Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

The Senate Committee on transportation will now come to order. I think it's been 30 seconds. Good afternoon and welcome to everybody. We have 22 measures on the agenda. zero, and in case you didn't notice, I am not Dave. Senator Dave Corteze.

I'm Senator Roger Niello and I'm chairing the meeting because he is presenting a Bill elsewhere and will be back to relieve me of these duties shortly, I'm sure, but a few housekeeping items. So everybody knows on each Bill, we will allow for two primary witnesses in favor and two primary witnesses in opposition, each allowed two minutes.

And then any other people, either for or against, can offer me too testimony, meaning you identify yourself, who you're representing, and whether you are for or against the Bill. We have consent items, but we do not have a quorum yet, so we won't go to that. Let's see, 1234. We need eight, I believe, right? Eight. Yeah, we need nine.

Okay. You'll let me know when we get there? Yes, we can. I need a lot of help. We will begin as a Subcommitee. So the first Bill up is the first Bill. Assemblywoman Friedman, who is here and ready.

I am presenting AB 2290. I accept the Committee amendments on page 10, comment nine of the analysis, and I want to thank the Committee and the Committee staff for the excellent and thorough analysis. Traffic fatalities, particularly for our most vulnerable road users, being cyclists and pedestrians, is unfortunately increasing across California.

Many state and local agencies have adopted vision zero policies to try to combat the public health crisis. And more people are shifting now towards using bikes, towards walking to work for their own health for a variety of reasons.

We have certainly many people who can't drive for a variety of reasons, and so it's really important that we protect them. We need to help cities with the implementation of their vision zero programs by helping them create bikeways more quickly.

It's sort of the easiest thing in many cases to make, and yet we make the process very long difficult. AB 2290 ensures that state and local agencies are taking advantage of road repaving projects to build bikeways that already have community support demonstrated through their planning documentation when they're using state transportation funds.

First, the Bill would establish a quick build projects pilot program. Don't say that five times fast. Within the Caltrans maintenance program to demonstrate that all 12 Caltrans districts can quickly and more cost effectively implement bikeways as part of routine paving projects. And again, these are for projects that are already planned and approved.

These projects are defined in the Bill as an interim capital infrastructure project that requires minor construction activities, but is built with durable, Low to moderate cost materials and lasts from one to five years. Examples of quick build project types include street furniture, signed barrier elements like raised lane separators, and surface treatments like street bond pavement coding.

Second, the Bill requires, when feasible, a bicycle facility identified for a street in a bicycle plan or an active transportation plan be included in a project funded by the Road Maintenance and rehabilitation program.

Finally, it holds that shared lane markings, or Sheros, be limited to use on streets with posted speed limits of 25 miles an hour or less to projects that will reduce the design speed to 25. That's only for projects funded by the active transportation program. If a city wants to do that themselves, that's on them.

We don't stop them. These bikeways do not provide a dedicated lane for bicycling, and as a result, the Shero's, you know, they're nice enough, but they don't actually provide the kind of safety we're looking for from this program. Testifying on behalf of our sponsor Kelbike is Jeanne Wald Waller.

AB 2290 improves the safety and quality of bike-ways in California. Make sure that when we spend taxpayer money, we're actually getting the most bang for the buck. And I urge an Aye vote.

Go ahead. You have a witness in favor?

Yes.

Yes.

Hi, Jeannie Ward-Waller, on behalf of CalBike, who are the sponsors of this Bill, we appreciate Assembly Member Friedman for championing better and quicker bike-ways by authoring this Bill. California State and local agencies have made great strides in planning for bike and pedestrian facilities since the Complete Streets act of 2008 and Caltrans adoption of its first complete streets policy.

Excuse me. These plans show bike facilities that have strong community support through engagement in the planning process. However, implementation of these projects has been too slow. Traffic fatalities for people walking and biking continue to rise at an alarming rate. Over 1300 people died walking and biking on California roadways in 2020, according to Caltrans.

That's 50% higher than in 2013. The highest risks are to vulnerable road users such as older adults, those that lack access to vehicles, and Low income communities of color. To address climate change and equity through our transportation investments, we need to expedite implementation of safe bikeways on our streets.

AB 2290 aligns state investments in bike facilities with current Caltran standards and best practice across the country. It will also advance cost effective bikeway implementation through routine repaving projects on both state and local roadways. We respectfully request your support of AB 2290.

And do you have another primary witness? We do not. Oh, excellently efficient. Is there a primary witness in opposition? Seeing no one come forward? Do we have other people here that are in favor of this? For the me too testimony?

Good afternoon. Mark Fukzevich. On behalf of Streets for All, in support. Thank you.

Tanishka Kunikala. On behalf of the Junior Philanthropist foundation in strong support. Thank you.

Keith Dunn here today for the Self Help Counties Coalition. I want to just thank the author for always being a good partner and working to implement safe policies. And we're here helping to move some strong policies through to protect bicyclists. It's an important part of our inter-modal transportation system and good recreation for folks.

So we're encouraged by these efforts to enhance those types of practices. So thank you.

And are there attendees here an opposition for me, too testimony, seeing them come forward? We will bring it back to the dais. Questions?

Yes. Thank you. I just wanted to comment that I think this is a great Bill.

It has elements of a Bill that I also have related to how active transportation funds can be used and limiting the use of them for sharros, which does not create mode shift because people do not feel safer riding together with cars, especially on streets that have high speeds and high volumes.

And so I very much appreciate that part of the Bill, but also the quick build aspects. We need to lean into that more. I think it takes so long for projects to go through the process.

Permanent projects and sometimes using more temporary materials can get the project up faster, but also create the type of movement on the road that has been identified as what's needed. So having to wait for the expensive infrastructure and long permitting process, it really doesn't serve our local governments as well. I appreciate that.

There's an idea, your idea, to have one project in each Caltrans district to distribute these projects throughout the state. But just in General, quick build should be more part of our arsenal than it is right now. So thank you for this Bill, and with that, I will move it. Thank you.

Other questions or comments by Members seeing none. Would you like to close?

I would request an Aye vote. Thank you.

Okay, so the motion is to. Oh, that's right. We don't have a quorum. I'm sorry. I'm new at this. Bear with me. Our next Bill was the first Bill. Assembly Member Friedman? No. Okay, so which authors do we have?

Number four.

Number four.

Number four.

Number five. Yours is fine. No, it is number four.

Assembly Member Villa Boudoir.

And yeah. Thank you, Chairman Member. If you are ready, you may proceed.

I am. Thank you, Chair Members. I'm proud to present AB 1853 today to update San Joaquin Regional Transit District to align the agency authority with the authorities of the familiar size agencies. This bill would advance two changes.

First, it would bring more equity pay scale to the San Joaquin Regional Transit District. In comparison to 24 other region transit districts in California, San Joaquin RTD currently ranks among the bottom three districts for compensation that is on the board for board members may receive for attendance at each board meeting at their total monthly compensation.

Specifically, this bill would increase the sum of each member of the RTD board may receive for attendance at each board and committee meeting from $50 to $100 and increase the monthly cap for the sum of 100 to 500.

Second, the bill would provide RTD with greater flexibility to invest its reserves and investments options that maximize the returns. Specifically, this bill would authorize RTD to also invest in any investments or deposits that the city, county or local public agency may place its reserve, while including appropriate limits that apply to these jurisdictions.

With me today to testify is Alexandria Clifford, CEO of the San Joaquin Regional Transit District.

Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members of the Committee, I'm Alex Clifford. I'm the CEO at San Joaquin Regional Transit District. I'm here today to respectfully urge support for AB 1853. An RTD sponsored bill that would update RTD's authorizing statutes to further improve RTDs governance and fiscal management.

Specifically, as the Committee analysis notes reflect, this Bill would adjust for inflation the compensation level that each member of the RTD board may receive for their attendance at Board Meetings and Committee meetings and clarify the investments or deposits in which RTD may invest its reserves.

These minor updates to RTDs authorizing statutes would bring our board compensation levels closer to the board compensation levels of other similarly sized transit agencies and better ensure that RTD board members are fairly compensated for their official work on behalf of our agency.

Our board compensation levels have not been adjusted since our authorizing statutes went into effect in 1994. These updates would also clarify that RTD may invest its reserves in the same fiscally sound investment options that many other transit agencies and municipalities across the state currently invest in. Again, I urge an aye vote. Thank you for your consideration today.

Thank you. So you are the only just one primary witness? Is there a primary witness in opposition? Seeing no one come forward? Do we have additional supporters of this measure on me too testimony? Do we have any opponents on me too testimony? Seeing none coming forward, we'll bring it back to the dais. Questions or comments? Seeing none.

Let's see. I don't think we've reached a quorum yet, so we will move on to the next bill and take the vote up when we do have a quorum.

Thank you.

Do we have an author?

We do not.

We do not have an author. Well, we will be in delay mode. Anybody heard any good jokes lately?

Two politicians walk into a bar called the quorum, which we're at right now.

Have we over there yet?

To establish quorum, please.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum so we can first of all take up consent items. We have 14 measures on consent. They are [Reading]

Do I have a motion for consent calendar? Motion by Senator Archuleta. Please call the roll.

This is the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

10, zero. We'll leave that on call for others to make up. Now we'll take up item two, previously presented Assemblymember Friedman, AB 2290. Actually, Senator Blakespear had moved it before, so we'll call a roll on that.

This is file item number two, AB 2290. The motion is do pass as amended, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] Six to three on call.

That is, six to three will remain on call. And now we'll take up item number four, AB 1853, Senator Member Villapudua. I don't think we had a motion on that before. Motion by Senator Dodd. Please call a roll.

This is file item number four, AB 1853. The motion is do pass. [Roll call]

10, zero. We'll keep that open. Now on to item number three. AB 1122. Assemblymember Bains, appears she is ready. You may present anywhere you like, actually.

Oh, that would be nice to sit down.

All right, proceed.

Awesome. Thank you, Chairman Neilo, for allowing me to present AB 1122. First, let me thank the Committee staff for their work on the bill. There are a lot of stakeholders who are, who care deeply about our ports, our marine environment, and the safety of our maritime workforce.

The bill in print today reflects the Committee's engagement with all stakeholders, and I appreciate the many suggestions and improvements we have made to the bill over the past few weeks.

California leads the nation in environmental progress, and our poor are a vital part of our economy, but we must always ensure that our progress does not come at the expense of safety or the well being of our maritime workforce.

CARB has proposed ambitious new engine requirements on commercial harbor craft that will reduce air pollution by requiring existing vessels to either be replaced with newer models or retrofitted with newer engine technologies. Some of this technology has not been invented yet, but it will be required to meet CARB's new regulations.

One of the future pieces of technology that the CARB amendments require is the deployment of diesel particulate filters.

While these devices, DPFs, exist for trucks, there are currently no DPFs available or approved for commercial harbor craft because of the temperatures required for these filters to operate correctly, they pose unique safety concerns for vessels in the event of a fire, a reduction in propulsion, or a reduced ability to maneuver.

Unlike trucks, harbor crafts cannot simply pull to the side of the road and in an event that forces crew to abandon ship, can have disastrous consequences.

As a result of these safety concerns, the US Coast Guard, the maritime industry, and unions representing vessel workers requested that CARB include in its regulations a bypass feature that would allow the captain to turn the DPF off in an emergency, if an emergency were to occur.

This would allow a vessel to restore full engine power until the emergency ends. Without the safeguards of a bypass, a loss of power could lead to environmental disasters, damage to poor infrastructure, and very seriously endanger lives.

Unfortunately, despite receiving broad ranging public comment in support of a bypass system, CARB has rejected those requests and adopted the new regulations. I introduced AB 1122 last year after hearing that these safety concerns had been ignored, and the bill before, the Committee today ensures that DPFs include a bypass system.

The bill also includes reporting requirements that apply anytime the bypass system is used to ensure we understand what emergency situation caused the captain to activate the bypass, how long the bypass was in use, and how the bypass helped mitigate the emergency, o there isn't an over abuse of this system.

The other provision in the bill is designed to protect the income of workers by aligning dry docking skills schedules.

Currently, the US Coast Guard requires harbor craft operating in salt water to be pulled out of the water and inspected every 30 months, and these same vessels will also require a coast guard inspection after they are retrofitted with new CARB compliant engines.

While vessels are in dry dock, crews are not paid and the unions have estimated that their members could lose about 25% to 30% of their income for vessels to comply with the new carburetor rules. AB 1122 addresses this problem by allowing vessels to align their coast guard inspection with the requirement to install new engines.

Allowing for this alignment addresses the impact to union wages by minimizing a vessel's dry dock period and aligning it with times crews already expect to be on land. I want to take a moment to thank all of the environmental groups who have submitted a letter of concern on this bill.

They have my commitment to continue working with them to ensure bad actors cannot abuse the provisions of this bill. As I have outlined a little ago, we have drafted AB 1122 with the intent to be narrow and tailored in addressing the legitimate safety and economic concerns raised by stakeholders.

I appreciate the environmental community's continued engagement and I am happy to report that this bill has zero opposition. I also wanted to take a moment to address the question of why is Doctor Baines from Kern County authoring a bill like this?

And I will tell you this, as a person that works for disaster management, I currently work with EMSA and CAL-MAT.

This was brought to my concern by the US Coast Guard when I was actively helping provide a disaster management protocol event for a mass casualty cruise ship event that we put together with EMSA and CAL-MAT last year, and we did it at the base in Petaluma last year at this time.

And this was a concern that was being talked about amongst the US Coast Guards at that time. So in addition to being a Legislator, I also have a diverse background in disaster management and health and safety and prevention is at the key of what I do.

With me in support, we have the three maritime unions, including the International Organization of Masters Mason Pilots, the Inland Boatmen's union, and the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, as well as the California Labor Federation and the American Waterways Operators, among others. With me today, I have Claudia Cimini, who is the Executive Vice President for MEBA.

And we have also Kyle Burleson. Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Proceed.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I'm Claudia Cimini. I am the Executive Vice President of the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association. MEBA is the nation's oldest maritime labor union dating to 1875 and was founded because of safety because engineers were getting maimed and killed in boiler explosions on the Great Lakes.

We represent a large and diverse mix of engineers and deck officers, experienced and skilled in all aspects of the maritime workforce. MEBAs number one priority is that our members are safe on the job and get home to their families safely. The second priority is to ensure that our members have the opportunity to work.

This measure accomplishes both, and that is why we are co-sponsoring this measure with the Masters, Mates and Pilots and the Inland Boatmen's union. None of our unions will crew a vessel unless the companies ensure that everything on board is conducted according to the United States Coast Guard standards and independently inspected.

It is only then that we have some peace of mind that our members will return home safe from one of the most dangerous professions there is. Consider the damage the atmospheric rivers wreaked the last couple of years on the state, and then realize that our members are working 24/7 through these conditions.

On a vessel, engines are not simply the gas pedal. Engines are also the brakes, they're also the steering. Simply put, anything that can get in the way of properly and fully functioning engines creates a serious safety issue that endangers the crew, infrastructure and the environment.

We need only look to last month in the port of Baltimore to understand how fast and significant, significant a loss of power is to a vessel. The Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed, chemicals were released into the environment, and most tragically, six lives were lost.

Less than two weeks later in New York, a crisis was averted because the tugs assisting had immediate access to full engine power and they needed every bit of that power to stop that 1145 foot Quindao, a football field longer than the Dahle.

The other portion of this bill ensures there are no unnecessary disruptions to Members being able to work. Our members only earn income when the vessel is in the water. Dry dock inspections, retrofits and upgrades can take three to five months to conduct.

Vessels are required to be dry docked every two and a half years if they work in saltwater. The vessels are already scheduled for USCG inspections, and ensuring that they do not have to be pulled out between those inspections means our members don't lose that income twice.

If this is not done, it would mean that our members would lose 25% to 30% of their income. Mr. Chairman and Members, this bill is about the safety and income of the men and women who work in extreme conditions to keep our infrastructure and our beautiful coasts protected. MEBA, MMP and IBU appreciate your support of our members.

Thank you.

And our chair is back.

Please continue. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Kyle Burleson. I'm the Director of State Advocacy for the American Waterways Operators, which is the advocate, resource and United Voice for the tugboat, tow boat and barge industry. Towing industry appreciates Chairman Cortese for hearing this bill for Assemblymember Bains for championing workplace safety for mariners.

As I shared with Assemblyman Mike Gibson's hearing at the Port of San Francisco in November, the barge and towing industry is the most sustainable form of transportation, with rail producing 43% more greenhouse gas emissions than barge transportation and trucks producing over 800% more.

California should be very proud of its maritime importance, ranking third that crossed the country in waterborne commerce by ton. 239 million tons of freight moved by vessels in California each year, creating more than $12 billion in economic activity. Our members footprint stretches from San Diego to Northern California and the inland port system in between.

So with this backdrop, we ask you to pass AB 1122 in the name of workplace safety. With recent changes to the commercial harbor craft rule, our industry has spoken up along the way, all along the way, that there is an odd and potentially dangerous provision that needs correcting. Unfortunately, CARB has ignored our pleas.

So we are turning our voice to you, and we are joined by the three most prominent unions that work within the towing industry, including the Masters, Mates and Pilots, Marine Engineers Beneficial Association, and the Inland Boatman's Union. It also bears mentioning that the California Labor Federation has pledged its support to this bill.

We are asking that before diesel particulate filters are required to be installed, the standard safety process is followed. Whenever new equipment is installed on a vessel, a third party auditor vets the product to ensure that it is safe and will not catch fire under duress. For whatever reason, CARB has bypassed these safety experts.

If DP's sound familiar to you, it's because of the fires they've started on school buses and semi-trucks. These DPFs need careful consideration because of their infamous history and the size and stability concerns they create on towing vessels.

If you can imagine trying to stick two VW bugs on a tugboat relatively high up in the exhaust stacks, that's what we're talking about here. In our 80 year history, our trade association has never asked a Legislature to intervene to protect lives on board a vessel.

But that is what is needed here, because CARB did not act before and we do not expect them to prioritize mariner and workplace safety in the future. I urge your support of AB 1122. I thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right, thank you very much. Are there others in the Committee room who would like to express a support position on the bill? If so, please come forward, identify yourself and support.

Hi, my name is Kevin Harley. I'm a maritime professional, and I support. This bill for the safety of the environment and the crews. Thank you.

I'm Max Rosenberg with Vane Brothers companies, and I support mariner safety in this bill.

I'm Michael Myers, a maritime executive, former tugboat captain and crew. We support AB 1122 for the safety of our workforce.

Mr. Chair Member. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

Ananya Karaju, on behalf of the Junior Philanthropist Foundation, in strong support. Thank you.

Jeremy Price, representing HF Sinclair in support.

All right, thank you. Are there opposition witnesses here to present? Seeing none. Is there? Yes. Is there anyone who wishes to express an opposed position?

They're not in opposition. They're in concern.

Let me finish with the opposition, please, for just a moment. One last call for anyone who wishes to express an opposed position. You may come up now to the microphone. Seeing none. I understand we have folks who are in between and want to express their position. We're going to limit you to 30 seconds to just identify your concern. All right.

Thank you so much. My name is Teresa Bui. I'm with the environmental group, Pacific Environment. We believe that AB 1122, for most of it, is unnecessary because CARB is already going through an executive order process that covers the bulk of the bill.

And then we have grave concerns with section H, where it could be used by bad actors to delay the implementation of harbor craft. Harbor crafts is a number one of the top three emission caused, cancer causing emissions at the ports. And so we need CARB to be able to fully implement the role. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next.

Good afternoon. Melissa Romero with California Environmental Voters. Echoing the comments of Teresa with Pacific Environment, and just pointing out in the Committee Analysis something that was raised is that section subsection H, the last section of the bill, could delay the implementation of the harbor craft rule by anywhere between two and a half to five years.

So we really want to make sure, work with the author on making sure that that is not what's going to happen, because that would be a cause of concern for us. Thanks.

Thank you.

Hello. Michele Canales, Union of Concerned Scientists just want to align our organization with the same concerns stated. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. We'll come back to the Committee. Senator Dahle?

Well, first I want to thank the author for bringing the bill. My father-in-law is a merchant marine, and obviously somebody who's working with, once they're moving, it's not like just put the brakes on. They stop, as we saw earlier.

And also, I just want to say that Senator Niello had a bill earlier this year trying to ask for some exemptions from CARBs. And we actually sat down and met with CARB along with the EQ chair about two weeks ago, I believe it was. And so we really do need to do some work in this area.

They need to give some exemptions for safety. Not only that, somebody who's in the trucking business, myself, who went through the DPF filters and the fires and, you know, school buses and likes, people lost their lives. So I will move the bill when it's appropriate. I think we need to do this exemption. It's common sense to me.

At the end of the day, it's just common sense and it's safety. CARB will be a long time, and the manufacturers, too, are having a hard time meeting these specifications. And the cost to replace those pieces of equipment are huge as well. So thank you for bringing the bill forward.

Anyone else on the Committee? Yes, Senator Niello.

This is one of many examples of regulatory requirements put forth by CARB that currently can't be met, or can't be met, in this case, safely. And you talked about the road application and boat application. And I think it's important to realize that problems at sea are much less forgiving than those on the road.

And we're acknowledging that. So I am supporting this bill, but also stating that I think we in the Legislature have more work to do relative to the current requirements that CARB is imposing, particularly with regard to cases where the technology just doesn't exist yet.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Anyone else on the Committee wish to speak on the item? We'll go back to the author for an opportunity to close, and if you could address the comments made by the tweeners, that would be helpful, I think. Thank you.

Absolutely. Like I said, I appreciate all of the input for this bill. It's something that, for me, working the disaster management role, this is something that I do as part of my daily routine.

As a physician that works to implement and create protocols for disaster management in the State of California and have been doing for very many years. And the safety of our maritime people that are out there is really important for any of our workers. First of all, the Executive order has not been done yet.

I look forward to seeing something, and when it comes out, we will definitely take a look at it. However, there is no Executive order that has been submitted. And if it is submitted, it would not address the union wages that are going to be lost, which I discussed earlier.

Not just that, I understand that there are concerns with the filters and the reason behind what created this. However, we do also have to take accountability of the lives that can be lost today. As a physician, my job is to save lives and not to sacrifice lives today for lives that might be taken 30 years from now.

It's about the lives that might be sacrificed today. And there are things that are happening in the Legislature, in Administration that have good intentions. However, they are not taking into account what is happening today and the impact it can take on lives today that we see in disaster management. So I appreciate everyone's input.

I look forward to working with everyone and environmental groups which have not opposed this bill to make sure that this addresses all the concerns, but at the same time protects lives today. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. We'll come back to the Committee. Trust, we have established a quorum, we have earlier. We will ask for roll call vote on the motion by Senator Dahle.

This is file item number three, AB 1122. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Environmental Quality. [Roll Call] Nine, zero on call.

Okay. The current vote is nine to zero. Leave the bill on call for absent Members. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chairman Cortese.

We're next going to go to item four. If somebody

Thought I'm number nine. Corner. But she doesn't.

She is. Yes. All right. I apologize. We are going to move to item nine. No apology to the author. Assembly Member Boerner, I'm sure she doesn't mind being called up at this time. You may present whenever you're ready. This is AB 1850. I'm sorry, this is AB 2234. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Senators. First, I'd like to thank the Committee staff for working with me on this Bill. I'll be accepting the Committee amendments today.

AB 2234 would authorize a four year opt in pilot project in the County of San Diego, banning class 1 and 2 E-bikes for anyone under the age of 12.

Consistent with the data from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the County of San Diego and cities within the county would have to pass an ordinance or resolution to implement the pilot program.

With reporting requirements mirroring the Racial and Identity Profiling act known as RIpa, e-bikes are becoming an increasingly common and environmentally friendly mode of transportation for both recreation and commuting. However, with the surge of e-bikes, injuries have occurred both more frequently and with more severe injuries.

In August of 2022, the Carlsbad City Council approved an e-bike emergency proclamation due to a 233% increase in accidents involving e-bikes and bicycles.

As a response, the City Council approved Carlsbad specific rules for e-bike riders, which provided Carlsbad police officers with more enforcement options, including an e-bike safety program similar to a traffic school for bikes, where e-bike riders have the option to complete an e-bike safety course after an e-bike citation.

Shortly thereafter, in May 2023, a teenager in the City of Encinitas lost his life in an e-bike collision with a motorized vehicle. Similar e-bike training programs have been established in the cities of Encinitas and Coronado. With a continued popularity of e-bikes.

AB 2234 would help reduce the incidence and increase safety for all e-bike riders and drivers alike. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote. And with me I have Sharon Gonzalez on behalf of the City of Carlsbad, the sponsor of this Bill.

You may proceed. You have a couple minutes.

Great. Thank you, Mister chair. Members of the Committee, Sharon Gonzalva is here on behalf of the City of Carlsbad. First, I want to express the city's sincere gratitude to the Assembly Member for not only sponsoring this Bill, but her continued leadership on e-bike safety.

AB 2234 the San Diego County Electric Bicycle Safety Pilot program is a crucial initiative enabling cities within San Diego County to regulate e-bike use among children under 12 by allowing us to enact local ordinances.

As mentioned in Carlsbad, we witnessed a staggering 233% increase in bike and e-bike related accidents between 2019 and 2022, including a couple of tragic fatalities which ultimately led to the local State of emergency. This alarming trend highlights the urgent need for more structured safety protocols.

Following the State of emergency, Carlsbad rolled out a city a school e-bike permit program which mandated that young riders complete a safety course. And this initiative made significant strides in enhancing e-bike safety amongst the students.

The introduction of AB 2234 is not just about regulation, it's about ensuring children receive proper training and awareness about safe operations of e-bikes, further safeguarding the community. E-bikes can reach speeds up to 28 miles an hour, which is similar to many speeds of cars on city streets.

Given these high speeds, improper use of e-bikes can be extremely dangerous. AB 2234 embodies the state's ongoing commitment to safety and represents a strategic step towards safer e-bike usage across California.

By supporting this Bill, we are not only addressing immediate concerns, but laying the groundwork for future safety enhancements for a growing new transportation transportation medium. And with that, I'd like to thank you and the Committee and thank you for your consideration of the city's support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. I see others coming forward who would like to express a support position. Name and support.

Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association. Also in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Erin Gilbert, for the City of Encinitas, in support.

Kira Ross, on behalf of the City of Coronado, in support.

Tanishka Kondakala, on behalf of the Junior Philanthropist Foundation, in support.

Alright, that concludes the support side. Is there any opposition present wishing to testify? Is there anyone who wishes to just simply express an opposition position? If so, you may come to the microphone. I'm seeing none. We will come back to the Committee. Committee comments or questions. Senator Archuleta, Thank you.

And I know you're always concerned about safety and I appreciate that. I'm just wondering, just walk me through. An 11 year old boy is pulled over because he's in and out of traffic as an example, because I would imagine that's the only way he would bring attention to himself other than going down the sidewalk.

So he's pulled over in the officer, sees bags on him or some packages or whatever. Walk me through the authorization to ask what's in it, where he's coming from.

And I know he's not to ask where he was born and things of that nature, but at what point can the officer ask questions to that 11 year old where it's not incriminating the child? And then what are the violations that he is writing on the sidewalk? And so on?

So how do we get him off the street is my question.

Well, the 11 year old, hopefully every parent would be very thoughtful. One of the reasons we're doing this as a pilot is to collect that data, the reporting requirements, search requirements, none of this Bill doesn't affect any of that. It is the same thing for any bike violation, any traffic violation.

It is consistent with what we currently do with law enforcement. So this Bill doesn't change anything about how that would be looked at. One of the things that was amended out of the Bill in the Assembly was the requirement for an ID. If they didn't have a valid driver's license, that was amended out.

So usually what happens in our pilots in Encinitas and Carlsbad and Coronado is they'll go through, they'll try to call the parents, they'll try to call, they'll try to, sometimes they contact the schools, if the schools are open, if it's during school hours, to confirm the person's identity, because that's what you need in order to give a citation.

And that's why an important component of this Bill is for that citation. And this Bill only governs the riding an e-bike. Under 12 portion of class 1 and 2, as you know, class threes are already banned for under 16. So it would be the same process as that.

But what it would require is if there was a citation, then the city who opts into this program and this pilot would have to do a e-bike diversion, we call it diversion programs, but it's basically traffic school for e-bikes. And so they would go through that and therefore they wouldn't get the fine.

And would it be, would the officer be able to confiscate the bike?

That's currently the case right now.

Okay. And obviously get it to the station, call the parents and get back to safety as we're talking about. And with that, yeah, the data is very clear.

Clear that the most amount of injuries and accidents are in the under 12 space. That, and if I'm going to use my lovely son, who happens to be up with me this week.

So this is Mata, he's 16, he was born an 86 year old man, so can look both ways and cross the street when he was two years old. He's one of the only people that uses hand signals when he's biking through Encinitas and people take pictures of him and send them to me.

They're like, can he teach all the kids at San Dieguito Academy how to ride e-bikes like this? I was like, that's how kids get bullied no, that's why we have programs like the sponsor was talking about for doing the bike parking on campus. But I didn't let him on an e-bike until he was 12.

And that's because you have to have a wherewithal to know how to navigate main arterials because with e bikes the world becomes flat. And so you can reach class 1 and 2s can go up to 20 miles an hour, and if you're going downhill, you can go up to 35 miles an hour.

And that's just what they are. And so it's really, that's why you have the band for under 12 s for class one.

Thank you. All right. Thank you. And we have an offer for a motion. We'll come back to you, Senator Archuleta, in a moment. Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. When you're familiar with e-bikes, you realize how fast an e-bike can go with such little effort when it's a throttle bicycle. So it's essentially like a motorcycle. You don't even have to pedal. And the kids prefer those and they're much cooler.

So the ones that are so popular in these areas that have great bicycle infrastructure, and the kids are running around on their bikes, which is a really good thing in many ways, because it really allows for kids to have more Independence, to take trips off the road, for them to be able to get to school or to their practices or other things, not having to get in the car and have a parent or somebody else drive them.

So I think incentivizing bicycle use of all types is a really important value. And this Bill sets the age at the right level, because if you imagine a 91011 year old, they don't need to have throttle bicycles to get where they need to go.

So I appreciate that you have this, that you've set it at that level. I also want to recognize that this Bill really is focused on local control because I also represent San Diego, county, as Assembly Member Boerner does.

There are 18 cities in that county, so each one is able to decide if they want to have this or not in their city and then have these diversion programs where they're able to get an education course. If they do get stopped by an officer, I think that's really important. Part.

The question I wanted to ask is that the child could attend a CHP developed e bike safety course. And my experience with this bike safety courses is that they're put together by the bicycle groups, not by the CHP. So I just wanted to ask about that part.

If that's something that would be potentially a barrier if there's only a limited number of CHP offered courses or what you know about that.

There is an online class, I think you were not yet here, but we passed it two years ago. It's AB 1946 that I authored that created the statewide e-bike safety training program and so many of made by the CHP in collaboration with all our bike groups.

So everybody is using the 1946 CHP e-bike training, and that is the standard now of the state.

Okay. Okay. So the. It's online and it's online. Okay, I see. Okay, great. Well, thanks very much. And I'm excited to support this Bill. Thank you.

All right, see no one else wishing to be recognized. We'll reiterate that Senator Archuleta has made a motion. We'll ask the assistant to take a roll call vote in a minute, but we'll give the author one more opportunity to close here.

Thank you very much. And respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

This is file item number nine, AB 2234. The motion is do pass as amended, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] 100 on call.

Okay, that vote is 10 to zero, but leave it on call for the absent Members. Thank you very much. Thank you being here. All right, we're going to move to file item 15. I believe the Senate Member Ting is here and you may come forward to present. That is AB 2869. And you may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister chair. AB 2669 protects free sidewalk access for pedestrians and bikers on our, on our bridges constructed before January 2025. So any bridge that's already been constructed and having pedestrian and bicyclists access would remain free for those pedestrians and cyclists.

This Bill merely extends or makes permanent a Bill that I did a number of years ago that temporarily had that moratorium. So we're just making that permanent. With that, we're happy to have Jeanie Ward-Waller, who's a lobbyist for CalBikes.

All right, thank you. You'll have a couple minutes.

Okay, I will be quick. Jeanie Ward-Waller with Fearless Advocacy representing CalBike on this Bill. CalBike is a co sponsor of this Bill because it is a common sense measure that will promote non vehicular forms of transportation across all bridges that help to improve air quality, combat climate change, and ensure equitable access.

Choosing not to impose a toll has kept state bridges open and accessible, accessible to all individuals, while exemplifying California's commitment to cutting carbon emissions and fostering sustainable transportation alternatives. Free public access to bridges across the state has also bolstered decades of work to promote public recreation by linking together a network of parks, paths and trails.

We must do all we can to replace car trips with active forms of mobility. Increasing VMT and infrastructure throughput improvements exclusively for cars continue to impede our efforts to curb vehicle emissions. We request your support of AB 2669.

Thank you. All right. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the Committee room who wishes to come forward and express the support position? Seeing no one. Seeing, yes, we do have someone coming forward.

And Tanishka Kan on behalf of the Junior Philanthropist Foundation, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Coming forward now. Last call.

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

Okay, thank you. Anyone else in support? We'll move to opposition. Is there anyone here in opposition? We don't have a registered opposition witness.

Is there anyone in the room who wishes to come forward and speak in opposition? Seeing none, we'll come back to the Committee at this time. Senator Dodd? Senator Dodd is offered a motion. Senator Blakespear.

Yes, this is a great Bill that really shows reflection of what we want to incentivize and which is more biking and walking. So I appreciate that you thought to eliminate it completely, the fee or the possibility of one in the future. So I just want to say I think that's great thinking and I am eager to vote yes.

Thank you. Okay, we do have a motion on the floor by Senator Dodd. We'll give the author an opportunity to close and then we'll move to a roll call vote.

Thank you, Mister chair. And just super briefly, the bill's origin came through because our Golden Gate bridge, the most famous bridge in California, actually was considering charging a toll for pedestrians and for bicycles during their budget shortfall. So again, we don't really want any bridge authority to be tempted like that. Really appreciate your aye vote and support on 2669.

Thank you. And assistant, we'll go with the roll call vote at this time, please.

[Roll Call]

All right, that's a 6-0 vote, but it's on call for absent Members. Thank you again

Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer that is. That is your item. It is AB 3123. Welcome and please come forward and you can begin your presentation whenever you are ready.

Thank you, Mister chair and speakers. I present AB 3123, which seeks to ensure that ethics laws that govern elected officials statewide apply equally to the Los Angeles Metro Board of directors.

With the recent passage of SB 1439, which amended the Levine act in 2023, California made clear that there should be a uniform ethics law governing contract decisions by local and state officials, regardless of the composition of a board or Commission.

However, LA Metro is still subject to a 30 year old law that imposes different standards on board Members regarding contract decisions and campaign contributions from contractors. For example, under the law, Board Members are prohibited from accepting campaign contributions over $10, while the Levine act prohibits campaign contributions over $250.

These differing standards and requirements have made it difficult for LA Metro to comply simply because board Members are subject to both the Levine Act and the Hayden Bill.

In their roles as Metro Board Members, LA Metro seeks to be consistent with all other officials in the state making contract decisions made under certain under the Standards and guidance of the Levine Act, which governs their primary elected positions.

AB 3123 is a narrowly tailored Bill that will bring the Metro board into alignment with the Levine act by removing out of date language on gifts, honoraria, travel and financial conflicts that contrast with current applicable state law and metro code of conduct.

This Bill also makes changes to Metro's lobbyist registration statute, aligning reporting requirements, standards and prohibitions with similar agencies. Finally, AB 3123 codified the specific authority of Metro's ethics Department and mandates its Independence. With me in support of this Bill are Alex Amadeo of La Metro and Paul Salas, chief ethics officer for La Metro.

Alright, please feel free to proceed. You'll have a couple minutes each.

Good afternoon, chair and Committee Members. My name is Alex Amadeo and I am the Government Relations Administrator here. On behalf of LA Metro. Metro is the proud sponsor of AB 3123. We'd like to thank Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer. I would like to now turn it over to my colleague Paul Solis, who is LA Metro's Chief Ethics Officer, to tell you a little bit more about this Bill.

Good afternoon, Mister chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Solis, Metro's Chief Ethics Officer. Metro is the third largest transportation system in the United States and has one of the largest capital construction and system expansion programs in the nation to prepare for the 2028 Olympics and beyond.

I'm a board appointed officer, Member of the State Bar of California. Currently, I advise the LA Metro board on issues related to state pay to play laws.

Metro is subject to two of these laws, one in the Public Utilities Code that applies exclusively to Metro and one in the government code known as the Levine act that applies statewide. The Metro specific PUC law employs different terms, language, dollar amounts and time periods than the Levine act.

Importantly, Levine act has ample interpretive guidance issued by the FPPC and courts, while the PUC law has virtually none. This creates issues with compliance and it's frankly very confusing. It also creates liability and risk for Metro.

The current sponsored amendments would allow the Levine act to govern Metro's pay to play responsibilities consistent with all other local agencies in the state and the intent of this Legislature as expressed in 2023. There are additional amendments I want to briefly explain.

First, the Bill would make amendments to Metro's lobbyist registration statute, keeping it consistent with other jurisdictions like the State of California and the City of Los Angeles. Next, the Bill would remove out of date language in the board's code of conduct that contrasts with current applicable state law and Metro's administrative code.

The Bill would also enact changes and additions that exist in peer agency codes. Finally, this Bill strengthens Metro's ethics Department by specifying its authority in relationship with the board and agency. It also adds a two thirds vote requirement, instead of a simple majority for the board to fire the ethics officer, the same as Metro's Inspector General.

In conclusion, Metro is simply seeking to implement a clears system where board Members, employees, lobbyists and contractors can all have confidence that they're knowledgeable and compliant with important ethics laws and rules. Thus, Metro supports AB 3123. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there others in the Committee room who wish to step forward and express the support position? If so, please do so now.

Good afternoon. Ananya Karaju, on behalf of the Junior Philanthropist Foundation in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? All right. Seeing none, I was fooled by a decoy there. We're going to go to opposition. There's no registered opposition witness. Is there anyone in the room who wishes to express opposition? I've seen no one come forward. We'll come back to. To the Committee.

Any comments or questions by Members of the Committee? Seeing none, the Bill is moved by Senator Newman. We'll come back to the author for an opportunity to close. Thank you. And we'll come back to the assistant for another roll call vote.

[Roll Call]

All right, we're at a seven to two vote right now. Seven eyes. And leave that on call for absent Members. Thank you. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Okay, we are. While we're waiting to see if our last author makes it down here in time, we're going to go ahead and lift the call. We'll start with consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave that on call, but it is up to this time and we'll move on to other bills. On call.

[Roll Call]

All right, AB 220 is up to eight to zero at eight to four. I'm sorry, eight to four. Apologize to the dissent and we'll leave that on call.

[Roll Call]

All right, 11-0 on call.

[Roll Call]

12 to zero on call.

[Roll Call]

11-0 on call.

[Roll Call]

All right, item 15 is currently seven to two and will stay on call.

[Roll Call]

File item 18 is eight to three currently, and leave it on call. All right, we are going to put file item 19, AB 3138, over to the next hearing that was authored by Assemblymember Wilson. Again, file item 19, AB 3138 is put over to the next hearing. That leaves us with no. No further hearings, no further Bill hearings today. We do have some absent Members, I'm sure we're trying to get them here now. Are we done?

All right, Vice Chair Neillo, you've concluded your voting, and thank you very much for your earlier service. Presiding over the meeting, thank you for the opportunity. I almost felt important. You are important. And we're going to create more of those opportunities, folks.

We're going to wait a minute or two to see if we can get our final two absent Members here. They're evidently on their way. Let's run through them a couple minutes. Two minutes, and we'll run through them if they're not here. Thank you.

I'm going to ask the assistant to go ahead and lift the call one more time and run through the bills. Senators Allen and Umberg and anyone else here who needs to vote, we're going to lift the call.

Okay. Okay.

Yeah, he'll hear his name.

[Roll Call]

13-0 on call.

[Roll Call]

Nine to four on call.

[Roll Call]

13 to zero on call.

[Roll Call]

13-0 on call.

[Roll Call]

13-0 on call.

[Roll Call]

Nine to two on call.

[Roll Call]

11 to three on call.

We might as well start over. We're about to start.

Wait a minute. Did you finish going through them?

[Roll Call]

15-0. The Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

The Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

14-0. The Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

15-0 bills out.

[Roll Call]

Bill's out.

[Roll Call]

11 to two. The bill's out.

[Roll Call]

12 to three. The Bill is out. And that concludes our agenda for today. Thank you again, everyone who participated and everyone still remaining. The meeting is adjourned.