Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

A few housekeeping items. We're going to allow for two primary witnesses each for the support and for the opposition. Each witness will have two minutes, and any additional witnesses will ask to limit yourselves to name affiliation and your position on the Bill. We have two measures proposed for consent today.

The proposed consent Items are item two, SB272, by Senator Becker and item six, SB349 by Senator Archuleta. And I don't know if we have numbers yet to get to a quorum. It looks like we do not. We will come back to that. We'll also come back to adopting the Committee's rules and policies once we have a quorum.

Now, let's hear from our first author. We're going to proceed as a Committee of the whole. Senator Laird, are you the sole and therefore first author today? Thank you.

Please come forward and you may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm presenting Senate Bill 467, which you saw in a similar format last year. And we are working to make this happen. It was stuck in Assembly Appropriations. We are working with people to do it.

And basically, 82% of the highways, roads and bridges that are named in California are named for men. And what we're trying to do is set up an equity fund to make it possible to even that out. This does not have an appropriation, and this does not take away from the approval process.

The approval process still comes in resolutions that come to the legislature, but this is just an impetus to provide that equity because signs cost between 8 and $10,000 whenever there's a naming. And so this just builds on the work. We're still in conversations with Caltrans and the state controller's office to ensure that the fund can be implemented.

But this past last year, we're determined to make this work. It addresses a problem that is recognized.

And actually, since two of the three members were not here last year that are at the dais, I would just tell you that we had different members of the senate that were quietly laying off of resolutions to name freeways and things because they were for men and that everyone was for a man.

And my idea was, is, couldn't we address this issue another way? And that is this. And it is not block those that. That I voted for and we have passed. It is just making sure there are others that are there that provide the equity that I believe we need. So I respectfully request an aye vote. Yes.

I take the amendments.

Yeah. Thank you. Just a technical change to the name. Yes. Which is now the Highway Signage Fund. Yes. All right, thank you for that. Do we have witnesses? Senator Laird, do you have lead witnesses? No planned ones. Okay. Is there anyone here in the committee room who wishes to come forward and express support for the bill?

This is SB467 Laird. I've seen none. We'll go to opposition. We don't have listed any opposition witnesses. Is there anyone here in the committee room who wishes to come forward and express opposition? Seen none. We'll come back to the committee questions. Yes, Senator.

Senator Laird, I understand the goal of the has there been a problem of raising the private funds? Because my understanding these eight to $10,000, it's always been raised privately and it really didn't have to have a

Yes, but it's almost all been raised privately because in most of the cases it's public safety and public safety unions or organizations step up to do the raising. If there were to be naming that was not coming from there, then there would have to be a different kind of-

Have we had a problem? Not every I agree a lot of them are public safety. But have we had a problem with anybody that's not public safety not raising the appropriate funds to name a highway?

Well, there aren't many and ironically there are people that are former legislators or in a few cases mayors that or the other ones in the state seems to come up with the money in that instance. This is not a small number of people over time. This is a few hundred.

So if you did 8,000 to 10,000.

I was, you know, one of the- Just I'm just telling where I'm coming from. If we're going to name a highway or and we haven't had a problem of raising money privately, there's no reason for a fund coming from the state.

Well, that's if you accept the fact that 82% men and 18% women is acceptable because come from that system.

So are you saying is your testimony here today that says if it's named after a woman, we couldn't raise the money privately?

Well, we have to actually in most cases that's the point.

Okay, all right. I, I, I honestly I respect I just don't think it's necessary. The bill is necessary because I think we can raise money privately without having a state fund to do it. But I respect, I respect your goals of what you want to try to.

Accomplish through the chair. Since I know I'm not supposed to be doing this. This does not appropriate the money this provides for the private fundraising and a fund to allow for this to happen or if there's a time when there's a name and attached the state is willing to appropriate, great.

But this really sets up a fund and allows for that kind of private fundraising for this purpose.

My understanding of the bill is you're setting up the account so there's a line item for money to go into that would be specifically used for the, the narrow definition that you've created in the bill for those signs.

That's my understanding of the legislation, and I, I, I can attest to both of you being right to some extent. But having named a interchange after a former city council member who was deceased, who couldn't, of course, raise the money, had he been alive, he wouldn't have been able to raise the money knowing him personally.

And the member who was bringing the resolution forward here without mentioning names was in no position to, to raise money himself or to come out of pocket for money. So I ended up getting drafted into being the fundraising crew.

But, you know, it's not, it's not easy, and I think it's particularly challenging sometimes for, depending on the demographic, depending on, oftentimes on the location, you find that you're memorializing somebody that's coming from a poor demographic, a poor census tract, and it makes it even harder to get people behind, behind these things.

So I'm certainly supportive of the bill. I think these questions are good questions and hopefully there's minimal need for it, you know, in terms of dollars. Anything else from any other members of the committee before we move on to a roll call vote? I do think we have a quorum here now. We don't. We still don't.

Okay, thank. Thankfully we have people here who can count better than I can, so we won't take a vote right now.

Chair, I would just like to make. A quick comment on this bill.

Sure. Yes, you can.

Yes. I think this is a great bill, and I was surprised that it didn't make it through. So I want, I just was curious if you had any thoughts about why.

There was concern about cost pressures and it didn't make it out of Assembly Appropriations last year. And we are working on that to try to make sure that's not an issue this year.

Senator? Yeah. Mathematically, we're talking 5,000 to create the sign, 5,000 to put up the sign. Is that about right or what is the cost that's giving you a hard time?

The range of the cost is 8,000 to 10,000 for the signage for one naming. And I think that employee. I've learned this through the years. The euphemism is cost pressures, sometimes when there's not actual money in the bill. And I think we're determined that we can meet that cost pressure issue when it goes back to the assembly.

But receiving funding from contributions from the district or from certain entities, wouldn't that expedite it? Or you're trying to create the fund so others don't have to worry about it?

The choice is still ours. We still would pass a resolution for naming, but we would know that money is coming into the fund. There's a commitment or something that is connected to it to make sure that they both happen.

Good. I think it's a great bill and I'd love to be a co-author. And I'll move it when it's appropriate.

Well, it'll be appropriate in just a moment, Senator. We have a quorum now, as I understand it. So we'll go ahead and call the roll call to formally establish the quorum. Assistant?

[ROLL CALL]

All right, so we're in the middle of the bill presentation, so I'll come back to the committee rules later. But we do have a motion on the floor. Is that right, Senator? All right, there's a motion and we'll go to a roll call vote on the motion at this time.

I would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

In case-

close was appropriate.

You have to just-

When I don't say, please close.

You just have to do exactly that, Senator. Just be assertive. I apologize. I apologize. I also recommend an aye vote.

Senator Scortesi.

Oh the motion is due pass, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. [CALL MOTION]

Aye.

Okay, we'll keep that Bill on call. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Senator. Do we have other authors here? We would be looking in file order for Senator Padilla, but I don't see him here. And we do have a motion on consent. Thank you, Vice Chair. Let's go ahead and. Was that a motion? Yeah, that is a motion. Motion by Strickland on. On consent calendar. Let's call the roll on that.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll leave the consent calendar on call. Again, back to authors. I got two. I think you do. You do. Senator, one of yours was just taken up on consent. Item 7, item 8. You can come forward and present those at the ready. I think that'll help us along. Yeah.

While you're making your way up there, Senator, I'm just going to announce that it is now appropriate to have the Committee rules on the table. If there's no objection to the rules, they will be adopted. See? No objective objection. The Committee rules have been adopted. Thank you. Sure. I've got two.

Which one do you want me to go first with? Your choice. It's item 7 and 8. So, okay, normally seven, but you can do it any way you want since you're in charge of the podium for a while. There you go. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. You know, all of us who are really thinking of the future, we are looking at technology in just about everything else that we can think of. AI, automobiles, everything else. Well, this bill, 480. I'm sorry.

No, I was just trying to clarify which one you started with. Thank you. SB 480.

Yeah, 480. Sorry. So this bill talks about the autonomous vehicles, and of course, one of the things that all of us, whether you're in San Francisco, Los Angeles, wherever, you see a car coming and there's nobody in it but somebody sitting in the back seat, you're wondering, whoa, where's it coming from, how's it getting there, etc.

Well, it's technology. But this bill pertains to the ability to visibly see that it is on autopilot, we'll call it. And the lighting. This is what it's all about. So, again, I wish you all well and good afternoon.

Again, this is Senate Bill 480 and as technology on roads continue to evolve, we have a greater number of vehicles equipped with driver assistance technologies. Some of your cars have it, some of the modern things that we have in our cars.

While vehicle manufacturers have adopted technologies like adaptive cruise control and lane keeping assistance systems, many are looking to transition into autonomous driving systems. In order to strengthen public safety and enable the public and law enforcement to be aware of these systems while they are in use, manufacturers should be allowed to install marker lamps giving the pedestrian and the police and everyone to see that the vehicle is operating under this new system.

It is to clearly communicate to the general public, as I mentioned, pedestrians and law enforcement, and anyone who's around the vehicle, they know that the system has been activated.

Senate Bill 480 will authorize an autonomous vehicle to be equipped with automated driving system or referred to as ADS. And these are marker lamps beginning on January of 26. Such recommendations were made by SAE International, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.

SAE International developed industry standards for system lamps and the lighting and that equipment to guide auto manufacturers upon equipping autonomous vehicles with marker lamp systems so everyone can see them and see them coming.

These standards were determined through a consensus-based committee process with technical experts from industry, government, academia, regulatory agencies, and relevant technical committees to develop, review, and vote on proposed standards that would be safe for the communities. This process allows for drivers and diverse perspectives and to ensure the standards reflect current industry practices as needed.

Additionally, current law governing autonomous vehicles requires them to have a visual indicator inside the cabin, but to indicate that the vehicle is moving and this new technology is engaged. This is what this bill is about, but it doesn't contemplate marker lamp system and the technology for use outside the vehicle. And this is what the bill is about.

So you can see the vehicle that it is on, as I called it, automatic pilot for those of us who aren't technically savvy just yet, and addresses the lighting for other motor vehicles as well. So everyone around the vehicle will know because of the lighting and the system that's there to be cautious.

Authorizing vehicles with autonomous driving system to be equipped with marker lamps will strengthen public safety and promote acceptance of automated driving systems for our future by clearly communicating to pedestrians and everyone that those vehicles on the road are engaged with this system, they are safe, and they are communicating with everyone that the vehicle is moving and it's operating because of the new technology.

Once again, SB 480 would only authorize the use of exterior marker lamps. With me today, I have Kurt Augustine with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation for any technical questions.

Okay. Thank you, Senator. Any presentation, or are you just here for Q and A?

Just very briefly, Senator.

You'll have a couple minutes then.

Mr. Chair, members, my name is Kurt Augustine. I'm with the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. We're the trade association that represents the automakers, autonomous vehicle providers, electric vehicle battery manufacturers, et cetera.

This is a straightforward but important bill that will be permissive to allow automakers to install a light that shows that the AV is in operation. As the Senator said, SAE has approved this, as well as the color choice has been done by university studies both here in the United States and in Europe.

And we simply ask for your support to allow both passengers and other drivers to know that an AV is operating on those streets. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here in the committee room who wishes to step forward and express support for this bill? If so, now's the time. Name, affiliation and support.

Mr. Chai, members, Rosemary Shahan, President of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety. And it's not every day that we're in agreement with our friends, the auto manufacturers on auto safety issues. But we're very pleased to support Senator Achuleta's bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to come forward? Name, affiliation, and support? Seeing none, we'll ask if there are any opposition witnesses. Seeing none. Is there anyone in the room who wishes to express name, affiliation, and opposition? If so, you may come forward at this time. I see none.

We'll come back to the committee.

Move the bill.

There's a motion by Vice Chair Strickland. Any other comments or questions on the motion? Seeing none, we'll go to the roll call. I'm sorry I didn't give you an opportunity to close.

Before I sign off, I. I wondered if you all remember the Jetsons. Remember the Jetsons? When we were all kids. I think they would probably the sponsor of the Bill as well. And I ask for an aye vote. Thank you. I just had to throw that in there.

That's good. I'm very glad not to miss that close. That was, that was good. Might be the best one of the year. We'll see. All right, we'll go back to the assistant for the roll call vote. Thanks.

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

All right, Senator, we'll keep it on call due to the absent members to get them on the roll call. We'll move to item eight now, which is your SB 731.

You're welcome to begin on that one. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For all of us who are growing up going back to school, I'm going to turn the clock back. Those large trash dumpsters, we used to call it dipsy dumpsters. Remember that?

When we were in grade school and elementary school, whatever it was, those dips dumpsters, well, it turns out those things that are used in a commercial usage, sometimes they're left out in the middle of the roadway. Very, very dangerous at night.

So I had a bill and I want to go ahead and share this with you, that this bill is 731. But in 2021, in 2022 I introduced and the Governor signed the bill, Senate Bill 1111. And it was called the Rick Best Safety Bill. And Mr. Best lost his life.

And this, that particular bill was named after him and his memory. But he lost his life because of the fact that one of the dumpsters was left in the middle of the road and he was riding his bicycle and didn't see it and crashed into it and he was killed. Sadly, Mr.

Rick passed away after the traffic accident where he collided, as I mentioned, with the unmarked trash dumpster, the roadway.

Well, Senate Bill 1111 required a person who sells or provides for the compensation a trash receptacle or storage container designed to be placed on the side of the road or in the curbside or even an alleyway or anywhere near it to have reflectors so the vehicle, or so the object could be seen with the vehicle or even by someone riding a bicycle with his little headlight on.

So it is a safety bill, a follow up bill. In 2023, Senate Bill 806 added specific requirements for the category, the location, the size and the reflective markings to keep them universal on all the trash and storage containers and providers owners with a 14 day right to cure. So everyone in the industry was adhering to the law.

As a result of Senate Bill 806, some industry members who were already voluntary practicing and actually painting or applying the tapes for the reflective marketing on their containers prior to the bill felt that it wasn't necessary to continue with that because they're already complying. So this Bill 806 allows them to continue with their usage.

And any new containers that are brought into play will have to have have the updated reflectors. So Senate Bill 731 would exempt existing fleets from already who already have the markings. But on January 25 would require any new storage or containers that are purchased by January 26th to actually use the markings. So then it'd be industry wide.

Everyone would be uniformly complying with the law. So Senate Bill 731 is simply to simplify the needed measure to have everyone comply equally. And with that, I thank you for your time. Okay.

Thank you. Senator Archuleta, any witnesses? No, sir. Okay. Anyone in the room who wishes to express support, come on forward.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Mark Apraya. I'm here on behalf of Republic Services in support of the measurement. Want to thank Senator Archuleta for bringing this bill which makes technical changes before this Committee. And we urge your Aye vote.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. John Moffatt on behalf of Waste Management in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lindsey Golehorn with the Resource Recovery Coalition of California in support.

Thank you.

John McHale on behalf of Pods Enterprises here in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition witnesses? I've seen none. Is there anyone here wishes to express opposition to the bill, please come forward at this time. If that's the case, Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Comments? Questions? Okay. All right.

Vice Chair is prepared to move the bill. We'll give you a chance to close.

So on behalf of public safety, I urge your Aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. All right, the motion by Strickland. We'll go ahead and call the roll call.

At this time the motion is do pass to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, the bill's on call. Senator Syarto, you have file item four. If you're prepared, you may begin when ready.

SB 76. I'm sorry.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I'm here to present SB 76. So this measure will enhance California's hold harmless protections for the private sales of used automobiles by tying outstanding fees to an individual's driver's license rather than the current practice of tying it to a vehicle.

Transportation costs are already a considerable expense for the average household and as transportation costs rise exponentially, low-income households face the difficult choice between mobility and access on one hand and household necessities on the other. Californians can often find better deals from purchasing a used car from private sellers or even a family member.

If after the sale it is discovered that the vehicle has outstanding fees, the new owner of the vehicle is forced to take on the burden of those fees currently. So there is no other scenario where the consumer is on the hook for someone else's or another consumer's penalty or fee.

Because of California's weak hold harmless protections, this has led to an increase in consumer monetary loss and a loss in registration collection for our motor vehicle account. Now more than it is imperative that we protect our constituents from predatory sales and provide protections from mass consumer monetary loss on transactions.

With me here today to present SB 76 or speak on behalf of it is Rosemary Shahan, who is the President of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety. CARS is a national award-winning nonprofit auto safety and consumer advocacy organization that works to protect consumers from auto-related fraud and abuse.

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

Mr. Chair and Members, Rosemary Shahan, President of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety and we very much appreciate Senator Seyarto's authoring this bill and the staff's excellent analysis of the bill and we're pleased to support it.

This is an important consumer protection committee, or issue and we see this as just a matter of fundamental fairness that the individual who's responsible for the delays in renewing the registration and paying the fees that are due should be the individual who is held responsible by the DMV rather than the purchaser who's often totally unaware that any fees are due.

And we would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. Others who wish to express the support, position, name, affiliation, and support, please.

Yes. Tim Chang with the Auto Club of Southern California. We fully agree with both the Senator and Rosemary's testimony on this bill and urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support, please come forward. I'm seeing none. We don't have listed any opposition witnesses. Are there any here? Seeing none. Is there anyone here who wishes to come forward and express opposition to this bill? Again, this is SB 76 seeing none. We'll come back to the Committee. Okay.

And Senator Richardson's prepared to move the bill. Senator Archuleta, comment?

You know, thank you Senator for bringing this forward, all of us who have ever purchased a piece of property, we could never accept title unless it's free and clear of liens and incumbents.

I think this should be exactly the same way when you're buying a car from a dealership or private party, that the seller should be responsible to present a clean title and take that burden off of someone who's struggling to make that purchase or buying that first car as a teenager, whatever it might be, that they're not burdened with any pending matters or encumbrances.

So I think it's a great bill, and I'd love to be a co-author on it. And we already have movement. Motion's been made. But I thank you for bringing it forward.

All right. Vice Chair Strickland.

Oh, no, I just moved.

Okay. And Senator Valladeres.

Yeah. I'd just like some clarification on what the bill does, because I do have some concerns that.

So if someone has a car and they're down and out and couldn't pay their registration fees and are trying to sell that car and cut a deal with the person who's purchasing the car to maybe give a discount on the price to then have those fees paid, is there clarification on whether or not that would no longer be allowed?

I mean, are we going to create a scenario where someone can't sell their car because of this? Yeah.

No.

In a scenario where somebody doesn't have the money to pay for their registration and sells a car that's unregistered to an unknowing seller unless they have it in writing, I'm not an attorney, so I can't give you an attorney advice on it, but unless they have it in writing that this is the arrangement and I'm going to pay those fees for them, I think that's a little different than this particular case.

Which is the seller unknowingly accepts title to the car, goes down to the registration, the DMV, and finds out that Mr. Buyer forgot to tell him he's got a bunch of parking tickets and other stuff that's related or that's going to be holding up his registration. So whether that person has the money or not to pay for it, well, that's between him and the DMV.

And when this bill has gone through, instead of the unknowing seller that thought he was getting a car but was getting so much more.

I'm going to support the bill, but I do, I would hope that we could have some clarification on that, because it could become a he said, she said situation where.

That's why you write stuff down in a contract.

I'm not disagreeing yet. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none. It's a good bill, Senator, and if you'd like to close, you may at this time.

No, I just simply asked for an aye vote.

All right. We do have a motion in waiting from Senator Richardson, and we'll go ahead and call the roll call now.

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

All right, we'll keep the bill on call. Thank you. Senator Padilla. Welcome. Senator Padilla is file item 1, SB 10, and you may begin your presentation whenever you're ready.

Yeah. Thank you.

Afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members, it's my pleasure to present SB10. For years, many in my community in South San Diego County have endured the worst effects of cross border pollution from Mexico. This is both biological effluent as well as commercial and industrial contaminants.

The economy and environment in the region have been severely impacted by those and billions of gallons of raw sewage that have created serious public health threats to these local communities.

The South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant is a result of a binational treaty that dates back decades when the International Boundary and Water Commission was formed to manage the cross boundary situation with respect to water quality and sewage treatment and others. It is charged with treating wastewater from Tijuana before it flows into the United States.

Due to the unchecked expansion and massive explosion in manufacturing across the border leading to unexpectedly high flows, the treatment plant was overwhelmed and is in need of repairs allowing raw sewage to flow into the river and onto South San Diego County beaches.

As of now, this facility has no ongoing funding source available for repair ops and management of the facility and is reliant often on one time allocations from congress.

SB10 would expressly authorize funds from the new toll road on East Otay Mesa Port of Entry being built there to be used to assist in the maintenance and operation of the treatment plant and other related sanitition- sanitation infrastructure projects to intercept pollution flows into California from Mexico.

The new toll road will serve as a land port of entry and is a joint venture between Sandag, Caltrans and the Federal Governments of the United States and Mexico.

While this toll road definitely supports the North American export economy and helps support critical transportation infrastructure and as many economic benefits, it will also lead to greater expansion intensification of border activities, cross border commercial traffic which all will end up impacting the Tijuana river watershed and the flows that are already at high levels of sensitivity.

Goods moving across the border contribute significantly to pollution and the movement of goods should be part of the solution to that crisis. I want to be clear, as spelled out in the bill, any allocation of funds from this project will be made pursuant to an agreement with the Federal Government.

SB10 is an important first step towards securing long term funding to address the environmental impacts of cross border trade and supporting communities that bear this burden. And again, I want to be clear. You look at the language in the bill. It is permissive and allows the parties to negotiate a toll dedicated to this mitigation.

It makes this permissive, it is not prescriptive, but it simply expands on that existing authority. It in no way interrupts the agreements that have been concluded binationally to support this transportation infrastructure. It does not in any way degrade or remove funding from the transportation infrastructure.

And it has to be aligned for a federal purpose and it is subordinate to the payments of indentures and bonds that exist on the transportation infrastructure. With that, I'd like to welcome Patrick Mcdonough from San Diego Coast Keeper.

All right, Mr. McDonough, you'll have a couple minutes. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Members of the Committee. My name is Patrick McDonough. I'm the senior attorney for San Diego Coastkeeper. You've already heard much about the urgent public health and environmental crisis unfolding at the border.

It's extremely unfortunate, but I'd like to add two important points to really give you the palpable flavor of sewage that we have to deal with on a daily basis. First, the entire Tijuana estuary is tragically dying. Coastkeeper conducts sampling down in the estuary every month.

And we're unfortunately finding things like dissolved oxygen levels that are so low that nothing can live there. And moreover, as if an entire coastal wetland dying isn't enough, the water is so polluted that it's actually causing an air quality public health crisis. It's simply unsafe to breathe in the entire area.

And state and local agencies are trying to provide people in nearby communities with air filters because they cannot safely breathe inside their own homes. As the senator mentioned, there is no sustainable funding source for things like the international treatment plant's ongoing operations and maintenance. And that's led to a number of problems.

But I did want to dive into a brief bit of history. That plant and the surrounding infrastructure was designed in the mid-19 to early to mid-1990s. And since that time, Tijuana has doubled in population. It is the second largest metropolitan area in all of Mexico, behind only Mexico City.

And this toll road will only continue that trend of rapid growth, putting even more pressure on Tijuana's already failing sewerage systems. Now for some more recent history. Less than two years ago, the plant was almost entirely destroyed. That was when Tropical Storm Hillary came through.

But it was already hanging on by a thread due to neglect and deferred maintenance, in large part because of that funding gap. And as a result, $150 million that was supposed to go towards the expansion of the plant to double its capacity to help deal with this problem.

That money instead went to just repair the plant and bring it back to baseline. And because of that, the US IBWC is still short money that is needed to complete that expansion project, which is a hugely important aspect to tackling this problem.

And even if it finishes the expansion, without sustainable operation and maintenance funding, it's just setting us up for failure once again. So we need all the help we can get. And that's why we asked you for an aye vote on SB10. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony. We'll move to the committee room and ask if there's anyone here who wishes to express support for the bill. Please come forward and indicate name, affiliation and support.

Good afternoon. Kyra Ross, on behalf of the City of Coronado in support of the bill. Thank you.

Jonathan Clay on behalf of the Port of San Diego, in support.

Good afternoon. Jakob Evans with Sierra Club California in support. Thank you.

John McHale on behalf of the City of Chula Vista here in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kris Rosa, on behalf of NRDC Action Fund in support.

Thank you. We do not have opposition witnesses indicated. I'll just ask if there are any. Seeing none. Is there anyone in the room who wishes to come forward and express opposition? Seeing none. We'll come back to the committee now for comments, questions or a motion.

Motion.

Alright. Senator Archuleta is prepared to move the bill subject to your close Senator Padilla.

I would just emphasize this in no way inhibits the transportation planning or financing. It's a subordinate, permissive use and one that is used to address a very acute public health and economic issue in the region. And I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you. So the motion is by Senator Archuleta and we'll go ahead and move forward with the roll call vote.

The motion is the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [ROLL CALL]

All right, that bill is on call. We do have one more bill left. We do have one more bill left. It's a Senator Gonzalez bill. That would be file item 5, SB 263. We're expecting her arrival shortly. We'll just informally recess now. I don't want to shut down everything that people. Good.

Good afternoon, Senator Gonzalez. Thank you for being here on file item 5, SB 263 and you may proceed when ready. Take your time.

Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I am here to present SB 263, which directs the Transportation Agency in coordination with the Department of Finance and the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development to conduct a study on the impacts of tariffs in California. Last year alone, California handled over $800 billion on imports and exports.

40% of containerized imports and 30% of exports flow through our California seaports alone. Tariffs imposed without careful strategic planning will raise costs for California families and businesses, harm our workers and weaken our relationships with international partners. The Trump tariffs are not strategic and seemingly they have provoked retaliatory tariffs from other nations.

We must stand up for workers, residents and businesses already feeling economic pressure due to chaos at the federal level. And in every sector, whether it's agriculture, automotive, electronics, what have you. It's pretty tough right now for folks.

So SB 263 will ensure policymakers have comprehensive statewide data to help us understand the impacts of tariffs and design data-driven policies to mitigate any effects, negative effects on our state. It is supported by groups including Cal Chamber, the Retailers Association, Trucking Association, and the Grocers Association that we have here today.

And testifying in support, I have Mike Jacob, President of the Pacific Merchant, excuse me, Shipping Association, and Daniel Conway on behalf of the California Grocers Association, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

You'll have a couple minutes each and please proceed.

Right, good. Pacific Merchant Shipping Association in support. We represent ocean carriers, marine terminal operators at US west coast ports, including obviously the largest port complex in the Western Hemisphere in the ports of LA and Long Beach.

We concluded a study last year that looked at the economic impacts just on Southern California of this port complex. There's one job created for every four containers that move through that gateway. About $2.8 billion in state and local tax revenue just in Southern California that are generated.

And as you heard from Senator, really sizable economic impacts, over $800 billion total in terms of all the value from direct, indirect, and induced activity through those gateways.

What we really appreciate about SB 263 and the thoughtful approach to this is that we'll be looking at what are the impacts of tariffs, whether you support the tariffs or you don't support the tariffs, whether or not you appreciate the scope and scale of what's potentially occurring with respect to other types of non tariff-based barriers to trade that are being discussed right now, including ship fees and things of that nature.

There's a dynamism in this space right now. That requires the state to know exactly what the impacts of these changes are going to be with respect to not just its own state and local tax revenues, but also impacts on our workers, our consumers, and our manufacturers and our ag exporters. So we appreciate consideration of this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, please proceed.

Thank you. Daniel Conway with the California Grocers Association and appreciate your consideration of this legislation today. I'll kind of state the obvious. You know, as grocers, we're very much impacted by the potentials of these tariffs.

You know, here in California, we're beneficiaries of both local supply chains, but also global supply chains, which is why you're able to find fresh produce on your shelves year round.

And so as we look ahead to the potential impacts of these tariffs, we have a lot of concerns about what that could look like for our customers and for our retailers. Particularly in light of this Legislature's emphasis on affordability this year.

I just think it's really important that we take an in depth look at the port potential impacts of this. I know at CGA, we're looking forward to partnering with all of you this year to kind of find ways to keep grocery prices affordable and provide our customers some relief.

And I think better understanding the impacts of these tariffs is a part of that. You know, as we look ahead, we certainly see challenges with not only keeping our shelves stocked, but prices affordable. And I think particularly here in California, where we do enjoy a diversity of products, additionally diversity of goods.

We have a lot of ethnic grocers, you know, stores that part of what makes them special is the same thing that you could buy, you know, at a retailer in Korea, you can buy in a store here.

And so obviously, as we look to these tariffs, we see the real potential to either take items off the shelves or just make them cost prohibitive. So at the end of the day, as my friend and colleague here said, we're not necessarily asking for what your position is on the tariffs.

What we're really trying to look at here is just understanding the impacts to our customers and to our broader economy. With that, thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in the committee room who wishes to come forward and express the support position? Please proceed. And you will be allowed to say name, affiliation, and support, of course.

Mr. Chair and Members, Chris Shimoda, on behalf of the California Trucking Association in support.

Mr. Chair and members, Matthew Allen with Western Growers Association also in support of the bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon Mr. Chair and members. Ryan Allain on behalf of the California Retailers Association, in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Mandy Isaacs Lee, on behalf of the Port of Long Beach, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair and committee members, Stephanie Estrada on behalf of the Port of Oakland in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair and committee members, John Kendrick on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and Secretary. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members, Maria Spencer Neider with the California Association of Port Authorities in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members, Keshav Kumar, on behalf of the Pacific Maritime Association in strong support.

Thank you. We're showing coming into the hearing, no opposition. Is there anyone here who wishes to express opposition? If so, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee. And I know Vice Chair Strickland wanted to be recognized.

Just up front. I, I'm, I'm against tariffs. I think tariffs are damaging. But one thing you have to do is also look at the whole pie, not just half the pie. And I, I don't know if you can answer the question here. My goal is to have zero tariffs all the way across the board.

But what was the tariff to say from our agricultural community here in California when they want to sell our goods and services to China, Mexico, Canada? What was the tariff on U.S. goods and services?

You're asking what the export tariffs are? Candidly, I don't know the individual tariffs.

Does anybody who's up for front that spoke in support know that number?

I think the short answer is, is that it varies very significantly from country to country and on the commodity basis. So there isn't one good answer.

But I do think what we're expecting out of this study is that when you are looking at things specifically with respect to reciprocal tariffs that might have outsized impacts on California ag exports, that those will be broken down and you'll have to have essentially a relative position with respect to what's the new tariff versus the old tariffs.

We'd have to identify what it is.

Yeah. And that's what I'm hoping to get out of this study is not that we're comparing apples to oranges.

But, you know, my understanding is the Administration has talked about the fact of the reason why we have some of the tariffs is because our goods and services are being tariffed, going into their countries and hurting our workers here in the United States.

The goal, I believe, of the Administration by the tariffs is to try to get to a neutrality zero tariff. I just want to make sure if we do a study that we have the right data coming back.

Not that it's just, you know, in one little area, but looks at the whole pie that says, okay, before the Administration came in, what were the tariffs coming from China? What were the tariffs coming from Brazil? What products of California goods and services?

I know for a fact in agriculture, there's heavy tariffs on our agriculture going from here into their countries. And I believe the Administration is just responding to, hopefully get to a negotiation point where we can get to a point where there's zero tariffs and it's good for everybody.

Yeah. And I think that makes sense and to kind of echo Mike's point here. What we're looking for is an understanding of kind of the status quo prior to this Administration and the tariffs, and then kind of what are the different scenarios that we're looking at now.

And I think, to Mike's point, it is a dynamic situation where if we impose a tariff, then there's reciprocal tariff, kind of what does that look like for these different products? And so I think that's ultimately what we're trying to get to, is just having information so we can make informed decisions going forward.

Yeah. And I'm concerned on the legislation that it's not going to take into account the previous Administration and it's just going to take a look at what's going on today and not looking...

And again, if we're going to have a study, it's important that we have the right data and the reason for the responses from our Administration and why we have those tariffs today.

Because my understanding, it's a negotiation to hopefully get to a point where we can sell our goods and services and help American workers sell their goods and services to other countries.

And I think that is the hope, too, if I may through the Chair, that is absolutely the hope, too. I mean, nobody wants even the perception of this, these tariffs, even if they, before they were even implemented, created a whole flurry within the stock market. So I think you're absolutely right.

I think the last time, too, if I could say, I don't know the specific tariff on the agriculture sector last time, but I know back in 2018, it was hit with a 10% decrease in exports of animal products and feed. And so nonetheless, we want all the information.

We want it to be in the entirety and ensure that it has the right information for us moving forward to just lower costs for consumers at the end of the day, which I think we all want. So I don't know if there's anything else to add there, but. Okay.

All right, thank you. I didn't see anything in the bill and I just read it over again while we were sitting here. That excludes either export or import tariffs, past or present or future. So I'm assuming the study covers anything that's not excluded and I'm very supportive of it.

And we have a motion by Senator Richardson and we'll come back to the assistant. Excuse me, let me come back to the author. I've been bad on this all day and give you an opportunity to close.

I just want to say thank you, Mr. Chair, for your recommendation of an aye. And you know, again, as mentioned, we just want to make sure that this is in its entirety assesses the global competitiveness that we've been at. You know, as California, as the State of California, we're the fifth largest economy.

And again, just the perception of these tariffs does cause a flurry in the market. And we want to get as much information as possible. So hopefully to get that in a year, get all the players at the at the table and get the information to do right by our consumers and our residents.

With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. And then again with the motion by Richardson, we'll go ahead and call the roll call on the vote now.

The motion is do passed to the Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development. [Roll Call]

Okay, that Bill is out 14-0. We're going to go ahead and lift the call for those that were absent on earlier votes and I'll ask the assistant to do that at this time.

[Roll Call]

140. That bill's out. 140.

[Roll Call]

11 to 3. Bills out.

[Roll Call]

11-3 that bills out.

[Roll Call]

14-0. The bill's out.

[Roll Call]

14-0. The bill's out.

[Roll Call]

140. The Bill is out. That concludes all of our work on bills today. I want to thank everyone here, including our chief consultant and his team. Thank you very much for all the work in advance and we are hereby adjourned.