Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

All right. The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. Good afternoon and welcome, everyone. This hearing room is open for the attendance of this hearing and can be watched from a live stream on the Assembly website.

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

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

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

As a reminder, primary witnesses and support must be those accompanying the author or who otherwise have registered a support position with the Committee and the primary witness in opposition must have their opposition registered with the Committee. All other support and opposition can be stated at the standing mic when called upon to simply state name, affiliation and position.

With that, we do not have a quorum, so we will begin our hearing as a Subcommitee. So I will ask for our sergeants to call our authors. All right. Given the lack of authors present and having a number of Members present, I'm going to hand the mic over to Vice Chair Davies while I go to the author's chair to present AB431, item number 22 as a Subcommitee.

All right. We're going to invite Assembly Member Wilson to open on the Bill.

Good afternoon to the Vice Chair and the members of the Transportation Committee on-time caucus. I am pleased to present AB 431, which establishes the groundwork for the successful introduction of advanced air mobility technology in California, also known as AAM. AB 431 lays the path for the establishment of advanced air mobility in the state.

This bill would create a statewide plan that would guide the development and implementation of AAM infrastructure across California while bringing on subject matter experts to ensure the steady growth and and knowledge of AAM across the state.

AB 431 would ensure that all of our local and regional jurisdictions have the tools they need to implement this new life-changing technology, expanding access to millions of Californians. AB 431 builds on the work of SB 800, which required the Department of Transportation to establish Advanced Air Mobility Zero-Emission and Electrification Aviation Advisory Panel.

AAM is a new and innovative mode of transportation that will modernize the future of mobility for passengers and cargo by relying on underutilized aerial transit routes. AAM reflects on a new type of aircraft known as electric vertical takeoff and landing, eVTOL, which has a variety of applications, including the transportation of people, cargo, and medical services.

Current designs commonly hold four to six passengers, are fully electric, and are expected to have a range of 800 miles--I'm sorry, 100 miles. Big difference. Economic projections suggest that AAM could generate over 115 billion by 2035, creating over 280,000 jobs nationwide. AAM workforce could potentially represent about 8% of America's aerospace and defense workforce.

AAM has the potential to provide significant societal benefits such as increasing access to emergency and healthcare services, increasing access to goods, and reducing traffic congestion. Since eVTOLs are electric vehicles, they will contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector.

Although the FAA has overarching authority over all airspace, the California State government will have a key role in guiding local municipalities, raising public awareness, and integrating necessary infrastructure. We have taken amendments to ensure the eager localities have the flexibility they need to develop and implement advanced air mobility, encouraging local governments to embrace the new technology.

With me to testify on the significance of advanced air mobility is Scott Shtofman with the Association for Unscrewed Vehicles--I'm sorry--uncrewed. Let me start all over. With the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International and George Kovork with Joby Aviation.

And just a reminder to the witnesses, two minutes each, please. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chair Wilson, Vice Chair Davies, and members of the committee. Good afternoon. My name is Scott Shtofman, AVP and Council for Regulatory Affairs for AUVSI. Easier than the whole name. I'm here today to express our strong support for AB 431, a bill that is crucial for the advancement of advanced air mobility, or AAM, in California.

AB 431 is a product of AUVSI's AAM Prepared campaign, which we developed with our members. The campaign is designed to ensure that states are ready to integrate AAM technology safely and efficiently through base definitions, public engagement and awareness, and best practices.

We have worked closely with our AAM members in the airline industry to suggest amendments to the model legislation, and I'm pleased to report that we have reached consensus on key amendments that address their concerns. California has always been a leader in innovation and technology, and AB 431 will position the state at the forefront of AAM development.

The bill will not only enhance transportation options, but also create jobs, reduce traffic congestion, and improve environmental sustainability by leveraging the multiyear development efforts of many California-based companies for quiet and safe electronic aircraft. AUVSI has a strong connection to California through our AAM member companies.

Last year, we held our XPONENTIAL conference in San Diego, which brought together industry leaders, stakeholders to discuss the future of uncrewed systems and AAM. Additionally, many of our members took part in generating the report requested by SB 800, which we eagerly anticipate.

The shared journey forward across cities, states, and industry is one that can be started right here today, advancing a statewide plan, providing technical resources for planning and zoning, supporting public engagement, and defining the infrastructure building blocks that are the aims of AB 431. California's leadership in this field is not just about technology.

It's about setting a precedent for other states to follow. By supporting AB 431, you're endorsing a vision of the future where AAM enhances Californians' daily lives, supports economic growth, and contributes to American leadership. I urge you to support AB 431 and help California lead the way in the future of transportation.

The adoption of the proposed amendments will ensure that this bill moves forward favorably and with broad support of all stakeholders involved. Thank you for the time and consideration.

And if we could just take a moment, we do have a quorum, so we're going to do attendance real quick. Thank you.

[Roll Call].

That's a quorum with nine. You may go ahead. Thank you.

Second.

All right. Vice Chair Davies and distinguished members of the committee, good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is George Kivork, and I'm here on behalf of Joby Aviation, a California-based company pioneering the development of eVTOL aircraft to bring quiet, emission-free flight to communities across the state and around the world.

First, I want to extend our sincere thanks to Chair Wilson for her leadership in authoring AB 431 and this committee for taking on this important work. California is already a global leader in innovation, and with this bill, you're establishing a model for the rest of the world in how to thoughtfully and proactively integrate AAM into our broad transportation ecosystem. AB 431 is more than just a planning bill.

It's a critical step towards a future where Californians can travel safely, sustainably, and quietly through the skies. AAM offers a transformative opportunity to address longstanding challenges in our transportation systems: emissions, noise, congestion. At Joby, we have spent over a decade designing and testing aircraft that are not only 100% electric, but also exceptionally quiet, as much as 100 times quieter than a helicopter in flight.

What that means is we can serve urban and suburban communities with minimal noise impact while reducing carbon emissions and improving regional mobility. But realizing the benefits of this technology requires thoughtful coordination between state and local agencies, a shared vision for infrastructure and charging stations and vertiports, and public awareness to build trust and excitement for this new vision.

That's what AB 431 provides: a comprehensive state plan complementing the work done by Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics, a technical guidance and subject matter expertise, a clear framework for infrastructure integration, and support for public education and uniform zoning policies. Just as California has led the way in setting global standards for electric vehicles and clean energy, we now have the chance to lead again in the air with the same values of sustainability, equity, innovation.

We are proud to support AB 431 and look forward to continuing our partnership with you to ensure California remains the world's launchpad for this transformative mode of transportation. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition? Seeing no opposition. All right, we're going to go ahead and move to #MeToo testimony in support.

...and the work of the committee staff on the amendments and urge your support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Kathy Van Osten. I represent United Airlines. I'm also here to pinch-hit for Alberto Tirico who represents Airlines for America. Also want to thank the author for working with us on amendments. We are pleased to support the bill and encourage you to advance it to the next committee.

Good afternoon. Emilien Marchand. I'm with Wisk Aero. We are an AAM company headquartered in Mountain View, California, building an eVTOL aircraft, and we strongly support the bill.

Chair and members, Jonathan Feldman, on behalf of the City of Long beach, in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Jason Schmelzer, here on behalf of Archer, in strong support.

Thank you. Are there any #MeToo in opposition? Seeing none. I'm going to move it over to the members. Assembly Member Harabedian.

Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you to our Chair for bringing this bill. I'd be honored to be a co-author and very happy to support the bill today and I do think that this is the type of forward-looking legislation that we need and I appreciate all the hard work that you've done.

And, and obviously to the testifying witnesses, thank you for being here and for everything you've done at Joby. Seen that firsthand for years and it's an exciting time to see it finally coming to fruition. So thank you very much.

Any other members? I just want to say, great bill. Where I have my district, we basically have the ocean, the 5 Freeway, and Camp Pendleton or mountains, and it's very hard, especially on the weeks to get from San Diego to Orange County or even LA and to have something like this too, where we could have it take us to either, you know, San Diego Airport, Orange County, or LA, which would be great too because of the amount of flights and that.

I'm very excited to see how this moves, so I too would like to be co-author on that. All right, seeing no more questions, we'd like to invite the author to close on the bill. Oh, and please make sure that--want to make sure that you've accepted the amendments before you.

Yes, yes.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much, Vice Chair, and thank you to those who've added on as co-authors. I extremely appreciate it. I thank my witnesses for their expert testimony. And here's the deal. Without a cleared roadmap, California, where we're now a leader, risks falling behind in the rapidly evolving field of advanced air mobility.

This bill, AB 431, changes that. It provides the structure and statewide coordination needed to turn emergency--excuse me--emerging AAM technologies into real accessible solutions, connecting communities, improving mobility, and ensuring California leads the nation in innovation. This bill empowers local governments with the expertise and tools to bring life-changing transportation options to millions of residents.

Thank you so much to the committee, my committee staff for doing excellent work and for working to get the amendments done and remove any potential opposition. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. I believe we have a motion by Assembly Member Lowenthal and a second by Assembly Member Macedo.

AB 431: the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

We have nine and we'll leave the roll call open.

All right, so while I was sitting in the author's chair, we did go into our full hearing and now have a quorum, and so, we'll first dispense with before we proceed with the next set of bills, our proposed consent calendar. We have 13 bills on consent.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call Continued]

All right, that has nine votes, and we'll hold it open for roll—for call. I'm sorry, we'll hold it open for other Members to add on. My tongue is a bit tied today. All right, we do have eight bills to discuss. We've already dispensed with Item Number 22, which leaves seven bills remaining.

Please note that we will not be hear—hearing—File Item Number 14, AB 1409, Gipson. It has been pulled from our agenda, per the author's request. We do go in file item order.

And I see we have a few authors here, one sitting on the second row, so I wasn't sure if you were deferring to the first row. All right, we are going to Item Number 2, AB 630, Mark Gonzalez. The author may begin, at your convenience.

Alrighty. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon, members. First, I want to sincerely thank the committee staff and the chair for working so collaboratively--excuse me--with my team. I'm happy to accept the committee's amendments. Every RV left broken down on the side of our streets tells two stories: one of human resilience and one of a system that has failed to provide safe, dignified shelter.

AB 630 is about turning the page. It's about helping people move out of the dangerous, unlivable conditions and into hope while protecting the health and safety of all of our communities. Every day we wait, more lives are put at risk, and the time to act is now. AB 630, proudly sponsored by Los Angeles Mayor Bass, focuses on individuals living in unsafe, hazardous RVs.

With the amendments, this bill will raise a threshold for dismantling only those RVs that are truly inoperable or hazardous, requiring cities to give registered owners of towed RVs a 30-day recovery period for their vehicle, improve the notification process with clear contact information, and a fair chance at least 15 days for individuals to reclaim their vehicles and belongings.

It requires jurisdiction to track and report RV removals and conditions. Today, abandoned RVs have become modern day tenements, collapsing under the weight of despair, leaking sewage, and catching fire while predatory vanlords exploit the most desperate among us.

It's a cycle that trades in human suffering. AB 630 will help break that cycle, offering a pathway to stability for those living inside these vehicles and protecting the health and safety of the neighborhoods we all call home. Under current law, local government can impound and dismantle these vehicles after notifying registered owners and providing only a 10-day reclaim period. If an RV remains unclaimed for 15 days, it can be dismantled only if it's valued at 500 or less.

Any RV over 500 must be auctioned, often allowing predatory buyers known as vanlords to purchase them for as low as only $50. These vanlords frequently return the RVs to the streets without proper registering the vehicles, ensuring they're even operable, or even making them safe and habitable.

They then rent these RVs at significant markups to vulnerable individuals, perpetuating cycles of unsafe housing, creating ongoing public safety, and safety risk. With the amendments, this bill will address a critical segment of the unsheltered homeless population, individuals living in unsafe and hazardous RVs. This is our chance to choose people over broken systems, and I know we're ready to choose right.

Let's build a California where dignity isn't left on the side of the road. With me today and as my primary witness in support, Freddie Quintana, a Senior Director of State Affairs for Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Freddie Quintana, and I serve as the Senior Director of State Affairs to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, the proud sponsor of this bill authored by Assembly Member Gonzalez. Mayor Bass has made homeless--the homelessness crisis in Los Angeles her top priority.

On her first day in office, she immediately declared a state of emergency on homelessness and launched the Inside Safe initiative, which to date has moved more than 4,200 individuals indoors over 94--over 94 encampment operations and connected those individuals with housing and wraparound services. Unsheltered homelessness can take many forms, including people living in vehicles.

The 2024 City of Los Angeles Point-in-Time Count found more than 7,700 vehicles, almost half of which were RVs, were being used as dwellings. While these RVs can provide shelter, they are often dilapidated, unsafe, resulting in harms to the environment and public health and public safety.

Many become sites of drug activity and human trafficking, discharging hazardous substances into storm drains and waterways, obstruct visibility at intersections, and create fire hazards and even more. Los Angeles invests billions in homelessness solutions to address the crisis comprehensively.

This includes a robust encampment resolution effort, diverse interim housing programs, funding for the development of permanent supportive housing, just to name a few items. However, the city also spends significant resources managing the impacts of RV encampments. This includes: deploying crisis responses to vehicle sites, gray water sanitation pumping, clean water services, and safe parking programs.

One ongoing challenge we have is addressing the issue known as van lording, where dilapidated and often inoperable RVs are impounded by the city, brought to auction for as little as $50, towed back to the streets, and rented out to disadvantaged people that then use those as dwelling conditions despite leaking sewage, having pests, having mold, and other fire hazards in the RV. The city then continues to expend resources addressing the encampment and potentially tows the vehicle again, perpetuating expensive and challenging cycle.

And I'll have to have you wrap up.

This bill would--AB 630 would amend the Vehicle Code to allow unclaimed RVs valued at $4,000 or less to be dismantled after a 30-day notification if the owner takes--if the owner takes no action. We--for these reasons and more on behalf of Mayor Karen Bass--we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you. Now moving to members of the public who would like to add on and--as a proponent of the bill. Name, organization, and position.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, in support. Thank you.

Chair and members, Jonathan Feldman with the City of Riverside this time and the California Police Chiefs Association, in support.

All right, now we'll move to opposition testimony. As a reminder, you have two minutes and you may begin at your convenience.

Good afternoon, Chair Wilson, Assembly Member Gonzalez, members of the committee, and staff. I'm Keely O'Brien, here representing Western Center on Law and Poverty, in respectful opposition to AB 630. Unfortunately, even with the amendments, we anticipate this bill will result in the widespread destruction of RVs across California.

The experience of Western Center and our partners is that the timelines for claiming a vehicle are too fast for the overwhelming number of people living in RVs who lack legal assistance or an understanding of their right to a hearing, who do not have the financial resources to pay towing and storage fees, and who do not have a reliable mailing address at which to receive notices.

RVs are an important temporary housing option that people frequently rely on for safety, so we're concerned that this policy approach will result in causing significant harm to some of the most vulnerable people in the state. I understood from the testimony that the goal is to protect people experiencing housing insecurity from being exploited by unscrupulous landlords.

Unfortunately, as written, this policy does not deal with the issue of van lording. Instead of targeting the vanlords, it targets an important part of the housing supply that people rely on in times of crisis. RVs serve as the last line of shelter for thousands of families, seniors, veterans, and survivors of domestic violence.

Today, more than 6,500 people in Los Angeles alone live in RVs. Raising the destruction threshold to $4,000 will result in a massive increase in the destruction of RVs, which will leave many people with no housing at all, forcing them onto the streets, and deepening our state's humanitarian crisis.

The reality is alternative housing options don't exist at the scale needed. The demand for RV housing, no matter how unsuitable those RVs might seem, is not going to disappear just because we get rid of that supply.

RVs are not perfect, but studies show that they provide critical safety, dignity, and a stepping stone towards stability for people transitioning out of homelessness. The vast majority of unhoused Californians will not receive shelter after losing their RVs under this bill, and many will not even get their most precious belongings back.

Taking away the limited security exposes vulnerable people, especially women, children, seniors, and people with disabilities, to violence, health risks, and premature death on the streets. People in RVs are more likely to work, stay healthy--thank you--and move towards stability.

By destroying RV homes, AB 630 would force people into riskier, more deadly conditions and increase public health risk for all. For all those reasons, we respectfully ask for you to oppose AB 630. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, moving on to members of the public who are--like to add on too as an opponent of the bill. Name, organization, and position.

Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. I actually did register our opposition so that we could provide primary--just--

Oh, okay. Well, let me have you come to the table, please.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chair, Assembly Members. My name is Carmen-Nicole Cox. I'm here on behalf of ACLU California Action. I certainly want to start by saying I appreciate Mr. Gonzalez. I've had an opportunity to have what I think are good faith conversations with his office along as as well as with Mr. Quintana on behalf of the Mayor's Office. We appreciate the direction that the bill is going.

What it appears to provide, as much as we can, have been able to consume the amendments that have been agreed to is more notice post-removal and in some ways that certainly does mitigate harm, but what we're concerned about is, as my colleague just described, that these RVs are folks' actual shelter, and so notice post-removal doesn't actually prevent the removal.

What we've shared with Mr. Gonzalez's Office is increasing to $4,000 is hugely problematic, especially considering that there is currently no obligation that the folks making the $4,000 assessment have been trained in any way or that they are independent actors.

Therefore, they don't have some financial or other interest in making the assessment. That is definitely problematic. Sorry, I should stick to my talking points. There's also concern around coercion. When we had conversation, we were told that yes, the folks do know that sometimes these are not abandoned vehicles. There's no definition for abandoned so there is actually no obligation for the vehicles to actually be abandoned.

In fact, the new language more explicitly contemplates the fact that these RVs are in fact inhabited and therefore not abandoned by any sense that that the average person would consider. So we certainly have concerns around nominally being abandoned and also coercion for people being coerced.

We'll have to have you wrap up.

Thank you. People being coerced to give up rights. And then I'll just close by saying, at the end of the day, we appreciate what's trying to be accomplished, but the policy would actually promote the cruel destruction of people's only shelter, sending them into the concrete streets and the unpredictably dangerous climate. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving to members of the public who wanted to add on as an opponent of the bill and express that. Name, organization, and position if there are any in the hearing room. Seeing none. Moving it back to members of the committee. Before I go, I see Assembly Member Rogers as a first, Ahrens, and Harabedian.

And I just want to note, to provide clarity to a comment that was made related to the amendments, as my team worked on the amendments, that the notice is not post-removal. The notice is actually pre--pre it being removed. The original notice per existing law just noted that they had 72 hours before removal.

It didn't have additional language and this committee thought it prudent to add the additional language of where someone can be--can obtain the vehicle--that's the registered owner of the vehicle, not an inhabitant or someone who might be occupying it--but the registered owner can pick up the vehicle where they can pick it up and that they had at least 15 days to be able to do that, to give that notice.

So just being clear that there's not a notice post-removal, it is in advance and it is more than what was required by law. Going to go to Assembly Member Rogers followed by Ahrens and then Harabedian at this time.

Thank you, Chair. So I'm going to start with what I like about the bill and that's the attempt to create some form of a statewide framework around how cities can deal with this issue. When I was on the City of Santa Rosa City Council and when I was the mayor, it was a challenge, especially when you had each jurisdiction doing things differently and either just pushing people from one area to another or trying to coordinate law enforcement resources where everybody was playing by different rules. I really like the concept of a statewide framework.

I do continue to share some of the concerns expressed by the ACLU and the Western Center on Law and Poverty. I'm going to support the bill today because I know what the author is trying to accomplish here and I think is making a good faith effort to try to get to that point as well, and I hope that we can get there because I think that it would be good for us to have standards. I just don't know that we're yet at the point where the standards that we're trying to put forward are the correct ones.

Assembly Member Rogers. I'm sorry. And I was looking over there at my good friend, my favorite Patrick. Yes, that's right. It's Aaron Rogers again today. Well, Rogers, Aaron with a comma. There you go.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think. I'd like to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. I do would like to just echo the reservations that were set forward and based on my lived experience of housing insecurity, I'll also give a courtesy aye.

I know that you're trying to work with the group but would love to see if there could be any possible changes or amendments to continue working towards. You know, they're a very serious situation. You understand that more than almost anybody, Assembly Member Gonzales, and I know that you will work in good faith to try and come up with a solution. Thank you.

Assembly Member Harabedian.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to first just thank the author for bringing the bill. Having served in local government for a number of years, it certainly is an issue that all of us are trying to get right, and I think that--and I know that the author is trying to get this right.

And I just actually wanted to circle back and give the author an opportunity to answer a question of mine, which really stems from a lot of what the opposition is narrowed in on, which I actually don't think the bill is addressing or doing. So to the author, my understanding is that you are not trying to, in any way through this bill, make it easier, harder, address how and when or if a recreational vehicle is actually impounded or removed from a street. Is that correct? And I just want you to have an opportunity to respond to some of the points that the opposition--

Sure. So just to be clear, the bill focuses specifically on the dismantling portion, not the towing portion. So that, that's very clear on that. And without this bill and to the Chair's points on some of these pieces of it, we worked out those amendments with the committee to actually strengthen the notification requirements as well.

And so the goal here of the bull is--the goal here of the bill is not to take anybody out of their existing homes. Everybody knows in Los Angeles, specifically--because I can speak to that lived experience--is that RVs are everywhere. There's bicycles that are there. There's human sex trafficking that has happens there.

There's a lot of issues that are happening there, and advocates in the area are making every effort to get those folks the shelter and the services that they need. When they--and I just toured a recycling place on Friday where we saw an RV get towed in, and they do their deal with that, and then for 50 bucks, you can get it taken out and the cost of it goes back to local law enforcement and public safety. The issue is that it keeps running over and over.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. We have to be able to deliver for our constituents, and those who are in that arena now--I respect the amendments that we're going to work on to get it out of here today, and we will do that--but the goal here is not to put anybody out.

The goal here is to make sure our communities are safe, especially given the fact that these, most of these vehicles are inoperable. They're hazardous. To Freddie's point about the mold and other issues that are happening in there, we have to address it and this is just one way of doing it.

To the point of the, on the local side of it, to the Mr. Rogers's point, is that currently, local governments can impound the dismantle these vehicles after notifying the owners and providing just a ten-day reclaim period, and if the RV remains unclaimed for 15 days, it could be dismantled even if the value is $500 or less. And so this just strengthens it, creates this umbrella where we're able to lift that value up so that folks aren't just buying these homes and utilizing it for a very different agenda. Our folks are to get people housed, not to penalize them.

I appreciate that and I'm glad you clarified it. It seem as though you two--that both sides were talking past each other on that very critical point, so I appreciate you clarifying that, and then when the lienholder defines the value as 4,000 or less, let's be clear. It seems as though there'd be a real incentive, the lienholder being who here, right? I believe it's the--is it the city or is it the actual yard that houses?

So on the actual process, when we take it from the encampment that we are approaching, we do have a city employee who does the evaluation on the vehicle to hand it over to the tow yard, in this case our OPG lot, and they can then determine what authority they have based on the evaluation.

We can either say a dismantling lien where they can just go straight to the dismantler and recycle it. SA Recycling is our contract. If it's above that, they would then send it to an auction and have to put it back to the auction and then see that cycle potentially perpetuate. If they really find a vehicle that, let's say, just talking on the market practice here, let's say they say, 'oh, there's a vehicle we scored at 450,' they have the complete authority to use the lien auction to actually auction it on their own value based on the fact that there's a profit margin in there for them.

They wouldn't take a $5,000 vehicle that they could sell at auction and sell it and dismantle at 450. They would probably just--because they are using that authority that we give them the permission to use and they can go either way at that point.

Right. And that's kind of what I wanted to highlight as well--

Oftentimes it's the same owner buying them over and over and over.

I think that's an important point. I think it keeps everyone in check through this process. So I will move the bill. I appreciate the responses to those questions. Thank you.

All right, we have a motion by Harabedian and a second by Macedo. Is there any other comments? I'll just, I'll end before I give the opportunity for the author to close. So first, I would like to thank you for bringing this bill forward and I also appreciate the sponsors and the author's office working closely with the committee on the amendments to include guardrails on when an RV may be dismantled and reporting requirements to provide transparency to the public.

That was a big part of our conversation was about ensuring the advocates could hold local jurisdictions accountable to what they're doing with these RVs and also people that they may find near them. And so I appreciate the testimony from opposition in terms of the work that you do to ensure that Californians can come out of poverty.

I also believe it is important for governments to provide transparency, especially around sensitive topics such as this. I'm sure this is not an easy decision or a vote for anyone on this committee. Here's the deal. Every single person deserves to have access to sufficient and safe housing.

Predatory individuals purchasing cheap RVs at auction and renting them out as a place to live should not continue to be able to purchase these vehicles. This bill will reduce the number of towed RVs from being available for purchase at auction by raising the cap on the value of a towed RV that is allowed to be dismantled. And with that, I'll be supporting your bill today. You have a motion and a second. I give you the opportunity to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, members. This bill is small but powerful way to say that every life, every neighborhood, and every street matters because no one's home should be a hazard, and no one's home should be jeopardized in safety. And no one's home should be an afterthought. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 630. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 630 is a do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That bill has ten votes. We'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Moving on to--we're in file item order, so moving back to File Item One: AB 314, Arambula. You may begin at your convenience.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I would like to begin by accepting the amendments and thanking the Chair and their committee for their work on this Bill. California has long struggled with the competing issues of housing shortages and traffic congestion in urban centers.

AB 314 addresses this issue by incentivizing Transit Oriented Development along planned and existing high speed rail stations. Transit Oriented Development prioritizes pedestrian access in city centers and creates localities centered on sustainability and environmentally friendly growth. Without policy changes, the lack of Transit Oriented Development remains a significant barrier to the complete integration of high speed rail.

These station communities risk out on missing on these new housing, business growth and transit access improvements. High speed rail will be a catalyst for economic growth in station communities. And this bill will ensure the needs of community Members remain at the core of the coming development. Thank you. And when the time's right, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

That's it, all right, and so I take it you do not have any witnesses today? I got a motion by Lowenthal. I think a second by Hart. Alrighty. Moving on to Members of the public who would like to add on and support. Name, position and organization.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Sharon Gonsalves, on behalf of the City of Merced in support. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. We do not have any witnesses.

Opposition witness registered. Just being sure that there's no members of the public who would like to add on as an opponent of the Bill. Name, organization and position. Seeing none. Moving, looking to members of the public. I'm sorry of the Committee Assembly Member Macedo.

Hello. I have not been shy about my criticism of the high speed rail project. So I do have some concerns. I love the fact that you're trying to make sure that if we're going to have this infrastructure, we have a means to use this infrastructure in the Central Valley. So I understand what your goal is.

It's the project as a whole that I have a concern with. So my first question is, is the funding that you're asking for, for this infrastructure, is that dependent upon the completion of the project or is it to happen in the interim of the project?

The amendments that we took here in the Committee were that the station itself, it has nothing to do with high speed rail. It has to do with the station being fully funded as well as there being an initiation of construction and 10% spend are the criteria that were added through the amendments.

It has nothing at all to do with the completion of high speed rail.

So based on the delays of this project, my question then is if we don't meet those milestones does that funding then roll over to the next year? Does it roll to the project, anything like that?

I think we're talking apples and oranges here. We're talking about the funding of the station itself.

So you're saying that that's dependent on the station itself having been built and then 10%? I'm not sure of 100% the verbiage of that. My concern is we have been way behind when it comes to the timelines for this project.

So let's say that we do get this money from cap and trade and within the year Hanford cannot use those funds. Is that something that it would roll over to the following year waiting for that project to be done? And maybe I'm misunderstanding the amendment.

My understanding is it becomes a trigger that when you've fully funded the project and you've initiated construction and had 10% of a spend that you then qualify for Transit Oriented Development only after you've fully funded the station and initiated construction. Those are the criteria that would allow you to then qualify to receive those credits.

And to the, I'll pause for a second just to provide clarity. Within cap and trade there are two separate funds. There is the, at the beginning of the analysis talks about the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program which is what Assembly, the Assembly Member is trying to access. And then there's funding for high speed rail.

So those are two different buckets of money. So the Assembly Member would like housing around the high speed rail stations to be able to access those fundings. The issue is it has to reduce GHG emissions.

So what we put in as an amendment, a trigger point, was that if high speed rail progressed enough to create a station, to fully fund a station as well as start construction and spend at least 10% of money, then you can count that as a GHG reduction to be able to use resources to build housing around train stations.

Thank you so much for that clarification. I appreciate that. That helps me understand this a little bit more. That also triggers a concern that I have investigated quite a bit how the funds have been spent in relation to high speed rail.

So I understand these are separate, but I just listened to the budget sub four hearing that high speed rails here asking for $7 billion more in the imminent future. We don't know where that's coming from. They don't even have a plan for how that's going to happen.

So I have fear that this funding could be used in a very gray way to fund the project that hasn't provided us a plan. So I appreciate what you're trying to do for the Central Valley. I really do. I hope that we can continue things like this.

But due to the mismanagement of the high speed rail project and the relation that this does have, I won't be able to support today. But thank you very much,

I thank the Assembly Member for our comments. But I just want to give greater clarity for the members of the public who may be listening in this. These funds are not in any way allowed, any way, shape or form.

There is no gray as it relates to that to be able to be used for the high speed rail project itself. This only relates to housing around the stations and being allowed to be used for that. But in no way can it be used for the other.

And you can not like the project and not vote for this for that reason. But I just want to make sure the public is not confused that these funds are completely distinct and separate and they're used for housing to reduce GHG emissions and they don't go to any transportation projects whatsoever.

They are only allowed to be used for affordable housing. Looking to Members of the Committee for any other? Nope. And then we do have a motion and a second. A motion made by Lowenthal and seconded by Hart. With that I'll give you an opportunity to close, sir.

Thank you Madam Chair, for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 314, better known as my PI Bill. If you don't get that joke, you may need to ask the person next to you. Ultimately, this Bill is about promoting job creation and ensuring that our station communities have the housing that's necessary. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. With that, I'll turn it over to Madam Secretary to call the roll.

Roll Call

That Bill has eight aye votes, two no votes. will hold the roll open for Members to be able to add on. Thank you. Moving, continuing file or file item order with the Member that is present. Moving on to item number 12. AB 1223 win.

First, thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I want to start by accepting the Committee's amendments and truly thanking yourself and the Committee staff for really working with us to make this an even better bill. AB 1223. Ooh, that kind of rhymes 1223. It's not like the pie bill, but hey, I'll take 1223.

Allows communities in Sacramento county to move forward with transportation improvements such as repairing aging corridors, enhancing active transportation options, and supporting infill development when they are ready instead of requiring the countywide approach.

The bill ensures that funding stays within the communities that approve it and ties new projects to regional plans that support infill development and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Here to testify in support today is Kevin Bewsey from Sacramento Transportation Authority.

Good afternoon, Chair, Committee Members. Kevin with Sacramento Transportation Authority. Had a lot of work on this bill with the Chair. We feel like we're in a good spot. It's going to provide, you know, my agency with some more flexibility as it relates to our new measure specifically. And we really appreciate the effort behind that. So thank you very much.

Thank you. With that, moving on to members of the public who would like to add on in support. Name, organization, and position.

Good afternoon. Audrey Ratajczak on behalf of Sacramento County in support.

Good afternoon. John Moffatt on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies of California, support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Chris Lee here on behalf of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Just want to thank the Committee as well as the author and sponsors for all of their work, particularly resolving the concerns we had around the tolling language. We also appreciate the flexibility around the infill infrastructure and the ability to leverage those investments along with transportation dollars. Thank you.

All right. Now moving to those in opposition. Looking for... Let's see. We do have someone who's registered opposition. Just seeing, confirming if they're in the room. I do not see them. So we'll move to any members of the public who would like to add on in opposition. Name, organization, and position. I see none.

I have a motion made by Harabedian and a second by Rogers, I believe. Is that correct? Oh, I'm sorry, Ahrens. Oh, well, you got it again by Rogers. No, really, Was it you? It was you, though. No, for number two. Right. You're gonna second it. Okay, so we do have our Ahrens Rogers, Ahrens Rogers combo.

With that, I move it to Committee for comments, questions, concerns. All right. Seeing none. There we go. So I'd like to thank Assembly Member Nguyen for you and your staff and your sponsors' work on this measure and definitely working with us. It was lots of conversations around this given my concern around the use of transportation dollars as it relates to utilities.

But understood, even my own county has a dig once policy, and so understood the thought behind it and that's where we got to the amends. And now the amends take can today allow 5% of the revenues from the tax measure STA imposes to fund non-transportation infrastructure including water, stormwater, and utility related expenditures that support infill or transit oriented development.

Guardrails have been added to ensure those utility investments are combined with the transportation project. They are based on a future tax measure that the voters have a clear understanding that that is what they're voting for. And so with these amendments, I'll be supporting your bill today. We have a motion and a second by Ahrens Rogers. And with that, I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again appreciate you working with us on this. We worked so hard on this that opposition didn't even bother to show up and there were no questions amongst the Committee Members. And so I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1223, do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill has eight aye votes and two no votes. We'll hold the roll open for Members to be able to add on.

All right, returning to file item, file order starting with or starting with. We have the author here for file item number 7, AB 1111. Soria.

Thank you Chair and Members. I'd like to start by accepting the amendments in the Committee analysis and thanking the Chair and the Committee staff for the work on the on the Bill and their ongoing commitment to work collaboratively to address the issues schools are facing in the transition to zero emission buses.

AB 1111, as proposed to be amended, adds additional flexibility to California zero emission school bus mandate by allowing additional flexibility when determining feasibility to switching to zero emission buses and modifies an existing incentive program to allow districts struggling to make the switch to zero emission buses to receive buses from other districts.

In 2023, the Legislature passed the landmark legislation calling for most of California school bus fleets to be zero emission by 2035 and all school buses to be zero emission by 2045, which I supported.

That legislation sought to make new strides in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the amount of other toxic air contaminants emitted by these buses while recognizing that some school districts were not ready and would need more time for the zero emission technology to meet their needs.

However, in the time since the law went to effect and districts, and districts have started planning their own switch to zero emission vehicles, it has become clear that we did not account for the full ramifications of convert, converting these bus fleets.

I introduced this piece of legislation because over the fall I had an opportunity to sit down with dozens of the school districts in my district and the issue, and this issue rose to the top. That was a challenge in implementing this new policy.

These districts are small, rural and disadvantaged and they don't have extra budget dollars for the cost of implementation. While the original legislation allowed for extensions of the 2035 deadline for certain districts, it did not account for the lack of electric infrastructure available to school districts.

Additionally, the law itself has led to reduced availability of non zero emission buses as school bus manufacturers have shifted their operations away from supplying diesel buses since that market would essentially be eliminated by 2035.

This has left districts without any options to maintain their fleets if they need more time either to build out their charging infrastructure or for improvements in the technology to help meet the needs of longer bus routes.

This has especially hurt small and rural school districts like the ones in my district where busing is crucial to educating our students. Families can frequently be 30 minutes to an hour drive out from the school their children attend and depend on reliable bus service to balance their kids, their kids to school with their work schedule.

I have heard from many superintendents in my district that they want to make the switch to zero emission, but due to the limitation of their electrical infrastructure or the financing available, they are facing significant challenges in making the switch.

In the meantime, they need new buses to replace the ones aging out of their fleets so that they can still get our kids to school while they prepare to meet the mandate. AB 1111 will help these districts by increasing the flexibility for the districts that need it the most and it does this by expanding their school.

Expanding which schools can receive certain longer term waivers from CARB. Allowing infrastructure be part of CARB's consideration of feasibility when considering waiver applications and allowing school districts who are currently required to destroy their old buses to receive funding for zero emission buses to instead transfer that older bus to a district that is in need.

Here with me to testify in support of AB 1111 is Beth Albiani, a Member of the School Board of Trustees at Elk Grove Unified School District and Renee Nash, a board Member for, from Eureka Union School District.

Thank you. As a reminder to the witnesses, you each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good afternoon Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Renee Nash and I'm a School Board Member from Eureka Union School District in Placer County.

I'm also a CSBA Region 4 Director and work closely with school board members from across the nine counties, in the areas between Colusa, Tehama, Placer and Sierra Counties, all just north of Sacramento. This is an area of the state where the districts are largely small, rural and even frontier.

In my district, we adopted EV buses just before COVID. We began experiencing mechanical problems with them almost immediately, including not holding their charges. We have even had buses literally stop in the middle of the road, posing obvious safety problems.

Ours is not an isolated experience as I have heard from many in my region that EV buses have had mechanical issues and simply don't work given the difficulties securing infrastructure, particularly with their limited range. This is true both with home to school transportation and with sports and field trips.

The counties I work with represent those that are some of the most likely to need additional time to make zero emission buses feasible. They are small, they are rural, and they are much more likely to lack the resources to make the kind of significant investments that will be needed to make the technology work.

This includes purchasing multiple buses to cover what can currently be done with one single bus. They will not have the benefit of being in or near an urban area, leaving them with less reliable utilities and making it much more difficult to access maintenance centers, as there are only a few centers that handle these types of buses.

They will struggle with routes, terrain and temperature and in particularly rural areas, will even face issues with road weight limits. So for many LEAs, the additional time and expanded waiver that Assemblymember Soria is asking for in this Bill is absolutely critical.

I want to thank the Assemblywoman for authoring AB 1111 and ask the Members of this Committee for their aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Beth Albiani. It's my 10th year as a Board Member on the Elk Grove Unified School District. Elk Grove is the largest, the fifth largest district by enrollment in California and it's also a physically large district covering over 320 square miles. We have 67 schools and cover both rural and urban areas.

We have 140 buses including diesel, propane, CNG and 16 EV buses. Our buses cover 175 home to school routes and 108 special education routes daily. We bus over 10,000 students a day and travel over 2.5 million miles a year. These number of routes far outnumber the number of buses we have.

Our program requires our buses to complete two or three routes each morning, support during the afternoon with field trips, and then complete an additional 2 and 3 routes in the afternoon and possible evening activities, often with little to no midday breaks and they travel up to 300 miles in a day.

We find EV works well for our shorter single routes and fits our special education needs well. But we've experienced challenges with EV buses. The downtime of an EV bus is more than double our other buses. The use of air conditioning or heat reduces the miles a bus can go.

Current technology offers buses that travel about 100 miles, then need a two and a half to five hour charge. Often the charge does not take. We have an issue with the charger and it results in error messages.

EV buses have an 8 year battery life with a very expensive replacement cost versus the 20 year life of other buses. We need to purchase 2 to 3 EV buses to replace a single diesel or propane bus. EV buses average in cost $560,000 with needed infrastructure.

The cost of an ultra low emissions bus that is more reliable, has a greater range and requires no infrastructure is $215,000. With this mandate we eventually have to make very difficult decisions about whether to continue to provide transportation to our general education students.

We give over 6,000 rides a day to these students and that keeps cars off the road and removes traffic from our communities. It also increases-

I'm going to have to have you wrap up.

I believe we all know attendance is essential to student success and supporting decreased population, pollution is a value we share. But there must be more than one solution.

Thank you. Now moving to Members of the audience who would like to add on their support for this Bill. Name, organization and position.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and Committee Members. Michelle Gill on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials in appreciation and we support the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other, now moving to opposition. We do have opposition witnesses registered. There's two seats off to the side if both are needed. I only see one of them, but. Okay. You may begin at your convenience. And as a reminder, two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Edson Perez here with Advanced Energy United. We were one of the co sponsors of the original Bill, AB 579, based on Member Ting, which passed in 2023.

So we are opposed to the Bill in print, but the Committee amendments are heading in a really good direction and so to make the Bill a lot more focused.

So we really want to thank the Committee, Chair and the staff on the very thoughtful analysis and we look forward to reviewing those amendments in depth to see if we can revisit our position. But I did want to note about just in terms of the industry and how things evolve.

Auto manufacturers make decisions about the vehicles that they're going to put out into the market two to three years in advance. And so AB 579, really the market signal that is sent out, it hasn't kicked in quite yet.

And if auto manufacturers are moving towards electric vehicles and electric school buses, it's because those are just the general trends in the market which we are going to have to deal with.

And I think we really should be focusing on making sure that the transition works and helping all school districts, including those that are most challenged in meeting those transition. We need to make sure to fund electric vehicle charging stations, electric vehicles, help the technology evolve to make sure that the needs of these districts are met.

With that being said, I'm here happy to answer any questions and look forward to the continued engagement with the Committee and with the author on this.

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

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Noam Elroi, on behalf of CalStart, we want to echo AU's comments and thank the Chair, Committee staff and author for their work on the amendments. We're still evaluating the remaining provisions of the Bill so unfortunately are not able to give an updated position today.

But we appreciate the progress has been made and look forward to reviewing the Amendments in print.

Audra Hartmann, on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition, want to echo the comments made just by the speaker just before me. We're also reviewing the amendments and are appreciative of the conversations and look forward to where the Bill goes from here. Thank you.

Madam Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for Earth Justice, join the chorus of comments just heard. Appreciate the amendment so far. We are opposed to the Bill in print and look forward to seeing those amendments when they come in. Thank you.

I'm Michele Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists. Just echoing my colleagues comments. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Now moving back to Members of the Committee for questions, comments, concerns, starting with Assemblymember Rogers.

Yeah, thank you so much, Chair. I think it was captured well in both the sport and the opposition. As you know, my district's very rural.

I do hear concerns from many of our school board members and superintendents trying to figure out how best to meet the mandate, but also an understanding that we need to continue to drive innovation and that investment in these resources that are quite frankly once up and running, healthier for children.

So with the amendments, I'm happy to vote in favor today. We'll see how it goes on the floor. Want to keep having conversations with folks in my district, but I do appreciate you bringing that rural perspective to the conversation.

Assemblymember Macedo.

Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Assemblymember Soria, you know when mandates like this are passed, it's one of those things that being from the rural part of California, you understand that there is unintended consequences for places like we live and we love. The infrastructure just not there for us to have EV buses. And we are very spread out.

So I would be honored if you'd add me as a co sponsor or co author of the Bill and I move the Bill.

All right. There is a motion. Is there a second? Seconded by Lackey. All right, Chair Davies, Vice Chair Davies.

Thank you very much. I too, I have small areas, rural areas and again my concern is with the mandate I think is such a great Bill because by state you only have to provide buses for special need and if you don't have the revenue to purchase this, sadly it could be where we don't have a choice.

We're going to have to stop this transportation to begin with. But then you're having kids trying to get to school, parents working and again infrastructure. How many mechanics do you have nearby that know how to deal with an EV bus? So there's a lot of, a lot of issues and I think that this Isn't one size fits all.

I think it's really important that we realize that there are different needs, that different areas do have the infrastructure, that they do have the revenue to be able to purchase this. And I completely support this Bill as well. Thank you.

All right. Seeing no other comments from the Committee, I'll note, I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward and I appreciate all the conversations that have happened with the sponsor and the author and working very closely with our Committee on the amendments.

The current deadline for 100% of school district school bus purchases to be zero emission is 10 years away. This deadline was only put in place less than two years ago. And technology in the zero emission sector is rapidly evolving.

Taking into account this quick evolution, it is too soon to consider delaying implementation dates, which is why we did not do that. But we also allowed for some flexibility for our small and rural districts.

And we wanted to be sure that we weren't muddling signals to manufacturing, as was noted by opposition, is that it's about two to three years in advance of implementation that that would happen. And we wanted to be sure that we didn't add to confusion or business uncertainty.

And so the major issue is to be able to identify the school districts that are unable to buy diesel and compressed natural gas buses because they are not being manufactured. And I heard that loud and clear, which is why we proposed some of the amendments.

But I would also encourage the author to engage with the necessary parties to find a mechanism to identify and help school districts acquiring the school buses they need to provide to continue providing transportation to students statewide.

Part of the amendments or part of the language that was in the original Bill was scrapping the requirement and hybrid and zero emission truck and bus voucher incentive projects that will apply to provide about approximately 450 buses. And of course to be able to do what is required and provide the service required. You need more than that.

And I get that. And which is why we're here today. We have a motion made by Macedo and seconded by Lackey. I give the author the time to close.

Again thank you so much, Chair. I do want to thank the Members, the Committee Members for their comments.

And I just want to reaffirm my commitment to continue not only working on the Bill with the stakeholders and the relevant agencies and again my commitment to ensuring that we're not trying to undo the work that we, that we committed to in reducing emissions of California school buses.

I think what we're simply trying to do is make sure that we provide the flexibility needed for those districts that still want to provide this critical transportation to students that otherwise couldn't get to school.

And given kind of the changes in the market and the lack of infrastructure and then even today that now we're faced with some uncertainty from the Federal Government where, where schools were expecting federal funding to help them deal with the infrastructure challenges. And also the purchasing of the buses.

You guys heard these electric buses cost double the price. And for communities like mine where these, these bus. Bus routes are longer, that means that if these school districts want to continue to provide transportation, they're going to have to buy two or three buses.

And that is financially infeasible for some of the school districts because they're disadvantaged and poor. And so I want to make sure that we don't set our, our schools up for failure, but that we help them have the flexibility.

At the same time, think about the investments that we need to make as a body to ensure that we meet these goals that we've all agreed to do so. With that, I just want to thank again the chair, the Committee Members for allowing us to bring this Bill forward.

Again meeting, making sure that we support our school districts that need it the most here and in in our state. Thank you so much. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well said, Assemblymember Soria. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1111 is do pass as amended to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill has 12 aye votes. We'll hold the roll open for Members to be able to add on. Going in file item order we have on Bill number. Sorry item number 11, AB 1190. Assemblymember Haney, we can. You can begin at your convenience. We are down to, after this Bill, we have two remaining bills.

One is from a Member of Committee, the other is not in the room yet. So we asked to put a call out for that author and then we'll add, have Members add on to previously dispensed votes and then we'll be done for the day.

All right.

All right. Assemblymember Haney.

Thank you so much Madam Chair and members. AB 1190 is about making sure that all Californians can access basic DMV services at a fair price. DMV for better or worse, has services that all of us have to rely on at some point. There are 30, over 30 million registered vehicles in California.

All of us need to go to get our vehicles registered or to get ID services. And right now what's happening is because the DMV is contracting with certain online vendors, you can find yourself accessing services that you can get through the DMV, through these online vendors and being charged huge markups on those services.

And worse than that, you can, it can happen without you even knowing that you're using one of these third party vendors. You can go in and Google California DMV, thinking that you're finding yourself on the California DMV website, because it's built to look exactly like the website.

But the reality is it's not the DMV website and you're paying markups of hundreds of dollars more, in fact in some cases for the same services that you can get through the DMV. This is something that we should fix. It's hurting trust and the integrity of government services that are essential.

This bill, AB 1190, will cap those fees that second line business partners can charge to no more than 5% above the DMV charges for the same service, putting an end to junk fees and exploitative markups.

It will also ensure that websites have to clearly display prominently a link to the DMV's official site, along with a clear disclosure that DMV services can be accessed directly with no cost. This is something that we should expect of every business or every service, but especially one that all Californians rely on.

This is an essential government service that we can provide. We understand sometimes there needs to be some contracting out, but it should be done transparently and it should be done fairly.

With me today in support of the bill is Alan Peterson, a consumer who was excessively charged by a website that closely mimicked the DMV, as well as Robert Herrell, on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California, was available for technical questions and is a sponsor of the bill.

Thank you to the witness and support. You have two minutes.

Chair and Committee Members. My name is Alan Peterson and I've lived in California for 45 plus years. In September 2024, I used Google to find the DMV website to renew my vehicle car registration. I completed the registration. Then I received a confirmation email from something called need tags showing an additional charge of $72.

That was when I realized I had been fooled. I called to cancel, but received a recorded message saying canceling impossible. I placed a hold on the charge with my credit card. I emailed Need Tags to try and cancel. Need Tags emailed a response saying, again, cancellation impossible, end quote.

Any improper chargeback will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I offered to negotiate the $72 fee. No response from Need Tags. In October, Need Tags emailed me, quote, fraud investigation unit and said, quote, contact us. Allow our customer care department to help resolve your issue, unquote. I contacted Need Tags twice. Need Tags never responded.

I was mad at the DMV and their partner. Need Tags. I contacted my Assemblyman, my state Senator, the Governor, and KG07 on your side. Charging 37% premium to register my car is not fair. Threatening legal action when a customer wants to cancel an order is not ethical. Refusing to communicate with your customer is not honest.

In a partnership, you are responsible for your partner's actions. The DMV is responsible for Need Tags. It is too late for me and my $72. AB 1190 puts a cap on the fees that can be charged.

I think you owe the citizens of the state protection from Need Tags and their own DMV.

Thank you so much. Did you want to provide some testimony as well?

Very briefly, Madam Chair and Members, Robert Herrell, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation California. We're the sponsor of the measure. You've heard the author and the witness. I want to thank the author, the witness, you, Madam Chair, and your committee staff for working with us on this. Two simple things.

The thing that jumped out to Consumer Fed in California and why we got involved here was twofold. One, the DMV. These are business partners of the DMV. The analysis does a good job of showing how many there are, but many of these websites are literally spoofing the DMV website. Same color, same scheme, same font.

So people are being fooled. Our witness is not someone who's new to the internet. He's regularly on it for various reasons. So that seems wrong. And if you have a business partner that's doing that, you ought to take care of your relationship with your business partner.

Number two is the really vehement response to a consumer saying, hey, I got. You know, I'd like to cancel this. I made a mistake here. To really go immediately to the kind of nuclear war option of threatening legal action and then vanishing seems grossly inappropriate.

So this caps it, makes it clear that there's a link so you can get the charge for free on the DMV's own website. We would urge an I vote. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and Members, Rosemary Shahan, President of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety. We're a member organization of CFC and ee also support the bill on our own. Right, thank you.

Lowenthal and Aaron's I believe was where I caught it. Lots of, lots of assembly members wanting to be a part of the motion of this. With that, moving on to opposition. We don't have any registered on file.

And just noting, is there any member of the public who would like to add on their opposition name, organization and position? Seeing none. Moving to members of the committee, Assembly Member Jackson followed by Lackey and then Rogers.

Assembly Member. If you know there's something wrong when you have people saying they would rather work with the DMV than these other people. So you have my I vote.

That's a good way to put it.

All right, Assembly Member Lackey.

Yeah, mine's more a question. Obviously the bad actors, no one supports them. They're a mess. But how about groups like car dealerships? Is this going to impact the transactions that they engage in when you purchase a vehicle?

Assembly member, good question. There's a difference between so called first tier and second tier partners. The second tier partners are the 6,000 plus that's mentioned in the analysis. Those are interfacing with the, with the public, dealers and others. They're kind of first tier. They're doing things at a certain scale level.

So we've had conversations with folks to make sure that it doesn't impact the first tier partners. Thank you for the question.

In the bill, correct?

It is indeed. And we worked with the committee on that specifically. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Rogers.

Thank you so much. I just like to be added as a co author.

Absolutely.

All right. Seeing no others, there is a motion made by Lowenthal and seconded by Ahrens. I'd like to thank you for bringing this bill forward. I appreciate the work you're doing to protect consumers against unreasonable charges with DMV business partners.

As DMV services have increasingly shifted online, I question the need for private industry partners at all that provide the same service that DMV provides for free on its website. I will be supporting your bill today and I appreciate the testimony of Mr. Peterson.

Thank you for calling everybody to ensure that this law, this bill was brought forward today. With that, I'll give you an opportunity to close before calling for the role.

Well, I just know Assembly Members Ahrens and and Harvey didn't want it to be added as a co author. They were yelling that to me and. Oh, and Rogers. But he already got his. And I want to thank Mr. Peterson. I will note that it wasn't his Assembly Member or Senator. I don't think that responded.

It was ABC7 that responded and they got a special report on it. And then we saw the report and with Consumer Federation and then Consumer Federation brought it forward. So I won't make you call it. Thank you to the media for this as well. I don't know. I just meant to think the.

The media report was important and want to thank Mr. Peterson for his advocacy and thank you, chair and your staff for your partnership with us and work on it and respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you. And we do appreciate ABC7 for running the important newsworthy report with that. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1190 is due. Passed to the Committee on Appropriations.

[roll call]

There are 11 votes. We'll hold that roll open for Members to add on. Before we hear any more bills, we're going to go through the votes that still are held open starting with our consent calendar. Madam Secretary.

Roll Call

That has 12 votes. We'll hold the row open for Members to add on. Moving on to file item 1. AB314 Arambula.

Roll Call

That Bill has nine aye votes. Three no votes. It is held open for Members to add on item number two. AB630. Mark Gonzalez.

Roll Call

Thank you. There's 12 aye, votes held open for Members to add on item number seven. AB I think everyone is here. Do we need to do that one? Do that one. Okay. Item number seven. AB 1111. Soria.

Roll Call

That Bill has 12 votes. It'll be remained. It'll remain open for Members to add on. We just did item number 11. So skipping that, moving on to item number 12. AB 1223 Nguyen.

Roll Call

That Bill has nine aye votes and three no votes will hold the roll open for Members to add on. Moving on to item number 22. AB431 Wilson.

Roll Call

That has 11 votes will hold the roll open to for Members to add on. I would like to note that we have our remaining two authors that are present.

So we are now calling Members of this Committee who are not have not yet arrived and would like to add on that we will do a final roll call on all of our items after these two authors present before we close out for the day. Moving on to file item number five. AB987 Sharp- Collins.

You may begin and proceed at your convenience.

All right, we have a motion by Davies and a second by. Who is that? Was that Harabedian?

All right, thank you. With that information, I will keep it brief in the intro and hand it over to my witness as well. Good afternoon Chair and Members. AB987 protects Californians against the growing issue of unreasonable toll fees.

So while California leads in many consumer protections, there's an actual glaring gap in our actual protections against the unreasonable toll fees that need to be addressed. And so I will pause there and go ahead and turn it over to my witness to talk about the need to address it.

Well, if you had already paid attention, you would find out that it was moved by Vice Chair Davies and seconded by Harabedian. I will turn it over to the witness who has two minutes. And we look forward to your testimony.

I'm Rosemary Shahan, President of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, and we strongly support this legislation and appreciate the author's leadership in authoring it. AB987 will address an ongoing problem in California, which is predatory towing practices that disproportionately impact many of our most vulnerable residents who desperately need their cars in order to keep their lives together.

And while leading in many consumer protections, California has a significant gap regarding towing regulations. All too often, Californians face financial hardships due to predatory towing practices. This bill will address abuses by establishing clear boundaries on what constitutes unreasonable fees.

Prohibiting excessive holiday surcharges, storage fees during facility closures, and charges during natural disasters represents a significant step forward in consumer protection. And we believe it strikes a fair balance between protecting the interests of legitimate towing companies and setting clear boundaries to curtail bad practices among towing companies that take advantage of disadvantaged consumers.

And we would graciously appreciate your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Now we'll move on to members of the public who would like to add on their support, name, organization and position, seeing no other members of the public adding on. Now moving on to opposition. We do have registered opposition. I thought we did. Let's see. No, we do not.

And so now moving on to members of the public who would like to note their opposition, name, organization and position.

Good afternoon. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the California Tow Truck Association.

CTTA does not have a formal position on the Bill, is not opposed to the Bill, but sincerely want to thank the author, author, staff, Committee chair, Committee staff for their thoughtful efforts on this bill to make it more workable so that tow professional towing companies can continue to provide critical services to law enforcement agencies and and stranded motors throughout the state, however, do want to note that we do have a few outstanding issues of concern that we want to continue working on.

As pointed out in the Committee analysis, we request further discussion on limiting towing companies to a half day storage charge when vehicles are recovered within the first 12 hours, which insufficiently accounts for the significant upfront intake work required for each vehicle stored, as well as a definition of normal business hours.

That unfortunately includes state holidays, as those are currently excluded in California law, elsewhere and within law enforcement contracts. So we pledge to keep working in good faith with the author and staff and Committee and going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving to Members of the Committee, there's any questions, comments, concerns. Vice Chair Davies.

I just want to thank you so much for bringing this forward, especially in a time of affordability, and I'd like to be considered as a co-author. Thank you.

All right. Seeing no others, thank you for bringing this bill forward. I appreciate the work you're doing to rein in abusive towing practices. I also appreciate the California Tow Truck Association for working with the author to find reasonable solutions to this bill.

I do have some concerns about the liability shield provision added to the bill for tows during natural disasters to move a vehicle out of the way.

I appreciate the need for liability protection when the tow company is providing a free service for the benefit of first responders, but believe there needs to be some protection against gross negligence, recklessness or intentional behavior. It is my understanding that the consumer attorneys and the Towing Association are in agreement on language that can be acceptable to both.

And so I look forward to seeing progress on this bill as it continues to move forward. And so I will be supporting your bill today. There is a motion and a second by Vice Chair Davies and seconded by Assembly Member Harabedian. I give you an opportunity to close before we call the roll for votes.

Thank you so much. There was a lot that I wanted to say in the closing, but I will just kind of just come out and say once again, thank you guys so much.

Thank you, Chair, and also the Committee as well for working with me in regards to this bill just to make sure that, that we do have a nice strong bill. We have made significant progress on this bill through our stakeholder collaboration. And I do acknowledge that there is still a lot more work that has to be done.

One thing that I just wanted to highlight that was already stated is that we do have a affordability crisis here in the State of California. And we have said that this is one of our top priorities. And this is why I wanted to bring this bill forward.

And I appreciate you all taking the time to look this over and help us elevate the affordability conversation here throughout the State of California. Thank you so much for coming in Rosemary Shahan. Okay. President of the Consumers for the Auto Reliability and Safety for testifying today.

And I look forward to our continued work with you and also the opposition to get this right. So thank you guys so much for your time and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill has 13 votes and we'll hold the roll open for members to add on. With that, we're moving to our final bill of the day, item number 19, AB911. Carrillo and I ask that any members who are wishing to add on bills.

Members of this Committee wishing to add on, now would be an appropriate time to make your way to the committee room. Assembly Member. You may begin at your convenience.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Committee Members, thank you for allowing me to present AB911. Also thank you, the committee consultants, for working closely with my staff on this very important issue for the past year.

AB911 is a necessary measure that provides a narrow exemption to the CARB Advanced Clean Fleet Regulations specifically for bucket trucks and cells on wheels. These vehicles are critical for maintaining reliable telecommunications services, especially during emergencies. Bucket trucks play a vital role by allowing technicians to perform aerial maintenance and repairs on telecommunication lines, ensuring connectivity for emergency services.

Similarly, cell on wheels are rapidly deployed to restore cellular coverage in temporary locations during outages, helping keep essential communications channels open for 911 calls and other emergency services. Without these specialized vehicles, telecommunications providers would face significant delays in restoring critical services, potential endangering lives and compromising public safety.

However, there are currently no manufacturers producing reliable bucket trucks or cows that meet the zero emission requirements outlined in the ACF regulations. While the ACF regulations does include a case by case exemption process, it is currently unclear for private telecommunications providers who are not classified as public utilities.

These heavy duty vehicles require high power and long range capabilities that today's electric vehicles technology cannot efficiently support the need for rapid deployment during emergencies, often in areas without commercial power. Further limits the feasibility of electrical alternatives.

Given the increasing unpredictability of natural disasters like the LA wildfires, severe storms and floods, we must remain prepared to ensure our communities maintain access to essential emergency services. AB911 helps guarantee that necessary vehicles can continue to respond quickly and effectively when Californians need it the most.

Joining me today to testify and support and answer technical questions is Yolanda Benson with US Telecom, the Broadband Association, and Terry Mchale with the California Association of Highway Patrolmen/

You may proceed. Good afternoon.

Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the Committee, Yolanda Benson with US Telecom, the Broadband Association, also proud co sponsors of AB911. First want to thank the author and his staff for their hard work on this Bill and for the Committee for working with us as well.

As the Assembly Member stated, the Bill will allow for a very narrow exemption for the advanced clean fleet regulations for bucket trucks and cell on wheels. Telecommunications providers, as mentioned, are entrusted with maintaining the network infrastructure crucial for facilitating 911 and emergency alert communications.

They must comply with CPUC and FCC requirements, required for 911 services, including ensuring the ability to reach first responders by dialing 911, ensuring that emergency dispatchers automatically receive the caller's location, and notifying 911 call centers of outages.

Bucket trucks and cell on wheels are specialized vehicles for telecommunication providers utilized when performing maintenance and repairs to lines, or utilized for temporary restoration of cell service swiftly during these emergency outages.

As we've seen with many of the disasters and many of the outages that we've seen, the industry has tried the regulatory route, including extensively reviewing the exemptions offered to ensure certainty for our two vehicles that are required for emergency response. And we are forced to and we're forced to request a solution from you, the Legislature.

The transition to fully electric solution remains impractical for these two types of vehicles, making this exemption critical for maintaining reliability and availability of emergency communication infrastructure for private and public broadband providers. It's imperative to pass this bill to ensure that telecommunication providers effectively can provide what they need to for California. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Terry McHale with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the California Association of Highway Patrolmen and CAL FIRE Local 2881. There are about 32 million vehicles on the California roads. There are 14.5 million trucks.

This legislation deals with less than 3,000 and there is nobody in this room, probably no one in this building who's driven a bucket truck. It's certainly not something you do for entertainment and none of us have driven a cow. So it is critical to have both of them during times of emergency.

And CAL FIRE and CHP, who are the frontline individuals during the most crucial of times in California, who when disasters are most dire, believe very strongly that having these vehicles available saves lives. That's what it is.

So we're asking to nuance the electric mandate to be smart to make sure that in emergency situations we can have what we need to save lives. Please support this bill.

All right, thank you. We do have a motion by Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry and a seconded by Assembly Member Ahrens now moving to Members of the public who would like to add on their support as proponents of the Bill. Name, organization and position.

on on behalf of Kelina. Apologies for getting the letter in a little bit late, but we're here on support.

Good afternoon Chair and members. Jared Moss on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association in support.

Good afternoon Chair and members. Walid Hajj representing the League of California Cities and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair and memebers, Jonathan Arambel on behalf of CTIA, the Trade Association for the Wireless Industry. In support and relaying support also for CalBrodman as well.

Hello. Audra Hartman on behalf of the following organizations and support the California Fire Chiefs Association, the Fire Districts Association of California and California Communications Association, also known as CalCom. Thank you.

All right. Now moving to Members of or let me see opposition. You may come forward our opposition testimony.

Thank you Madam Chair and members. Michele Canales with Union of Concerned Scientists in respectful opposition to AB911. Advanced clean fleets was crafted in a practical manner to ensure that flexibility was available for regulated fleets. This is represented by the inclusion of different compliance pathways as well as multiple vehicle exemptions that reflect operational needs needs.

Thousands of air pollution related deaths are anticipated to be prevented as fleets gradually comply with the regulation. AB911 would exempt bucket trucks and cell on wheel units operated by specified telecommunication providers from the ACF regulation. We recognize the importance of ensuring that telecommunication vehicles are available and operational during times of emergency.

However, we believe that the Bill is not necessary due to existing considerations in the rule. The ACF regulation already contains a range of exemptions designed to address reliability and emergency use concerns. This includes exemptions for daily usage needs if zero emission vehicles cannot meet fleet needs, vehicle configuration availability exemptions, as well as emergency response contracts.

AB911 seeks a permanent exemption from ACF where advances in ZEV technology or daily usage are not considered. UCS believes this Bill will inadvertently interfere with the regulation's goal of reducing emissions for the sector where it is feasible. For these reasons we are respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving on to Members of the public who would like to add on as opponents to the Bill, please come forward. Noting name, organization and position. Seeing none. Now moving it back to Members of this Committee. Vice Chair Davies, thank you.

I just. I want to thank you so much for bringing this forward. Nothing more important than public safety and so I'd like to be co author. Thank you.

All right. Seeing no other Members of the Committee wishing to speak, I'll note to the author. You know, I appreciate you bringing this forward. We heard this Bill, a very similar Bill, last August and during that hearing I did not support that Bill.

I raised concerns that the Bill would put at risk federal transportation funding for non compliance with national ambient air quality standards, continue the emissions of harmful air pollutants into our communities and delay the state in meeting its climate goals.

I also refer to the current exhibition process built into the advanced clean fleets regulation when vehicles are not available in zero emission vehicles configurations that fit the fleet's needs.

My intention was to hold a series of oversight hearings starting in January 2025 to try and figure out how to create a more functional relationship between CARB stakeholders and the Legislature in order to find solutions to the issues public entities and private businesses face when transitioning to zeb fleets.

However, as the policy landscape and truly the political landscape around the ZEV transition changes in light of the federal Administration and carbs withdrawal of its waivers, we have the opportunity to pause and critically consider how to move forward. I do not believe that individual piecemeal exemptions are the solution.

However, this Bill and others like it exemplify that businesses and public entities that operate vehicle fleet face challenges with technology, infrastructure and funding. At this critical juncture, California needs to consider how to address very real challenges while finding a holistic approach to complying with the federal clean air standards and meeting our climate goals.

I'm committed to continuing the conversation and working closely with the broader legislative body, the Administration and stakeholders to find comprehensive solutions. I will be supporting your Bill today. With that there is a motion and a second and I leave it to you to close first.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I appreciate the Committee's ongoing commitment to addressing this important issue through a broader comprehensive approach. I look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with the Committee and relevant stakeholders to deliver long term solutions to achieve both public safety and climate goals. With I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by. Let's see. That's Right. Aguiar-Curry. And seconded by Ahrens. With that, I give it to Madam Secretary for the roll call.

Roll Call

That Bill has 13 votes. Are we missing any? All right, thank you. That Bill has 13 votes. We are remaining for one Member of the Committee. We're going to wait two minutes before we start roll call and find out and then I'll start roll call from the beginning.

So if those new Members who've come in give me a second, I will be right back. All right. We do have a Member who is in another Committee hearing and trying to make their way over. We will go through one set of add ons. Member makes it to here before we finish the last add on.

I will be more than happy to restart for that Member. With that, we are going back to our our consent calendar which had 13 bills on it.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has 15 votes. It is out of Committee. I believe we have dispensed with everything. I will confirm. Yes, we have. There being no further business of this Committee. The hearing is now adjourned. Awesome. Thank you.