Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

The Senate Transportation Committee will come to order. Good afternoon. Welcome. We have 29 measures on today's agenda. And while we're waiting for Members to get over here from caucus, primarily from Caucus, we will try to get started. We're going to allow for two primary witnesses each for support and opposition.

Each witness will individually have two minutes, and any additional witnesses will ask you to limit yourselves to name affiliation in your position on the bill. Also, I want to announce that item four, AB 1958, by Assemblymember Berman, has been pulled from the agenda by the author.

And lastly, Senator Portantino, who is regularly a member of this Committee, will not be here today. He is being replaced by Senator Laird. We have 12 measures proposed for consent. I'm going to go over these now. We'll go over them again later when we have an opportunity to take them up on a consent calendar.

But for those who are following item three, AB 2401 by Assemblymember Ting. Item seven, AB 1978, by Assemblymember Sanchez. Item eight, AB 2082 by Assemblymember Juan Carrillo. Item 11, AB 2130 by Assemblymember Santiago. Item 12, AB 2186 by Assemblymember Wallace. Item 17, AB 2645 by Assemblymember Lackey.

Also item eighteen, AB 2879 also by Assemblymember Lackey. Item twenty-one, AB 2817 by Assemblymember Dixon. Item twenty-three, AB 2900, by Assemblymember Soria. Item twenty-five, AB 3102 by Assemblymember Hoover. Item twenty-eight, AB 3278 by Transportation Committee. And item 29, SCR 159 by Senator Hurtado.

And then when there are sufficient numbers, of course, we'll establish a quorum and at some point we'll take up a motion on those consent items in one motion. All right, we understand and very clearly we have a lot of Members on their way all at the same time. So this should fill up quickly.

The first author, this is on AB 637, is Assembly Member Jackson. You may come forward and begin your presentation when ready. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. And I'll have my witness. Come on up, sponsor. Here we go. Come on up. All right. I am pleased to be before you today presenting AB 637, which is a common sense Bill seeking to encourage fleets subject to the advanced Clean Fleet Regulation to rent zero emission vehicle trucks over diesel trucks.

AB 637 intends to address a gap in terms of making sure that for those who may not use fleets regularly, these trucks regularly or not have the wherewithal to be able to purchase them outright. This is a practical opportunity to making sure that no matter how the vehicles acquired, that they are certainly used.

Hi. Welcome. You'll have a couple minutes. You may proceed.

And with me today is Mandy Lee, representing the bill's sponsor and speaking in support of AB 637.

Thank you. Mister Chair Mandy Isaacs, Lee, omni government relations here on behalf of Enterprise Mobility in strong support of AB 637. I want to thank the Committee for an excellent analysis on this Bill.

Great.

We're pleased to sponsor this important measure, which is in furtherance of CARB's advanced clean fleet rule and would enable regulated fleets to rent zero emission trucks and have that rental count towards their compliance of the ACF.

As adopted, the ACF allows for fleets to lease a zero emission truck for a year or more and have that counted towards their compliance. However, the ACF does not contemplate shorter term rentals of less than a year. This Bill closes that gap and allows fleets to rent a zero emission truck and also receive compliance credit.

Importantly, as mentioned in the analysis, AB 637 will incentivize a fleet to rent a zero emission truck over a diesel one, a shared goal of this Committee. This is a modest but important proposal that really has dual benefits to the regulated community.

Number one, it enables fleets compliance flexibility, and two, to drive critical demand to the rental industry so that the zero emission trucks that we will have to procure sit idle on our lots.

We're considered a high priority fleet under the ACF, and therefore we will have to procure zero emission trucks pursuant to the milestones set forth in the rule.

But if we don't close this rule, this hole in this rule, there won't likely be demand for our zero emission trucks, especially in the near term, given the lack of sufficient charging infrastructure. And when zero emission trucks sit idle on our lots, they do not contribute to emissions reductions.

After the passage of ACF, we surveyed our customers and heard loud and clear, particularly from local government clients who face significant resource challenges, purchasing new zero emission trucks that they want this option to rent from us.

This Bill will help incentivize fleets to rent zero emission trucks rather than rent ICE vehicles in order to comply with the ACF. This Bill has received no note votes thus far, and for these reasons, we asked for an I vote.

All right, thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the Committee room who wishes to come forward with a support position? You may do so now. This is name, affiliation and support only, please.

Kai Cooper on behalf of East Bay Regional Park District and Calstar in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair Chris Shamoto with the California Trucking Association in support

Good afternoon. Walid Hajj on behalf of the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Afternoon. Mark Newberger, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support and also registering support for the California Special Districts Association.

All right, thank you. To opposition. Now I see that we have some opposition on the Bill. Is there an opposition witness here? If so, please come forward. Yes, please come forward. Yes. And you'll have up to two minutes each. You may proceed.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members, Victoria Rome with Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, respectfully opposed and we.

I'll turn it over to my colleague in just a moment for more specifics, but I just want to share that over the last couple days we have had productive conversations with the Assembly Member and acknowledge that we're working toward the same goals, which is clean air and lower emissions for the state.

But we do as, as currently drafted, we do oppose the Bill.

Good afternoon, Chair Cortese and Committee Members. My name is Guillermo Ortiz and I'm the policy lead on medium and heavy duty vehicles at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Respectfully, I express our opposition to AB 637.

While we fully support reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting the deployment of zero emission vehicles, AB 637, as drafted, could undermine these goals by allowing fleet owners to count rentals of 260 cumulative days per year as ownership. The Bill may encourage short term rentals over the purchase and integration of zero emission vehicles.

This shift would weaken the environmental, economic and public health benefits intended by the advanced clean fleets role. Additionally, AB 637 would require the California Air Resources Board or CARB to revise existing fleet rules, potentially causing confusion and instability.

CARB would need to update its data reporting and management systems to comply with the new requirements, complicating compliance for rental companies and fleet owners. Furthermore, exempting these changes from the Administrative Procedure act raises concerns about transparency and public participation. The APA ensures regulatory changes undergo public input and rigorous review, maintaining accountability and effectiveness.

Skipping this process undermines the engagement of frontline communities who have spent years advocating for the ACF rule and bear the brunt of pollution caused by medium and heavy duty vehicles. If the Bill remains as drafted, we remain respectfully opposed. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else in the Committee room wishing to express an opposed position? If so, you may come to the microphone at this time. I've seen no one come forward. We'll come back to the Committee at this time. Yes, Senator Archuleta.

Yes, thank you. Assembly Member, you had mentioned zero admission vehicles. Are you also including hydrogen in that zero emissions? Because hydrogen vehicles are out there for rental purposes as well, through the Chair.

Thank you for the question, Senator Archuleta. Hydrogen trucks are also included.

Very good. I'll move the Bill at appropriate time.

All right, thank you, Senator. Appreciate that. See no other request to be recognized on the dais. You may have an opportunity to close.

Thank you very much, Mister chair. Just this is an opportunity where I finally have a Bill that at least most people agree with it, and so I'll take what I can get. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

That didn't quite sound like a declaration of victory, but we encourage those, though, in this Committee. We encourage that. Thank you. And obviously, as you know, you've been here since the Committee convened. We do not have a quorum yet, but we will entertain a motion at the first opportunity. And we thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Next author on item two. AB 1777 Assemblymember Ting. Welcome.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Also, thank you and your team and also the Committee Members for all the work they put into this bill. We happily take the amendments that we discussed and agreed to.

I also want to just thank all the stakeholders, in particular, the number of the stakeholders in my city, law enforcement, our fire department, our transportation agency, plus all the companies and all the folks in labor, really appreciate that.

AB 1777 is a bill to help make sure that autonomous vehicles are treated like us in vehicles, especially when it comes to law enforcement.

Currently, right now, if an autonomous vehicle is to break the law, there's no legal authority that law enforcement could cite that vehicle, for example, if they were speeding or they ran a stop sign, the law as written today would not allow a police officer to actually cite that vehicle. There's no authority in state law to do that.

Also in my city, we've had a number of concerning incidents where autonomous vehicles actually entered into live fire situations, which our Chief can discuss as well as live police encounters.

And we want to make sure that one, that if there is a, you know, manual operation with manual operation, that there is a way to have a manual override for those cars. Also, there are a number of other options in there to make sure that there's communication.

There's two way communication in the future where a firefighter could actually speak to the car, immobilize the car, get the car to move, as well as a hotline. Somebody could call dispatch could call that hotline to do that. Also, we're having our big Pride parade, one of our biggest celebrations in San Francisco.

If the city was able to get to the companies that the parade is coming, these are the hours the streets will be closed, they could provide a geofence for those vehicles to make sure they don't enter into that area. So these are a number of improvements.

To me, it's very much making sure that autonomous vehicles are treated similar to driver vehicles where they would not be where they should.

They enter in live fire area, live area where there is police that they would actually be told to move, told to stop the car, told to move, move out of the way and make sure that autonomous vehicles have that same abilities such as we would expect anybody who's a driver to do as well.

So with that, I have Deputy Chief Luttropp from the San Francisco Fire Department here to testify.

Deputy Chief, you may proceed. You have a couple minutes. Thank you.

Thank you and good afternoon. Chair Cortese and Committee. My name is Darius Luttropp. I'm the Deputy Chief of operations for the San Francisco Fire Department, where I've served for over 26 years. And thank you for the invitation to speak.

The City and County of San Francisco has an official support position for AB 1777. We appreciate assemblymember Ting and his staff for reaching out to San Francisco first responder agencies and working with us and industry and state agencies to draft legislation that addressed some of the challenges we've experienced with driverless operation in San Francisco.

As you know now, there's no clear mechanism to issue a moving violation or citation in driverless AV's when there's no driver behind the wheel. This clearly is an important regulatory gap, and we appreciate that AB 1777 addresses this by allowing peace officers to issue moving violation citations by mail.

This fix is needed when there's no human driver behind the wheel. Now to describe the fire department's concerns, the San Francisco Fire Department includes some of the busiest fire stations in the nation.

And in 2023, when driverless AV's started operating without a safety driver, San Francisco Members filed almost 100 written reports of driverless AV's interfering with emergency operations. Our experience kind of illustrated two critical challenges. The first was uncertainty.

Emergency responders near a driverless vehicle can't tell whether it's going to move, remain stationary, or understands any direction it has been given. This slows us down, makes our work harder and more dangerous. Uncertainty can require firefighters to leave the vehicles on the way to an emergency scene to direct or maneuver around a driverless AV.

It can require traffic control please firefighters to remain directly in front of the vehicle to prevent it from moving rather than doing their necessary duties. The second challenge was a slow pace of communication.

Both emergency dispatchers on scene responders have found that connecting to a remote human advisor who has situational awareness of driverless AV's on the street moves far too slowly. Our 911 dispatchers have had calls to the company first responder lines picked up by a voicemail system. Sometimes there's a response, sometimes there's no call back.

And as to on scene response, our firefighters do not carry and are not given cell phones by the Department. Obviously, we prefer they're using a hose or a stretcher or some other piece of equipment than a cell phone to communicate.

Sometimes responders on scene can't hear a remote advisor unless they put their body in through a window or into the vehicle, which we consider an unsafe position. So comparing that to the nearly instantaneous communication with a human driver by gesture, eye contact, or voice.

We understand that humans don't always do what we ask, but most do, and do so very quickly. So we've worked closely with the industry to share our knowledge around emergencies and real life examples so that partners understand our needs while working towards solutions that support interests of all involved parties.

So as an example, we now issue about 20 avoid the area messages to the companies every day when we receive calls that create the greatest concern about potential driverless AV interference.

That amounts to about 5% of our calls for incidents like structure fires, major motor vehicle crashes, or multicasual incidents where multiple responders will be working in traffic lanes. AB 1777 offers four solutions that help improve driverless safety operations around emergency response.

So first, where emergency response agencies issue geofencing messages to keep driverless AV's away from an emergency in her area, it requires the manufacturer to promptly direct their vehicles away from that area. This will allow other first responder agencies to benefit from a system we've launched in San Francisco and is currently being used in Arizona and Texas cities.

Second, it requires a manufacturer to provide a dedicated telephone line where emergency response officials, including our 911 dispatchers, can expect to reach a human who has-there we go- situational awareness of a driverless vehicle within 30 seconds so emergency responders can communicate clearly to solve whatever problems they need to solve.

And third, it requires a manufacturer to enable direct voice to voice communication from the exterior of a vehicle on a public street. So no more cell phone. Fourth, it requires a manufacturer to have a status indicator that tells first responders whether the AB is disengaged and will stay where it is or whether it's capable of moving.

That removes that uncertainty. There is time to comply. We know the AV companies are working on these solutions, and some have been implemented already, while others are still developing the capacity. The bill gives manufacturers until July 1, 2026 to implement the 30 seconds response time, the voice to voice communications from the exterior, and the status indicator solution.

And we look forward to continuing the work with the author's office on this bill and with manufacturers and other public safety agencies. And I thank you for your time.

All right, thank you. Are there others in the Committee room who would like to come up and express a support position? If so, please come to the microphone at this time.

Mister Chair and Members. Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency as well as the City and County of San Francisco in support. Thank you.

All right, any others? Seeing none. We'll move to opposition. Opposition witnesses may come forward at this time. Welcome. You'll have a couple minutes.

Good afternoon. Thank you. Mister Chair Cortese and Members of the Committee, my name is Renée Gibson. I'm the Director of Government Affairs for the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association.

We have welcomed the opportunity to engage with Assemblymember Ting and his staff on this bill, and we appreciate the amendments that have been made to date because we continue to have a few concerns with the design mandates imposed by the bill, we are taking an opposed and less amended position today.

In particular, AB 1777 would require that AV manufacturers alter the design of their vehicles by mandating that vehicles have both an onsite two way communication device and a communication device that conveys information about the vehicle at a distance no less than 50ft in front of or behind the vehicle.

These requirements would increase burdens on both the DMV and AV manufacturers without meaningfully enhancing public safety. Mandated design requirements are inappropriate for state regulation. The Federal Government regulates vehicle safety and design and is continuing to develop regulations specific to autonomous vehicles.

State level mandated design standards will significantly increase challenges for AV companies that are seeking to operate nationally. Vehicle design is a lengthy process. We are concerned that AV companies may be unable to implement design mandates on the short timeframe that is provided by the bill.

Finally, as noted in our position letter, we believe the proposed vehicle design requirements prevent safety and security concerns.

I'll just close by saying that while we do have concerns with the bill as written, we are actively working with Assemblymember Ting's office on alternative language and we have very much appreciated the significant engagement with the stakeholders on this bill.

Thank you. Are there others here in the Committee room who wish to express an opposed position? If so, please come forward at this time.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Kutzona here on behalf of Tesla in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair and Members. Timothy Burr, on behalf of Gatik and Aurora Innovation, removing our opposition on the bill. Thank you to the author and staff for the work on this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Austin Heyworth, on behalf of WABI Innovation and Kodiak Robotics, also removing our opposition with the amendments that we worked on with the author's office and once we see them in print. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair. Chris Shimoda with the California Trucking Association. Just want to thank the author for working with our members. We'll also be removing opposition upon the amendments going into print. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Peter Leroe-Muñoz of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Seeing no one else come forward, we'll come back to the Committee at this time. Anyone wishing to be recognized. Senator Archuleta?

Yes, thank you, Assemblymember. I see the opposition has just slowly, slowly drifted away, and that's because obviously you've got the Fire Department back on your side. And I thank him for looking into this matter is very, very important for all of us, I would imagine. They're sitting there and here comes a vehicle with no driver.

Are concerned with the safety, of course, but it looks like you've worked that out. My concern would be the violation that that vehicle commits. And you mentioned that the sighting will be sent to the company. Well, my concern is, does that company get three strikes, four strikes?

How many times will that happen that the vehicle or the company will no longer be able to put vehicles on the road or that particular vehicle that may have some mechanical problem that's causing that? How are you going to address that?

Appreciate that. That was just confirming with my staff about where we are. So at this point, we did not enter into that strike system. At this point, I think we're still engaging with law enforcement to figure out the best path forward, as well as talking to DMV about it. But this is the first step.

You know, as part of my close, but I can say this now, I mean, this is going to be the first of many autonomous vehicle bills that this Committee will be seeing. It definitely will not be the last. This is technology that's going to continue to grow, continue to develop.

My city is just the first city to experience all these things. So we're just taking our experience and try to add some good policy to it. So that I think that strike system is definitely one thing that we continue to grapple with.

Because even, you know, because if you think about it, the way the technology is deployed, it's not like, oh, you have a quote unquote bad driver, you have a company. The technology is a certain way. And so in order for them to correct it, they'd have to correct it across their entire fleet. Right.

So it's not so much, you know, if there's an error, more than one car is going to be doing it at one particular time. So you could have literally three strikes on the, you know, on the particular day or three points on that particular day.

And so I think we want to make sure we're having, you know, we're citing, but then we're also giving that time to have that corrective behavior as well.

And I look forward to following a bill in the future that you might bring back to us on how you're going to address that, that an adjustment will be made within a period of time. The company will be fined or the vehicles will be eliminated from a route or the city altogether.

Just to give you a heads up, we'll be looking forward to that bill, and hopefully you'll have that around the next couple of years.

Absolutely. Well, it won't be me. It'll be somebody else, but maybe our Chair, maybe one of the Members of the Committee.

But what I will say is that if you look at the example of one company in San Francisco that had cars on the road that looked like they were creating some dangerous behavior, DMV acted immediately, pulled their license. They were no longer allowed to operate.

So if DMV sees this as a pattern, they can pull the license tomorrow for them to operate.

And I'll move the bill when it's appropriate. Thank you.

Would like to be recognized at this time. Let me just thank the author for working with us. As you noted, a lot of back and forth, and I think a lot of communications on your part with folks in a pretty large Committee here as well. And I don't normally do this one a single out.

Senator Newman happens to be present on time today, as usual, for some work he did to help us try to clarify some language in the bill as we got down to the wire here with that, I do want, I do have one question that is just really for future reference, because the Committee, as far as I'm concerned, is done with its work, and we'll give you a chance to close in just a second.

And this is to the opposition witness, I don't know. This is a hard question, but you talked about two things having to do with design, and one is mandated design requirements. And I at least heard your position, or thought I heard your position as being one that, in effect, we shouldn't be legislating design requirements.

That's something that should be done at the federal level. And that struck me because just this year alone, we've, we passed through this Committee a number of bills that do exactly that. Not around AV's, but mandating various requirements. I think that the state has a pretty proud history, whether it's AV technology or anything else, of mandating requirements.

It seems like you can comment on that, but it seems like your concern is better place around the timing of implementation of those design standards. For one who would not want to interrupt the stream of commerce unnecessarily, there's a certain amount of time necessary to implement.

But this Committee, as far as I know, we did not receive any such language or proposed amendments or anything along those lines that would just deal with the timing of the design requirements. I just wanted to give you a chance.

If that's something you know or something that you've worked on, you're welcome to put that on the record now before, you know, we close the hearing on this bill.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I think just as an industry in General, we have the position that design requirements on vehicles should be done at the federal level. But at the same time, we are committed to continuing to work with the author's office.

I think we're in active conversations, just to be candid, we had a conference call earlier today. We have another one tomorrow. We are committed to continuing to work on this language. We're just kind of in this position here we are today, and my statement stands as this.

All right, thank you. I just want to give you another additional opportunity to clarify there. Assembly Member Ting, you may close. As you realize, we don't have a quorum established yet, but give you an opportunity to close. And again, we'll entertain a motion as soon as we have an opportunity to do this.

Great. Thank you, Mister Chair. And again, just thanks for you and the hard work. Really appreciate you singling out Senator Newman, who I think was especially helpful. So really appreciate his and his team's participation. And just to reiterate this bill, if the feds were supposed were to come up with design specifications, it would preempt this bill.

So again, we don't do anything where the feds, if they want to do a national standard, if they have a better approach than what we are creating, I think we are totally fine.

I think right now what we do is we see the technology that's on our streets today and we need to take immediate action because I am personally worried about my firefighters, my police force, as I'm sure all of you are and we want to make sure that they're protected while they're doing their job and they're not putting harm's way.

So that's the priority for this bill. Really appreciate all your work and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, well, thank you. And I'll go along with your notion that there's going to be a lot more to come in the future. Appreciate you being here, appreciate the witnesses being here and everyone else who stepped forward to express an opinion on the bill.

We are now going to move to Assembly Member Berman, who I know has been waiting patiently, and his first bill, first of two, is AB 2127. That would be file item five. You're welcome to begin and welcome to the Committee.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Senators. California's new motor voter law has been a success with nearly 26 million new or updated voter registrations since it launched in 2018. Notwithstanding the significant accomplishment, there have been challenges modernizing the voter registration process at the DMV, which resulted in litigation and settlement created oversight mechanisms.

I authored legislation in 2021 to codify many of the best practices from the legal settlement, as well as establish the New Motor Voter Task Force to continue monitoring the law's rollout and advise the Secretary of State and DMV on its effectiveness implementation.

While our motor voter law has been very successful, there are several updates and changes forthcoming, as well as technology driven delays. Therefore, AB 2127 would extend the operation of the task force in order to provide continued oversight to ensure proper implementation and the full effectiveness of our new motor voter.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote and I'm joined today by Brittany Stonesifer, Stonesifer Stonesifer, yeah, who is an attorney for the ACLU and a member of the New Motor Voter Task Force.

Thank you. Good morning or good afternoon. My name is Brittany Stonesifer on behalf of ACLU California Action and a proud co-sponsor of AB 2127 we work to ensure that California's democracy is accessible to all voters, including historically underrepresented groups.

With our partners, we've spent many years advocating to increase the fairness and efficiency of the voter registration system at the DMV. The current new motor voter system is a byproduct of that ongoing collaboration.

Since its rollout in 2018, the new motor voter program has become one of the most powerful tools our state has for maintaining accurate voter rolls and registering new voters. In only six years, the program has resulted in over 26 million new or updated registration transactions.

The DMV is now the top method of registration for youth and voters of color. This program's success relies on active monitoring and guidance from stakeholders. This is why the Legislature established the new motor Voter Task Force in 2021, formally convening stakeholders with the DMV and the Secretary of State.

Since then, the task force has provided visibility into issues at the DMV and developed guidance for streamlining registration forms. The task force also publishes annual reports that are invaluable resources to the public, lawmakers and advocates. The 2023 report was released just last month.

Despite its successes, the task force will sunset at the end of this year unless extended. The DMV is currently engaged in a major overhaul of its software system, delaying mandated improvements and critical updates that will help maximize the program's ability to reach potential voters.

If the task force expires as scheduled, we will lose a necessary tool for efficiently and transparently implementing these changes. AB 2127 will extend public oversight and technical guidance during this period of complex transition. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll see if there's questions later on and appreciate your testimony. Others here who wish to express a support position on AB 2127 please come forward.

Good afternoon. Dora Rose with League of Women Voters of California, co-sponsors in strong support. And I'm not sure that their lobbyist is here, so I do have the proxy of Disability Rights California also in strong support and Asian Americans Advancing Justice Asian Law Caucus. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up.

Julee Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the Asian Law Caucus in support.

Oh. You got a twofer. Okay. Seeing no one else come forward, do we have an opposition witness on this bill? If so, you may come forward at this time. Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to come forward and express an opposed position? Seeing none, we'll come back to the Committee on AB 2127.

Senator Archuleta, any questions or comments?

Yeah, my question is the vetting process. When someone registers with the DMV for the voting purposes and how do we what is the process to verify eligibility? Obviously, it's worked, but just for our general information, what is the vetting process?

So, the way that the process currently works is that most people fill out a digital form, the EDL 44, and when it gets to the voter registration portion, there's a warning screen that says, or information screen that says the next pages are going to be about voter registration. And then the first question is, are you a citizen?

Yes, no, decline to state. If you say decline to state or no, that's the end of the voter registration transaction and it submits your license or ID transact application. If you say yes, the next screen.

It lists all of the voter eligibility criteria, including citizenship again, and yes, no, decline to state, and only if you click yes for the second time, then does it progress to the next screen, and then you have an opportunity to opt out of. If you have indicated eligibility but don't want to register or update.

Very good. Will move it at appropriate time.

We will come back to you later for that. Senator Archuleta, I'm seeing no other request to be recognized here on the dais. Assembly Member Berman, you have an opportunity to close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And we will get to that as soon as we have a quorum. And maybe if we're really lucky, that'll be by the time we finish your next bill here, which.

I felt your pain this morning in my own committee trying to get a quorum. I know it can be tough.

AB 2583 file item six is up next, and you can begin whenever you will.

Thank you, chair and Senators. I'd like to begin by thanking the chair and your Committee staff for working with my office on amendments. I will be taking the amendments, the Committee amendments today.

I've heard from far too many parents, and I know we all have, who are concerned about close calls in front of schools or even worse, and tragically, kids being hit by cars and seriously injured or even killed.

In fact, an eight year old boy was hit and killed by a driver while walking in a school zone crosswalk to his elementary school in my district in San Jose. I think our district in San Jose on the Campbell border in 2022.

And Jacob was one of far too many students killed or injured just trying to get to school. I've seen firsthand the enduring grief, and I've seen this, actually, when I was a child, the enduring grief that an accident like this leaves with a community.

And so I was shocked to learn that traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for school age children in California.

School zones should be safe havens for all Californians, and that's why we need to update our policies to advance school zone safety, putting kids well being first school zone signs in California lower the speed limit when children are present, which is a standard that can be very difficult for drivers to know how to comply with and difficult for law enforcement to enforce.

That's why only six other states in the country mandate the exclusive use of the quote when children are present. Language AB 2583 aligns California with the majority of other states in granting cities the flexibility to utilize other metrics, such as timeframes or flashing beacons, that better meet the needs of their unique local communities.

And these new tools will allow cities to boost compliance with the law, which is critically important for student safety. AB 2583 the Safer School Zones act, will also lower school zone speed limits to 20 mph or less.

Of the 39 states in America that set a maximum school zone speed, by statute, California is one of just nine states in the country with a school zone speed limit greater than 20 mph. So this brings us in line with the vast majority of other states. The research is as intuitive as it is true.

The faster you drive, the more dangerous you become. I respectfully ask for your I vote. And I'm joined today by Mark Vuksvic, Director of state policy at streets for all, and Michael Gondara, a groundskeeper with the Washington Unified School District in West Sacramento.

Great. Welcome to both of you. And you'll have a couple minutes each. You can start whichever order you wish.

My name is Kirsten Bladh and I'm the associate Director of state policy for streets for all. I'm Mark Vuzz, not Mark. Thank you for being here. The proud sponsor of AB 2583. I'm here today because of one simple but devastating fact.

Traffic violence is the number one cause of death for California school age children every age from five to 17. It's not disease, it's not guns, it's not drowning is getting hit by a car while they're in a car, or getting hit by a car outside of a car. And the problem is getting worse.

Pedestrian deaths in this country have shot up 77% since 2010, a horrifying trend that is unique to America and even worse in California than the nation as a whole. And we know that many of these deaths are occurring in our school zones.

Like two year old Max Salamanza, who was struck and killed by a car in front of a Napa elementary school. Or seven year old Jace board, who was struck and killed by a truck while crossing the street in front of a school in San Bernardino county just moments after being dropped off by his mother.

And in both of these cases, the driver was traveling at roughly the current school zone speed limit of 25. That speed killed them. AB 253 will lower the school zone speed limit to 20 mph, putting California in line with the prevailing standards of a majority of us states, including all three of our border states.

The recent recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics and Empirical data underscoring the nexus between speed limits and crash outcomes. A person hit at 25 mph is twice as likely to die as a person hit at 20. Drivers have more time to react to unexpected events, like a child darting into the street.

And while AB 2583 will not solve the pervasive problem of distracted driving, it will decrease the likelihood of a fatality in the event of a distracted driver hitting someone. A distracted driver going 20 mph is still safer than a distracted driver going 25 mph.

AB 2583 will also give our cities and schools more local control over what school zone standard works best for them. We've really learned that from talking to school administrators, crossing guards, city officials all over the state that what might work for a school in downtown San Francisco doesn't necessarily work for schools in suburban Orange County.

So street Sparrow is committed to fighting for safer school zones where children don't have to risk their lives just to get to school. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mister Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Michael Gandara and I'm a groundskeeper with the Washington Unified School District in West Sacramento. I have been a classified employee for nine and a half years.

Along with my fellow classified school employees, we are the support staff who keeps our schools running and keep our students safe. Our desire to keep students safe is a constant. It begins before this student steps foot on campus. As a groundskeeper, I work a lot on the perimeter of the school.

I have witnessed many times cars speeding by above the speed limit. This is not an isolated incident or to one school or one area.

I currently work at three different sites and have witnessed similar incidents where drivers are just driving way too fast around day school, even at drop off and pick up time when traffic can get really congested.

I understand that through the legislative process, compromises were made and a lot of discretion is now left to the local governments on how much to reduce the speed limit around schools, the timeframe of when that speed limit applies, and signage.

My hope is that local governments do not wait until a tragedy happens before they act to make this reason around schools safer for students, parents and staff like myself. I respectfully ask for. I vote on AB 2583. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. Are there others in the room who would like to speak to this Bill on the support side? If so, please come on up.

Jeanie Ward-Waller representing Calbike in support.

Good afternoon. Brian Ricks with Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Leticia Reyes with crew strategies on behalf of the City of San Jose in support.

Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, also in support.

Ethan Naegler on behalf of the cities of Redwood City, Rancho Palos Verdes and Santa Rosa in support.

All right, now to opposition. Do we have an opposition witness on this Bill? Let's see. No one come forward. No one. Is there anyone in the room who wishes to express an opposed position on the Bill?

You can come up the microphone if that's the case. Seeing none, we'll come back to the Committee. Senator Archuleta?

Yes. Thank you, assemblymember, for bringing this forward. I had the privilege to serve on the Montebello Police Department and being on the road there oftentimes. Exactly what you said. People just don't slow down when they get to the schools. And reaction time. You talked about that. We talked about it all the time.

As a mayor of a city, La County Sheriff's Department would patrol our cities, schools and so on. We implemented street stop signs that flashed and run on solar, and that helped a lot.

But generally people are in a hurry to get to work and they forget that it's not just a child in their car, but it's a child that's been dropped off. So I support the Bill 150% and I thank you for bringing it forward.

And hopefully every city in the State of California would adhere to this, and every law enforcement officer will go ahead and take out that traffic book and make sure that people understand and the safety of our children is so precious and we've got to protect it.

So thank you once again, and I'll move the Bill at appropriate time.

All right, thank you, Senator Archuleta. That concludes comments from the Committee. We'll come back to the author at this time. I'll take Senator Archuleta's comments as my close. Very good. Thank you.

And as soon as we'll take his motion, as soon as we have a quorum and maybe we can get the word out, I know there's a lot more Members in this building that could be down here on the dais right now.

It would be helpful to have a quorum so we can entertain motions on these bills and begin the voting process. We're starting to get behind on that already. With that said, we appreciate your authorship in bringing this forward and we appreciate your testimony and we'll get to it as soon as we can.

Thank you, Mister chair.

I think the next author in file order would be Assembly Member Wallis. You may come up on file item 13 AB 2678. Welcome and begin whenever you're ready, please.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. I have before you today Assembly Bill 2678 which extends California's current program allowing high occupancy vehicle lane access for zero-emission vehicles for 15 months through the end of 2026.

This extension is contingent on a federal reauthorization of the program, which is set to expire in September of 2025. Allowing ZEVs in HOV lanes has proven to be an incentive for Californians to make the transition to zero emission vehicles.

While California leads the country in ZEV adoption, recent reports have indicated a slower growth rate for sales, making it prudent to leave the program in place for an additional year for continued evaluation and to avoid a major disruption of adoption rates.

This bill leaves in place program guardrails to make sure that ZEVs do not degrade HOV lanes by contributing to their congestion. This extension will give us the opportunity to balance ZEV adoption with lane degradation. If access to HOV lanes is one of the most important incentives for ZEV adoption, we shouldn't risk an abrupt end to this program.

I have with me today representing the sponsor of the bill, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, Curt Augustine.

Mister Chair and members, thank you very much. This is a very simple but very important bill that allows the number one consumer motivator for zero-emission vehicles in their purchasing. And not only is it for new vehicles, but what is often overlooked is also low-income used car owners can take advantage of this program.

And so, this is an important program that will again provide those incentives right at the time that the zero-emission vehicle mandate for manufacturing is going to ramp up in the state and starting in 2026.

And so, losing out on this opportunity is also not only a disadvantage for consumers, but also for the state's goals of achieving the most number of ZEV vehicles we can get on the road as possible, and we'd respectfully ask for your support.

The Chair cast fate completely to the wind and left me in charge. I just got here. I apologize for being a little slow on the uptake. Do you have another principal witness?

I do not.

And others in favor of this, name, organization, and position.

Yeah. Julee Malinowski Ball on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, in support.

Kai Cooper on behalf of Calstar, in support.

Jared Moss, on behalf of BMW, support.

I know them. Do we have any witness in opposition? Are there any others for me, too testimony in opposition, seeing none come forward. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Yes, Senator Archuleta.

Okay, thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this forward. My question is hydrogen vehicles, electric vehicles, not just brand new ones, but also older models that are still on the road. They're authorized to maintain that lane, correct?

First off, regarding hydrogen, all vehicles that are defined as zero emission vehicles, including hydrogen, are in the Bill. And the used vehicle sticker access is for just low-income folks. So the purpose of the Bill in its initial form has always been to be a motivator for people to buy new cars.

But it was also understood by then Senator Lara that we have to get full adoption throughout the state. We needed to make sure that folks who couldn't afford to buy a brand new car could have the benefit and the access to this.

And that's why we strongly supported his Bill to allow low-income folks to get the sticker on a used car purchase.

Very good. And I will go ahead and make the motion at appropriate time.

Okay. And seeing no other comments or questions, just one thing. I find this frustrating because I'm going to give my usual rant about enforcement on the streets, which is horribly lacking and has resulted in a lot of reckless driving. And I've talked about that a lot.

But in this case, the privilege that we allow for cars to drive in the high occupancy vehicle lanes in practice, really doesn't provide any particular distinction if one is to, at least here in the Sacramento area, when the traffic is heavy and I'm obeying the, I'm by myself and obeying the rule, and I'm creeping along and I'm seeing cars whiz past me.

About half of them. They don't have stickers, they don't have passengers. So they're using the HOV lane, obviously in violation, but there's no consequence. And so by and large, we need a lot more enforcement on our roads to make a lot of things work that aren't working. This is one. The, obviously driving habits are others.

But that's just me. So we will, did we establish a quorum? No, have not. Okay. Well, the chair has wisely come back.

Thank you, Assemblymember, you may have an opportunity to close at this time.

Respectfully request an aye vote when the time's appropriate.

Thank you very much, and we hope that time will be appropriate soon, as soon as we establish a quorum. Thank you for being here. Appreciate it. Next is file item 10. AB 2086 Assembly.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Senators. Happy to present AB 2086 today, which brings accountability and transparency to California's transportation investments. AB 2086 requires Caltrans to update an existing public online dashboard displaying how annual project investments are advancing the vision and goals for the California Transportation Plan.

The current reporting in the California Transportation Plan is not directly tied to the roughly $30 billion in transportation that the state makes per year or progress towards the goals laid out in the plan. AB 2086 will streamline existing piecemeal transportation reporting efforts into a uniform and consistent manner in an accessible online location.

This will ensure that the public, lawmakers, and top transportation decision-makers can easily access and understand how the full set of Caltrans programmatic investments are impacting their communities and upholding the state's goals.

AB 2086 also updates the California Transportation Plan to include a financial element that summarizes the full cost of the plan's implementation, a summary of available revenues through the planning period, and an analysis of what is feasible within the plan if constrained by realistic projections of available revenues.

Before I close, I'd like to address the comments expressed in the analysis regarding the uncertainty as to what the program, what the programs are to be reported, and whether these programs have reportable data.

My staff and co-sponsors have been working openly with Caltrans to better understand which programs have reportable data and can be used on an existing dashboard. However, this information has been extremely difficult to obtain from Caltrans, even though I believe it's a very reasonable request.

I'm grateful to the diligence of our committee staff to facilitate these conversations, and I have committed to finding a compromise that does not unravel previous negotiations or increase costs to state the while producing important data for the public. AB 2086 is a good governance and fiscal oversight measure, particularly in a tight budget year.

California needs to be maximizing the return on every transportation dollar spent and demonstrating results to voters. With me to testify and support is Hana Creger with the Greenlining Institute and Sabrina Bradbury from the California Association of Council of Governments.

Thank you very much. And you'll have a couple minutes to each. You may proceed when ready. We need to get the microphone on right.

Good afternoon.

It might not be on.

It is on.

All right. Chair and Committee Members, my name is Hannah Creger with the Greenlining Institute, and co-sponsor of AB 2086. Greenlining works to build a future where communities of color can build wealth, live in healthy places filled with economic opportunity, and are ready to meet the challenges posed by climate change.

This bill is key to ensuring that lawmakers have the critical information needed to make important decisions. Despite California having a wide range of stated transportation goals, the evidence shows we are not meeting them. For example, traffic deaths, vehicle miles traveled, transportation emissions are all on the rise.

But despite knowing this, the state is not collecting data on how individual transportation projects are contributing to these types of safety, climate, equity, or economic outcomes. Furthermore, even if this data was collected, the state does not have a sufficient way to share this critical data in a clear, comprehensive and consistent way.

For example, the existing Rebuilding California dashboard website showcases how the state's billions in gas tax and federal infrastructure dollars are being spent. However, when you navigate around on the site to your respective districts and click on any of the individual projects, you will see that the information provided is very scarce.

It shows a point on a map, the dollar amount, and a very short description. There's no information on if the project delivered on climate safety outcomes, how many jobs it created, if it spurred local economic activity, and furthermore, the project doesn't even describe which communities benefit.

You can't filter projects based on disadvantaged communities, for example. Without this baseline data, it's impossible to track progress on meeting our state's many goals. And I want to stress the Rebuilding California website is a great start, but it's just not living up to its potential.

In its current form, AB 2086 addresses this gap, first, by helping the state transportation agencies themselves make more informed decisions and second, by helping legislators like yourselves tell the story to your constituents around how transportation projects are impacting their lives. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon. Sabrina Bradbury with the California Association of Councils of Governments and we support this bill because of the language in Section Two, which daylights the important difference between the rules that govern the development of the regional transportation plans and sustainable community strategies and the California transportation plans.

In short, the regional plans have to be fiscally constrained, which means that before a project or program can be included, it must have a reasonable fiscal basis to be included. The state CTP is an aspirational document so it can envision an outcome that is not necessarily grounded in the current funding assumptions.

A simple example would be the assumption that the state rail plan is fully built out. This is an aspirational goal because the funding for that full build-out is not defined. Nevertheless, it's a great outcome and worthy of being included in the CTP.

But since regional plans are fiscally constrained, they could not include the full build-out in their planning assumptions. Otherwise, they would be able to claim a much greater reduction in greenhouse gas emissions than what they currently can in the regional plans. So, it's not a criticism of the CTP.

We think it's important to have an aspirational plan, and the state should address the gap between what's aspirational and what is currently realistic. But we think the language in Section Two will make discussions about how the state can achieve those objectives more grounded in what is actually realistic to achieving those goals.

We do know that there are ongoing conversations with Caltrans. We would defer to our Caltrans partners on the reporting requirements. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Are there others in the committee room who would like to step up and express support?

Mark Vukcevich, on behalf of Streets for All in support.

Jeanie Ward-Waller representing CalBike, in support.

Zack Deutsch-Gross with Transform in support.

Jamie Pugh with NextGen California in support.

All right, it does not appear that we have an oppositional witness. Seeing none. Is there anyone who wishes to express opposition? You may come forward at this time. Seeing none. We'll come back to the Committee. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this forward. I think exciting because of the fact all the cities in my district are experiencing growth. They're experiencing a lot of Caltrans work and a lot of work combined with the city and of course, our major freeways in Los Angeles County, 57 and 60, a lot of activities.

So, consequently having the website updated as quickly as possible. My question is, when would that happen as this bill goes through and disseminating some of that information quickly to the districts so anyone can just pull it up right away and get the answers they're looking for? What's the timeline?

I don't think we've discussed timeline. Unless I'm incorrect.

I believe it would be in 2027. So, giving Caltrans quite a generous runway.

Okay.

For original implementation.

Right. But then, like, the timeline of ongoing reporting.

Right. Yeah. And that piece is where she'll definitely open to working that out with Caltrans, make sure it's not administrative burden. And it's going to be.

I think, so important not only for safety, but for the communities can know what's taking place and that we here in California are answering their request to open up our roads and let's get the California in the move. So, I respectfully, we'll go ahead and move it when it's appropriate.

Thank you, Senator. And just for the record, the bill calls for January 1, 2027, for establishment of the enhanced dashboard. And then I think part of the answer was on ongoing updates after that, which it sounds like are still being worked on.

Yeah.

Thank you. I've seen no other requests to be, oh, there. Yes, Senator Niello.

Thank you. Senator Archuleta entered and ended his comments with get the roads free flowing, and I'm going to support the bill because I'm anxious to see results, certainly, of the goals of the climate, environmental justice, active transportation, and the like, which is part of the transportation plan.

But it will be very good to see the impact of the spending on those things relative to the free-flowing of roads. One of the troubling aspects to me is that projects are biased against any increase in vehicle miles traveled, and others have expressed concern about that in areas that are congested.

And the fact of the matter is that an increase in vehicle miles traveled could actually reduce pollution if the alternative is that roads are clogged. Heavy traffic moving slowly, stop and go, is significantly higher polluting than traffic that is free-flowing, even with more cars.

And the vision of the transportation plan, I think, loses sight of that a little bit. So, to assess the success of all of these things, including the free flowing of traffic and what the costs are of the other goals, climate and active transportation and the like, as well as accommodating the vehicles on the road, because, remember, they are becoming less and less polluting.

Also, even fossil fuel vehicles are, the tailpipe emissions are single-digit fractions of what they were just 10 years ago. And then, of course, all the zero-emission vehicles. So, be very good to see the results of all of this stuff. And perhaps maybe we might even reassess some of the tenets and principles of the California Transportation Plan. Thank you.

All right. Anyone else wishing to be recognized? Seeing none, we'll come back to the author for any closing comments.

Thank you. Thank you for the questions and comments. I think it's, I mean, all of our goal is to have more information. Right? We're here making decisions all the time about transportation, about how it's impacting our communities, impacting people in our communities. And it's really hard to make those decisions when we don't have the information we need.

And so really this bill is getting to that and making sure we do have that information. These are things that we should know that they're part of the plan that should be reported out. And we just want to make sure that that actually happens in a non-burdensome way.

So, we're working on figuring out how quickly and when, but, you know, want to make sure that that's available to the public and to us legislators as well. So, appreciate an aye vote when you are able. Thank you.

Thank you. And again, we have not yet been able to establish the quorum, but we'll get to motions and taking up the bill for voting purposes as soon as we can. Thank you for being here. We appreciate the witnesses being here.

We're going to move on to file item 16, AB 2525 which is Assemblymember Zbur. You may come forward and present at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm proud today to present AB 2525 alongside our sponsor, Los Angeles, the mayor, Karen Bass. This Bill will help the City of Los Angeles and other governmental agencies in the city implement housing strategies for people experiencing homelessness who are residing in recreational vehicles.

It will do this by streamlining the city's ability to lease property from the California Department of Transportation at a reduced rate to store RVs while the former inhabitants receive services to transition into temporary and permanent housing. Data shows that nearly 6500 people experiencing homelessness in the City of Los Angeles are living in about 4000 RVs.

That number, which has grown by 40% since 2018, represents a whopping 22% of the City of Los Angeles's total unsheltered homeless population. Shortly after assuming office, Mayor Bass, Karen Bas,s launched her signature program called Inside Safe, taking immediate citywide action to voluntarily bring people experiencing homelessness inside from tents and other encampments.

To date, the program has addressed more than 50 encampments and has brought more than 2700 Angelenos inside where they benefit from case management, get connected with supportive services, and receive housing navigation services. Just one example.

In December 2023, a successful Inside Safe operation in the San Fernando Valley focused on a massive encampment of more than 50 RVs along forest lawn Drive. Roughly 31 people experiencing homelessness accepted housing and turned 20 rvs into the city through the Inside Safe program.

In order to continue the success of the program, the City of Los Angeles is in need of additional locations to store the recreational vehicles that are surrendered off the streets as Angelenos are moved into interim housing.

AB 2525 will help streamline the provision of homelessness relief services and promote long-term housing stability and safety for people currently experiencing homelessness. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today is Freddie Quintana, senior Director of state affairs representing Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

Thank you for being here. Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Freddie Quintana. I'm the Senior Director of State Affairs for Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. As you heard from the author, the mayor took this issue of homelessness in Los Angeles very seriously from her first day in office.

To date, we have worked through our Inside Safe program, which is a signature program of the mayor, to address more than 50 encampments across the City of Los Angeles and bring in more than 2700 Angelenos inside directly through that particular program.

Since December 2023, we have led three RV-focused operations which have brought more than 100 people experiencing homelessness in RVs into interim shelter and then going on to permanent solutions.

The other reason why we need this Bill is on top of it, is that our RV storage capacity is currently at about 95% full, and we continue to process the RVs that we take in. And we would appreciate your support in this legislation. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for your testimony. Others in the room who wish to express a support position, please come forward at this time. Seeing none. Do we have an opposition witness on this Bill? Seeing no one come forward. Any opposition testimony on this Bill at this time? Seeing no one come forward, we'll come back to the Committee.

Comments or questions from Members of the Committee. Senator Niello.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question. Caltrans can do this, correct?

They need additional authority to streamline it. There's already a procedure that the City of Los Angeles uses for other kinds of things to assist their homeless program, but it doesn't qualify for this RV storage.

But Caltrans could, if they chose to, upon request of the City of Los Angeles, do what your Bill is seeking to do. Caltrans has the authority?

Yeah, but it would be, this is a streamlined program where we would actually be able to have it in place. They could actually add these items into the, the current contracts that the city has with Caltrans and it would cut the red tape related to that.

They could do it tomorrow, couldn't they?

No, do you want to answer that?

Yeah, just to assist. They have to have the statutory authority to go a nonmarket rate to the $1 a month. And that's what we're asking the permission for from the Legislature and the Governor.

You are positive that Caltrans does not have the authority to do that?

From our conversations with Caltrans so far, and I don't want to speak for them, it has led us to need to pursue this Bill in order to have that for these purpose of storage where the person would be not inhabiting the RV when it's put on the site.

I'm not sure that that's accurate, but nonetheless, I'll take the answer.

Thank you, Senator. Any other Senators wishing to be recognized? Seeing none. We'll come back to the author

Respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you and we will get to it. I'm still working on the quorum, as you know. I know you've been here a while today.

Thank you and thank you to the witness. Again, we're going to move on to file item 23. 23 is not the right item. We want Assemblymember Haney to come up. I'll get the file item in a minute.

File item 24. Order in the court. Please file item 24. AB 3061 again.

Sounds right. Welcome. Thank you Mister chair and Members. AB 3061 is the self driving Car Safety Act California leads the nation in self driving car technology, serving as a prime location for real world testing of this advancing technology.

However, recent incidents involving self driving vehicles such as collisions, traffic issues with sudden unplanned stops, and pedestrian injuries have caused alarming concerns about public safety. AB 3061 will promote transparency and accountability in the testing and deployment of self driving cars or autonomous vehicles by making incident related data more accessible to the public.

The bill enacts statutory minimum requirements for data collection regarding the testing and deployment of AB's legislation is designed to supplement current regulation and promote transparency in AB operations. One glaring problem that currently is that currently the DMV's methods of collecting data do not align consistently with federal requirements. Regulations have remained unchanged since 2018.

There is strong public interest in AB Data transparency and safety, emphasizing the need for legislative action, and this bill will ensure that we have that level of transparency and accountability that's needed. Not only will it align with federal requirements, but it will also ensure that we receive this data during both the testing and deployment phases.

Here with me to testify in support of AB 3061 is Matt Broad from the California Teamsters and Savena Takar with the consumer attorneys of California.

Okay, you may start. Thank you Mister Chair Members. Matt Broad here on behalf of the Teamsters. I'll make my comments quick. I think the Assembly Member did a very good job of sort of outlining the issues.

We haven't seen the regulations on AB data updated since 2018, and so we really have this discrepancy between collecting data on trips that are tested versus deployed obviously we're operating in a brave new world where these are deployed, and so the purpose of this legislation is to close that gap and get us closer in terms of where we should be on what they collect at the federal level.

Finally, I would just say that we've worked really hard with opposition to try to get them to a place of neutrality. We're really down to just two more issues, confidential business information and then the definition of unplanned stops.

I really feel strongly that we're going to get there in the next week or so and respectfully ask your aye. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mister Chair Members. Fina Takar, Consumer Attorneys of California, proud co sponsor. I'll be brief as well. I think we covered a lot on this bill, but I want to be clear on how many cities AB's are currently deployed in.

They're all over the Bay Area, Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, San Francisco county, and throughout la. So all of those deployed AB's are not being subject to data collection right now under the DMV. So that's another key reason for this bill. There's also news stories that come out every week, every month on AV's.

The most recent news story is that Waymo is doing a voluntary recall of 700 of their vehicles. There's that notorious incident from last year where a cruise robotaxi drug a woman. So we just want to make sure that we're not hearing about it in the news. We're hearing about it in an empirical way with the DMV.

So that's the State of need for this bill and we appreciate your vote.

All right, thank you both others in the room who wish to express support positions, you may all come forward now.

Good afternoon, Mister Chairman and Members. Robert Horror with the Consumer Federation of California. We're the third cosponsor of this measure and apropos of this conversation, was cut off last night on the way back from a Giants game by a driverless Waymo vehicle. So thank you. We won the game though.

Finally, Mister Chair Members, Louie Costa with SMART Transportation Division, State Legislative Board in support.

Good afternoon. Megan Adams, President of Smart Local 1741, representing school bus drivers in San Francisco in support.

Good afternoon. Jonathan Esposito, Local 1732 Smart TD in support.

Good afternoon. Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Federation in support.

Jamie Paquette, local Chairman SMART Transportation division Stockton, Rich Bend. Support.

Scott Brent, SMART Transportation Division local 1201 out of Stockton. Thank you very much, and in support.

Ryan Snow, state Chairman for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen in support.

That concludes support. We go to opposition now. Is there an opposition witness ready to come forward? Welcome again.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members of the Committee. Again, my name is Renee Gibson, and I am the Director of Government Affairs for the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association. We have greatly appreciated the numerous opportunities that we've had to meet with Assembly Members Haney's staff, and the bill sponsors on this topic.

We are very encouraged by the process we made so far, and I want to focus on just a few items today. Safety and transparency are of paramount importance to the AV industry. A thoughtful, holistic approach to data reporting can help provide meaningful information for regulators and can enhance public trust in AV operations.

Of course, any new reporting requirements come with costs, and this bill would add significant new compliance obligations on an industry that is already subject to a patchwork of federal and state reporting regimes.

In addition to duplicating incident reporting requirements established at the federal level, the bill will require all AV companies operating in California to report traffic citations, unplanned stops, and summary reports of all vehicle miles traveled in California on a quarterly basis.

Complying with multiple different frameworks that have varying reporting triggers and timelines is no small feat, which is why we've been working with assemblymember Haney and the bill sponsors to make sure that reporting requirements are designed in a manner that is feasible for both the industry and for the DMV, which will be charged with reviewing the substantial new transcript data collected pursuant to the bill.

While work remains on the bill, we appreciate that the sponsors have addressed a number of our concerns, and we look forward to continued conversations on remaining issues.

Thank you for your testimony. Others in the room who wish to express an opposed position may come forward at this time.

Curt Augustine with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. We are opposed unless amended, and I do appreciate the Member's concerns and we're working to resolve our issues as well. Thank you.

Peter Laro Munoz with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. We are respectfully opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Tagan Smith with California Manufacturers and Technology Association in opposition.

Thank you. Back to the Committee. Comments or questions from members of the Committee? Seeing none. Senator Archuleta is offering a motion. We'll take that up when we get a quorum, and in the meantime, you may close, Assembly Member Haney.

Thank you. No, I want to thank the opposition as well for working with us collaboratively. We've made a number of changes to the bill to address their concerns, and we'll continue to do that work.

I think this is an important step forward for transparency and accountability, which are essential if we're going to make sure that these vehicles are safe for the public. And with that, at the appropriate time, we'd love to ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thank you. We will give it every consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you all for being here. We appreciate it. We're being. Our Committee's being outnumbered by witnesses and authors here today, so we're going to. All day. Yes, all afternoon at least. We're going to go to item 20 at this time.

Assembly Member Ta, we're going to take you up right now, unless you want to let Assembly Member Low go first. He's been waiting for several hours. If your witnesses are not here, we could do that. We'll let Assembly Member Low go, and you go ahead and get your witnesses ready. Assembly Member Low, item 22, AB 2892.

Thank you very much for the kind accommodations, Mr. Chair and colleagues, for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2892 which allow a transportation company to help ensure that we address the issue of what is to be considered self-insurance. And with me today have additional witnesses and support respectfully asked for your aye vote.

Thank you. You may proceed whenever ready. You'll have a couple minutes each.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Michael Ralsky and I'm the vice president of external affairs for MV Transportation. MV was founded in 1975 in San Francisco by a husband and wife whose disabled neighbors had a need for transportation to doctors and other vital appointments.

Responding to an unmet need, they decided to start a one-vehicle paratransit service. In the intervening 49 years, MV Transportation has grown tremendously and emerged as a true American success story.

MV is one of the largest minority owned private companies in the United States and the largest American owned provider of para and public transit services in North America. We manage 64 public agency contracts at 47 locations throughout California. We proudly employ more than 4400 people in the state.

Approximately 84% of our workforce in California is racially diverse and 88% unionized, primarily through the ATU and the Teamsters. In addition, MV operates the largest all electric bus fleet in the nation, in Antelope Valley with 90 buses. And we are working with many of our public agency partners to help them make the transition to ZEVs.

AB 2892 would help stabilize costs for our public agency partners, ensuring that their resources are being used to provide vital services to the paratransit community. Every dollar of insurance cost that we can reduce is a dollar saved for a public partner. We respectfully ask for your support for this legislation.

Chair and Members of the committee, Andrew Govenar on behalf of MV Transportation. As Assemblymember Lowe said, we've had no opposition. We've had unanimous support throughout the process and we have taken amendments to satisfy the consumer attorneys of California and the credit unions. MV has been successfully operating in California, getting self-insurance for 47 years out of the 49 years they've been in operation.

MV does not currently satisfy the net worth requirement at the DMV for companies that operate more than 25 vehicles. AB2892 would put us in line with operators that operate under 25 vehicles by allowing us to place a bond or a cash or surety bond in lieu of self-insurance. We ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there others in the Committee room who would like to express a support position? If so, please step forward at this time. I see none. We've had no opposition. Is there any opposition today? Please come forward. Seeing none. Any opposition metoos? Seeing none? We'll come back to the Committee.

Any questions or comments. We do from Senator Archuleta.

Yes. Assemblymember, you mentioned that 25 vehicles and thereabout $2.2 million should be in reserve to accommodate that. And I say that in reserve, does that mean that money should be actually set aside? So God forbid there is an accident. It's there and it's not up in God knows where.

That would take the recipient of an accident, whatever to be able to file a claim and has to wait until someone sells assets and so on. That's one part of the question. And someone who has, say, 15 vehicles and you mentioned a bond, a surety bond, and what would that amount be?

So those are the two part questions.

Sure, I'd be happy to respond. And also ask any of our witnesses would like to add on as well, too. But the first question about the consumer protection, making sure that the resources are readily available. Of course, it is the intent to help address that issue and making sure that there is access to address any outstanding issues that may occur.

That's of course the legislative intent as outlined in the bill as well, too. And then the Chair, if I might, I'd be able to answer Senator Archuleta's second question.

Actually, Andrew Govenar. Thank you, Chair.

Actually, the $2.2 is simply a net worth test the DMV has to issue their self insurance certificate. 2892 actually will enact a cash or surety bond. So to your point, for the first time will actually put skin in the game for companies that operate more than 25 vehicles.

Because right now it's simply having a net worth valuation that makes you eligible for a self insurance certificate.

So under 2892 now you'll be able to put cash or surety in lieu of that, which actually means they'll be skin in the game for under 24, I believe it might be $35,000, but I'm not clear because I really haven't been. Our bond and cash will be commensurate with the $2.2 million.

Not for the over 25 vehicles, not the under 24.

So they're both aspects will be there to protect the consumer. God forbid if something happens. And my concern is it's readily available through the bond. Correct? There isn't a long process that the injured party would have to wait. Okay, thank you, and I'll move the bill at appropriate time.

We will make note of that, Senator, and Senator Low, if you'd like to close you may.

Thank you very much. And I just want to echo the Senator's comments in helping to ensure that we're addressing any of the ascending issues for consumer protection as well. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you. Well, we're still about 10 short of a quorum, but we will take up Senator Archuleta's motion when we get a chance. And thank you all for being here. File order says that we go to Assemblymember Lee. Please come on up. Thank you. File item 15, AB 2503.

Thank you, Chair and Senators. First I want to say that I accept the Committee amendments references on page six of the Committee analysis. I also want to thank Committee staff for working with us on this Bill. AB 2503 will streamline the ... train electrification projects. The State of California faces significant barriers in meeting its climate goals according to the ARB's 2022 scoping plan, VMT reductions will play an indispensable role in reducing overall transmission energy demands and achieving the state's climate, air quality, and equity goals.

The report also emphasized a key strategy to achieve VMT reductions will require the state to invest in making public transit viable alternative to driving by increasing affordability, reliability, coverage, service frequency, and consumer experience. The electrification of locomotives will be an important part of the larger strategy to reduce transportation emissions that exist at the nexus of air quality and climate goals. At a time when the need to electrify our rail lines has never been more clear, substantial barriers remain to deliver products in a timely and cost effective fashion.

AB 2503 will allow the state to scale up decarbonization of its transportation system and reduce the cost of electrifying our rail network. As an example, Caltrain's long awaited rail electrification project was delayed for years, in part just due to litigation, and with that, I would like to introduce my lead witnesses in support. Today I have Marc Vukcevich from Streets For All and Steve Roberts from RailPAC, who will be testifying support for Bill.

You may proceed.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Steve Roberts and I'm the President of the all-volunteer Rail Passenger Association of California and Nevada. AB 2503's CEQA exemption for overhead catenary rail electrification will streamline the development of faster, more frequent, and environmentally sustainable rail service. The exemption helps mitigate the cost and delay of the environmental reviews that has derailed overhead catenary electrification initiatives across the state. Overhead catenary electric rail is the cleanest and most efficient technology available.

This change also facilitates rail operators in their switch away from polluting diesel locomotives, which is a benefit especially important since pollution is particularly concentrated in environmental justice communities. Overhead catenary electrification is mature, readily available technology, and the worldwide choice for zero emission rail service. Installation could begin near term.

Off the shelf overhead cantonary electrication is the best way to meet California's aggressive climate goals. AB 2503 carves out the cleanest, most efficient rail electrification option while still maintaining the critical aspects of CEQA for any new off property builds. RailPAC asked for your vote on this AB 2503.

Okay, next witness, please.

Good afternoon Chair and Committee. Marc Vukcevich from Streets For All. Our goal is really simple, exempting rail corridors that are currently served by dirty diesel locomotives from electrifying from the requirements of CEQA. This exemption would prohibit lengthy and often prohibitive environmental review process and more importantly, the opportunity for bad faith litigation.

Diesel trains have been very important for our communities and for our state, but we also need to confront the realities of the localized health impacts with communities are exposed to higher levels of air pollutants, which are linked to respiratory diseases, cardiovascular issues, other issues. Electrifying these corridors is a direct action towards mitigating these health risks. Electrification isn't novel or untested. Electrified trains have been around for about 100 years.

There used to be a great example here in Sacramento actually itself. California high speed rail is going to be using electrification technology. But moreover, this policy shift will have far reaching benefits beyond its immediate environmental impact, potentially California's Amtrak Metrolink, COASTER services, the LOSSAN rail corridor, the Capital Corridor tracks, stand to substantially gain from the reliability, efficiency, and the environmental benefits that electrification brings, and so it would be a critical enhancement to our state's rail infrastructure.

The saga of Caltrain electrification has kind of exemplified in environmental reviews, and the subsequent litigation can dramatically inflate costs and delay the public health benefits and environmental benefits that these projects are designed to deliver. And so these legal battles have added significant expenses to the state and postponed the vital transition that seemed to happen. In light of these considerations, this exemption, what we're proposing in this Bill I think is good policy for California. It's good for mega infrastructure delivery. And it's good for our climate goals. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Anyone in the room wishing to express a support position, please come up now.

Mister Chair and Members of the Committee, Louis Brown, on behalf of ACEC in support.

Alchemy Graham, on behalf of Caltrain in support. Thank you.

Mister Chair and Members, Michael Pimentel, Executive Director of the California Transit Association. We represent, among other agencies, the State Intercity Passenger Rail Agencies and Commuter Rail Agencies in support. Thank you.

All right, do we have an opposed witness on file item 15? Seeing no one come forward. Does anyone wish to express an opposed position at the microphone? If so, please come on up. Seeing none, we will come back to the Committee. Questions or comments? Senator Archuleta.

I'm so glad Assemblymember that you're combining hydrogen fuel cell along with battery and everything you can. It's a big project over the years to come. Is there an estimate or a goal to go ahead and exceed that 50% on passenger trains?

I don't think I understand the question. Well, 50% of what?

Well, what I'm saying is right now we're all looking for the future in clean air and so on, and our, our passenger rail system, and I know they're working on it there in San Francisco, in the Bay Area. What's the goal to complete what they're trying to do, I guess to reach 100 or 50% of their trains and so on. Where are they and where will we look into the future?

Well, there are various initiatives taking place that will increase the amount of electrification on past your rail tracks, but it's highly dependent upon funding, so you can't establish the goal until you establish the funding. So I have no number that I can give you.

And for Caltrain, I mean, that project is chugging along and I think is soon to be completed. Very, very soon to be completed.

They're starting September 21.

Very good.

So, Senator, just due to the work with this Committee, we made sure that the amendments are inclusive or technology agnostic, but electrified rail should be on its way. The Bay Area, I think, speaking of the region, I think is our goal is to really replace all the dirty locomotives with clean zero emission and Caltrain really is our model right now.

And if Caltrain had had this Bill in place, they would have hopefully had their service delivered much sooner than this year because sometimes this kind of litigation really holds it up because ultimately what this Bill is about is upgrading the existing right away. It's not about expanding the track or doing anything more. It's just upgrading existing track already.

Thank you.

Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. Just briefly, this is a great Bill and I'm happy to support it and move it. Thank you for bringing it.

Thank you.

Yes, Senator.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Assemblyman, does this Bill includes the high speed rail?

No.

So it doesn't exempt any CEQA on high speed rail or anything?

No, it's specifically and it's defined well in the statute surrounding it's to local agencies. So like for instance Caltrain or VTA or some local. I'm not familiar with the Orange County ones, but you know the local link. Yeah.

Metrolink, LA or OCTA. Orange County.

Yeah. But it wouldn't be a state entity. It would be a local entity only.

Thank you.

All right. Seeing no other requests to be recognized on the dais, we are still one short of a quorum, it looks like. So Assemblymember we will, we've been offered a motion. We'll take up that motion in a vote as soon as we have a quorum. Thank you all for being here.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Assemblymember Ta, I think you were up next. This is file item 20 AB 2698. Welcome and you may proceed whenever you're ready. Yes.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair, Members. I'm here today to present Assembly Bill 2698 by partisan measure that would designate portion of highway 405 within the City of Westminster. Aspect leadership on fee way. I want to begin by. I really want to thank the Committee staff for their work on this Bill with my office.

As you are aware, after for Saigon, more than 2.5 million Vietnamese refugees and immigrants became permanent residents and us citizens with over 800,000 sailing in California. Many of these refugees and emigrants moved to Orange County, forming a bustling cultural Committee known as Little Saigon, which is now the largest Vietnamese Committee in the world outside of Vietnam, Vietnam itself, it is officially recognized by Governor Doug Burgum in 1988 as important Vietnamese cultural hub and a popular tourist destination.

I am asking that a portion of highway 405 be designated as Little Saigon Freeway. I recently took an amendment that ensured that the designated section of highway is fully located within the Lee Segong district. The cost to implement this measure would be funded entirely by private donation. I'm deeply honored today to present this Bill with several member of the Vietnamese American Committee, along with Mister Lan Nguyen, trustee, Garden Grove Unified School District, and Mister Chu Ha, President of Vietnamese American Associates in San Jose.

All right, welcome, gentlemen. You have two minutes each to speak to us. Thank you for being here.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Chair Cortese and Member of the Committee. My name is Lan Nguyen. I'm a trustee of the Garden Grove Unified School District since 2002, almost 20 years now. I'm currently the longest serving Vietnamese American elected official in the US, but I'm here today in my personal capacity as an advocate for Little Saigon.

As you may know, Westminster, Garden Grove and the surrounding area are home to the luscious population of Vietnamese outside Vietnam. Since the fall of Saigon nearly 50 years ago, our community has grown in Orange County and makes significant contribution to the cultural fabric of the region in Southern California, Little Saigon is a destination for many Vietnamese or non Vietnamese up and down the great State of California.

We have a chance to honor the contribution, pay tribute to the leader of Little Saigon that have built the area to where it is today. I want to thank Assemblyman Ta for bringing AB 2698 forward so that we can recognize those contributions by naming a portion of the 405 as a Little Saigon freeway.

What symbolic this meaningful legislation means so much to the Vietnamese American community. If approved, the Vietnamese community from around the state can feel proud of this accomplishment that celebrates the Vietnamese culture and foster community pride. So with that, I only ask you support the Vietnamese community and support AB 2698 to help uplift the voices of the Vietnamese Americans in California. Thank you for your time today. Thank you.

Next witness. Welcome. Good afternoon. Dear Chair Cortese and honorable Members especially I see again Senator Janet Nguyen. My name is Ha Chu and I am President of Executive Board of Vietnamese American Community representing the Northern California conjunction of Vietnam American. I want to begin by expressing my heartfelt gratitude to Chair Cortese

Consider with the view and Assembly teacher for introduction to Little Vietnam. Americans throughout California support one another regardless of where we live or where we work. While we are all proud American, we deeply value and celebrate our cultural heritage.

Many of us are Vietnamese refugees who escaped after the end of Vietnam War and the shared experience create a strong and bond within our community. We are essentially proud that section of 401 freeway in Oregon county will be named in honor of Little Saigon. The dedication is more than just a sign like to exit to freeway exit.

It represents the struggle, the challenges and triumphs that the Vietnamese community have endured since first arriving in California in large number after the fall of the cycle, our journey to California varied.

Some of us came from US military during the war, others were born in a refugee camp and samurai later in pursuit of freedom and the American dream. Despite our different path, we all came to America seeking a better life. This freeway dedication acknowledged and celebrated this significant chapter of American history.

We recognize that organized Orange County became a primary settlement area for many Vietnamese after arrived California initially due to refugee processing at Camp Pendanton. From there we spread out many Vietnam go to Westminster, Garden Grove, surrender our area and also go to San Jose, Houston, Virginia and beyond. We celebrate our accomplishment as Vietnam American irrespective of geography.

This is why we are so proud to support the leadersegong freeway dedication legislation. We see ourselves not not as rival, but as fellow Vietnamese Americans united in our effort to build better life for our family, for business and for our community. On behalf of United Vietnamese American community in North California also moved Vietnamese in North California. I just called from that General Bing, he called me and said he supported AB Transit so united, we respectfully ask for your support of the Bill today.

Thank you for your time and your attention. Thank you for your testimony. Are there others in the room who would like to come forward and express a support position? This is name, affiliation and support only.

Welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Chairs and Member of the committees. My name is Brian Dill, I'm a member of the school. I'm a member of the board of trustees at a school district in San Jose. I support AB 2698 and I humbly ask for your support as well. Thank you Chairs and other Members your support.

Thank you. Next.

Yes, my name is Crystal Pham, I'm from San Jose. I'm here to support the AB 2698 and I please asking and I try to count on your support as well.

Good afternoon Chair Cortese. My name is Doctor Oskwin from California, Northern California. I come here to support the AB. Thank you, thank you.

Good afternoon, I'm Gui Lo, I'm Vice President of Vietnamese Media at North California. I would like to come here the BoC 2698. Perfect, thank you.

I am Yu Ha. I support AB 2698.

Thank you. Good afternoon, my name I live in San Jose. I support AB 2698 and for your support, the Bill as well. Thank you.

Good afternoon, I am Pling da Chao from San Jose. AB 2698. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Quinn Vong from ICAN, a Vietnamese American-based, community-based organization in San Jose. I support AB 2698 and please approve the. Thank you, thank you.

Good afternoon, my name is Maria Pham. Come from San Jose in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, I am Tu Chen I live in San Jose. I support AB 2698 I for just support the view. The well. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I am Long Dang I am from the movie task. I am support AB 2698 and ask for your support of the view as well. Thank you. Thank you.

My name Lang Feng Lo, I'm from San Jose. I'm support AB 2698. I ask for support of the Bill as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Minh Huang. I am a young member of the Vietnamese Committee in San Jose. I would ask for your support for the AB 2698 and I will ask for the Bill. Thank you very much.

My name is Doctor Will Fem. I come from San Jose. I ask you support AB 2698 and thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair. I am from San Jose. Also in support 2698 and ask you to support as well. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee. Hi, my name is Yung Lee. I'm from San Jose. I ask for you to support AB 2698. Thank you. I support. I support AB 2698 and ask for your support. Thank you.

That's good. Thank you.

Hello, I am Le Guin, 95 years old, very old, and salute everybody. I sweep up this Bill. Thank you very much. Thank you.

I'm Mary Pollitt, Member of the board of trustees of Evergreen School District. I'm here to ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. I am Jimmy Phan, California resident. I am very proud to be here and I wish our voice to be listening. So I strongly support AB 2698. I ask your support of the Bill. Well, thank you.

Thank you. Do we have opposition witnesses on this Bill? If so, you may come forward. Let me be clear. Anyone who wishes to express an opposition position should come up to the microphone at this time. I've seen none.

We'll come back to the Committee and let me just make, out of my normal custom, make a couple of remarks before I go back to Committee Members here and start acknowledging Members who wish to speak. I want to acknowledge, just on a point of personal privilege that I suppose there were over 20 speakers who testified just now.

And I've not ever had the experience in Sacramento where I knew each and every one of them. So I don't know if that was by design or just a matter of a lot of history with the community.

I just want to acknowledge the first generation of Vietnamese Americans who are here to testify before the California State Senate, before a California State Senator of Vietnamese American heritage, and on behalf of an author of Vietnamese American Heritage. I'm sure it's quite a proud moment for everyone in the community and it should be.

Not that you haven't earned your stripes by now, but this is certainly quite symbolic of the great strides that have been made by the Vietnamese community. I will be supporting this measure today. I don't know how the vote will go.

I'm supporting the measure myself, but however it goes, I do appreciate the accomplishments of the community that were cited just a few moments ago by the witnesses. And with that, let me turn to the other Members and that will conclude my remarks. I'm going to go to just as a matter of personal privilege here to Senator Nguyen.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I agree with you. It's actually really exciting to see a lot of the folks here today. I haven't seen them since a few years now. They were here, a lot of them were here testifying on my Bill back in 2018. We had over 1000 individuals of Vietnamese American communities come to Sacramento.

Several trips here and a lot of them came from San Jose. And we're so grateful for the San Jose folks because they're close and they're always very vocal and very something that I've always been very proud of and been able to work with them. And if I can, Mr. Chairman, can I say a few words in Vietnamese to them?

Yes, you may.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chairman. I do have some questions for the Assemblymen, if that's okay, if I can ask.

Please proceed.

Okay. Before the questions, I just wanted just to make it clear out there that I represent Little Saigon in Orange County for 20 years. As a councilwoman, as a county supervisor, as a Senator, as an Assemblyman, now as your Senator again. But I also have a million residents in my district.

I get to represent half, almost majority of Orange County cities. I was corrected by Senator Newman that it was half, almost half, not half, because we represent Orange County. So we get to have that rivalry. And so, you know, I get to look at the lens of protecting all my residents and not just one.

And so, you know, I mean, so I wanted to preference that out there so that you can understand where my question is going to be. Assemblyman, did you receive a letter from the City Council, the mayor of Huntington Beach back last year on your other Bill?

Alright, really appreciate that. You mentioned about one of my resolution of naming Little Saigon Freeway. I believe that a language can be really similar to AB 2698. Last year I received a letter. Yes, I believe that we receive a lot of concerns from the City of Huntington Beach.

And unfortunately my resolution freeway never heard in the Committee. So this year, I decided to introduce this Bill, so I hope that I will have a hearing. So I really appreciate the Chair allowing me to have opportunity to have a hearing today, but I did receive it. So the answer is yes. Yes, correct.

Do you remember what the concerns the City of Huntington Beach has?

They raise the concerns they not really oppose, but they rate the concerns that a really, really tiny portion of the freeway that we naming leaders have gone, but actually 95% of the fee, wave four or five, they live within the City of Westminster. That's what I remember correctly, because that is the language of my view.

Let me. Let me refresh your memory. I have the letter in front of me. We, the undersigned at the City of Huntington Beach, were made aware that ACR 71 Ta was passing the Assembly and were most likely moved to the Senate Transportation Committee.

ACR 71 will designate the portion of the Interstate Highway 405 in the County of Orange at Magnolia street as the Little Saigon Freeway. We have been working with Assemblyman Ta on this Bill and received a commitment from the author that he would work to make sure that he would take amendments to protect Huntington Beach.

While we are fully in support of Little Saigon Freeway, we are asking that the southern portion from the center line to the south of Interstate highway four or five be named Surf City USA Freeway. This southern portion is within the City of Hunton beach.

The northern part, from the center line to the north, is within the cities of Garden Grove, Westminster, Fountain Valley, which all within Little Saigon and thus should be named Little Saigon Freeway.

In summary, the City of Huntington Beach requests this portion of the southern side of Interstate 45 from the centerline be named Surf City USA Freeway and the northern side of the center line be named Little Saigon Freeway.

Both Little Saigon and Surf City USA are cultural landmarks of Orange County, and they are both important to be recognized. So, with your new Bill, have you reached out to the City of Huntington Beach and talk to them at all?

I believe that that letter that you read, our office, we had not received that. We received some of the concerns, but if you talk about the north and the south fee way.

We haven't received a letter, but actually, last year I ran a resolution to name the intersection of feeway four or five in the beach boulevard to be served city. And the resolution only passed a few months ago.

So the letter CCU and myself and so. Okay, so you haven't received this letter?

I haven't received a letter, but however. But I took the abandonment from. So I think a couple weeks ago, our office, we submit a new amendment that we took completely deported Huntington Beach. Oh, yes.

Yeah. And I see that. I see that. My question is, have you reached out to the City of Huntington Beach and let them know that you have a new Bill?

Last year, I tried to talk Huntington Beach.

Unfortunately, I'm talking about this new Bill that's before us today. Did you or your office reach out to the City of Huntington Beach and work with them and let them know that there's a Bill that you got and amended and that you're moving forward with one portion of the freeway? Did you work with the.

I always work with one in the city. So you haven't, you didn't reach out to Huntington Beach at all? I did reach out to Hudson beach last year. The language really, really similar, Senator.

The language really, really similar.

Miss Assemblyman, my question is very simple. Your current Bill before us today, did anybody in your office or you have reached out personally to the city to let them know that this Bill is moving forward? It's a yes or no.

That's a yes. Okay. That's a yes. And I asked, who did you reach out to? I think my Chief of Staff, my, I believe that my district staff, we did reach out to Huntington Beach, to. The mayor, to the City Council, to the mayor. Former mayor. Former mayor of Huntington Beach. Yes. Correct. Yes.

You reach out to this former mayor, Tony Strickland on this new Bill.

Correct.

And you did not reach out to the current mayor on the Bill because.

A letter signed by Mayor Tony Strickland. Oh, I thought you said you didn't see the letter. I didn't see the letter. I really surprised because I saw the different version of the letter. I didn't see that letter.

There's only one version.

This is the only letter I received. A different version of the letter. So.

So, yeah, you haven't seen the letter, but you need.

I haven't received that version of the letter, Senator. Yes.

Okay. So.

On behalf of Huntington Beach and their comments, look, as the letter has stated, they're not opposed to this.

But what is disheartening is that your staff and you continue to go out there and disparage the City of Huntington Beach and their staff and saying, and calling them racists because all they're asking for is another sign right next to Little Saigon. What I'm saying to you here is we here as legislator, I've been here eight years, we don't disparage each other and we don't target and pit one community against another.

And I hope that you being new up here, that moving forward, that that is something to know and understand, is that we might appear, can disagree on policies, but to go out there and pit one community against another is not the right thing to do. Because up here, we as legislators are trying to work with every community.

And what you have done in moving forward and not even talking to the current mayor, to the city manager, the current city manager and decides just to have one phone call. If you did, I don't know, because I haven't-- I usually communicate with the current mayor and not the past mayor on current events.

And so I think, is that something for you to understand is that moving forward as you're here, I hope to see that the collaboration of members and helping communities to work together. I know you only represent a sliver of Huntington Beach, and I represent 100% of Huntington Beach. I also represent 100% of Little Saigon for 20 years.

And so disparaging against each other doesn't help in the community. We here, myself and a thousand people and 20,000 Vietnamese Americans across the State of California signed a petition to get the model curriculum bill to pass in this Senate and the Assembly signed by the Governor, unanimous. Took us three years to do that, but we did it with a collaboration of union.

Point of order. I understand.

Thank you, Mister Chair. So my thing is that--

Just need you to stick to this bill, of course.

I will, thank you. And so the other part is, I want to hear from you whether-- Last year, when there's draft legislation being drafted, it seems like someone in your office leaked those draft legislation out there in the community to then show somehow that I'm opposed to this bill. Are you aware of that?

Assemblymember, before you even respond, I'm going to pause procedurally for a moment. Has nothing to do with the answer to this question. And ask the assistant to establish a quorum here so that ultimately we can vote on this bill and other bills before we lose a member. Because there's other committees going on today, so Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

All right, we have established a quorum. I'm going to let you respond to that question. And I would just ask the Senator to prepare to yield so that we can get other questions off the dais here as soon as possible and keep moving on.

I have one more question after this, Mister Chair.

Thank you. Thank you for alerting me to that. Assemblymember.

Okay, so I mean, I'm not appreciating your comment because that's not accurate. My office and even myself, I never call anyone racist, but we did our office, we received a few, I have to say the inappropriate language. The letter sent to my office, I have to say that inappropriate language.

But I, myself, myself and everyone in my office, we never call anyone racist, but the language is kind of really, really inappropriate and it's really no good to the Vietnamese American community. And actually, I ran another resolution to name the portion of intersection 405 freeway and the Beach Boulevard to be like subsided in the state.

I did, and it already passed.

And we all supported that.

It already passed on the Assembly and on the Senate. And I don't know why you asking me with that kind of question and I'm not appreciated.

That wasn't the question I asked, that was a comment. My question was, was there any leaking of draft legislation in the community to then somehow indicate or state that I oppose Little Saigon freeway?

My office would never receive any information like that. And none of us leaked any information because we didn't receive it.

Thank you for that. And then the other questions I have. Will you support the Surf City USA sign on the freeway?

I already passed-- The resolution already passed.

That's the exit sign. Would you support a portion of the freeway--

But the bill today that we is not in lieu Huntington Beach. The bill today is named Little Saigon Freeway.

Mister Chair, point of order. This is totally inappropriate conversation in my view. I'm only one member of this Committee, but I think if you guys have some issues that you need to work out. If I do with my Assemblymember, we do that behind closed doors. Doing that in a Committee hearing like this, I just think it's totally inappropriate.

I appreciate that, Senator Dodd, but she's currently asking whether, as I understand it, whether or not the Assemblymember's willing to take an amendment to the bill.

I think she asked that question half an hour ago.

That may be true. Again, Senator Nguyen, we are trying to move the agenda.

Would you support an amendment to include Surf City USA?

You're talking about this bill?

No. This bill, no.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you. With that, thank you, Mister Chairman.

Thank you. Next, we have someone else who wishes to speak. Senator Archuleta.

Well, thank you, Assemblymember Ta. And I'd like to acknowledge you personally for you coming to America, not speaking a word of English, going to college, becoming the first mayor in the history of Westminster, and supporting, obviously, your constituents. And as you heard, we do it equally fairly across the board to everyone.

And I'm proud of what you've done today. I am supporting the bill. I'd like to acknowledge the Vietnamese people that are there, the Vietnamese Americans. And I know many of you have family who served alongside our troops in Vietnam. I served during that era. You have family who served during that era.

And as for those veterans that are there and those who've served. Welcome home. Welcome to America. And I'm so proud that you shed blood with us and we shed blood with you for freedom. And I thank you for doing that. So I think it's very appropriate that this portion of the 405 freeway is named Little Saigon.

And I will definitely move the bill at appropriate time. And I support it--

I was going to move the bill.

Oh, you did?

I was going to wait till after--

Okay, well, I will yield to my colleague to do that, but I'm in support of the bill and congratulations.

Unlike the City Council, we don't have audience participation here, so appreciate everyone keeping the applause down. We have a motion already by Senator Nguyen. Let me come back to the author for an opportunity to close.

I really want to thank the chair and Committee staff for working. My office will appreciate that. And as a Vietnamese refugee myself, I came to this country in 1992 at the age of 19. I always want to do something to contribute to America.

So I'm here on behalf of my district, I'm here on behalf of my community. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote, but I really appreciate all of your support.

Thank you. On the motion by Senator Nguyen, I'll have the assistant state the motion and call the roll, please.

This is file item number 20, AB 2698. The motion is due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

All right, that item has a vote of nine to zero, which is enough to get it out of Committee, but we'll keep it on call for absent members. Thank you all for being here. Thank you for those who traveled to be here. Tell General Ben I said hello. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you.

No, this hearing's closed. I'm sorry. Thank you. Though we do appreciate your testimony, we're going to go to the next author, Juan Carrillo. Assembly Member Juan Carrillo on AB 3179.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly bill 3179. But before I begin, I would like to confirm that I will be accepting the Committee's amendments that were agreed into the Center Environmental Quality Committee.

AB 3179 is a necessary measure that would allow for a narrow exemption specifically for bucket trucks and cell on wheels to the CARB advanced clean fleet regulation. Bucket trucks play a vital role in performing aerial maintenance and repairs on telecommunication lines, ensuring connectivity for emergency services.

Similarly, cell on wheels are deployed to restore cellular coverage swiftly in necessary locations during emergencies or outages, ensuring that essential communication channels remain operational for emergency calls and services. Without these specialized vehicles, telecommunication providers would face significant delays in restaurant services during emergencies, potentially endangered lives, and compromising public safety.

There are no manufacturers that provide reliable bucket trucks or selling wheels vehicles amid the current ACF regulations. These vehicles face challenges in adopting zero emission electric vehicles due to their heavy duty nature requiring high power and long range capabilities.

Additionally, rapid deployment needs during emergencies, often areas with limited or no commercial power, further complicates the feasibility of electric options. The California Resources Board has recognized the important role emergency vehicles play in the times of crisis and accepting them from their advanced clean fleet regulations.

Unfortunately, existing exemptions and off ramps are not viable options for privately owned telecommunications providers as they only apply to publicly owned vehicles. With the unpredictability of natural disasters, we must remain prepared and ready to ensure that our communities are provided with reliable connections to essential services in case of severe weather, wildfires, or floods.

Joining me to testify and support and answer technical questions is Amanda Gualderama with Kyle Broadband and Terry Mchaley with California Association of Highway Patrolmen. Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair Members, Amanda Gualderama with Cal Broadband, proud sponsors of AB 3179. I first want to thank the author and his staff and the Committee staff for their assistance and careful consideration of this Bill.

As the Assembly Member stated, this Bill would allow for a very narrow exemption to the advanced clean fleet regulations for bucket trucks and sell on wheels. Telecommunication providers are entrusted with maintaining the network infrastructure crucial for facilitating 911 and emergency alert communications.

This includes the physical infrastructure as well as the necessary software and protocols to direct emergency calls to the appropriate public safety answering sorry to the appropriate public safety answering point or emergency dispatch center. They must also comply with the California Public Utility Commission and Federal Communication Commission requirements related to 911 services.

This includes ensuring the ability for users to reach emergency services by dialing 911, ensuring that emergency dispatchers automatically receive the caller's location information, notifying 911 call centers of outages, and certifying the reliability measures are taken.

As stated, bucket trucks and salon wheels are specialized vehicles that telecommunication providers utilize when performing maintenance and repairs to the telecommunications lines or utilize to temporarily restore cell service swiftly during emergencies or outages.

The transition to fully electric solutions remains impractical for these two types of vehicles, making these exemptions critical for maintaining the reliability and availability of emergency communication infrastructure. Therefore, it is imperative to pass this Bill to ensure that telecommunication providers can effectively respond to emergencies and restore critical services promptly.

I'm happy to respond to any questions you may have. Respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you

Mister Chairman. Terry McHale with Aaron Reed and associates representing the California Association of Highway Patrolmen. It's my understanding there are about 6 million trucks in the vehicle population in the State of California. These bucket trucks and cows that sell on wheels make up a De minimis portion of that population.

The California Highway Patrol, CAL FIRE, PORAC all support this legislation because during times of emergency they want to make sure that communication is working and that people can be, can be moved about safely. This Bill is sensible, it's smart government and Mister Chairman, it's also a nod.

It's a nod to the courage of those people for the broadband industry who during times of disaster have the courage and the temerity and the understanding and the wisdom to be able to make sure communication works when we need it the most.

The California Association of Highway Patrol is proud to be a cosponsor and we ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much.

Do we have Members of the public who wish to express the support position please come on up.

Mister Chair Members. Steve Carlson for CTIA. We're the trade Association for the Wireless Telecommunications industry in support.

Good afternoon. Yolanda Benson on behalf of U.S. Telecom, The Broadband Association also cosponsors of this bill. We ask for your support. Thank you.

Yes. Julie Malinowski Ball. On behalf of the Fire Districts Association of California and the California Fire Chiefs Association, thank you.

Thank you. Walit Hajj. On behalf of the League of California Cities in support.

Mark Neuberger, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support.

Chair, Members, Nate Solove. On behalf of Crown Castle and Frontier Communications in support. Appreciate the author's work. Thank you.

Pam Loomis. On behalf of the rural telephone companies that make up the California Communications Association. Thank you.

We'll go to opposition. Do we have an opposition witness here? We do not. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to the Bill? If so, please come forward at this time, seeing no one will come back to the Committee, comments or questions from Members of the Committee? We do have a motion ready by Senator Blakespear.

So we'll go back to the author with an opportunity to close.

I'll simply close by respectfully asking for an aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. On the motion by Senator Blakespear, who asks the assistant to call the roll, please.

[Roll Call]

All right, the vote is six to zero and we'll leave the Bill on call for absent Members. Thank you. Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry. Welcome. This is file item 14, AB 2286, and you may present whenever ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Senators. The goal of this Bill is simple. Full testing and full deployment of an autonomous vehicle over 10,000 pounds can be permitted by the DMV to operate on public roads in California. While we await the analysis of safety data and recommendations to the Legislature by the executive branch, that vehicle must be accompanied by a qualified human safety operator. There is nothing about a human safety operator that prevents the autonomous trucking industry from testing and deploying autonomous vehicles anywhere in California.

The only conceivable motivation for rushing forward without a monitor in the cab is to increase profits at the risk of public safety and the livelihoods of our trained, expert trucking workforce. The rollout of light duty autonomous vehicles in San Francisco is a perfect example of why the Legislature should be involved in the final decision making on person less 80,000 pound trucks.

Hundreds of incidents have with driverless autonomous cars have prompted city public safety officials and elected officials to plead with the CPUC to rein in the deployment of driverless autonomous vehicles. Their experience and review of the data do not include this deployment has been safe. In these incidents, driverless vehicles stopped suddenly, impeding traffic and causing accidents.

In others, they have blocked emergency vehicles, including preventing police from responding to a mass shooting. The vehicles have driven through emergency scenes and into downed wires, or even one drove from the police cars during a vehicle stop. We have also seen a horrific accident where a pedestrian was dragged by an autonomous vehicle and trapped under it.

The company responsible did not disclose full footage to the DMV initially. Meanwhile, the companies deploying the technology are pulling out all stops, lobbying for expansion over the passionate objection of local officials. So let me make this clear, that I believe that this technology has great potential, which is why this Bill affirmatively recognizes we should move forward with testing and deployment of these vehicles. But there is absolutely no reason to believe the San Francisco experience won't be repeated in testing driverless trucks.

Unlike San Francisco taxis, these vehicles weigh an extra 76,000 pounds, drive at significantly higher speeds, and present an exponentially greater threat to the public. We need the data collection and reporting in AB 2286 to get a real sense of broader impacts of AV trucking technology. So all this Bill does is include the legislative branch of government in a more transparent process. As the final decision is made to remove humans from trucking in our state. We, all of us here, answer to our constituents.

It affirmatively lays the groundwork for companies to test and deploy autonomous trucks, and it contains a statutory trigger for legislative consideration of final approval of driverless operation based on real data analyzed by the safety experts in the executive branch. They will then appear in a hearing to make recommendations to elected legislators at that time. With me today to testify in support are Matt Broad, on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, and Steve Gold, CEO and founder of 160 Driving Academy. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Matt Broad here again on behalf of the Teamsters. Hopefully my last time this year on AV issues. And, you know, if it feels a little bit like deja vu with this Bill, we are back again this time. And, you know, I think the impetus and the need for this Bill hasn't changed, notwithstanding the Governor's veto, that there are very specific safety considerations when you're talking about vehicles of this size, 10,000 pounds, up to 80,000 pounds.

I will tell you that when I talk to Teamster UPS driver, particularly when they do the feeder, the long haul, they will tell you that when they slam on the brakes on a truck it takes 525ft for it to stop. And that's because these trucks are heavy and they're frankly dangerous. I really think that with this Bill, as our author said, we're allowing the technology to go forward. We're creating a pathway that recognizes, hey, we have a human on board as a second set of safety to make sure that these accidents don't happen.

Not unlike you take a large vehicle like an airplane has a pilot largely flies on autopilot these days. But of course we have a pilot there because of those compelling safety reasons. Finally, I'll just say in terms of the version of this Bill and the Bill last year, at this point they are the same. We have had discussions with the Administration. Obviously it's in our interest to get a Bill signed. You have my commitment to all Members of this Committee that we're working hard to try to get something that doesn't compromise the spirit of the Bill but still allows a safe deployment of these vehicles. So with that, I would ask for aye vote. Thank you.

Mister Chairman and Senators. Thank you for having me here today. My name is Steve Gold and I own the 160 Driving Academy truck driving schools. With 154 schools across the country, the 160 Driving Academy is the largest commercial training institution in the nation. In 2024, we plan to train over 30,000 new professional truck drivers across our school system. In California, we have 10 160 driving academies locate over 2500 new truck driving jobs across the state this year. In California, my company is licensed and governed by the Bureau of Private Post Secondary Education or better known as the BPPE.

The 160 driving academy is singularly focused on driver safety and the safety of the general public on our roadways. In 2022, the National Safety Council reported almost 6000 highway fatalities due to heavy truck incidents. 437 of these fatalities were in the State of California. As my parents live in San Diego, I have a vested interest in this statistic. By way of background, I'm the former Chief Supply Chain Officer for all of PepsiCo. Among other things, I had responsibility for the largest private fleet in the nation. I started the 160 Driving Academy 12 years ago.

I saw firsthand the issues with training and safety and the state of the American truck driver. My first introduction to autonomous trucking was about eight years ago when an investor introduced me to a company called Auto which had created an autonomous truck. At that time, no one had ever heard that term, but everyone knew what it meant, a truck that had no driver. I went out to San Francisco and a day the auto leadership team demonstrated a truck in a closed parking lot with no driver behind the wheel doing figure eights.

If you've never seen a truck with no driver, let me tell you, seeing an 80,000 pound vehicle with no driver doing figure eights in a parking lot will raise your eyebrows. At the time, I had numerous questions, but was told by the company that they would be commercialized in five years. They'd be retrofitting the 3 million trucks in nation with LiDAR camera systems. And the company had a number - that company, and they would be, sorry, in the nation with LiDAR camera systems.

That company and a number of other companies who have spent, I would guess, billions of dollars on autonomous trucking as a solution to the American trucking industry. Many of those no longer exist. I think there are three key areas that many who invest in this technology overlook when making proclamations about the future of autonomous trucks and their impact on the US trucking industry. By far. The first is safety. It would seem like an easy fix to reduce highway accidents, to improve training.

But to think that a truck with a properly trained driver is going to have less accidents than a truck without a driver simply makes no sense. What happens when the algorithm can't respond fast enough or the cell network can't respond? I live in Chicago, and a few years back there was an analysis on if a robot can make decisions faster than Michael Jordan when he drives a lane. They tested numerous algorithms and technologies and has found that a computer's judgment cannot react faster than a human in a basketball game.

I would say the same thing is true while driving an 80,000 pound truck. There are simply too many variables to identify in too short of a time to make the right decision. And I think we've all heard about the incidents that autonomous cars and truck testing have caused, which is truly unfortunate. Truck driving is not a repeatable robotic task. Every second can be different for the driver, which is why safety training is critical here, as well as the ability to react in a split second. The second issue is jobs. 30 years ago, trucking was a respectable middle class profession.