Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

Senate Transportation Committee will come to order. Good afternoon and welcome. We have a total of 12 measures on today's agenda. And first, a few housekeeping items. Actually, first, what I'd like to do is establish a quorum, and I'm going to ask the Committee Assistant to please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We do have a quorum. We have, as I started to say, 14 measures on today's agenda. We're going to allow for two primary witnesses each for support and opposition, as we usually do. And as usual, each witness will have two minutes maximum.

And any additional witnesses we'll ask to limit yourselves to name affiliation and your position on the bill, me toos, in other words. We have 12 measures on consent today of the 14. And the proposed consent items are, starting with items one through four, AB 266, AB 544, AB 545, AB 1149 by Assembly Member Davies.

And then we go to item five, AB 377 by Assembly Member Tangipa. Item six, AB 390, by Assembly Member Wilson. Item nine, AB 1085 by Assembly Member Stefani. Item 10, ACR 16 by Assembly Member Gallagher. Next is item 11, ACR 21 by Assembly Member Flora. Item 12, ACR 37 by Assembly Member Wallis. And then items 13 and 14, which are resolutions SCR 78 and SCR 79, by Pro Tem McGuire.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move the consent calendar.

Thank you for that motion. We will go ahead and call the roll call on that now.

[Roll Call]

Consent is 12 to zero. We'll leave it on call. I should note that two Members have excused absence today, so we will not see Senator Archuleta or Senator Gonzalez. Per our agenda, we'll start off with AB 438. And now if we can hear from the author, Assembly Member Hadwick. Welcome and you may begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to first thank the Chair and the Committee staff for working with me on this critical issue. Thank you for being so collaborative with my staff and the amendments. City and county Office of Emergency Services personnel are the first line of defense for community in any disaster.

If 911 dispatchers are considered the first, first responders Office of Emergency Services personnel are the second first responders in fires, floods, hazardous weed spells and other disasters. They are responsible for sending evacuation orders, supporting law enforcement and firefighting responses, and securing mutual aid resources.

If fire threatened communities in rural California, there's typically only one to two people in each Office of Emergency Services for the entire county. As a former Emergency Operations Manager for Modoc County, I was responsible for this, and I personally went out door to door evacuating my constituents during fires every season.

My county is 4,200 square miles, so often we would go 60 miles, 70 miles to evacuate. Under current law, police, firefighters, and state Office of Emergency Services vehicles are considered authorized emergency vehicles. This means that they have the ability to respond to emergencies using lights and sirens, otherwise known as Code 3.

Local officers of emergency services do not have this authorization. This is a dangerous danger to public safety for my dispersed and remote communities, and local OES needs the ability to respond more quickly to protect the public. Assembly Bill 438 allows city and county OES services to apply for an authorized emergency vehicle permit with the California Highway Patrol.

This bill will provide immediate assistance for fire threatened communities during a disaster, expedite evacuation orders, and protect my constituents. AB 438 has received unanimous support and has no opposition. I respectfully ask for an aye vote, and I'm joined today by Zachary Hamill, representing Sutter County Office of Emergency Services as a witness.

Welcome. You'll have a couple of minutes to proceed. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Zachary Hamill. I serve as Emergency Operations Manager for Sutter County Office of Emergency Management. I'm here today in strong support of AB 438. This bill provides local government the option, if they choose, to authorize their Office of Emergency Services to use Code 3 driving when the situation warrants it. This is not about routine use or adding sirens to every county vehicle. It's about enabling trained emergency management staff to respond rapidly during time sensitive life safety situations.

Alert and warning is just one example. In the past several years, we've seen how vital timely evacuation notices are during fast moving wildfires. I'm aware of one instance in Northern California county where OES personnel had to drive Code 3 out of a cellular dead zone just to reach Internet access to issue an evacuation order. That is the level of commitment and challenge we are talking about. In rural counties like mine, local OES is a critical force multiplier. We coordinate across fire, law, public works, emergency medical services, public health, and many others.

We manage evacuations, staff emergency operations centers, assist with logistics, and support first responders in ways that often go unseen but are essential. Today, fire, law enforcement, EMS, and even state agencies like Cal OES have vehicle code authority for emergency response. Local emergency managers do not. AB 438 corrects that without requiring any agency to opt in.

This is a practical, measured solution. Most local jurisdictions would authorize only a handful of vehicles used only when necessary, but those minutes could mean lives saved. Disasters in California are only growing in intensity. AB 438 is a smart, proactive measure that supports local readiness and resiliency. I urge your support. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for keeping within the time. Is there anyone else in the Committee room who wishes to come forward and express a support position? Please come to the microphone.

Good afternoon. Eric Will on behalf of Rural County Representatives of California in strong support. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. We'll move to opposition now. Are there any witnesses in the room who wish to speak in opposition? Seeing none, we'll come back to the Committee. Vice Chair Strickland moves the bill. Seeing no other Members wishing to be recognized, we'll ask the author if you'd like to close.

I just want to thank you for your time and for hearing us today and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We'll go to the Committee Assistant and we'll take the roll call now.

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

Okay, this is at 12. This is 0. And leave it on call. Thank you. And again, the motion was by Vice Chair Strickland. Thank you very much. We'll leave it open for the absent Members, of course. Next item, file item 8, AB 978. Mr. Hoover is here. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm honored to be the only thing standing between you all and the rest of your day. So we'll try to make this quick. I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 978. This bill simply seeks to promote the use of sustainable and cost saving recycled materials such as recycled asphalt pavement in our local road projects. Currently, local agencies are only required to allow for the use of these materials to the extent feasible and cost effective.

Unfortunately, those in the industry have shared that local agencies were at disadvantage bids that proposed the use of recycled materials due to administrative burdens, not necessarily feasibility or cost concerns. AB 978 would continue to require a local agency to allow for the use of recycled materials in their paving projects to the extent feasible and cost effective.

But it would also require local agencies, upon request, to provide reasoning if they determine that it is not feasible. As California continues to adopt sustainable and cost saving practices, we must encourage these agencies to do the same. Technological advances with recycled asphalt pavement offer us the opportunity to produce cost effective and reliable roads.

I want to thank Committee staff for their suggestions and work with us on this bill, and we're going to continue to work with stakeholders to implement some of those moving forward. And with me today is Don Roland, Vice President of Government Affairs and Industry Relations for Granite Construction, to give some comments as well.

You may proceed, Mr. Roland.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Don Roland, Vice President of Government Affairs for Granite Construction. Granite is a 103 year old company headquartered in Watsonville, California, and we're one of the leading highway and road construction and construction materials companies in the country.

We are proud sponsors of AB 978 and we want to thank Assembly Member Hoover for his leadership on this issue. One of the greatest environmentally based advancements in road design and repair is the use of recycled asphalt pavement, or RAP.

RAP is made when you grind out and remove the top few inches of asphalt pavement or the entire asphalt section, and instead of trucking it to a landfill where it adds no value and takes up space, producers like Granite can take that old asphalt and give it new life. We recycle it in the production of new asphalt.

Caltrans allows up to 25% RAP in the production of new asphalt. RAP is 100% recyclable. There is no waste. And why is this important? By reusing the rock, sand, and the oil, we're using less virgin oil in production. We're taking trucks off the road, we're bringing down greenhouse gas emissions, we're extending the life of existing quarries, and we're diverting material from landfills.

It's a huge win for the state, and yet California lags behind most of the nation in recycling asphalt and new pavement. This bill seeks to remove a sunset date and clarify that local projects can allow 25% of RAP and projects, which, again, is what Caltrans allows today.

Most importantly, this bill does not mandate the use of RAP. It does not mandate the use of RAP. We are simply seeking feedback when requested by the bidder for why a local government chose not to use RAP. We want to thank your consultant, Mr. Leon, for working with us, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

All right, thank you very much. We'll come to the Committee room and ask for support witnesses. Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Todd Bloomstine for the Southern California Contractors Association in support. If I may just very briefly. Several years ago, the LA Times reported that shipping in aggregates from Canada... Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize. You can't do that. Otherwise, I got to open that up to everyone, and if I keep doing that, we'll be doing that all year long. All right, next witness, if there is one. All right, we're going to go to opposition. Any opposition witnesses here, please come forward. No? All right, that's not an opposition witness. We'll come back to the Committee. And we do have a question from Senator Richardson, but Senator Strickland's prepared to make the motion. Thank you.

What's the price difference between the new asphalt versus recycled?

It can vary by location or by market. There are some areas where recycled material is scarce and producers will purchase it. There's other areas in the state where it's in abundance. There's not a good source to take the old material. And in those areas, the contractors will actually pay the producer to take it. So it varies. There is some mitigation benefit. The more recycle we can use, that means we're using more oil that's already in our pavements. And so we can mitigate the volatility of the oil market and make us less dependent on foreign oil to produce new asphalt.

I get the environmental benefit, and I'm supporting the bill. I'm not opposed to it. But if you could just give me a straight answer, yes or no. Is the recycled more or less than the new?

It would overall would cost less than new.

The recycled. You're saying your recycled material asphalt costs less than the new asphalt?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Take it back to the Committee. And we do have a motion awaiting from Vice Chair Strickland. We'll allow the author to close at this point.

Thank you. AB 978 will help our local agencies, bring them in line with state national trends as we pursue more sustainability. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Again, thank you for your presentation. We'll come to the Committee Assistant now for roll call vote.

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

13, 0. The bill's out.

Thank you. If you voted on two bills plus consent, you can leave now. If not, we're going to lift the call.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[roll call]

13, 0. The bill's out.

File item 7 AB 438 by Assemblymember Hadwick. The motion is to be passed to the Committee on Appropriations. The vote is 12, 0. [roll call]

13, 0. The bill's out and we are adjourned for today. Thank you very much everyone for being on time.

Thank you to the target.