative companies in the world to bring new services to market in support of our local San Francisco transit-first goals, as well as safety and equity goals across the city and region. Also, as a locus of deployment for these services, we in San Francisco have seen impressive advances in the ability of driverless vehicles to navigate our streets.

However, we have also seen unintended impacts, including traffic and transit conflicts, interference with emergency response, and serious injury collisions. We believe that autonomous vehicles show great promise and that as their technology is perfected, their deployment should be well regulated and overseen to ensure public safety and to promote confidence in this novel industry. AB 1777 will address regulatory gaps in California's governance and oversight of autonomous vehicle operations by implementing common sense measures.

These include enabling their citation for traffic violations, ensuring safe interactions with emergency response, and increasing the transparency of AV deployments on public roadways. Especially at this early stage when public acceptance is mixed, industry, regulators, and local government need to collaborate closely to maximize the benefits of AVs and to promote public trust.

The provisions of AB 1777 are foundational, a foundational step in that direction, and we thank Assembly Member Ting for his leadership and the Committee for its consideration, and we urge your support of this important legislation. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Wilson, Vice Chair Davies. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and share the challenges San Francisco first responders have had encountered with driverless AVs in the street. I'm Darius Luttropp. I serve as the Deputy Chief of Operations for the San Francisco Fire Department, where I've served for over 25 years.

While the City and County of San Francisco does not yet have a position on AB 1777, I appreciate Assembly Member Ting and his staff for convening, working collaboratively with the San Francisco first responder agencies, as well as industry and state agencies to draft legislation that addresses the challenges as we've experienced. So the San Francisco Fire Department includes some of the busiest fire stations in the nation, and in 2023, when driverless AVs started operating without safety drivers, SFFD members filed almost 100 written reports of driverless AV interference with emergency operations.

These reports include, for example, AVs stopped in front of fire stations, making it impossible for us to respond to calls, driverless AVs failing to yield to our lights and sirens and obstructing our path to emergency scenes. Our experiences highlight two critical challenges. The first is the uncertainty. Emergency responders near a driverless vehicle can't tell how it will behave. Will it move?

Has it heard or understood directions given to it by first responders? And this certainly slows us down and makes our work harder and more dangerous. It requires firefighters to stop on the way to emergency incidents and dismount to direct vehicles. It can require traffic control officers to leave a post where they're responsible for directing multiple lanes of traffic to assess whether an AV is disabled or capable of moving. The second challenge is the slow pace of communication.

Both emergency dispatchers and on-scene responders have found that connecting to a remote human advisor who has situational awareness of a driverless AV in the streets is too slow. For example, our calls have been picked up by a voicemail system. As on-scene responders, San Francisco Fire Department does not issue cell phones and is no expectation for our members to carry them, and because we don't have cell phones, we have difficulty in communication.

We have to use our hands to carry hoses and ladders, not phones. Comparing this pace to the nearly instantaneous communication with human drivers by simple gesture, eye contact, and our voices, it's true that sometimes human drivers don't do what we ask, but most do, and they respond promptly. We've worked closely with industry to share our knowledge and work towards solutions, and we look forward to continuing working with the author's office on this bill, and I want to thank you again for your time.

Thank you. Now moving on to members of the public who would like to add their names in support of this bill, now would be an appropriate time to do so, with name, organization, and position. Seeing none, we don't have opposition noted on file. However, looking for any member of the public who would like to provide--how about testimony in regard to opposition? You want to make statements or just comments?

Yeah. Tweener.

Okay, sounds good. We'll treat you as a witness, a tweener witness, and you have up to two minutes.

Thank you. Camille Wagner, representing Waymo. We do not have a position at this moment, but we certainly appreciate the ongoing discussions with the stakeholders and look forward to future work with the author and his staff. Thanks.

Thank you. Now moving on for add-ons in opposition, whether full opposition or tweener opposition. Name, organization, and position.

Good afternoon, Chair Wilson. My name is Renée Gibson. I'm with the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association. We also have some concerns with the bill, but continue to be committed to working with Assembly Member Ting and just have some concerns with any state legislation that addresses the design and construction of a vehicle. Thank you.

Anyone else? Name, organization, position.

Yes. Robert Singleton with Chamber of Progress. We're a tech industry association, and we have many AV vehicle company partners. Really not opposed at all to the intent of this bill. Really like the bill and the intent. Just worried that with the--in particular, the incremental enforcement measures, that if they are specifically mentioned in the bill, that there's remediation processes and alleviation processes that are just as clear and consistent so that vehicles--or companies know where they stand and can address those issues.

Okay. Anyone else? I think there's like 30 seconds remaining on the tweener opposition testimony.

John Moffatt for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, aligning ourselves with the previous comments.

Sounds good. Thank you. All right, bringing it back to Members for any questions, comments, or concerns. Hoover?

Thank you. I just want to thank the author. I appreciate your approach on this. I do think that it strikes a good balance, and it sounds like you're committed to continuing to work out the concerns, but just really targeted at a specific issue that I think is something that we have to resolve as a state with this new technology. So look forward to supporting you. Thanks.

Thank you.

All right. Seeing no further--oh, sorry. Aguiar-Curry.

Thank you so much for bringing this forward, and you know how I love these bills. I would like to be added on as a co-author.

Absolutely. Would love to have you as a co-author.

Vice Chair Davies.

Great. Again, good common sense bill, public safety, so I too would like to be a co-author. Thank you.

Happy to. Thank you.

All right. Seeing no other, while AV technology holds promise to potentially significantly reduce traffic collisions, there are still some real-world practicalities that need to be addressed. I appreciate your collaborative work with the AV companies and the cities and its first responders to make sure AVs are deployed in a manner that enhances public safety while also ensuring positive first responder interaction with AV vehicles.

As the analysis notes, some of the safety standards imposed in this bill may not make sense for all AV vehicles, including ones that still require a human operator. I appreciate your attempts to get better data from the AV companies. As you are aware, there are currently three AV bills in the Assembly that addresses DMV regulatory requirements for data collection. I highly encourage all the authors and yourself of those bills to work together on common sense solution.

This bill is a work in progress, as you've also noted. Please keep myself and the Committee staff aware of its progress as it moves forward. I'll be supporting your bill today. There is a motion on the floor by Aguiar-Curry and a second by Ortega. Give you an opportunity to close before the secretary calls the roll.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Very much appreciate your help and the Committee's help and just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Madam Secretary.

AB 1777: the motion is 'do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.' [Roll Call].

All right, we have 11, and we'll hold the roll open for Members to add on. Moving on to Item 20--no? Okay. Item 20--sorry--Item 23: AB 1837: Papan.

Good afternoon, Chair Wilson and Members of the Committee. First, I want to thank the Chair and her consultant for their thoughtful collaboration and for working with my staff on this bill. I'll continue to engage this Committee and stakeholders as this bill moves through the process. The Bay Area has long faced a critical challenge that predates even the unforeseen global pandemic: the consistent decline in transit ridership.

The decline in ridership has been attributed to a myriad of factors, including the lack of schedule coordination and complicated fare systems among many operators. The Legislature has made several unsuccessful attempts to address the fragmentation and inefficiency plaguing the Bay Area's transit systems. However, MTC was able to--however, MTC was able to successfully bring together a Regional Network Management Council comprised of transit general managers to represent the interests of the stakeholders in the region.

This council has been tasked with developing regional transit policies to foster better regional coordination. The work of the council has only just begun, but the early results are indeed promising. AB 1837 will codify this council to ensure that this work continues without interruption. As the Legislature contemplates new funding for transit, it's imperative that the right structure and oversight remains in place to ensure that any new revenues are used in the most efficient and most effective ways possible. I thank you, and I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you, and I see you have no primary witnesses in support. However, it looks like we have someone who wants to add on, and you have an opportunity to give brief comments if you want to. So, name, position, organization, and brief comments, if you prefer.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be extremely brief. Matt Robinson with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange, on behalf of Caltrain. We don't have a position on the bill, but we really appreciate the author's focus on coordination and more importantly, on acknowledging the work that is already underway within the MTC region through the Regional Network Management Structure. Caltrain is an active participant in that.

We've had open dialogues with the author's office, and really, we hope that we will be focusing on what we know and what we've already agreed to undertake through that process as we move forward versus throwing it all out and starting over with something completely new. So we look forward to working with the Committee, with the author, as this bill moves forward to hopefully put some more structure around what's already happening in the Bay Area through MTC and the Network Management Structure. Thank you.

Sounds good. Thank you. Moving on to any members of the public who are in opposition who would like to add on. We don't have official opposition on file. As we noted, we have somewhat of a tweener, but looking for name, organization, position for any members of the public who'd wish to speak now. All right, with that, moving on to Committees, if there's any questions, comments, or concerns. We do have a motion and a second. Seeing none, well, thank you for bringing this bill forward today.

I appreciate your work to ensure transit agencies in the Bay Area continue to work together to develop a more seamless system that will make transit agencies more user-friendly. As this bill moves forward, I ask that you work with our Senate counterparts so that this bill is complimentary to the larger effort to ensure adequate funding for the future of Bay Area's public transportation system. I will be supporting your bill today. We have a motion on the floor by Davies and a second by Ting. Give you an opportunity to close before the secretary calls the roll.

Request an aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Madam Secretary.

AB 1837: the motion is 'do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.' [Roll Call].

All right, that has 11 votes, and we'll hold the roll open for Members to add on. Before we do any other bills, do we want to do any cleanup?

All right, we'll have cleanup. I knew I would be useful for something.

Starting with consent. Carrillo, Hart, Sanchez, Sanchez aye, Wicks. So we have 12 votes.

AB 1978 do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.

Carrillo, Hart, Sanchez, Sanchez aye, Wicks.

AB 2086 do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.

Carrillo, Hart, Sanchez, Sanchez aye, Wicks.

AB 2102 do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.

Carrillo, Hart, Sanchez, Sanchez aye, Wicks.

AB 2234, do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

File item 18, AB 2892 do pass to the Committee on Approps. [Roll call]

File item 22, AB 1777, do pass to the Committee on Approps. [Roll Call]

All right, it looks like we are moving on to item number 19, 3153, Dixon. To the author, you may begin at your convenience.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Today I'm here to present AB 3153, which extends the deadline for the Electric Motor Modification of the Balboa Island ferry for up to 15 years or until the cost of engine replacement declines. As a longtime resident of Newport Beach, I know firsthand the Balboa Island ferry is a critical resource for this region and could be gravely impacted by CARB's harbor craft electrification regulations.

Seymour Beek, the owner of the ferry, came to me in January 2023, sharing the terrible possibility that he may have to close the 120 year old privately owned ferry business. When I met with CARB about an extension from Mr. Beek, they noted there would be flexibility for the ferry with regard to extensions. They additionally indicated they were working with the business to identify grant dollars to support the transition to electric, and I am grateful for CARB support in this manner.

Thus far, one ferry still has the deadline of December 2025 and two others have been extended to December 2026. In March, the ferry was offered $8.3 million from the Advanced Technology Demonstration and pilot project program, of which $7.9 million will be used for the ferry's electrification.

While the ferry is working hard to apply and receive grant dollars to support transition, unfortunately, there are no proven motor battery systems that can easily be adapted to the three ferries that operate 800 ft between Balboa Island and the Balboa peninsula in Newport Beach. Another hurdle the business faces is financial strain. The estimated cost to convert or replace the three ferry boats to zero emission is projected to cost $13 million.

I am pleased that they are working hard to receive financial support, but the reality is the Balboa Island ferries' transition to electrification will be the first known time this type of vessel will be converted to all electric propulsion. The ferry is a small business, yet they are expected to lead the small ferry industry, of which there are fewer than seven in the country when it comes to electric vessels. I am running this legislation to provide relief to a small business.

We are not asking for an exemption. We are simply asking for more time to comply. While it is true that there is flexibility within the regulations for extensions, they are only for one year. This bill would allow more opportunity for their limited capital resources to be put toward figuring out a longer term solution to pay for and transition their boats. One year approval requirements makes the capital financing nearly impossible.

The Balboa Island ferry plays a key role in the fabric of the community of Newport Beach area and all of Orange County. AB 3153 would allow the company more time to comply with CARB's electrification regulations. With me here today is the owner and son of the founder of the Balboa island ferry, Seymour Beek, and his nephew, Joe Beek. And Mr. Seymour Beek will speak first.

Thank you, Committee Members. Let me go into a little bit of history to start with. When my father founded the Balboa Island ferry in 1919, he did so with an 18 foot rowboat powered by an outboard motor. And it was a very small community in those days. As the community has grown, the demand for ferry service has grown.

They went from single car ferries to two car ferries and finally to our existing three car ferries, which are 64ft long and seem to be kind of the optimal size for the water space that we work in. My family has been involved in the ferries from the beginning and various family members have worked as crew members and captains on the ferries, but it has never been our primary source of income or occupation.

We've all had other things to do, but we've maintained the ferry service as a public service, and as Diane mentioned, it is very popular and used by about one and a half million people a day or a year today. So we got hit with this CARB regulation about two years ago, and we immediately began to look into it from a technical standpoint to see if we could conform. It's not easy to find people to take on this kind of a project.

This is a specialty in the engineering field, but we have now a naval architecture firm that's been working on it for us, located in San Diego, and they've come up with a preliminary design and requirements for the electrification, which is a very complex project. Our boats are small. They're only about 3ft from the water to the deck level, so there's very limited space inside.

And doing electrification would require basically tearing each boat apart to put in battery compartments which would hold the batteries, enough battery capacity that we could operate at our normal schedule. And it turns out that the weight of the battery systems and the control systems that go with the batteries is greater than the weight of our diesel engines and fuel tanks and all that by about 5,000 pounds.

So it require modification of our hulls to provide the required stability and buoyancy that is required by the Coast Guard.

I'll have to have you wrap up, but if Members ask you questions, you can elaborate more to provide that detail.

All right, thank you very much.

My name is Joe Beek. I'm a shareholder in the Balboa Island ferry and a family member. Thanks to the Committee for hearing my testimony. I would love nothing more for the Balboa Island ferry to continue the legacy of emission reduction that was started by my grandfather. The Balboa Island ferry is truly one of a kind. It's unique in the state of California. AB 3153 will not establish a precedent that's for other commercial harbor craft.

The commercial sport fishing industry has already established a precedent of delayed conformance to 2035. The Balboa Island ferry was not able to participate in that delayed compliance date. Financially, the project is completely out of scale to our business. We do less than $2 million a year in revenue, and yet this is a $13 million conversion project. There are grant funds available and we've been working diligently to qualify for those. Grant match requirements of 20%, which is common, would cost us over $2 million.

This is an extreme hardship for our small enterprise. This is not an investment that will result in higher profit or increased revenue. Additionally, as a private enterprise, potential income tax liabilities of up to $1.0 million could bankrupt family members. If we are hit with those. No grant programs will pay income tax. Although there are extensions available, we're a small business with one administrative staff member. Managing ongoing annual extensions is beyond our resources.

As one of the smallest and least able to comply operations in the state, it's not sensible for the Balboa Island ferry to be at the leading edge of this technological change. Thank you. And I respectfully ask your support of AB 3153 to allow us to keep our family business afloat.

Thank you. Now moving on to members of the public who wish to add on to public testimony with name, organization and position. Are there any? Seeing none. Looking to the public. For those who would like to offer primary witness in opposition, you can come and have a seat here.

Good afternoon, Chair Wilson, and members, thank you so much for the opportunity to comment. My name is Teresa Bui with the environmental nonprofit Pacific Environment. We have a consultative status with the International Maritime Organization, which sets global shipping laws, and we regretfully must oppose this bill because it would undermine the commercial harbor craft rule. California passed the updated commercial harbor craft rule, which sets the first in the nation zero emission ferry standard by 2026.

And harbor craft right now is one of the top three cancer causing pollution at the ports of San Diego, Oakland, LA, and Long Beach. And this rule will bring associated health benefits to port communities and port workers. The rule already allows for a compliance extension and low use exemptions, and we had the opportunity to talk with the author's office and the sponsor, and we really feel for Bubble Island Ferry. But right now there's record funding available.

There's $3 billion under the Inflation Reduction Act for Clean Ports Program, and Harborcraft is an eligible project. The FTA also released $316 million for ferries for businesses to convert their ferries, and that's a federal grant available. And so with that, we urge the sponsor to continue to work with CARB, and we would love to see how we can be helpful in that. But we do not think that this is the right approach.

This would undermine a law that we're trying to pass in other states as well as the federal level. And with that, we urge for your no vote. Thank you so much.

All right, thank you. Looking to members of the public who are also in opposition and would like to add on name, organization and position.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Earth Justice, respectfully opposed.

Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air, in opposition.

Thank you. Now moving to members of the committee for questions, comments, concerns. Ting.

So appreciate this amendment member having a conversation with me about this Bill. In your statement, you had mentioned that one of the issues was with the annual. Right now, the ferry is eligible for an annual exemption annual delay. So you can, every year you can apply for a delay, but you had mentioned that this would impact your ability to secure greater capital, so I was wondering if you could address that.

Tied to that is you had mentioned that the ferries raised about $8 million in public funding to help with this 13, 12 or $13 million conversion. Could you not or could the ferry not just keep getting that annual exemption while they're waiting to raise the other 4 million, and then once they get the 12 or 13 million of public funding, then they could go and do that conversion?

I'll ask either one of Mr. Beek, Joe, do you want to respond to that?

Yeah, I'll respond. The exemption or the extension rules have not been tested. We have applied and received the only extension that's available to us at this time, which allows us an extension because we have more than two boats. The other extension possibilities, we have to demonstrate an investment in equipment and infrastructure to prove to CARB that there are delays. So a little bit of a cart and horse problem is that we have to spend enough money and go far enough into the project to demonstrate delays.

This is a project that we can't start without being sure we're going to finish. So those extension mechanisms are untested as yet. We can't even apply for any one year extension until April of next year.

Got it. So you're looking for some more certainty you're saying.

We're looking for more certainty and we're looking to mitigate the administrative burden of managing those extension applications.

And further, just to respond to your question, assembly member, like in any project you would, they could potentially go to outside investors to help raise that total to be determined amount. Right now they estimate 13 million. But with a one year application cycle process repeatedly, that's a high risk Proposition for any investor. I might also comment on the speaker who spoke a few moments ago.

Joe can correct me if I'm not correct, but my understanding is that because the Balboa Ferry is a private company, these federal infrastructure funds are only available to public agencies. You may have found differently, but that was my understanding. And when we looked into this in the early days of looking for grant funding, because they are a private entity, those public funds are not available.

Could you comment whether or not you're looking at private capital right now? Purely looking at government grants to close the gap of the 12 to 13 million.

We have not been looking at private capital. It would be very hard to obtain private capital for an investment that would have no return.

And just as a follow up, so you are allowed on an unlimited amount of the one year extensions if you're showing good faith effort as it relates to is what you talked about, the infrastructure or manufacturer delay and the $8 million does come from CARB, and there are requirements through that process. So between substantiating to CARB that you're following, hitting the benchmarks for the $8 million, are you still concerned that you would not be able to get the delay?

I mean, get granted the extension or you just. It's purely about the administrative burden of it.

Clarify that it's both. And there's not unlimited number of extensions it's limited to eight. So the most extensions, the longest extension we could get using that system would be up to eight years. So eight 1 year extensions. And the uncertainty obtaining the extensions year after year increases the risk of the project substantially.

Can you repeat that last part you said?

The uncertainty of the availability of the extensions increases the risk.

Because every year you're asking and every year you might not get it and you're saying that's the risk.

Right. And if we start in and start spending grant funds, we can't stop.

Okay. While we continue the discussion, I'll have staff confirm. Ting, did you have any more?

No, I think just a final comment. I think I'm very sympathetic to your situation. I think it's great that you're on the third generation of doing this, what seems like a really wonderful local small business. I think my challenges is I have a lot of ferries in my area. I represent San Francisco. There's an administrative process to go through to have.

My concern is having every ferry operator try to come to us as legislators to try to address what is an administrative process is a little bit concerning. And it seems at this point you've just started that process. I appreciate that there is certain uncertainty, but I would feel more comfortable if the Bill was addressing the overall process or the overall issue rather than just your one particular company.

Because I would worry then I'm going to get four more phone calls when I get back to the office about my ferries wanting extensions as well. So I think, I'm hopeful that we should. I'd like to still try to figure out how we can assist your concerns and make sure that we're addressing the overall process without necessarily maybe carving out a separate extension or a separate process for you, even though I am sympathetic.

So I think at this point I'm going to continue to sort of lay off the Bill, but just urge that you continue to kind of work with us to figure out, is there a way to address your concerns without just carving out a separate, separate situation.

Well, thank you, assembly member, just. And maybe Mr. Joe Beek can respond as well. But my understanding this is one of a kind. There are many, several categories of ferries. In fact, the ferry in San Francisco, that. It was approved but not permitted yet, and it's been sitting in the harbor of San Francisco for two years. That's a full giant ferry. It's of a very different class.

My understanding is that there are only two ferries in the state of the same class, and the other one, other than the Balboa island ferry, runs on a cable, and so there's no fuel. This has been in existence in the Sacramento river delta for many decades. If you want to answer.

Yeah, maybe I can answer that partially, too. We are very unique. We're the only ferry that we shuttle back and forth as fast as we can and carry cars as fast as we can and people as fast as we can. We don't have a schedule. You know, we don't go across once every hour, once every 2 hours. We're going at it all the time. And our total fuel consumption averages 26 gallons a day.

If we did not operate, there would be hundreds of gallons of gasoline consumed by automobiles that would take the trip around rather than take the ferry. I think it's important to point that out.

Papan.

So, a couple questions. First of all, what I'm hearing to dovetail just a little bit off of Assemblymember Ting's comments about working at maybe defining the process, is it that you are concerned? There is no definition of what a delay is, and as such, you might not be entitled to a delay unless you are midstream, and midstream would necessitate you start without full funding. Is that right?

Precisely.

Okay. I just want to make sure. So that might be something that we can work on, is defining what does delay mean? Because I'm not sure it's reasonable to have somebody start without having full funding because you really get left out in the cold. The other thing that, I have a couple questions, too. In addition to that, how old is your current fleet?

I'm sorry?

70 years old. 70.

Built in the 1950s.

All three of them are 70 years old?

Yes.

Okay. Got it. And the next question. Did you want to say something else?

Well, I can. Yes. We've upgraded a lot of things mechanically, and on Corbett Carb's orders, we upgraded to tier two engines about 15 years ago. So we're tier two diesels now. And we could. We would be willing to go to tier three without a problem. And we were kind of expecting that from CARB, but they hopscotched over that and went to zero emission instead.

Got it. Got it. Okay. And to the author, have you considered something less than 15 years? So something between, hey, you got this one year extension and 15 years? Because that might be a little more appealing than, you know, perhaps trying to go to the end of the useful life of what you currently got?

Yes, absolutely. We've been open to 10 years. 15 was really to match what these sport fishermen got to 2035 or to go to 2035 or 10 years. They just want to know that there is an opportunity to get to see this technology developed and the infrastructure to support it so they can continue to operate. And it may take a number of years and up to 10, and then we could reach for an extension at that point.

But 10 years would certainly be a possible amendment that they would support. Correct?

Correct.

And one more final question, I hope. Final question. How many people live on Balboa Island and how many people do you think you're serving, at least for the. I understand there might be other people other than residents that take this ferry, but how many people live on Balboa Island that you're Joe island?

It's a fairly small fraction of the people that use the ferry live on Balboa Island. Maybe 20%, 25%. A lot of people from out of town come to take the ferry just because it's an enjoyable, low cost way to see the harbor and to experience the ambience of the area. But in total, we take about a million and a half people a year across the bay. And I don't know the exact subdivision of where those passengers come from.

I'd say probably 90% of them come from the Orange County area and Santa Ana, Huntington Beach, Laguna, Newport Beach, that area.

I have the sergeant. I forgot to give these out. I will say, too, the California Coastal Commission would suggest or would affirm that the Balboa Island ferry is a highly desirable, low cost visitor serving amenity. The cost of the person is one person per person is $1.50. How much are the automobiles?

$2 and a half for car and driver.

So it is kids, junior lifeguards all summer long riding the ferry. Also, there are local businesses on Balboa Island and across the bay. 800ft. It's only 800ft is Balboa village. And those small businesses rely on the ferry and the passenger traffic and the car traffic that comes to the end of the Balboa peninsula and that part of Balboa Island. So there must be a demand because it's been going on since 1919.

Thank you. And just to note, we did. We were able to confirm, because we had it, I think, in the analysis, about it being unlimited renewals, and so we were able to confirm that you're correct. There is a limit of eight years. There's lots of details how we get to eight, but on that particular. Per vehicle, I think. I mean per vessel, per engine, something to that effect. So I wanted to confirm for the committee that the limit is not unlimited, as was stated and announced.

It is. We did further investigation. It is eight times for this particular. For one particular part of this issue. Chair Davies.

Thank you. Having the opportunity to live nearby just to. If you haven't had the chance to get over to Balboa Island again, you have people living over there, but this is used by so many people. It's, you know, it's an expensive trip to take the family to. There's Ferris wheels, there's shops. And if you knew how Newport Boulevard goes, if you're going to go the long way without taking the ferry, it is backed up, up all year round.

And so there's so many employees that take this ferry to get over there that are restaurant employees, retail employees, not to mention, again, I've taken my bike, we've taken that on the ferry and have come over. So this really brings a lot of economic value, having this ferry there, because most people would probably go, I'm not going to do it. It's just too backed up because people are going home. There's schools over there, all the way over in the island.

And I think, again, when you look at $1.50 to be able to use this, it definitely is something that I think attracts a lot of families to come and enjoy this opportunity. But if you look at, if you stop that, how many cars they actually take over, the amount of carbon emission that would now be having would be unbelievable. So having this takes so much off, and I think that really is the benefit here, and that's what you're trying to do.

And I like the fact that you'd be open to maybe 10 years, you know, and bringing it down. And I would love the committee to think about that as well. But they are really cutting a lot of carbon emissions right now. And if this just had a stop, you know, it would be very grave to the atmosphere and those around there. Thank you.

Madam Chair. If I might also mention, I neglected to mention that ingress and egress off the Balboa peninsula on a summer backed up, bumper to bumper day emergency service vehicles rely on the ferry, and in an emergency situation where the fire or ambulance cannot get through the heavy duty traffic, they take the ferry across and access medical services more quickly. So without the ferry, there's limited access off, and even in another emergency, there's limited access off the peninsula.

Thank you. Are there any other questions, comments, concerns? Okay, well, I definitely appreciate the testimony, and the author and I have had several conversations about this, including coming to visit and see pretty soon and recognizing the impact that the Beek family has on the community through the Balboa ferry. It's a challenge, and I understand that it is a challenge for you as you are trying to transition to zero emission vehicles and do the right thing.

The huge effort that the local community in Newport Beach and the owner, you, Mr. Seymour Beek, have expended to raise awareness, raise funds and work with the California Air Resources Board is definitely commendable. I understand that you all have received a preliminary grant from CARB for almost $8 million to electrify by the three ferries. Also an application process of $1.7 million from Carmoral Moyer and another 1.9 from CARB. I appreciate the difficulty that the Balboa Island ferry is facing and applying for extensions each year.

The exemptions offered by this bill would only affect Balboa Island ferry. It also sets. This bill also sets a concerning precedent for other parties seeking exemptions from the CARB regulations. And I know you recognize that you felt like it doesn't set a precedent, but it does in this particular way. And this is something that the committee has not been granting anyone exemptions.

Having them go through the process, as I talked with the author, definitely interested in working as a committee to see if there is a more narrow way to work on the process as it relates to this into the next session.

But because it does set a dangerous precedent, and there are other opportunities for grants, as well as to go through the process, through the regulatory process, through CARB, I won't be able to support this bill today, but continue to look forward to working with you to find a pathway forward in terms of how do we adjust the process to accommodate businesses like yours and the valuable role you played. I appreciate the comment of noting that you only take 28 gallons a day.

But however, vehicles traversing the six mile route to get to where you're taking them, and the congestion, as noted from the Vice Chair, has a much more significant impact on the environment. So I think there is an opportunity to find a pathway forward. I just don't feel that this particular request, this particular solution that you're requesting is the actual solution I'm looking to the committee for. There you go. There's a tie. I'll give it to Sanchez, and she hasn't had one yet.

So there is a motion made by Hoover and a second by Sanchez. I'll give you an opportunity to close and address any other comments or concerns from the committee before we call the roll.

Well, thank you, Chair Wilson. I'm very grateful and you've been very gracious in our conversations. I just want to clarify a couple points. This is not precedent setting, because the sport fishing industry, in fact, coincidentally, but I'm very familiar with that because when I was mayor of Newport Beach, they were, the sport fishing industry was applying to CARB for that extension or exemption. I signed a letter as mayor to support it. And so that was the precedent setting.

And just to be clear on the vocabulary, they're not looking for an exemption, they're just simply looking for. For an extension. And as Assemblymember Papan asked me, I certainly 10 years. And the process of the uncertainty is really a critical factor for financing. I don't know if Mr. Joe Beek has made this point, but the matching funds that the 7.9 grants require is $2 million for a business that doesn't even make $1.0 million a year.

So they will have to come up with matching funds to receive the grant of over $2 million. So there is, there's a financial blockage here and a process blockage that I'm certainly willing, and they would be willing to work out the best solution that works, of course, but we just don't want it to go out of business. And this is the most environmentally friendly public transit system. They receive their rate setting from the California Public Utilities Commission. So they are in conformance with all regulations, requirements.

And it would be, not only is it iconic in Newport Beach and Orange County, it would just be a devastating blow to the local economy of these small businesses as well as their own business. So we. I think there's a solution there somewhere. I hope we could do it this year, because next year he'll reach the extent they'll reach the extension, the expiration for their application. And so if only two ferries are operating, that's not a good sign.

So maybe if there's a way, if this continues, I ask respectfully for an I vote we can continue to work on before this goes to appropriations and work out a process that works for you and works for all of us. Thank you. I appreciate your aye vote.

Thank you. And just to provide clarity for members of the board on the testimony, the bill in its current print today is asking for an exemption for 15 years.

Extension?

No, no, no. The exact language is exemption for 15 years. I know there was discussion about would you accept the lower. But we don't negotiate during COVID But it is asking for an exemption, not an extension related to the time period. And that's the key differing point. And there is currently an exemption process with the regulatory body being CARB. And so that is what the precedent setting is. Whereas the sports fishermen got an extension to comply. But that's not the bill before us today.

And that's why it's really important that we work together to figure out what is the pathway forward to be able to. I think it's a vital resource. We just got to get the right language and law to be able to do that. And so with that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 3153. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We're checking on the tally. Hold on. So the current tally is 3:2, with I don't see the not voting, but several for not voting. We are going to leave the roll open for members to add on however they see fit. And I'm just noting if it does fail, I am going to request of the committee to, without objection, grant unanimous consent for reconsideration. Okay, thank you. And thank you to the Beek family.

Thank you.

All right, we're going to move on to Item number 14, AB 2535 Bonta. To the author at your convenience.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. I want to start off by thanking the Chair and Committee consultants for their incredibly hard work and collaboration on this Bill. I will be accepting the Committee amendments. The Trade Corridor Enhancement Program, or TCEP, was established in 2017 to fund projects that efficiently enhance the movement of goods along corridors with high freight volume. This includes projects that make highway improvements, but also projects that reduce the environmental impacts of freight movements, like zero emission freight infrastructure.

Since its inception, the California Transportation Commission has allocated over 60% of TCEP funds to highway expansion projects and only 4% to zero emission freight infrastructure. Highway expansion projects are frequently used as a method to alleviate traffic congestion. However, research has continually shown that highway expansions do not reduce traffic, but instead increase the traffic in the long term, through induced demand of passenger vehicles. Increases in traffic subsequently lead to the increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

Historically, highways have been constructed through or near low-income and/or communities of color, where community resistance to land acquisition was the least powerful. Now, highways and freight corridors are often co-located with low-income communities of color. As a result, low-income communities of color bear a disproportionate burden of air pollution and diesel exhaust. Inhalation of diesel exhaust can lead to asthma and respiratory illnesses and can worsen heart and lung disease.

To prevent further harm to these communities, AB 2535 will require the California Transportation Commission, the Department of Housing and Community Development, and the California Air Resources Board to develop guidelines for highway expansion projects that are funded through TCEP. It will also set targets for the continued investment of TCEP funds into zero emissions freight infrastructure to reduce the burden of diesel pollution and to help the state to reach its climate goals.

I will now turn it over to Jeanie Ward-Waller, Director of Transportation Advocacy with Fearless Advocacy and Will Barrett, Senior Director of Clean Air Advocacy from the American Lung Association.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members Jeanie Ward-Waller with Fearless Advocacy on behalf of the Greenlining Institute, who are co-sponsors of AB 2535. I want to thank Assemblymember Bonta for your leadership in authoring this Bill. The US Department of Transportation and California's transportation agencies have all publicly acknowledged the destruction and division of communities of color that was caused by building our highway system.

Research has well documented that these environmental justice communities are burdened by toxic levels of traffic and air pollution that are the legacy of where we built highways. These impacts are worst along major freight corridors, where people breathing in diesel particulates daily suffer much higher rates of cancer and asthma. Decades of evidence in Caltrans own policy recognized that widening congested highways actually worsens traffic congestion and increases the burden on adjacent communities.

Unless the new lane is for trucks only, the trucks moving goods on that highway will be stuck in the same traffic. The Trade Corridor Enhancement Program was established in Senate Bill 1 to fund projects that improve trade corridor mobility and safety while reducing emissions of diesel particulates and negative community impacts, especially in disadvantaged communities. Despite this provision, TCEP has funded more highway expansion since 2018 than any other state program, largely in environmental justice communities.

AB 2535 would strengthen TCEP's emphasis on reducing pollution and disadvantaged communities in two critical ways, as Assemblymember Bonta has described. Despite clear evidence in policy, California's transportation agencies will continue to expand highways in environmental justice communities in the absence of strong direction from the Legislature.

I understand this more deeply than almost anyone. In my six years in leadership at Caltrans, I was responsible for trying to shift the Department away from highway widening, towards solutions that sustainably address our myriad challenges, and I was ultimately fired for it. I urge your support of AB 2535.

Thank you. I'm Will Barrett with the American Lung Association. The American Lung Association supports AB 2535 because the transportation sector is the leading source of air toxics and harmful air pollution and disparities in California. Californians face the most difficult air pollution burdens in the nation, with the freight sector contributing to our regional, local, and global pollution challenges. This sector is estimated to cause thousands of premature deaths annually in California.

The Lung Association State of the Air 2023 report found that over 9 in 10 Californians live in a community impacted by unhealthy air, and many face greater burdens due to trucking routes in their local communities. Diesel exhaust is a known carcinogen, as has been mentioned, and communities of color and lower income communities are often most impacted.

Recently, the US EPA has estimated there are more than 70 million people living near the nation's heaviest truck routes, noting that they tend to be people of color and tend to have lower incomes, and face the greatest exposure burdens. The National Health Effects Institute's recent review of over 300 peer-reviewed research studies noted that traffic pollution causes early death, death due to heart disease and death due to lung cancer.

This major review also reconfirmed traffic pollution causing asthma attacks and causing new cases of asthma in children and adults, as well as adding to respiratory infection risk in children. The Lung Association ourselves, we've also reviewed the health benefits of shifting to zero emission trucking along major truck routes with the heaviest traffic loads in the nation.

We found that California communities have the most to gain in terms of thousands of lives could be saved, tens of thousands of asthma attacks could be avoided, and tens of billions in public health benefits could be generated over the coming decades through the shift to zero emission trucking and zero emission infrastructure on our major roadways.

AB 2535 would protect vulnerable communities from expansion of polluting infrastructure and ensure the greater deployment of zero emission infrastructure needed to meet our clean air goals, our clean air standards, and our climate standards in California. This will also help to reduce disparities and diesel exhaust burdens, and we urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Now moving to members of the public who would like to add on their support, it would be your name, organization and position.

Jonathan Cole for Climate Action California in support.

Hi there. Megan Meckleberg on behalf of the Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in support.

Santiago with California Environmental Voters in support.

Good afternoon Ashton Aaron Nagali speaking on behalf of Environment California in support.

Good afternoon, Alejandro Solis on behalf of Comite Civico Del Valle in support, thank you.

Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Marc Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All. This is a great Bill. We are in support.

Jamie Pugh with NextGen California and on behalf of the Planning and Conservation League in support.

Zach Dichguras on behalf of Transform and Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability in support.

Good afternoon. Jennifer Ganata, on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment. But I also have in support: UAW Region 6; 350 Bay Area; Asian Pacific Environmental Network; California Environmental Justice Alliance; Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. Thank you.

Zak Accuardi with NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and also on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club California, and the San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving on to the primary witnesses in opposition. You can start at your convenience.

I want to start my testimony today by absolutely acknowledging on behalf of the industry that past land use and transportation decisions have led to significant inequities across California and communities. And we absolutely support working on solutions to stand up underserved and under resourced communities. At the same time, the transportation construction industry believes that we can do that while also supporting flexibility to design transportation solutions that include strategic limited highway capacity, which is why we, before the author accepted the Committee amendments, had an opposed position.

I would like to acknowledge the acceptance of the Committee amendments and our gratitude to the author, to the chair and your staff for getting all of the hard work done to get us to this place. And we are now in an opposed unless amended position. There are what we think are a few minor amendments that we would like to see and would like like to continue to work on with the author going forward.

The first is related to the CTC guidelines language to ensure that it mirrors existing requirements in other SB 1 programs like the Local Partnership Program and Solutions for Congested Corridors Program. We don't think it's necessary to codify the CEQA NEPA CTC guidance document in the statute, that aspect that requires environmental clearance within six months of program adoption. The CTC could need, for a variety of reasons to change that in the future, and codifying that potentially constrains the CTC in that way.

And then finally, we believe it's prudent to include a five year sunset on the 5% increase in TCEP zero emission vehicle target every cycle so that the Legislature can pause and evaluate its effectiveness in advancing zero emission vehicle infrastructure through that program. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair Wilson and Members. Chris Shimoda with the California Trucking Association. First wanted to thank the author and sponsors for meeting with us and express appreciation to the Committee staff and the Chair for your hard work on this Bill. CTA aligns its comments with Transportation California and hope we can work out remaining concerns as the Bill moves forward.

Trucking has spent nearly billion dollars a year to tranddsition to cleaner equipment, which has reduced diesel emissions in communities where TSET projects are located by over 99%. As the industry transitions to zero emission technologies, major investments will be needed in charging and fueling. This is why just last year, CTA supported reauthorization of the clean transportation program, which, combined with existing CARB programs, provide over half a billion dollars a year in dedicated funding for zero emission trucks and charging.

However, the TCEP is the only program dedicated to improving California's goods movement system. As the TCEP's largest fee payer, we oppose diverting 50% of the fund from all eligible uses to a single use already funded and well funded by carbon CEC is violating the intent of this program, as agreed upon in SB 1. Goods movement accounts for one third of the state's economy and one in nine jobs in Southern California.

As California's population and economy grows, we must continue to invest in this critical infrastructure with a properly balanced TCEP. For those reasons, we continue to be opposed to AB 2535 unless amended per Transportation California's position. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving on to Members of the public who would like to add on their opposition, now would be appropriate time to do so. Name, organization, and position.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Gus Khouri on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council. and the transportation planning agencies for Monterey and Santa Barbara and Madera. In opposition. We have not had the benefit of seeing the most recent amendments, so that could have triggered maybe a different conversation here. We're not positioned.

All right. Thank you. And you can note your position as opposed unless amended if inconsistent with the opposition witnesses, if you prefer, versus just opposed.

Thank you for the direction, Madam Chair. Keith Dunn here, on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council, in opposition unless further amended. We look forward to working with the author moving forward. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chairs, Members. Melanie Perron, on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California, opposed, unless amended on this Bill.

Good afternoon. Mark Neuburger, California State Association of Counties. Opposed, unless amended.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Damon Conklin with League of California Cities, opposed, unless amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Ross Buckley, on behalf of San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, opposed.

Manuel Leon, California Alliance for Jobs. Opposed, unless amended.

Lawrence Gayden, with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, opposed, less amended. Thank you.

Eric Thronson, on behalf of the City of Tulare. Opposed, unless amended. Thank you.

Bernice Jimenez Creager here with the California Trucking Association. Also on behalf of the Western States Trucking Association, Harbor Trucking Association, San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership, the California Business Roundtable, also in opposition.

Excuse me. Hi. Mark Watts, representing Riverside County Transportation Commission remaining in opposition unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving to Members of the Committee for any questions, comments, and concerns. Aguiar-Curry.

Thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this forward. But you know, I've struggled with this Bill. I have major interstates in my district, and they serve as important corridors for agricultural products to make it from the fields in my district to the ports of Oakland, Stockton, and Sacramento. And more importantly, I have constituents who have really long commutes because they have had to move farther and farther away from cities to find affordable housing. Improving air quality, especially in disadvantaged communities, and promoting zero emotion freight technology is critically important.

But I also want to make sure that we do it in a way that does not contribute to the struggles of my constituents. Even in the amendments, this Bill restricts an important source of state funding and could potentially limit the state's ability to provide matching funds needed to bring in federal dollars and protect the livelihood of the struggling family farmers in my district.

And unfortunately, especially at this particular time, I have a very hard time trusting guidance that is drafted by CARB at the exact moment they are trying to kill an important project in my district, the causeway, and revert $87 million of federal funds back to Washington, DC.

Looking for any, is there any other? Oh, well, to the author, did you want to make any comments now or at close in regard to any testimony given so far?

At close.

Okay. Carrillo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do share those sentiments that were expressed with low resource communities, which I represent. I also have a concern with an area of the district that I represent, which is a 14 freeway going down from Lancaster and Palmdale to Santa Clarita. There are three choke points, three bottlenecks on each direction. This Bill seems to be an impediment to fix those choke points. And that's the question, really, I don't know if that's how this will be done.

I fully understand, again, the expansion of freeways, hiding lanes, and all of those things that contribute to the impacts on those low resource communities like the ones that I represent. However, going down the 14 freeway, down to LA, where 70-75% of the residents travel to because of work, and these three choke points are a concern. I've been trying to get some funding to be able to fix that, and I'm just afraid that this may impede it even further. But I'll be happy to listen to that answer.

Assemblymember, we've looked closely at your district, and none of your district falls into the top 10% of CalEnviroScreen census tracts. It would not be affected by the provision of the Bill that is looking to develop guidance to potentially govern how highway expansion projects would be treated in the future. So that project should not, that corridor should not be impacted.

Thank you for that.

Are there any others? All right, I'm seeing none. I'd like to say thank you to the author for working so diligently with me and Committee staff on the amendments taken today. I know as a leader in this space, it was not easy to have your Bill be reviewed so closely. I'm supportive of the widening of freeways as one option in a toolbox of solutions to address safety risk and congestion.

I also recognize and appreciate the need for a balanced approach and that highway whitenings can further disproportionately impact the state's most vulnerable communities. But as was noted by both sides of the testimony today, that transportation has had a huge impact on communities, disproportionately on communities of color. And so having balance is extremely important.

And I think that the amendments taken today work to strike that balance by requiring appropriate state agencies to create guidance and implement them on the top 10 percent of CalEnviroScreen communities. I know that there is going to be more conversation in this space, not only as it relates to your Bill, but during my time as chair. And I have said from the very beginning that equity will guide all of my decision making as long as I remain as chair.

Well, actually, despite whether I remain as chair or not, just forever. And so I'm glad to be able to support this Bill today with all the amendments that were taken and appreciate not only your leadership as an author in this space, but also the advocates who've continually not only demonstrated leadership, but the spirit of collaboration in trying to strike a balance on this Bill, as well as those that stand and oppose as amended. With that, I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the robust commentary by the Committee Members. I just want to put this Bill and what it's seeking to do in context within our actual spending dollars around transportation concerns. So Caltrans, in the 202324 budget, had a budget of $18.1 billion. TCEP, the program that we're talking about, accounts for $815 million annually.

The targets that we are trying to set, moving from 10% dedicated towards projects to 15%, 5% each over the next two programming cycles, would essentially mean just in the next programming cycle, it would increase the target, allow for only 150 million additional dollars to be included for the funding cycle and ultimately that would be less than 1%, 0.67%, of the Caltrans annual budget time going towards supporting ZEV infrastructure.

So when we talk about kind of putting our values where our budget is and our spending is, we know that we need to be able to meet the demands around zero emission vehicles and ensuring that we have the kind of freight infrastructure to be able to support our overall GHG goals for the State of California, which are very ambitious. One of the ways that we need to do that is ensure that we're increasing the infrastructure funding to be able to do that.

This Bill just sets a target and moves us in the right direction to be able to do that. I think it's really important for our agencies not to be siloed in their guideline making around transportation projects, which is why for me, it makes sense to have, despite the challenges of around any particular project, to have CARB working with HCD and the California Transit Commission.

And mind you, that what we're doing is only focusing in on the 10% of communities that have already been identified through CalEnviroScreen as the most vulnerable, that have suffered the redlining highways through their communities, all of the things that make them disproportionately impacted from a health perspective, a public health perspective, by doing any kind of highway expansion. And ultimately the research has shown us that highway expansion doesn't actually lead to less traffic.

So for those reasons, I ask you to put at the center disadvantaged communities to ensure that we can have a balanced approach to our infrastructure development, to support zero emission vehicle freight and infrastructure in that way, to ensure that workers have the ability to work building those zero emission vehicle infrastructure in the way that they have before.

I will certainly continue to work with the opposition as I have, appreciate the chair and Committee for helping to structure this Bill in a way that I believe at least gets us started and pointed in the right direction. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. I'll look to the Committee for a motion. All right, we have a motion by Jackson and a second by Ortega. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 2535. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]

That bill is 6-1. We'll hold the roll open for Members to add on.

Thank you, chair.

I see that our other author left. So what we'll do to give a chance for Committee to take a 10 minute. I have mine. But we'll give a chance for Committee Members to stretch their legs, use the restroom, things of that nature. So a 10 minute comfort break. The time is 3:35. So 3:45. Please return, including Members who are not here.

All right. Giving one minute warning to folks. One minute.

All right. It is 3:45 exactly, so we are back from a quick 10 minute comfort break. Moving on to items number 10 and 11 by McCarty, AB 2427. We'll begin with that one.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a district bill, and begin by accepting your Committee amendments. This bill reauthorizes our local transit district, Sacramento RT, which you hear sometimes a little bell outside the train, allowing them to offer free transit passes for fixed route services to seniors 75 and up. This was the policy up until about a decade ago. They had to eliminate it. This would reauthorize their opportunity to do so. With me today is a representative from the Sacramento RT district and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I'm Greg Fishman, senior community relations officer with the Sacramento Regional Transit District. We operate bus, light rail, ADA paratransit, and microtransit services in Sacramento County. We know that as people age, they lose the ability to drive. Sometimes public transportation becomes even more imperative, especially for people at the lower rungs of the economic spectrum. Some people can afford Lyft or Uber, and others cannot. For some, even paying our nominal $2.50 per ride can be difficult.

At one point many years ago, as the Assemblyman mentioned, SAC RT offered a special discounted rate for senior citizens that was rescinded for many reasons, including a change in law that required any special fare for seniors to also be offered to people with disabilities. Members of our board recently approached our staff and asked about reinstating the super senior pass for people over a certain age. That is the main intent of this legislation, to offer clean mobility options to a vulnerable portion of our community.

We believe this can lead to an increase in ridership while potentially reducing reliance on more expensive paratransit trips. We understand that Mr. McCarty is accepting the Chair's amendment to include a three year sunset on this provision. We believe we'll be able to show the success of the program in that timeframe. We thank Assemblyman McCarty for carrying the bill. We know of no opposition, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their support. Name, organization, and position, please.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Obed Frank, on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, in support.

Sophia Aficova with the Coalition for Clean Air in support.

Erica Romero on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, Valley Clean Air Now, and Calstar in strong support. Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Chair, Members. Andrew Antwih with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange, on behalf of Advanced Energy United in support.

Thank you. Now moving on to members of the public who are in opposition. We don't have any on file, but I just wanted to confirm there were no members wanted to offer as primary witnesses in opposition. Seeing none. Are there any members who wish to have on record that they are in opposition? Members of the public have on record that they're in opposition? Name, organization, position, would be appropriate to do so now. Seeing none, moving on to Members of the Committee, if there's any questions, comments or concerns.

All right. I thought I heard a yes, but that was another conversation. With that, okay. Oh, actually, you know what I noted at the beginning we were doing 2427 which is what the Committee put on the screen. But the bill that actually was presented was AB 2634. This is the one related to the Sacramento Regional Transit District, as was noted by the author in his comments and testimony, which is item number 11. So just that and just confirming that Davies and Ting are. Cause they moved.

Just making sure that motion and second was for AB 2634. Okay. All right, now we're back on track. That's what happens when you take a 10 minute break, I guess. All right, well, to the author, thank you for accepting the Committee's amendments. I would like to note, though, free transit is not free and should not come at the expense of service improvements. Customer surveys show that SAC RT has issues with cleanliness, particularly on their light rail system, that do need to be addressed.

And I appreciate the SAC RT's effort to reduce burdens, excuse me, on seniors, but ultimately, all transit riders would benefit from services that is frequent, on time, clean and safe. Doing this allows for increased riders, which would also allow for a decreased cost for everyone, as everyone sharing in the burden of transportation. The sunset gives the Legislature time to review this program as we await the transit transformation task force recommendations on how to best improve public transit.

With the amendments, I will be supporting your bill today and urge SAC RT to work on improving customer service, not just focus on the customer cost. With that, we have a motion by Davies with a second by Ting. I'll give you an opportunity to close before the secretary calls the roll.

Thank you. I couldn't agree more. Our family, our kids take light rail every day home from school. So we are users of that system and they get it free because the school district pays their freight and so, you know, we need paying customers as well. And so I think this is a fair compromise. And we thank you for working with us on an amendment to have a sunset to evaluate that. And with that, ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 2634, the motion is do pass as amended. [Roll Call]

That's nine votes. And so we'll leave the roll open for Members to add on. Now we will move on to item number 10, AB 2427.

Thank you. This is a bill on a topic that we're very familiar with that's related to EV vehicles and charging infrastructure. We know in order to tackle our climate change goals, air quality, we need to dramatically increase the access of E vehicles, and part of that is the charging infrastructure. So 80 or so percent of individuals charge from home today. People live in apartments sometimes have a difficult time. And so 33% of multifamily housing residents have access, so conversely, two thirds do not.

This would set a system in place where companies like our sponsors right here, FLO, could utilize curbsides charging infrastructure. We did talk about this bill last year. We did had some concerns with some local government groups. We worked with them and modified this version before us today. I think this gets us in a place to have more charging infrastructure throughout the State of California, so we can have more electric vehicles on our roads and in our neighborhoods. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me today is a representative from FLO. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Dan Chia on behalf of FLO EV Charging in support of AB 2427. Founded in 2009, FLO is an EV charging station manufacturer and network operator. We have deployed over 100,000 residential, public, and private EV charging stations across North America. We also specialize in curbside charging solutions that have the largest curbside and have the largest curbside charging deployments on the continent, with over 1000 in Quebec, 100 in New York City, and approximately 500 in the City of LA.

If you're doing the math, 1600 as the largest deployer isn't very much, so that tells you the potential that's out there. We can attest firsthand the three benefits of curbside charging. By leveraging the public right of away, we can deploy in areas that have historically lacked access to charging infrastructure. These chargers can further drive EV adoption. Based on existing deployments, we have seen charger utilization steadily increase.

In fact, we have found that our level two curbside chargers have some of the highest utilization rates in our entire network, in part because they are located in downtown corridors or close to multifamily housing. Level two chargers can reduce drivers' dependence on DC fast chargers, which are more expensive to develop and more expensive to charge on a per session basis.

Curdside chargers can reduce charging costs for drivers, reduce cost disparities for those that don't have access to home charging, and the development costs can also be realized. Savings can also be realized if installed on light or utility poles. We want to maximize these benefits for California drivers. However, there are unique considerations to permitting and deploying stations in the right of way, given potential competing uses.

AB 2427 asks local governments to specify where and how to permit curbside charging stations in order to minimize confusion and potential delays. But to be clear, this is not a permit streamlining bill. Nothing in the bill imposes a shot clock or authorizes developers to skip the line. This is a permit transparency bill and requires local governance to proactively identify locations where charging may be more appropriate. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Now moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their support. Name, organization, and position.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Obed Franco on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition in support.

Madam Chair and Members, Andrew Antwih on behalf of Advanced Energy United. This is, in fact, the bill that we intended to support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members. Roman Vogelsang with Aprea and Company on behalf of ChargePoint in support. Thank you.

Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air in support.

Tom Knox of Valley Clean Air Now in support.

Erika Romero on behalf of CALSTART and the EV Charging Association in strong support.

John Moffat on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation in support.

Jonathan Cole, Climate Action California, in support.

Rebecca Marcus, Union of Concerned Scientists, in support.

Thank you. Now moving on to opposition. We do not have any on file, but just wanted to be sure there was, was there anyone who wanted to operate, to act as primary witness in opposition? All right, seeing none. Is there any member of the public who wanted to add on their, on record, their opposition? Name, organization, and position.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Damon Conklin with League of California Cities. We are not an oppose. We've been working with the stakeholders since late autumn on some iterations of language that we're hopeful we can reach an agreement on that will keep us neutral. So again, we're enjoying the collaborative conversations. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mark Neuburger with the California State Association of Counties, also sharing concerns for the Rural County Representatives of California. Our concerns are the same as Cal Cities'.

Thank you. With that, moving on to Members of the Committee who might have any questions, comments or concerns. All right. There is not. All right. We have a motion on the floor by Jackson, a second by Ting. To the author, you know, in order to meet our ambitious ZEV goals, ZEV adoption goals, the state needs to significantly build out our charging infrastructure, which is costly and time consuming to permit, as was testified to today.

This bill will require GO-Biz and local agencies to develop permitting checklists for the installation of curbside EV charging stations. It is critical that the author continues to work with local agencies as this bill moves forward, particularly in the permitting in the public right of way I will be supporting this bill today. As was noted, we do have a first and a second. Would you like to close before calling the roll?

Thank you. And yes, we are continuing to engage with the local government groups to modify and address concerns. And thank you for your comments, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. All right. With that, Madam Secretary.

AB 2427, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill has eight aye votes so far. We'll hold the roll open for Members to add on. With that, moving to item number 17, AB 2828 by Bains. The author may begin at your convenience.

With that, moving to item number 17, AB-2828 by Bains. The author may begin at your convenience.

Happy Earth Day. Thank you, Chair and Members. AB-2828 makes long overdue and critical updates to how Kids' Plates funds are raised and distributed throughout the state. The Kids' Plates Program allows drivers to purchase a specialty license plate with a unique shape, including a heart, handprint, or star. Revenues from the sale of Kids' Plates support the Child Health and Safety Fund, which is allocated 50% to support childcare, 25% to support child abuse prevention, and 25% to support childhood injury prevention.

The program has been an incredible success, raising more than 80 million since its inception. However, the program has remained unchanged since its creation in 1992, and it is time to apply some of the lessons that have been learned over the last 30 years. Critically, the state's distribution of childcare and childhood injury prevention funding is fraught with inequities. Most counties do not receive their fair share, even though the funds originate through vehicle owner purchases from across all 58 counties.

AB-2828 modernizes the Kids' Plates Program by updating the price of the plates, which has not been changed since 1992, maintaining funding for existing programs and ensuring all 58 counties receive their fair share of funding for child care, child abuse prevention, and childhood injury prevention. To ensure equitable distributions, AB-2828 leverages the 58 first five county commissions as well as a childcare resource and referral networks, while protecting the existing child abuse prevention formula that is already distributed through the 58 child Abuse trust funds.

In short, AB-2828 doubles funding for children's safety programs at no cost to the general fund and ensures kids living in every part of California get their fair share. AB-2828 is proudly supported by the original author of the Kids Plates Bill, former congresswoman, and supervisor Jackie Speier, as well as the original co-sponsors of the 1992 legislation, the Children's Advocacy Institute based at the University of San Diego School of Law and the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health.

I am joined today in support by Steve Barrow with the coalition, as well as Jackie Wong, Executive Director of First 5 California.

Good afternoon, Chairwoman Wilson, Members of the Committee, I am Jackie Thu-Huong Wong and I am the Executive Director of First 5 California. I'm honored to be addressing you today on this issue. As a dedicated advocate for children's health and development, I'm here to discuss the importance of AB-2828 the modernization of the have a heart, be a star help our kids license plate program, which is really just such, such a fabulous catchy name, but also known as the Kids' Plates Program.

Specifically what we are interested in is the rates have not changed since the 1900s, as my children would say, when there was a horse and buggy. But really over three decades, and in that time, inflation has increased dramatically. So over the years, as mentioned by Assemblymember Bains, it's raised over $80 million, and specifically what's important to us. It actually addresses an outdated formula to support child abuse, childcare resource and referral centers, and childhood injury prevention programs.

By updating the pricing of Kids' Plate to reflect the current rates, AB-2828 will generate more funding to contribute to these critical programs. More importantly, currently, many counties do not receive their fair share of funding from the Child Health and Safety Fund, despite contributions from vehicle owners across the state. AB-2828 will rectify these inequities by redistributing funds in a manner that reflects the needs of all communities in the state.

Though it supports 58 child abuse and prevention centers, it only supports less than 30 counties in the prevention and safety fund, as well as less than 25 counties in the child care fund. So that is something to be noted. Again, three decades and we need to update this. First 5 California is a strong, supportive initiative that promotes child health and safety. And we believe that all children deserve access to quality childcare, protection from abuse and prevention of childhood injuries. I will now hand it over to Steve Barrow.

Yeah hi, mine will be very short. I'm the State Program Director of the California Coalition for Children's Safety and Health. I happened to sit in the 1990s team with Jackie Speier to write this, but it actually was Governor Wilson that worked with us to create this funding program, and it's long overdue to be overhauled and really are happy that Assemblywoman Dr. Bains has agreed to structure this so that all 58 counties get their fair share.

If we would have been wise enough back then to put in an inflationary mechanism, the plate would have been $113 at this point. We're not going up that high in this readjustment, but we are going to go up closer to where all the other specialty plates are that save the whales, Yosemite parks, and the CalArts plates. So I'm here mostly to answer technical things.

I work in the child abuse arena, I work in the child care arena and the childhood Injury prevention arena, and I can answer technical questions about the Bill.

Thank you. Moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their support, name, position, and organization.

Chair and Members. Kathleen Mossburg with the First 5 Association of California. In strong support.

Seeing no other. Moving on to any members of the public who wish to serve as primary witnesses in opposition. Seeing none. Moving on to any members of the public who wish to just have on record their opposition with the name, organization, and position. Seeing none. Moving to Members of the Committee for questions, comments, concerns. Seeing none. We do have a, let's see, a motion on the floor by Ting and the second by Jackson.

I'll just note that I appreciate you bringing this Bill forward to today, and I think this is notice in the analysis, and I am concerned about the unintended consequences of increasing the fees for this license plate by 80%. DMV customers have other options for license plates. This plate is currently the second most purchased plate after the black and gold legacy plate. It brings in nearly twice as much money as the next most popular plate.

The Kids' Plate was intentionally designed to be cheaper than personalizing the standard California license, and there is good evidence that that price point is what made this plate so popular. Over 62,000 of the 64,000 holders of this plate have actually personalized them. So increasing its costs may result in the opposite of what you intending. However, I am supporting this Bill today.

The change in the allocation formula to allow for first share is a really good policy direction, but I would ask the author to reconsider such a hefty price increase as you move forward in the legislative process. Like I said, we have a motion and a second. I give you an opportunity to close before the secretary calls the roll.

Sure. Thank you so much, Chairwoman, for those comments. So if we go back to how much it costed at that time and what it would cost right now is, as Steve had explained, it would have been much, much more. Taking that into consideration, we're only increasing it to $90. And the good news is that we have completed an analysis with the Economics Department at the University of San Diego, which found that even under a worst case scenario, demand could be reduced by 20%.

But that would still result in the program revenues doubling. So the price that we're proposing in AB-2828 remains cheaper than most of the other specialty license plates available to drivers right now. And I look forward to seeing this program flourish and really working on ways to keep our children safe on the streets. Thank you. I respect the ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary please call the roll .

AB-2828. The motion is do-passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill has nine votes. We'll leave the roll open for Members to add on. All right, just giving a call to other Members of the Committee. We are down to our last two bills. So be great for people to come back to either vote or add on. I'll hand it over to the Vice Chair. I'll present my Bill since Sanchez has left the building for a moment.

All right, we have Assembly Member Wilson on up with bill AB 3117.

Thank you for the quick motion and second. I will definitely be brief because I do not have witnesses. So good afternoon, Madam Vice Chair and members. I'm pleased to present AB 3117 which will make a mobile or digital driver's license or identification card evidence of majority, an identity of a person if the DMV authorizes the use of those licenses or ID cards without the possession of a card.

The DMV first introduced a pilot program in September of '23 that allowed residents of California to utilize digital alternatives to driver's licenses and identification cards. DMV is currently testing the mobile driver's license at select locations and airports as a part of the pilot and certain locations have been accepting the digital IDs for alcohol purchases.

The Bill in front of you today will modernize California law to make it explicitly clear that a digital driver's license approved by the DMV can also be used as a bona fide evidence of majority and identity of a person when purchasing alcohol. Current law today was written well before digital identifications were contemplated and should be updated to provide clarity for thousands of stakeholders impacts.

I plan on continuing to work with the committee staff and stakeholders to address the policy considerations and analysis to require ABC and DMV to work together to ensure there's clarity and coordination with that. I thank you all and respectfully ask for your aye vote on this measure.

All right, do we have anyone in the audience that would like to come up to support? Right. Do we have any opposition? Nope. committee members, any comments? All righty. This is a way to do it. All right. I'd like to invite the author to close.

Thank you for the no comments. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. We have a motion by Jackson and a second by Wallis. Secretary, if you could call the roll.

AB 3117. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll keep that open for any of those that aren't here for now.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

At your convenience.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. In the past few years, California has experienced an uptick in the number of highway blockings that have stalled traffic and put people's lives in danger. In the past few months alone, California has experienced multiple of these blockings. Last week, California experienced not one, but two more. When these individuals purposely block highways, they aren't just inconveniencing people trying to get to work or dropping their children off at school.

They're not just preventing people from getting to the airport on time to see dying family members or to make necessary medical appointments. They're making it more difficult for law enforcement, firefighters, and emergency response personnel to respond to emergencies. While there are many stories of how these highway blockings have impacted innocent Californians, I want to share one in particular. Last November, about 80 people blocked the Bay Bridge from San Francisco to Oakland. The bridge was blocked for more than 4 hours.

During this blockage, three different organ transplants were significantly delayed in reaching UCSF for their donor. This made what would have been a 30 minutes trip into a four hour delay. According to a UCSF transplant surgeon, the increased wait time between the donors and recipients increased the transplant risk and the potential for the organ to not function as well for the recipient. Every minute of time on ice is hard on the organs, he stressed.

There are three people out there that, through no fault of their own, may have had a poorly functioning organ because of this delay. That's real. That's someone's health we're talking about. Now I want to address something directly stated in the Committee analysis. The analysis stated that there are already criminal statutes, namely misdemeanors, for those blocking the free movement of people, and that because of this, the bill is not needed.

Let me tell you directly, while there are misdemeanors on the books, district attorneys are unable or unwilling to successfully prosecute those cases. In fact, I couldn't find a single example where any misdemeanor punishments were successful. I only ever found instances where there were dropped as part of a pretrial diversion or a plea deal. For example, in 2015, 8 women blocked the San Francisco airport exit on Highway 101 while protesting. They were arrested and charged with misdemeanor counts of unlawful assembly and false imprisonment.

These charges were ultimately dropped as part of a plea deal for 30 hours of community service and $35.25 in fines each. In 2016, 25 people blocked traffic on the Bay Bridge for a protest and were initially charged with the misdemeanor counts of false imprisonment, creating a public nuisance, and obstructing free passage. The District Attorney referred them to traffic court. Then the judge threw those charges out altogether, so no punishments were levied.

Even in 2023 Bay Bridge blocking that delayed organ transplants, DA Jenkins initially sought a misdemeanor charge of obstruction of a public roadway, unlawful assembly, and false imprisonment. She ended up dropping all of those charges in a pretrial diversion where the highway blockers received 5 hours of community service and a fee of about $57 apiece. One of the highway blockers who was interviewed after the news of this pretrial diversion broke said, and this is a direct quote, this is a victory.

Another one who was interviewed said that she'd likely participate in another highway blocking in the future. The status quo is clearly not working. The misdemeanor charges are not successful, and if all these highway blockers are going to get as a fine, we should at least make it a meaningful fine. Even Governor Newsom acknowledges this is a problem. In an interview just last week, he said that these , quote, people need to be held accountable for their actions.

It's no secret that I don't often agree policies-wise with the Governor, but on this issue we do agree. I introduced AB 2742 because law enforcement need additional tools to crack down on this behavior. The bill would permit law enforcement to issue enhanced fines for highway blockers obstructing the ability of a signaling emergency vehicle to pass. This is a reasonable step in the right direction that could make a difference between someone choosing to engage in this behavior again. Testifying with me today in support of the bill is Joelle McCoy, on behalf of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Joelle McCoy from Aaron Read and Associates on behalf of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, representing approximately 14,000 retired and active CHP officers. I'm here today in support of AB 2742 which we believe would provide an additional tool for law enforcement to help crack down on the uptick of illegal and dangerous protests blocking the highway.

We believe like as the Assembly Member had said in the recent protests on the Bay Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge, 880 in Oakland and the 110 in Los Angeles, this is dangerous. Something needs to change, and we believe that additional consequences and enhanced penalties are necessary to make a difference and will further provide help for law enforcement. Blocking this freeway is dangerous. As the assemblywoman had said, it has disastrous consequences for public safety.

Law enforcement is prevented from helping a victim, fire trucks are prevented from or delayed from going to a fire, and also ambulances are prevented from getting to a patient. Terrible. We need to make a change. While the CAHP does not typically support fine increases, we do believe that an additional deterrent is necessary and enhanced penalty is necessary. Therefore, we're pleased to support this bill, and we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving to members of the public who would like to add on their support, now would be appropriate time to do so with name, organization, and position. Seeing none. Moving on to are there any members in the public who are here as primary witnesses for the opposition? Seeing none, are there any members of the public who would like to have on record their opposition to this bill? Name, organization and position.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Tracy Rosenberg, on behalf of Oakland Privacy, we are in opposition to this bill.

Thank you. Moving to Members of the Committee who have any questions, comments, or concerns. Wallis.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Just for clarification, it's my understanding this bill would increase fines for protesters who see firefighters, law enforcement, or ambulances trying to get through their traffic jam then choose not to move to let them through. That's all it does, correct?

Correct.

Okay, great. I think it's a common sense proposal. Thank you to the author for bringing this forward and looking forward to supporting it. With that, I'd like to move the bill.

Okay, we have a motion from Wallis and a second from Chair Davies. Just confirm, are there any other Committee Members who would like to make any comments, questions, or concerns? Okay, seeing none. To the author, you know, I appreciate your frustration with the protesters shutting down vital arterials and share your concerns about blocking roadways in a manner that impede vehicle emergency vehicles. Existing law, however, does, I believe, does adequately provide law enforcement with the criminal charges they need.

For example, the protesters on the Golden Gate Bridge last week were charged with five misdemeanors, two infractions, and a felony conspiracy charge. These charges included resisting an officer, false imprisonment, remaining at an unlawful assembly, refusal to comply with the lawful order, unlawfully being a pedestrian on a freeway, and unlawfully stopping on a bridge. In response, the San Francisco DA also solicited individuals to report that they were victims of false imprisonment so that those victims can seek restitution, which is allowable by law.

So I still believe that the bill is unnecessary and ultimately will not solve the problem that you're seeking to resolve. But as I noted at the beginning of my comments, it is frustrating. It is a concern for safety reasons overall, not only for those seeking to protest, which is their constitutional right.

But, however, in this particular capacity, it does impose a danger to not only them and members of the public who are trying to cross or emergency vehicles who may be carrying life saving things for other people. And so I won't be able to support your bill today, but I do appreciate your effort to try to solve this issue. We do have, as was stated earlier, a motion on the floor by Wallis and Vice Chair Davies, but give you an opportunity to close before we call the roll.

Thank you. Clearly, the status quo is not working. These highway blockings are becoming more frequent, more reckless, and more dangerous. We have already seen negative public health and safety outcomes because of this. And I can tell you with 100% certainty that from all of my conversations with law enforcement and prosecutors and impacted individuals, it is only a matter of time before some innocent person dies a result of these highway blockings.

When you vote on this today, please ask yourself, are you comfortable with the status quo, or do you want to help law enforcement crack down on this dangerous behavior? I respectfully ask for an aye vote on this measure.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 2742. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Seven-five. And so we're going to hold the roll open for Members to add on, which will now give a call to any Members wishing to add on to the bills. This was our last bill to be heard today, so we will go through the other bills for other Members who are present to add on who might have missed a vote.

We will wait. At the conclusion of that, we will wait five minutes for any other Members to come on to add on, and we will do that one last time, and then we will adjourn the meeting. So if you are a Member of Transportation Committee and would like to participate in voting today, now would be an appropriate time to return to the hearing room. Starting from the very beginning, we have a consent calendar. How many did we have? Ten bills. We're on consent calendar. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Item number three, that has 13 votes. Once again, we'll be waiting for five minutes at the conclusion of all of these bills for Members to add on.

Item number 31978, Fong.

AB 1978. The motion do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That has 12 votes. Moving on to item number five, AB 2086 Schiavo.

That has 12 votes. Moving on to item number 5, AB 2086, Schiavo.

The motion do pass to.

The motion do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

To item number six, AB 2102 Patterson.

Motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

To item number seven, AB 2234 Boerner.

The motion do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That one's 10:1. Moving on to item number 10, AB 2427 McCarty the motion do pass.

To the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Moving on to item number 11, I'm sorry.

13 on that one.

13 votes. Moving on to item number 11, AB 2634, McCarty.

The motion is do pass as amended. [Roll Call]

Moving on to item number 13, AB. Nope, sorry, that was pulled. Moving on to, and just to complete the record, AB 2480 was pulled. Moving on to item number 14, AB 2535, Bonta.

Moving onto item number 13, no sorry. Moving on to, and just to complete the record, AB 248 was pulled. Moving onto item number 14, AB 2535 Bonta.

The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Item number 17, AB 2828 Baines.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Moving on to item number 18, AB 2892 Low.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

13 votes I'm sorry, 14 votes on 2892. Item 19, AB 3153 Dixon.

Is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Is 4-2, but since we are still waiting for Members to add on, we will wait. Moving on to item 21, AB 3243, Ta. No. Oh, wait, where am I at? Looking at a different paper. My apologies. AB item number 22, AB 1777, Ting.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations [Roll Call]

The bill has 14 votes, aye votes. Moving on to item 23. Eight B 1837 Papan.

The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill has 13 aye votes. Moving on to item 24, AB 2442, Sanchez.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill has eight-five. Eight aye votes. Five no votes. Item number 27, AB 3117, Wilson.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill has 14. All right, we are going to pause for a moment to see where certain Members are, and then we'll restart the roll. We're just going to start from the top. Alrighty. Moving to the top. We have all Members that want to be present here, and so this will be our final time for calling for Members to add on. There was 10 items on consent. Madam Secretary, please.

Consent. [Roll Call]

Final vote tally is 15. Those bills are out. Moving on to item number three, AB 1978, Fong.

Moving on to item number three, AB-1978. Fong.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

That Bill has 15, it is out. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Item number seven, AB 2234. [Roll Call]

13-1. That bill is out. I don't think I said it on item number six, but that bill had 15 and it is out. Item number 10, AB 2427, McCarty.

[Roll Call]

That bill has 15. It is out. Moving on to item number 11, AB 2634, McCarty.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. 15. Moving on to item number 14, AB 2535, Bonta.

[Roll Call]