Senate Standing Committee on Rules

Well, good afternoon. Thank you all for attending our Senate Rules Committee, the Wednesday, March 12th edition. We have several items that are in front of us, but before we get into any business, we're going to call the roll. Madam Secretary, can you please roll with the roll?

[Roll call]

Quorum has been established. Thank you so much. We're going to invite Director Blagdon, if you can please come forward. We're going to have the Director get himself set up as we do some housekeeping, administrative business. And Mr. Director, don't mean to be rude.

We just want to be able to take care of some of the administrative items. And we'll come straight to you. Yeah. Thank you. To the commissioners. Welcome. Thank you so much. We apologize about the delay. All right, so why don't we take care of the administrative items that are in front of us here today?

Ladies and gentlemen, we'd like to turn our attention to Governor appointees not required to appear. This is item 2D 2D. Is there a motion to approve? We have a motion by Madam Vice Chair. Any discussion or debate? Discussion or debate hearing Seeing none. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That's a 40 vote. We're going to keep the roll open for Majority Leader Gonzalez. We're now going to be moving forward under Bill referrals. This is item number three. Item number three. No, no, you're good. It's all good. Is there a motion to approve? We have a motion by Madam Vice Chair.

Discussion or debate from Committee hearing seeing none. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

Mcguire, aye. Mcguire I. Grove. Grove, I. Gonzalez. Jones. Jones, I. Laird. Laird, aye.

That's a 4-0 vote. We're going to keep the roll open and allow Madam Majority Leader to be able to join on. We're now going to be moving on to item number four. That's our rule waiver request. Rule waiver request. Is there a motion to approve? We have a motion by Madam Vice Chair.

Is there any discussion or debate from Committee hearing Seeing none. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That's a 4-0 vote. Guess what? We're going to keep it open for Madam Majority Leader. We're now going to be moving on to floor. Acknowledgments. This is items 5 through 12 on our calendar floor Acknowledgments Items 5 through 12. We have a motion by Madam Vice Chair. Is there any discussion or debate hearing seeing none, Madam Secretary. Can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

4-0 vote. And Madam Secretary, we're going to keep that roll open. There we go. All right, thank you so much to the Committee Members. Mr. Director, thank you for your patience. It's good to have you here.

Let's talk a little bit about format and I just want to say, first of all, thank you so much for your commitment to the State of California. It's an honor to be able to have you in front of the Committee here today. We're going to provide three minutes for opening statement.

During that opening statement, we invite you to be able to acknowledge any individuals who may be here with you, friends, family here in the room or watching online. I'm going to give you a 30 second heads up when you get close to that three minutes.

Please don't take it me being rude, but just want to be able to keep us on time. Without further ado, the floor is yours. Mr. Director, thank you so much for attending.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Rules Committee, thank you for the opportunity and having me here today. My name is Edmund Blagdon and I serve as the Director of Enterprise Information Services for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

I wanted to express my gratitude to Governor Newsom for appointing me to this role and more importantly, to my family, friends, colleagues and mentors who have supported me through my journey. I'm especially thankful for the CDCR Executive team and their trust and partnership over the last 16 years.

Over the past few years, I have witnessed CDCR's growing embrace of technology and the positive impact it has had on our incarcerated population, staff and our external stakeholders.

We've expanded WI FI connectivity across the institutions, provided incarcerated individuals with communication tablets and laptops for education, and equipped custody staff with mobile tools that have automated previously manual processes to improve efficiencies and has enhanced our data collection.

These advancements are transforming how we operate, strengthen our partnerships, prepare preparing our incarcerated for the next journey and enhancing our ability to serve. I have to admit this is the most challenging position I have ever had, but I love every minute of it. Within reason, of course.

CDCR is the only organization I have ever worked where we truly work as a team to get our jobs done. One of my counterparts has in her email tag one team, one mission. Truly sums it up for me and I could not Agree more.

I look forward to continuing this progress and leveraging technology to address these evolving challenges. I want to thank my family and friends for being here to support me. They've been my rock to get me to this place. It's a little surreal to be here today, so really appreciate their support. So thank you for your time and consideration and I welcome any questions you may have.

Mr. Director, thank you so much. Even the best jobs in the world have challenging days. Yes, a lot. You have a lot of incoming. I can only imagine what a firehouse looks like. So thank you so much for your service and we're grateful you're here. You're welcome. Thank you, Mr. Director.

What we're going to do is we're going to open it up to the Committee. Questions, comments, any concerns that they may have. Let's see, from Committee. Madam Vice Chair, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Biden, for being here. I appreciate it very much. I do have a question. I understand that the Managed Access System, or the MAS technology that's used in prison to block cell phones has something to block cell phone uses or identify where the cell phone signal is coming from.

And it helps you eliminate, I would call it, I guess, silly things that go on in prison that may, you know, that may be a cell phone usage may have accelerate those things. I understand that it's only in a few prisons, but you guys have been funded to have it expand to all prisons. Number one, why is it not. Is it a priority? And if so, how come it's not there?

So thank you for the question, Senator Grove. First of all, yes, the MAS system is in 16 of our institutions at this point. We have just gone through an upgrade process and the upgrade process was a technical process to identify new technology of phones. So going from 4G phones to 5G phones. So that was able.

That technology upgrade has enabled us to identify more of the contraband phones that are in the institutions. And yes, you are spot on with the contraband phones. They can do some nefarious things with them.

One of the things that we have identified in the current budget process is we have the body of CDCR and Department of Finance and BMB have decided not to expand that at this point. It has been delayed to expand to the other institutions. One of the things we identified too is the efficacy of the MAS system.

We have run numbers and even though it's not in my realm being the technical lead for the the Department of CDCR. One thing that has been challenging on the efficacy of The MAS system is the introduction of the tablets for the incarcerated population.

So now that they have tablets to make cell phone calls, video calls, et cetera, it's hard to discern if the blocking of the masks on the contraband cell phones is the reason they're not coming in, because the numbers have gone down about 50% over the last four years of the cell phone contraband that we're finding.

So not sure if the tablets have made an impact on that. But we do know that the contraband cell phones have been cut in half over the last three or four years.

Okay. And just out of curiosity, because I know technology is always emerging, I just learned about Quantum physics and Quantum techno. Not learned. I got information. You heard about it? Yeah, yeah, I heard about it, and I understand.

I mean, I get the concept of, like, picoseconds a millionth of a second and the travel time and the whole bit. Right. So I have a General briefing on Quantum physics and Quantum technology. I guess my question is because we are grappling with some situations in the female prison system that we have specifically Chowchilla.

And I'm not suggesting this. I'm using this as an example and asking for your best answer on technology. I know that last year there was something that happened, and we got a briefing from CHP because there's license plates, readers all around the Capitol that can tell you where a car is when it moved, all that stuff.

And I didn't even know that technology existed. I learned this little bit about Quantum physics and Quantum technology. And with the situation that we have with men and women's prisons and things that are taking place that are detrimental to our incarcerated women.

Is there any technology that you're aware of that could be implemented that would help with that situation? Or is that just not something like, I don't know, do they read the prison number on somebody's uniform? I don't know. I don't have an answer.

I'm just asking, with all your knowledge and technology, is there something out there you're aware of that would help keep incarcerated women safe?

So thank you for your question. The only thing I can answer to that, that I know that we are doing is with the audio visual camera systems that we have at all the institutions, we are still in the progress of deploying out to the remaining. Of the institutions, I believe we have six left to deploy to.

There was an initiative to deploy the license plate reader cameras. That was halted for some time, but we have picked that back up. So in our process, what we are doing is with the six new institutions that we're deploying to.

In tandem with those deployments of the fixed cameras at the institutions, we are installing the license plate reader cameras in those institutions. And then what we're going to do is go back to the existing institution that have the AVSS systems already involved. Installed. Excuse me, installed for the license plate readers as well.

And so when you say license plate readers, it's the same technology, but it would identify somebody's number. Is that what you're saying? Or is it actual license plate that pulls up to the facility?

So it's a light. When they pull up to the facility, it'll look at the license plate number and the software behind the scenes can, you know, track where they've been, et cetera. So plug into software applications that will have that data storage.

Okay. Again, and on your information, like your knowledge of technology, my question, I guess, is, in specifically Chowchilla, which is just north of my district and just north of me, we've been asked to look at legislation to make sure that incarcerated women are housed in a. In a setting that is safe.

Like they don't have to worry about sleeping and getting raped at night bathrooms. Is there any technology out there that would help you identify situations that go on inside the inside institution itself? Are you aware of any? I'm just asking if you're aware there may not be. Right.

And like I said, I learned about Quantum physics a little bit, and I'm like, wow, that's kind of interesting.

Yeah. And I really honestly don't have an answer for it. But if the, if my program areas have a use case that they bring to me, I can definitely chase down what technology we can have to, you know, make the women safer in the prisons based off of the use cases they're bringing to me.

Thank you. . No more questions. Thank you, sir.

Thank you so much. Please. Senator Laird, good afternoon.

Thank you. Thanks for your willingness to serve. I was going to ask you about Senate Bill 1008, which is the free cell phone calls for incarcerated individuals. And I'm not sure if it fits into what was just going back and forth, because those are in separate places where you control them. And you wouldn't have any reason to block them for any reason.

The, the, the, the cell phone calling on the tablets you're speaking to tablets.

Are the tablets what are allowed by Senate Bill 1008?

Well, part of that. So Senate Bill 1008 was put in place to have the State of California pay for all of the cell Phone minutes that the incarcerated persons use.

You work there, so you say you pay for it. But the policy was for them to have free phone calls.

Correbt, the state basically pays for their phone calls. So that's what Senate Bill 1008 instituted for that.

And what I was going to do is ask how that was going and how you felt whether that was meeting a good goal of things. And I don't know if it intersects and what that Senator Grove was asking about, but why don't we.

He doesn't listen to my question.

No, no, no. I listen to the answers.

Yeah, I think the only thing I can say on that, and I apologize, I don't have those numbers, but I can get them for you. But when we put in the free calling, the number of minutes have sky. I mean into the millions of minutes that the incarcerated persons are having.

And one of the nice things is, you know, not set data, but we know when the incarcerated persons have, you know, time and communication with their friends and family on the outside, it's going to help with them when they, when they're released and go back into the end of the population and help them not to rescind coming back into our populations.

But that has helped immensely. And the other pieces of the tablet application are the messaging and the video calls that they were able to make. They do get a little bit of a free minutes for messaging and video calls. Friends and family can pay for the others. But there's another term of the communication aspect for the tablets. And the main thing with the tablet is for communication.

Well, you see, when that exchange was going, the role of the tablet wasn't defined. So I get it now. But the other thing is that you could just draw the conclusion from the fact that the number of minutes have exploded. Right. That the prior system of charging them was really inhibiting people from talking to their families.

Well, it was, it was not only the charging, but also before the tablets just having the wall phones and the limitation of the technology there for them. So it really has opened it up immensely.

Okay. And then the other question I was going to ask also follows up a little on a subject Senator Grove was asking because I was going to ask what the implementation is like on the body worn cameras. How is that going?

Have you felt like that's changed certain circumstances, things that Senator Grove just talked about, is that turning out to be a better protection against that for incarcerated individuals wherever the body cameras have been instituted?

Yeah, thank you for that question. Because. Because the program really manages the efficacy of the Body worn cameras? I really can't answer that, but I can follow up and get you some data on that.

What we believe it is, the implementation of the body worn cameras has gone very well within terms of the technology side of the House. And going back, I guess your question is of the efficacy of them. I'd have to leave that to the program side of the House.

Yeah. And I think maybe part of the efficacy is just whether people are using them. And I guess we have to find out when we interview a leader that is responsible for that policy.

Yeah. Correct. You're very welcome. I apologize I couldn't answer it more clearly for you. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Senator Laird, let's see if there's any additional questions or comments that may come from the Committee.

I'm good. I was listening to the questions.

Okay, but you weren't listening to the answers. That's the problem.

Oh, man. And welcome to Rules Committee. Hey, see, there we go. I do.

That was pretty interesting. Like, pretty interesting.

Yeah. What'd you call it? A milosecond? What were we just saying?

A pecosecond One millionth of a second. No kidding. And, like, power lines down. PG&E shutting off power.. They run the signal simultaneously through the lines, and if there's a branch or a dip or anything, it drops back and, you know. Exactly. Shuts it off within 10 ft.

Nice. Now you know.. You see? There we go. And again, welcome to Rules Committee, everybody. Thank you, man. Everybody here. I love it. Thank you so much. Madam Majority Leader, did you want to. All right, the Director is thinking, where the hell am I right now?

Any additional questions or comments from the Committee at this time? All right. Hearing none. What we'd like to be able to do is open it up for any discussion from each and every one of you. We welcome anyone who is in support. If you could please step forward. First and last name in the organization.

We're looking for folks who may be in support. If you could please step forward at this time. Seeing no one rise, we're now going to look to those who may be in opposition. If you could please step forward at this time. We're looking for those who are in opposition. Last call. All right, we're going to bring it back to Committee. See if there's any additional discussion or debate. Leader Jones, the floor is yours.

Thank you. I did think of a question just to follow up on the managed access system you mentioned. That you're not moving forward right now with the other facilities. Do you have a time that you're thinking about doing that or a game plan or.

No, it's still on hold with our. Our budget Department. We have deferred the money due to the budget constraints that we currently have, but that'll probably be revisited in the next cycle.

Do you know what that budget number is, by chance? I don't have the exact number, but I can get it to you. Okay, that'd be great. Thank you. Thank you so much. I think there's. If I.

I don't want to presume to speak for my colleagues up here, but based on the questioning, I think there is some interest on our point, our part to get that system working and making sure it's working properly. I can tell you that I'm concerned about the number of illegal cell phones in the prisons.

Whenever I have a conversation with CDCR or their officers or other folks that are involved in the prison system, that always comes up is the cell phones. And it's kind of amazing to me that the number of them that are illegally smuggled into the prison walls in the first place.

And so we do need to make sure we're addressing that and fixing it. So thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you so much. Leader Jones, we're going to look for any additional discussion or debate. Is there a motion that someone would like to be able to offer?

Absolutely. Move the confirmation to this full Senate Floor.

Thank you so much. Madam Vice Chair, we have a motion on the floor by Vice Chair Grove. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll call]

It's a 5-0 vote. Final vote. The motion passes. Thank you so much, Mr. Director. If you're heading to the Senate Floor, congratulations very much. And we truly appreciate you being here today. And to your family and friends, thank. You as well, thank you. Appreciate for your work on behalf of the state. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. Feel free to clap. Absolutely. My goodness. We're. We're going to have the commissioners please step up. We're going to have Commissioner Elliott and Commissioner Zahara. Man, if you could please step forward. We're going to take a 30 second break as we transition. We're going to have each of the Commissioners step forward. 30 second recess

And I'm buying next time. All right. Well, welcome Commissioners, to a very special edition of the Rules Committee here today. Want to take a moment to say thank you, both of you. Let's be candid. CTC is an incredibly rewarding organization and it's also really tough and really grateful for both you and your service and for stepping up.

Thank you so much. What we'd like to be able to do is just talk about the run of show here for the next few minutes before we turn it back over to Committee. Madam Commissioner, we're going to start with you. Mr. Commissioner, we'll, we'll have you finish up. Each of you will be provided three minutes of testimony.

I'll give you a 30 second heads up during that three minutes. We invite you to welcome any individual who may be here with you, family or friends, acknowledging whoever is watching online. We'll then open it up for the Committee to be able to have questions, comments and voice any concerns. Then we'll open up to the public. Madam Commissioner, thank you for your commitment to the people of California. You have three minutes and the floor is yours.

Thank you so much. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Thank you so much, Chair Mcguire and Members of the Committee for allowing me to be here. I also want to thank Governor Newsom for the appointment to the Commission.

It's been such a pleasure to work with the Commission and to be part of this incredible work that's moving forward in California.

While my work with the Commission is relatively new, as I was appointed about eight or so months ago, I've been working on system issues for decades and have been working deeply on issues related to the environment, transportation, sustainability, climate action and effective funding for decades. I started as an intern at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency in the Office of State and Local Governments. I've been an environmental attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. I've worked for lower income residents at Legal Aid foundation of Los Angeles, represented governmental entities while at Stromwasser and Wucher.

And I've also seen the funding side of projects in my years in philanthropy, including while I was at the Annenberg foundation, which is one of the funders for the 101 Wildlife Crossing.

And within all of this work, one of the key and most important pieces has also been my focus on community engagement and being able to hear the voices of stakeholders. And I focused on community engagement and addressing urban, transportation and environmental issues while leading the South Los Angeles Transit Empowerment Zone.

In all of my work, I've really focused on listening and finding solutions that work best for the various stakeholders, being able to find some commonalities and common grounds so that we can reach solutions that work for everyone. I have direct experience with urban, suburban and rural California.

And I know that these areas have different needs when it comes to transportation and access. And I know that to serve all Californians, you must really consider their distinct needs. I often get questions about why I serve. This, quite fortunately, is the Third Commission that I've had the privilege of being a part of.

And when I get that question, my answer always goes back to my family. I come from a family that really values community and service. I often point to my great grandmother who was a civic leader in her community and she was able to do so much for her community. And I really feel as if I stand on her shoulders or every space and room that I enter as I've done that work for me and my family.

That's meant that some of my earliest memories have been me volunteering at homeless shelters and doing other work so that I can become more proximate and understand the trials and tribulations that other people are experiencing so that we can reach some solutions to help them.

So whether it was working in the fields of upstate New York picking vegetables and fruit as an AmeriCorps worker, or serving as a CEO of entity that was working on climate solutions for South Los Angeles, my levels of service have been really varied. But that has been something that's been really important to me.

This marriage between community and service and all of my years of expertise have been kind of pushing all those pieces together. So thank you.

Thank you Commissioner, thank you so much. Thank you for your words. And we'll come right back to you with questions and comments. Thank you. Great. Mr. Commissioner, welcome. It's good to see you. The floor is yours. You have three minutes.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. Thank you Senators, Members of the Committee for Considering this Nomination. I also want to thank Governor Newsom for placing his trust in me with this appointment.

I, even more importantly would like to thank my wife Nicole, who's sitting right over there, and our two children, our five year old Lucy and our two year old Wesley, for allowing me the privilege of spending more time away from home so we can do the work of the Transportation Commission. I am a 16 year staffer.

I'm a staff person. I've been served a variety of roles in local government and state government, seen a lot of things, been a part of a lot of exciting projects. This Transportation Commission opportunity is exciting in a new way, which is to be able to see the work of government from a different vantage point.

Not necessarily as an implementer, as a staff person serving elected officials, but as someone who's. If I'm. Confirmed and trusted to make decisions, it's a different vantage point. And I'm really excited for this new way of serving the people of California. Should I be confirmed?

My priorities on the Commission, I would really say, fall into two big buckets. The first and most important to me is to strive for deeper integration of transportation planning with all of the other planning processes that we have in the state.

Be that our housing planning processes, our economic development development planning processes, our environmental goals, much deeper synergies, much deeper cooperation between state agencies and departments across all of those different verticals. That's really my key priority and goal for myself, to bring that voice to the Commission.

The second would be just around creating more faith in government by Californians, showing that California can deliver big projects, whether it's the Bay Bridge or whether it's the Annenberg Wildlife Crossing or whether it's a. A simple highway repair to a state highway somewhere in Eastern California.

The transportation apparatus of the state has the ability to create trust in government's ability to do big things. And I think that's really important to, to maintain and restore that trust that people have in their, in their government. So those are really my priorities for myself on the Commission. And I look forward to answering any questions. And I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Commissioner. Very grateful. We're going to open it up for comments, questions and any discussion from Committee. We'd like to be able to see who would like to be able to kick us off here at this time, please. Madam Majority Leader, floor is yours.

Thank you both very much for your comments and of course continuing to serve on the ctc. And just have a question. Was the former chair of Transportation also represent a portion of South Los Angeles? So it's great to hear of your work. I also had been the author of a Bill, SB 1121, which was the transportation funding and needs assessment, similar to what Commissioner Elliott was mentioning.

You know, how to integrate and collaborate and work with various agencies to prepare the needs assessment of the cost to operate, maintain and prepare for future growth within our local transportation systems over the next 10 years.

So with that just having a question as to, you know, do you anticipate any challenges from the draft assessment that was put out by the Commission and the final report? Do you see any changes?

And then second question, just a bigger One maybe related to this, but just in General as to the Federal Government changes with the IJA and how you're all keeping updated with all the significant changes and pivots.

How would you like us to.

Whoever would like to start, we'll open it up.

Okay. So thank you for the question. Thank you for authoring that Bill. It's something we probably discussed more at the Transportation Commission, honestly, than any other individual thing. So obviously, as you, as you referenced the draft needs assessment, there is a significant gap in the next decade, perhaps an unbridgeable gap, if we're being honest. It's.

It's a couple $100.0 billion. So how do we. So how do we as a state provide and how do we as a Commission provide this Legislature and the Governor with recommendations on how to address that, address that challenge?

My personal perspective is attacking the question from both directions, both revenue and cost control and containment to be able to squeeze down that $200 billion gap to the greatest extent possible.

Our role, as I understand it, is to provide recommendations and a menu of options to the Legislature and then help you deliberate the pros and cons of those various revenue options.

But also I think we should stay equally, if not more focused on cost control across projects and across the priorities that we Fund in terms of the federal changes and challenges.

It is actually something we discussed at our last CTC meeting, which was here in Sacramento, requesting that the relevant agencies and departments in the transportation space track very closely what, in fact, changes are made by the Federal Administration when it comes to funding. There's a lot of things that are said that are going to be done.

The question is what money actually is rescinded, what money actually is removed? How much worse will our problem be? But it's something we have to track very closely because we're not just trying to solve from the cost containment and revenue side.

We also may be facing a situation where our problem gets worse because of money that gets clawed back or what have you. So it's something we're asking to track very closely.

Thank you so much for that question. And again, as Commissioner Elliott mentioned, thank you so much for authoring that Bill. So I can really understand, like, what our needs are. And clearly there is a gap.

And really figuring out, like, how that gap is addressed is something where fortunately there's already been some work to do, some piloting and testing to see how we're going to address it.

And I know that there have been a lot of different types of recommendations that we're see, and it really is Coming to the point where we are talking about a large enough gap that we will have to do something soon.

And as the, as all of these issues come to the Commission and then come back to the Legislature for being able to Institute policy, we look forward to working with you as all of that moves forward. I will say, in terms of the federal challenges, there's a lot of movement in lots of different areas.

And I know that, as Commissioner Elliott was sharing, is that staff is very much tracking the Executive orders, getting an understanding of what's occurring. And we do know there are kind of two pieces I'll highlight. One has been some issues related to the slowing down of approvals.

So that does have impact in terms of what things cost Californians at the end of the day. And so that is something that the team is very much aware of and that they're trying to manage through.

I would say that the other one has to do with some of the funding that was coming from the Federal Government, was also helping us with climate resilience.

And as someone who is from Southern California, from Pasadena, and I live in a community that's very much dealing with the recovery from the recent fires, that that's funding that we, that as the state is looking at its priorities, it's funding that will have to come from someplace else.

And so really figuring out where that funding comes from and how we're addressing all of the needs and all of the different priorities.

But the movement that's happening at the federal level and the funding that is shifting and changing is something that I know that the staff team is very much has their fingers on the pulse of, and they're giving us updates in terms of how do those Executive orders actually impact us in terms of all the things that are changing for whether they're going to stay in place or things that are shifting in other ways. But thank you so much.

Thank you both. And we look forward to continuing the work together. We have a lot of good work to do together, but uncertainty is certainly up in front of our minds. So appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Madam Majority Leader, let's go to Leader Jones.

Thank you. I have two questions that kind of maybe go together, and so I'll just ask both questions, and if you want to answer them together or address them separately each question, that's fine.

There was a report that was done recently that showed that between 2018 and 2023, only 550 new lane miles have been added to the highway system in California. And there's almost 400,000 current highway miles. So that shows, you know, a 0.2% annual increase of highly highway. And this is not new roads.

This is lane, you know, adding new lane miles. I will say in my, in my district specifically, there's some pretty good projects happening right now restoring one freeway that was built over a landfill that continues to subside. And so they're fixing that and expanding some freeways in some other parts of my district.

But other parts of San Diego, we're way behind on expanding lane miles. And I guess maybe related to that is the mitigation cost of the environmental aspects of these additional lanes and additional roads. I believe we can do both protect the environment and build additional freeway lanes. So where is the.

Can you address the slow growth of the freeway lanes and then also the mitigation costs of the environmental mitigations, and how do we do both protect the environment and get these lanes built faster?

Since Mr. Commissioner went first this past time, Madam Commissioner, if you want to kick off and then Mr. Commissioner, you can follow up if that works, great.

Thank you so much. You know, thank you for both of those questions. Those are, are really critical ones and they deal with so much of the balance of what we're trying to achieve as a state.

I would say that in terms of the new lane miles, you know, so much of the priority in terms of our transportation system is this fix it first approach of how we're actually investing and maintaining the infrastructure that we have.

And so that is also as we're thinking about lane miles, it's also, I would say, the ability to understand where is the investment also going towards pest preservation, to ensure that what we already have is in good shape and is able to move forward and able to ensure that it can fulfill the needs of the capacity of the system in terms of other aspects, in terms of like how lane miles and highway widenings and all of those things are moving forward.

As each of those issues come before the Commission, it's something for each of the commissioners to be able to review and understand and really look at the context in which they're being presented. And I look forward to that opportunity to be able to really assess where are these opportunities and to be able to further discuss them.

But I do think that our fix it first policy has been one where we have an infrastructure that we're maintaining to make sure that Californians, residents, businesses, students, that we're all able to get to where we need to go.

And that that's where a lot of the resources are being dedicated to in terms of the mitigation between the various needs of what we need from an environmental perspective versus what we need from a whole host of other perspectives. Again, with a lot of what we're looking at at the Commission.

And I would also kind of equate it to so much of what I've looked at throughout my career has been how do we balance all of these concerns? Because there is a balance between all of them. And those balances really do end up being contextual.

And I've seen it so many times where on its face, something may seem as if stakeholders would be incredibly far apart with what they're all seeking.

But once we start to dig down into what is the purpose of this and what are we trying to preserve and where are the commonalities that we have, we can reach an agreement that works for most people. And figuring out that space does take a lot of work and energy and a lot of time.

But we have so many systems right now set up through the Commission that allow for those discussions and debates.

You know, one of the different efforts I just want to highlight is our work with the Equity Advisory Committee that is across these three agencies, and that Committee being able to bring forward issues that are varied across the state.

So being able to hear about the needs of our disabled population, being able to hear about the needs that we have, an increasingly aging population in California that also has concerns. And so learning and understanding all of those together and being able to balance them is a big responsibility in terms of serving on the Commission.

But I do think it's one that, that's really critically important so that these issues, when they come up, people feel heard and we're making decisions and choices that really address the needs that we that are really going to help California for the present and also California for the future.

Thank you, Senator, for the question. I basically agree with everything that Commissioner Mann said. So I won't repeat, but just add a little bit of color of my own perspective on some of these issues to the question of perhaps insufficient, in your perspective, additional lane mile additions.

Look, I think it's the challenge that goes back to the majority leader's question, which is if we have demonstrated need for additional lane miles, and we also have demonstrated need for better wildfire evacuation corridors, and we have demonstrated need to better improve paratransit options, and we simply don't have enough resources to meet all of those needs, so it then does become a question of competing priorities, all of which can be completely valid.

And then from my own perspective, as one Commissioner of many, the lens I would apply to these questions is how many?

Back to sort of what I said in the opening statement, sir, which is we have a number of planning processes across the state, be they the regional, region specific economic development plans that each region of California has put together, whether it's our climate and environmental goals, whether it's the housing targets that are by law required of different jurisdictions in California, and our transportation goals.

So then I would apply the lens and say, well, how many of the goals across those various platforms and programs can we fulfill with a particular transportation investment? And the more of those cross policy goals we can fulfill, the higher, in my perspective, a particular transportation investment would rise in the level of everything's a priority.

So again, without, you know, I don't know the particulars of where lane miles maybe ought to have been added, perhaps in your district, for example. But the question I would ask just rhetorically is, well, how is there a particular economic development imperative where those lane miles are going or coming from?

Or has your community done its job and planned a lot of housing over there and therefore we need to add lane miles to move people to and from those new houses? Those are the kinds of questions I would ask. Sort of cross cross jurisdictionally or cross policy, anyway.

And then just very quickly on the question of mitigations, California has absolutely made it too complicated and too expensive to build big things. I think that's true in transportation. It's true probably broadly across the board. And I think it's, you know, it warrants a conversation with the Legislature and the Governor and local officials across the state. How can we chip away at that?

Thank you. Thank you so much. Leader Jones. Madam Vice Chair, the floor is yours. See you. There you go.

Good job.

Thank you, Senator.

Yeah, good job on pointing out that it's way too expensive to build things. You said big things. I'm talking about anything it takes.

I will stipulate to that, ma'am.

Yeah, anything. Thank you. I do have a couple of questions. You said we had roughly 100 billion, $200 billion deficit, like this gap that we're going to have to close for funding. Somewhere in that number, you said it's going to be an astronomical number, a big number. What got us to that point?

Zero, my goodness. I. Well, thank you for the question. And I will start by top three. Sure. I don't want to give you a glib answer to that question, and honestly, I don't know that I'm actually even necessarily equipped to answer. But as I think while I fill space here, I mean, I Think.

Look, I don't know that we have always fulfilled the fix it first priority that SB1 has set, which I strongly adhere, believe in, and I think the state should adhere to. And the more you build without doing the attendant maintenance, I think you're creating a bigger and bigger hole for yourself.

So I'd say that goes up there, which is why I think it's so important to adhere to the fix it first principle that SB1 includes statutorily a second. Obviously, it's just a math problem. Gas tax revenue is a declining revenue source.

So even as needs continue to go up, the amount of money for per capita we're collecting in gas tax is not keeping pace with that. And there's a whole bunch of policy questions that undergird that, of course.

And then there's a third that I really haven't come up with yet, as I've been giving you the first two, but I think those are too big. But I think those are two big ones and maybe I can come back to you soon.

No, I mean, it is.

I'd like Commissioner Mann to give the third maybe.

Yes, Commissioner. Commissioner Mann. But, you know, I did, I did make a note here. You know, since SB 1, gas taxes have gone up, gone up, like percentage wise every year right around June, July, whenever it is. And there's this amazing gap. But what you said is absolutely true and I didn't think about that.

So thanks for that information because with SB 1, you would think that you would have a reasonable amount of money to Fund these projects, but it's all about building it first instead of the maintenance and everything else. And we talked about 65 and the three foot drop in that community on that road. So thank you. I wouldn't have put that together. Did you want to add number three?

I gave them 1 and 2.

No, no, no. Thank you. I think these particular pieces, in terms of the fact that there are these declining revenues there, there are these competing priorities, but then, you know, each year, and we've seen it ourselves just with inflation, is that things get more expensive.

And so the amount of money that it costs to build is going to just become more expensive because services get more expensive year over year.

And that's also part of, like what we're looking at in terms of the future is that we, we can't just assume that things are going to cost the same amount that they cost today. They're only going to increase.

And so we need to bring in more re because of the increasing cost of actually constructing and making sure we are doing these repairs and doing all the other things that we need to make sure that our roads are safe and that we can access all the places we need to access.

Okay. And to both of you, we talked extensively in my office about equity, equity within the Central Valley versus urban areas, the Bay Area, Los Angeles. I shared with you that I understand that the, the tax for distribution on road maintenance is based on population.

We have a smaller population than those urban areas, but we maintain more, maintain more miles of Road between I5, 99, 58 and our cross freeways. So we do that. How do you reconcile when you say additional revenues because they're the Central Valley. Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter.

Are very, very concerned about vehicle Miles traveled I shared with you takes me 40 minutes drive down a five mile road, right, A dirt road to get to the main road, if you call it a main road. It's kind of like your two lane road.

That should be one lane road but to get to the road to get to town and it takes me another 35 minutes to get to town. So because of where I live, it would cost me more money. And our power is more expensive. You have the opportunity to be in a smud.

We're in the PG and E zone. Power is more expensive, expensive. Fuel is more expensive, all of that.

So how do you reconcile and create equity so that we as people that drive more miles are not burdened with the few miles that people in San Francisco don't have a car or in Los Angeles that take the public transportation system? How do you balance that if you intend on increasing revenues?

Well, I would say it's. It's one of these many issues that is a difficult balance. And a lot of the discussions that I've seen about this kind of go back to really understanding what is fair within all of this.

And I would say with fair there's probably a piece in there that we're also talking about equity and what's ultimately the equitable solution. And we, the level of review and pilots that have been done I think are great and they'll give us like better answers because there is a big issue to consider.

You know, I was sharing with you that for my in laws to go to Kaiser or the VA they have to drive 45 minutes and to get down those roads, those roads, they have to be passable, they have to be in good condition.

And they may not be driving on them that frequently, but when they drive on them, they have to drive a long distance in order to get there.

And I would say that as we're considering all of these different factors, it's also considering factors like that, like what does it mean to be driving within an urban community and versus where you're going very short distances.

But you may be it may still take 45 minutes to get there, but you're going over the course of 5 to 10 miles versus 30 miles.

So with the various recommendations that have been coming out and you know, as we've been looking at the reports for the Commission, some of it which will come also before the Commission at our next hearing, being able to be briefed more on what is a recommendation.

Because a recommendation won't just be something that the Commission is implementing, it's a recommendation that goes to the Legislature. And then we'll be hearing from all of you of like what you want to see. How are you understanding that balance and what is equitable for the people of California? And then we would be implementing that.

But as I look at all of the different materials and pieces, it's really understanding the process that we're going through to ensure that we're hearing from all stakeholders and all voices are understood. So we can understand like what are the perspectives? Why is there someone in the Central Valley who's saying that this is inequitable?

And it's because of exactly the reasons that you just described. It's because they're going to be driving further because they have to. That's just the nature of the topography, like of where they are is that they have to drive further to get to services.

And so being able to hear from all stakeholders becomes a really important piece of being able to ensure that we understand what are these various and competing priorities within California. And then ultimately those recommendations are going back to the Legislature to tell us, okay, we've balanced it. Now here's what you do. Thank you, Commissioner Elliott.

Thank you, Senator. Again, I associate myself with everything that Commissioner Mann has said. I'll just add it becomes at some level a very complicated math problem where we don't have enough revenue to support all of the needs that have been identified across the state.

And at an aggregate level, at an individual level, if we're taking the example of a person in downtown San Francisco not commuting by car versus a state Senator living in a particular place with a five mile driveway, you're already paying so much more in gas tax that you are burdened with that cost because you're driving a car that gets whatever miles per gallon it gets and you're paying the gas tax on each of those miles.

The question then, when I say it's a math problem, the question is if gas tax is a relatively declining revenue source, we feel like we need to backfill that somehow. Policy change is in the offing, which is ultimately the purview of the Legislature and the Governor.

And there's, you know, a dozen or so different ideas of how to do that, all with their own challenges and opportunities. Who's paying more, who's paying less? Does everybody pay exactly the same as they do now?

Vmt, if you think of that as one option and if you were to replace the gas tax or something like that, people that are paying a lot of gas tax right now are using a lot of road right now is sort of the kind of the way you could equate those things.

And so someone who's living in downtown San Francisco. I lived in San Francisco for 10 years and I was a regular monthly muni pass. I commuted to and from work, as did my wife on the end, Judah. So, you know, we, we didn't drive in and out. So our, our monthly expense was not gas tax.

Our monthly expense was $65 or whatever it was to the San Francisco MTA. That's how we paid for our part of the transportation system. So everybody's paying in some way. And the question is, is that the most equitable distribution of those costs? That's not my place. That's not my place to say, but I think

Whose place is it?

Well, I would argue it's the Governor and the legislatures to make those. To make those decisions because that's really creating policy for the state. And I would defer to the Legislature on that question. I think our role as I answered to the majority leader's question is to provide options and analysis of those options.

And that's, I think, an important role to play in leaving the decision making to those that are elected by the people.

Well, that's pretty scary because Los Angeles and the Bay Area have the majority votes in both houses, and that leaves the Central Valley and rural communities kind of just abandoned it out on their own because it's not any type of balance. So that was a. I didn't like that answer.

I'm sorry to disappoint you.

Okay, I didn't like that answer, but.

Maybe I could stick with that other answer.

But no. Thank you both for meeting me this morning. Thank you for the. Answering those two questions that I had and appreciate your time.

Thank you so much. Madam Vice Chair. We're going to turn it over to Senator Laird.

Thank you. Appreciate it. And I should first say to Commissioner Elliott, you thanked your 5 year old and your 2 year old for letting you do this. Yes, sir.

I hope the third person you thanked who's in my line of sight was also part of the decision making process.

She is the decision making process.

I have no agency, Senator. Good. Well, at least you're going to win the confirmation vote. Thank you for meeting with me. I appreciated it. And I think that a lot of the major things we talked about that I wanted to ask about have been discussed.

But I want to make the point that as much as Senator Grove didn't like the answer, unfortunately that's what's in front of us is if we move people to electric cars and they're off the gas tax but they are driving on the roads, we have to figure out a more equitable way to make sure the roads are in fact funded.

And the then I'll ask you a question that we didn't talk about but we sort of talked about climate. And my colleagues that were here when your last colleagues will confirm were confirmed would have heard this.

But the real problem we have is our road system in some places is not standing up to the changes in the climate. I represent an accident prone district. And so if you look at the highway through Big Sur, it has not been open for two years.

And last Easter Northern park just with no warning fell in and 41 miles of people were cut off completely. And this is happening in different ways around the state.

Right on the edge of Senator Mcguire's district is Highway 37 and it goes along the North Bay and it has been closed I think twice in the last six or seven years with heavy water. And it's not going to survive over time in its current configuration.

And the estimates are 1 to 2 $1.0 billion if you move to a causeway, if you go into, I mean my, my own hometown. When we had the hundred year storm years and years ago, the bridges were straight across the river and 75 foot redwood trees battered them down and it was a mess.

We replaced all the bridges but who didn't replace the bridges? The bridge Caltrans Highway 1, the first bridge it hits town that straight across. So when the atmospheric rivers hit it, they couldn't keep up with it.

It flooded back into a residential neighborhood because of the debris that came up against it because that bridge needs to be fixed. Same with downtown SoCal, same with downtown San Luis Obispo and Marsh Street. And so the trouble is is if you want to do an improvement program because of the changing climate.

It competes against all the other road programs. You have to decide whether to do the extra lane that was advocated for or make the existing lane safe for a change in climate.

And finally, there's a Fund that was established that I think got up to $1.0 billion, but we could use the whole billion in my district and not even the other 39.

And so how do you bring that perspective perspective to your work, that it's not just providing the new lanes, it's not just the conventional fixing due to wear and tear, but we have a system that's in the middle of just a changing landscape. How do you both look at that?

And maybe we'll start with you so she can add.

Thanks, Senator. There are programs obviously that CALSTA and CTC run precisely to address the need for climate action in transportation. So it's a good thing that the state is directly answering that question through Captain, through other programs that are directly on point.

As you said, they are insufficiently funded to meet the totality of the needs of all the various seawalls and things either in suburban or rural areas or in downtown San Francisco where if that seawall goes and the BART tube is flooded, we're talking about a very different thing at that point. So the needs are tremendous.

To answer your question, how would I think about that challenge, and I apologize for repeating myself, it's back to the question of how are we as a state thinking long term about where we're planning for housing growth, where we're planning for economic development and growth, and how we're integrating the different investments we're making across what we're spending in cap and trade and what we're spending in housing money and how and what we're doing through CARB's process and the Coastal Commission to try to ensure resilient infrastructure is not necessarily always paid for by the public sector, but also by the private sector.

It's really around having one government approach to the question of climate resilient infrastructure. It is not entirely CTC's responsibility. It's also not not CTC's responsibility.

I think it's the key thing, at least what I want to bring is one of many commissioners is an urgency to that cross departmental, cross agency, cross policy because we're not the only ones with money in this space. And also the private sector needs to participate in funding climate resilient infrastructure as well. Thank you.

Thank you for that question. It's such a critical one and. You. Know, as devastating as the fires were in January.

One of the things that it did do for some people, not all people, but for some people is it gave them a very tangible understanding of the impacts of climate change and what actually happens in this new version of this world that we're entering into and what it costs us. How expensive can it actually be?

And I think the short answer to your question is we just need more money because there are lots of different pieces that need to be addressed and then having the funding to actually do it and more money can be understood in lots of different ways. Part of that is leveraging resources differently.

That may be a number of different agencies working together in order to work on some levels of climate resilience. Or how are you meeting the needs to make sure that people have these safe roads? Especially when we, we have concerns not just from like day to day passage, but for evacuation.

Because now we're getting to safety issues and concerns about loss of life. But it is a matter of needing more resources and really figuring out where those resources are going to come from, because we can certainly find some areas where we're saving in resources. But we do need more resources.

And unfortunately some of the resources that we've had before are no longer available. But as we look into the future, being able to balance all of the concerns, because a lot of the climate concerns, even the concerns that you're raising, they're not just roadway concerns.

They are concerns that have to deal with the safety of the population within that community. Can they get out if something else happens? Are they able to access work or childcare or education? Because that's what transportation does. It allows us to access all these other opportunities in our lives.

So are there other entities that can be supportive as we're looking at ways in which we're going to facilitate, facilitate the economic growth for California? But it is a very difficult and complex question because we're talking about a lot of dollars and a lot of kind of compromise and balance along the way.

I appreciate that. And you know, we know how tough it is. We know we're going to have to make some tough decisions, but we're going to have to make them record for the public, have to link it so they understand exactly what the decision is in front of us.

One observation, because I don't think Caltrans usually gets praised. And when the. And it speaks to what Senator Jones was asking about, about the time of doing things. But when the, the bridge went out in Big Sur in 2017, Caltrans rebuilt it in five months and normally it's a five year forever process.

And they ordered the steel before the design was final. They did true design sequencing, which I brought up in our hearing this morning on the LA fires, because I don't understand why we're not looking at rebuilding the schools in Los Angeles that way. It's like, zero, wait for the architect and then do this, and then do this.

It's like why we can't stack them. And Caltrans proved in that instance you could do that. And so I think that's something to really be thought of too, because I think the public wants to see the problem. They want to see it fixed in short order. But I appreciate your answer on climate. Thank you.

I look forward to supporting you both.

Thank you so much. Any additional questions, comments from Committee? I'll just make a quick comment and I want to say I much appreciate your Executive staff being available and I know commissioners have made themselves incredibly available as well.

I think the bottom line is I'm going to echo where some center Grove is that in the district that I represent you have suburban areas like Highway 37 that connects Solano, Sonoma, Napa and Marin. And then you have Del Norte, Trinity. Right. That have a smaller population than what many small towns have countywide.

And there has been an ongoing challenge last chance grade where literally Highway 101 is sliding into the damn Pacific for the last half century. And if this was an issue in San Diego, Louisiana. Hell even in Kern, I think it would have been fixed.

This is a main trade corridor for the greater part of the north state and it has taken 50 years to be able to get the money we've needed to be able to even get it to design, let alone going to engineering and complete the design.

And so I get the majority of the population is around the San Francisco Bay Area, around the Greater Los Angeles and San Diego County regions. But there is tremendous need in rural parts of the state. If we look at per capita some of the greatest need in Australia. In your previous life you have dove deep into this. Whether it's in the City of San Francisco or right here working with the gov shop.

There is huge need when it comes to childhood poverty, economic development, education access, health care access in rural parts of California per capita some of the greatest need and it's something that we are very focused on and trying to be able to get this project to an ability project to final design and final engineering even to start accessing the federal funding that we're going to need and and unfortunately we're going to need a mile long damn tunnel to get under a UNESCO heritage site with over centuries old redwoods.

So there's some challenges there. And this investment, the highway has literally been falling in the Pacific and we spend 3740 million bucks a year holding that highway back. So I just want to express my frustration as well is that we need to invest in all parts of the state.

Former Executive Director is here who's been also very helpful and I just want to say thank you again. I want to be very clear. CTC has been fantastic over the last five years. We were able to get the 50 million thanks to the CTC's generosity. We just got to get it across the damn Finish line.

I'm going to have to stop saying damn here. But I get away. I appreciate. zero, yes, exactly. You're free to comment on that if you'd like, but it's more of a comment of needing that same type of stimulus in rural than what we see in urban.

I certainly agree with your sentiment and I'm sensitive to it. Mr. Pro Tem, thank you for raising.

And I would add the same. You know, I think it's, it's really critical. I mean, the work for California is for all Californians and people live in all sorts of different spaces and being able to meet the needs of urban communities, suburban communities and rural communities is really critical.

And so, you know, I appreciate you raising that and highlighting it because these are also really important parts of the state, as I shared. It's part of the state that I visit, not up north, but very much in like, you know, Central California. Being able to visit that area in that town, there are 3,000 people.

Those numbers don't go up year to year. Every time there's a census, there's. We don't see a huge jump where the 3000 has now moved to 6000. There's plenty of space to build, but their population is pretty much fixed and they still need access.

A couple of last year they had a large fire and that fire went all the way to the main road. That meant that evacuation routes needed to be someplace else.

So their evacuation routes were on streets that I've never even been on because that's not the way that I go up to go visit my in laws in the part of the state that they live in.

But those pieces are important because all Californians are important and they need to be able to access the things that they need. So I really appreciate you raising that and continuing to highlight the fact that we need to also pay attention to the needs of rural Californians.

Yeah, I mean, and I'll say it's a matter of life or death, at least on our piece. In our part of California, the only cancer treatment center down Highway 101 in Eureka, there is nothing in Del Norte County. Right.

When there was a fire north that closed Highway 299, the Pacific Power, who provides power up there, said, we'll get it over there here in a couple hours. What they didn't realize is that workaround is five and a half hours from Yreka. And I think where the frustration is is that no one knows where Crescent City is.

Right. But there is a population of 26,000 folks who are dependent on a lifeline and that's Highway 101. And so I think this is a story across the state.

And again, if we take a look at greatest need per capita childhood poverty, childhood abuse, ACE Scores, unsheltered homelessness, unequal access to health care, it's in rural parts of the state per capita. Right. We see larger numbers obviously in urban centers. Again, I appreciate you listening to Soapbox.

Obviously this is a very important issue and I know that you'll be looking at this here in the months to come. All right. Soapbox is now off the feet. I'm going to go open it up for folks who would like to be able to speak in support.

We're going to look for anyone who would like to be able to stand. We're going to ask you to state your first and last name along with the organization you represent. We're going to ask you to respectfully keep your comments to 30 seconds. Welcome, sir. It's good to see you.

Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. Members of the Committee, Keith Dunn here on behalf of the Self Help Counties Coalition, the State Building Construction Trades Council as well as the District Council of Ironworkers, I'm very pleased to support both nominees today and to listen to them talk about the various needs of our state.

I can tell you that the of which each and every one of you represent was born out of a need to address the deferred maintenance that's been addressed so much here today. Three of the five of you represent rural districts. We have very different needs in very different districts.

I'm very pleased to hear each of these nominees talk about the very needs of our state. We can do this. We do it throughout with different federal funding programs. We have needs in the Central Valley and the north state that are very different than our urban cores and we need to.

I'm pleased to see that this Legislature is starting to look at how we mitigate those programs, treat VMT so we can connect our housing needs. You may hear more about this later from one of our colleagues with where the transportation and job centers are. Those are critical. The Central Valley has ag needs. North State has different needs.

So I'm very pleased to support both these nominees and thank you very much for your time.

Hi, how are you doing? Wendy Mitchell, on behalf of Valley Metro. Pleased to support both of the nominees. They've already been huge contributors to the CTC and the policy depth and intellect that they bring and perspective for all of California is incredibly valuable. So thank you.

Good to see you thank you so much. Welcome. How you doing?

Doing well. Meg Snyder. I'm with Acxiom Advisors here on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in support of Jason Elliott's appointment and confirmation. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Mr. Chair. Members, Joshua Shaw. I've been the Executive Director of the California Transit Association for decades, representing all of your public transit agencies. I've local government, cities, counties, transportation agencies, three mayors of the city and County of San Francisco. I was going to tell you all about Mr. Elliott's policy chops. You've engaged him, you know.

I want to also let you know he's got program chops in the transportation space project. Chops in the transportation space.

Not just local government and state government, as the chair said, but you do regional governance when you work for the mayors of San Francisco and you care about the urban and the rural, the suburban folks, not just your city folks.

But most importantly to me, he's always evinced a deep and sincere care that all Californians are afforded the most equitable, safe, efficient, effective and environmentally sensitive mobility options possible. Urge you to vote aye on this confirmation. Thank you.

Thank you so much. How are you doing?

Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Senators Mitch Weiss with Khouri Consulting. We represent many of the metropolitan planning organizations and regional transportation planning agencies in the San Joaquin Valley, Central Coast, Marin, and smart. We're in strong support of both Commissioner Mann and Commissioner Elliott.

I personally have some familiarity with the Commission and that the duties of the commissioners, I can tell you, both of them have hit the ground running and are doing a fantastic job already. Thank you. Urge Ivan.

Thank you for all your work. Mr. Weiss. Good to see you.

Thank you so much. Hey, hey. Mr. Chairman. Members, Danny Curtin, California Conference of Carpenters. Nice to see you all here in support of Jason Elliott. Got to know him as staff at the governor's office. I must say he's smart, focused, hard working, pragmatic, problem solver.

I think I saw caused a few of those problems he might have solved too. But I think you've got a good hand here and I wish you guys the best of luck after hearing the problems you have. But I really look at you guys and say, good luck.

This is one of dozens of issues that you're going to have to grapple with and there's no money. So thank you very much. Good luck.

Zero, thank you so much. It's good to see you. Now, we'd like to be able to see if there's anyone else who would like to be able to stand in support. We're going to do a last call for support here and seeing no one rise, we're going to see if there's anyone opposed.

If you could please stand at this time. Last call for opposed. All right. Seeing no one rise, we're going to bring it back to Committee and see if there's any questions, comments or further discussion, please. Leader Jones.

Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. I just want to thank both of you for coming. I came in this afternoon undecided on how I was going to be voting on each of you this afternoon and just want to say, Ms. Mann, I appreciate your thoughtful answers to the questions today.

I'm sure there's going to be some disagreements on the how, on some of the things that we talked about, but I think the what I think we have some strong agreement on. Mr. Elliott, I appreciate your candor. I hope that that is a part of your normal decorum and not just for us here today.

But this was a dialed down version. Okay, good. I appreciate that because I operate in that same space as well and look forward to having some very candid conversations with you going forward. Both of you to me seem two people I can work with that, my constituents. When we have concerns, I can bring those to you.

And we're at least going to have a adult conversation about those things. We may not come away in agreement on how we solve them, but we're at least going to have a strong conversation about it. I appreciate that. I'm looking forward to supporting both of you today.

Thank you so much. Leader Jones, any additional discussion or debate from Committee here? I'm seeing none. Is there someone who would like to be able to offer a motion?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I offer a motion to move items B, Jason Elliott. Commissioner Jason Elliott, and item C, Commissioner Mann, for full confirmation of the Senate Floor.

We have a motion by Madam Vice Chair on items 1, B and C. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

5 to 050 vote. Commissioners, congratulations. Next up, Senate Floor. We are grateful for your work. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you for the open and honest dialogue. We're very, very grateful. Director Elliot, it's wonderful to see you as well. Thank you so much. All right, thank you so much.

We're gonna take a 60 second recess, then we're gonna come back, add on the Majority Leader to our other votes. So we're gonna take a 60 second recess, then we're gonna add on for Madam Majority Leader, then we're gonna go into Executive closed session. So 60 second recess, please. Thank you.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to come back and we're going to add on Madam Majority Leader to the following votes. Item 2, Governor appointees not required to appear. Item 3, Bill referrals. Item 4, Rule waiver requests. Item 5, Floor acknowledgments. I do want to make a note.

Each of these Items to item 2 through 12 currently have 4-0 votes. 4-0 votes. So let's start with Bill referrals. Madam Secretary, can you please call the absent Members.

[Roll Call]

5-0 vote. Motion passes. We're going to close the roll. We're now going to move on to rule waiver request. Smooth operating machine, that I am. Thank you so much, Madam Secretary. We're now moving on. That was Governor appointees. Here we go, the referrals. Current vote is 40. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

5-0 vote. That motion passes for closing the roll. We're now moving on to rule waiver request. Current vote is 4-0. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

5-0 vote. Motion passes. Closing the roll. Last item, floor acknowledgments. Current vote is 4-0. Madam Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

5-0 vote. Motion passes. We're going to close the roll. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're now going to adjourn into Executive closed session. We're going to ask, respectfully if folks can please clear the room. We're going to be adjourning into recessing and going into Executive closed session.