Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

All right, quick 60 seconds. The Senate Transportation Committee will come to order. Good afternoon. Welcome, everyone. We have 14 measures on today's agenda. First, a few housekeeping items. We are going to allow for up to two primary witnesses, each for support and each for opposition. Each witness will have two minutes.

Any additional witnesses, we'll ask you to limit yourselves to name, affiliation, and position on the bill, as usual. We do have five measures proposed for the consent calendar today. The proposed consent Items are item 3, SB 544 by Senator Laird. Item 8, SB 78 by Senator Seyarto. Item 9, SB 533 by Senator Richardson. Item 11, SB 671 by Senator Cervantes. Item 14, SB 506 by the Transportation Committee. I believe we have sufficient numbers.

No, we don't. Okay. We can't establish a quorum yet, so we won't bother with the roll call until we get to that point. But we can hear from our first author, and that's going to be Senator Grove on Senate Bill 712. Senator Grove, you may come forward and you may begin when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today, I rise to present Senate Bill 712, known as Leno's Law. The bill proposes a rolling exemption for classic cars that are 35 years or older, allowing them to be exempted from the biannual smog check program. Additionally, it would exempt these vehicles from smog check upon the transfer of ownership, ensuring that the smog protection follows the vehicle. I'd like to first acknowledge and thank the sponsor of Leno's Law, the former Tonight Show host, Jay Leno.

He personally owns an extensive collection of classic cars and showcases these vehicles along with many other classic cars to millions of people on his YouTube channel, Jay Leno's Garage. Jay, like many other car enthusiasts, is passionate about preserving the automotive history and maintaining these vehicles in their original condition.

From lowriders to cruisers to hot rods to JDMs, JDM fans to classic car collectors, and many more. Jay recognizes that these cars are pieces of history and rich in culture and should be preserved for many generations. Previously, California had a 25 year rolling smog check exemption for certain vehicles until 2005, when it was repealed.

Leno's Law will bring back that rolling exemption, something that car collectors have been asking for for many years. Classic car owners in this room and many across the State of California who could not make it here today can attest that their vehicles are primarily used for shows, parades, and special events and not for daily driving activities.

In fact, the California DMV estimates that vehicles manufactured between 1976 and 1991 make up only about 1% of the 30 million registered cars. Members, we're talking about 1% or less of the vehicles in the State of California. Of that 1%, significantly fewer cars will qualify as a classic car that are currently defined in the Vehicle Code.

Furthermore, this code defines a collector, a vehicle as being used primarily for shows, parades, charitable functions, and historical exhibitions for display, maintenance, and preservation. And it's not primarily for transportation. Many of the Members in this room, including our own Governor, enjoys riding in these classic cars on parades, in parades, or they actually own their own classic cars.

Car enthusiasts from across the state have contacted my office to express how difficult it is to find a smog check station with the equipment necessary that works for their vehicle. In some instances, these classic vehicles are sold out of state because California and California loses that revenue.

I had one Member, a college of mine, that told me that she had to interfere with the constituent services because it took almost six months to get that constituent in line for a smog check because there's very few of these facilities in Southern California. The economic engine that these cars create is specifically tire shops, paint shops, upholstery shops, and all of that is lost when these cars leave our state. From lowriders, cruisers, muscle cars, and diverse groups, these people enjoy expressing themselves through their collector cars.

In fact, lowrider culture were developed by Mexican Americans in and around Southern California after World War II. Enthusiasts modified cars to ride low to the ground and give them an elaborate color paint jobs. Groups of lowriders would drive their vehicles low and slow through town as a pastime for cruising.

The Legislature conformed to that dedication to preserving the lowrider culture when they passed AB 436, Alvarez in 2023, which lifts the restrictions for lowrider cruising, a cultural and artistic tradition developed by Latinos in our beautiful Golden State. SB 712 ensures that all individuals are able to participate in the car culture.

That is a common sense measure to ensure that vehicles continue to be a part of our rolling history in California. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me today to testify as the first witness, who really needs no introduction to specifically this subject matter, is a sponsor of Leno's Law and who allowed us to affectionately name it Leno's Law is none other than car enthusiastic, TV icon Jay Leno.

He's lent his voice and his name for every classic car enthusiast in California. Whether you've restored a classic car under the shade tree with your son or your father or you are, Mr. Leno is here to make sure that you are represented, not only in this building, but in the State of California. Please accept my first witness, Mr. Jay Leno.

And Senator, if I can pause for just a moment. Mr. Leno, if you can bear with us a moment, I want to make sure that we establish a quorum here while we can, so that we can vote on this bill and the others that follow it. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We do have a quorum. Mr. Leno, please proceed. You'll have a couple minutes.

Okay. Well, I try to be a role model here a little bit in California because people have their eye on you all the time. I mean, I drive my electric cars during the week and, weekends, I work on my older antique vehicles. I have a 1989 car I bought new. It is completely stock.

It has 27,000 miles, which is less than a thousand miles a year. And every two years the smog comes around. As an example, where modern cars after 2000 just plug in and you get, you pass. You don't pass. It's all computerized. Older cars you got to put on the rolling road, and those kind of shops don't have, they don't have the equipment anymore. They all got rid of it to do the fast. Plug in, get your money, boom, get out. It's very quick to get a smog check with a modern car.

It's not impossible in an older car, but it's tricky. It takes time and often causes charges 4, 5, 6 times more than a regular car. If you can find a rolling road, if it's in Downey or if you have a four wheel drive vehicle from that era, it's almost impossible to find a rolling road set up for it. So that's one problem.

The other is cars in California last, not literally forever, but our climate is such that cars from the 80s and 90s can still look brand new just because of our weather. And the idea is not like having an old rust bucket if you live in a neighboring state. And we're not asking for anything more than what every other state has. I mean, California is the strictest in the nation and will continue to be. I mean, I lived here in the 70s when they tell you 100 days a year, don't go outside. I mean, I'm all for emissions.

I think it's a good thing. I keep my cars running perfectly. But it's such a small percentage. And the biggest problem is a car from the 30s would be almost easier to do than a car from the 90s, because with the computerized equipment from 90s, 80s, 90s, they don't make it anymore. The car is no longer in production.

So you can't even get the smog equipment in a lot of cases to make your car legal. And that's primarily why we want to do this. Mike will tell you the economic impact. I mean, hot rodding started here in California. It's kind of a lifestyle, and it's a fun thing to do. I mean, my thing is most of these cars are like an ATV or a snowmobile. People take them out on weekends. They drove 10 or 15 miles to go to a classic car event in a park.

They have a cookout, they have the car show, and they go back. These aren't cars used as daily drivers. As I said, when I have to go to San Diego, even down to Hermosa Beach or anywhere, I'll use an electric car. And it works perfectly well. I mean, my garage is solar. We use non... We use biodegradable products when we restore cars.

We use water based paints. We really try to be an example because I'm the guy they look at when these things happen, you know. And I don't like the fact that people have to sort of become criminals if they have a car from the 90s because it won't pass. So they get some guy to give them a phony piece of paper or register it in another state or... It just seems like it's an awful lot of work for something that doesn't seem like that big a deal being just 1%.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please. You might want to reidentify yourself.

Yeah. Thank you, Chair Cortese, Vice Chair Strickland, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to speak with you here today. All I ever wanted was a black Grand National. That's the first line of "TV Off," a song by Kendrick Lamar, a Pulitzer Prize winning musician from Los Angeles and one of the most powerful voices of this generation. For him, it's just not a lyric. Kendrick said that his dad brought him home from the hospital in the 1987 Buick Regal Grand National.

Years later, after making it big, he bought one for himself, not for status, because it connected him to his roots. And earlier this year, in front of millions of viewers at the 25 Super Bowl Halftime Show, Kendrick featured that very car on stage, a symbol of his pride, history, and identity. That's what SB 712 is really about. It's about preserving access to automotive culture, especially for the next generation. My name is Mike Spagnola, and I serve as the President and CEO of the Specialty Equipment Market Association, better known as SEMA.

You know, I've spent more than five decades now in this industry as a small business owner and now as the leader of a trade association representing over 7500 companies nationwide, including 1500 innovative businesses right here in California. Our members design, build, and supply products that power the car culture and fuel the state's $40 billion aftermarket industry.

Ask any car person and they'll tell you that we all have that one special car, a special project, a family memory, something that sparked a lifelong passion. For me, it was a 1970 Datsun 240Z. For today's generation, those cars aren't from the 50s or 60s. They're the 1980s and 1990s.

Kendrick Lamar's 1987 Grand National, the Fox Body Mustang, or Marty's Toyota 4x4 from Back to the Future. Those are the cars. They aren't daily drivers. They are driven to events, restored in garages, and brought out on weekends. But despite being rarely driven, they are still subject to testing requirements that have become almost impossible to meet.

Only 7% of California smog checks are performed on these vehicles from that vintage. And most STAR certified stations test fewer than one of these vehicles per day. That's because maintaining a bar 97 emissions equipment required to test these older cars is costly and rarely used, and you can't even buy parts for them anymore, as Jay had said.

So when you can find testing and when you can find the place, it comes at a high price, reflected as an added burden for those few stations that can still perform those tests. Yet the state smog check exemption still only applies to vehicles built before 1976, a threshold set by the Legislature in 2004, and one that hasn't been updated in over two decades. Since then, California's fleet has changed, technology has improved, and a new generation of enthusiasts have come at age.

It's time for this policy to catch up. That's where SEMA and its members come in. Through the SEMA garage in Diamond Bar, California, we work directly with CARB, the California Air Resources Board, and EPA to test and certify parts that keep these cars legal. We keep them running, and we keep them emissions compliant.

In fact, the SEMA garage is responsible for more than half the EOs issued in the aftermarket in this state. This bill ensures that the future generations will still have a way to car culture without unnecessary barriers. California specialty automotive aftermarket supports more than 149,000 jobs in this state and generates over $6 billion a year in tax revenue.

But behind those numbers are builders, fabricators, small business owners, young men and women, and yes, kids like Kendrick Lamar, who fall in love with a car and want to bring it back to life. SB 712 ensures that the story isn't shut down by red tape. It gives people a way in to reconnect, to belong, to learn how to work on cars themselves. On behalf of SEMA and our members and the next generation of enthusiasts, I respectfully urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

All right. Thank you both for your testimony. We'll come back to the Committee shortly. There may be some questions, so we just ask you to stay there. Is there anyone in the Committee room who wishes to express a support position? If so, please come forward now. You're entitled to say your name, any affiliation that you have, if you have one, and support. That's it.

Jerry Thompson, Modesto area, in support of SB 712.

Thank you.

Tina Perez-Tateo from Modesto, California, in support of SB 712.

James Lombardo on behalf of Beta California in support. Thank you.

Amy Granat, Managing Director of CORVA, the California Off-Road Vehicle Association, in support.

Bob Stearns, President of the Association of California Car Clubs. I support 712. Thank you.

Mike Frankovich, I'm the founder of the Californians for Classic Car Smog Exemptions Facebook group. I'm from Pasadena, California, and I support.

Mike Perry, Elk Grove, California. I'm Director of the local Buick Club of America Chapter, and we are in support of AB 712.

Daniel Marquez, South Sacramento. Just a guy with the Mustang.

We'll take that as a support.

Colonel Steve Spatola, Stockton. I have four cars, 78s and 84 and 85, that require these, and I belong to three auto clubs. Thank you very much. I'm in support.

Mark Sanders, Lafayette, California. Like the story goes, lifetime car guy. I own two cars that would be affected by this bill, and I'm in support.

Hi, I'm Steve Schneid. I work for this Committee for 25 years. I wrote the original bill with Quentin Kopp back in the 90s, and it was a rolling exemption. And once Quentin left, was termed out, the ARB succeeded in ending the rolling out... So I'm in support very strongly. Thank you.

Sorry, I can't give you more time.

Karen McClaflin, Executive Director of the California Automobile Museum. On behalf of all the Automobile Museums in Sacramento and all of our supporters, we are in support of the bill.

Good afternoon. Chandler Knapp, classic car collector, as well as a member of the Board of Directors, California Automobile Museum, expressing support for SB 712.

Hello. Joseph McMeans, I'm just in support of SB 712, El Dorado County. Thank you.

Hello. Jason Walroth, owner of a hot rod shop here in town, Gearhead Garage, longtime car builder. Just trying to support our local community here, and we love your support here, so I'm in support of the bill.

Steve Wright, Valencia, California. I'm in support of SB 712.

I'm Derek Chairdema from Carmichael, California, and I'm in support of SB 712.

Steve Hamp from Redding, California. I've got eight cars that could really use this. Thank you.

David Swift from Tujunga, California in support of SB 712. Thank you.

All right, thank you all for your testimony. Now is the time for any opposition testimony. We don't have registered opposition, to my knowledge. Oh, we do. Okay, thank you. Well, come on forward. You can take the two chairs over here next... Can you come on over to this side, please? Thank you. You'll have a couple minutes each, and I'll let you self identify.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I think there's like 10 groups in opposition in the analysis. I'm Brendan Twohig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, which are the executive officers from all 35 local air districts. Air districts... in opposition.

Air districts don't administer the smog check program, but we're supporters because it's a cost effective and equitable way of achieving emissions reductions that are essential to meeting federal clean air attainment standards. Whether a car is a collector is largely self defined.

And under this bill, an owner of a vehicle just has to think it and then they can get the exemption as long as their car is 35 years old. Under the smog check program, cars don't have to meet the same standards as when they were new. They don't have to meet 2025 standards.

And that's also because the program allows for the deterioration of the emission control systems over time. California Air Resources Board data shows that a 1982 passenger car that passes smog check emits approximately 123 times the NOx emissions of a 2025 car.

So assuming the 1982 car has driven just 3,000 miles in a year, it's the NOx emissions equivalent of a 2025 car being driven 369,000 miles a year. And then for daily drivers, which would be allowed under this bill, at 11,000 miles a year, that's the equivalent of 1,353,000 miles.

So if you think about it this way, while there are only 8,200 1982 cars, if they're all on the road in a day, that's the equivalent of 1 million 2025 cars being on the road that day. And we know they're not driving just one day. Again, these numbers are for one model year of cars that pass smog. But the bill exempts 15 years off the bat and adds another year every year. 1991 cars add about another 72,000.

By the time you get to 1999, it's about another 349,000. And when we see emissions data for the other years, we'll likely be talking about the emissions equivalent of tens of millions of 2025 cars. So without smog check, emissions equipment can be tampered with or fail altogether, resulting in air pollution impacts substantially higher than what we discussed. So, Members, Mr. Chair, thank you for considering our perspective.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. Bill Magavern with the Coalition for Clean Air in opposition to what should be called the Smog and Soot Bill, because that's what you get if you loosen smog check. Ozone or smog damages the respiratory tract, causing inflammation and irritation, resulting in coughing, chest tightness, and worsening of asthma symptoms.

Fine particulate matter or soot causes premature death, increased hospitalization for heart and lung causes, bronchitis, asthma attacks, ER visits, respiratory damage, and restricted activity days, especially for older adults, for children and for those with weakened respiratory systems. My wife recently was caught behind a parade of classic cars.

Came home with a headache because, you know, you can really smell the fumes in the air. These older cars just don't have the emission controls that newer cars have, and that's noted in the analysis. That's with the ones that comply with smog check. If you exempt them entirely, you open the door to tampering.

Makes the situation much worse. For these reasons, in 2004, then Assembly Member Sally Lieber, who's here today, authored the law that froze the exemption at 1976. That bill was opposed by Mr. Leno and signed by Governor Schwarzenegger over Mr. Leno's objections. That was the right decision then. It's the right decision now.

This bill would roll back that existing standard. And at a time when we're facing really vicious attacks from the federal government on California's air quality, I don't know why the California Legislature would want to add to that problem. This is one of the worst bills we've seen this year for damaging our air quality. We urge you to hold the bill in Committee.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. Any others in the Committee room who would like to express opposition may come forward now and indicate their name, any affiliation, and opposed.

Good afternoon, Members, Mr. Chair. Jakob Evans with Sierra Club California in opposition.

Good afternoon. I'm Will Barrett. I'm the National Senior Director for Clean Air Advocacy with the American Lung Association in strong opposition. Also representing the Physicians for Social Responsibility Bay Area Chapter and Regional Asthma Management Prevention Program. Thank you.

Hello. Michele Canales with the Union of Concerned Scientists in opposition.

I'm Sally Lieber, currently on the State Board of Equalization and, was mentioned, I passed the law that contained this particular source of pollution in California. And I'm strongly opposed to re-polluting California skies. And I really doubt that...

You know the rules, as a former Assembly Member.

Yeah, I doubt that a Latina mom with... Strongly oppose.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Gracyna Mohabir, California Environmental Voters, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Alan Abbs with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Original co-sponsor of the Lieber bill. Strong opposition to SB 712.

All right, thank you. Seems to conclude all support and opposition testimony, including in the Committee room. We'll come back to the dais at this point. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. And to our esteemed movie star, TV star, you know. But here you're not. You're a car enthusiast just like I am. You're here to stand up for men and women who own these beautiful automobiles. And I have a 1967 Oldsmobile 442. That automobile is tuned up twice a year.

Not once every five years. Twice a year. Oil change twice a year, goes on and on. My wife and I searched everywhere for those hubcaps, the original rims, rather, and tires. Two years. When she found the ashtray, the original ashtray, on eBay. I mean, we celebrated because it was original. Our goal was to keep the car.

And the car is original. And I proud to say that every time I put it into a contest, I don't tell them who I am because I don't want to have any favoritism. But we always pull it off walkway with a little tiny trophy about that size that says, what a quality car, what a beautiful car.

And that 67 Oldsmobile 442 is all stock. And so I would be proud to support this bill because I know that when I supported the bill that lowriding and cruising was not a crime. I did that as a former police officer because I knew the enthusiasts and people who own these cars that are in the audience.

30, 40, 50, 60, 80,000 dollars into those automobiles. They are family heirlooms. And they're going from family member to family member. Talk about taking care of the environment. They do it because they want to. And every one of them are, a lot of them are born and raised here in California. They want to stay in California.

They want their business in California. And speaking about California, in this beautiful district of the 30th Senate District, we have a beautiful city called Diamond Bar. And that's where Michael and I met. And I've seen the shop, I've seen the work that he does for all automobiles, current, past, and future.

So I applaud you for coming forward and putting this on our table so we can go ahead and understand. California is a very unique state. It does take care of its environment. It will continue to take care of its environment, but it also will love automobile enthusiasts. So I'm going to support the bill. I will move the bill at appropriate time. And I thank you for coming forward.

Next would be Senator Valladares.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So my dad never graduated high school. And what he though lacked in formal education, he made it for in skill and curiosity and heart. And when he was 15 years old, he took an auto shop class and built his first engine for a 57 Chevy. And that was a beautiful Chevy.

And in our family, the classics aren't just cars. They're memories, they're dreams. They're a part of our heritage. And I still remember the summer of 1994, sitting in a midnight blue 1969 Chevy Malibu.

And it didn't even have an engine yet, but I remember sitting in that driver's seat, and imagine the day that I'd be cruising with that Malibu down Laurel Canyon in the San Fernando Valley. And it wasn't just a car. It was a bond between me and my dad.

And on my wedding day, he actually gave me a 47 Chevy truck, which is the hardest thing to drive because it doesn't have power steering. My dad is a mechanic, and he rebuilds the classics with his friends, with his sons, with his cousins. I've been under a few hoods myself. And it's not just a hobby.

It's culture, and it's low riding. It's tradition. It's a place where fathers and daughters find a connection, and we're generations passed down, not just knowledge, but pride and identity. And it's expensive. You know, parts are hard to find, and that drives up prices.

And my dad is the parts guy, so he's always hunting for what's missing or has what's missing. There's people calling his phone constantly. Hey, Fernando, do you have this part? Yeah, I have it. I don't have it. I'll find it. And on top of that, we know that the smog checks for these cars are another immense cost.

It's time. It's money. It's frustration for families who are just trying to keep their pieces of history alive. And that's why I think that changing the smog exemption to apply to collector cars that are at least 35 years old is more than reasonable. I want to thank Senator Grove for bringing this bill forward.

I want to thank Mr. Leno for using your voice to send support families. And yes, my dad called me and he asked me if I'd be voting for this. And I did tell him, of course, dad. I don't want to get in trouble.

He has way too many classics in the garage that I want to make sure I inherit. So I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. I'm looking forward to supporting and voting I.

Senator Blakespear.

Okay, thank you. Well, with all due respect to the author and to the chair who I know is a co author, and to Mr. Leno and to everybody who came in support of this bill, I'm not able to support it today. I want to take a minute to explain my position.

So I serve as the chair of the Environmental Quality Committee and unfortunately, historically smog check exemption bills have not been referred to my EQ Environmental Quality Committee. And I think that's a real shame.

I would like to be on record saying that I think this should be reconsidered because any other type of air pollution related bill would come through the Environmental Quality Committee. And so there's really no reason that this bill wouldn't come through.

But I'm wearing the hat of both committees, transportation and EQ, because it is not going to be coming through an environmental committee on the senate side. So it's important to refocus on the reason that we have smog checks in the first place and it's because of the air pollution that they cause.

So the opposition witnesses gave a lot of really important information and details which I won't repeat. But the committee consultant report has a lot of that as well. And stating I'll just say one sentence that on average, older vehicles can emit up to 10 times more GHG per mile than modern vehicles.

And the older vehicles that we're talking about today, it is important to remember that they will have a real impact on public health and on the environment and that this bill will increase that impact. It's important that we recognize what exact problem this bill is aimed at solving and the changes that it is making.

So collector motor vehicles at least 35 years old were already exempt from smog check. They just had to meet a few criteria.

The existing exemptions already meant that smog checks did not apply to a collector motor vehicle that was one insured as a collector motor vehicle, two older than 35 years old, and that three met the emission standards specific for that model year of that vehicle and that it could pass a quote functional inspection of the fuel cap and a visual inspection for liquid fuel fuel leaks.

So what this bill does is it takes that existing exemption and it applies to any motor vehicle that someone is not using as their daily driver, but is used primarily in shows, parades, charitable functions and historical exhibitions and is at least 35 years old. So that's it.

So the car does not need to meet a cursory visual inspection. There are no special insurance requirements anymore. It doesn't even need to meet the emission standards that applied in the year it was made.

So ultimately, this bill removes all practical checks on whether a car older than 1990 is actually a collector vehicle, because the insurance requirement was helping ensure that collector vehicles were actually collector vehicles.

And I think the opposition witness said at first that all you have to do is think that it's a collector vehicle because essentially there is no check on that. If it's a self certification or checkbox and you say that this is a collector car.

What it means to me when I read this is that any car that's more than older than 1990 year could check the box for collector car and not have to get a smog check, which would mean that it would incentivize people to keep older, smoggier, junkier cars.

And there would be no incentive because they're not running into the barrier of we're having a hard time smog checking this, which I do think does become a problem. And cars, people make decisions about their cars when they run into that barrier. So I see that as really a major problem. So I will just share that.

I'm not an absolute purist on this.

If this bill was modified to say that this is for cars that are driven less than 1,000 miles a year, they're towed to the parade, and then they're driven in the parade, I would be willing to consider something like that as long as there was a check on the fact that the car was actually collector and that it was very minimally used.

But to me, the breadth of this bill indicates that there will be a lot of cars that essentially have the exemption swallowing the rule. So we will have cars that are kept in circulation that wouldn't be otherwise. It will be broader than we think.

It will expand beyond collector cars because there isn't a way for us meaningfully to check that without no insurance requirement and no visual check that's required anymore. So I don't want to make it easier for us to pollute.

I recognize the cultural value that's been described and the deep joy that these that cars cause have created for families and the memories that they have. And I value that. And I wish there was a way that this bill could be modified so that it was much more narrowly tailored and not nearly so broad.

But at this point in this transportation committee, on this day, I'm going to need to be voting no. And so I wanted to explain that. And with that I'll yield back to the chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Strickland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the senator for bringing this forward. I look at this as a very simple bill. Cars are part of the California culture, whether people like it or not.

At the end of the day, you're only talking about less than 1% of the cars that are registered in California. But there's so many enthusiasts that actually drive our economy. I come from Huntington Beach, where we have classic car events all the time.

In fact, I represent the whole coast of Orange County, and I just recently came from one that was classic cars that went from all the way from San Clemente and drove right down to Main Street, Huntington Beach. I actually had a classic car, believe it or not. I'm 6'5.

I fit into an MG, but I ended up selling that MG not because I couldn't fit, but it's because of parts. And also, it was a hassle. It was a hassle. I like to drive it around Huntington Beach just for the weekend, just to get it running, but it wasn't my everyday car.

And most of these cars are not your everyday cars. People drive their everyday car, but this is a car for enjoyment on a weekend, parade, things like that. Classic car shows that are a big driver to our California economy. So I want to thank you for bringing this forward. It's a simple bill.

We're talking about less than 1% of the cars. And this allows for the enthusiasm that goes around California because California is. California is part of the. The car culture is part of California's history, and I'm hoping it continues to be part of California's history. So for those reasons, I'm supporting this bill.

And by the way, I want to thank. I'm a big fan, Mr. Leno. Thank you for lending your name. A lot of people don't lend their names to things like this, but I want to thank you for lending your name and fighting for the people and the car culture in California.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Senator Menjivar.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to know that. I won't say the actual topic, but to my colleagues on the other aisle that are talking about this, less than 1%. I want you to remember this rhetoric or this topic that you're.

This line that you're using for other topics that y'all aren't supportive of that deals with less than 1% of a population or what have you. But I have a question to the author, Senator Grove.

I share a lot of the concerns that my other chair in EQ shared as I also sit on the EQ Committee and I do want to elevate echo her concerns that that committee is not going to review this bill.

Can you share with me where in your bill there are checks and balances to not have people abuse the system to say that anyone with a car that is over 35 years old can simply check off that it's a collector's car.

So absolutely. I know what you're referring to. You're referring to page 4, line item 9 or starting item 9, line 11 and get my glasses. And when we put the definition of the bill we referenced section code 259 in the vehicle code we were actually amending.

The section that we are amending in our bill is not that section. That was just a reference section that included, which is still current law today. And current law, if this bill gets passed is vehicle code section 259. Again, what we're using today to justify as a classic car or a collector vehicle.

Vehicle code 259 already continues to outline a collector vehicle. These vehicles are used, this is the language, for particular purposes like parades, car shows, et cetera. And we actually have the exact, exact language. It says under vehicle code 259, the collector vehicle code means a motor vehicle owned by a collector, defined in subdivision A, section 5051.

And the motor vehicle is used primarily in shows, parades, charitable functions, historical exhibitions, displays, maintenance and preservation and is not used for primary transportation. That's the code section that defines in the vehicle code. That code section is stated in this language. We don't touch it.

There was when we put the definition and we referenced 259 in our bill, there was individuals from the car community, specifically the lowrider community and the Latino cultures that said, people are going to get confused on this. You can't use that language. They'll think you're taking it out. I didn't believe that was true. Apparently it is.

And so we scratched or lined through that language and used the 35 year old exemption. But we did not touch this language at all.

I agree and I looked up Section 259. I know we've had conversations on this, I've looked up the definition. But current statute says as defined in Section 259 if the second word is if.

So you have to qualify under Section 259 if you are 35, if your vehicle is 35 or older and you are insured as a collector vehicle, that was current loss. So that's been scratched out. Definition hasn't been touched. Because that was a way to prove that that vehicle was in fact a collector's.

So this bill scratches out the if part. So, yes, you're not touching section 259, but there is a secondary part in the language that is completely being eliminated to actually prove that it's in fact a collector's vehicle.

And in the language line 36 on page 5, it's a complete elimination of again, the protections, submission of proof that the motor vehicle is insured as a collector vehicle. Motor vehicle is at least 35 motor vehicle complies with exhaust emission standards and so forth.

Those three subcategories that were falling under the first part of section 259 have been eliminated. Some reading this as you are not allowing any kind of checks and balances and no demonstration. It's simply 35 years old and so forth.

So while it's only less than 1,000 cars now, you're going to have an increase of Californians now saying, well, now I have a collector's car because my vehicle is 35 or older and that 1,000 is going to increase because again, we no longer have param. We will no longer have parameters when in fact it's a collector's car.

So in fact, through the chair and response. Thank you for your question. There's two sections to the collector vehicle bills that we have before us, not before us here, but that have been in the past. And I'll have Mike follow up too, that there is a certain section that requires collector car insurance.

Under that collector car insurance, they have to be in a locked garage behind a locked gate gate. A lot of these collector vehicle, these collectors and these people who restore these vehicles don't have locked gates and locked garage. They park them in, you know, their carports or whatever. So that was something.

But that's only on a portion of these collector vehicles within a certain time frame. It's not required pre 76 and before. So prior to 1976, you don't have to have car insurance and you don't have to or classic. You have to have car insurance. Everybody has to have car insurance, but not this particular classic car insurance.

It's after that year we were just trying to bring consistency within the classic car industry so that you didn't have a pre 1976 standard, a middle of the road standard, and then the standard that we're bringing here. It was just to uniformity, bring stuff together.

And when you look at, when you talk about the cars on the road, it is. It is a different type of regulatory process that doesn't meet the emission standards that we have elevated to today. But you're talking about when the comparison on the opposition says that these cars are going to be driving thousands upon thousands of miles.

That's just not true. It's just not true. There are, there are people at the press conference, people that are sitting before you today that tell you they don't drive them in their everyday use. We all ride in these. And they are a true collector vehicle.

And nobody is taking into account the billions of dollars which I'll let Mike respond to the, you know, $64 billion a year that's this industry.

And if somebody's going to invest in $100,000 paint job research and get the total hubcaps, the original wheels, rebuild the engine block or have it contained as it was when it was brand new off the line and invest all that money in the upholstery and all the other things that these car collectors have, they're not going to just drive that car every day.

This is a gift and it actually creates. And we. California was the model for bringing these cars rolling off the assembly line. We're the model for the lowrider clubs, for the lowrider vehicles, we're the model. And other states, our neighboring states have a 25 year. That's the rollover 25 years. We're going to 35.

So we're going to be stricter than any other state. But if you can't meet the standards here, then that vehicle leaves and so does the revenue that goes with it and the heritage and the culture. And I'd like Mike.

One final point if I can just and I'll yield my time here. Just one final point. I want to make it clear that I agree with the demographic that you're talking about. This isn't about the true car collector I have. That's not where my issue lies whatsoever. I think it's a beautiful heritage, cultural. I 100% agree with you.

Those are the individuals I'm not worried about because they take pride in this and they'll check on their car consistently.

I'm worried about the individual that you are now, the individuals you are now looping into to this bill that are now going to think, well, I no longer have to do a smog check because I can now consider my vehicle a collector's car.

That's the population I'm worried about because you're bringing them in and there's no guard room in place to prevent them from now claiming their car as a collector's car.

Okay and in response to that Mr. Chair. Under the 27153. Yeah, 27153 of the Motor Vehicle Show Code says you shall not be operated in a manner resulting in the escape of excessive smoke, flame, oil and gas from so it's a visible when you're driving behind a car CHP will give you a ticket and then you have to fix it you have 45 days to fix that or you can't that's it's an issue with so we didn't touch that code section either.

We're not stopping people. We're not helping people pollute we're just allowing car enthusiasts to be able to participate in the 1980s and some in the 90s and let it be a rollover like it used to be consistent with every other state in the nation, but with a 10 year extra gap. Instead of 25 years it's 35 years.

Thank you. There's no one else. Senator Richardson, please.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I want to commend the author. You know, with the work that we do, some bills are harder than others, and it's kind of tough when you take on something that, you know, is going to have a tough way to go.

So first of all, I want to commend the author for the effort that she's made thus far and hopefully the success that we'll see. Second of all, I want to thank Mr. Leno for coming today. It's really enjoyable to see you in such good health.

Many of us pull for you, and you're also an icon, like many of your cars are. And your only promise today is you have to promise not to take this material back of what you saw today in jokes that you'll share. They wouldn't believe it. You're right. You're right on that.

So with that, I just want to point out a couple things. One, I represent a part of my district, the 35th district, San Pedro, California. And I happen to reside in San Pedro. And in San Pedro, we have many car clubs, but one in particular is the Legends Vintage Car Club.

And usually about two times a year, there's these major car shows. People line up early in the morning, like I'm going to church at 8:00, and they're already lining up to participate.

And I would say that every Sunday, whether there's a car club, car club meeting or not, there's always cars, vintage cars in my neighborhood on Paseo Del Mar. And it's the thing where people come, they park their car, they have Sunday afternoon lunch. Everyone walks by. It's a very highly walked area.

People walk by, I walk by, and I dream about which one is going to be mine one day and what color I want it to be. In fact, I shared with Mr. Leno that I want a '57 convertible Bel Air. And I told him I had a '94 Speedster, which are only made in '89 and '94.

And he said, well, why did you get rid of it? And I said, well, I had to pay off my ex husband in the divorce. So true story.

So that being said, I had asked, I had written down a question here as the discussion was going back and forth, about whether this Bill was really going to avoid people from having properly operated vehicles. And I looked up really quickly, as fast as I could on my phone.

And in addition to the code that the author cited in California Vehicle Code 4001 makes it illegal to operate a vehicle on a highway in a way that violates the law, including operating a vehicle that is unregistered, not equipped as required, or not in compliance with size, weight, load or provisions, among other things.

So I just think it's really important to convey that the smog is only one portion. If an older vintage car is not safe, if it's not being driven properly, many of the other aspects, there are guardrails to make sure that they are being operated appropriately in our communities. So I commend you again, our author.

I look forward to voting on this Bill in a positive way. And us continuing this wonderful culture is of what California is all about. Thank you, ma'am.

Senator Cervantes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly want to make some points and echo some statements that my fellow Senators made as a former author of the lowrider resolution. You know, many of us understand the cultural and historical significance of these beautiful vehicles. I do want to acknowledge that.

We know that many of these collector vehicles are only driven for parades on the weekends. Many of them don't have high mileage. We want to actually keep them low, given that I have many family members that drive lowriders on the weekends and supporting nonprofit events throughout the district.

But I do want to also express some of the concerns that my fellow colleagues did bring up as it relates to some individuals who may want to exploit the collector status to avoid our emission compliance.

And, you know, I want to make sure we are not undermining our air quality in our state and all the efforts that we have made. And so I just ask that if this Bill does continue, that there is perhaps more conversation around that and maybe looking at a mileage cap, you know, just some suggestions.

I will support the Bill today as it, to get it out of Committee. However, I will Reserve my right, should it hit the floor, to read the language, but just appreciate the work being done thus far and will again support these efforts as it continues.

Thank you, ma'am.

Senator Seyarto here?

Yeah, thank you. I walked in, as my colleague was saying, this is, you know, these issues are very difficult, but they're really not. This is not a difficult issue. These old collector cars, they're not a plethora of them running around, driving all over our highways. They're exactly as some of my colleagues have already described.

They are such a minuscule part of any environmental issues that we have that they're negligible.

And yet, you know, one year we're arguing for people to go out and be able to drive and cruise and create more emissions, and then we are concerned about those emissions in a Hearing like this, and then we all go jump on a plane and use more missions going on the plane to wherever we're going than these cars will ever put into our atmosphere anymore.

So, you know, sometimes we have to make sense with our rules. I do have an older car. It's not 35 years old. And I'm not going to, you know, be surpass or bypassing our system.

But right now it's waiting to get smog smog certified, even though it went through all the things, doesn't create any emissions past what it's supposed to. But it hasn't drive cycled yet. That's how ridiculous this is. My car is just fine, and yet I can't get tags for it. But I can't.

If I don't have tags, I can't drive it. Some of our systems, they don't make sense, and they don't make sense to normal people out there. And even though you're a celebrity, I consider you a normal person out there, even though you have a bunch more cars than I'd ever have.

So, you know, for me, this is an easy support. And I hope that we don't send mixed messages to people to tell them to go drive and yet don't go drive.

And if we're that serious that we think this is going to do environmental harm with the few cars that are out there, you know, why on earth would we. What are we going to. We're going to squish them? We're going to take them to the dumpster and squash them? No, we're not. They're a part of our culture.

They're a part of our history. We need to preserve that. And we need to reserve the regulatory framework that we have to make all of our lives really, really inconvenient for things that actually make a difference. Thanks.

Senator Limon.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Grove, for this conversation. I will also say that this conversation. You've been working on this Bill, it started before this hearing, and certainly you and I have had conversations about this. And I'm going to explain.

You know, while I appreciate that some of my colleagues have recognized that this is an easy Bill, it's, you know, for them. I will explain to you why I actually am having a hard time with this Bill.

On the one hand, you and I discussed that I had a constituent who I happened to help with this particular issue and through opening up a case in our office, and most of us know what that's like, realized that there were only two places that this individual could go to in Southern California for a really great collector car, great community supporter, only used on occasion.

I asked a lot of questions like how do you actually get it down to Orange County? Like, do you have to put it, do you drive it down there? How long does it take you? Do you have to put it, you know, on a tow truck and get it down there?

I asked a lot of questions and I learned a lot about this. And this was a few years ago, by the way.

And so I think, you know, from that end I learned that it really has been difficult to find the right place that can do the smog checks for, you know, collector cars, for cars that are not used often, for cars that are cared for in a deep way. And that taught me a lot about the process.

And I think for me, the issue isn't about whether or not we think collector cars are kind of in their own category. I would say they are for a number of reasons that have been outlined. But the issue that I've struggled with is the enforcement piece. You shared some language with me about what defines a collector car.

And I've talked to the Chair about this as well. In that, you know, we are removing an insurance piece that was part of the equation of how we're able to classify collector's car.

We're now going to rely on entities that do smog checks to check mileage, to check usage, to be able to certify whether or not this is indeed a collector car. Because for me, the enforcement piece is important. I don't think a 35 year old Honda Civic that could go a long time is what we're talking about.

And so, but I've also struggled with, is the, are the enforcement mechanisms in place enough to make sure that this isn't a loophole for.

I mean, and I drove a Civic at one point. So I just, I'm not bashing on Civics, just to be clear, but, you know, I just don't think that's the collector cars we're talking about. And so my issue has been around what are the guardrails? As have other committees, Committee Members brought up like this.

My debate isn't about whether we should treat this particular car that is used differently. Differently. For me, the answer is yes, if it's used differently, we should treat it differently. But it's this other piece around, what is this open up?

And are the pieces of relying on the entity that's doing a smog check enough to make those of us who do have concerns about loopholes and about emissions and where you know, air quality is important. It is an important piece that we think about. How do we solve for those concerns. So I share those thoughts with you.

I don't know if you have a reaction to it. And that is why I've struggled with this particular Bill.

So based on your comments through the chair, based on your comments, and correct me please if I'm wrong, that you support the consistent language from 1976 to and back, it's currently in statute.

I am okay with that. If that is truly used for a collector. If we're just opening up 1976 to any car.

Prior current law right now, prior 1976, it says that you go to the DMV, you fill out documentation, it tells you what you do, and then it references vehicle code 259. My expert can correct me if I am wrong. Okay, so it references vehicle code section 259, which is a vehicle code I shared with you.

And it also allows the CHP to use any visual emissions of tailpipes to site that and they have to correct it within 45 days. All of that, that's all pre 1976, our language just takes that language and makes it for 35 years and older. And this is why there's this gap in between those two that changes it.

With insurance without insurance must be in a garage, must be under lock and key, which a lot of people, especially we got it from the Latino community, they don't have garages a lot of times. They don't have a locked fence gate with an alarm where they have to put the car.

And all that's required for collectors car insurance. But pre1976, you are not required to have collector car insurance, just regular car insurance. So I'm just saying it's all like it is in pre 1976. They have to have insurance. They have to abide by the rules of the road. They can't have a visual exhaust.

They're just exempt from the smog piece every bi annually because they can't. It's not available. And I did use your comments today in the press conference. I did not identify who you were. So you have admitted it yourself. That I said. I met with a colleague and she told me that it was almost impossible.

There was only two locations in Southern California. And that's what we're trying to fix. I'm going to, you know, you guys know I just celebrated my 60th birthday in 1983. I had a Dodge Dart, right? Not that I would ever restore a dodge dart.

But 60 years is a long time, you know, to live on this earth and not connect with your growing up. When we did the press conference, Mike at SEMA shared something that I want to share with you that he talked about these kids in the 1980s that drove the Trans Am or that drove the.

Whatever those cars were. He can rattle them off. I can't. I'm not a collector car. I'm trying to help defend them and protect them and get them something great. But it really made sense. And you had all these young people in the audience that came up with the lowrider clubs and the other individuals that brought their cars.

There were fathers and daughters or young kids with older people, and they were all into it. Right. But they can't go back to their high school years. I couldn't go back to 1983 when I graduated from high school and restore a car of that model because it's not allowed in California.

Cars are leaving the state because they can't get the smog exemption or meet them. I'm not doing anything here in this Bill that is not already current in law for 1976 and back. There's no difference. I'm just making this that there's still all the enforcement mechanisms. Pre 1976, they're exempt from smog.

Pre 1976, they don't have to have collector car insurance, but have to have insurance. They still have to fall under the vehicle code section that Ms. Richardson read. They still have to fall under the vehicle code section of 259 that defines a collector vehicle.

And they still have to fall under the CHP code that the CHP officers gave us this morning.

So I guess that I would say that for clarification, I think that the absence of collector car insurance is the piece that I worry about, not because I, I. Because I don't have another equivalent to verify. And that's the issue. If that is no longer on the table, what is the equivalent that will verify?

And I'm not sure. I believe that, you know, a person who is doing the smog check is the equivalent of the verification that the collector's car insurance provided. And so that, to me, is the guardrails that I'm talking about. I think the pieces about. I mean, they're absolute. There is something special about collectors cars.

I don't need to be convinced about that. I absolutely believe it.

And I absolutely believe that in many communities, diverse communities, a collector's car is special for a lot of different reasons and I, and I want to be understanding of that, but I also feel like this is opening up a piece and I'm trying to find the equivalent of verification that the collector's car insurance provided that seems to be absent and no longer equivalent.

It feels like it's less than as this Bill moves forward. And that's a piece I struggled with.

So. But the 1976, the current law does not require collector car insurance. It does not. So I'm just aligning those two things. I haven't changed anything that's already current in law is what I'm trying to say. And I'll let Mike respond to that insurance question if that's okay, through the chair, please.

Thank you. Yeah, the other issue with collector car insurance, there are very few companies in California offering collector car insurance, of course, and we all know how hard it is and how expensive it is for car insurance.

So opening it up to allow all insurance companies insure these cars, certainly from a cost standpoint and from a disproportionately from somebody that's trying to restore a car or a young man or woman that's trying to get in this industry and restore a car, obviously they're counting their nickels and opening up to every insurance company to insure these cars makes a difference.

Just to clarify your comment, you're not opposed to insuring the vehicles you're talking? Not at all.

Not at all.

Not at all. Just, it's just specified collector.

It's just, it's just specifying that opening the market up so that any company can insure the car just makes it more competitive.

They must be insured under state law, sir.

Yes, I should know that. I'm the Chair of the Transportation Committee. I did know that. Just wanted to clarify his response. Thank you, Senator. Senator Valladares, you said indicated me you had a follow up comment. I can't go around twice, but if you have something. Thank you, that's very helpful. Ask a couple questions myself. Mr. Leno.

You're pretty astute in terms of what's out there in terms of auto, especially 35 and less and collector cars in general. 35 cars. That are 35 years old and older. We heard about the potential exponential growth of cars that are 35 years and older in terms of soot and pollution.

To your knowledge, how many cars 35 years and older are still being manufactured?

Still being manufactured.

Manufactured.

I don't understand the question. Well, none. You know, if I could just say something. You know, during the 60's when Ralph Nader came around, all the car enthusiasts hated this guy. I didn't. He made cars safer. He made cars better. The work these folks are doing, I think is excellent. California air is the cleanest it's ever been.

But I think just. I see this as some. As a bit of a compromise. You know, I don't drink. Never had a drink in my life. It was up to me. You could have prohibition, but people want to drink. So it's .08 and that's what you go by. And I can apply that standard here.

Look, people are going to drive these cars whether you let them or not. They get caught every day. If you make it easier them to meet the standard. You don't turn criminals out of people who can't afford a modern car. There are so many 80's and 90's cars around that are good running.

And I laughed at your Honda Civic because there's a huge Honda Civic collect. I mean, it's a collector car. Young kids are collecting those things. And it was one of the most efficient cars of its period. So that's my thing.

We're trying to reach a .08 or some sort of standard because I think people are going to do this anyway. And why make them criminal? I see all these people with. I never seen so many Montana license plates in my life, driving around Los Angeles. Everybody seems to be from Montana because they don't.

They don't pay the registration or pay anything because it all has to do with emissions. And if we can get a vehicle to meet, it just seems like a proper standard to me. And I applaud the work you guys are doing. I'm not someone who goes, zero, you guys are full of crap. No, it's great.

The lung disease, all the things you've helped prevent. I can actually see the mountains now. When I first came to California, I'd be in the 101 and one day it rained. I went, oh my god, there are mountains there. I never knew that before. So thank you. But I'm just trying to figure.

I just assume people are going to do this. So let's work out something that makes it possible, you know, that's all. It's like smoking. Everybody used to do it. You made it socially unacceptable. It's socially unacceptable now to have a car that smokes. I remember seeing political ads for some Senator back in the 80's.

Oh, sure, his car smokes a little bit, but he's saving. And you couldn't have that ad now. And that's what I mean. It is socially irresponsible. People turn you in if you're driving a polluting car, there's a number you can call and the cops go and they act on it.

Because when people coming after me for things, they would turn me in just to, to try and get even. They say, Jay's driving a car. Well, they checked me out. No, that wasn't the case. That happened a few times. But I mean, I say thank you for the work you do. My whole life is compromised.

How can we work something out that's acceptable to both sides? And that's why I kind of supported this Bill, because it seemed like. It seemed pretty acceptable.

Thank you. Thank you. Let me ask our Executive from SEMA. So there's. There's no cars 35 years and older being put on the market in addition to what's already out there? Would you agree with that?

That's correct. There are no new 1930 or 35 cars and older being built.

And so what is happening to the population of those cars?

Those cars go down every day. I mean, you know, they end up in junkyards. This is really about a list of cars that stay on the road or that want to be restored and want to be cleaned up and want to be driven as collectors.

And what do you know about this term daily driver? What. What are the average miles in California for a daily driver? Low number, if you want.

Yeah, I could tell you just in my personal-

We know the averages are out there.

Yeah. In my personal use, in my collector cars, I drive them a couple thousand miles a year maybe.

Okay. But aside from collector cars.

Yeah. My day to day newer cars, I put about 10 to 12,000 miles a year on them.

12,000 miles a year. We could use the lower number. So after 35 years, how. That Honda, how many miles does it have on it after 35 years at 12,000 miles a year?

Oh, these cars, you know, these. Some of these older cars are 250-300,000 miles if they're still around.

Well, that number's 450,000 miles. Okay. What is a likelihood of a car with 450,000 miles on it being used as a daily driver continuing to function without restoration?

Not going to happen. Not going to happen. You're lucky to get. I mean, cars today are better than they were years ago, but you might get 250,000 miles on a car before it's got to be rebuilt.

What would you have to do to keep it on the road?

You'd have to completely rebuild the engine, at least, transmission, suspension, brakes, those sorts of things.

But isn't that the definition of a restored car?

Yes.

Under the DMV definition?

Yes.

Right. So if there are cars with 450,000 miles on them that are driving, the likelihood is that they fit the definition of this Bill as a restored or collected car.

That's correct.

If not, what I'm hearing you say, and correct me if I'm wrong, is they're not long for the road, if they're even running at all.

That's correct.

Right. So for those who would like to see non restored 35 year and older daily drivers go away, are they winning or losing that battle?

I would say they are winning that battle if they're going into the junkyards. For sure.

And that's where they're going.

Yeah. Right.

And so do you see any reason to run those same cars through a smog check to force them off the road?

Not at all.

They're going off the road.

Going off the road already.

On the natural is what you're saying?

Yes.

Could you speak either one of you to the, to the difficulty in getting a STAR checked smog certificate with a visual inspection with parts that have been replaced on the vehicle? Going back to the vehicle, the scenario we just talked about. Right. So this car was restored, but it's.

That car is restored, but it needs, it's 35 years old and it needs to go in to a STAR certified smog station. And it was rebuilt, but it was rebuilt with non factory parts because that's all that was available. What happens when it goes in for the smog check?

Well, you know, you have a little. For example, I have a car I restored, finished it from the factory on the gas. You opened the filler door and it said unleaded fuel only. And the STAR station said, you don't have the unlighted fuel only, can't pass sticker. Oh no, but it passed the test.

I just don't have the sticker yet. You can't get. There's no original factory and I have the sticker. I mean, that's an extreme example of what can happen.

So there's a couple of things here to discuss. One is the fact that there are some of these cars that are non computerized. So they don't have what's called an OBD2 port. So many cars when you go in to do your smog check, they simply plug into the computer. They can read through the computer.

Car either passes or fails. On some of these older cars they have to go on a dyno on a roller. And those emission stations, those stations are far and few between and the reason for that is these dynos and this equipment is no longer serviced. You can't buy parts for them anymore and they're expensive to maintain.

So the owners of these bars, smog stations, no longer have this test equipment. If they do have this test equipment and they have been able to maintain it or somehow keep it running, they charge 567 times more than a normal check. And you have to try to find one of those stations.

So that's one issue. I could go chapter and verse about. We work closely with carp, with the California Resources Board. You may know that we have two emissions labs and again we test and certify parts, all the aftermarket parts for the industry. We're 50% of the EOs that come through CARB every year.

But I can tell you a lot about the inconsistencies that happen at power stations and that happen even at CARB when we're trying to certify parts. It is a nightmare. And we spend millions of dollars a year, we lose money in our labs just to get products through and to get certified for the good of the industry.

And so the red tape and the amount of bureaucracy that happens is I could spend a day on it.

And Senator Archuleta talked about an Oldsmobile 442 that he tunes up twice a year. For the sake of this question, let's assume that that car could pass a smog test even though it's already exempt. Let's assume that it could. Is it any cleaner after the smog test than it was before the smog test?

It's not, it's. Now I will tell you that these cars again as you mentioned, getting them the restored, unless we'll take that 35 year Honda Civic to rebuild that and to go through and to get it to where it's collectible and used on weekends and people tend to go through them and they tend to clean them up.

The other piece of this that we may be missing in this culture piece is that young man or woman that wants to learn about a car and wants to learn how to restore a car and maybe can only afford that 35 year old Honda Civic and wants to build it over time and add those parts and pieces and get it running right.

There's pride in making sure your car writes right. Collector people do not want to be stuck on the side of the road. They want to make sure that car is running to top condition and running well.

And they'll put the time and effort, it may take them 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years to restore these cars. But when they're done, it's a sense of pride and there's a sense of ownership and there's a sense of making it run right.

So the 450,000 mile daily driver Honda, that's five years old. If, if the teenager or the young person wants to restore it and wants to purchase it, can that purchase transaction be conducted without a smog certificate under the car pre restoration?

It currently it cannot. It has to go through smog check before it can be purchased and DMV'd and put in your name.

So the sales, so there's no sales tax.

It's of course their sales tax.

No DMV fees.

Yeah, there's all of that.

Everything's frozen with regard to that transaction. It can-

Oh, correct, correct.

Words in your mouth.

Yeah, correct. Yeah. If it doesn't pass smog, it can't, it can't go through the DMV. It cannot pay for the tags, it cannot pay for the sales tax.

All right, thank you. That's all the questions I have. I want to thank the, the author for tackling this, you know, for having the. Courage isn't the right word. This is not a courageous Bill. This is a Bill that's I think standing up for people who see the common sense problems with the way the laws are.

I thought Senator Seyarto's example was one of many issues that comes up.

I tried to draw out a few of those issues with my questions in terms of the questions and answers as to what the real life application of these rules are, as to whether or not it's true that we have an expansive economy of or population of 35 year old and older cars. We don't.

So those who want those cars off the road are already winning. Should be able to feel very comfortable supporting a Bill like this without worrying about increasing air pollution over time, at least from these vehicles.

It's one of the few, I think, areas of GHG and pollution that's out there right now that's actually on a reducing graph line. Certainly wildfires are going exactly the opposite direction. We're increasing pollution on a seemingly daily and weekly and annual basis. In so many other areas we have an increasing population of pollutants.

I believe this is a decreasing population, a fixed population of vehicles. That's in effect. The very fear that people have that they're going to be driven a lot is what drives them right off the road and makes them functionally obsolete. The, the problems with getting parts for these cars.

I have two vehicles that are registered a '57 Chevy pickup that's restored and a '72 Chevelle that's restored. They're both exempt. Like Senator Archuleta, I don't have to worry about whether this passes or not for those cars. But being a car enthusiast over the years, we don't have the time for the stories. I could tell you, true stories.

I could tell you about going in and finding out that on vehicles post 1980, even those that have that were built and manufactured with computer chips, the computer chips are not available. When the chip goes out, you're done in terms of ever getting a smog check on that car again because there's nobody who makes the chip.

There's nobody who does that anymore. That's one example of many. Any exhaust modification that you need to make carburation modifications that you need to make almost certainly make the car ineligible.

It would clean up the pollutants, but would almost certainly make it ineligible to pass a visual check in one of these star in one of these STAR shops.

So I think this Bill is literally cleaning up, no pun intended, cleaning up laws that exist on the books right now that are, frankly, putting people through hellish circumstances who are ordinary people just trying to do what's essentially an ordinary hobby is. And as many have said here, one that is part of the California tradition.

You know, we need to probably get away from automobiles all together at some point as daily drivers. And many of us are working on that. I was appreciated hearing Mr. Leno say today about how he is driving EV vehicles. I do as well, despite the fact that I have collector cars. Those are not daily drivers.

We need to keep moving in that direction. I think this Bill does that and also solves these problems that are in effect, pardon the expression, driving people crazy trying to comply with the law. So I am recommending an aye vote.

I don't know how the vote will go, but we do have a motion from Senator Archuleta and I'm going to ask the assistant to call the role at this time. You want to state the. Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. Comments?

No, absolutely, sir. Thank you for your comments. Members. Like I said, we're just taking the law that's currently in existence from 1976 back. They still have to meet requirements on the road for insurance safety of the vehicle.

And I think that it will expand the history that we share and keep these rolling pieces of history here in California, not to mention the billions of economic impact. And respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

All right, we'll leave that Bill on call. And as we have absent Members, he'd like to. It's nine to two presently. Nine ayes, two no's. We have absent Members. We'll keep the Bill on call. Two to continue.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Provide an opportunity to vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Members.

We're going to take a quick recess, but I do want to thank all the witnesses, including those that came up to the microphone to speak. Support and opposition on both sides. And thank you, Senator, for your presentation. Very short recess for those waiting to present. We're just clearing the room.

You got lost on the way here. I'm going to ask.

Mr. Chair, can I move the consent calendar?

Yes, Vice Chair, Consent calendar is moved and mass the assistant call the roll in the consent calendar.

The consent calendar consists of file item 3, SB 544 by Senator Laird, file number 8, SB 78 by Senator Seyarto, file 9, SB 533 by Senator Richardson, file 11, SB 671 by Senator Cervantes and SB no. And file number 14 by SB 506 by the Transportation Committee.

[roll call]

That bill will be on call. Next up, members, file item number two. Senator Wiener, you want to come up and present your bill. Members, is phylum number two, SB 71. Senator, you may open.

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair. Colleagues, we're moving on from antique cars to buses and trains today. Thank you so much for hearing the bill today.

SP 71 will largely make permanent a statutory CEQA exemption that I authored in 2020 and we extended in 2022, relating to various sustainable transportation projects, including rapid bus service, light rail, bike and pedestrian projects, and so forth. Certain projects relating to near zero technologies. The sunset will be extended by several years to 2032.

The bill also will expand the exemption to include bus shelter lighting, microtransit, paratransit shuttle services and ferry projects, and a few other items. So, colleagues, this has been a very successful CEQA exemption. It's been invoked approximately 100 times since it's been created for a variety of projects. It still does require a community meeting, particularly for larger projects.

Witnesses in support.

And I think it's been a successful exemption that we should make permanent. And I respectfully ask for an I vote. With me today to Testify is Jenny Delumo, the Environmental Review Manager at the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, and Emily Loper, Vice President of Public Policy at the Bay Area Council.

Good afternoon, Chair Cortese and committee members. My name is Jenny Delumo and I'm the Environmental Review Manager at the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. The SFMTA is a Department of the city and county of San Francisco that manages our public transit, biking and rolling walking infrastructure, also paratransit and taxis.

I am here today to testify in support of SB 71 by sharing some of the successes of its predecessors SB 288 and SB 922. Prior to these bills, it could take months or years to evaluate greenhouse gas reducing transportation projects under CEQA and it now takes us weeks.

In practice, this means that after a project has been designed and vetted through extensive community engagement, the SFMTA uses a checklist to quickly evaluate whether it fits into any of the project types that that is allowed under this exemption.

Since SB 288 was passed, the SFMTA has used the exemption to quickly deliver more than 40 community supported projects.

This includes transit only lanes and transit prioritization projects on key routes, vision zero and quick build projects that enhance safety for people walking and biking and most recently a biking and rolling plan to create safer, better connected and more accessible streets. The SFMTA, like other transit agencies, is facing fiscal challenges.

Our city's chief economist has stated if we don't have a solvent transit agency, we will never have economic recovery. This requires thoughtful and creative solutions to ensure our network gets people where they need to go safely and reliably.

Without this exemption in our toolbox, the SFMTA would spend money and time on the review of climate friendly projects that could otherwise be invested in performance and recovery enhancing transit projects which ultimately saves the agency precious operating dollars.

San Franciscans are looking to the SFMTA to deliver the network that they need and want, including future projects that enhance our network and support the transition to a zero emission fleet.

It would be detrimental to our network, economic recovery and climate goals if we go back to a time when these types of projects which have clear environmental benefits take months or years to complete sequel review. SB 71 would avoid that.

So SFMTA thanks you for your consideration and Senator Wiener and the sponsors for their leadership and we respectfully urge your I vote on SB 71.

Next witnesses in support. Two minutes.

Thanks. Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee, Emily Loper with Bay Area Council so, as you know, the transportation sector accounts for nearly half of all the GHG emissions in the state.

And while we've made great progress in decarbonizing the sector in recent years, it's still still clear that we will not meet our climate goals unless we have a significant shift from single occupancy vehicle trips to sustainable modes of transportation like transit, biking and walking.

But public agencies that seek to build that transit, bike and pedestrian infrastructure have faced significant permitting challenges that add costs, delays and can make the projects prohibitively expensive to build. CEQA is designed of course, to protect our environment. But the very projects that protect our environment have been ground to a halt because because of this CEQA process.

So in 2020, as the senator mentioned, the legislature passed SB 288, which established a set of statutory exemptions from CEQA for certain clean transportation projects that reduced emissions. The goal was to expedite the implementation of those important projects and the law worked.

According to a recent analysis by our co sponsors at SPUR, over 90 projects statewide have advanced more quickly and cost effectively because of this law. They include transit priority projects, bike and pedestrian improvements, bus rapid transit lanes, zero emission vehicle charging infrastructure and more. So now SB 71 would make those exemptions permanent.

This will create long term certainty for local agencies as they plan for more of these clean transportation projects in the future. And SB 71 will also bring parity among transit modes in making ferry public ferry projects eligible for this exemption, while also ensuring that those projects remain subject to robust regulatory oversight.

So even with this exemption, public ferry projects would still be required to obtain permits from up to 14 different regulatory agencies. SB 71 extends a proven strategy to deliver the infrastructure we need without compromising the environment. And we're proud to co sponsor this bill and encourage your I vote. Thank you.

Other witnesses in support for identification purposes. By the way, members this is a support on both sides, so.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson with the California Transit Association. We're one of the co sponsors. I'm just sitting here in case there's some questions that come up I can help right through.

Thank you for being here. Other witnesses in support by identification purposes only.

Mr. Chair, Chris Micheli on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Transportation Authority in support thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors in support.

Raymond Contreras on behalf of SPUR as a proud co sponsor in support.

Charles Watson on behalf of BART, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District in support thank you.

John Moffatt on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies of California, thank you.

Mark Vukovich on behalf of Streets For All in support thank you.

Chairmember, Cesar Diaz on behalf of the California Hydrogen Business Council in support.

Brendan Repicky on behalf of Sunlight Transit Agency, Monterey Salinas Transit and the San Mateo County Transit Association in support.

Michael Pimentel here on behalf of four agencies, Caltrain, Santa Cruz Metro, San Joaquin Regional Transit District and the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority. All in support thank you.

Good afternoon. Moira Topp, on behalf of the Orange County Transportation Authority, in support.

Good afternoon. Steve Wallach, on behalf of the Alameda County Transportation Commission, the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, the Golden Gate Bridge District and the California Association for Coordinated Transportation.

Mr. Chair. Jason Gonzalez, on behalf of Access Services, LA County's Paratransit Provider, in support. We want to thank the author for including paratransit.

Jonathan Cole on behalf of Climate Action California, in support.

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

Eduardo Rubalcava representing 3.2 million AARP Members. AARP in strong support of SB 71. In addition to all this, there's also the safety aspects of making.

We've already had the speakers, but thank you for being here. Thank you.

Jeremiah Rohr, Cyclist Commuter. I support this.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Seeing any opposition? There's none on file, but is there any opposition in the audience? Seeing none. Members, I do see. Oh, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not opposition. We support and ask that you move the bill. But Gus Corey, on behalf of the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District, would like to further a conversation with the Senator about possibly including tier 4 rolling stock.

There's been a heavy investment by SMART into that technology which gets rid of 99% of all emissions. And so with zero emission vehicles, those are expensive, there's long lead times and there's concerns over range. And so we want to be able to be a part of the solution.

Appreciate all the work that the senator's been doing on this and so look forward to continuing the conversation. Thank you.

Thank you. Any opposition? See none. The bill's been moved. It's supported on both sides. Okay, Senator.

Matt, I'm wondering if you had any response to our previous conversation. Senator Wiener, one of my equine parts are always a big issue for me. I represent a lot of horse riders in my district and one of the concerns they brought up to me is that sometimes these are great projects.

I'm always a fan of these projects, but in particular the bike lanes, when they're streamlined and there's no opportunity for my horse riders to bring in some concerns, it takes away the safety ness. They have to ride closer to the cars because the bike lane now has taken their horse lane.

So I'm wondering if there's again opportunity whenever these kind of projects come up, in particular the bike lanes for in my district our horse riders to talk about the safety concerns.

Yeah. So of course, this doesn't eliminate what public agencies still have to approve these projects and go through the, you know, whatever process they go through to approve them, to fund them. And so, you know, that. That is certainly an opportunity, a large project, then in addition or large, over 50 million. Then there's a public hearing requirement.

And this bill used to be higher than that. We've lowered that over time. And we've also. I know Mr. Robinson can speak more to this. We've reached out to LA Metro about this to see if there was a specific issue.

I don't think they were aware of one, but we want to make sure that if there are conversations that need to happen about a project.

And I got that, so clarifying, if any project costs over $50 million, and I have the long list, there's. The lead agency will hold public meetings and so forth. That still is in place. Yes. Okay. Thank you so much.

Senator Arreguin from Berkeley.

I want to thank Senator Wiener for bringing this bill forward to not just extend the exemption for certain transit projects, but to broaden it to include ferries. And we'll lift up the San Francisco Bay Ferry as a really great way of expanding transit access.

Paratransit, recognizing mobility, is multifaceted, and would love to be considered as a co author as this bill moves forward. And thank you for bringing this forward.

We'd love to add you. Thank you.

All right. The bill has been moved. It's been seconded. Clerk, please call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator, do you want to close?

Respectfully, ask for an I vote.

The motion is do pass.

That is a great close, by the way.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriation.

[roll call]

That bill is 80 and it's on call. Thank you, Senator, for being here. I don't think we have any authors, but. Senator Richardson, do you want to present your bill? One of them was already passed on consent, but this. Members, we're going to be on file. Item 10 SB 703 by Senator Richardson.

Senator, you may open.

Thank you. Well, good afternoon, Mr. Vice Chair and Members of this very important Committee, which I'm thankful to be a Member of as well. I'd like to first start off by thanking our Committee Chair, Mr. Cortese, and his staff for working with my office as we move forward on SB 703. SB 703, the Fair Trucking Accountability and Transparency Act, represents a critical step in ensuring that our state's trucking industry operates in a fair and legal and transparent manner.

There is an organization called PierPASS.org and they share analysis which shows that nearly half of the trucks in the San Pedro complex, which includes Los Angeles and Long Beach, which happens to be the largest in the Western Hemisphere, over half of the trucks make approximately four truck trips per day and over two thirds of the trucks make three trips per day.

This is important because by non-classifying workers or truckers as independent contractors, it can impact the quality, meaning the safety, that we see as these trucks are making significant trips and moving cargo throughout the day. Studies have shown that while 82% of port truck drivers are labeled as independent contractors, more than 80% of those are actually misclassified employees. A classification of an independent contractor can have significant impacts. I wrote some last minute notes here, so I got to move it a little closer.

Some of the impacts can be that they remove basic protections. It can also cause the actual truckers to incur some operational costs that typically would not be incurred by them. The Legislature has established important accountability measures over the years. However, enforcement remains a challenge due to a critical lack of data.

Ports collect some information on trucking companies assessing their facilities, accessing, excuse me, their facilities, but they do not collect specific data needed to determine whether a trucking company relies upon employee drivers or misclassified independent contractors. This gap in data collection leaves both our truckers and responsible businesses very vulnerable.

The lack of data also hinders the ability of cargo owners, including major retailers, to ensure that they are unknowingly supporting labor violations as they may make contracts that are ultimately subbed out and it's unknown to the originating party. SB 703 addresses this problem by requiring ports to collect and report key information that will enable regulators to identify non-compliant truckers and to hold them accountable while ensuring that businesses play by the rules and are not unfairly disadvantaged.

Misclassification does not only just harm a potential trucker, but in this case, it can have economic and environmental consequences as well. When trucking companies fail to comply with laws, it deprives the state of revenue needed to support essential services. Moreover, misclassified drivers often struggle to afford cleaner, more sustainable vehicles, which undermines the California climate goals.

Today I'm committed to making the following amendments that were submitted by the Committee to ensure that SB 703 help to remedy some of the concerns presented by those with this measure. Five of those items are as follows. One, eliminate the provisions that would mandate denial of entry to our ports.

Two, eliminate requirement that a non-employee driver use their own standard carrier alpha code. Number three, eliminate mandates related to markings of commercial motor vehicles. Number four, clarify that the bill only applies to the major ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland.

And number five, clarify that the ports, that the ports are responsible for collecting the driver and trucking company information. With that, I am also deeply committed to working with all stakeholders to ensure that SB 703 produces the best policy for cargo owners, port terminals, truckers, and the community, which must share the roads as well.

I happen to live in the San Pedro area, and I am traveling on those roads, and it's a serious thing when you see truckers that may not be adhering to all of the rules that are in place to make it safe for everyone. Here with me today to speak on the importance of SB 703 is the co-sponsor, Shane Gusman on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, as well as Elmer Lizardi with the California Labor Federation.

Witnesses in support. Thank you for being here.

Sorry about that. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Shane Gusman on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council. Happy to sponsor this bill and very thankful for the Committee, the Committee Chair, Committee staff for working with us and I think pointing out some very important issues that we are working on in the bill.

And part of that is the amendments that were that were referenced by the author. Exploitive labor practices have been a problem in our ports for decades. For almost as long, this Legislature has acknowledged that and has enacted legislation, multiple, multiple bills to try to address the problem because it's a huge problem for drivers who are wrongfully called independent contractors when, by any legal standard, they're employees.

And in those instances, all of the cost of doing business for yourself is foisted upon the driver and all the benefits are gained by the trucking company. We have sponsored a number of bills that have gone directly at this issue. Providing a bad actors list at the ports, creating joint liability laws.

All of those are great laws, but if you can't enforce them, they don't do any good. And the missing piece of it is information. As the Senator stated, there are thousands and thousands of trucks entering our largest ports every day, some of them multiple times. It's very difficult to tell who's operating legally and who's not.

And we don't want to waste resources, government resources, to do a shotgun approach to enforcement. We should have targeted enforcement. And the way to do that is to have information on who the trucking companies are, who's working for who. Not a, not a great deal of complex information. It's pretty basic information specified in the bill.

With that, I think the drivers obviously who are being exploited are benefited, but also the companies that are doing the right thing, but they're competing, they're competing on an unfair playing field right now. If we can level that playing field, those trucking companies can compete more fairly. The retailers, which are on the hook, they're jointly liable for these violations.

They may not know it now, but the law that was passed last year make them jointly liable. So this benefits them, benefits the environment. And lastly, we will continue to work with all the stakeholders. I think the amendments address all of the issues raised in the opponent's letter. But we are always open to continue working with the Committee and all the stakeholders. And with that, we heard your aye vote.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Elmer Lizardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions. We're proud to support SB 703, which will help protect workers from this endemic misclassification in the trucking industry. As we've seen, the trucking industry has increasingly moved to a reliance on drivers that are misclassified as independent contractors. And this is especially true in the port trucking industry. And even though state and federal courts have resoundingly found drivers to be employees, including in almost 450 Labor Commissioner decisions, for over $57 million in unpaid wages and damages.

And in addition to this wage theft, worker misclassification burdens drivers by leaving them without a safety net, by exempting them from workplace safety protections and workers compensation, paid sick days and overtime, and also reimbursement for their equipment and gas, as the Senator so mentioned. These companies often force misclassified drivers to shoulder the company business costs and also lease and maintain these big rig trucks, an obligation that is very nearly impossible for low wage drivers to afford.

And this is often leaving drivers so indebted to the boss that they actually owe more in truck and operating costs at the end of the week than they have earned in wages, even though they're working full time or often more than full time. As we've mentioned, misclassification creates this unfair competition for businesses who actually follow the law.

And we know that California has taken significant steps to end this misclassification, but employers are getting more and more sophisticated in finding ways to avoid this compliance with layers of subcontracting and other tactics. So this simple measure of ensuring ports collect this specific information on trucking companies that are entering these facilities will make sure that California will stop this endemic misclassification and ensure that drivers are adequately protected and compensated for their hard work.

Thank you. Thanks so much for being here. Anybody in the audience want to say their name in support? Any other support witnesses? Seeing none. Any opposition witnesses? Two minutes. Thank you for being here.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and Committee Members. Chris Shimoda on behalf of the California Trucking Association, respectfully opposed to SB 703. First, I'd like to thank the author and sponsors and Committee Members for meeting with us. Would like to thank Senator Richardson for her proposed amendments. They moved the bill in the right direction.

There is a threshold question remaining about what information that port authorities can actually collect from truckers. This is based on both a permanent injunction as well as a court approved settlement involving two of the three port authorities remaining in the bill. But we look forward to reviewing the language and engaging in further discussions with both the author and sponsors and hope to get to a place where we can remove opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the Western States Trucking Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jacob Brint, on behalf of the California Retailers Association, in opposition.

Thank you. Any questions from committee? Senator.

Senator, thank you so much for educating at least me, you know, first year in the Transportation Committee on these kind of issues on the port. Can you clarify the opposition? I read in the analysis that perhaps some ports don't have the system ready to go to start collecting that information.

Can you talk about an on ramp or how much time would a port need to get that system ready to go to collect some information?

My lifeline here wants to take a stab and then I will add on after he completes.

If I can figure out this button here. Yes, we met with a Port Association that represents all the ports of the state.

I think a lot of our work has been done on the larger ports and we understand that system to be one thing, but there are a lot of smaller ports that don't operate that way, don't operate on the same entrance system, et cetera.

That's why instead of trying to come up with a one size fit all. We're only doing the larger ports. Exactly. It won't affect those smaller ports that. That don't operate in this.

Thank you, senator, for bringing this forward. And, and obviously we've got the amendments. That means that when they start to one end of the field go and then the other and they come on the 50 yard line.

That tells me that the Teamsters and of course the California Federation of Labor of worked hard to find this common ground. And I agree with my colleague, to be able to expedite the trucks through, that's going to be a challenge.

But we were able to get in and out of this building and we do these things all the time. And every time we touch that elevator, we hit the button, it's registered who we are that we're in the building. So technology is here.

So using that technology to record who the bad apples are and who are not those who are complying with the law and the rules, that I think all of us want safety and accountability, and I think that's it.

So I feel very confident that the Teamsters, along with the ports, are going to work together and be able to accomplish our goal to know who's in and who's out of our ports. And with that, I will move the bill to proper time.

The bill's been moved, Senator. I just have one. I appreciate the working with the opposition. My understanding is it will move to labor from here. I happen to be Vice Chair of Labor, so today I'm not going to be supportive of your bill because I want to dive into these amendments.

But I think, you know, working with the opposition. I thank you for working with the opposition. Hopefully we can get to a point where everybody supports the bill. And I thank you for, as an author, for working with opposition, try to alleviate some of the concerns.

Yes, sir.

So the bill has been moved. Would you like to close?

And actually, I'd like to respond to the question of the senator as well. First of all, I hope at some point when things slow down a little bit, I'll invite you all to our ports where you can take a tour and see the tremendous activity. A couple things that drivers have used in the past.

It used to be probably about 20 years ago that anyone who entered the port had to have a TWIC card. And that TWIC card contained information of who they were, where they worked. It's actually like a government ID. More recent, we're seeing various port terminals use license plate readers.

There's all different types of ways that they can capture information, just like we're seeing as how we entered the building, as Senator Archuleta mentioned. So we are committed to working with the Trucker Association. They have answered every single phone call myself and my staff have made.

We have worked side by side with the sponsors of the bill as well. And so we just want to make sure that it's a fair and easy way to be able to capture the information so that the process may continue.

Because ultimately we need to make sure that the trucks are getting in and getting the cargo safely and on their way, and that the truckers themselves that are investing, as I said, I live in the community, many of them you see lining up, you know, pre 7am and are still working at 6pm and so we need to make sure the drivers as well have an opportunity to make those turns.

So we'll be working to address that point and any other remaining points. And it really has been, I won't say quite a pleasure, but it's been a good and fruitful experience to get us through this far and look forward to getting over the line by the time we get to labor, sir.

Wonderful. Secretary, clerk.

And with that, I ask for an I vote.

Clerk, call the roll. It's been moved.

The motion is due pass to the Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement.

[roll call]

So that has 5:2. But it's on call and we'll let the calls later when we have more members. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Yep. Next on the list, members. Senator Ashby. File item five, SB 720. Senator Ashby, you may open.

Thank you so much colleagues for having us here. This is a little breakaway from Judish for me, so don't mind if I hide in here in Transportation with you for a few minutes. Okay. I am here to present SB 720, which we call the Safer Streets Act. This bill allows cities to opt in important term there.

It's not mandatory. They can opt in to a new red light camera system for high collision zones, providing a vital tool to reduce traffic fatalities. In 2021 in California, there were 4,000 people who lost their lives in traffic collisions. With more than a quarter of those deaths directly related to a red light violation.

The outdated and expensive structure of our current red light camera programs have proven to be ineffective. I truly think they have zero fans. Overly punitive, overly targeted at factors far beyond traffic safety. Actually, the disdain for our current red light program is somewhat unifying of the Legislature.

What I have learned while working on this bill. Currently, unlike other states, California holds drivers responsible for violations requiring photos of a person's face. Another super unpopular part of our red camera program right now. If the driver cannot be identified, the violation notice is sent to the vehicle's registered owner.

This controversial facial recognition has been central to administering an archaic system that we all agree does not work. If identified, the violators are subject to a criminal penalty, which includes a fine of at least $500. And then as we all know, traffic school another $500 on top of that.

And the ever popular points on your driver's insurance that drives you up for several years of higher insurance here in California. These high fees and penalties associated with the current outdated red light traffic enforcement system create a significant financial burden for families, especially low income families. SB720 tries to get at these issues.

We provide an updated framework to bring California cities on par with successful programs that are happening in other parts of the country. SB720 does the following. It shifts the program from driver liability to owner liability, removing any need for facial ID programs.

Think about when you drive across a toll bridge, it just takes a picture of your license plate. It doesn't care who your driver is. That doesn't matter.

Changes to this violation form remove a criminal penalty and instead move us to a civil penalty, thereby easing the insurance burden because there is no longer any a point on your insurance or your driving record that drives up that cost.

Limits the fine for a violation to $100, including administrative fees, a massive reduction from the current 500 assessment and no longer a need for traffic school, directs funding back towards multimodal transportation programs in the community.

And those of us who have served at the local level, there's at least a couple of mayors on that dais who know how freaking hard it is to get money for bicycle lanes and other multimodal projects in your communities. This will help. It is a source of revenue to go back to the local.

Local governments may choose to opt into this Safer Streets Program, but here's what they have to do. They have to develop guidelines for screening and issuing their violations. They have to develop guidelines for selecting the locations to install these systems.

And that has to be based on collision analysis, meaning where are the accidents happening in your where you can put these in? And they must submit an annual report on data from the Automated Traffic Enforcement System to keep them honest in that regard. SB720 ensures that cities have the tools they need to make their streets safer.

It's a critical step towards reducing traffic collisions in California, ensuring our streets are safe and reducing unnecessary and cumbersome criminal and financial burdens to Californians in all of our communities. This bill, when implemented, should do the following. It should make our communities safer. It should decriminalize traffic violations.

It should reduce fines, it should reduce fees, and it should reduce insurance burdens. And most importantly, it should save lives across the Golden State. I strongly ask for your aye vote today and I do have with me a couple of support witnesses.

Senator Strickland, I understand one of them is an old friend of yours from inside of this building long ago, Pastor Patricia Strong-Fargas, who's the co chair of Faith for Safe Streets and my own personal City Council Member, Lisa Kaplan from here in the City of Sacramento.

Witnesses in support who would like to open?

Good afternoon. Thank you for having me. I am Pastor Patricia Strong-Fargas, pastor of Mount Salem Church in Los Angeles, California, also chair of Faith for Safer Streets, which represent many churches, temples and South Los Angeles community neighborhood councils. What really bring me here is to bring your attention today on individuals who can't speak for themselves anymore.

Because on August 27 2023 in Los Angeles, California. A crash between an Uber vehicle and a speeding car who went straight through the red light claimed the lives of multiple victims. These victims suffered fatal injuries and were pronounced dead at the scene.

The victims were identified as 23 year old Veronica, 27 year old Kimberly who were sisters and 23 year old Javelin. Two other victims were injured in the collision and had to be transported to area hospital for emergency medical care. But sadly, just the other day a four year old little boy suffered injuries in Leimert Park.

That's why I'm here today to bring this to your attention. Lives that are missing from families because of red light violators. Every year thousands of people across California suffer fatal injuries in auto collisions that take place. These incidents are a result of violating the red light.

As I visit many neighborhood council meetings and City Council meetings, I hear from the citizens requesting cameras, requesting some enforcement. Bottom line, requesting help. Help is singling out all over the State of California. We need help. I come today to support SB720, the new red light camera bill. I support SB720 for several reasons. To increase safety.

Automatic traffic enforcement system, improve driver behavior. A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that in large cities across the nation red light traffic system reduce fatal red light running crash rates by over 20%. We know that change and safely safety only comes when people are accountable for their actions. SB 2720 has equity.

It will not over tax the impoverished community that I pastor in, but will produce safety. How do I know that? She just said it. Shift the program from driver liability to owner liability. Changing the violation from a criminal penalty to a civil penalty, thereby easing insurance prices for drivers.

Also limit the fine as she has stated to $100 including administrative fee and other equity safety provision. As our great Senator has said already, we need to help save lives. That's why I'm here. We need laws to protect our citizens, either walking, cycling or motorists. I am in support of SB720. I believe this will help save lives. Please help.

Thank you for being here. Councilwoman, you may have two minutes.

Thank you Vice Chair, Fellow Senators. I want to thank Senator Ashby and the Transportation Committee for allotting me this time. My name is Lisa Kaplan. I'm a Council Member for the City of Sacramento. But for 20 years I was a school board member.

And for the past seven years I'm a volunteer with Jibe, which is our Walk to School Program. And I safely take about 20 kids to school every day day and over 20 years ago I was a Staff Member here for former Senator, then Assembly woman, Jenny Oropeza.

So I know what you do every day. As a mom, I worry about the safety of our students, walking and biking to school. I've had to train our children just because the walk sign goes on, stop, look both ways and don't walk. Because almost daily we see people run red lights.