Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

Good afternoon. The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. Welcome, everyone. The hearing room is open for the attendance of this hearing and it can be watched from a live stream on the Assembly's website.

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

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

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

We do have a Member out today, Assemblymember Papan. Their replacement has not been sent. And also I'd like to note that at a Committee hearing, previously I heard a sound from our dais of a no. And I wrongly attributed that to our Republican consultant. I appreciate his professionalism and the work that he does to ensure that.

That our Republican colleagues are well versed in bills that come before this Committee and provide sound advice to them. And so I just want to thank him for his work and for wrongly attributing an unprofessional comment to him. And thank you for what you do with that. We will begin our hearing.

We will start as a sub hearing because I do not think we have a quorum yet. We will start as a Subcommitee with that. I see we have two authors in the room. And the first author, because we do go in file item order is item number three AB605. Marisucci, you may come and begin at your convenience. You may begin when ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Early bird gets the worm here. I am here to present Assembly Bill 605, which would establish the lower emissions cargo handling equipment pilot program.

This is an idea that came to me by representatives of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, which represents the major shippers as well as the marine terminal operators, especially in my communities near the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach. But this also came to me at the request of the International Longshore Warehouse Workers Union.

And you know that when business and labor comes together to ask for your support, it's got to be a good idea because what this Bill is ultimately about, it's about making sure that our California ports, which account for about 40% of all of the imported goods that come into, you know, the American economy, not just the California economy, but the American economy, you know, all the goods that comes through the ports of California.

We need to make sure that those ports remain competitive, that we don't lose the container volume to, you know, other ports in the south, other, on the East Coast of the United States.

We need to make sure that, you know, as we strive to curtail the air pollution, you know, at and near the surrounding communities to our ports, that we at the same time make sure that we are providing, you know, the competitiveness to keep that container volume coming to California.

This Bill is proposing to allow for the use through their, their, their lifespan of hydrogen internal combustion technology, which is certified by the European Union as being zero emission. Now by California standards, you know, they're saying it's not quite zero emissions, but it's good enough for the European Union to say that this is zero emission.

And so here to talk more in detail about what we're proposing, I'm proud to present Mike Jacob, President of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Good afternoon, Chair Members. Mike Jacob with PMSA representing ocean carriers, marine terminal operators at California Sports.

And as Assemblymember said and we're very proud to support this Bill is about creating space for us to invest in new technology that meets some different types of standards besides the standards that we're used to in California with respect to creating new technology that doesn't exist now, allowing people to invest in this technology and deploy it here and reduce emissions in the process.

As the representative of the folks that would actually be piloting these things, what we're looking for is some certainty on the back end that if we make the investment in this type of technology that as the regulatory environment moves along and moves towards the goals that we know are out there because of the CARB scoping plan updates and the last AB32 scoping plan update, the goal is to have our cargo handling equipment transition to zero emissions, which is zero tailpipe by 2037. We know that over the next 12 years technology is going to continue to evolve.

We want to be active in that space and we're looking for assurance from the State of California that as we do that, we'll do it in partnership with the Air Board and make sure that we still have access to really cutting edge technology that may or may not prove to be a solution, but we're not sure yet because we haven't involved ourselves in the production of it.

So we get to be ahead of the curve on this. And we thank you for your support.

Thank you. Now moving to Members of the community who would like to be able to add on as a part of the public testimony. So name, position and organization. Name, organization and position.

Thank you, Chair and Members Marvin Pineda, on behalf of the IOW, thank you, Assembly Muratsuchi, for carrying this bill. The language in the bill that requires that the equipment's human operated is very important. We live and work in this community, so we support clean air. Thank you so much. We ask for an ivo.

Thank you. Are there more?

Good afternoon. Audrey Ratajcyak on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, in support.

Jonathan Cole on behalf of the Climate Reality Project, California State Coalition in support.

Thank you. Now moving on to any opposition testimony, you may have a seat. As a reminder, you have two minutes. But before you begin, we do have a quorum, so I would like to establish that if we could, so we can move from a Subcommitee to a full Committee. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

All right, we have a quorum, so we will have an opportunity to vote on this Bill as a Committee. With that, now turning it over to opposition testimony. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Alfredo Arredondo. I'm here on behalf of South Coast AQMD. I looked around first before I walked up just to make sure nobody else was going to oppose. But ours is not a position of oppose, but of concern with the proposed legislation.

I'll start by saying that we absolutely agree with the author on the need to kind of secure better air quality for port communities throughout the state.

And as we've begun to kind of grapple and get our arms around some of the concepts that are being proposed in the bill, we've begun to dig into the EU standard and seeing how they're approaching utilization of hydrogen in internal combustion engines, you know, very supportive of zero emission technologies here in California, as you're well aware, including use of hydrogen in fuel cells.

But the distinction being that with internal combustion, you do have a stoichiometric reaction that does lead to other outputs that you normally don't have with fuel cell or even just battery electric at the tailpipe. So with that we remain.

One of the other concerns that we wanted to highlight is, you know, you know, the Bill currently intends to restrict the ability of the Air Resources Board to pursue additional action in relation to the equipment that's being proposed to be exempted from further regulation. So we're more than happy to continue the conversation.

We've already had a great conversation with PMSA last week. South Coast staff was able to connect to better understand what the intent and where they're coming from more fully as well as with the author and staff. So with that, respectfully, we just remain concerned.

Thank you. And now moving into the audience to see if there are any members of the public who would like to add in additional position as it relates to opposition. Now would be the appropriate time to do so. Name organization and position. Seeing none. Moving to Members of the Committee.

Committee, before I look for responses, I'd ask the author, did you want to address the concerns brought up by South Coast AQMD, particularly as it relates to the internal combustion and the reaction that has other outputs, and also as restricting the Air Quality Management District's ability to pursue additional action?

Well, if I understand the concerns correctly, and of course you can speak to clarify any misunderstanding that I may have. I think, you know, this is a good example of, you know, from my perspective, don't let the perfect get in the way of the good.

We have this hydrogen technology, combustion technology that again is recognized by the European Union as zero emission by California's strict standards. It's not quite perfectly zero emission, but it's still providing that transitional technology, as your excellent Committee analysis points out. We are.

I was just talking with Mike about what a challenging time all of our ports are facing now with all the tariffs kicking in, with the container volumes dramatically being impacted. We need to make sure that those containers continue to come into our California ports.

And you know, while it may not be perfect in terms of, especially of the reduction of the NOx and SOx emissions, it's still much, much better than the diesel equipment that is currently being used.

That's why the workers and their families represented by the ILWU that live in the communities of San Pedro and Wilmington and Long Beach, you know, our co-sponsors of this measure, because they know that we cannot let the perfect get in the way of the good in terms of reducing air pollution while at the same time keeping our ports competitive.

All right, thank you. Looking to any of the Members for any comments. move the bill. We have a motion by Ransom a second by her Bedian. With that to the author. I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward.

This Bill provides for a pilot program for the use of cargo handling equipment that meets the air European Union definition of zero emissions for heavy duty vehicles. This program also allows cargo handling equipment that emits less greenhouse gases than diesel equipment to be used for its full useful lice.

As you noted in your testimony here in California, zero emissions means no tailpipe emissions of any pollutants. As this Bill targets the use of hydrogen combustion to power equipment, there is a potential for nitrogen oxide emissions which you also talked about.

And so I urge you to consider including a nitrogen oxide standard or requirements for technology that reduces nitrogen oxide emissions, such as catalytic catalytic conversions after treatment systems.

However, I am supporting your bill today and I look forward to your continued progress as you make it through the legislative session and encourage the Members to support it as well. With that, I give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair respectfully asked for aye vote.

Madam Secretary, could you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That Bill has 11 votes and we'll hold it open for any members to add on. Before we do our next bill, we're going to do our consent calendar. There are five bills on our proposed consent calendar. They're file items 2, AB438, item 6, AB1059, Item 7, AB1085 Item 9, AB1151, item 12, AB830. Is there a motion?

Second.

I'm going to take it from Vice Chair Davies and second it from Ahrens with that secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, we have 11. We'll hold the Bill. The roll open for members to add on. We have eight bills that were a part of the schedule hearing. We've already dispensed with one of them as noted. We go and file item order or whoever is present. And so with that, we're moving on. To. Let's see, Item number. There it is. Item number 8 AB1132. Chavo, you can begin at your convenience.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members, I am happy to have the opportunity to present AB1132 today. I want to start by thanking the Committee staff for their work on this bill and feedback.

You know climate change is causing increasingly severe impacts on our transportation system and in the process exposing inequities in how Californians plan transportation infrastructure.

For example, in an era when heat waves are becoming hotter and more common, less than a third of Los Angeles bus stops have shade structures, a ratio that's not uncommon around the state. This puts pedestrians and transit riders at greater risk of heat stroke.

Of the 30 precious lives that were lost in January's wildfires, nearly every single one belonged to an Angeleno who is living with a disability or over the age of 65. This is not only a tragedy brought on by climate change, but it was also a failure to plan evacuations around the needs of our most vulnerable neighbors.

Caltrans has a role to play in planning for a resilient transit system that serves all Californians, including those most vulnerable. That's why the agency conducts a Climate Vulnerability Assessment, which evaluates where the infrastructure on state highway systems is most vulnerable on the impacts of climate change.

But the assessment needs to go one step further and measure how climate change affects the users of transportation systems and which is what this Bill aims to do. AB 1132, the roads to Resilience Acts, instructs Caltrans to work with stakeholders and develop the list of community resilience indicators to integrate into the next transportation vulnerability assessment.

We can think of it this way. Both pavement and human bodies have adverse reactions to extreme heat. To deal with buckling roads, engineers can add expansion joints to the roadway or use different materials in repaving. But to address the needs of vulnerable road users during heat wave requires a different set of solutions.

By measuring community resilience indicators, Caltrans and its partners can better identify what these solutions are and what where they're needed. The amendments taken last week reflect the conversations with Caltrans and other stakeholders to ensure Caltrans is able to leverage its expertise and guidance.

Developed by with guidance developed by the Office of Emergency Services and in partnership with California Highway Patrol as they integrate these indicators into their vulnerability assessments. Ultimately, the Bill is about collecting and sharing data.

The data will help Caltrans and its partners plan a more robust and resilient transportation system in response and be responsive to the needs of its most vulnerable users. Today with me to testify in support is Yesenia Perez from Climate Equity Program Manager at Greenlining Institute and David Azevedo, the Associate Director of Advocacy at Community Engagement at AARP.

Good afternoon, Chair Wilson and Committee Members. My name.

Actually, it might be helpful to pull the mic all the way you can. Yep, there you go.

Okay, I'll start over. Good afternoon, Chair Wilson and Committee Members. My name is Yesenia Perez with the Green lighting Institute and proud sponsor of AB1132.

Greenlining works to build a future where communities of color can build wealth, live in healthy places filled with economic opportunity, and are ready to meet the challenges posed by climate change. AB1132 is deeply personal to me.

In 2017, when the Tubbs fire tore through my community in Sonoma county, it was at the time the most destructive wildfire in California history. It killed 22 people and destroyed more than 5,000 homes. The devastation was not just physical. It upended lives, displaced families and exposed the gaps in how we planned for disasters.

These were family, friends, neighbors and my community. I saw firsthand how hard it was for people without cars, seniors and people without disabilities to evacuate safely or access support.

Sadly, we saw the same pattern occur in the Los Angeles fires where where the vast majority of the 28 people killed were people with disabilities or were over the age of 65. With the right planning and systems in place, these deaths could have been preventable.

Yet it's inevitable that this will happen again because California's transportation system is under immense stress from climate change. Extreme heat, wildfires, flooding and sea level rise are already disrupting mobility across the state. Caltrans has already taken important steps to assess the risk to infrastructure, but we have to go further.

Caltrans must assess the risk to people who live and work across the state highway system. AB 1132 builds on this on Caltrans existing work by requiring an evaluation of how climate impacts to the state highways will affect the surrounding communities, especially those who are most vulnerable. We know that resilient communities are not built by chance.

They are built by design, thoughtful policies, inclusive planning and infrastructure that centers people people's needs, especially with those who are most vulnerable when a disaster strikes. Thank you.

Thank you. All right.

Good afternoon. My name is David Azevedo, Associate Director for Advocacy and Community Engagement for AARP California. Thank you, Chair Wilson, and Members of this Committee for allowing me to speak on behalf of AARP's 3.2 million AARP Members. In California, aging and extreme weather disasters do not go well.

Together, one in four Californians will be over the age of 60 by 2030. In that same five year time frame, our state is all but certain to see more frequent and severe disasters. The fastest aging regions of California are also some of the state's most at risk for extreme weather disasters.

From the Central Valley to the Eastern Sierras to the northern coast. AARP is supporting AB1132 because Caltrans has an integral role to play in keeping our communities safe. Transportation infrastructure is a make or break piece of extreme weather resilience. It's most obvious when thinking about evacuation from acute disasters such as wildfires.

It's less obvious when thinking about more chronic disasters such as extreme heat or hazardous air quality days. It's worth noting that these less obvious chronic extreme weather disasters end up affecting far more people. Extreme heat kills more older adults than wildfires, hurricanes, floods, every other disaster combined.

Standing at a bus stop in 110 degree heat without a shade structure can be a dangerous activity for older adults, whether they're healthy or or on common heart medications or with chronic heart and lung or other kind of conditions.

AB1132 is urgently needed because it requires a serious evaluation of the broader social and economic impacts of extreme weather on communities such as this fast growing older adult population.

In California, we're especially pleased to see build language that centers resilience conversations on community stakeholders to ensure that we're hearing from voices often overlooked in the traditional transportation planning process. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on behalf of AARP Members in California in support of 1132. We ask for unanimous aye vote.

Thank you. With that now we'll move on to members of the public who are in support of this Bill. Now would be appropriate time to come forward to give name, organization and position.

Good afternoon Chair and Members of the. Committee Jamie Pugh with NextGen California, co-sponsor of this bill and in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair and Members Jeanne Wardwaller, on behalf of Transform in support.

Jonathan Cole on behalf of Climate Action California in support.

Frances Tinney on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity in support.

Good afternoon, my name is Dohee Kim, from the Green Lighting Institute on behalf of the Planning and Conservation League in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, my name is Jazzy Pigot, speaking in behalf of the California Walks, and we are in support of AB1132. Thank you.

Kendra Ramsey on behalf of California Bicycle Coalition in support. Thank you.

Kirsten Bladh on behalf of Streets for All in support.

Thank you. It looks like that wraps up our support testimony. Now moving to opposition testimony. I don't see that are any on file, but giving that opportunity, if there was someone who had Intended to provide testimony in opposition. Seeing none.

Moving to Members of the public who are here who wanted to just state a position of opposition, now would be an appropriate time to do so. Name organization and position. Seeing none. Now moving it to Members of the Committee. I see two to my left.

I'll move the bill.

All right, we have a first by Rogers and a second by Ahren's. I'll go to Assembly Member Lackey and then Assembly Member Macedo.

Yeah, thank you. Hey, with all due respect, right now I happen to be on Budget Committee and we're considering facing about a $5 billion annual shortfall in highway funding. Gas revenues are also expected to decline over the next several years to a significant degree because gas powered vehicles are being phased out.

So it seems to me that we need to be keeping our promise, with SB1 2017, where we, we talked about fixing our roads, I don't think we can afford, although it's a noble thing to try to address climate related social inequities, I don't think we can afford it.

I think we need to focus on our infrastructure, which is in trouble and so is our economic ability to address infrastructure. So I can't support this noble proposal.

Thank you, Assembly Member.

I just echo the sentiments of my colleague. I come from a rural area in California and we are struggling with basic infrastructure. So as much as I appreciate what you're trying to do in a sunshiny day where we had a lot more money available for projects like this, I would be supportive.

But for those reasons, I will be laying off on this bill today. But I appreciate the efforts that you're putting forward.

All right, moving on to any other. I see no other comments. Did you want to address the lack of support? Yes, please.

I am on a budget subcommitee too, and I am very well aware of especially what the cuts at the federal level are looking at, meaning in our budget. Billions and billions of dollars possibly cut by the Federal Government. And I know that it's a very difficult time to do anything that may cost money.

We are hoping that this can actually be absorbable in the current process that already happens. And I also want to just note that, you know, climate related disruptions cost California and Caltrans about $1.0 billion in highway maintenance and infrastructure repairs each year.

And FEMA has estimated that for every dollar we spend on resilience, we save $6 in recovery. So this actually is something that will save us money in the end because when we are trying to fix things in retrospect, it's much more costly than if we just do it right the first time.

And I would say for the lives lost in our communities, when we don't do this kind of planning, that that is not a cost that we can absorb.

And so we, you know, we believe that this is really important in terms of our planning process as we know climate change is impacting our communities in profound and devastating ways.

And we need to make considerations for people with disabilities and seniors and those who don't have vehicles to make sure that they can also leave and get out when time is of the essence. And so I think this is a critical part of the current planning process that we need to include.

Very grateful for the partnership of the AARP and Greenlining streets for all and other organizations who spoke in support today and respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. With that, to the Member. You know, I appreciate you bringing this forward and for working to incorporate CHP and Cal OES into the assessment.

What I will say is that due to the lack of viable evacuation routes during the most recent Eaton and Palisades fire, vulnerable populations, including the elderly, people with disabilities and those experiencing homelessness, faces delayed evacuation alerts, lack of transportation and difficulty assessing routes.

So this Bill would require socioeconomic and climate resiliency factors to be incorporated into Caltrans climate change vulnerability assessments in consultation with CHP and Cal oes.

And this will also give an indication of how transportation disruptions affect vulnerable populations, identify key resilience indicators and improve coordination with local governments on emergency planning and evacuation strategies, which all help save money. Efficiency saves money. And so with that, I'll be supporting this Bill today. We already have a motion on the floor from Rogers and Ahrens.

I believe Rogers and Ahren's. That is so. So I believe you gave the close with the aye. So I will turn it over to Madam Secretary to call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill has nine votes, nine ayes. And so we will leave the roll open for members to add on. Thank you so much. Alrighty, we are in file item order. Back to the top. Item number one. AB382. You may proceed, Assembly Member Berman, at your convenience.

Thank you, Chair Wilson and Colleagues, I first want to begin by thanking the chair and Committee staff for their engagement and discussion on this bill. Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for school age children in California. Children, parents and all Californians should feel safe walking or biking to school.

That's why I am once again authoring legislation to update our policies to advance safety in school zones and put kids well being first. AB382 would lower the speed limit in school zones to 20 miles per hour.

This would go into effect beginning in 2029, recognizing that local jurisdictions may need more time to implement but does not prohibit them from lowering the school zone speed. But this does not prohibit them from lowering the school zone speed limit sooner.

Currently, California is just one of nine states that sets our school zone speed limit greater than 20 miles per hour. Research shows that reduce reducing speed limits in school zones can bring significant safety benefits by reducing vehicular speeds, fatal accidents and injury crashes.

This bill would also provide cities the flexibility to to use flashing beacons and specific hours in addition to quote when children are present to make clear when the 20 mph speed limit would be in effect. This would better meet the needs of local communities and improve compliance, which is critically important for student safety.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And with me today is Kirsten Bladh, Associate Director of State Policy at Streets for All.

Good afternoon. I'm here today because of one simple but devastating fact. Traffic violence is the number one cause of death for school age children in California. It's not cancer, it's not guns, it's not drowning, it's getting hit by a car. And the problem is getting worse.

Pedestrian deaths in this country have shot up 77% since 2010, a horrifying trend that is unique to America and even worse in California than the nation as a whole. And we know that many of these deaths are occurring in our school zones.

Like 2 year old Max Alamanza, who was struck and killed by a car in front of a Napa elementary school. Or 7 year old Jace Bord, who was struck and killed by a truck while crossing the street in front of a school in San Bernardino county just moments after his mother dropped him off.

In both of these cases, the driver was traveling at roughly the current school zone speed limit of 25 miles per hour. And that speed killed them. AB382 will lower the school zone speed limit to 20 miles per hour, putting California in line with the prevailing standards of a majority of US States.

The recent recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics and Empirical Data underscoring the nexus between speed limits and crash outcomes. A person hit at 25 mph is twice as likely to be killed as a person hit at 20 mph.

At 20 mph, drivers have more time to react to unexpected events, such as a child darting into the street. And while AB382 will not solve the pervasive problem of distracted driving, it will decrease the likelihood of a fatality in the event of a distracted driver hitting someone.

A distracted driver going 20 miles per hour is safer than a distracted driver going 25 miles per hour. AB382 will also give our cities and schools more local control over what school zone standard works best for them.

Because as we've learned by talking to school administrators, crossing guards, and city officials all across the state, what works for a school in downtown San Francisco may not work for a school in suburban Orange County.

Streets for All is committed to fighting for safer school zones where children don't have to risk their lives just to get to school. Thank you.

All right, just before I was about to say, you'll have to wrap up. Good timing. All right. With that, moving to members of the public who would like to add on name, organization and position.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the Cities of Mountain View and Redwood City in support.

Good afternoon. Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association in support.

Hello, Leilani Aguinaldo on behalf of Fresno Unified School District and Oakland Unified School District in support.

Sam Nasher representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support. Thank you.

Brian Nurse with Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt alliance in support.

Kendra Ramsey on behalf of California Bicycle Coalition and support.

Thank you. Now moving to opposition. As I understand there is an opposition on file, but they may not be here to testify today. So just double checking that that is an accurate statement. Statement. All right. Seeing none. Just noting for members of the public who would like to note their opposition in a shortened firm form.

That would be name, organization, position. Looking for anyone not seeing any. Moving it to Members of the Committee. We have a motion by Ahren, second by Harabedian and Ransom. Were you questioning? Okay, so Assembly Member Ransom followed by Assemble Member Lackey.

Awesome. I would like to thank the author for this bill. Appreciate you bringing this Bill forward. I just had questions about the when children are present. I just wanted to get clarification. I've read through the bill language, all of the support. I'm just wondering if you can explain or clarify if you will.

If children are not present, what will the speed limit be. If it's not within the hours that are specified.

If children are not present and it's not within the hours that are specified, then I believe it would be whatever the speed limit. The normal speed limit is for that road.

Okay, right. Yeah. The posted speed limit. The posted speed limit. So if the speed limits say it's in a neighborhood, the speed limit's 25. Then when children are not present, we'll still be at 25, but when children are present, we'll be at 20. And it's going to be based on the hours that children are anticipated being present.

We try to provide. Correct me when I'm wrong, but we try to provide flexibility for local jurisdictions to decide they can either use hours they can have or a flashing beacon. Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you for the clarification.

Thanks.

Assembly Member Lackey.

Yeah, I'll just follow up on that. Just to clarify that when it's not once children are not present, it's actually the basic speed law that applies.

That's right. Yeah.

And that's more flexible. But we don't want to get into that. What I want to get into is thanking you for recognizing a legitimate safety threat. Having worked in the California Highway Patrol for almost 30 years, the tragedies are.

It's too late, and it's so heartbreaking because everybody loses and people just really don't focus on the real danger speed provides. And especially when there's a pedestrian influence and especially when those pedestrians are children. And so thank you for this because this will save lives. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lackey. You've seen more than I can imagine, so I appreciate that, Vice Chair Davies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward as well. And my question is, would this also relate to e-bikes?

Because obviously we know our e-bikes are going 25 miles an hour up to 28 miles an hour, and I have a middle school very near me, and there's about 150 e-bikes that leave and, you know, trying to get them to follow the rules, but it's the same concern is them moving fast.

So I was just curious if that's even part of the bill or it's something that perhaps down the line we need to include.

That's a great question that I have not discussed. So I'm going to defer to my expert witness to see if she knows.

Yeah, I don't think there's any reason that e-bikes wouldn't be subject to the same speed limit. Yeah.

Good Point.

All right. Seeing no further, I'd like to thank the author for bringing this forward and attempting to make our school zones safer for children. And definitely working with my committee to work through some of the concerns.

One of the concerns I have that just bringing it up that I think there's still an opportunity for is the expanded definition of when a school zone speed limit is in effect still may confuse drivers and result in a lack of compliance with the school zone speed limit, which neither of us want. And so I'll support.

I'm supporting your bill today and I hope that you continue to work on that, on refining that definition to ensure the effectiveness of the actual speed limit. There has been a motion and a second. A motion by Ahrens and a seconded by Harabedian. I give you an opportunity to close before we call the roll.

Well, appreciate the conversations we've had. Looking forward to more. Definitely want to tighten the language as much as possible if the bill moves forward today. Thank you.

Thank you. Are you asking for an aye vote?

And I would love an aye vote.

All right. Got to say the magic words with that. Madam Secretary please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That Bill has 11 aye votes and we'll hold the roll open for members to add on. All right. With that, we are still remaining in file order. We have number four, AB902. Schultz.

You may begin at your convenience. We need a microphone.

There we go. Much better. Thank you. Madam Chair and Committee Members, I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 902 today. And just to get this part out of the way, I will be asking for an aye vote. I want to thank Committee staff and you, Madam Chair, for all of your work on this bill.

We will be accepting all of the Committee amendments that are listed on page six of the analysis. As proposed to be amended, AB 902 would require lead agencies starting in 2026 to implement wildlife crossings in unidentified connectivity areas for new transportation infrastructure projects.

Transportation projects are a major cause of wildlife deaths in the State of California and a major contributor to the decline of wildlife populations that become isolated by habitat fragmentation and lose connectivity throughout the range. Obstacles to wildlife movement are also a major threat to public safety.

Between 2016 and 2020, over 44,000 collisions with large wildlife were reported to or by the California Highway Patrol. On average, five people are killed and over 250 people are injured in California in reported wildlife vehicle collisions each year. And again, I emphasize that's just what is reported and what we know to be the case.

The Road Ecology center at UC Davis has estimated the total cost of reported collisions between large wildlife such as Mule Deer, bears, and mountain lions and vehicles in California to be, at least conservatively, $1 billion in damage from the period of 2016 to 2020.

AB902 would require lead agencies proposing a transportation project located in a connectivity area to incorporate wildlife passage features to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impairing wildlife connectivity to the extent that's feasible. This could include adding features like overpasses, underpasses, lighting, and directional fencing to guide wildlife away from traffic.

Both state and federal transportation funds are available for wildlife protection projects just like these, and wildlife crossings can improve wildlife movement while reducing wildlife vehicle collisions by up to 98%. Simply put, with better planning and design of transportation projects, California can better protect both people and the wildlife that call it home.

Testifying in support of AB902 today are Ann Cullnan, former Environmental Programs Manager at Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, as well as Joshua Hug, Government Affairs Program Manager at the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District. And again, I will be respectfully asking for your eye vote.

You may proceed. And as a reminder, witnesses have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair Wilson and Members of the Committee as I was introduced. My name is Josh Hug. I am the Government Affairs Program Manager at the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, also known as MidPen. We are responsible for stewarding over 70,000 acres of public open space on the San Francisco Peninsula.

Midpen strongly supports AB 902, the Connected Communities act, and urges your eye vote. For decades, Midpen has witnessed firsthand the detrimental impacts of transportation infrastructure on wildlife and habitat connectivity. Our preserves are often bisected by roads and highways, creating barriers that fragment populations, limit access to essential resources, and impede adaptation to a changing climate.

To this end, Midpen is building a major wildlife crossing on Highway 17 to facilitate the safe movement of wildlife on and off the peninsula. AB 902 offers a critical step towards addressing these challenges proactively.

By incorporating connectivity considerations into regional and local transportation planning, AB902 will lead to more informed and ecologically responsible transportation decisions that will make roads safer for both people and wildlife. This Bill is the ounce of prevention.

With over 50 years of on the ground expertise, Midpen would be happy to collaborate with regional and local transportation agencies to ensure projects are designed and implemented in a way that minimizes harm and, where possible, restores vital wildlife corridors.

In conclusion, AB902 is a common sense and necessary step towards building a safer, more sustainable and ecologically sound transportation system. We believe this legislation will benefit both our transportation networks and and our precious wild natural heritage. For these reasons, Midpen urges your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Wilson and Committee Members. My name is Ann Call Nan. I am a wildlife connectivity specialist at Jacobs, where I work to advance wildlife connectivity projects in California.

Previously, as the Environmental Programs Manager at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, or VTA, I led and continue to advocate for VTA's lead role in advancing connectivity projects on Highway 17, Monterey Road, and U.S. 101 in Coyote Valley, south of San Jose and Pacheco Pass.

Roads are formidable barriers for wildlife to access the resources they need to survive. However, addressing connectivity is not just about sustaining our amazing wildlife, it is about motorist safety. Years ago, my husband's friend was riding his motorcycle on Highway 1 when he hit a wild boar, leaving him unable to walk and facing lifelong physical and cognitive challenges.

Allowing wildlife to freely access our roadways is inherently dangerous. However, wildlife crossings combined with directional fencing can reduce these wildlife vehicle collisions by over 90%. When I grew up in the Bay Area, many of today's freeways did not exist or were much smaller roadways.

Back then, as our transportation infrastructure grew, there was no consideration as to the effect of these facilities on wildlife movement. Today, however, CDFW, Caltrans, NGOs, open space authorities, local governments, and many others have considerable information about wildlife movement and the locations of Crossings.

Considering all this information from all these stakeholders, it should not be a huge lift for local and regional transportation agencies to identify connectivity projects in their jurisdictions and include them in their planning efforts.

I strongly urge a yes vote on AB902, the connected communities act, to unite all agencies and stakeholders in this collaborative work that addresses both the needs of our wildlife and the safety of motorists. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Now moving to Members of the public who would like to show their support, name, organization and position.

Good. Excuse me. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Reed Addis on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation and the Wildlife Corridor Working Group in support today. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and Members. Karen Stout, on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund. We're in strong support.

Good afternoon. Mark Fucsovich on behalf of Streets for All.

Lizzie Kutzona here, on behalf of the Humane World for Animals, formerly the Humane Society of the United States, in support. Thank you.

Karen Jacques, on behalf of Climate Action California and 350 Sacramento, in strong support. Thank you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jordan Grimes, on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Alex Loomer, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, The Mojave Desert Land Trust, California Native Plant Society, and The Environmental Protection Information Center. And strong support. Thank you.

Francis Tinney, on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and 76 other conservation organizations in support.

Jeannie Wardwiler on behalf of the San Diego Humane Society in support.

Good afternoon. Mari Galloway, on behalf of Wildlands Network and the Nature Conservancy in support.

Thank you all. Now moving, for Members of the public who are in opposition. I'm sorry. For those who might be in opposition to provide testimony. I think you were previously in opposition and now you're noting something different. You. You are more than welcome. This would now be appropriate time for you to provide that.

You can have a seat or you can stay standing.

Sure, I can do it from here. Thank you, Madam Chair. Steve Cruz, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association and we had been previously opposed, but given the amendments that the author has agreed to and referenced on page six, the analysis, we will now move to neutral. Want to thank the Committee and the author for.

For working with us to eliminate some of the conflicts that were present in the bill. And again, we will now be moving to neutral, given those amendments. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Wilson and Members. My name is Vincenzo Caparelli and I'm here on behalf of California Association of Council of Governments.

We were never in an informal opposition position, but we are now we are neutral on the bill and want to thank the author for accepting the Committee amendments and thank him and you and their respective staff for all the hard work on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. With that moving to Committee, see if there's any comments, questions, concerns and I'll also entertain a motion. We have a motion by Habidian, seconded by Aaron's. With that, no comments. I'll just note thank you Assembly Member, for not only for bringing the Bill forward, but also you and your staff.

Working with myself, Committee staff on this as well as addressing some of the credible comments brought concerns that were brought by the opposition. You're building on existing law and similar requirements for Caltrans and cities and counties.

And so I appreciate your leadership to ensure that transportation projects incorporate appropriate wildlife crossings that can help mitigate the impacts of critical housing and transportation development, which is key. It's about building this being balanced and the symbiotic relationship between all. So with these amendments, I'm supporting your Bill today. I'll give you.

We have a motion in a second. I'll give you the opportunity to close.

Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I think that's a record 34 times. Four times. Three. Okay, three times. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Macedo. Not voting. Pappin. Ransom. Aye. Ransom, aye. Rogers. Rogers. I. Ward. Ward.

Not voting.

I has nine aye votes. One no vote and we'll hold the roll open for members to add on. With that seeing no members, no authors presence outside of those on our Committee, we're going to go to our committee. So we're going to move to item number 13 AB1014. Rogers.

We do make a call out to Assembly Member Karlra and Assembly Member Irwin. Now would be appropriate time to make your way to this committee to be able to have your Bill heard. Assembly member Rogers, the floor is yours at your convenience. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Madam Chair and colleagues, our bill today is a pretty simple one. It will make things safer, particularly in rural communities.

Under existing law, when Caltrans does a speed assessment, they're required to set the speed limit at the 85th percentile for what they see that's not a determination based on the safety conditions in the area. It's a determination based on how fast people are driving.

And in many parts of our community, especially up on the north coast, you have state highways that are bisecting our communities in ways that create safety hazards.

What our Bill would do is allow for Caltrans to do a speed assessment without being bound to the results of it and being able to make decisions based on the conditions that they see on the grounds and actually reduce the speed limit.

That's particularly important in areas of our community where we see a high number of tourists who are parking on the side of the road to access either our beautiful redwood trees or our beaches. You see folks who are carrying canoes that don't know the area. Meanwhile, you have road conditions where in which drivers don't see them coming.

And it creates a potential hazard in our communities. So with us today, I have two folks in testimony. We have our good friend from Del Norte County, Supervisor Chris Howard. We also have the Executive Director for Cal Bike, Kendra Ramsey, to talk about how this impacts at the local level. Supervisor.

Thank you so much. You know, our communities didn't have national parks, state parks, just a mere 40 years ago. We didn't have national recreations designated by the Federal Government. We do today. We also have vehicles today that travel faster than ever. And yet our communities, in particular our tribal communities, are bisected by these highways.

And it creates a non safe condition for pedestrians, as the Assembly Member stated. And it creates a non safe condition for bicyclists and anybody who wants to enjoy these outdoor spaces that the State of California set aside for all of us to enjoy.

But in particular, my constituents cannot feel safe just walking the street for a quarter mile to a restaurant, to a store, without risk and fear of being hit by a car going 60 70 miles an hour through my communities where speed should be set at closer to 45 or 50.

And all I do is see traffic survey after traffic survey bumping it up. That is not fair. It is not right. And we need to find a way and a mechanism after all these years of working on this, that actually makes a difference. And if we could do that here today, I'd be really appreciative of that.

And I know our tribal communities of the Yuroks, the Tolawadini, Oak Valley Rancheria and the Resignee Rancheria that are all bisected by these state highway systems will also be in favor of, of making sure that this happens and protects all our local constituents so they can enjoy these natural areas that California set aside.

Hello Chair Wilson and Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Kendra Ramsey, Executive Director of the California Bicycle Coalition or Cal Bike. Thank you Assembly Member Rogers for authoring AB1014.

Calbike strongly supports this common sense policy change that will allow Caltrans to to improve road safety, particularly in high traffic and vulnerable areas, providing more flexibility and setting speed limits Cal Bike has been arduously working to make our state highway system safer and more accessible for people walking and bicycling.

As you may know and as was just stated, state routes often serve as local streets as they pass through towns and cities and go in our rural areas. They provide access to schools, hospitals, senior centers, shops and homes and are often the most direct route across a neighborhood or region.

People walk, bike and take public transit to destinations on these corridors. Yet most of these streets operate as many freeways designed to move cars and trucks fast with little regard to the safety of vulnerable road users. We often find that state highways that service community arterials or main streets are the most dangerous for vulnerable road users.

Speed is a major factor in traffic collisions that result in pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and injuries along state highways, while traffic speed enforcement is critical to efforts in California to reduce factors that contribute to traffic collisions. Currently, Caltrans has little discretion in lowering or maintaining speed limits on state highways it controls.

This Bill complements what AB43 did in 2021, successfully giving cities the opportunity more control over setting speed limits and reducing them on local roads. This is a simple and necessary extension to state rights of way.

California should do everything possible to protect the safety and well being of vulnerable road users and by providing greater flexibility to Caltrans to incorporate local input in setting speed limits along state highways. This Bill will enhance public safety and ensure that local jurisdictions can respond effectively alongside Caltrans to evolve to evolving safety concerns in their communities.

For this reason, Cal Bike is pleased to support the bill and ask you to vote aye in support of this critical safety measure.

Thank you. Now moving to members of the public who would like to offer support testimony now be appropriate time to come forward. Name, organization and Position.

Mark Fitch on behalf of Streets for All in strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Jeanie Ward Waller on behalf of Transform and People for Bikes in support.

Eric Will with Rural County Representatives of California in support.

Chris Lee with Politico Group on behalf of two clients, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority, Regional Climate Protection Authority and the Nevada County Transportation Commission both in support and thanks to the author.

All right, now moving on to opposition testimony. As I understand it, we do not have someone here today, but just wanted to confirm, just in case. All right. Seeing none. Is there any member of the public who would like to offer short testimony, name, organization, position in opposition to this bill? Seeing none. Moving it back to Committee.

See if there's any questions, comments or concerns. I see Assembly Member. I have Assembly Member Lackey will be opportunity to speak. I have a motion by Lowenthal and a second by Ahrens. Assembly Member Lackey.

Thank you. Madam Chair, I have a question for the author. Has there been any conversations at all with NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, with regard to this change? And the reason why I asked that is because without their buy in, we could jeopardize a lot of funding, safety funding. And I'm just hoping that there's been some collaboration.

I can double check with our team and just make sure that that's the case. This really, this bill's impetus was from local concerns, whether it was from our CHP folks or Caltrans folks.

We've actually seen in our district in areas where pedestrians have been struck trying to cross the highway from, as you know, in your district, housing on one side and businesses on the other.

And then we're told that actually the only way to get the speed changed was either to do a speed assessment that might guarantee it goes up or to have a fatality. And so we're really trying to get ahead of that.

But I'd be happy to check with that group and just double confirm that we're not cutting off our nose despite our face. But my understanding is that it wouldn't have an impact on funding.

And just to note that this, this has been law for locals for over three years and there hasn't been an issue of funding related to it.

Yeah, for cities and for cities, the bill that was passed previously.

Local government and state government are, as you know, very different. And NHTSA is very, very concerned about state governments and their regulatory perspective, especially on speed. That's why this law has lasted for so long. It's been controversial for as long as I've been around.

So I know that this is a noble thing, but I'm just wanting to make sure that we don't poke the bear, if you know what I'm saying. And I think it's important that we try to collaborate and not try to surprise. That's it.

Yeah, absolutely. And we'll be happy to do that, sir.

All right. Seeing no other comments, I'll just note. I appreciate you for working with the committee on the amends to conform this bill to current law passed to grant locals the authority to lower speed limits.

Speed limits are an important part of reducing traffic fatalities, as the speed is a factor in nearly a third of all traffic collisions. Speed limits alone are not a panacea, however, for reducing traffic fatalities. It's important for engineers to continue to find ways to slow drivers down to safe speeds, especially in areas with high concentration of pedestrians.

I am supporting your bill today. You have a motion and a second. I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you so much, Chair, and for all the staff that worked on the bill. This really is just providing an additional tool in the toolbox for Caltrans. And with that, I ask for an aye vote.

All right. Madam Secretary, there's been a motion made by Lowenthal, seconded by Ahrens. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has 13 votes and we'll hold the roll open to have other Members add on. We are down to our final three bills. We are moving on to item number five. AB 1022. Kalra. I believe we now have Assembly Member Irwin and Assembly Member Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry is in Natural Resources and will be here shortly.

You may begin when you are ready.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members. AB 1022 repeals the authority to immobilize and tow vehicles solely to collect unpaid parking tickets. These poverty tows are harmful, costly and unconstitutional. Cities claim they need this type of tow as a debt collection mechanism, but they already have less catastrophic methods.

And we know these towing programs are fiscally irresponsible, actually costing cities money. Often cities do not get to collect the unpaid ticket fees since most low income drivers are sold at lean. Cars are sold at lean sales with the tow yard keeping the proceeds.

A 2020 report by the Auditor of the City of San Diego found their towing program cost the city about $1.5 million a year, on top of being a money loser. In 2023, the first district of the Court of Appeals ruled it is unconstitutional to tow a vehicle solely for Unpaid parking tickets.

The court expressly rejected the City of San Francisco's argument that their interest in deterring parking violations and non payment of parking fines justifies warrantless seizures of vehicles.

I want to emphasize these poverty tows are happening to otherwise illegally parked cars, meaning they're not blocked in traffic, parked in a designated handicap spot with a placard abandoned for more than 72 hours, for example. For these types of violations, the vehicle code already includes specific towing authority and nothing in AB 1022 removes that.

The vehicles that are actually impacted by this Bill have only collected an arbitrary amount of tickets and now face an outsized punishment of losing something critical to their livelihood, transportation to work, school, medical appointments, and more, potentially even their place to sleep. Recovering a vehicle after it has been towed is expensive and complicated.

In many cases, a tow can lead to the total loss of a person's car if the tow and ticket fees are more than they can afford or more than what the car is worth.

Rather than continue this harmful cycle for the poorest Californians, local governments can send unpaid parking tickets to be dealt with at the DMV when someone needs to renew their car registration. If the driver still cannot afford to pay the tickets, they can then at least register for payment plan programs and get back on the road.

California has been a national leader in ending policies that punish people experiencing poverty, recognizing that these laws do not make individuals more likely to pay, but trap them in debt and create barriers to financial stability.

AB 1022 acknowledges that toying to collect unpaid parking tickets is a disproportionate punishment and does not actually make our streets save for or generate revenue. The version of this Bill that appeared before this Committee and passed as well as past Assembly floor was actually a much broader version of the Bill.

We've narrowed it significantly in order to simplify it and also focus on the issue that not only the courts have dictated, but public policy dictates is most effective. With me to revise supporting testimony are Debbie Scholl, Taze from Marin and Rebecca Miller, senior Staff Attorney with Western center on Law and Poverty.

If you want to press the microphone so we can hear you. And as a reminder, two minutes. Yes.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Debbie Scholtice. I'm speaking in support of AB122. In September 2023, my car was towed because I had unpaid parking tickets. The experience was very traumatic and I don't want other people to have to live through what happened to me.

I'm 63 years old and I work as a teacher, substitute teacher, tutor and preschool teacher. During the pandemic, I was living in San Jose with my son, my adult son who's disabled. We were subleasing a room and we got evicted. We lost our place to live and none of our rent or security deposit was returned.

I had to stay with a series of friends in Marin and eventually ended up at a homeless shelter called Jonathan's Place. There's almost no parking around the shelter. As a woman, I found the neighborhood very dangerous and it was uncomfortable. Parking far away and walking to the shelter in the evenings.

I needed my car to get to and from work. I started accumulating parking tickets while at the shelter that I could not afford to pay. It was very overwhelming time for me. There was many rules at the shelter and you could be exited if you didn't follow them.

I was sending any extra money I made to my son so he could afford to rent a place in San Jose. When I didn't pay my parking tickets, they more than doubled and things quickly spiraled out of control. Then one day I came out of the shelter and my car was gone.

I went to the parking office to see what to do. It was very humiliating. I was told I had to pay thousands of dollars, which I could not afford. Eventually, I borrowed some money from friends to get my car out of the tow.

I still owe money after doing a lot of community service, and I went without a car for a year. I took the bus. It took me an hour, an hour and a half to get to and from work. It's been a really hard experience having my car towed, having to borrow money to get it out. Wrap up.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Wilson and honorable Committee Members. My name is Rebecca Miller. I'm here with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, and we are a proud sponsor of AB 1022 because of the serious harms that we've seen poverty toes impose on the communities we and our partners serve.

These include people fleeing intimate partner violence who need their cars for safety, but they are towed, often based on tickets incurred by their abuser. Low wage workers who can't get to work without a car and therefore a tow makes it even harder to pay the tickets. And Californians like Ms.

Schultes, whose struggles to maintain housing and employment in our expensive state are made all the more difficult when their car is towed, as we've heard, because retrieving a car is so expensive and complicated. And many times people lose their car for good when they're towed for unpaid tickets.

A car can often be a family's most valuable asset and taking it to collect unpaid parking tickets is an outsized penalty that is not in keeping with California's values and our goal to make our state more affordable. In addition to causing great harm, towing vehicles is not cost effective way to collect unpaid parking tickets.

Our report towed into debt and audits in San Diego and San Francisco show that cities lose money on poverty tows. This Bill does not change any of the other existing collection tools like vehicle registration holds, Franchise Tax Board collections, civil actions, garnishments, the use of collection agencies and late fees to motivate payments.

What's more, courts have found that towing solely for parking ticket debt is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because collecting parking penalties is not itself a a public safety issue.

Importantly, this Bill does not impact any other reason that cities and law enforcement can tow vehicles that do impact public safety because these tows are harmful, because they aren't cost effective, because they raise constitutional concerns, and because local jurisdictions have other parking enforcement and collection tools.

I'm happy to report that cities and law enforcement's use of this type of tow is decreasing across the state and it's time for California to provide statewide clarity and uniformity to end this harmful practice. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving to Members of the public who would like to note their support, name, opposition. Sorry. Name, organization and position.

Good afternoon Chair Wilson and Members of the Committee. Keely O'Brien with Western Center on Law and Poverty, one of the proud co sponsors of the bill and also on behalf of Free from another proud co sponsor and ACLU California Action in strong support. And End Child Poverty in California also in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members. Dan Seaman on behalf of End Poverty in California, proud co sponsor of the bill and thank the author for bringing this forward. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Divya Shiv with Housing California and I'm in support of this bill. So thank you.

Good afternoon. Delma Suarez Lee Goyer of Marin in strong support.

Good afternoon. Tessa D'Arcangelo Ampersand with Smart Justice California and also on behalf of Courage California and support.

Thank you. Now moving to opposition testimony. I believe you have two and there are two chairs available for you right there. As a reminder, you have two minutes apiece.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and Members. Matthew Sieverling on behalf of the California Mobility and Parking Association, we take no pleasure in opposing this Bill. We took no pleasure in opposing this Bill last year either. But but simply put, AB 1022 would largely eliminate the tools the local governments need in order to enforce their local parking laws.

We agree with the valid concerns raised in the analysis, including the fact that the Bill eliminates the tools for enforcing out of state license plates.

Basically, if a driver doesn't pay California registration, a DMV hold is useless in order for us to actually enforce or get the attention of any driver from out of state who's here in California racking up dozens of parking tickets.

The Bill also removes the ability for local agencies to immobilize or boot a vehicle which is not spoken to in the court case, and is also an effective tool to finally spur a response and a conversation between that agency and that driver who has to that date at least been completely non responsive to notice after notice, especially if they have five or more parking tickets, which is what it would be required in order to boot a car.

The Bill is far too broad and provides unneeded relief to vehicle owners who are very likely able to pay their parking fines and fees but choose not to. Just very briefly, we did a quick survey in our President's local jurisdiction, which is the City of Pasadena.

Just as a as an example of what kind of cars fall on our top 30 scofflaw list, number one was a BMW with 67 citations unpaid. We have a Bentley with 25 citations, a Mercedes with 28 Rolls Royce with nine on and on and on.

So we don't think that's the intent of this Bill to protect those types of drivers who drive those types of vehicles from being towed or booted or paying their fines as they should.

But again, it's one of these throwing the baby out with the bathwater type of arguments that we'd hope to narrow the Bill and make it a little bit more targeted in an effort to assist those truly struggling with their fines.

CMPA has worked with the Legislature with some Member Lackey who had a payment program put into Place through AB503 and several bills to fine tune it afterwards. Yes ma'am.

I'll just finish with saying that the enrolling in one of these payment plans, simply enrolling and remaining active in that plan, would completely remove any threat of being towed or booted in any way. So that's what we encourage drivers to do.

Thank you to the next witness.

Hi. Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities.

We're sympathetic with the intent of this measure, but a statewide prohibition to any and all creates new problems for those of you who have served in local government know all too well that parking enforcement serves as a vital function for helping cities manage their public right of ways, keeping their streets and water systems clean through street sweeping, as well as performing essential public works like tree trimming and sidewalk repair, as well as ensuring access for or two apartments by tenants in dense urban areas, as well as access to businesses and government services.

By promoting this vehicle turnover, as noted in the analysis, over the past few years the cities have fewer and fewer mechanisms at their disposal to enforce parking. But this Bill creates two new problems. The Bill goes beyond the court ruling that it purports to codify as it would prohibit towing vehicles even with a warrant.

And then secondly, it would eliminate local municipalities ability to enforce parking on out of state plates. So California is a tourist state. We have a lot of folks coming in and out of the state. We attract a lot of tourism and local cities would not have this mechanism to enforce parking for those out of state vehicles.

So for these reasons, we regrettably must oppose the Bill. Thank you.

Okay, we'll move to. Thank you. We'll move to Members of the public who would like to also note their opposition. Name, organization and position.

Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in opposition.

Ethan Nler, on behalf of the City of Beaumont, respectfully opposed.

All right, now moving back to Members of the Committee, starting with Assembly Member. zero, I'm sorry. Was Roger pointing to somebody? Okay. Assembly Member Aarons. I thought I was missing someone up there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. You often challenge this body with really important questions that we should be focusing on, and my understanding is that you've actually narrowed previous versions of this.

So in terms of the broadness of the rationale, it seems like you've tried to work the best you can to strike a good balance. I know these issues all too well. I used to live in my car.

I know what it's like for these poverty toes, growing up with my mother fleeing domestic violence and also living in my car during college. And so be honored to add it as a co author, if you would allow that and would like to move the Bill.

It's been moved by Erin. Seconded by Lowenthal. We'll go to Assemblymember Rogers, followed, followed by Assemblymember Ransom, followed by Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah. I want to echo my colleagues. Thank you to the author for bringing this Bill forward. I was a mayor and a Council Member.

I do understand the concern around things like street sweeping and tree trimming, and there's a much better way to get at that that doesn't involve putting up arbitrary roadblocks to people getting their life in order.

And when we think about the actual cost and impact to a city in a local jurisdiction, keeping people poor and having to invest more in social services than we otherwise might need to is a much bigger hindrance to having the quality of life in cities than just somebody having their car parked in a specific area.

So I'll be happy to support today. I want to thank you for bringing it forward, and I want to thank you for always keeping your eye on how we remove arbitrary barriers for getting people out of poverty, because this is a very arbitrary barrier that keeps people poor.

Assemblymember Ransom, followed by Lackey. Yes. Thank you. I'd like to first thank the author for bringing this Bill to address some of the needs and concerns for people who don't have the ability to, you know, respond right away to parking tickets, who are trying to get to work at the school, etc.

I do think that that is something that really creates another barrier. And I've seen firsthand how sometimes the towing companies have their own rules that go in addition to the intent of local government. Some will say your car has to stay X amount of days and really just rack up on their Fees.

And there's also the concern that I've seen firsthand from local government where it didn't work out the way they thought it was going to work out for their budget. But you know, person ended up getting their car sold in some cases. And those dollars don't always go to the local government.

I think the only concern or question I would like to address is what we can do to enforce out of state vehicles. I feel like, you know, eventually it may not happen when we want it to happen.

But clearly it was mentioned that Assemblymember Lackey had a Bill 503 which will do, you know, indigent payment plans for people. But what happens when folks do not have cars registered in California? Is that something that you can work through in this process?

Is kind of what I would like to see because we do want people to eventually get these things resolved. So that's. Those are my concerns and statements. I will be supporting the Bill but hoping that that can be resolved through the process. And you're welcome to address that if you'd like to.

If I. Through the chair. Yes. So generally speaking, you know, cities don't recoup their costs of a ticket from a tow. So even if you have an out of state vehicle or a vehicle with out of state plates, you're really, it's not a win win situation or even a win lose situation by towing it.

It's a lose lose situation. That being said, other mechanisms for debt collection, referral to collection agencies, credit reporting agencies, and for debts over $400, the city can still get a civil judgment against a person and use ordinary measures to collect the debt such as bank levies and wage garnishments.

And so all the typical mechanisms that would exist for any other kind of debt obviously more cumbersome than what they'd be able to do for a California registered vehicle by straight going to the DMV and trying to get the registration suspended, what have you.

So yes, I mean there are mechanisms there that currently exist and I guess the overall the underlying argument is that even for an out of state vehicle towing it does not make financial sense for the jurisdiction for the municipality and can be devastating to the whole owner of the vehicle.

Thank you for your answer. Thank you. Before we go on, and just to clarify that when you tow or boot a vehicle in order to get the tow or boot removed, you do have to pay those parking tickets.

Where I think your concern is is that someone wouldn't pay at all and then they lose their car auction and all that. But in order to get it released from the tow or release from the boot, you would have to technically pay.

Now, what happens in practice is a whole nother thing, and I think that's what you're trying to address. But I just want to give clarity around the law. Assembly Member Lackey and then Assembly Member Ward.

Yeah. First of all, let me say that obviously I. I agree with the intent of what you're indicating, because I had my own Bill, AB503, that actually addressed the issue of people not being able to be in a position to pay and they were losing their vehicles. And I found that to be improper.

And so that was a fight, by the way. That was not an easy. That took. Took some work. But I think, unfortunately, I think this goes too far because we're thinking of certain scenarios that I think are already addressed through this payment plan that they can't keep these cars forever. They just can't. That's current law.

And so we talk about poverty toes. It's been addressed. And I'd be happy to work with you on something else. If it's not working, tell me what's not working and we'll work on that. Because I don't think that that's right.

But what I do think is not right is going a little bit too far and not allowing law enforcement to remove unsafe vehicles that are creating hazardous circumstances. You may not think it's unsafe, but it's proven to be unsafe in many circumstances. I'm not saying at all, but parking enforcement is controversial by nature.

But I will tell you, there are times when it needs to happen. And when you take away the tool for people to make an area safe, that's the wrong pathway to move. And so that's the way I see that at this point.

I don't know how you would tighten this up to where I could support it, but I'll be watching.

I'd like to thank you, first of all, Senator Lackey, for your work in this space. I think your work was important, is important and complements what this Bill attempts to achieve.

What this Bill does, that is the complement is that it prevents a vehicle from being towed, specifically, and only just for having tickets, which, you know, when it comes to what you mentioned right now, unsafe vehicles creating hazardous circumstances, there are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of reasons why a vehicle can be towed, especially if it's creating an unsafe situation.

If I could through the chair, I'm very aware of towing authorities. But what I'm trying to tell you is there are like, when they're in parking lots, you can't those authorities do not apply. And so that's why it gives law enforcement this tool when they have this situation with multiple, multiple avoidance circumstances on parking tickets.

So and that's what I'm afraid of losing. Thank you.

Assemblymember Ward.

Thank you. I want to thank the author for bringing this issue back, one that I'm incredibly sympathetic with for all the reasons that were stated.

I want to thank the sponsors as well for being able to answer a few questions that I had about sort of my understanding of the Bill and sort of how we connect that up with our understanding about why we took it in the first place or why you might choose to be able to tow in the first place.

Because the compact that we have with drivers to be able to help us regulate our streets and obey the norms and the rules that are out there right now depends on what I know is progressive enforcement that first is a ticketing. And yes, there might be a fine on top of that.

And then if, you know, can you continue to not be if an individual continues to not adhere to that or to be able to rectify the situation, then things could get worse.

And we understand how abused that system has come from those that are hurting the most here in California, which is why I'm also sympathetic that we, you know, use these positions to be able to, you know, help provide justice in the way that the laws are set up.

But I do want to make sure we get a couple of points of clarity here because I heard just a little bit of difference of opinion here in the crossfire. So this does not necessarily provide blanket immunity against this issue that there could be circumstances in which it is still justified and necessary to be able to tow.

Absolutely right.

Correct?

And I also see this too, is that it's not not something that's going to be a limit specifically for areas of health, safety issues or say, especially from an urban environment where sometimes we lose a parking lane because you need that extra lane for flow of traffic. And so everyone needs to clear out by 4pm Correct.

Towing some. And with all due respect to our colleague as well, I thought that parking lots privately owned still had the ability under the vehicle code to allow for tows if their rules are being violated. But I'll save that for another time.

I share that concern about out of state license plates because it sounds like the mechanism that you're shifting towards is that where fines, tickets not able to be paid, then these would be sent to the DMV for processing through registration, correct?

Yeah. Yeah. That would be I think the most effective manner for a California registered plate.

Okay. And so then if something is not paid, if your registration comes and you don't pay that registration, then the enforcement on that is just another ticket. You have out of date plates. Right. You're not, you're not, you don't have your registration current. That's another fine on top of that. Which also might not go paid. Right.

That may not go paid. Well, you won't get your registration back then.

Right. But if you, you know, when you're out there and somebody surveying the streets, if they see that the cars registration expired in March, it is now April. Right. They could be issued a citation. Yes. So that's another citation that could not go. Not go paid.

But is there, and there's a point though, six months after not clearing that up, not sort of trying to figure out difficult that that is. And it is incredibly difficult trying to make that whole and, and true up that six months after you would still then be subject potentially to a toe. Yes. Under this Bill. Okay.

So I would encourage you to continue to work on out of state license plate issues as well because I think if they've been able to for the most part been able to come all the way into our state and be able to do what they'd like to do at our beach communities, especially when things get really busy over the summer and are very congested, it's a tool that we have to be able to regulate a little bit more importantly.

But I am happy to vote for this here today. What I am concerned over are the examples that we had heard from one of the opposition testimony here too. It's not for those that, and I know we can't separate policy based on anyone's income. Right. That somebody.

The rule that you're trying to create should apply equally to everybody.

But is it a slippery slope that allows people who are fully able to pay who are just, you know, aware that the law has relaxed a little bit and are just bad neighbors and don't care and are just trying to get away with it a little bit more and how do you deal with, again, coming back to this compact that we have, we're trying to regulate our streets in a very effective way that those individuals who have the ability to pay are choosing not to do so because they can get away for it.

And what are you going to do? The ability to tow is no longer an option.

Those are great points. I think the idea of means testing this would increase the cost enormously. That being said, any of these jurisdictions, they clearly haven't towed up to this point. Secondly, they can still have the car set up, sent to DMV to have the registration suspended.

And to get the registration back, they'd have to pay back for all those tickets. And so it seems like an enforcement issue. If you're allowing the these expensive vehicles or whoever they are to get 506070 parking tickets, that shouldn't be a reason why we don't give relief to those that can't afford it.

I think that there are current enforcement mechanisms to deal with that situation that would still be allowable. And again, if towing was an effective mechanism that was cost effective for the jurisdiction, they would have towed those cars already for unpaid parking tickets.

Okay, thank you for that answer. Well, I'll be happy to support the Bill today. Do want to see how this progresses as well with some of these, you know, nuances that I think need special attention. But appreciate your leadership in the issue.

Thank you.

I think we have one follow up clarifying question from Assemblymember Ransom before we close out.

Thank you, Chair. Part of the, I guess questions have led me to just want to get clarification. It's my understanding that if there's a safety issue, car parked, it doesn't matter. Right. We can still tow that car. Does not apply to that. Is that correct?

That is correct. If it's a safety issue, absolutely. If they're parked where they're not supposed to be, in the wrong lane, blocking a driveway, all those blocking a lane that becomes opened up to General traffic, all those are reasons to tow and many more.

Okay, thank you for clarifying. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other, I appreciate you bringing the Bill forward and working with Committee. I recognize that have done efforts to narrow the scope of this Bill from previous years.

I'm still concerned that removing both the towing and the boot authority will harm city's abilities to collect on unpaid parking tickets, especially for those vehicles that are not registered in California. And as was noted from testimony, not everyone that fails to pay their parking tickets is low income.

And there are mechanisms for those with low income to get some level of mitigation as it relates to parking tickets. You know, it really is about, for me, accountability and balancing accountability with empathy. And also one appellate court has determined the warrantless towing of these vehicles was unconstitutional, which is the basis for this legislation.

However, the ruling is silent on immobilizing vehicles or tows with a warrant as well as those with a boot. And so it goes much broader than what the courts has even determined but needless to say, I do have concerns and as noted that this is not your first time at this.

It has gotten out of Committee on a broader version, which is why there's not an address from the chair to be able to provide amendments. However, I won't be voting on this Bill today, but I will give it over to my colleagues on this Committee to support as they wish.

And with that to the author, I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I do want to thank you the work of the Committee, comments and questions from our colleagues.

I want to give a special thank you to Senator Ahrens who brings real life experience to so many of the issues that we bring forth through our legislation to relieve some of the pain that our families are feeling in many different arenas. And thanks to Senator Rogers and others who spoken with praise on the Bill.

And I will say a couple of things just to comment. One, the vehicle code does not have a process for warrants simply for having no parking tickets paid. So that warrant process doesn't exist if it's just for not paying parking tickets.

Secondly, if someone can't pay for their parking tickets regardless of whether it gets booted or towed, it's going to be a burden for them to be able to get their car back. And cities have fees, administrative fees to unlock a boot.

And so the same argument as to why poverty tows are unconstitutional because they create a disproportionate amount of punishment given the given having parking tickets in the same manner, a boot removal fee on top of tickets is highly burdensome to working class families.

In fact, in San Francisco, the boot removal fee is as high as $500 on top of having to pay for the tickets. And so I would just ask that given some of the questions, legitimate questions that have been raised today, that I have the opportunity to continue to work on this.

But as I mentioned, this is a narrowed down version strictly focused on the the on parking tickets that aren't paid, not any other issues that may have come up in the past. With that, I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Madam Secretary, please wait hold on a second. We do have a motion on the floor by Assembly Member Aarons followed by Assembly Member Lowenthal. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1022. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Wilson not voting. Wilson not voting. Davies. Davies no. Aguiar. Curry. Aarons. Aaron's I. Carrillo. Carrillo I. Harabedian. Herabedian. I. Hart. Hart I. Hoover. Hoover no. Jackson. Jackson I Lackey. Not voting. Lackey. Not voting. Lowenthal. Lowenthal. I Macedo. No. Macedo. No. Pappin. Ransom. Ransom. I. Rogers. Rogers.

I. Ward. Vote is 9 to 3, and we'll leave it open for roll call. Assembly Member Irwin, if you'd like to come on.

Well, good afternoon, everybody, and Madam Vice Chair and Members. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments and to thank the chair and the Committee for their work on this bill. California, we have very audacious climate goals, and one of them is that most cars sold by 2035 need to be electric.

Unfortunately, we are never going to reach that goal unless we have reliable charging infrastructure. AB 1423 is a bill to improve the charging experience for electric vehicle drivers in California. As an EV driver, I am very frustrated with the all too common experience of trying and failing to find a functioning public charger.

As a Legislator, I'm frustrated to see our tax dollars being wasted rather than funding working more accessible public chargers. A recent study by J.D. Power showed that one fifth of attempts to use a public charger are unsuccessful. And According to the CEC, 41% of our public EV chargers are installed with state grants and taxpayer dollars.

That amounts to roughly 40,000 chargers across the state. This bill requires that chargers that were installed with state grants prior to 2024 be. Be subject to the CEC's forthcoming reliability standards. And most importantly, allows for robust enforcement of the reliability standards once they're released.

The requirements in AB 1423 are intended to benefit drivers since taxpayers help Fund this infrastructure. California has spent over $1.7 billion on EV charging infrastructure. Without accountability and enforcement mechanisms, these chargers are at risk of. Of being stranded assets.

Thank you.

Thank you. I take it there are no Members testimony. Right. And support. Is there any Member of the public who would like to offer support? Name, organization and position?

Thank you. Michelle Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists and support.

Thank you. And I don't think we have any opposition identified as we do. Come on. Fourth. Who got my motion for the first? Was it. Was it Aaron's or Rogers? Rogers. Okay. Second by Aaron's. I'll give it to you. Aaron Rodgers. Yeah, that's a good combo.

Aaron's is first, though.

Okay. All right. We'll make it. We'll make it. So since Rogers didn't care. All right, this is what happens when you come to Committee late in the afternoon. We get pretty silly. All right, to the opposition. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair.

And press the button.

There we go. Sorry about that. Thank you. Chair and Members Reid Addis on behalf of the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, unfortunately in opposition today, but I want to be clear, we're not in opposition to the assembly members goal, but to the approach.

For years our industry has been working hard to provide reliable, affordable products to try to create as many infrastructure or EV chargers as possible, get those chargers in the right places and most importantly develop new technology each and every year that helps consumers like you benefit from those chargers.

For years the industry has been dealing with no rules or guidelines on how to do that. Several years ago we worked with Assemblymember, Ting, Legislature and the Governor and passed important policy that allow the California Energy Commission to set those standards for reliability. And we are waiting for those final regulations to be adopted.

We are looking to the future setting standards for us so that when we develop our technologies and we install them, we can use those new standards going forward. Our concern with this approach is it's retroactive. It is asking people who have purchased infrastructure, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, to meet standards that are not even adopted yet today.

And that's unfair to them. It's unfair to those who have contracts, grant agreements. It's also unfair because in many ways what you're asking is somebody to make their iPhone 6 operate like an iPhone 16. So for those reasons we are concerned with this approach.

We do know however that the Committee and the Assembly Member have been grappling with some of our concerns which we've seen in the amendments. They just don't go far enough for us. We would rather you focus on the forward looking standards. Make sure the Energy Commission focuses there versus being retroactive. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair and Members. Ryan Mccarthy with Weideman Group on behalf of Electrify America. Electrify America is the nation's largest fully open hyper fast charging network providing EV charging at up to 350kW with over 1200 chargers across more than 265 locations open to the public in California.

We are proud that over half of the investments made today in California are in identified low income and disadvantaged communities. Electrify America's early and significant private investment in EV charging infrastructure has helped to drive the market and expansive growth of EV adoption in California statewide, particularly for EVs utilizing the combined charging system or the CCS standard.

We agree with the comments and concerns expressed by EVCA here and we reinforce that retroactive standards are neither appropriate nor helpful for advancing California's transportation electrification goals. Additionally, we have significant concerns with recent amendments that would single out Electrify America's network for regulation. These provisions were both explicitly rejected last year by the Legislature.

Notably in their analysis on AB 2697, the Senate energy, Utilities and Communications Committee noted that, and I'll quote here, the consent decree establishing the process for approving Electrify America investments limits the extent to which any agency other than CARB can conduct oversight for Electrify America charger installations, end quote.

I'll add that since those provisions were rejected by the Legislature last year, Electrify America has reached an agreement on uptime reporting requirements with CARB for its network. So we are all aligned in our commitment to expanding charging access and enhancing the consumer experience for charging in California, but we must respectfully oppose AB 1423. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving to Members of the public who would like to note their opposition as well. Name, organization and position.

Hi Lizzie Cootsona, here on behalf of Tesla. Respectfully opposed unless amended, but really appreciate. The latest amendments and look forward to continue to work with the author. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members Franco here on behalf of the California. Electric Transportation Coalition with a respectful oppos unless amended position.

Good afternoon, Chair Members. Sorry I'm late. I was stuck in another Committee. Matt Clavenstein, on behalf of the center. For Sustainable Energy and Support. Thank you.

Thank you. Noting and support. All right, now moving it on to committees for questions, comments, concerns. Assembly Member Macedo thank you, Madam Chair.

I will be supporting this bill today and there's a couple reasons that I want to note. The first one is that this is for publicly funded electric vehicle charging stations. Meaning that we are funding them. We need to make sure that the. Way that this money is being used. Is in a way that we are.

Maximizing efficiency for public use. Secondly, we see lots of statistics talking. About the number of chargers that are available in the State of California. However, that doesn't account for things like. Chargers that are not functioning or sometimes private chargers that the General public doesn't have access to.

So being in a charging desert in the Central Valley, I'm hopeful we can eventually bridge that gap. But we want to make sure that. If we have these, this infrastructure in place, it's operational. So I will be supporting today and. Thank the author for bringing this forward.

Thank you. Seeing no other comments, just making sure. So thank you for bringing this Bill forward. Noting that we had an opportunity to review this Bill in Committee last year.

As was noted, I think from the fellow Assembly Member, the we talk a lot about the number of EV chargers that are available and the number of Publicly available EV chargers recently surpassed the number of gas pumps in the state. However, they are not all working and that is critical.

EV charging reliability is paramount to achieving a smooth EV transition. The enforcement of uptime and reporting standards in this Bill requires specified EV chargers to continue to meet a performance standard post deployment.

I'm concerned about the precedent this sets and the possible unintended consequences of this Bill, which is why we let it out of Committee last year with the hopes that you continue to work on it and would ask for that that same thing today to continue to work on it.

This bill also includes standards for EV chargers that were deployed by Electrify America using funds from the VW settlement. These charges are governed by consent degree decrees between Electrify America and CARB and would therefore urge the author to consider exempting these charges from the bill as not to interfere or override these legally binding agreements.

I will be supporting your bill today and there was a motion made by Aaron I'm going to do it the right way. The motion made by Aaron Rogers. And so with that I'll give you the opportunity to close before we call the roll.

I just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

AB 1423. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Utilities and Energy.

Wilson. Wilson. Aye. Davies. Aye. Davies aye. Aguiar-Curry. Aaron's. Aaron's aye Carrillo. Carrillo aye. Herabedian. Herabedian aye. Hart. Hart aye. Hoover. Hoover aye. Jackson. Jackson aye. Lackey. Aye. Lackey aye Lowenthal. Lowenthal aye. Macedo aye. Macedo aye. Papan. Ransom. aye. Ransom aye. Rogers. Rogers aye. Ward.

That Bill has 14 votes and we'll hold the row open for other Members to add on. Members, we do have a colleague who was in a long session and Natural Resources as well as now finally getting the opportunity to present her bill. We're going to go through roll call. Thank you.

We're going to go through roll call on those bills that still have an opportunity for Members to add on. If our colleague is not here, we will take a 10 minute recess to give you an opportunity to take a comfort break hoping that she'll be have the opportunity to come back.

So we're going to start from the beginning. So if you want to start that comfort break now and then we'll decide where she is if it's five or 10 minutes. But somewhere in there with that. Starting from our consent calendar, we had five bills on consent calendar. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

That has 14. We'll hold open for our Members to add on. Item number three. AB605, Muratsuchi. I'm sorry. Item number one. AB382, Berman.

AB382. Berman. Do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That brings us to 14 votes. And we'll hold the roll open. Item number three. AB 605. Muratsuchi.

AB 605. The motion was do passed to the Committee on Natural Resources. [Roll Call]

That has 14 votes. That bill will be held open for Members to add on item number four. AB902. Schultz. Is that needed?

Yes. AB902 Schultz. Do pass as amended to the Committee on Local Government. [Roll Call]

That bill is sitting at 10 to 2. We'll hold the roll open for Members to add on. A.B. I'm sorry. Item number five. A.B. 1022. Kalra. Is it needed? All right. Item number eight. A.B. 1132.

Chiavo. A.B. 1132. The motion was do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill has 10. It's 10 to 1 currently. We'll hold the row open.

Can we go back?

Okay. This for item number eight. Yes. Okay. Restating item number eight. AB 1132 Schiavo.

I skipped. [Roll Call]

That bill is 11 to one. We'll hold the roll open for Members to add on. We just did. Item number 10. Do we need to redo this one at this time? Okay. Moving on to item number 13. AB 1014 Rogers.

AB 1014. The motion was do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That is now 13 to 1. So we'll hold. The row opens for Members to add on. Alrighty. Given that we are waiting for the author to be present and given opportunity, where we are in the legislative process is important that the bill is heard today. So we will take a.

I have 4:50, but we will take a recess until 5pm so that could be nine to 10 minutes. But until 5 p.m. Members have an opportunity to take a comfort break, take care of other business. But please return at 5 p.m. so we can finish out this hearing. Thank you.

Sa all right. We are coming back from recess. As I understand it, our author is in transit. So I'm going to ask our Members who are on this Committee to also be in transit here. It is a transportation Committee. So asking for transport to to our Committee I got to do but I'm bump.

I mean it's the end of the day and it's always this is right now the joke, right? It's 5:00 somewhere. And so we need to speed this along because it's 5 o'clock.

It's past 5 o'clock. Round of applause for our majority leader.

Long day for your first day back from spring recess. All right. Our author is here. She's going to begin at her convenience. We'll give her an opportunity to settle in. I am asking Members of the Transportation Committee to find your way back to your chairs before her testimony, before the testimony ends on this bill. Thank you.

Don't need that microphone. Since when does someone mute this button when that happen, let's start over. Thank you, Madam Chair Members, and thank you to the chair and Committee staff for the conversation we've had on this Bill. The goal of this Bill is simple.

To make sure qualified human safety operators is present during the commercial autonomous vehicle (AV) deliveries to homes and businesses. The Department of Motor Vehicles already allows AV testing and deployment on our public roads. This Bill doesn't stop that. It just adds a safety net for commercial delivery vehicles on our neighborhood streets.

These vehicles deliver goods right to our homes and businesses, so people deserve to know someone's monitoring them. Especially while we wait for safety assessments from the Executive Branch. We've seen what happens when things move too fast. In San Francisco, Driverless AVs have blocked traffic in emergency vehicles, and driven through crime scenes and downed wires.

One even drove away from police officers doing a vehicle stop. In one horribly sad example, a pedestrian was dragged and trapped under navigation, and the company didn't initially share full footage with the DMV.

Hundreds of incidents with driverless AVs have prompted city public safety officials and elected officials to plead with the California Public Utilities Commission to rein in the deployment of AVs. And while local officials are begging for more oversight, companies are spending a lot of money lobbying to push the expansion of AVs.

Because we answer to our constituents, not tech companies and their lobbyists. We need real data, before these fleets expand statewide. Allowing an aggressive expansion of this technology on local streets doesn't create more consumer choice, but it does have promise an increase in safety hazards like those in cities where robotaxis currently exist.

I also find the business community's objections to this Bill to be hypocritical. For the last two years, they opposed our legislation to regulate automated long haul trucking and promised that technology would result in greater, higher quality jobs and short haul truck driving. This Bill addresses this exact kind of delivery in our local communities.

So, Members, it's now clear their goal is to eliminate the very jobs they once claimed would replace the long haul jobs. They were full of empty promises. That's why there's never a plan. That's why there's never any real commitment to the jobs they say will result from automation.

Because those jobs they claim will be created are their next target. Colleagues, this Bill makes clear that we can test and deploy these vehicles, but safely and with accountability to our communities. It requires data collection and analysis from the Executive branch.

Specifically, this Bill contains a statutory trigger for legislative consideration of final approval of AV operation based on real data analyzed by the safety experts in the Executive Branch. They'll then appear in a hearing to make the recommendations to legislators at that time.

This Bill sets a clear, transparent path for legislative review and input before driverless AVs make their way to the cities and towns, in your districts, and into your neighborhoods where your kids and grandkids play. Because of the reality is - because the reality is what happened in San Francisco can happen anywhere and at a far greater frequency.

So if we don't get a real sense of the broader impacts, we need to get the real impacts of AV technology. This Bill can really help us innovate AVs with real data and transparent process to make them better in our streets safer.

With me, I have Greg Cumalot, from Teamsters Local 150. And Elmer Lizardi on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions. Thank you. And I have Matt Broad, if we need some technical support.

Thank you. Go ahead and begin and you have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and fellow Members. My name is Greg Cumalot and I'm honored to be here on behalf of the California Teamsters who proudly sponsor AB 33. I'm a proud Member of Teamsters Local 150 here in Sacramento. AB 33 would require a human operator on driverless vehicles used to deliver commercial goods to residences, and businesses on public roads.

I bring the perspective of a 28 year UPS package delivery driver. This Bill would ensure the presence of workers like myself in the supply chain out of recognition of the need of good jobs and public safety. Commercial delivery drivers such as myself make up the fabric of our community.

In fact, I'm lucky enough to work and deliver in the community of Folsom, California where I raise my family and my one son. Driving in my own neighborhood, I have the benefit of knowing the families and the children that my son have grown up with, which adds to the responsibility of my job.

I also know the nature of the work is not always having predictability. Commercial deliveries require frequent stopping and going. Navigating in narrow streets, interacting in construction zones, being aware of children playing on the street, people walking their dogs, and so much more. When I'm on my route, I work to address the potential safety risks.

For example, when I see a ball bouncing across the road or a kite flying in front of my vehicle, I know that's not the risk, but what's chasing after it. Just the other day, one of my son's friends was on an electric scooter and cut in front of my vehicle without looking. Kids can be so erratic.

Fortunately, we are trained to look for signs of children and I was already aware of the potential risks and made the adjustments ahead of time by slowing down. While computers can do a good job of being reactive, we are trained to be proactive and address safety challenges in real time.

In addition, I have a lot of elderly and disabled patrons, I deliver to along my route. They need help getting the packages to their front door and sometimes inside. For some of them, I'm the only human interaction they have throughout the entire day.

I have to have you close.

That's part of the reason why I've done this job for 28 years. There's just a few examples of why AB 33 is important and I urge your support in the Bill in the name of good jobs and safe streets.

Good afternoon, Chair Members. Elmer Lazardi, here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions. We are proud to co sponsor AB 33 which will protect hard working Californians from widespread job displacement by requiring human operator on driverless vehicles used to deliver commercial goods to residences and businesses on our public streets.

The increased deployment of driverless vehicles on California roads has been developing as the delivery industry has boomed. Many large corporations now, that primarily offer goods via online shopping have increasingly offered same day delivery services to their customers, raising the demand for the labor that provides these and makes these deliveries possible.

Many corporations that offer rapid delivery services are looking now to deploy driverless vehicles to replace workers and cut costs. Many of these driving jobs are good paying union jobs that actually allow workers to provide for themselves and their families.

Over the last few years, the companies pushing for the deployment of AVs have argued that their technology will create the need for better, more localized delivery jobs. This Bill is our attempt to make sure that that's a reality and not just a promise. Technological advancement is not new.

We have seen so called innovation change, how workers perform their jobs for hundreds of years. But now we're at a crossroads, where we must be proactive about how the technology is implemented if we care about protecting the dignity of work and the workers doing it.

Human labor provides benefits that technology alone cannot replicate, like those that, Greg shared today. And the Legislature now has the opportunity to establish some guardrails against the unchecked deployment of driverless vehicles in commercial delivery.

Without it, driverless vehicles will continue to pose significant risks, especially the widespread economic displacement of hard working Californians who rely on these jobs to support their families. Thank you and we urgent, aye vote.

Thank you. Now moving to Members of the public who would like to provide their support for this Bill. Please note your Name, organization and position. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals also, in support.

Kimberly Rosenberger, with SEIU Californian support.

Madam Chair and Members. Louie Costa with the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers – Transportation Division, (SMART-TD). In support.

Madam, Chair Members. Kristin Heidelbach, here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council, in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Committee Members. Imelda Ceja from Teamsters Local 87, out of Bakersfield, California. In support.

Good evening. Frances Rubio from Local 517, Visalia. In support.

Good evening. Ruben Rivera, on behalf of Local 439, Stockton. In support.

Good evening. Teamsters Local 399. Ed Duffy, in support.

Good evening. Ali Tweini, Teamsters Local 2010. Strong support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Teamsters Local 439. Ezekiel Ojan, in full support.

Deekay Lee, on behalf of Teamsters Local 439 out of Stockton. In support.