Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. Good afternoon and welcome everyone. The hearing room is open for attendance of this hearing and it can be watched livestream on the Assembly's website.

We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California in order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time.

We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. We encourage the public to provide written testimony by visiting the Committee website.

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

We do not yet have a quorum, so we will start our our Committee proceedings and hear bills as a Subcommitee. And so with that we'll move on to.

As I understand it, we have some authors who have other things to do and we want to give them the opportunity to participate in other committees that are being heard at this that are operating at the same time. And so we are going to move as a Subcommitee to item number four, AB954. Bennett. If the author could come forward with the testimony. You can begin when you are ready.

There we go. Thank you Madam Chair and Members. And I want to thank my colleague Assemblymember Haney who is graciously allowing us to move forward so we can go on to another Committee. But. But. AB954 establishes a pilot program through Caltrans for the establishment of bike highways in two metropolitan areas.

The Bill would also require a report to the Legislature on the program with recommendations on establishing a statewide bikeway program. The establishment of bike highways has been successful in a number of international cities including Copenhagen, London and Bogota. In London, the city's developed a cycleways which are intended to reach 40% of city residents by 2030.

Currently, the city has established over city cycleways over 60 cycleways including linking high traffic areas with the city to communicate in surrounding suburbs. In 2022, Caltrans released a study Caltrans Bay Area Bike Highway Study which looked at best practices and long term steps needed to develop the highway network.

They establish recommendations for six potential bike highways in the Bay Area. AB954 would take the first concrete steps to establishing a statewide bike highways program by establishing two pilot programs. The framework would then be in place for the development of bike highway systems linking urban areas.

With an increasing number of Californians seeking out alternative means of transportation, a pilot program in California is the next logical step. With me today is Jared Sanchez, California Bicycle Coalition, in support of the Bill.

Thank you. Hello, Chair Wilson. Members, my name is Jared Sanchez, Policy Director for Cal Bike, also known the California Bicycle Coalition for Caltrans Bike highway study in 2022. Bike highways are high quality, uninterrupted long distance bikeways that provide full separation from motor vehicles.

They are intended to accommodate high volumes of people traveling longer distances on bikes by connecting users to major destinations, employment centers and transit hubs. Bike highways are unique from other biking facilities because they generally serve as a fully separated backbone to larger regional bike networks. California has an extensive and growing highway system for cars.

As a statewide coalition for people on bikes, we think it's time to create a system of connected, protected networks to allow people on bikes to swiftly and safely reach popular destinations. Bike highways are a powerful tool to fight climate change. As the threat of climate disaster grows exponentially each year, California must change its transportation systems.

Electric cars are a good step, but they aren't enough to solve the climate crisis. Bike highways will create routes where people can get where they need to go quickly by bike, making bikes an excellent alternative to bumper to bumper traffic. In addition, bike highways may provide critical escape routes in the face of escalating natural disasters.

Bikes can be an efficient mode for moving many people quickly away from danger, free from traffic jams. In recent years, Caltrans and CALSTA have developed the research and policy mechanisms to develop these types of transformational projects. And we now must give Californians these transformational choices.

The Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure, also known as captai, is, is the best example that highlights the ITIP to fast track new aligned projects. Caltrans has shifted their investment priorities for transportation infrastructure through various changes in programs and laws to meet the state's climate, health and social equity goals.

A network of bike highways will concretely serve these goals. We encourage you to vote yes for AB954. And. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Sanchez. And to the author, before we proceed, we have been operating as a Subcommitee, and as I understand it, we do now have a quorum. And so, Secretary, could you call the roll?

Wilson. Wilson here. Davies. Davies here. Aguiar-Curry. Ahrens. Ahrens here. Carrillo. Carrillo here. Harabedian. Harabedian here. Hart. Hart here. Hoover. Jackson. Lackey. Lackey here. Lowenthal. Macedo. Macedo here. Papan. Ransom. Rogers. Rogers here. Ward.

All right, we have established a quorum. With that, we'll move on to Members of the public who would like to offer me to testimony and support. Now would be the appropriate time to give name, organization and position and I'll move the Bill. I think we had a move from Rogers and a second from. And catch. Okay.

Mark Fuic on behalf of Streets for All in support of the Bill.

Sophia Aficova with the Coalition for Clean Air and Support.

Good afternoon. Chair Members. Jeannie Wardwaller representing Transform, NRDC and Climate Plan in support.

Katie McCammon with Climate Action California and 350 Sacramento in support.

Thank you. It doesn't show any opposition, but I will give an opportunity for a primary witness and opposition to come forward now if they choose to do so. Seeing none. Looking for any Members of the public who wanted to do an additional testimony, name, organization, position in opposition to this Bill. Seeing none.

Moving back to Members of the Committee, we did have a first and second by Rogers and Carrillo. Are there any Members of the Committee who would like to have any conversations on this? I'd look to Vice Chair Davies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much for being here. I just want to talk a few things about this is I do have concerns when we are taking, we're basically diverting gas taxes from certain road projects.

And I understand the, the reason of what you're doing, but the voters, you know, the voters voted, they voted for SB1, they voted for the money from the gas tax to go to infrastructure.

And right now I think that really should be our priority since we have, I think we have a, we have a 64% shortage next decade for gas powered cars. And if you look at the stats right now, our record this year was a C. It moved from a C minus to a C.

When it comes to California infrastructure and the things that I think that are very important, especially when we talk about affordability, is that if you look at our roads, we have a D plus rating on our roads and yet we're not getting that money coming to there.

We also have rail, we have storm water a D, transit a D, wastewater a D plus and bridges a C. When we go into dams, this is money that the voters were told a promise, made a preference.

That's why they voted to make sure that yes, we will put a tax on the gas, but it's supposed to be coming to our areas. And you also have to remember that this money will also be taken away from rural areas. Rural areas that count on this, especially infrastructure.

And not only that, if you look at the damages with potholes, I mean there's probably no city that doesn't have a lot of potholes. If you look at the damage just the way between 2018 and 2023 there were 30,000 Caltrans damage claims.

But I think even more important is roadway features including potholes, debris and other hazards are estimated to be contributing factor in about one third of fatal and serious traffic crashes. So I understand the importance of this. But right now we have to make sure we're being accountable for every penny of our taxpayers dollars.

And I think that right now we need to make sure that our roads are safe and that the money is going to where the voters were told it was going to. Thank you.

Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah, it's certainly a notable thing to try to protect the environment. But in the same right. I feel like this is an imbalance because it focuses only on major metropolitan regions and the funds come from all of us.

And I think it's imbalanced and unfair because quite frankly rural areas bicycle transportation is not reasonable and so I can't support it.

Go ahead. Assemblymember Macedo.

I echo that we need to protect our environment and I'm all about that. I come from a rural area that we still have roads that are just not in good working order. So I'd really love for my district to have good working roads the same way a lot of our metropolitan areas do.

And then when we have achieved that for all Californians, we can proceed forward with projects like this. Thank you.

Assemblymember Harabedian.

Thank you Madam Chair. Just want to thank the author for bringing the Bill and obviously all the supporters that we heard from. I think this is very much needed and I would like to be a co author added to the Bill. And I think that these are these types of pilots and programs are forward looking.

They are where we need to be long term. And I do think that bicycle highways can be implemented throughout the state. So I don't think that this is one region versus another.

Obviously when you have a pilot you have to start somewhere and I think we want to start where we have the most success in that pilot and I think that's what you're trying to do here. So appreciate you doing this. I think it's really good for the state across the board. Thank you.

Assembly Member Ahrens said you want to no. Okay. I thought I was seeing a raise hand. Thank you Assembly Member for authoring and presenting this Bill to the Committee. Bicycle highways have been a point of discussion and a priority at the state and regional level.

This Bill creates a pilot program to make by highways eligible within the regional share of the state transportation improvement Program. And this type of infrastructure has been included in Caltrans active Transportation Plan as well as a Bay Area Bike highway study.

This Bill aligns regional and state goals and guidance by creating a pilot program for bicycle highways within the inter Regional Transportation Improvement Program.

And it's my understanding that the intent of this Bill is not for bike highways to supersede other priorities across the region, but rather provide eligibility for bike highways should it be an appropriate project in the region.

And so I look forward to the report to this Legislature this Bill creates, which is something we've asked our authors to do and I look forward to them answering it. And I'll be supporting your Bill today with an I recommendation. We have a motion made by Assemblymember Rogers for followed by Assemblymember Carrillo.

I give you an opportunity to close and then we'll call the roll.

Thank you very much and I appreciate the comments and I appreciate the concerns that were raised by my colleagues. I just think there are two things that we should keep in mind and one is there is a real revolution going on in bicycling in California and that is the electric bike.

The electric bike has become much more cost effective. It is a way that low income people can now commute long distances to work.

And I think that it is very appropriate for us to realize that people who aren't in as good a health as you used to associate with long distance bike riders, et cetera, are now capable of commuting significant distances by bike. We have a last mile problem in California with transit.

This is a way to address the last mile problem also because you can solve that problem just by taking the bike.

The other thing I would point out is that certainly in my county we have a significant amount of rural area and it is the rural areas that have been giving us the strongest support because they we have young people in the City of Santa Paula that want to commute to the community college that is in another city that is about 10 miles away from them.

Transit is never going to serve their needs as little as transit does it.

But they if they had a Class 1 protected highway because when they get out of class at 9:30 at night they don't want to be riding on the shoulder of a road with a with a one foot shoulder on a two lane rural road trying to get Back to Santa Paula. That's just an example.

So I would offer. This is not for metropolitan areas only. You start in the metropolitan areas because that's the most likely place for a pilot program to be successful. But this really is designed for California's total state population, number one.

And number two, it's designed for this time, a time when electric bicycles are revolutionizing bicycle travel in our state. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I appreciate the support of the chair.

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

Wilson. Wilson, aye. Davies. Davies, no. Aguiar-Curry. Ahrens aye. Carrillo. Carrillo aye. Harabedian aye. Hart. Hart aye. Hoover. Jackson. Jackson aye. Lackey. Lackey no. Lowenthal. Macedo. Macedo no. Papan. Ransom. Rogers. Rogers aye. Ward.

That Bill has seven ayes and three noes. We'll leave the roll open for other Members to add on. Thank you. Before we go to return to file order, we'll dispense with the consent calendar. We have six bills on our proposed consent calendar. File item 6 through 11. First Bill being AB 1299, followed by AB 1272. AB 978, AB 544, AB 545, AB 1149. Is there a motion?

Madam Chair, I move the consent calendar.

Moved by Ahrens, seconded by Rogers. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Wilson.

Wilson, aye. Davies. Davies, aye. Aguiar-Curry. Ahrens. Ahrens, aye. Carrillo. Carrillo, aye. Harabedian. Harabedian, aye. Hart. Hart, aye. Hoover. Jackson. Jackson, aye. Lackey. Lackey, aye. Lowenthal. Macedo.

Aye.

Aye.

Macedo, aye. Papan. Ransom. Rogers. Rogers, aye. Ward.

That has 10 votes. And we'll hold the roll open for Members to add on. There are five bills to discuss today. We've already discussed item number four. We'll return to file item order. So the first one being AB289. Haney, you may proceed at your convenience.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I want to start by thanking you and your staff for your hard work on this Bill and your continued engagement. Over the last year, speeding vehicles pose a deadly threat to construction workers on California's highways.

Just in the last three years, there have been five work fatalities and 19 serious injuries as a result of vehicles entering construction zones. In 2023 alone, there were more than 100 vehicle intrusions into highway construction work zones.

While statewide efforts like the presence of California Highway Patrol and active construction zones have helped to deter speeding drivers, these efforts cannot and do not capture all speeding vehicles through active highway construction zones. AB289 implements a proven method, automated speed enforcement in active construction zones. A solution to reduce crashes, protect workers, reduce speeding and enhance driver safety.

Automated speed enforcement has been proven to save lives in at least 16 other states where they have automated speed enforcement in active construction work zones. This includes Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico and about 8 more. Pennsylvania saw a 19% reduction in work zone crashes after implementing automated speed enforcement.

And Maryland saw an 80% decrease in speeding violations in work zones within two years. Now is the time for us to act on this proven solution. One life lost is one too many and we cannot afford to lose another worker. We work diligently with the California Association of Highway Patrolmen and the Peace Officers Research Association of. California.

They've had concerns about similar approaches in the past and we've addressed their concerns on this measure. There is one group remaining in opposition and we will continue to engage with them moving forward. Here with me to testify in support of the bill are Michael Gilotti, CEO and President of Jalati Brothers, and James T.H.

walker, legislative advocate for the California State Council of Laborers. We also have Chris Lee on behalf of the United Contractors to answer any technical questions.

Move the bill.

All right, we have a first by Harabedian and a second by Rogers. All right, looking to our witnesses for testimony. You may begin.

Good afternoon. There we go. Good afternoon. Chair Wilson and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of AB289. My name is Mike Gilotti, President and CEO of Gilotti Brothers, a third generation family owned construction company.

During our 111 years performing over $2 billion in heavy highway work and working on all major highways throughout the Bay Area, mostly at night. We're proudly employing over 400 union workers representing laborers, operators, cement masons, carpenters, teamsters.

Every day we send men, women, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters out to build these freeways we rely so mostly on. And every day we put them at extreme risk. Working in many cases 2ft away from live traffic that is whizzing by at speeds of 70, 80 and 90 miles an hour.

Most of the time the only thing between them and the cars is a two foot orange cone. Every year, workers lives are needlessly lost due to speeding and reckless drivers. Harley makes the news. But when our workers are killed, their family and friends remember it every day for the rest of their lives.

We owe it to the men and women working on the highways to do everything we can to to ensure they go home safely to their loved ones. That is why I'm here today to strong support of AB289. AB289 will protect and save lives and drivers by implementing automated speed enforcement throughout the highway work zones, the active ones.

Despite strict safety protocols, highway construction zones remain incredibly dangerous. Recently, our traffic control worker and a father of three had a speeding car enter the lane closure and smash into his door just seconds after he climbed into the cab and shut the door. I've seen the video. It's horrifying. On a recent Highway 50 construction project.

I have to have you wrap up.

Thank you. The reduced speeds signs captured 10 people exceeding 100 miles an hour in a three day period. Automated speed force enhancement is groundbreaking policy. American roads and transportation have verified that a 10 mile an hour reduction results in 34% reduction in fatalities.

And last month there was a clip from a family who said, my family is pleading for drivers to spare other families this pain. To be cautious and careful around construction zones. My kids are not going to have their father and I'm not going to have my husband. He's never coming home.

I urge you to vote like it's your own child or spouse working on the highways. Thank you. I'll have to move on to the next.

Thank you. And so I don't think we're having opposition, but if we were, it did go to 2 minutes and 50 seconds. And so if we were having opposition, they would have to get that same amount of time. I'd ask you if you could be as brief as possible so we can stay on track.

Will do. Madam Chair. Thank you so much. James Thuerwachter with the California State Council of Laborers. We represent about 80,000 men and women throughout the state who work in the heavy construction industry. I'd like to thank the author for his continued leadership on this very important legislation.

I'd also like to take a brief moment and acknowledge my members who drove here to Sacramento today because they know all too well that highway safety and the worker safety is our highest priority. So will my laborers please rise? Thank you. Thank you all for being here. Members.

Recent transportation infrastructure funding has created numerous opportunities for people of color, women and formerly incarcerated individuals to enter the construction trades. In fact, traffic control, lane delineation and flagging are the fastest growing occupations for women in the construction field. Unfortunately, this type of work is becoming increasingly dangerous.

Over the past five years, California has suffered over 600 fatal crashes within active work zones, 1600 work zone injuries, and at least 25 construction worker deaths. Madam Chair, Members, these numbers are bad, but I want to emphasize Just what I want to echo with the author said. One life loss is one too many.

One injury on these work sites is one too many for our Members, especially when there are mechanisms in place that can help curtail these tragedies. AB 289 is not about punishing drivers, but rather changing behavior.

Automated speed enforcement is an effective tool which many states have already implemented and we think it's time for California to catch up and provide our workers with the same level of safety. On behalf of the thousands of hard working men and women in the industry, we respectfully ask that you stand with US and support AB289. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving on to additional testimonies for Members of the public. Please state your name, organization and position.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council as well the District Council of Iron Workers asking for your support for this good bill.

Good afternoon. Kiana Valentine with Transportation California in support.

Good afternoon. Melanie Perrin on behalf of the Associated General Contractors and support.

Good afternoon. Gus Flores on behalf of United Contractors and strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mike Carpenter on behalf of AAA of Northern California and the California Asphalt Pavement Association. Strong support.

Good afternoon. Eric Rud with the Operating Engineers Local 12 in support.

Good afternoon. Rob Carey on special rep with the Operating Engineers Local 3. We're in support.

Good afternoon. Kendale Jackray on behalf of the Latino Caucus of California Counties and strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Rich Hufford with DeSilva Gates Construction here in strong support.

Hello. Vince Courtney, Northern California District Council of Labor. Strong support.

All right, moving back to testimony. Opposition testimony. As I understand it, we do have formal opposition but they are not here to testify today. Seeing none moving to anyone in the audience who wanted to offer additional comments of name, organization, position and opposition. Seeing none moving it to Members of the Committee for any Comments. Assemblymember Lackey.

Yes, certainly I would like to commend the author for the concern for safety. However, I will tell you and to those who support this bill, there's a much more credible pathway for safety and that is through manned enforcement. And California Highway Patrol has a long history of trying to work in these construction zones.

And I will tell you that a high percentage of of these enforcement actions result in impaired driving. These drivers who are speeding through are impaired and through this camera process they'll just continue to drive impaired. And I will tell you that that's that poses a bigger threat to the public.

And I will also say I agree that it's not about punishing drivers because this relaxes the standard and the accountability because it takes it from a criminal accusation to a civil. I don't think that's a good pathway. I think anytime you relax accountability, it encourages misconduct. And that's based on my own experiences with traffic.

And I'll let that rest with that.

Seeing none other. I won't. Sorry. Vice Chair Davies, my apologies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to say thank you so much for bringing this forward. I know it's something that you've been working on for quite a few years and safety, especially on the freeways we're driving, we see very close calls.

And so I want to say thank you for that and I would love to be a co author on that. Thank you.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Rogers.

Just as a point of clarification for the author, if you could, my understanding is that the bill does. Not preclude additional enforcement if there is. Somebody there, a CHP, that they also are able to keep the roads safe.

This just provides additional enhancement and safety measures in the event that somebody is not there, which in many of the areas that myself and my colleague represent could be the case given how rural and how how few CHP there are.

Absolutely. I could not agree more that CHP has the essential role in enforcement here. This is not intended to replace them in any way, nor is that the intent or the outcome of this Bill. It's really about supplementing it, particularly in those areas where they can't be there and so absolutely would agree.

We need to make sure CHP is everywhere they can be but where they aren't. This will help.

Assemblymember Harabedian.

Thank you Madam Chair.

Want to thank the author. I want to thank all of the advocates that came up, especially the laborers and those that probably took time off of work to be here. Really much appreciated. Would be honored to be a co author of the bill.

I think that we need more safety, not less and I don't think that this excludes other measures. I do think that the staff analysis, which was excellent, does note that obviously this isn't going to be enough.

We need more engineering safeguards and things that are put on our highways to make sure that everyone is retains as much safety as possible and that's going to be working with law enforcement, as my colleague noted. But I think this is a good bill and I appreciate you bringing it and happy to co author.

Thank you Assembly Member Ahrens.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would be honored to be a co sponsor as well. Thank you Assemblymember Haney.

Absolutely.

Seeing none other. I'll. I'll do my comments. First of all, thank you, Assembly Member Haney, for bringing this forward. Thank you for your patience as we had this discussion last year. It's been important to me and this is really for everyone who has talked about pilot programs.

It's been important for me to wait until pilot programs are completed before we expand another pilot program. I've asked various authors to hold off on adding additional cities to existing pilot programs as we wait for the results, which is the point of a pilot.

I'm supportive of this bill and see it differently because it applies to speed cameras in a different use case than our other pilot bills such as AB645, which targeted local streets and roads. And I appreciate the work that you've done to negotiate a deal with California Highway Patrolmen Association, also known as our CHP Association. Extremely important.

Which is part of why we asked this bill last year to wait until this year to give an opportunity for that. I will note, as been noted from my colleagues as well as in the analysis is this does not replace manned CHP. They will still do there, be there, still patrol.

They are required to be there in cases of some of these projects. And so this does not take them away. It simply supplements. And I also would like to note that based on my comments that I've said from various dice and committees that I am concerned about the proliferation of cameras in our communities.

And I appreciate that your bill limits the speed safety systems to 75, which is around SE 10% of construction zones in our state, which is I think is appropriate for a pilot. And I also appreciate your amendment to limit the speed safety systems to only operate in active construction zones. This is where workers are present.

So absolutely will be supporting your bill today. I look forward to seeing the results and improve safeties for our workers. And I thank you to our workers for coming with that. We have a motion made by Herabedian and seconded by Rogers. And so Madam Secretary, please. Oh give you an opportunity to close. My apologies.

No, no, no worries. Opportunity close.

Before Madam Secretary calls, I'll be very brief. Thank you again, Madam Chair, for your partnership and work on this and your commitment and for holding us accountable to making sure that the things that we're doing are actually able to be effective and demonstrated before we make these expansions. Appreciate everyone's comments and willingness to join as co authors.

I really want to acknowledge and recognize the coalition that's come together, not just the folks who are out there every day doing the work.

And I want to recognize all of the workers who are here with us, they do essential work for our state to make sure that we can get around and get goods around and operate as a state. And they do it at great risk. And so this is about protecting them.

And also want to recognize that the employers have also come forward and they made this a huge priority to make sure that their workers are protected. It's incredibly important. And the California Association of Highway Patrolmen has worked with us very closely and in partnership. And I'm grateful for their work as well.

And with that, respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Good work, Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

That's 9 votes and we'll hold the roll open for Members to add on. Thank you. All right, we have our Next author here, AB674. The author is Connolly. This is file item number two. You may begin at your convenience.

Are we good? Okay. Good afternoon, Chair and members, proud to present AB674 which will update the Clean Cars for All program to focus on removing the highest polluting vehicles on the road and help California reach our emission targets. The California Air Resources Board called for 50% reductions in gasoline use between 2021 and 2030.

However, gasoline use has stayed fairly consistent over the last decade and is forecasted to decrease only by 10% by 2030. Older vehicles have accounted for the highest levels of pollution and have disproportionately hurt disadvantaged and low-income communities. The Clean Cars for All program was established in 2017 and has proven to be effective.

Since its inception, the program has upgraded 21,900 vehicles and reduced 98,700 metric tons of carbon dioxide. AB674 will help reduce the negative impact of gasoline pollution by requiring CARB to prioritize vehicles in the CC4A program that are manufactured prior to 2004 and located within disadvantaged and low-income communities.

AB 674 will also codify the expansion of the CC4A program by requiring specific vehicle data collection, increasing incentive amounts for the highest emitting vehicles and establishing a needs-based approach for the CC4A program incentive. This approach is essential to ensure that clean transportation is more affordable for low-income Californians. I will now pass it to my witnesses.

Michelle Canales, a Western States Policy Advocate for the Union of Concerned Scientists and Tom Knox, the Executive Director of Valley CAN. Welcome.

It's been moved by Vice Chair Davies, seconded by Ahrens. You may proceed.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. My name is Michelle Canales, Western States Policy Advocate with Union of Concerned Scientists and co-sponsor of AB674. California Zero Emission Vehicle sales have continually increased each year and significant state investment has played a large part in that growth.

However, low income and disadvantaged communities continue to face barriers to EV adoption and bear the brunt of significantly worse air pollution because of it.

A recent report, UCS and Greenlining Institute, conducted found that older passenger vehicles manufactured before 2004 make up only 19% of light duty cars on the road but are responsible for 73% of all NOx emissions from passenger vehicles. These older cars are disproportionately located in communities with greater percentages of people of color and low-income households.

And retiring these high emitting cars will lead to greater air quality and public health benefits for these regions. That is why it is imperative we modernize the Clean Cars for all program with AB 674. The bill updates and improves the guidelines by having CARB prioritize low-income households within DAC census trucks that drive a pre-2004 vehicle.

The bill additionally ensures that expansions of the Clean Cars for All program are subject to requirements that have been previously enacted by the legislature to ensure better distributional equity in awarding grants.

This bill will apply all reporting, equity, and tax provisions that exist in statute to all Clean Car for All programs equally, which will allow for a much more comprehensive understanding of program performance. Union of Concerned Scientists along with our partners Coalition for Clean Air and Valley CAN respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are you just providing technical. Okay. All right. Sounds good. All right. Thank you for the testimony. Moving to members of the public who would like to offer additional testimony. Name, organization and position.

Good morning. Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air also co-sponsors of this Bill in support.

Katie McCammon with Climate Action California in support.

Thank you. I don't see any opposition on file, but this would be an appropriate time for any primary witnesses in opposition to come forward if there are any. Seeing none. Looking to anyone who wanted to provide additional testimony in opposition. Seeing none. Moving now to Members of the Committee, are there any questions, comments or concerns? Seeing none.

We do have a motion made by Vice Chair Davies and a second by Ahrens. I'll just note. Thank you for this Bill. Here in California, the transportation sector is the leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions with 27.6% coming from passenger vehicles.

The need for lower income individuals and families to have access to affordable lower emission vehicles is critical to meet California's goals to reduce THC.

Excuse me. While the goal of AB674 is to target replacement of the oldest and highest emitting vehicles and to streamline access for low income and disadvantaged communities, the additional application requirements could discourage people to apply for the program.

A similar Bill was introduced last year to try and address these issues with CARBs funding allocations and the overlap of services provided by the Air District CC For All program and the statewide program. Now that the statewide program is more fully implemented, going forward, it'd be important to ensure that these programs work in harmony.

That all programs are adequately funded and they complement one another. And with that, I'm supporting this Bill. Give the author opportunity to close before going to the roll.

Appreciate that, Madam Chair. You. You really said it so well. And also just noting no opposition to the Bill. And with that I respectfully asked for an I vote. Thanks again.

Thank you, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB674 is do pass and to be referred to the Committee on Natural Resources. Wilson.

Aye.

Wilson, aye. Davies. Davies, aye. Aguiar-Curry. Ahrens. Ahrens, aye. Carrillo. Carrillo, aye. Harabedian. Harabedian, aye. Hart. Hart, aye. Hoover. Jackson. Jackson, aye. Lackey.

Lackey I. Lowenthal. Macedo. Papan. Ransom. Rogers. Rogers, aye. Ward. Ward, aye.

Aye.

That has 10 votes, and we'll hold the roll open for members to add on. All right, I'd like to invite. We're going to move on to file item 5. I do not see file item 3, Zbur here. So, calling Zbur. We do have file item five here: AB 1237, McKinnor.

And as we go to our second to last bill, I'll ask members of the committee who have not yet come in to start making their way, so that we can end in a timely manner. To the author, at your convenience.

I would like to begin thanking Assembly Member Ahrens for partnering with me. Thank you so much. As a joint author on this bill and noting that pending approval by committee today, I will be taking amendments the next policy committee to add an urgency clause for this measure.

Madam Chair and members, as the host, LA assembly members for the upcoming 2026 FIFA World cup, we are pleased to present AB 1237 which will authorize the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, LA Metro, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, VTA, to access a $5 fee on primary official game ticket purchases for the 2026 FIFA World cup games.

This bill would also authorize VTA to access this fee on primary tickets purchased for the 2026 MCAA Men's or Women's Basketball Championship.

Fees collected for the games in Los Angeles County will be transmitted to the LA Metro and fees collected for games in Santa Clara County would be transmitted to the VTA, where ticket purchasers will be able to use their event admission tickets as the same day event ticket anywhere on the LA Metro or VTA Systems.

The upcoming 2026 FIFA World cup games and the 2026 NCAA Men's or Women's Basketball Championship presents a unique opportunity to showcase the vibrance and diversity cultures of Los Angeles County and Santa Clara County and its surrounding communities to the world.

When the games begin, increased domestic and global visitors will further congest LA County and Santa Clara County's already stressed road-based transportation infrastructure, complicating game related logistics and impacting public safety response time.

Given the security logistics surrounding the World Cup games, there will be little if any vehicle parking anywhere near the games venues and sports fans will have to rely on transit to get to and from these games.

Integrating a transit pass with your ticket to a World Cup or NCAA final game will make it easier for sports fans from around the world visiting our cities to use our transit systems, reduce road congestion, improve local air quality, and provide critical resources needed to meet the increased surge demand for transportation in both host cities.

Members, California is not a new playing host, is not new to playing hosts to some of the largest sports or entertainment events in the world.

As we look to the future, we must start thinking and taking action on how to better integrate transit use beyond its traditional uses, like how we get to and from work or school and begin to fully integrate transit use into all aspects of our lives, including participating in sporting and entertainment events. As California prepares to welcome the world's next the world next year. AB 1237 is an important component to ensure that sports fans across California and around the globe are able to safely access these once in a generation games and celebrate the culture of sports.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1237. Today, our witness is Chris Micheli from LA Metro and Delaney Hunter from Valley Transportation Authority. Thank you.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, Chris Micheli, on behalf of the LA Metro Transit Authority, a proud co-sponsor with our colleagues at VTA. We appreciate the authorship of Assemblymembers McKinnor and Ahrens for this important measure.

The $5 charge is obviously for revenues for the 2026 World Cup games, eight of which will be at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood and six in Santa Clara County. And obviously both of our transit authorities are going to see substantially increased operational needs associated with these 14 games. Obviously, the FIFA World Cup is a worldwide celebration of soccer.

Metro estimates about $25 million in increased cost for the eight games at SoFi Stadium and we're basically trying to find a simple way to get folks to and from those games.

As the assemblymember noted, between transportation and security needs, we're going to have to have that public transportation available for folks and we're trying to make it as simplistic as possible. The fees are only on those who are attending, again, the games and we hope that you will support this measure as it moves forward.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, Delaney Hunter, on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. A big thank you to Assemblymember McKinnor and Ahrens for this creative solution to attracting and making sure that the transit public writing crew can participate in these games. We also have the Super Bowl coming to Santa Clara.

So, 2026 is a big year for us. We think that the opportunity to use transit is great. The hard perimeter around Levi's right now is contemplated to be about a mile. There will be no way for you to park and simply of walk into the stadium. You will need to use transit.

If you've been to Levi's, you know we have robust transit that serves that facility today. We do expect that it will be even more with FIFA and also at SAP for NCAA. Again, many thanks to Ms. McKinnor and Mr. Ahrens, and Madam Chair, to you and your team, for working so diligently on this bill, and we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Now moving on to additional testimony. So, name organization, and position.

Marc Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All and very strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Elmer Lizardi, on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving on to opposition. As I understand it, we do have an opposition witness. Mr. Kaufman. Good to see you too.

I stand here or go in there.

Can come and have a seat at the table.

Oh, there we go. My thanks to the chair Members and the author for allowing me to speak today. I'm Scott Kaufman, Legislative Director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. We oppose AB 1237 because we do not believe it meets any of the seven constitutional exemptions from it being a tax that requires a vote of the people.

LA Metro and VTA are local governments as defined by Article C13C1B and are special purpose districts. Therefore, the $5 charge if it is a tax is a special tax that needs a 2/3 voter approval under Article 13C 2D.

Article 13C 1E defines a tax to mean any levy, charge or exaction of any kind by a special government except for the seven aforementioned exemptions. Since AB 1237 does not appear to qualify for any of those exemptions, it is a tax.

And because LA Metro and VTA are special districts, it is a special tax that needs the approval of 2/3 of voters residing within the County of Los Angeles, the territory of LA Metro, which is all of Los Angeles County, including its cities. The same would be true for VTA within its territory.

With that in mind, we ask for your no vote because this needs to go on the ballot. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving for additional testimony and opposition. Looking for anyone to like to give name, organization and position. Seeing none. Pulling back to Members of the Committee. I see the co author or are you principal or joint? I can't remember. Joint.

Joint, I believe.

Yes. Assemblymember Ahrens, go ahead.

Thank you. I just want to thank the Member from Los Angeles for bringing this forward. Forward. And I say, you know, now's the time to do whatever we can to support our public transportation use. I think this is a common sense proposal.

I want to thank particularly VTA for doing everything that they can to increase and support public transportation. I think we need to be working closer together, particularly with our unions, to do everything that we can to come to better conclusions on how we treat our workers and how we move forward on supporting more public transportation use.

I will say when we had the Taylor Swift concert, I used VTA and you were just seamless in getting that done. We need to do more. And yes, I am A swifty, Mr. Jackson, but I will say in regards to the super bowl and the World Cup, both are coming to my district at Levi's.

This Bill goes to the heart of the matter of which is increasing and incentivizing public transportation use. And so I want to commend the author and I'm really proud and I urge an I vote and I'd like to move the Bill.

All right. We have a motion by Assemblymember Ahrens and second by Harabinian, but did you want to make comments or. Just a second. Okay, just a second. Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah, I feel like a curmudgeon today, but it's really not my intent. I give you an A plus for creativity on this particular issue. I am a significant sports fan, but unfortunately I see this as an open door for creating a new way to tax consumers.

And I feel like that there's a process in place that would probably get supported. And however, I think that that should be that process should be respected. And I think that unfortunately if this gets passed, which it's likely to do, so it's going to be challenged in court.

And I worry about that at the cost of the consumer once again. So unfortunately, I think that I can't support it for that reason. But I do believe that there needs to be a mechanism to support that transportation and I just don't think this is the best pathway.

All right. I'm not seeing any other hands raised. Okay, we'll proceed. So thank you, Assembly Member McKenna, for bringing this Bill forward today. I appreciate your innovative approach, as some Members have said, to finding a way to reduce congestion for major events in our state.

Thank you for working with the Committee to add a report back to the Legislature so we can determine if this is a policy worth expanding to other events and transit agencies.

Major events at our stadiums have created traffic nightmares and pulling major event ticket fees to help provide supplemental high capacity transit trips and provide transit to all who attend an event is the only solution to reducing the traffic impacts these events have on our city.

And with that, I will be happy to support your Bill today give you the opportunity to close. We've had a first by Assembly Member Aarons and a second by her Bedian to the author.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members, I just like to ask answer the question about the tax AB 1237 is a fee for service. There will not be parking surrounding the World Cup venues in Inglewood or Santa Clara. So sports fans will need to rely on transit.

Integrating transit into the purchase of A ticket to a World Cup game will address security protocols and the efficiency of sports fans visiting the game venues. I mean, this is. It's a simple Bill. You get. You pay the $5. Which you would pay to Metro anyway or to Santa. To Santa Clara Metro anyway.

But this just gives them an opportunity to ride the transportation all day. And so I'm also a Swifty. I also went to the Taylor Swift concert at SoFi. And I would have to say, Chris, that it was seamless and we got in and out very quickly. And so with that, I would ask for your. I vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

It's 11 to 2 and we'll hold. The roll opens for other Members to add on. Thank you. All right, as we're moving into our last Bill of the day, I'd remind Members who are not present to return so that as we wrap that up, we can get roll call. All the other bills dispensed with.

Moving on to item number three, AB891 from Assembly Member Zbur. You may begin at your convenience, sir.

Madam Chair, Members. Today, I am proud to present AB 891, which will expand efforts to address the safety and mobility needs of Vulnerable Road Users, VRUs, in California. As Californians turn to alternate—alternative—forms of transportation, it's essential that we ensure proper planning is underway, to address the growing rates of traffic fatalities and injuries among pedestrians.

Despite the many efforts of state and local agencies to curb this issue, such as Vision Zero Policies and Strategies, these reforms have been insufficient to reduce safety concerns.

AB 891 represents a critical step forward, as it will require the Department of Transportation, Caltrans, to develop a Quick-Build Program that will quickly and cost-efficiently create safe routes on California State highways, for people to travel by bike, on foot, or by alternative low-impact, low-cost modes of transportation.

The program will require that Caltrans complete six Quick-Build projects by the end of 2028. Quick-Build projects are interim capital infrastructure projects. They require very minor construction activities, but are built with durable, low to moderate cost materials, and last from one year to five years.

These projects are intended to rapidly respond to safety needs, with urgent and meaningful improvements to active transportation infrastructure. Additionally, Quick-Builds allow for community members to benefit from changes made, while simultaneously having an opportunity to review and share their input of the improvements before a permanent construction takes place.

These projects allow for cost efficient, community-driven designs that can be easily modified to align with the accurate needs of those impacted.

Based on stakeholder feedback and further technical analysis, AB 891 aims to address the crisis of traffic fatalities and serious injuries, as it necessitates a comprehensive approach that includes both immediate action and long-term commitment, coupled with innovative solutions.

Quick-Builds are essential in advancing this goal, as they condense timelines, minimize planning and engineering costs, and use inexpensive materials to create safe roadways in months, rather than years. I ask for your "Aye" vote at the appropriate time, and with me today, in support of this Bill, is Jared Sanchez from the California Bicycle Coalition.

Hello, again, Chair and Members. My name is Jared Sanchez, Policy Director for Cal Bike. Just to repeat a little bit, Quick-Build Projects are temporary installations to test new street design improvements that improve safety and accessibility. Quick-Build Projects are reversible and adjustable traffic safety improvements that can be installed relatively quickly.

Unlike major capital projects that may take years to plan, design, bid, and construct, Quick-Build Projects are constructed within weeks or months. This is critical for addressing urgent traffic safety needs. Quick-Build can be used to explore how a community might slow speeds, create new connections, or encourage more walking and biking.

They give space for practitioners to test new ideas and innovative best practices. They're a great way to engage the community to gather real-time feedback on potential design, surfacing potential concerns from those who might be hesitant to support permanent projects.

Their low-cost, temporary nature also allows communities to explore designs before committing to permanent changes to existing infrastructure.

Many cities across California are implementing Quick-Build Projects, but there is no state level guidance for our state—for our state highways—many of which serve as community main streets for people walking and biking, and are some of the most dangerous streets in the state.

Encouraging Caltrans to act more quickly to rising traffic fatalities, particularly for our most vulnerable road users, biking and walking, during its routine maintenance, not only is cost effective but responsible commitment to department's safe system approach and division of reaching zero fatalities and serious injuries on the state highways by 2050. We encourage you to vote yes for AB 91.

Thank you.

Move the Bill.

Second.

Moved by Aguiar-Curry and seconded by Ahrens. With that, we'll go to testimony in support. Additional testimony in support may come forward.

Name, organization, and position.

Hello, again, Chair and Members. Jeannie Ward-Waller, representing Climate Plan Transform and the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, in support.

Hello. Katie McCammon, from Climate Action California. In support.

Kirsten Blod, on behalf of Streets for All, in support.

Thank you. Moving on to opposition testimony, it looks like we do not have any on file, but just to confirm, is there anyone here who wish to provide primary testimony in opposition? Seeing none. Is there anyone here who wishes to provide additional testimony—name, organization, and position in opposition? Seeing none.

Moving to Members of the Committee, to see if there's any questions, comments, or concerns. Assembly Member Lackey.

Yeah, I have a predictable position, unfortunately, because bicycles are not a reasonable transportation alternative for most rural areas.

We heard a previous author talk about the rural advantage, but he also was in a rural area and he referred to 10 miles being the distance traveled, as opposed to most rural areas that I represent have a 30 plus mile distance to any kind of service, and on the beach, it doesn't get 110-115 degrees, or have 60 mile an hour winds like we do, out where I'm at.

It's not a reasonable alternative where we are. And so, I feel like it's an unfair and an imbalanced focus on other areas that have very, very bad infrastructure demands, and bicycles—I don't remember that being part of SB 1—bicycle pathways, that the funds being used for that.

I can't speak with specificity, but certainly the impression was that it was going to be for roadway—for vehicular roadway—improvements. And so, I can't support it for obvious reasons. Thank you.

Did you want to, oh, did you want to respond to the author?

Yes. So, one, this is about basically the nexus between roadways and other uses. And obviously, we always want our roadways to be safe.

And yes, in some, some parts of California you may not be using pedestrian or bikes to get from your home to work, but I think in almost all areas of the state, people are using bikes and walking on roadways for recreational purposes.

And one of the things that this is focused on is really looking at the safety aspects of our roadways.

You know, we had a case in my district where we actually had a very heavily traveled road, and we had people killed on the side of the road because of the way that it was sort of paint—the lanes were painted around curves.

This would allow Caltrans to actually make quick changes to the roadway, to address primarily safety concerns for pedestrians and people riding bicycles. And it doesn't necessarily need to be in one part of the—in one part of the state.

I would, I would guess that there are safety concerns when roadways in every part of the state and probably in every district in the state.

Thank you. Moving. Assemblymember Hoover.

Thank you. Just a couple questions, I guess, for the author. I just want to make sure I'm reading this right. Would your Bill result in fewer vehicle lanes? I just want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting what the Bill says.

Some—possibly, but possibly not. It's about looking at road conditions now and looking at what is going to be safer, overall, on the roads.

It is not a—it's not a program to convert, to convert vehicle lanes into bike lanes necessarily, but there may be cases where you have more lanes than necessary and you actually have, you know, conditions around curves, around elevations, where, you know, cars are coming around a roadway, and you actually have people and bicyclists at risk.

So, if you look at this, it's about, primarily about safety, but—and it's also not about creating permanent bike lanes. It's about actually something that is temporary, one to five years, very low cost. In some cases, it may actually be something where you might want to test putting a bike lane in.

But by its very nature, this Bill is not about a permanent process. It's about a pilot project that allows for looking at roadway improvements, to make pedestrians and people that are using bicycles safer.

Okay. And the six projects that are kind of mentioned in this Bill, those will be funded, though, out of SB 1 dollars, the fuel and vehicle taxes, correct?

Likely, not necessarily. Do you want to answer that?

Yes, in the, in the analysis—in the very good analysis actually from the Committee—there was an HM 4 pilot that was discussed, and with that, it was federal IIJA money for, for that.

So, I assume when Caltrans—if this Bill is passed and approved—would, to the budget proposal process, tap the same resource, which is federal funds, which is not SB 1.

Okay. Tough time to be going after federal funds, I would say. So, I—look, it seems to me like there is a possibility, at least, that this could be funded by vehicle taxes and fee—vehicle and fuel taxes.

I think the reality for myself and my district, my constituents, you know, when SB 1 passed, I mean, our roads in Sacramento County are, are in just terrible shape. And I think not enough investment is going to my communities, particularly my unincorporated communities. We have a very active biking community.

And I very much appreciate the goals of this Bill, but at the end of the day, I just don't think that it—you know, I would need to see something very expressly stated that it would not be funded by the gas tax. So, with that, I'll have to oppose today. Thank you.

Before I turn it over to Vice Chair Davies, who I think is next to speak, I don't see any other hands, just to note that SB 1 funding does allow active transportation projects, which is allowable use per the law, per the voters, which this types of projects could fall under, in their low cost.

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just a few concerns here. And yes, this would come from the gas tax—use other projects you said—but that's not what the voters had voted on back in 2017. So, I just want to bring that up.

But I can tell you, too, that I always—we've had something like this a couple years ago, and I always like to poll or survey my district to see, you know, what's, what's a priority.

And I can tell you that taking care of potholes and road conditions, over a program like this, definitely was much more important to them because of the safety.

My other concern is, and which I would love to see is, this is a statewide pilot program, and we talk about pilot programs and the importance of perhaps starting them out in a district, so we can see if this works or not, and yet, this is going to be statewide.

And again, I think that's something that, which, that's my district as well, I'd love to see it become a budget process and to do it into your own district. And hey, if this works great, fantastic, then let's move it on.

But to go statewide for a pilot program, I just have, I have a concern and I've also seen some of the—I said we don't have the luxury right now of having extra money. 2022 we had $1 million surplus which is great, now, we have a major deficit.

So, you know, the program, I understand where you're going. I would love to see it become just a regional program, so that can really see it works, because it sounds like you've got the area that would work for it. Obviously, then it would cut the cost, as well, and it's something that we could look at.

But thank you. I just wanted to bring that up.

Thank you. And I just want to make sure we're extremely clear—before I give it to the author—if you want to give comments, to make sure people understand that SB 1 does allow for active transportation projects. It does allow for bicycling projects.

And this particular Quick-Build, as noted in the analysis notes, including but not limited to, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. So, I just want to make sure we have everything factual. To the author, if you wanted to say anything, before I give any closing comments.

Yeah, I would just sort of say, again, this is about safety, related to our highways.

I think, you know, I doubt that the, that the, that the voters—if you basically said, if we have very modest cost improvements that are going to save lives because we've got dangerous conditions, do you think that that is—should be lower priority than fixing a pothole? I would sort of, I would, I would wonder what the answer to that is. And as you said, this is a qualifying expense.

These are very low, low-cost items. They're something that are—they're temporary—so that they can actually—you can actually look at how the public is responding to them.

And the reason why we did this as a statewide—it's a pilot project—but the reason why we did as a statewide is because we didn't want this to be focused on any one area.

If other areas of the state really wanted to, sort of, see improvements in their area, it shouldn't be, it shouldn't be limited to my district, or the district next to mine; it should be to any district that actually has dangerous conditions that Caltrans decides is a good candidate for a, for a pilot project.

Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member Zbur, for authoring and presenting this Bill to this Committee.

Safety is of the utmost importance and everyone who's spoken today has said that, whether it be for pedestrian, a cyclist, a driver, a passenger, or even a first responder, the Quick-Build Pilot Program serves as an expedited process to build safety infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists on the state highway system.

Quick-Builds are low-cost, interim projects that implement temporary safety features, such as barrier elements, surface treatments, street furniture, and signs. These projects can be designed based on feedback to meet the needs of a particular community.

Furthermore, successful projects can lead to temporary solutions that inform the development of permanent solutions to help protect the safety of our most vulnerable road users. With that, I support this Bill, and I'll give you an opportunity to make any other closing remarks.

I think you've made my close, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That has 11—it's 11 to 4. I'm going to hold the roll open for other Members to add on.

Thank you very much.

We are going to start from the top. For any Members that are not here that would like to be added on and have their vote counted for Committee today. I would ask that you please come. We're going to go through this one time and then go through it one more time if people are present.

And then we will be closing the roll. Starting from consent calendar, we had six bills on our consent calendar. Item number 6. AB 1299. Item number 7. AB 1272. Item number 8. AB 978. Item number 9. AB 544. Item number 10. AB 545. Item number 11. AB 1149. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

I will continue to hold that roll open. One for one more round. Moving to the top of file order. File item number one. AB289. Haney.

[Roll Call]

All right, moving on to file. Item 2. AB674. Connolly.

[Roll Call]

All right, moving on to item number three. AB891. Zbur. We just did that one. No one's changed in the room. That's right. Item number four. AB954. Bennett.

[Roll Call]

Moving on to item number five. AB 1237. McKinnor.

[Roll Call]

So item number five is 15. No, I'm sorry 12-3 That Bill is out. All right, we'll start from the beginning. Last round. Yep. You're all good. That was a. That was the. All right. Item number item. This is consent calendar. There were six items on consent.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has 16 vote. I mean, those bills have 16 votes. They're out. Moving on to file item one. A.B. 289. Haney.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is 15 to 1. It is out. Item number two. A.B. 674. Connelly.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has 15 votes. That Bill is out. Item number three. A.B. 891. That has 12-4. That Bill is out. Item Number 4. A.B. 954. Bennett. That Bill has 124. That Bill is out. With that there being no further business of the Committee, the Committee is now adjourned.