Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

Please note that any written testimony submitted to the Committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. We will allow two minutes each for two primary witnesses in support and opposition. These witnesses must testify in person in the hearing room. Additional witness comments will be limited to your name, organization, and position.

That is what we affectionately know as the me too moment. With that, we will begin our hearing as an informational hearing until we have our roll, I mean, our Members, present. We're also calling all of our Senators, as I recognize they are in disposal this time. To come in and participate, we need authors and for Senate staff.

If any of the Senators know they will not be here to present their bill, please let us know as soon as possible so that we can have one of our Committee Members present their bill. And so with that, we will be paused until we have a quorum and or authors.

Assemblymember Waldron, we are not yet to a quorum, so we're going to start, we did start as an informational hearing, and so we'll have you come up for. Oh, we should do that. Yeah. Okay. Come have a seat. Let me do a little bit of introduction just for the public's purposes. We have 12 bills to discuss today.

Please note the addition of file item 20, ACR 215, Waldron. Two bills have been pulled and will not be heard today. File item four, SB 915, Cortese, and file item 15, SB 1387, Menjivar. We will hear quite a number of bills, and I'll note those bills. I was wondering that, but. I know. Okay, thank you.

Well, I'll note the, when we do establish a quorum, I'll note the other bills to be heard. And just a correction. File item 15 is 1387. Newman. With that Assembly Member, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I'm here to present ACR 215, a resolution renaming a portion of State Route 76 to Payómkawich highway in recognition of preservation of the cultural heritage of the native tribes in the San Luis Rey Valley in San Diego.

In the Luiseno language, the people call themselves Payómkawichum, meaning people of the west. For over 10,000 years, the Luiseno people have called the San Luis Rey Valley their home state. Route 76, which runs through that valley, was a vital artery for the Luiseno people during their seasonal migrations between the valley and the coastline.

Designating the portion of Route 76 from Palmer Reservation Road to Rincon Rancher Road will acknowledge and honor the historical and cultural significance of this route to the Luiseno people.

This renaming is supported by the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, Pala Band of Mission Indians, Palma Band of Luseno Mission Indians, and the La Jolla band of Luiseno Indians, whose reservation lands touch the 76th corridor. Representing the Rincomban of Luiseno Indians, Dorian Almaraz is here to testify in support of the measure.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members. My name is Dorian Almaraz, and I'm here on behalf of the Rincon band of Luiseno Indians, a federally recognized tribe in north San Diego. County. ACR 215 renames a portion of State Route 76, which runs through the Marinecon reservations as Payómkawichum highway.

For over 10,000 years, our people have occupied the San Luis Rey valley. Our largest village recorded was just north of Oceanside and known as Topomai. Today, this area is part of the Camp Pendleton military base.

Our people's territory encompassed the northwestern section of President San Diego, county, including the coastline, neighboring lagoons, oak forest, meadows, creeks, rivers to the north and south of the valley. What is now known as State Route 76 was a pathway for our people as we migrated with the seasons from the valley to the coastline.

It is with this history in mind that the Rincon band of Luiseno Indians respectfully request your help in honoring our heritage and history by renaming a portion of state Route 76. I respectfully request your. I vote.

Thank you. Now moving to Members of the Committee. I'm sorry, are there anyone in opposition? We don't have any on file. Just noting. Is there anyone who wishes to testify in opposition? Seeing none. Moving to Members of the public to see if there's anyone in the audience who would like to offer support in a me too.

As a remember, name, organization, position on this bill, and any in opposition? Seeing none. Moving back to Members of the Committee hearing, none. When we. When it's time for a. When we have a quorum and we can entertain a motion, we will do so. Thank you so much for bringing this forward.

It is important to have this recognition, and we'll be supporting this bill today at the appropriate time.

Thank you so much.

All right, now we'll move on to SB. Which position? Item number three. SB 904. This is Dodd. Senator Dodd, presented by Assemblymember Aguiar Curry.

Madam Chair and Members, today I'm presenting SB 904 on behalf of Senator Dodd, a measure that updates the enabling legislation of the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District, or the SMART train, to remove obsolete references, raise bidding amounts, thresholds and authorize SMART special taxes to be imposed by a voter initiative.

The SMART Train is an incredible example of a multimodal and multi-jurisdictional project that advances many of our state's top goals; increased rail and bicycle use, transit oriented development and collaboration by local governments at a regional scale.

Since coming into service just over six years ago, SMART has overcome wildfires, floods, and a global pandemic that devastated all public transit. Despite these obstacles, they keep chugging along. At the end of 2023, became the first transit system in the Bay Area to recover to the pre-pandemic ridership numbers.

This Bill also empowers the voters of this special district for the first time to pursue their own ballot measures through a voter initiative.

The voter proof qualified initiative process has the potential to provide an opportunity to enhance community engagement and help inform and affirm the development of an expenditure plan, providing greater accountability direction for how to best dedicate future resources to operate the SMART system.

My witness today to testify in support of this Bill is Eddie Cummins, General Manager of SMART.

Good afternoon Chair Wilson and Members. I am Eddy Cumins, the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District General Manager, and I'm speaking in support of SB 904. This Bill updates the procurement bidding thresholds for supplies, materials, and equipment, which has not been updated since 2003.

It also creates flexibility for a new station in underserved areas of North Sonoma County and removes obsolete references to the North Coast Rail Authority, which no longer exists. Finally, the Bill authorizes the SMART board to place a qualified voter initiative on the ballot.

In 2008, voters in Sonoma and Marin County approved a quarter cent sales tax providing roughly $50 million annually to build, operate and maintain the SMART system. This measure expires in 2028.

SMART has operated since 2017 and currently has the highest ridership recovery rate in the Bay Area and is one of only a few transit agencies in the country who have higher ridership than pre-pandemic. We also have several major projects under construction, including a three mile extension to to the town of Windsor.

SMART has leveraged over $500 million in state, federal and local grants to expand the system. The community knows it is critically important to pass a sales tax extension to protect the nearly $1 billion investment made in the system over the past 16 years.

Sustaining the SMART system will help address climate change, mode shift, traffic congestion and provide mobility options for residents, especially for underserved communities in the region. Based on community feedback, local voters request the opportunity to protect their investment.

The language in SB 904 is intended to respond to that request by allowing the Citizens Initiative Process to run its independent course, with SMART placing it on the ballot should it obtain the qualified signatures.

SMART would not gather or pay for signatures, but would act as the entity placing the item on the ballot for further consideration by voters. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And before we move on to any opposition testimony, we do now have a quorum, so I'll ask the secretary to call the roll.

Wilson? Here. Wilson, here. Davies? Here. Davies, here. Aguiar-Curry? Aguiar-Curry, here. Berman? Carrillo? Here. Carrillo, here. Hart? Hart, here. Hoover? Jackson? Jackson, here. Lowenthal? Lowenthal, here. Papan? Papan, here. Sanchez? Sanchez, here. Ting? Wallis? Ward? Wicks?

All right, we have a quorum. With that, we'll move on to opposition. Is there any? We do have registered opposition on this Bill. Are there any here to testify? Seeing none. Moving on to members of the public who like to weigh in on me, too, for either support or opposition. Oh, wait, hold on. Let's get the mic.

Madam Chair and Members. Matt Broad, here. On behalf of the Teamsters, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Gus Khouri, on behalf of the Transportation Authority of Marin, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no others, moving to Members of the Committee for any comments, questions or concerns? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. It's been moved by Carrillo, second by Hart.

Given, well here, I just want to thank you for bringing it forward, and also, you know, I have a special affinity to SMART, as it will one day be making its home in Suisun City, where I live. And we'll be supporting your Bill today, so give you an opportunity to close.

I would just like to say this is a really good project, and they continue to do leaps and bounds above anyone else, and I'm really proud to be here. When I had the district, I also supported this. So on behalf of Senator Dodd, I hope for an aye vote and I'd also be like to be added as a co-author.

Sounds good. With that, moving to Madam Secretary, could you call the roll?

Wilson? Aye. Oh, I'm sorry. SB 904 by AssemblyMember Dodd. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Elections.

We'll give him an upgraded title to Senator. Senator. I'm sorry. No worries. Aye.

Wilson, aye. Davies? Davies, no. Aguiar-Curry? Aguiar-Curry, aye. Berman? Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Hart? Hart, aye. Hoover? Jackson? Jackson, aye. Lowenthal? Lowenthal, aye. Papan? Papan, aye. Sanchez? Sanchez, no. Ting? Wallace? Ward? Wicks?

We'll hold the roll open for Members to add on. We're currently at 7-2 with that. Before we go to our next authors, let's do a little bit of cleanup just to be sure. I want to make sure I get the opening correctly as I stumbled through it a little bit.

So for Members now present, and now that we have a quorum, we have 12 bills total to discuss today. We added file item 20, ACR 215, Waldron, which was already heard but not yet voted on. Two bills have been pulled and are not being heard today.

That's file item four, Senate Bill 915, Cortese and file item 15, Senate Bill 1387 Newman.

The following bills will be heard item SESB 59 Skinner SB 827 Glazier SB 904, Dodd, which we just heard SB 930 Laird, SB 934 Gonzalez, SB 961 Wiener, SB 1098 Blakespear, SB 1193 Menjivar, SB 1271 Min, SB 1297 Allen, SB 1313 Ashby, and ACR 215 Waldron. With that, we have six bills on consent items or bills.

SB 1068 Eggman, SB 1158 Archuleta, AJR 19 Juan Creo, ACR 203 Hart, SCR 102 Alvarado-Gil, SCR 115 Archuleta. Is there a motion on the consent? Davies and Jackson. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, that's 10, and we'll hold the roll open for Members to add on. We did hear item number 20 as an informational hearing. ACR 215, Waldron. I'll entertain a motion. It's been moved by Aguiar Curry and seconded by Carrillo. Madam Secretary, would you call the roll?

ACR 215, the motion is be adopted with recommendation. The motion is to be adopted. [Roll Call]

All right, that bill has 10 votes, and we'll hold the row open for Members to add on. With that, we'll now move back to file. Item order. We have item number one, SB 59. Skinner, edit your convenience.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I'm here to present SB 59. You saw, those of you who were on the committee last year, saw a very comparable bill last year under the number SB 233. And that bill was approved and was on the floor of the Assembly with some modifications from when the committee, in other words, going through Approps, it got amended and then was on the floor. But I was. I had to use that vehicle for a different purpose at the request of the governor's office.

And so that is why I had to amend the language that had been in 233 into this vehicle. And that's why I'm here before you today. So now I will explain it, but I just wanted to give you the background, if you're in case you're wondering. Okay, what is this? So it's not quite the usual gut and amend, it's more a, you know, whatever. Anyway, so electric vehicles, which we, California is the market leader in. In other words, we have more of our residents buying them than any other state. And we clearly have some very ambitious goals to have many, many more on our streets.

And of course, electric vehicles need to be plugged in to have the power to take you around in order for you to use them as transportation. So in that respect, they are--they can be a--what's the word? They're a challenge to the grid. On the other hand, the batteries in an electric vehicle are very powerful. They are an asset that can power much more than just the vehicle. They could also be used, when you're not driving them around, to power a home, a building, or other resource.

And when you think, now, excuse me, about, say, Tesla battery packs, which are being marketed to you to buy these packs and put them on your home. In effect, the battery in your electric vehicle is more powerful than that Tesla battery pack that you would buy and mount on your house. So for some people, why would you ever need two? If you have an electric vehicle, you could use that vehicle at the times that you wanted to, in effect, when the rates are highest or when we're having a terrible heat wave and your utility is asking you to please, you know, can you take pressure off the grid?

You could switch over, potentially to the electric vehicle. You can only do that if your electric vehicle has what's called bi-directional capability. Now, some of you may have seen the ads for the F-150. That's the Ford truck, where the Ford truck comes booming up to a cabin, and the cabin's all dark, and the guy jumps out of the Ford truck, and he plugs the truck into the cabin, boom, all the lights go on. That is the Ford trucks via the F-150's battery powering that cabin.

So that was a feature that Ford was advertising. Nissan Leafs, which are the most affordable electric vehicle, from the day they went on the market, they have had bi-directional capability. So there are a good number of model EVs on the market now that already have that capability. There are others that do not. So what does the bill do? The bill is not a mandate in that it does not require EV manufacturers to act. My original bill, SB 233, when it was approved here before it came out of Approps, had a mandate in it. It also does not require our state agencies to act.

But what it does do is give our agencies a green light to analyze the potential benefits of EVs with bi-directional capability. And if the agencies, based on that determination, if they feel that there is such, you know, whatever benefits they feel are to the grid or other benefits that that bi-directional capability could provide, they could then require EVs to be equipped with that capability. So let me have my witness in support, and then I can answer a few questions. I have Kendra Harris from the Climate Center. She is their government affairs manager.

Thank you. Kendra Harris, government affairs manager with the Climate Center, we're sponsors of this legislation. Madam Chair and members, you've seen this before. You heard from the Senator we changed it slightly, but still really important. Right now in California, we have both an electricity and affordability problem and an energy resilience problem.

As climate change increases ,severity and frequencies of extreme weather events that knock out the power. Acceleration of bi-directional EV deployment is an elegant solution to these problems. It makes possible much cleaner, cheaper, more equitable electricity system and opportunity to move past fossil fuels as a core strategy for energy resilience and reliability.

Existing California policy already calls for the all sales of new light-duty passenger vehicles and school buses to be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. SB 59 takes the next step and points toward a future in which our current once-in-generation, multi-billion dollar investments in electric vehicles also help build a more resilient and reliable electric grid.

We cannot afford to continue relying on outdated, including fossil technologies, to keep our lights on and keep our grid from failing. Polluting gas peaker plants and dirty diesel backup generators disproportionately harm lower-income and working-class communities, exacerbating environmental injustices. Right now, California has almost 2 million EVs, and the CEC estimates we'll have 8 million by 2030 and 15 million by 2035. So now is the time to act on this.

And I just want to add to Senator's comments, we're aware that both Ford, GM by 2026, Stellantis, VW, Tesla by 2025, Nissan, Volvo, Kia, and Hyundai are all automakers that already have this bi-directional capability in their vehicles. We ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving to members of the public who would like to offer support, name, organization, and position. This is the me-too portion of a testimony.

Good afternoon. Michele Canales with the Union of Concerned Scientists, proud co-sponsor, in support.

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

Christina Scaringe with the Center for Biological Diversity in support.

Janet Cox for Climate Action California in strong support. Thanks.

Justin Bowers with CleanEarth4Kids.org, strongly support. In addition, North County Equity and Justice, Facts, Eco-sustainability, Peeps, and NCCCA, also strongly support.

Silvia Solis Shaw on behalf of the City of West Hollywood in support. Thank you.

Kurt Johnson, speaking on behalf of Environment California, in support.

All right, we do not have any opposition on file, but just to confirm, are there any members who were wishing to testify in opposition to this bill? Seeing none, are there? Okay. All right. I didn't know if you were slow walking the mic to do a. Sounds good. All right, thank you.

Hi, my name is Kurt Augustine. I'm with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. And technically, we are not opposed to the bill. We do have some concerns. In the prior version of the bill, we managed to work out a compromise with the Senator, and we're very appreciative of that. We had never commented on this version of 233 publicly.

So our concerns are twofold. One, the language that is part of the basis of the study where, if I may just say, sufficiently compelling, beneficial, bidirectional, capable use to the case, to the operator and electrical grid.

We're a little concerned that's a little too broad and plan on working with the Senator to tighten that up a little bit, because it just seems like a lot more emphasis would be placed on grid management than the actual impact on the vehicles.

And then our second concern is that the compromise that we did arrange with the Senator last year set a specific model year, date of 2035, and we agreed to that. This bill is open ended, and we certainly will continue to work on our relationship with the Air Resources Board to it.

But right now it's very vague and the date could be established at any time. And our manufacturers need some lead time. Yes, many of the companies will have some vehicles that are capable of that, but they don't all have plans for all vehicles to have the bidirectional capability in the next few years. So we do need some lead time. If we could just put some constraints around that. That's what we're seeking at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving to members of the public who would like to note their opposition to the bill. Name, position in the organization. All right, seeing none. Moving it to Committee Members. I see 1 and 2. All right, Papan. And then Agiuar-Curry.

Thank you for the bill. So big fan of the microgrid, people. But to the author, would you consider a date certain at some point?

Thanks for the question. So the, the bill that passed out of it had a mandate that, that we would mandate that vehicles were bi directionally capable. And it was, I think they're in the language was, I think, 2028 or something. We hadn't put in the 35 we agreed.

Yes, originally 2028. Yes.

Okay. So we've had, I have been in great communication with our automotive manufacturers around this question, and we're working together to figure out what would be appropriate language. The, you know, I was originally wanting a mandate.

This now doesn't have the mandate, and I was persuaded that that was a good idea because let's say there's, it's determined that vans and buses are the most optimal for both powering buildings and potentially benefiting the grid.

Let's just say, and I'm speaking out loud, which sometimes you shouldn't think out loud in Committee, but whatever, you know, comes back and bites you. If I put in a specific date, then I could preclude the agencies from acting on, say, a narrower class of vehicles, for example. So what we want to do is thread this needle.

We want, by giving the agencies flexibility, then we are allowing them to sort of make the determination of when that value is best. And we already see now many of the manufacturers, especially for light duty, moving in that direction.

All of the school bus manufacturers in California right now, electric school bus manufacturers are making their electric school buses bi directional. So the point of the, my real answer is I'm going to continue to work with my colleague here to see if we can find some language that both of us are comfortable with. And you have my commitment.

Thank you. Aguiar-Curry.

Thank you, Senator. The question I have is you just mentioned that someday you hope to have the buses to be able to do this bi directional. Is that like a major hardware change or is that just a software upgrade? Because we've worked with software upgrades before and they cost extra money sometimes.

Well, that's why we wouldn't do it on existing. It would not be a retroactive, it wouldn't be where, okay, all buses now riding around would have to. No, rather, you know, buy a model year.

But I used the school bus example because the electric school buses that our school districts are currently purchasing are, do have that capability right now. Meaning, in other words, that was already a feature of those school buses.

Sore subject in my district. But nevertheless, last one is that I'm always concerned about equity and the price of these cars and what they've done. And it could be anyone that they don't have electricity in their house.

And I liked your example because it's very clear. However, do you see any way we're going to be able to do some kind of incentives or something along that line? I know this is not part of the bill, but what do you foresee this to be?

Well, we, so this is one of these also tricky parts. My first iteration, I wanted the mandate, and I wanted it because I wanted every purchaser of an EV, every household that purchased one, to have that capability and not to be charged extra, to not have our manufacturers decide, oh yeah, this is really worth something.

Everybody wants it. Meaning worth something to you intrinsically versus that it costs them so much. Because in fact, in the, in the production of the vehicle, it is a software change. So if it's not a retrofit but rather the production of a vehicle, then it is not that difficult for the vehicle manufacturer to, you know, have this feature.

What I didn't want to have is that all of a sudden it becomes like, oh, like this, we're going to charge you the same they charge you for the leather seats. So that was one of my motivations. However, when you do a mandate, then sometimes you're also in the position of a manufacturer saying, hey, you made me increase my costs.

And what real evidence, again, it's one of these where many manufacturers have already informed us, for example, Nissan Leaf, which is the most affordable EV on the market, always has been, always has had this capability. But if we do a mandate and somebody argues, then they can charge more, which also we don't want, that would be inequitable.

So I'm trying to thread a needle where we can get this capability, allow households to use it, and potentially the grid to use it with the least cost possible and the least pressure on people. And fortunately, just in EV's in general, we have, we and the Federal Government have many incentive programs, tax credits and others for low income purchasers of EVs.

And my last question, with all due respect, there's a lot of women that your co authors on here when you were doing the other bill. You do realize that they may not want to be on this bill.

Ah, okay. We will make sure that that gets corrected. Thank you.

All right. With that, I'll entertain a motion. So it looks like it was moved by Jackson, seconded by Lowenthal. I'll give you. Well, I'll just note, I appreciate you bringing this bill forward, and your dedication to the transition to electric vehicles is definitely commendable. And you've been a leader in that space.

And I think it's important, as you noted, to give the administration flexibility and have them be able to weigh in with the expertise that they have and how this might impact our zero emission vehicle goals. And so with that, I will be supporting this bill today to give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And the other thing I just wanted to add is that in terms of the battery life, some people think, okay, well, what if I used my vehicle to power my house?

The batteries, right now, pretty much every EV on the market, whether it's a Nissan Leaf or a Ford 150 or a Chevy bolt, has a 10 year battery warranty. So the 10 year warranty is independent, let me put it a different way.

The 10 year warranty is on the batteries for the vehicles with bi directional and the vehicles without bidirectional. So there's. So far, there is clearly, if anyone were to drive their vehicle at full capacity every day and then try to charge their house, too every day, yes, it could potentially impact the life of the battery.

However, for the type of use that most manufacturers are anticipating, they have still put the 10 year warranty on batteries, regardless of whether the vehicle has that capability or not. So that gives me assurance that we're in good shape for that. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, could you call the roll?

SB 59, the motion is do passed to the Committee on Utilities and Energy. [Roll Call]

All right, that vote is 7-3. We'll hold the roll open for Members to add on. Thank you, Senator. All right, with the permission of--not permission of. What did we decide? I was going to say, with the permissions of other Senators present, we were going to move on, but are we not? I'm seeing. Okay. We are going to move on to continue in file item order. Go to item number two, SB 827, Glazer.

Moved by papen, second by Wallace. Wait. Your mic.

Magic. Thank you, chair. I love transit. I know many here on the panel love transit, and a part of our effort to have public support for transit is to make sure that those agencies are doing their best work. They're running efficiently with transparency. And that really is the basis for the bill that's before you today.

It has a long history. There were commitments and promises made when we put a toll measure on the ballot in the Bay Area that we would create an office of Inspector General. We fund it appropriately with all the appropriate powers that the office would have. Unfortunately, not all that has come true.

The funding is now in the right place. The office was established. They're doing great work, but the powers have not been aligned with other inspector generals around the state and around the country, and that's what this bill intends to do.

In its original form, it mirrored the powers that we've given to Caltrans and that office of Inspector General. In the process of hearing the bill in the Senate, there was concern raised because one of those powers is criminal penalties could be assessed.

I agreed to pull that back as the bill moved forward so further conversations could happen about whether that is something that we want to still have in the bill, or whether subpoena power, which is not Caltrans, doesn't have, that might be an appropriate replacement. So that remains an issue of discussion.

But let me just mention, as I close my opening, that we did add into this measure Weingarten rights. So if the Inspector General is talking to a Member of a union, that they give that person the right to have representation, that everyone will be granted that opportunity.

As many of you know who have been in this space, a lot of the work that they do are with whistleblowers. Sometimes they are employees, and they want that confidentiality. And that's a part of making sure that office can do their best work, is to have that confidentiality.

But a part of the bill is to provide that Weingarten rights, special privilege is inserted. So that does take place. So that is the work of this bill, aligning the powers, trying to build public confidence and respect in the work of that office. And with that, respectfully ask for your support today.

I have two witnesses here to testify. Roy Wesley, on behalf of the BART office of Inspector General, and Alex Torres, on behalf of the Bay Area Council. With that, respectfully asked for your support today.

Good afternoon. My name is Roy Wesley, and prior to my retirement, I was the Inspector General for the State of California. I'm here today to speak in favor of Senate Bill 827. The Inspector General process has a long and distinguished history.

Since 1668, when King Louis XIV established the first modern IG, the IG has been a vital part of good governance. The Continental Congress also recognized the importance of the IG by appointing the first American IG during the Revolutionary War. An IG brings transparency to government and is an integral part of good governance.

The independent BART IG is a valuable part of the BART agency and makes that agency a better steward of public resources. This Bill provides the same authority to the BART Ig that is common to igs across the country and throughout California. I enthusiastically support the efforts to provide the BART Ig with the tool to do its work. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Alex Torres with Brownstein here today on behalf of the Bay Area Council, representing over 320 of the largest employers in the Nyon County Bay Area, I think I'll start. First and foremost, BART is a big part of the economic lifeblood of the Bay Area.

It helps keep our economy moving and hence the council's interest in this issue. We were the proud sponsors over 40 years ago on the enabling legislation to establish BART. And so I think while we have these conversations around the fiscal cliff facing transit, we really want to make sure that there's adequate layers of accountability here.

I think it's well documented some of the challenges the office of the Inspector General has faced. And so we want to make sure while we're having those conversations on a fiscal cliff and asking taxpayers to fund more operations for transit, more expanding BART, we also need to have this very important conversation around accountability.

And so thank you to Senator Glazer for leading this effort. Proud to be here in support. Urgent an aye vote. Thank you.

All right with that. Thank you. Moving to Members of the public who would like to offer their support, this is that. Me too. Section name, organization and position.

Good afternoon. Charles Watson. On behalf of BART, BART has a support, if amended, position. Appreciate the amendments made to date and look forward to working with the Senator to address our last remaining concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, moving on to opposition. We do have opposition on file, as I understand it. We have two witnesses. We'll have you come to the seat and we'll ask that the opposite. The witnesses and support. Make room. There's enough chairs if you want to stay. All right. As a reminder, you have two minutes each in opposition.

Okay, thank you. Madam Chair, Matt Brod here. On behalf of the amalgamated transit union, in respectful opposition. I apologize. I don't have a letter on file yet. Just wanted to say we're working with Senator Glazer on the provisions related to Weingarten rights.

Obviously, we want to preserve the ability of the Inspector General to conduct fruitful investigations, but balance that against workers due process rights or contractual rights, so on and so forth. And so hopefully we'll be able to work through those in the next Committee. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members Brian Marimantez with American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. We are echoing Mister Broad's comments as well. We also represent the supervisory and professional bargaining unit within BART AFSCME Local 3993. We are regretfully opposed SB 827 unless amended.

While we are generally supportive of providing the IG with necessary tools that they need to do their work, our members have significant concerns with the current language as it empowers overreach of the office in that employees subject to an investigation would retain inferior due process procedures in comparison to existing agreements with BART.

These ensure that their right to union representation is respected and communicated clearly in specific investigations that could lead to disciplinary action, including termination. We appreciate the Committee's work on this bill and have recently proposed amendments to the author's office that would get us in neutral.

We look forward to working with them to ensure fair representation of the workforce. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving to Members of the public who would like to offer me too testimony. Is there anyone who would like to date the name, organization and position in opposition? All right, seeing none. Moving it back to committees. Papan. Committee Members, Papan.

Well, I first want to thank the Senator for bringing the Bill. I want to thank Mister Torres in particular for his singing the song of accountability, especially in the face of the fiscal cliff that BART faces. I come from a county that. Is.

Isn't always treated very well by BART, and I'm not going to hold back, so please forgive me ahead of time, but when things like state funding goes to BART for Fairgate enforcement, so we don't have fair evasion and they're losing millions of dollars every year because of fair evasion.

They got state money to do it, but not in my county. That's a problem for me. I think that state money should be spent fairly throughout the BART system and not to the exclusion of my county.

So when we talk about the Inspector General's duties and how they take a look at accountability for public funds, I want them to have all the power they can possibly have. So I appreciate the bill.

Whatever particulars you folks need, I'm sure you can work it out, because we need to give the Inspector General especially as it relates to BART, as much authority as they possibly can, so that we have full transparency and full accountability. So, needless to say, I'm happy that I moved the bill.

Yes, it does enjoy a motion in a second. Not seeing any other hands for comments. And I'd just like to note to the author, I strongly believe independent inspector generals and auditors provide essential accountability and transparency over government programs and operations through objective analysis.

And this bill gives the BART Inspector General powers that will bring it in line with other inspector generals through throughout the state.

And as we have had conversations as chair and author, you know, due process is important to me, right to representation is very important to me, and at the same time, balancing that with the confidentiality that is needed as it relates to whistleblower protections.

And so I will be supporting this bill today, and I know you to be a faithful offer to continue having conversations to perfect as much as you can to mitigate any unintended consequences. With that, I'll give you an opportunity to close. We do have a motion of by Assemblymember Papan and Assemblymember Wallace.

Thank you, chair Wilson. Thanks for your support today and the work of your staff. With that. Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 827 do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

All right, that bill enjoys 11 votes, and we'll hold the row open for Members to add on with that I see standing. So we are going to, with the permission of fellow Senators, we'll move to item item 14, SB 1313. Ashby.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And thanks to my colleagues for letting me sneak in. Yeah, this is SB 1313. I'm proud to present it today. It is the Safe Roads Act and addresses the misuse of safety technology in vehicles, particularly with driving assistance and monitoring systems.

The bill prohibits individuals from using, purchasing, possessing, manufacturing, selling, or distributing devices designed to interfere with the vehicle safety monitoring systems. Violations would constitute infractions under the Vehicle Code, with penalties escalating for repeat offenders. Driving assistance and monitoring systems require the full attention and engagement of the driver.

Unfortunately, there are some drivers who are circumventing that process, either purchasing aftermarket devices or using homemade techniques. There are entire online marketplaces dedicated to selling what they call nag reduction devices designed to stimulate a driver's hands on the wheel by applying pressure.

SB 1313 addresses this issue by updating California's traffic laws to keep pace with technological advancements in our vehicles and deter misuse safety technology. So far, fingers crossed, this bill has enjoyed no no votes and no opposition. So, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And I do have with me a member of the State Affairs for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the Senior Director, Mister Kurt Augustine.

Madam Chair and Members, I'm Kurt Augustine. I'm with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, and we are proud to sponsor this bill for all the reasons the Assembly, excuse me, the Senator just said. All vehicles that have systems that are called ADS or active driving systems require on hands operation.

Unfortunately, some drivers do try to deceive our safety systems by using devices that mimic actual hands-on steering action. That is incredibly unsafe. And these vehicles with these capabilities are not designed to have independent operation without the human driver.

So, this bill wisely prohibits the use of these devices, the selling of them, because, unfortunately, California law does not allow law enforcement officers to prohibit these type of devices. And so, we strongly support any bill that allows us to maintain our safety systems and prevent the override of such systems. And we respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving to members of the public who would like to offer me too testimony. Name, organization, and position.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of Tesla in support. Thank you.

All right, moving to any of those who would like to provide testimony in opposition. We don't have any on file, so just checking in with members of the public. Seeing none. Is there anyone who would like to make a simple statement of opposition, noting name and organization? Seeing none.

Moving to Members of the Committee if there are any questions, comments, or concerns. Was that a motion? Aguiar-Curry. And seconded by Lowenthal. Just to note, I appreciate you bringing the bill forward.

As cars continue to add safety features to improve the driving experience, it is important that motorists themselves do not try to defeat the systems in place. Was there a question? Okay, I'll finish these comments and then I'll hand it over.

At the same time, it is important for auto manufacturers to not oversell their vehicle capabilities and post videos online cheering on their customers to defeat the safety devices they've installed. I'll be supporting your bill today and encourage automakers to ensure they continue to design technology that is more difficult for their drivers to abuse.

With that, I'll turn it over to our Vice Chair, Davies.

Thank you, Senator. I just want to say thank you for bringing this forward. Obviously, public safety and the safety of those that we represent comes first. This is a great bill, and I'd like to be co-author considered. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair, too.

All right. We do have an emotion. An emotion.

We have a lot of emotions.

We have a lot of emotions. We have a motion by Aguiar-Curry with a second by Lowenthal. Give you an opportunity to close.

Urge an aye vote and thank you for your time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, Madam Secretary.

SB 1313, the motion is do passed to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. [Roll call]

All right. That enjoys nine votes, and we'll leave the roll open for Members to be added on.

Thank you so much.

With that, we're going back to, as close to file item order, with item number nine for Senator SB 1098. Senator Blakespear. My apologies. I had requested that there was permission, and I thought permission was given, so. So, apologies to Senator Wiener, who's in the waiting. At your convenience.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. It's nice to be over here in this nice big Assembly room. Thank you, Chair Wilson and Committee Members, I'm pleased to be presenting Senate Bill 1098, which provides a framework to coordinate state and local planning for rail services in Southern California at a time when resiliency, sustainability and reliability challenges grow more urgent.

This Bill addresses the need for the coordination of priorities, resources, and operations of many stakeholders along the 351 mile LOSSAN rail line. LOSSAN stands for Los Angeles, San Diego and San Luis Obispo. This line runs from San Luis Obispo in the north to San Diego in the south, 351 miles.

It connects six counties and nearly half of the state's population. More than 14 million people live in communities directly served by Pacific Surfliner, Metrolink, or Coaster. The rail line is an important freight and goods movement corridor, and it's used by the Department of Defense for military operations. Unfortunately, the rail line is truly in jeopardy.

The frequency and intensity of weather and coastal events along the LOSSAN rail corridor has resulted in five track closures over three years, lasting many months at a time and totaling more than a year of closures, impacting service reliability for daily passengers.

This is occurring at a time when the need to significantly increase the use and access to high quality transit services is central to achieving our shared mobility, air quality, equity and sustainability goals. We know what is at stake, and now is the time for us to act and position the corridor for long term success.

SB 1098 does this by bringing together state and local action under a common goal and vision. First, the Bill directs the state's transportation agency, CalSTA, with support from the Environmental Protection and natural resources agencies to identify needed improvement projects along the corridor and report that back to the Legislature.

This actualizes a formal request that was shared by a majority of Southern California's operators and MPOs for greater state leadership in the rail line. This Bill directs these state agencies to make recommendations to the Legislature on how best to support rail and resiliency planning in the corridor.

We need to hear from our state agencies on the latest relating to planning data and best available sciences. Second, there are many local partners with an important voice in the future of the coastal rail corridor.

That's why we're forming a working group with a diverse representation from transit partners, planning agencies and community, environment and labor organizations, among others, to make locally identified recommendations that result in improved service performance, reliability and ridership. And lastly, we're adding new reporting requirements to the Legislature and tasking the transportation secretary to ensure long term coordination between stakeholders.

The cost of inaction is clear. Track closures, short term emergency repairs and service disruptions cannot be a normal part of passenger rail service in Southern California. Local communities are relying on us to get this right, and we can by working together to protect the shoreline and ensure that rail service along the corridor is successful.

SB 1098 is the first step and lays the foundation for a revitalized rail in Southern California. With me today is Alyssa Arcidiancano from Townsend Public Affairs. She represents the City of Del Mar.

Go ahead, Madam Chair and Members Elisa Arcidiacono with Townsend Public Affairs on behalf of the City of Del Mar in strong support of this Bill.

This legislation aligns state and local action to support Los Angeles, San Diego, San Luis Obispo rail corridor by requiring coordinated planning recommendations and reporting that results in improved resiliency, operations, performance and management of services.

As you know, the corridor transects the entire length of the City of Del Mar, including along fragile and eroding coastal bluffs, and is a critical part of Southern California's mobility and public transportation network. Rail service is important for moving people and goods throughout the region. The corridor is also of national significance.

By connecting four regional ports and being included in the strategic rail corridor network, the reliability of services is directly related to its performance and ability to increase ridership. Therefore, there is a historic opportunity for the Southern California region to create a shared vision for transformed rail services with aligned operations, project delivery and management that benefit the customer.

SB 1098 addresses long term challenges by creating both state and locally driven paths forward. The state will lead by identifying and prioritizing capital improvement projects and recommended changes to state policies that results in improved outcomes for the corridor.

And local agencies will identify consensus driven recommendations for how the region can best build a strong foundation for making the corridor successful. For those reasons, the City of Del Mar strongly urges your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion by Edgar Curry and a second by Davies. With that, we'll move to Members of the public who would like to offer support. Me too's testimony. So name, organization, position.

Good afternoon. Chair and Committee, Marc Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All and support.

All right, thank you. Seeing no other moving on to someone who would like to provide testimony for in opposition. I believe we do have someone on file and opposed unless amended. But I don't know if there anyone testifying today seeing none. Moving on to anyone who just wanted to give a quick note of opposition.

Name, organization, position at the microphone. Seeing none. Moving it back to committees. Committee Members Hart.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to express my gratitude to Senator Blakespear for introducing this legislation. The LOSSAN corridor is the second busiest passenger rail corridor in the country, and it faces some significant challenges with sea level rise and other issues.

And just this legislation will go a long way toward focusing attention and bringing the resources to bear to keep that line in service, serving all the Californians that need it and depend on it. So thank you.

Vice Chair Davies.

Thank you, Senator Blakespear, thank you so much for taking the lead on this and for my Members, my colleagues up here.

This Bill and LOSSAN rail really affects every district in this state because what you're going to find is a lot of these areas are tourism and, and I can tell you with San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente, because the rail was out almost 10 months of a year, they took a loss when it came to tourism.

And that really is their bread and butter. That's 50% of revenue coming in that normally would be going for infrastructure, public safety and much others. So if we're not doing well in these areas, that means that we're reaching out to the state to help us out, and that means that's less money to go to other districts.

So this really is an issue that affects every single person in here. I thank you so much. I look forward to working with you as we move forward, and obviously, I'm supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other, I'd just like to note thank you for bringing the Bill forward and for your continued dedication for the LOSSAN rail corridor. As was noted by our Vice Chair, it is a vital corridor for passengers and freight and is truly suffering from the impacts of sea level rise, erosion, and weather related events.

And as a follow up to the Senate Transportation Subcommitee on LOSSAN rail corridor resiliency, this Bill requires CalSTA to convene a working group and to provide a report with recommendations to the Legislature.

And for that reason, I will be supporting this Bill today, now that it has a motion and a second by Aguiar-Curry and Chair Davies for you to close.

Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the supportive comments from the Committee, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

SB 1098, the motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, we have eight votes on that. We'll hold the roll open for Members to add on. All right, moving to item number seven, SB 961, Wiener. You can begin at your convenience.

Great. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And Madam Chair, thank you to you and your committee staff for working with us on this bill. And I'm happy to accept the committee amendments as outlined on page seven of the analysis and drafted in the RN that's been circulated to the Committee. Colleagues we're in a traffic safety crisis.

More than 4,000 Californians die every year on our roadways. That is a 25% increase in the last five years. And speeding is a major factor in many of these fatalities. Road deaths are up across the country, and I want to be clear that this is not normal. This is not the way it is in other wealthy countries.

The number of people dying on our roads is a policy choice that this state and this country have made by prioritizing speed over so many other things. According to the California Office of Traffic Safety, in 2023, one-third of all traffic fatalities in the state were speeding-related.

And speed, of course, is exponentially related to the severity of injuries in a crash, whether it's minor injuries or severe injuries, or whether someone is dead. SB 961 requires a commonsense piece of existing technology. This is technology that. This is technology that exists today.

We're not asking the industry to come up with something new requires this existing technology be installed in new vehicles per the amendment starting in 2030.

Specifically, it requires vehicles to be equipped with what we call passive intelligence speed assistance systems, which means that if you exceed 10 miles an hour over the speed limit, you will receive a warning that you are doing so.

We know from various studies in other countries that these speed warnings are quite effective at getting people to slow down.

You may be aware that the original version of this bill had a requirement for what we call an active speed governor that would physically prevent the car from going more than 10 miles an hour over the speed limit. I listened and I heard that that was not going to fly, and so we moved to this passive warning approach, which is highly effective.

This bill has the support of the NTSB, the National Transportation Safety Board. I have not seen NTSB endorse a bill in this building since I've been here. I may have missed something.

I don't think it happens very often, but NTSB has recommended that all new cars in the U.S. have, at a minimum, this technology. That has not been adopted. And NTSB is supportive and has submitted a letter supporting this bill. The bill is also supported by AAA.

So, colleagues, we also know from recent surveys, and this is enumerated in the analysis, that people are very receptive to this technology and that a large majority of people would accept it. And so, I don't think that this is the kind of technology that our constituents are somehow going to resent.

I think a lot of people appreciate knowing when they are driving, and we're not talking about exceeding the speed limit, but really significantly exceeding the speed limit. We know that Toyota later this year will start installing this technology in all of its new cars. So. we're not asking the industry to do anything unreasonable.

They know how to do this, and various parts of the industry are already starting to do it. So, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And with me today testify is Mark Vukcevich, Director of State Policy of Streets for All, and Damian Kevitt, the Executive Director of Streets are for Everyone.

Thank you. You may begin. You each have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee. Mark Vukcevich for Streets for All, sponsor of the bill. Traffic violence has become the number one killer of all people age five through 44 in California. Pedestrian deaths in this country have shot up 77% since 2010. And the number one factor in these car crashes is speed.

And to be clear, this issue also disproportionately affects communities of color. The public at a high level is aware of this. And I believe if the public was asked if they want the Legislature to tackle the number one killer of adults and children that they would say yes.

The largest factor that parents give in allowing their children whether or not to walk to school is not whether their kid's going to get kidnapped. It's whether they're going to die along the way from a speedy vehicle. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety completed a survey of 1,800 adults.

While over 60% of people agreed to a system that alerts you for going 1 mph over the speed limit, 80% of people support a system that alerts you when you go 10 mph over the speed limit, according to that survey. And that's what our bill is proposing to do.

The public has a right to feel safe on our roadways, and I believe that the public contract is broken on our roadways. Has anyone driven recently? It's madness. People are driving crazy on our roadways right now.

And so, I'd imagine you all to consider what it's like to be driving with other people around you, having this technology in their car. The driving experience would be safer and more pleasant and better. This technology already exists and is used in vehicles right now.

Every major auto manufacturer in the U.S. has this in their new vehicles under a specialty feature known as adaptive cruise control. But it's not an active feature. It's not what we're proposing in this bill, but the feature is capable.

So, don't let the opposition fool you into thinking that the requirements of this bill would either be costly or complicated. They're not. The European Transportation Safety Council estimated that the upcoming ISA requirement will cut road deaths by 20% in the European Union. And what's the cost? EU estimates about $60 per vehicle.

It's an up-in-the-air number. In turn, this will reduce wear and tear on your brake pads. It will increase your fuel efficiency. I'll make you a better driver and ultimately save you money in your insurance premiums and maintenance. It'll save cities money and their infrastructure costs, and more importantly, it can save countless lives.

The Legislature cannot pass a bill tomorrow to cut cancer in half, but it can tackle this. Thank you.

Go ahead. And as a reminder, two minutes.

Hello, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Damian Kevitt. I'm the Executive Director and founder of Streets Are For Everyone. I am not here to talk more on stats, which my friend Mark has so eloquently already done. I am here to talk about what really matters, people's lives who have been impacted by speeding and reckless driving.

And I feel that I'm qualified to talk about this because I am one of those people. In February of 2013, I was cycling with my wife in Griffith Park. I was hit, pinned underneath a car dragged nearly a quarter of a mile from the streets onto and down the five freeway at freeway speeds.

My right leg was ripped off about 20 pounds of flesh in two minutes. 20 broken bones. And I magically and miraculously survived, obviously. So let's be honest. This bill is not going to stop the roughly 2.5% of drivers who drive at the most dangerous, reckless speeds and with little regard for others.

But where this bill will help is to prevent tragedies like Tisa Cooper. Tisa is a young black woman around 24 years old, working two jobs, living at home in south LA. She was driving to work at 03:00 a.m. along an empty road, tired, rushing to work, and speeding, and she hit and killed a pedestrian.

Tisa's life was shattered by what she had done. Had she been notified of her speed, she would have slowed down and two lives would have been saved, that of a pedestrian and her own. Another example is Melissa Lechica. She's a hardworking nurse from the Philippines who was rushing to work at Glendale Adventist Hospital.

The sun was in her eyes, and she was also speeding to work. She hit a cyclist, a young woman training for a triathalon. The cyclist survivor was paralyzed from the waist down. Melissa works every day to save lives and almost took this young woman's life.

She was utterly devastated, but had she been notified, she would have slowed down.

You'll have to wrap up your comments.

So on behalf of streets are for everyone, on behalf of safe families and faith, for safer streets, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Moving on to Members of the public who would like to offer their support. Name, organization, and position.

Dan Allison, citizen in support.

Hi there. Jared Sanchez with Calbike in support.

In between?

In between. Did you want to do it now or on the next one?

Now is better. Okay, Steve Walker. On behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa transit district, they do have a supportive, amended position to also exempt transit buses, mainly due to the cost impacts it could have on their operations and ability to meet their financial needs.

So we're very confident in our professional and drivers that safety is not really an issue with the process, but with the other automobiles.

Okay, I think I understood all of that. I kind of trailed off a little bit. But support if amended, and hopefully our new digital democracy cut that all. With that, moving on to opposition. Is there anyone in formal opposition to the bill? Now be a time to give testimony.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. John Moffat, on behalf of the alliance for Automotive Innovation, we are in opposition to the Bill. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration is the federal regulatory body that writes the rules for us when it comes to vehicle safety. That's different than the board.

The board is a citizen advisory body, NHTSA, that writes the rules. They have 626 employees and a $1.6 billion annual budget, and this is all they do, and we need to let them do it. Things that poll well, things that sound good, don't necessarily work when it comes to putting them in the vehicle.

NHTSA is aware of this technology, even being aware of it. Most recently, they mandated that as vehicle manufacturers, we have to put adaptive braking systems in vehicles starting in September 2029 for pedestrian and vehicle safety. They knew this technology was out there and told us to go do this other technology.

Notwithstanding that, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration wrote a letter to the board two months ago that told them they are actually conducting pilot projects on this technology right now. We need to let them do their work. We need to let them do their job.

There was a statement made earlier that adaptive cruise control systems that are on cars right now would meet this technology. That is a false statement. I have three vehicles in my household that have adaptive cruise control, and they would not meet the requirements, the technical requirements that are required in this bill.

It's why you don't write these things and state statutes. You let the federal body who's charged with doing this do their work for a 50 state standard. So all vehicles sold throughout the entire United States have the same features, and it makes sense. Happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson. On behalf of the Specialty Equipment Market Association, SEMA, we represent the $52 billion aftermarket auto parts industry, but we also have oems that are Members of our organization. First, let me just begin by saying that I thought the analysis did a great job of laying out the federal preemption issue.

That is where our opposition argument lies. We support the Senator's goals. We support the sponsors goals. Obviously, we want to be part of the solution to reduce fatalities that are caused by speeding on our roadways. Having said all that, John hit the nail on the head. The Federal Government is looking at this right now.

NTSB has made a recommendation to NHTSA that they look at this and they are doing that currently.

And so rather than have a California specific standard that applies to just our state, and then the feds come in and make a different determination, that sends the OAM spinning in a new direction, we ought to wait for that rulemaking to occur. I would also note that the example that's been given is the EU.

That is the body that represents all of the European countries, akin to our Federal Government representing 50 states. We don't have individual countries in the EU putting up their own compliance standard for active or, I'm sorry, excuse me, passive speed control systems. And so I want you to keep that in mind.

We are just saying, let the Federal Government do what the EU did. I'd also know that the EU standard, as the analysis points out, presents a suite of options in how you would comply. This is a very specific requirement that would have to exist on the passive speed notification systems that could change at the federal level.

So with that, we respectfully ask that we let the Federal Government do their job and oppose the bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to Members of the public who would like to offer me two testimony, now would be appropriate time to come forward with. Name, organization, position.

Madam Chair. Chris Shimoda with the California Trucking Association. We are listed as opposed, but with the acceptance of the Committee amendments, we intend to remove opposition. I want to thank the author and sponsor for working with us. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Melissa Werner with political solutions here today. On behalf of Honda, in opposition. Thank you.

James Lombardo on behalf of the California Motorcycle Dealers Association and a Beta California motorcyclist, in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair Members. Anthony Sampson, on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association, in opposition.

Thank you. Members. David Gonzalez, on behalf of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association, respectfully, in opposition.

Dylan Elliott, on behalf of Shasta County, respectfully opposed.

Dan Chia for the California Chamber of Commerce and Opposition.

Tasha Hunt with Nosimon with the Motorcycle Industry Council, and we oppose unless amended.

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

Madam Chair Members Eli Garcia for Toyota, in opposition. And we'll respectfully need to follow up with the Senator on the Toyota's technology plans. I don't believe we are entirely accurate here, but we will follow up and get you some more details. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Nicola Whiteman, on behalf of Mercedes Benz, respectfully in opposition.

Thank you. Now moving to Members of the Committee who have any comments, questions or concerns. Seeing none, we'll entertain a motion. Lowenthal and Ting, thank you to the Senator for bringing this bill forward and for working with the Committee, and also for agreeing to the Committee amendments.

Safety is of the utmost importance, whether it be for pedestrian, cyclist, driver, or a passenger. According to the National Safety Council, over 44,000 people died in traffic crashes just last year.

Now, while I support the effort to reduce speeding and traffic related fatalities, I still have concerns about federal preemption and the state acting ahead of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Nevertheless, as we've discussed previously, I will be supporting this bill today, but do ask that you continue the conversations to ensure that you're not running a file of federal preemption. There has been a motion made by Lowenthal, a second by Ting. I'll give you an opportunity to close before we call the roll.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you again for working with us. You know, first of all, we. This bill is not preempted. It just isn't.

And we have examples from the past where, for example, rear guards on trucks, states were when NHTSA was not acting, and so states began to require rear guards, and NHTSA, in the future after that, adopted a rule and then preempted those state laws, which was entirely appropriate for NHTSA to do it.

But those states did that on their own, and NHTSA was not taking the position that they didn't have the power to do it. When you have a situation that NHTSA has not promulgated a rule or requirement, there is no preemption. And that is the case here.

And I understand the manufacturers don't want to be told what to do. They didn't want to be told what to do in seatbelts were required. They didn't want to be told what to do when airbags were required. They didn't want to be told what to do.

How many lives have been saved because seatbelts were required and airbags were required? This is an existing technology, and fundamentally, it's about people that more than 4000 people a year are dying on our roads, and that number is going up.

I'm not saying this is a silver bullet, but this is one step we can take to reduce that number. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

SB 961, do pass, is amended to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. [Roll Call]

That bill has 6-3 votes, but we'll leave the roll open for Members to add on. You're welcome. With that, we'll move to item number 11, Senate Bill 1193, Menjivar, noting that item number six, SB 934, by Gonzalez. We do have a Member of the Committee who will be presenting on her behalf.

So if there's ever a break without an author where we reach the end, we'll have that bill presented. Senator, at your convenience. You may begin.

Turn that on first. Thank you. Madam Chair, Transportation Committee Members, I don't want to spend my presentation talking to you about the effects of leaded fuel. We all know, I don't think anyone here on the dais would disagree with me that leaded anything is harmful. Leaded fuel is the last thing that we have with lead in it.

California was a leader when we removed four years before the Federal Government lead from cars, and then the Federal Government followed suit four years from then. Assemblymember Lowenthal, you have the number one most polluting airport in California. I have the second one in my district. You have the second in the United States.

I have the 7th in the United States. My district suffers from a lot of air pollution, and the three airports concentrated within a 10 mile radius adds to the air pollution in my district, with the second one being on that list.

This bill stemmed from years and years of my community bearing the brunt of variety of air pollution, and I'm so proud to be able to finally bring a bill that's going to help ease some of that air pollution.

Again, we understand lead in anything is harmful, especially for kids who are now having an increase of 21% of lead in their blood, who live or go to school within a mile-mile and a half radius of those airports. Now with SB 1193, I'm looking to change that.

I'm looking to ban the sale of leaded fuel in California, and with the Committee Amendments, ban it January 1, 2031. We're talking about Piston Airplanes, Piston Engine Aircrafts that carry 2 to 10 passengers across California. A majority of our larger airports do not have these kind of aircrafts.

We're talking more of the smaller airplanes, the ones that are used mostly for hobbies and so forth for traveling. Since accepting the Committee Amendments, we are looking to implement this bill following the expiration of the recently passed FAA Reauthorization Act, which expires on December 31, 2030. Now, we want to make sure that this fuel is commercially available.

Since my bill was introduced a couple of months ago, one company has already come out and said that they have made, and this is GAMI, they have made 100 octane unleaded fuel.

And we know that if we push policies like this, we're going to have more and more companies come forward and say that they're ready to produce this on a commercially available level.

We, since October 2023, have introduced a bill that is in line with the Environmental Protection Agency, which announced recently its final determination that emissions of lead from aircraft that use lead to fuel causes or contributes to air pollution that endangers public health under the Clean Air Act.

There is no evidence of threshold below which there are no harmful effects. Even if it's only 0.001% of lead emission, that level is still too high for individuals, especially kids.

Now, in the past months, I've met with opposition from the get go, have in good faith taken amendment after amendment started with the phase in pushed the years back, but it seems at the core that they just don't want to switch over to unleaded fuel.

We have finally got into a place where at the beginning, opposition wanted us to get to, to ensure that it comes after the Federal Government's FAA authorization has expired. We are looking at coming back and ensuring that this bill does not impact or hinder any airport's ability to apply for FAA grants, and we'll continue to do so before we bring this up, shall you pass this out of Committee to the floor for a vote.

Madam Chair, now I'd like to turn to my two witnesses for their testimony.

Can you hold? Can you? Good afternoon, everyone. Okay, are we on? Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Maria Reyes. I live two blocks away from Reid-Hillview Airport, and I have lived in Cassel Community for over 52 years.

As a Latina advocate, it is a privilege and an honor to be addressing you today. Senator Menjivar, on behalf of 5 million people who are struggling to breathe clean lead-free air, thank you for this long overdue bill. Lead in our environment is not something new. In 1963, the Federal Government passed the Clean Air Act.

This law was intended to reduce and control air pollution nationwide. In 1971, the Federal Legislation amended the bill, placing regulations to limit emissions from both the industrial sources and the mobile sources. Sixty-one years later, low income, disadvantaged minority communities like Cassel continue to fight the fight for the racial and social justice.

There is no safe level of lead, and as parents, it is our duty to protect our children. The past is gone, and it can't be changed. What can change is the future and that of our children. Children have a right to be children.

They have the right to breathe clean lead-free air, and to have quiet skies. What future are we giving our children? Communities like Cassel are not alone. Cassel has united with our neighbors in Pacoima, Long Beach, and the Tri Valley. We are going to work with our representatives to eliminate lead in all our communities.

Ma'am, you have to wrap up.

Change for justice begins with each one of us. We can't do it alone. But together, we can give our children the legacy they deserve. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair. My name is Jarrett Yan, and I'm a Deputy County Counsel with the County of Santa Clara, which is the owner and operator of Reid-Hillview Airport, located in San Jose, as well as San Martin Airport, which is a small, rural airport south of San Jose.

I'm here to express the county's strong support for SB 1193 and to share with you the county's experiences in working to protect our communities from lead exposure from general aviation aircrafts. We know that lead is a critical danger to our children.

In 2021, the county completed a study that demonstrated that there were significant impacts, or that there were significant correlations between general aviation activities at Reid-Hillview Airport and elevated blood levels of the kids in the surrounding community.

These findings were consistent with studies completed around the country, as well as the EPA's 2023 endangerment finding, showing that lead emissions from Avgas endangers public health and safety. We also know that airports can operate safely without selling leaded Avgas. In 2022, the county transitioned our airports to the exclusive sale of unleaded Avgas.

This action has prevented the emission of more than a ton of lead into the environment with no meaningful impact on airport operations and no verified safety incidents related to the absence of lead at our airports. We also know that there are alternatives available today.

In 2023, the county sold over 270,000 gallons of unleaded aviation gasoline at Reid-Hillview Airport, and we are also working with a producer to secure a supply of 100 octane unleaded aviation gasoline that the FAA has approved for use by the entire general aviation fleet.

And we expect that there will be a supply sufficient to meet the entire state's needs by 2027. Our communities have suffered from exposure from general aviation for far too long, and the county respectfully requests your yes vote today on SB 1193.

I am taking the Committee amendments. Just thank you.

Thank you for that. Moving on to members of the community that are in support in a me too fashion name, organization and position.

Good afternoon. Chair Members Ross Buckley, on behalf of South Coast Air Quality Management District in support.

Nicole Morales, on behalf of Children Now in support.

Stephanie Estrada, on behalf of the City of San Jose and San Jose International Airport, in support. Thank you.

Sofia Rafikova with a Coalition for Clean Air Proud, co-sponsor of this bill and strong support.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters in support. Also on behalf of Clean Water Action, Environmental Defense Fund and Clean Earth for Kids in support. Thank you.

Annie Hargrove on behalf of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in support.

Neha Saju on behalf of the Western Center on Law and Poverty and the California League of United Latin American Citizens proud co-sponsors of SB 1193 in strong support.

Hi, Justin Bowers, cleanearthforkids.org strongly supports. In addition, the North County Equity and Justice, Facts, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Eco-Sustainability Peeps and the NCCCA also strongly support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sylvia Solis Shaw, on behalf of the City of Los Angeles, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Raquel Welch, proud member of Cassell neighborhood, San Jose, California. Thank you. Support, strongly support.

Gilbert Reyes from San Jose, California, proud support SB 93.

All right, thank you. Now, moving on to opposition to the bill, there is opposition on file, and I believe we have witnesses. And so you come forward and two minutes each, please.

Okay. Thank you. Chair Wilson and Members of the Assembly Transportation Committee. My name is Kevin Edwards, and I'm the manager of the Nevada County Airport.

I'm here today on behalf of the rural counties of California and the rural airports like mine that serve as vital infrastructure for commerce, supply, flight training and emergency response in our 40 member rural counties throughout the state. Our general aviation airports are sometimes underappreciated part of our transportation network.

But make no mistake about it, they are critical to the communities they serve, especially in rural areas. There are ports of goods and services just like any other land and seaports. They facilitate a variety of commerce, and they serve as critical nodes for emergency response during natural disaster events.

While we appreciate the goals of this bill, as well as the amendments suggested by this Committee, the reality is that we are completely at the mercy of the supply chain that is determined by the federal rules and national markets.

And though the amendments attempt to address those concerns by pushing out the timeline for the band, I cannot tell you today that those issues will not be figured out by January 1, 2031. My concern is that what happens if the supply chain issues needed, and approvals are not figured out by then?

This bill assumes that I can operate my airport under two sets of rules, federal and state. The truth is, I cannot. General aviation airports, like Nevada counties, greatly rely on federal grants to stay operational. We also rely on commercial fuel sales to keep us in the black.

If we're required to switch to an alternate standard that is not federally certified, that is not safety tested to industry standards, and that is not commercially available in sufficient quantities to reach small mountain airports like mine, we would lose our customers and potentially lose our facility altogether.

We cannot force this issue without affecting a safe transition to unleaded fuel. Forcing transition that isn't ready causes serious safety concerns and goes against the very fabric of aviation industry standards. Simply put, putting lives at risk.

You have to wrap up, sir.

Shuttering business and commercial and commerce by forcing transition of fuel to lessen a bad situation isn't the answer.

On behalf of the California Airports Council and the Association of California Airports, we respectfully remain opposed unless amended. First, we'd like to thank Senator Menjivar and the Committee for all of their work on the efforts and measure to align this bill with federal law.

Airports will adopt a neutral position if language is restored in the bill to ensure airports are not caught between conflicting state law and federal law.

In the event that FAA and the fuel industry do not meet the deadline of December 31, 2030 for the complete transition away from leaded fuels. Should the goal of 2030 not be met, enacting SB 1193 in its current form would expose airports to unnecessary and costly legal challenges for the failure to follow state law.

Since airports are obligated to adhere to federal law, any local state law conflicting with federal requirements would inevitably lead to lawsuits wasting local government resources and taxpayer money. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Now moving to members of the public who would like to offer Me To testimony, name, organization and position.

Zach Leary on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association. We have an opposed unless amended position, but we're going to review the amendments proposed by the Committee.

Good afternoon. Brenda Bass with the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition. Thank you.

Sid Nag with Rural County Representatives of California. Double dipping. But I did want to say our appreciation to the Chair and the Committee for the work they've done, and we still remain opposed. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jared Yoshiki with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, but also representing Vertical Aviation International, the National Air Transportation Association, the National Business Aviation Association, and I believe the national, I forget one, but we are now neutral in the bill.

We want to thank the chair and the author for working with us on the deadline issue. And we do share the concerns, however, with the airports as well. Thank you so much.

Thank you moving to Members of the Committee for any questions or comments. Lowenthal.

First of all, I just need to thank the Senator for bringing this legislation forward. You know, the number one job in government is protecting its citizens.

And I think that you very appropriately pointed out that we have some of the worst air, you know, in the case of the 69th Assembly District, some of the worst air in the United States because the goods movement and because of the airport and the lead fuels the airport.

In fact, we had a disproportionate amount of people pass away from COVID because of underlying lung disease associated with those things. And so, you know, I want to, you know, give props to the opposition for some of the points that you brought forward, because these are real things, issues around grants for airports.

As you know, all small airports rely upon those grants. Not all, but for the most part, I believe almost all the issue around availability of fuels that, you know, and the manufacturing, those are all real problems. The truth of the matter is, is there's an overall collective action problem that we have right now in terms of gravitating towards what's next.

And I see this more an economic problem than anything else because we don't have the downward pressure, the downward compression of pricing, because the industry hasn't gravitated yet towards what that alternative fuel is going to be. And, you know, the Federal Government reauthorization also that you brought forward, Sandra, that's real as well.

But I think that, you know, for the most part, the Federal Government needs to understand that the state is demanding relief, that the people in California insist upon relief, that there's underlying health concerns cannot be ignored under any circumstances whatsoever.

And I implore my colleagues to understand what's happening in the sender's district, in my district, and the underlying healthcare is concerned, and I will be supporting this bill today.

All right. Seeing none other. Is there a motion? Lowenthal, I didn't hear the second. All right, Jackson all right. I mean, I heard the second. There were just multiple seconds at the same time. I couldn't hear the winner. All right. So we have a motion made by Lowenthal with a second by Jackson.

You know, to the author, I appreciate you elevating this issue and working to alleviate a number of opposition concern and better align this bill with federal law.

Thank you for accepting the amendments to remove the phased out timeline of leaded act aviation gasoline and instead ban the sale of leaded aviation gasoline beginning January 1, 2031 which is more consistent with what the Federal Aviation Administration is already doing in this space.

There still is, as you noted, an outstanding issue that would help to ensure that if this bill goes into effect and federal efforts do not meet the target date, that airports would not risk losing federal funds.

I support this amendment, and should the author wish to make it as the bill moves forward, you know, I'm supportive of that. I will be supporting the bill today, and I appreciate all the back and forth conversation that we had on this particular bill. There has been a motion made by Lowenthal, seconded by Jackson.

I'll give the author opportunity to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Assemblymember, for your, for your remarks. This bill had, I think it's hit, it's 100th different versions from when I introduced the bill. And a lot of amendments did come from having conversations with the opposition, very open door policy. And I took all those amendments in good faith.

The biggest concern was I started with a 2026 phased in approach, and that year was too soon, so I moved it to 2027. And then the reporting guidelines from airports was burdensome, so I removed that amendment.

And then I included an opt out provision to ensure that we weren't impacting airports should the, should unleaded fuel not be commercially available. Then the airport said that they wanted me to match it with federal guidelines of 2030. I did just that with the Madam Chair's Committee Amendment.

So I've taken almost every single amendment from the opposition and every single time a new one popped up. So I believe I did this bill in very good faith, address as many concerns as possible and will, and committing to right now working with you, Madam Chair, and adding some additional protections for smaller airports.

Because I don't want a bill just to have a bill. I want it to be implemented. And should we get closer to 2030 and it's really not commercially available, then I'll come back and introduce a bill that tweaks it.

But my goal is to ban unleaded fuel in California, to make sure it actually happens, to make sure airports are successful in making this happen, because I don't want to just have a bill on the books, just to have a bill on the books.

I want airports to really be safe for their surrounding communities without respectfully asking for an aye vote.

All right, Madam Secretary.

SB 1193. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll Call] 9-1

That's 9-1. That will hold the roll open for any Members not present. All right, moving on to a file item with an author present. Item number 13, SB 1297, Allen.

At your convenience.

There we go. Okay. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Appreciate it. Thank you, Members. The beautiful Pacific Coast Highway. It's one of the most famous, picturesque roadways in the world. It draws millions of visitors every year to the small beach city of Malibu.

But literally every couple of months, the community is devastated by yet another fatal traffic accident, with all sorts of serious crashes happening in between. Already, several people have died on this stretch of highway, even since I just introduced the bill.

One of the many of these terrible incidences was on October 17th, 2023, when a young man speeding at 104 miles an hour on the PCH in Malibu lost control of his vehicle and killed four young Pepperdine University students standing on the side of the road.

Since 2010, 60 people have been killed in vehicle accidents along the same beautiful but exceedingly dangerous stretch of highway. Crash data from last year from the LA County Sheriff reports something like 127 property damage collisions, 93 injury collisions, seven deaths. The primary factor in all of these incidences was high vehicle speeding.

The whole city has about 10,000 people, but it ranks as having one of the worst crash fatality rates of any small city in the country. And it's because of this roadway.

Among 100 similarly sized California cities, the Office of Traffic Safety ranked Malibu number one in total injuries and fatalities, number one in pedestrian injuries and fatalities, number one in speed-related injuries and fatalities, number one in motorcycle injuries and fatalities, and third in bicycle injuries and fatalities, which is pretty extraordinary given how little biking infrastructure there is in the city.

And we know so much of that is because of speeding. The faster a car is traveling, the greater the risk of serious injury or death. A pedestrian struck by a vehicle traveling only 40 mph has an 80% chance of dying. One proven way to slow drivers down is automated speed camera enforcement.

The NTSB that you've heard about earlier, the Centers for Disease Control, the Federal Highway Administration, have all recommended using speed cameras to enforce speed limits. Speed cameras are even an authorized expenditure under the federal infrastructure jobs, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The FHA data shows speed cameras reduced crashes on urban streets by 54%.

An NTSB review of speed camera programs around the world found cameras to be effective in reducing fatal collisions under all sorts of circumstances. So, this bill seeks to create a speed camera program for the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. In this one city, it's nearly identical to Assembly Member Friedman's legislation, AB 645.

There are lots of provisions in there to address the many privacy, equity, and reporting requirements that came up through the course of the year. They're used to clearly identify the presence of the speed safety system using enhanced signage, flashing beacons, speed feedback signs. There has to be regular inspection and calibration of the cameras.

There's a very strong equity reporting element to this, a public information campaign, all sorts of protections with regards to privacy and the storage of confidential information. There are fine limitations.

There's a series of equity provisions specific to the fines, including requirements for diversion program for indigent individuals and folks who are at a certain point below the federal poverty line.

The only two differences from the Friedman Bill, the most significant, really only significant ones, are that the city has to post additional feedback signs at each camera location and the city has to maintain its existing contracting with CHP and the LA sheriffs for patrols.

Reducing speed is an imperative for saving lives, and the bill enjoys support from the sheriff, from the League of Cities, our county supervisor, a wide range of the active transportation organizations that you've seen testify with several of the bills earlier today. And I'm just really hopeful that we'll be able to do something meaningful there on the highway.

I want to thank the Chair for our robust dialogue and engagement on this issue. I know that there's an effort underway that Assembly Member Haney is working on with the Chair to look at the question of speed cameras statewide.

I've said to the Chair, and I want to reiterate my commitment to her, that if this bill does pass, I want to do everything I can to ensure that it folds really nicely into whatever deal is struck between the Chair and Assembly Member Haney.

With regards to a statewide program, I want to make sure that it's something that's going to really fit in nicely with those broader efforts. But we also want to see action taken now, literally, we're having someone die every couple months on this little stretch of road.

And so, testifying in support today, we have Michelle Shane, whose daughter Emily was killed in 2010. He's also the producer of the very powerful documentary 21 Miles in Malibu. I'll never forget serving on the school board when one of our students, Miss Shane, Emily Shane, was killed, mowed down by an angry person on the road.

We also have Bridget Thompson, who's here, who's a Pepperdine student, a close friend of the four young women who were killed in October. And to answer technical questions, we have Kathleen Gallagher with Blue End Solutions, Assembly Member Rusty Arias, who served on this Committee for 11 years and has represented Malibu for the past 22 years.

And so with that, I'd love to turn it over to my colleague Jacqui Irwin, who also represents the city.

Good afternoon, Members and Madam Chair. I think Senator Allen covered most of the important points. I really do appreciate the opportunity to present alongside him on a 1297, a bill on which I am a principal co-author. As Senator Allen mentioned, Pacific Coast Highway in my district is an iconic corridor offering incredible views of our gorgeous coast.

But with great beauty, unfortunately, comes distraction in attention and often a desire to speed, to recreate some of the iconic movies and commercials that were filmed along this coastal stretch.

These drawbacks to PCH's infamy result in consistent traffic accidents that often have fatal consequences, most recently culminating with the deaths of four Pepperdine University students who were standing on the side of the road. The rates at which innocent Californians die along this highway demand that we, as legislators, take more action.

The speed camera programs SB 1297 would create offers a substantial way to reduce driver speed and save lives from traffic accidents.

Good afternoon, esteemed Members of the Committee. I am Michelle Shane, a grieving father, filmmaker, and advocate for Malibu, who experienced the devastating consequence of reckless driving firsthand. 14 years ago, my vibrant 13-year-old daughter, Emily, was killed by a speeding driver on PCH.

This senseless act of violence left an inevitable mark on my family, her school, and our entire community. Emily was more than just a name. She was a bright light, full of life promise, with a future that is cruelly cut short by a driver who chose to prioritize reckless speed over human life.

The pain of her life has been a constant, gnawing ache in the years since, a void that never can be filled. Her young friends were forever changed by trauma of losing a peer at such a young, tender age. No child should have to endure that kind of pain. No parent should have to bury a child.

Malibu, my home, is a unique town with a dangerous highway running through its heart. Imagine a community of just 10,000 residents, yet 40,000 cars travel through it daily, 15 million vehicles a year. On a holiday weekend that numbers surge hundreds of thousands, sometimes even 400,000 on a beautiful Sunday.

It's a destination location, a college town, and people's homes. Yet the main road through our town is a war zone disguised as a resort. My film, 21 Miles, explores the history of our town and delves deeply into the tragedies that have occurred on this dangerous road. In the years since Emily's death, there have been 60 more deaths.

Countless lives have forever changed. The speeding and the recklessness and the loss it must end. The ripple effect of this behavior devastates not just the victims and their families, but entire communities. Such systems have proven their effectiveness in reducing speeding and saving lives.

Sir, you have to wrap your comments up.

Okay, it's time for action. I do not wish you to walk in my shoes and feel the pain that I feel every day. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Bridget Thompson. I'm a recent graduate from Pepperdine University. And eight months ago today, on October 17th, 2023, I lost my best friends. I lost all of my college roommates. I lost my future bridesmaids. I lost my everything.

Deslyn Williams, Niamh Rolston, Asha Weir, and Peyton Stewart were killed by a car driving at an unimaginable speed on a road that has been taking lives for far too long. On October 17th, 2023, I stood on the side of PCH until 03:00 a.m. screaming, crying, and begging for my best friends to be okay.

I called every hospital in the area, trying to locate my best friends, unknowing that their lives were stripped from them in the matter of a split second, unknowing that a hospital wasn't even necessary. I stood there that night in a state of complete helplessness.

And I stand here in front of you today, unwilling to feel that helplessness again, begging for a change to be made. It could have been me that night. I went with these girls everywhere. This was the one time that I wasn't with them. And today, I stand here knowing it still can be me.

Pacific Coast Highway continues to be just as unsafe as it was eight months ago. But above all, I stand here for Deslyn's loyalty, for Niamh's heart of gold, for Asha's wisdom, and for Peyton's selflessness. I stand here for their dreams, for their aspirations, and for their goals. I ask that you please show me that you're hearing me.

I ask that you show me that you understand the worth of my best friends lives.

I ask that you show me that when you hear the names of Deslyn Williams, Niamh Rolston, Asha Weir, and Peyton Stewart, you feel a heartbreak so profound that you can't even bear the thought of not doing everything in your power to make sure this never happens again.

If you kill this bill, you're putting me, my friend, Malibu families, and everyday commuters at risk of being killed with it. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to members of the public who would like to offer me too testimony. Name, organization, and position.

After that, it's hard to talk. I'm Doug Stewart. I'm the Mayor Pro Tem, City of Malibu. And I'm in favor of this bill. And the city's in favor of it. And we ask you for your support.

Sir that's. That's all. Reminder. Name, organization, and position.

Madam Chair, Brandon Epp, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sheriff, Robert Luna, in proud support. Thank you.

I'm Steve McClary. I'm the Malibu City Manager. And the City of Malibu is in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Damian Kevitt, on behalf of Streets are for Everyone, Safe Families and Faith for Safer Streets in strong support.

Hello. Jared Sanchez with the California Bicycle Coalition in support.

Good afternoon. Mark Vukcevich. We were the sponsor of AB 645 and we're supporting this bill also on behalf of Move LA.

Seamus Garrity from Lighthouse Public Affairs, on behalf of Blue Line Solutions in support.

John Moffatt for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation in support.

Silvia Solis Shaw, here on behalf of the City of West Hollywood. We actually have a support, if amended, position. We believe that these speed safety systems work, and we would like to see the appeal amended to include our city. Thank you very much.

All right, moving. I don't think we have. We do. Opposition on file. I'm not sure if they're testifying today. Do we have any opposition testifying today? And this is an opportunity for members of the public who wanted to note a quick opposition. Now would be the appropriate time to come forward. Name, position, name, organization, and position.

Seeing none, moving on to Committee. But before, I do like to just share my own comments. I usually go at the end, but I want to share them at the beginning.

First of all, thank you to the author for bringing this forward and to my colleague and the conversation we had in the fall about this particular subject and matter. I want to thank the those testifying in support. Mister Shane, Miss Thompson, there is no loss that is overcome by time, as people say.

The loss is deep, and it's felt every day. So, I appreciate you coming and really petitioning your government to change and update laws to allow for safety and safe passage for pedestrians and cyclists and everyone on PCH.

My concern is the active convening of stakeholders in a spirit of pursuing the broader conversation around highway safety and speeding cameras, speed enforcement cameras. And as was noted, the author noted earlier that it was that I brought it to his attention that this needs to be a part of that larger conversation.

I appreciate you working with California Highway Patrol on the amendments that you've put forth, but at the same time, there are others who want speed cameras on our highway system, which is very different than our residential neighborhoods.

As was noted in the analysis, Friedman, former Chair of Transportation, brought forth a bill that had been negotiated on probably over 10 years to address speeding in neighborhoods, predominantly Black and brown neighborhoods.

And they were able to finally get to a place where that bill passed easily in this Committee and through the other committees and on the Floor.

But still, at the end of the day, highways are different, and there are larger conversations to be had about their role, about protecting workers, about protecting those that are not just on a traditional, what you would call a traditional highway or those that I call Main Street, as I have one of those in my district and in my own city that I live in.

But because of that broader conversation and this needing to be a part of that broader conversation, and I feel very strongly about that, I'm not going to be able to support this bill today. However, I have Members of the Committee Inquired on my position.

I noted what my position is, that I believe this needs to be a part of the larger conversation, but was not holding any other Members to that standard, that it is as Chair my duty, as I've been actively having these conversation with other stakeholders who would like speed cameras to not let someone break out of that conversation.

So, I'm going to hold to that spirit of those active negotiations and convening of stakeholders for highway safety and the role of speed cameras. But we'll leave it to the Members to vote their conscience on this subject. With that, I'll look for any other Members who would like to make comments, questions, or any concerns. Assembly Member Carrillo

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to express my concern where things happen elsewhere in the state. Highway 138 goes through my district called Palmdale Boulevard at certain portions of the highway. And in Pear Blossom, an area that I represent, two just outside of Palmdale, conditions exist where traffic has been a big concern.

In fact, no more than two months ago, within one week, in two separate traffic accidents, eight people lost their lives because of the conditions on those roads. So, it's not that I'm not sympathetic to this bill, it's just that something that I had to express because these things happen elsewhere.

The high desert, again, Highway 138, these things happen a lot, head-on collisions, and I'm not aware of any pedestrians in this last incidents. However, I just want to also voice my concern, because this happens elsewhere in the state, and that's something that I'm concerned about. I will be supporting the bill.

I do believe that we need to do something about this, but I also just wanted to express the concerns of lives being lost on highways where we need to also pay attention to. Thank you for that.

Aguiar-Curry.

Yeah, this is a tough one. I think I'm going to support the bill today. But, Senator Allen, I would hope that you will continue to work on it because I've driven on that stretch before and it's dangerous.

And the infrastructure, I see some changes that could happen, and I'm hoping you'll continue to work with people on this bill. You and Assembly Member Haney have similar bills, and hopefully, you guys can work out something together. But it breaks my heart. Right?

We don't want families to go through this, but that particular stretch you're talking about has always given me a little bit of heartburn when I've gone through that as well. So, I just want to express that I will support the bill today, and I may, I may have a change of heart when I'm on the Floor.

I just, I do want to jump in that this is, you've seen the City of Malibu here. You see the state legislators here. Caltrans, the number one person, the Secretary of Transportation, came down because they realized what a big problem it is, and it has to be a comprehensive solution.

So, the state has invested, I think it's $3 million in the last few months to make sure that this is not the only part of the solution. In addition, as the Senator mentioned, the city has paid for additional deputies and to have CHP patrolling an area that they haven't patrolled in the last, I think, 30 years.

And the commitment is that they will have to continue to patrol that area. There is still work to be done. We would really appreciate your support. But like I said, this is not the only part that, of the solution that we're looking at.

Thank you. Sorry. For technical witnesses only if they're asked a direct question on technicality, on technical issues. But we do have a primary and support person. So, I'm going to Lowenthal and then Wicks.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will also be supporting the Bill today, and I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward today and how difficult it must be for you to relive these moments in your advocacy and how challenging it is.

I also like to take a moment to acknowledge how difficult it's been for our Chair, who has spoken so many times to all of us, individually and collectively, at every opportunity, and how challenging it is.

And I hope that the proponents of this bill and the witnesses in favor understand that in sometimes perfect is the enemy of good. Right? And the Chair is wanting to have comprehensive policy that benefits all Californians, as the author noted, you know, so eloquently in his opening.

How difficult it is in moments like these to make decisions like this that can have statewide implications. So, I really want to commend the Chair for that thought process.

Thank you. I also want to thank the chair for your leadership and really pushing for a larger conversation. I think that's actually very critical. I mean, people are driving too damn fast across the State of California, and we're seeing the tragic effects of that. I want to thank the folks who testified for sharing your personal stories.

I think sometimes up here in Sacramento, we get lost in the minutiae of policy. And so. to hear your stories, story of your daughter, story of your friends, I think paints a real picture for us about the policy choices that we make here in Sacramento. So, just really appreciate your testimony and your advocacy.

And to Senator Allen, I'll be supporting the bill today. I do ask that you remain a part of the broader, larger conversation, because I think what the Chair is trying to accomplish here, as well as with Assembly Member Haney, is really a comprehensive solution because we see it, to Mister Carrillo's point.

We see it in our communities all across the State of California. I see it in, you know, in my district as well. We have high rates of death in certain, you know, areas of our, of our state that we have to really confront. But I also, I see what you're trying to do.

And so, I'll be supporting the bill today and would love to also be a part of the broader conversations when the time is right on that and just deeply appreciate your leadership in this space.

Seeing no. Oh, Papan.

I just want to echo those comments. I do hope we keep the broader discussion going. I want to thank you for being here. This is no easy task for you to be here. It's very difficult for us as well, to hear these heartbreaking stories.

And I hope that we can do good not only in Malibu, but in the high desert in my district. And we'll do it in a methodical way, Madam Chair. I believe we can get there. I'm going to give you my vote today, though, Senator, and thank you for taking this on. It's not easy looking at those pictures.

All right. With that, I see no other, just confirming. No other comments, questions? And that's what I was going to ask for. So, I have a motion by Lowenthal and a second by Ting. All right. With that, Senator, give you an opportunity to close now that we have a motion on the Floor.

I appreciate the discussion, appreciate the witnesses very much. And I've heard the comments loud and clear from you, Madam Chair. And your colleagues want to make sure this is part of a broader effort. We also want to make progress in this incredibly, very dangerous part of highway in our district. And in that spirit, I ask for your aye vote.

And then also very much commit to ensure that this is part of a broader statewide effort as that negotiation proceeds in the fall.

Thank you. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 1297, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. [Roll call]

That's 12-1 with holding the roll open for Members to who are not present to add on.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Oh, did you?

Yes. Moving on to, in file order, to item number five, SB 930, Laird.

Wait.

We let them go ahead of us. But I was supposed to.

Oh, they were. You weren't in the room.

I'm in the room now.

Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't, I. When I looked up before, I didn't see you in the room. My apologies. So we will let you go ahead. My apologies to Senator Laird for getting things all mixed up. So, item number 12. SB 1271, Min.

Oh.

But they gave me a heads up that they were wrapping up, but, good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members.

SB 1271 is a common sense Bill to clarify the definition of each electric bicycle or e-bike class, and enhance the safety and regulatory compliance of e-bikes and electric scooters by requiring them to be manufactured with batteries that meet European unions and underwriter laboratories standards.

In recent years, we've seen in all of our communities a skyrocketing of the sale and use of e-bikes, and that has raised novel concerns about potential speed and risks.

We've all read about the headlines with e-bike battery and e-scooter battery fires, and these have been on the rise due, in large part, to the proliferation of poorly fit manufactured batteries. SB 1271 would protect consumers and the public by removing low quality, battery powered personal mobility devices from the market.

And in addition to the problem with batteries, it would address another problem where manufacturers have been selling e-bikes allowed to switch between speed modes, allowing a bike to move from a slower class 2 throttle mode, to a faster class 3 pedal assist mode.

These class 3 devices are not considered e-bikes in the vehicle code and cause confusion with regard to the policing of these vehicles, as class 2 e-bikes follow different rules of the road than class 3 e-bikes.

Additionally, many parents are unaware that when they purchase a switchable class 2 e-bike for their child, that it is illegal for a child to operate a bike in the class 3 range, since it allows them to reach speeds of up to 28 mph.

This measure would modify the definition of e-bike classes to clarify the appropriate class for a switchable e-bike. Today I have with me Marc Vukcevich, advocate for Streets For All, to testify in support of SB 1271.

Go ahead. Two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee. Mark Vukcevich, Streets For All. Senator Min summed up the issue well, so I'll be brief with my comments. E-bikes, they're the fastest selling EV on the market. They are fun. They, they replace car trips, according to the research.

They bring a freedom of movement and mobility for people who don't want to drive or who can't drive, but there's two problems that we're trying to address here with this Bill. So one is the batteries. Batteries. These are lithium ion batteries. When they're on a bicycle, they shake, they rattle.

They have the potential for getting sand inside or water. They go from hot conditions to cold conditions. They need to be high quality batteries to prevent fires like the ones we've seen in New York City and San Francisco and across the country. And most of those come from shoddy e-bikes anyways, and especially the batteries.

And the biggest problem is that those lithium ion batteries potentially go through a process that's known as thermal runaway, where the fire can truly get out of control very quickly.

The second thing that our Bill does is that we are trying to regulate and upkeep the standard that we think of as what a good quality e-bike is and ensure that these bicycles that are essentially and legally mopeds, or mini motorcycles, can't be called e-bikes.

And so we do that, and we worked with the Committee very closely on some changes within how these bikes can be advertised. And then we also change the definition of how these bikes work in the vehicle code to ensure that these quote, unquote multi class e-bikes that are functionally mopeds can no longer exist in the market, as it can be called e-bikes. That's what our Bill does. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to members of the public who would like to offer me two support. Name, organization and position.

Mario Guerrero on behalf of the University of California, in support.

Damian Kevitt on behalf of Streets Are For Everyone, in support.

We have a motion by Papan. Moving on to opposition, second by whoever you are, Berman, I didn't see any opposition on file, but I and no one coming forward. Is there anyone who would offer a quick opposition? Name, position and organization. Seeing none, we have a motion made by Papan and seconded by Berman. Just seeing no comments.

Appreciate you bringing this Bill forward today to enhance battery safety for micro mobility devices. As the Bill moves forward, please continue to work with UL solutions and local fire marshals to ensure we put in place standards that can best protect public safety.

Thank you for the provisions in this Bill clarifying that electric powered vehicle capable of going speeds greater than 28 mph are not electric bicycles. With that, I'll be supporting your Bill today, give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and to your staff for all your hard work on this Bill. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary?

SB 1271, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Emergency Management. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies? Aguiar-Curry? Berman? Berman, aye. Carrillo? Carrillo, aye. Hart? Hart, aye. Hoover? Hoover, aye. Jackson? Lowenthal? Lowenthal, aye. Papan? Papan, aye. Sanchez? Sanchez, aye. Ting? Ting, aye. Wallis? Ward? Ward, aye. Wicks? Wicks, aye.

That has 11 votes. We'll hold the roll open for Members to add on who are not present. With that, moving on to item number five, SB 930, Laird.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Senate Bill 930 establishes the Memorial Highway Signage Fund to promote equity in memorial highway designations. There are 642 memorial highways and transportation structures honoring individuals across California, and 82% of them are named for men, even though women make up half the population.

I have colleagues in the Senate that stay off namings just because of the inequity, and I talked to them many times. A couple of made a run at this as to why we don't deal with the overall issue. And so that's what this bill is designed to do.

It's to set up a fund, since sometimes it costs eight to $10,000 for the signage, so that we, by resolution the way we normally name highways, can start catching up and naming various highways and structures for women. This does not mean that we would not continue to name highways for fallen officers, regardless of their gender.

We would do that, but we would make sure over time we had a process for equity. And so it builds on the work we've done in many other places for equity in the state, and it sort of has to combine a bunch of things to make it happen.

We can't have money in the bill because that doesn't really survive this year. So we have the process for how the money goes in. We don't really want to get in the way of naming for fallen officers. We want to reserve the right as the Legislature to do the naming.

So we do all these together, and hopefully this will begin a process by which we can move more and more to equity in the naming of our transportation structures in the state.

We'll continue to work on the funding to go into the fund that's established by this bill, but I think we have taken previous amendments to allow us to work through a lot of these issues. So with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Berman, motion. Ward, you want to be a second? We have a motion on the floor by Berman and a second by Ward. Any discussion? Well, I'm sorry. Let me move to members of the public. So is there anyone who is testifying in support or opposition? Seeing none.

Is there any members of the public who would like to give a me too comment, a quick comment in support or opposition? Name, organization and position? Seeing none. Moving to Committee, see if there's any comments, questions or concerns. Seeing none.

I'll just note, thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward and highlighting the lack of diversity in our highway naming process. Since 2012, as you noted in your testimony, about 90% of the memorial resolutions the Legislature have passed have been for men.

While these individuals have made great sacrifice, they do not fully represent the wide range of public service contributions, as well as gender and racial diversity of California's communities.

This bill creates a new account in the state treasury as a repository for any state General Fund appropriations, public or private donations or grants, and any federal funds that would be available to Caltrans upon appropriation by the Legislature to erect signage memorializing individuals who have promoted racial or gender equity. With that, I'll be supporting this bill today, give you an opportunity to close. No close. Oh, go ahead.

Appreciate your comments. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary.

SB 930, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill has 10-1 for votes, and we'll hold the roll open for Members to add on that are not present. Last but not least, item number six, SB 934. Gonzalez, presented by our colleague, Assemblymember Lowenthal. At your convenience, you may begin.

Madam Chair and Members, I'm here today to present Senate Bill 934, which will coordinate the infrastructure build out needed to transition California's freight sector to zero emissions technology.

I would like to start by stating the Senator's commitment to amend the Bill in the next policy committee to move the central delivery team from the California Transportation Commission to the California State Transportation Agency, described on page five of the analysis. The Senator would like to thank the Committee staff for their work on this.

California has ambitious climate goals that require the transportation sector to transition to zero-emissions vehicles rapidly, including deadlines as early as this year for drayage trucks. However, one of the major impediments to the successful implementation of this regulation is the lack of available charging and refueling infrastructure, especially for medium and heavy-duty vehicles.

This barrier was identified by the California Transportation Commission's recently published Clean Freight Corridor Assessment, which recommended that the creation of a state-level entity to take lead on infrastructure network deployment. Senate Bill 934 builds off this recommendation by creating a central delivery team for freight zero-emission vehicle infrastructure at the California Energy Commission and California Transportation Commission.

Specifically, the central delivery team will coordinate action among different stakeholders and agencies, identify available funding sources, and develop standardized station development models, among other goals. Testifying in support of the Bill today is Megan Mekelburg, representing Calstart.

Hi there. Thank you. Good afternoon Chair and Members, Megan Mekelburg here on behalf of Calstart, which is a global nonprofit organization dedicated to the advancement of zero-emission vehicles and infrastructure technology. As you all know, short and long-term planning for ZEV infrastructure is essential for California to meet its climate and ZEV goals.

The creation of the zero-emission freight central delivery team would encourage greater coordination among state agencies and result in best practices and recommendations to expedite infrastructure development necessary for the state to serve the needs of medium and heavy-duty ZEV infrastructure or fleets.

SB 934 also ensures that there will be a coordinated workforce necessary for the long-term sustainability of ZEV infrastructure and the freight industry more broadly. We want to thank Senator Gonzalez for her leadership on this issue, the Assemblymember for presenting the Bill today. Calstart is proud to support SB 934 and ask for your support today.

Thank you. We have a motion on the floor from Assemblymember Ward and a second by Sanchez. With that, we'll move to Members of the public who are in support. Me too testimony, name, organization, and position.

Thank you. Michelle Canales with the Union of Concerned Scientists in support.

Thank you, Chair and Members, Chris Zgraggen with ChargePoint, on behalf of Chargepoint in support, thank you.

Thank you. Now moving to any member of the public who is in opposition, we have none recorded, but just giving an opportunity for anyone to come forward, even on a quick note of me too, in terms of name, organization, position. Seeing none. Moving back to the Committee to see if there's any comments or questions or concerns.

Seeing none. Thank you, Assemblymember Lowenthal, for stepping in for Senator Gonzalez. The ill will help to raise awareness around the challenges of building zero-emission fueling infrastructure for freight vehicles as the state makes the zero-emission vehicle transition.

And the formation of the central delivery team will help coordinate the numerous stakeholders working in this space and bring us closer to reaching our climate goals. I appreciate Senator Gonzalez for being willing to amend this Bill in the next Committee to move the delivery team to State Transportation Agency instead of housing it in California Transportation Commission.

With that, I'll be supporting this Bill today. Give you an opportunity to close if you so choose.

Yes, Madam Chair. Actually, everyone, this will only take about 40 minutes. If you don't mind. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. With that, there's a motion by Ward, a second by Sanchez. Madam Secretary.

SB 934, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Utilities and Energy. [Roll Call]

That Bill has 10 votes. We'll leave the roll open for Members to add on who are not present. The time is 5:24. We will go through all the bills.

Once we've gone through all of the bills in order, if you are not in the space by 530, then we will be closing the rolls, and those will be the permanent vote tally. With that, we will start on consent. We had six bills on consent, Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill has 15 votes. So it is complete, right? Yes, it's complete. So that Bill is out moving. I'm sorry. That Bill. The consent calendar is out. Moving on to item number one, SB 59.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is 11 to four. All votes accounted for. That Bill is out. Item number two.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has 15 votes. All votes accounted for. It is out. Item number three.

[Roll Call]

That has 10 to three. There are still votes not counted, so not closed yet. Sorry. I'm sorry. 113. Still open for Members to add on. Moving on to item number five. SB 930. Laird Davies, Aguiar Curry, Jackson Wallace. Remains 102. Still open. I'm sorry. 101. That Bill is still open for Members to add on. Moving on to item number six, SB 934. Gonzalez. We just finished that one, so I was. Do we need to do it? Well, we'll keep moving. Item number seven. SB 961.

[Roll Call]

All right, we have 94. It's not complete. zero, wait. zero, yes. Two. Not votings. My apologies. That is a complete vote. So that Bill is out. Closed. Item number nine. SB 1098.

[Roll Call]

That has 14 votes. The roll is not complete, so we'll hold it open. As a reminder, we have about two and a half minutes remaining before the vote. The rolls close, permanently. Moving on to item number 11, SB 1193.

[Roll Call]

Okay. All right, that Bill is 111. All votes accounted for. So that is closed. It is out and it is closed. All right, item number 12, SB 1271 Min.

[Roll Call]

Remains at 11. It's still open for the next minute and a half. All right, moving on to item number 13. SB 1297. Allen. Still open, remains at the status quo. Item number 14. SB 1313. Ashby Berman.

[Roll Call]

It's 140. Not a complete roll. So still open for the remaining moments. Item number 20. You gotta wait. Item number 20. ACR 215.

[Roll Call]

All right, that has 15 and is out. And it is closed. Okay, moving backwards in time. Okay, so I have. Item number. What is this? 3904 dot. I'm sorry, hold on. Once we go through these, we are now closed. So for any Members not present, your vote will be unaccounted for permanently. All right, item.

I'm gonna close them, though. Or do I need to? We have Wallace. Okay, item number three. Nine b. I'm nine b. SB 904, Dodd is 113 and it is closed. It is out. Moving on to item number 5, SB930. Laird.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out at 111 and now closed. Item number 6934. Gonzalez.

[Roll Call]

zero, that I. That Bill has 11 votes. It is out and is now closed. Moving on to item number nine. SB 1098. Blakes fair. Jackson I. That has 15. Bill is out. 15. And it is now it's complete. All right, moving on to item number 12. SB 1271, Min.

[Roll Call]

All right, that has 12 votes. It is out and closed. The roll is closed. Moving on to item number 14. No, sorry. 1313. SB 1297. Allen As out on 131 and is now closed. Moving on finally to item number 14. SB 1313, That Bill is out with 15 votes and closed. With that, the Transportation Assembly Transportation Committee is now adjourned.