Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

Senate Transportation Committee will begin as a Committee of the whole in 60 seconds.

Yeah, they have duties.

Transportation. Transportation.

If you need this one, I can pass it over. By all means. They'll bring it down. I texted her.

Transportation Committee will come to order. Again, we'll begin as a Committee of the whole. Good afternoon to all of you and welcome. We have a total of 16 measures on today's agenda. We're going to allow for two primary witnesses, as we usually do, each for the support and opposition. Each witness will have two minutes.

Any additional witnesses will ask to limit yourselves to name affiliation and your position on the bill. We have eight measures proposed for consent today. I am going to defer even going over those at this point, but we will go over them before we actually take them up for a vote.

Our first item, and we can't establish a quorum at the moment. Let me note that Senator Valladares is not in attendance today. We expect other Members should be on their way here. And we would hope if they're paying attention, their staffs are paying attention to please get them here so we can establish a quorum.

Because we can't do that yet. But we can begin hearing bills. And I'd like to start with File item number one, AB33. As I see Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry here. Please come on up and you can proceed whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank the Chair and the Committee staff for their work on this bill. Many of you have heard me speak about autonomous vehicles before. I keep coming back to the issue because it's all about public safety. This bill allows AB Technology to move forward, but it requires a qualified human safety operator.

In AVs used for commercial deliveries, these vehicles will be delivering goods directly to homes and businesses, potentially in large numbers and in densely populated neighborhoods. But the application of AVS is still in its early stages, and that's exactly why we need to proceed carefully.

Californians deserve to know someone is present to step in if something goes wrong, especially while we wait for safety assessments from the Executive branch. We've seen what happens when things move too fast. In San Francisco. Driverless AVs have blocked traffic and emergency vehicles, driven through crime scenes and downed wires, and even fled from a police traffic stop.

In one tragic example, a pedestrian was dragged and trapped under an avatar, and the company initially failed to share the full footage of the accident until authorities intervened. San Francisco officials have documented hundreds of driverless AB incidents and pleaded with the CPUC to slow deployment.

While local governments beg for caution, Tech Companies are pouring money into lobbying for expansion. You know, I worry that AB expansion into delivery will see the same issues, only with far more vehicles on our local streets. Finally, this is about your jobs, about jobs and protecting working people.

Companies have told many of you that AVs will save consumers money, but that isn't true. They won't pass on savings to consumers, and the layoffs will be at the expense of working families. Driving a vehicle is one of the most common jobs for men in California. These workers will need time and reskilling as technology changes.

This bill provides essential guardrails so we can test and deploy AVs responsibly and with legislative oversight. It requires a human safety operator to monitor and collect data. As AB delivery technology develops, it ensures that real world data is reviewed by experts in the Executive branch and then brought to the Legislature.

It creates a clear path for oversight before driverless AVs flood the cities and towns in your districts and into your neighborhoods where your kids and grandchildren play. Because what happened in San Francisco can happen anywhere. And it will if we don't act now.

Delivery AVs need a new guardrail that makes them better, that makes them safer and accountable because people aren't cost to be cut or incidents to be reported. With me today is Matt Brod on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council and Tammy Friedrich on behalf of the Truck Safety Coalition.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Good afternoon. My name is Tammy Friedrich and I am the current President of the Truck Safety Coalition and board member for CRASH, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways. And most importantly, I'm a volunteer.

I have been a volunteer for over 30 years because my sister and her entire family were all killed in a truck crash with a gasoline tanker on the 10 freeway in Claremont. The Truck Safety Coalition has been fighting for proven common sense safety reforms since our founding in 1990.

We advocate for tested and proven safety technology, including intelligent speed adapters, automatic emergency braking, and automated driving assistance systems such as blind spot monitoring and lane assist. California would do well to incentivize the use of these technologies that have already been proven to save lives.

These are all examples of technology that can be implemented to improve driver safety and work concurrently with human operators. If AB manufacturers are truly concerned about road safety, they would have no objection to the added layer of safety provided by our human safety operator. Large truck automated driving systems. ADs have no state or federal performance or regulations.

What's more, AB manufacturers have lacked transparency. Repeatedly telling lawmakers disengagement and testing data necessary to understand and evaluate progress and performance is Proprietary. Take for example Aurora Freight in Texas. When lawmakers and safety groups pleaded with aurora and other AB companies to retain human safety operators in level 5 testing, we were told that simply was impossible.

However, when their client Picar requested the same for safety reasons, they quickly obliged. Aurora clearly is capable of prioritizing safety when it is in their business interests and and everyone should be offered these same protections, not just a safety oriented business client at this point in time.

Human safety operators are not optional and allowing these commercial delivery vehicles to operate without them is needlessly reckless. Consider too simple story. Their AB malfunctioned and without warning turned the truck sharply toward a guardrail. If another vehicle had been there, its passengers could have easily been killed.

Thank goodness human safety operators were there, attentive and able to take decisive action to avert catastrophe. AB33 protects against instances like these by adding the additional layer of safety that a human operator provides.

As the DMV prepares to greatly expand commercial and heavy duty AB deployment in California on our California roads in the coming months, it's important to remember that Californians did not sign up to be guinea pigs in driverless experiments on our roads.

Safety must be kept the top priority while the this necessary and important autonomous vehicles testing and research continues. And AB33 makes sure that happens. For these reasons, I urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Next witness. Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. Matt Broad here on behalf of the Teamsters, I want to back up and say I've lobbied some of you maybe two or three different times on this bill.

And so I think it's helpful to talk about how this bill is different from the past versions of the bill that dealt with heavy duty commercial vehicles over£10,000. This bill is actually informed by industry feedback.

For the last three years we've been pushing this bill and they've said that the technology makes sense where you're going from place A to point B, where it's a fixed route, but that when you talk about densely suburban and urban areas where the driving's a little bit more dynamic and complex, that their technology is going to create all these local driving jobs.

And so that's how we evolved. Our bill this year was to take into effect what we were hearing from them. And so we're unmoored from the 10,000 pound limit, which in some ways is arbitrary when you consider a UPS or Amazon box truck is 8,500 pounds and wouldn't have been captured by the last bill.

Secondly, the nature of commercial delivery is in itself stop and go. Again, we're talking about urban areas where drivers are pulling into medians. There's commercial loading zones and delivery is inherently dangerous. That's why we have commercial loading zones. And so we think that this bill takes into effect those sort of conditions.

And then just a couple updates since last year. In March 2025, Missy Cummings, who's a Professor, George Mason University robotics Professor and former NHTSA personnel, released a study on phantom braking looking at autonomous vehicles. That's where the sensor malfunctions and it detects things that aren't there. It really raises questions about the efficacy of the technology.

Again, you're talking about technology where we're already driving, where you're already stop and go. You factor in phantom braking. It's a serious problem. In December 2024, the Association for Computing Machinery Tech Policy Council put out a brief in which they said it would take 11 billion miles to effectively determine if AVs are as safe as humans.

Right now, AVs are driving about 20 million miles a year. Put, you know, comparison. Americans drive 3.4 trillion miles a year. And so there's a, there's wrap up. Yeah, there's a, there's a lot more questions that answer than answers at this point.

And for this reason, we think this bill is narrowly tailored to allow AB deployment and testing for deliveries as long as the human safety operator is on board. We urge your aye vote. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Before we go on to other testimony, I'm going to ask the assistant to do the roll call so we can establish a quorum.

[Roll call]

Okay, we have established quorum. Thank you very much. We're going to go to additional support testimony. Anyone who wishes to express support, name affiliation in your support position, you're welcome to come up now.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Keith Dunn, Here on behalf of State Building Construction Trades Council. Safety is a priority for our Members. And that's why we support this bill and ask for your support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Scott Brandt with the SMART Transportation Division in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Elmer Lazardi, here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions, proud co-sponsor in support.

Good afternoon, chair and Committee Members. Kristin Heidelbach. Here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council in support.

[Unintelligible] Teamsters Local 2010, strong support. AB 33.

Dale Wentz, Teamsters Local 150 in support.

Trish Suzuki Blanchard of Teamsters Joint Council 7 in support.

Good afternoon. Hector Delgado, Teamsters Joint Council 42 in support.

Good afternoon. Ruben Tiscareno, Teamsters Local 396 in support.

Good afternoon. Sam Cornejo, Teamsters Local 396 and Orange County Federation of Labor in strong support. Thank you.

Steve Crummy, Local 8, Teamster Local 856 in support.

John Apodaca, Local 350 Teamsters in support.

Good afternoon. Cassie Manzini with the California School Employees Association in support.

Hi. Florence Yosinogi from Teamsters 665 out of San Francisco, in support.

Good afternoon. [Unintelligible] Teamsters 39 out of Stockton, in support.

All right, thank you. We'll now hear from opposition witnesses. You may come forward.

Thank you.

Welcome.

You'll have a couple minutes each, and you can start in whichever order.

I guess I'll be going first.

Please self identify. Obviously. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Cortese, Members of the Committee. My name is Brett Fabry. I am head of law enforcement policy and roadway safety at Kodiak Robotics, an autonomous trucking company based in Mountain View, California.

Before joining Kodiak, I retired as an assistant chief with the California Highway Patrol, and I served the public for over 30 years. I'm testifying today in strong opposition to AB33, which will hurt motorists and businesses by making California the first and only state in the country to ban this emerging technology.

This bill is a much broader version of a similar legislation that was vetoed the past two years. This third attempt is different because it would effectively ban all AVs from delivering goods, not just autonomous trucks. I worked closely with the autonomous vehicle companies during my time at CHP. I provided management oversight of California's AB program.

Autonomous trucking companies like Kodiak have not yet been allowed to operate in California, but we and others have been operating in other states with an exceptional safety record. We have tested autonomy by driving over 2.6 million autonomous miles, the equivalent of over three lifetimes of driving for the average American.

Safety is first and foremost at every AB developer that I've ever talked to and for the AB developer that I work for. Just like safety was first and foremost for me throughout my law enforcement career, I joined Kodiak because I strongly believe in the huge safety potential that autonomous vehicles offer. AVS can save lives.

AVS can lead the next revolution in traffic safety innovation. AVs have been carefully and strictly regulated in California since 2012. The DMV just recently proposed new, stricter rules for AVs in coordination with the CHP. California already has the most rigorous regulatory framework for AVS in the country.

And there are significant hurdles right now to obtaining an AB permit in California. These regulations give California DMV the tools it needs to ensure that AB developers maintain the highest safety standards and ensure a slow, deliberate process for AB companies to operate driverless.

Today, I spend the majority of my time working with law enforcement throughout the nation to help them prepare for working with AVs. Unfortunately, I am unable to do this critical work in California because we are banned from operating in my home state. You're going to have to rest. Okay. I will leave you with this.

Over 90% of vehicle crashes are caused by human error. I witnessed the tragic impacts of those errors countless times over my 30 years in public safety. Autonomous vehicles don't drive distracted, they don't speed, they are not impaired and they do not get fatigued. These are the leading causes of highway deaths by human drivers.

Thank you very much.

Autonomy can make California.

You have to move on or else I'm going to have to go back and give them equal time.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Kurt Augustine, Senior Director of Government Affairs for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which is the trade Association for the Auto manufacturers produce light duty vehicles and many of the autonomous vehicle technology providers. This bill is much broader than other bills that were contemplated. They've never, we've never engaged on those bills.

This is again a broad expansion into the light duty vehicle aspect of it. That's just, that's cars, passenger cars, pickup trucks and vans. And we're very confused about the safety arguments because under the way the bill is, it is safe for a light duty vehicle to deliver a passenger anywhere where that person would want to go.

But under this bill, that same vehicle it would be deemed unsafe to deliver a package of goods. We don't understand that. It's very confusing to us. Also this is a regulate for light duty vehicles. This is a regulated profession.

Since then State Senator Padilla's Bill in 2012, the CHP and the DMV have a regulatory program and they are adapting that regulatory program to the changing needs of the motoring public and passengers and pedestrians.

They are currently updating their regulations as we speak to reflect the changes that's been going on in the last 13 years since Senator Padilla's Bill. Also our view, this is an anti California technology bill.

We have a Member company who if this bill would be passed and signed into law, would not be able to use their California born tested designed product in that that they are licensed by the State of California to do so.

They cannot legally comply with this bill if it became law because while it's a large enough vehicle to be on the road, it does not have the space for a human being driver. So again, a California born company with employees here that are testing those vehicles, developing the vehicles would be banned by this.

And we think that that's a shame that our own home state is, is eliminating a product that's produced here. Thank you for your time.

All right, thank you.

Sarah Boot, on behalf of the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association in strong opposition.

Mr. Chair, Members. Andrew Antwee, on behalf of Tesla, in opposition.

Good afternoon. Usha Mechler, on behalf of Stellantis and Through the Alliance in opposition, opposition. Thank you.

Sarah Bridges, on behalf of CMTA in respectful opposition.

Robert Singleton, with Chamber of Progress, respectfully opposed.

Katie Stevens, on behalf of Neuro, opposed.

Jonathan Chin, with Neuro, I'm opposed to.

Hi, I'm Jeffrey Kyotani. I'm a Software Release Manager at Neuro and I strongly oppose.

Salvina Maria Kamande, at Neuro and I strongly oppose.

Good afternoon. Allison Trung, on behalf of Neuro and I strongly opposed.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members. Timothy Burr, on behalf of Aurora Innovation and Technet, opposed. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Michael McGee, on behalf of Waymo and opposition.

Thank you. And I just want to formally make the announcement. We were just hearing from opposition #MeToos, as we call them, and I want to make sure that announcement was clear because I did not announce it before the first witness. So if there's anyone else who wishes to express opposition, you may do so at this time.

I know sometimes we have people outside waiting to come in. All right. Seeing no one else come forward. Nobody else come forward. We'll come back to the Committee for questions of the witnesses or the author comments. Anyone want to be recognized? Senator Seyarto, to thank you.

I remember your bill from last year and I still have the same struggle because we're struggling between a very large vehicle in a infant stage of testing and driving out there. And I think they've probably had a couple years now to advance that technology a little bit.

And I'm afraid California is going to get left behind in this. But my question is. Why did we. Add delivery truck or delivery, commercial delivery, to this bill that already got vetoed by the Governor? Because that seems to me that we would wind up getting vetoed again.

If you're expanding something that he didn't like in the first place, you can go ahead.

Sure.

Thank you. Through the Chair.

It's a good question, Senator. Again, I want to be clear that we're being responsive to the changes. The response we got in form of the veto two times additionally, again, we're hearing from the industry for the last two years that this is the most challenging portion of the supply chain to automate, and we're being responsive to that.

So instead of sort of going with the vehicle class,£10,000, we're looking at what it's actually doing, what the companies are saying is the most challenging. And then again, looking at the size of vehicles, you could have a UPS box truck or something that's 8,500 pounds below 10,000.

And so we wanted to be sort of responsive to what we were hearing from them, but also to the nature of commercial driving and what the companies are saying.

Okay, now I'm trying to separate the labor aspect of it from the scientific aspect of it. And this seems more geared towards that than it is really about the science and the safety. So I'm still kind of on the fence on this.

I want California to be able to be a participant in the development of this technology because they're going to do.

It somewhere, and that's exactly what I want them to do.

And California has the kind of terrain that you need to be able to test it in every situation. We have deserts, mountains, ocean, you know, beach, coastal, and we have large cities that are very dense and we have small cities that aren't so dense.

And so all of that, I think, requires, you know, us to be at the forefront, not at the back end of waiting to see what other people do and then just continually banning because eventually that takes us down the road of not being competitive with other states. And so that's my concern.

And there's, I think the witnesses had talked about the safety records and that makes sense. I mean, you know, I've seen the waymos down in. Down in Santa Monica, and while they have had, I watched one actually get stuck in an intersection, but it didn't cause an accident.

So there is a safety record issue that kind of goes on the side of AI a little bit because of the human element part, but there's also some human elements that are critical to last second decision making.

And that's why to me, this is such an important policy, is that we want to make sure it's safe. No. Matter what terrain it's in. These are smaller. They're not the big long hauls like we had anticipated. The first time this Bill went through or got vetoed not once but twice.

And I think what we have to realize in a more commercial area, there will be more potential other cars, kids in the streets. So if you can just picture even going through your neighborhood and a commercial vehicle stops, we want to make sure that this is safe in that community.

We're going to be collecting data and to make sure that this can go through fair to everyone. So I'm not stopping the technology. What I'm just doing is to make sure that they are safe once they hit the road.

And I think that this could happen in a short amount of time with the technology and the way it's going right now.

Well, I understand that part and for me been on lots and lots and lots of accidents where people driven cars. So that doesn't exclude I mean, it doesn't make me think that there will be less accidents involving people.

In fact, with AI, it may wind up being less accidents because you don't have drunk driving and things like that. And so, you know, so that's. Those are my concerns, I'm just telling you. And they're not a lot different than what I had before. I laid off your bill before.

But anyway, I'm a little distressed about the addition of the delivery, smaller delivery vehicles. They're no different than if a Waymo is delivering something. Why. So anyway, those are my concerns. Thank you.

Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. Yeah, so this is a difficult bill, I find. I supported the previous two versions in 2023 and 2024 that you carried that were vetoed. This bill seems both narrower and wider than those previous two bills.

And I also supported a Ting Bill from 2024, AB 1777, which put in place various safety requirements for AB manufacturers. And I think one of my concerns is that if the argument is that these vehicles are less safe, then if they're less safe when they're driving goods in them, why does it matter if they're empty?

Because the bill doesn't address what happens if that heavy duty or light duty vehicle then is driving back across the city and the freeway and it's empty. Then it's, it doesn't need to have a human driver. So it's only when it's full of stuff, but also it's when it's delivering the goods itself.

And then also it doesn't make sense to me, as the opposition mentioned, about whether it's carrying people. So cars can carry people autonomously, but they can't carry stuff. And so if it's a safety issue that also. Those are wrinkles of the bill that I don't fully understand.

So I just wanted to ask the author if you wanted to address those two things.

Well, I can't. When you're driving these autonomous vehicles, the opportunity to have commercial goods inside of those going throughout a neighborhood or going through downtown San Francisco, they're going to be filled with things. They're going.

Even if they're empty, they still have to have data collected to make sure that they're safe, whether they're full or whether they're empty. So the data collection is important. Even if they're empty and they have a human safety operator in there for a while, that's fine.

But it's the data that we're going to need to be able to move this kind of technology forward.

Witness you can respond, go ahead.

Just to add to that, you know, when you talk about vehicle crashes often what's a quotient that makes them worse is the weight of the vehicle. And so you talk about a UPS truck, for example. That's the one I'm familiar with. We represent UPS drivers.

There's a big difference between when that vehicle is full of cargo versus having no cargo. Right. And so these vehicles, while the initial weight may be less, oftentimes they're extremely heavy when they're fully loaded with goods.

And then for the question about transporting people versus goods themselves, it's not about, we're not doing this bill to protect the cargo. It has to do with how the vehicle moves. Right. So if it were up to me, we would probably have human safety operators for Waymos. We don't, unfortunately.

But a taxi is going from point A to point B. It's not stopping frequently, it's letting people out. There have been all sorts of issues with waymos having trouble pulling over, pulling over in bus lanes, obstructing traffic. And so really, again, it's about the mode of driving we're talking about.

Driving for commercial is very different from delivering passengers. But that, you know, I don't want you to take that to mean that we don't think that we should be operating in a way that's safest for passengers. That's certainly something that we're sympathetic to and think is important.

Okay, thank you. I mean, I think I appreciate the additional context from that answer. I mean, there are heavy duty trucks that are still going to be heavier, empty than a Neuro truck that's filled with food or a car that's filled with food because this includes now just a car that's delivering a meal. Right. It's. Yeah.

So happy to take that. So it applies to commercial goods, which in the bill is defined as including vehicles that are things that require a commercial license or a motor carrier permit. In my past life, I was a pizza delivery boy. I delivered pizza.

I was never required to have a motor carrier permit or a commercial driver's license. And so we've made an argument to the companies that we actually don't think it applies initially.

In the first version of the bill, before it came over to the Senate, it had an exemption for hot food because we were trying to be a little bit more sensitive to nuance about where the technology was.

And as a result of Committee compromise, we thought it was better to just sort of leave it ambiguous because of the sort of issues with, with defining a Commercial. Good. Saying what's in versus what's out all of a sudden gets very difficult from a legislating perspective. And so that's sort of how we ended up in that place.

Okay. Through the author and through the chair. Do you mind if the opposition responds to that question? It seemed like he wanted to. Is that okay?

Yeah, that's fine.

I just had one comment about the weight of vehicles. So we've talked about heavy duty trucks, we've talked about UPS trucks, we've talked about passenger vehicles. We're not sort of suggesting that we're going to load a passenger vehicle with £80,000. The vehicles are designed to carry that amount of weight.

That's why they have, you know, heavy duty trucks have, you know, heavy duty brakes. They're built bigger and stronger than the UPS van or Amazon van, down to the Waymo vehicle.

So I think there should be, you know, something clear about that is that when we're talking about weight and, you know, is it safer or unsafe for a heavier truck, the truck is designed to stop in a certain amount of time. It's designed that way. And so I think that there should be some clarification on that.

Yeah. Okay. And then I guess my other question is just about the question of where should this decision making be located? Because the DMV has already gone through a rulemaking process and there are certain permits that would. That are allowed right now that are happening that this bill would prohibit.

And so, and I think in your previous versions of the bill, the DMV hadn't finished some portions of that or something. So there was a need to act because we didn't know if it was safe on the roads. But now the DMV has acted and now they've started a new rulemaking process for the heaviest vehicles.

So I'm just curious, because I wrestle with that, is this really something that we should be legislating when we've tasked the DMV to do this type of work?

Sure. And you know, to be clear, we're participating in the reg process right now. We just submitted comments. We don't think that the DMV has done a great job at regulating. Regulating AVs. For example, up until this moment. Right now, we have companies with deployment permits out in which the DMV is collecting no data.

They only collect data on testing. We did a bill last year to try to solve this. It was vetoed by the Governor. And our concern is that the DMV is more focused on getting this technology onto roads as fast as possible. Instead of deploying the technology. This bill does not ban the deployment of this technology.

We could have written a bill, I say this every year, that said no autonomous commercial vehicles. We didn't say that. We said, you need a human safety operator.

It is incumbent on technological providers who are putting potentially dangerous products on roads, interacting with people to come back to the Legislature to come back to the DMV and show that they can meet the safety case. Right now they're telling you that they're driving 20 million miles a year.

We have, like I said in my testimony, computing experts, professionals, neutrals, people that don't have a financial incentive in the deployment of the technology, saying that they need to drive 11 billion miles before they can meet the claim that they're safer than humans. And while these vehicles maybe don't drive drunk, they also can't move around traffic cones.

They also stall in the middle of roads. They also drive over fire hoses. So they're not perfect. Until we get to see how they deploy and how they work, A human safety operator is a totally reasonable path forward.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you.

I'd just like to make a comment is that the DMV repeatedly failed to take action on the robotaxis when we were going through that until there was a horrific crash. And it's been over 10 years since the Legislature established the existing framework for AVs.

And in that time, we've seen testing and deployment of light duty AVs caused significant public safety issues where these vehicles were operated on public roads. That's been happening. Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you.

We're going to go to Senator Grayson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I align a lot of my comments with my colleague, but in your answer, I heard you say I just want to clarify. So it's a clarifying question. You said it only applies to vehicles that would require a commercial license for the driver. Is that correct?

Yeah. So commercial goods in the bill, the way it's defined, includes things that would require a motor carrier permit or a commercial license, which is a certain class of goods. Right. And so we left it ambiguous because when it came to an issue like doordash, for example. Right. You don't need a commercial license.

You don't need a commercial license. Exactly. But also, if you said there was a hot food exemption in the bill, but you know, we didn't specify, you go to doordash and you want to add a bottle of shampoo, all of a sudden we get into weird exceptions that are hard to legislate around.

And so we sort of stuck with the sort of generalized language that we think addresses that.

So delivering for Instacart wouldn't require a commercial license either?

I don't know off the top of my.

No, you're driving a car, so commercial license isn't required. You're right. Right. You have a van at a certain size, right?

Commercial size.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Is that so? I just want to clarify. It only applies to what would require a motor carrier or a commercial license. CDL.

Yeah, yeah, A commercial good. But we're not, you know, we don't specify this commercial good versus that commercial. You know, we have to.

We're not talking goods, we're talking licenses. Does that. Is that. Does that resonate with you? We're not talking goods, we're talking the license that it requires to drive the vehicle.

Well, not everything requires a CDL. I mean, it's the motor carrier permit. The motor carrier permit, too, is the commercial. The DMV decides what a motor carrier remit is required.

Right. So. So like a van that seats 12 passengers doesn't require a CDL, but a van that seats 15 passengers requires a CDL. Am I correct?

Okay. Yeah, yeah. So I'm asking about. I understood you to say if it requires a commercial driver's license, then it fits this bill, but if it doesn't, then they're not required.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay. Yeah, yeah. So I'm asking about. I understood you to say if it requires a commercial driver's license, then it fits this bill, but if it doesn't, then they're not required.

Or a motor carrier permit.

Or a motor carrier permit.

Yeah. Which is what the DMV uses to determine what's a commercial. Good. Or not.

So can I not. Not all definition of what. What is required. Why would a person have to get a motor carrier permit according to DMV? Because they're delivering some sort of commercial.

Good. But not all commercial goods require or. Not all commercial vehicles require a commercial license.

Okay. I'm. So I'm going to support the bill today.

But I need some help.

Okay.

Okay, I'll come by. Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure.

So for example, a UPS driver or any driver, depending on the type of vehicle they're driving, may or may not have a commercial vehicle, but the goods they may be carrying are subject to the motor carrier permit.

To the motor carrier permit.

Yeah, yeah. Which is separate from the. You know what?

the class alliance. We'll talk.

I'll do.

Trust, but confirm and. Or verify. I'll do some homework as well. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I see no one else asked to be recognized, to ask for as concise an explanation as possible on the concern that was made by the opposition. We could start with you. And I don't know if it was neural, as you know, you were speaking of specifically, or not.

I think you're making a distinction between vehicles that can have a human in it versus vehicles that can have a human actually take over the control, the driving of the vehicle. Is that what you were trying to say? Well, that is. I also want to go back to the author in a moment and just ask.

Distinction could be made in the bill or.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Kurt Augustine for the Alliance for Automotive Innovation.

Yes, I was specifically speaking to our Member Neuro and its product and the ability to have the in vehicle operator, but there are also many of our other Members who are in development right now and they're developing those products here in California, especially in the Bay Area, with that technology. And they are larger vehicles.

They would have to have that in vehicle operator control type of setup. And it's just kind of antithetical to what their business developments are. And again, they might be able to develop it here, but they're not going to be able to use their product. So it is more than getting narrow.

There are many manufacturers who are on the cusp of testing this type of technology.

My concern is whether or not the bill needs to go so far as saying that every vehicle, autonomous vehicle, has to have the human in it able to immediately take over the driving function, or whether or not it has to have a human in it to be, in effect, a safety operator who can redirect in an emergency, who can override, you know, under certain circumstances on a screen.

Yeah.

I've seen that with at least one brand of autonomous vehicle where the you can override if you need to. Anyway, I'd just like to ask the author, you know, to consider that.

I know we're getting pretty far along in the legislative process here, but whether or not with your sponsors there's any kind of a distinction that could be made there. I'm very supportive of the bill.

I'm very supportive of the bill for reasons that no one else has even talked about here, because some of you know I'm a very strong advocate to start moving some of this regulation out of DMV and into, you know, the big cities and the locales that can actually articulate some of these nuances.

People keep using the expression nuances, but at the same time, there's been a thrust that legislative see so far that we need a one size fits all. We need a DMV to somehow understand all the landscape in the State of California. And so that's my bias. That's my bias.

So I'm tending to support anything that can come along and put more eyes on what we're doing. I'm not even sure this is the best way to do it.

I think there's, you know, if we were dealing with anything that was off the ground, we'd be using air traffic control or something like that to monitor what's going on as opposed to humans riding along as safety co pilots, so to speak.

But I'd just like to ask you if it's something that you're willing to work on and talk about.

Because the one compelling thing I've heard along the way here, not just today, but prior today from the opposition, is if we're going to embrace the technology, if we know it's coming and we're really trying to make it safer and to some extent not displace jobs, what do we do about the technology?

That's what we would call a tweener, probably in this chamber that's not really set up for the human driver.

Well, I am very willing to continue a conversation. This isn't one that has been brought up to me and more than happy to do that. I haven't heard that from the opposition before. So I'll be more than happy to have that conversation when we get done here before we move it along.

But you know, I don't want anyone to ever think that we don't want technology. That's not the point. The point is right now is about safety for me.

And when I have seen automobile accidents with the Waymo or whatever the vehicle has been, I need to make sure my public is taken care of, my constituents are taken care of. We've done investigations. We did it even in when we went to vote on the floor. 79% of the Members voted for this bill.

I have a young lady's Assembly Member, Assemblymember Davies, has done polling in her neighborhood and they too think that we need to have a human safety operator in her district.

I'm not going to interrupt you, but you might as well move right into your clothes because we don't have any other comments here. Thank you.

Well, I wanted to give Assemblymember Lackey some kudos because he too was a police Highway Patrol and he is my principal co author on this bill, knows what safety is all about. So I want to thank you all for the thoughtful discussion and I Want to thank you for all of the opposition that's here.

You know, we know it's a promising technology, but they have to be rolled out with care. It could cost constituents lives, disrupt our neighbors, and displace thousands of workers. I do want to say explicitly, this bill does not ban AVs. It makes them safer and it gives us the data to do it right.

It asks that a certified safety operator be present during delivery deployments and creates a process for phasing that out. Once the safety is, the safety is proven. It includes a report and recommendations process to guide future legislative decisions. I represent a diverse district from rural communities like Lake County and urban areas like West Sacramento.

And across every community, people are concerned about AVs. With that, I ask for your Aye vote.

All right, thank you very much. We will go to the Committee and see if there's a motion. I'll make the motion. Senator Archuleta moves the bill, and we'll ask the assistant to start the roll call.

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

Alright, we're at five ayes, two no's, and we'll leave it on call for absent members.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Appreciate everyone's participation on the first bill. You got one down. I'm gonna ask the vice chair to preside for a while while I go for the bill. Thank you.

Okay. Can I get a motion for our consent calendar? Consent calendar consists of items number 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 16. The consent calendar has been moved.

Secretary called the roll.

To adopt the consent calendar. [roll call]

So that's 8, 0. And that will remain on call. Assemblywoman Petrie-Norris, please come up. Present your bill. By the way, I just want to let you know your supported on both sides. So, you know, historically, that means kind of go quick because you have support on both sides.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you. Mr. Vice Chair. Good afternoon senators. AB 334 will allow California toll operators to participate in national toll interoperability, allowing toll customers to access any toll facility in the United States while using their home account.

And following the vice chair's lead, I'm going to let my lead witness Ryan Chamberlain, who is the CEO of the Transportation Corridor Agencies, go into a little bit more detail about the proposal before you today.

Thank you. Please.

Good afternoon Chair and Committee Members. My name is Ryan Chamberlain, CEO for the Transportation Corridor Agencies and TCA is a sponsor of AB 334. TCA manages the largest toll road network playing a vital role in regional mobility in Southern California with over 2.7 million account holders.

By way of background, California's toll network includes toll roads, bridges and express lanes across the state. The extensive system facilitates seamless travel for millions of drivers annually with the use of FasTrak, which is an electronic toll collection system that allows for drivers efficient access to to all facilities all toll facilities in California.

For drivers who opt in to using FastTrack, these users enjoy seamless interoperability within the state by using a single toll account on any California toll facility. However, existing law limits the information California toll operators can share with out of state toll operators, making California's participation in national interoperability infeasible.

AB 334 addresses this limitation by enabling toll operators in California to exchange only the required vehicle and account information necessary for national interoperability, while limiting the transmission of personally identifiable information, thereby putting further privacy protections in place for users who have an account with a toll agency.

This bill will allow drivers who choose to be with a toll agency and account holder to further protect their privacy while also experiencing seamless travel when using toll facilities across the nation. This bill would also allow our toll operators to efficiently collect tolls from out of state drivers.

This bill would create efficiencies for both customers and toll operators and can reduce penalties and fines that could otherwise be avoided. Toll agencies and other states are already connected via national interoperability hubs and more are coming online shortly.

This bill will allow California to participate in the growing effort to achieve national interoperability. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I urge your aye vote for AB 334.

10 seconds.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Good afternoon Mr. Vice Chair and members. McKinley Thompson Morley on behalf of San Bernardino County Transportation Authority and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority in support.

Thanks for being here. Next up.

Good afternoon. Mark Watts representing the Riverside County Transportation Commission. We're in support of. We operate two total. So thank you for your.

Thanks for being here. Next up.

Good afternoon. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the San Diego Association of Government. SanDAG in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tim Chang with the Auto Club of Southern California. We are in support.

Thank you. Any witness, opposition?

You have- You have two minutes.

Good afternoon. Becca Kramer Mater on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in respectful opposition unless the bill is amended to further ensure privacy protections for people who drive on California roads.

We appreciate the author's office and the sponsors meeting with us several times to discuss our concerns with the bill as well as answer questions about the requirements for toll interoperability. And we appreciate the places that we've already found commonality in ensuring increased transparency toll interoperability.

However, we remain concerned about the areas we have not yet found agreement on, including codifying the privacy protections that the toll agencies have said that they plan to incorporate into the MOUs they would be signing as part of the interoperability program.

We understand it takes time for the many stakeholders on the proponents side to confer and come to an agreement.

We also recognize that the bill only has one more policy committee hearing after this and and EFF has been attempting to engage with the author's office and bill proponents for over three months on these issues, including proposing language to meet them halfway.

We therefore respectfully ask that if we're unable to come to a place where the proponents are prepared to propose counter proposal language that would address our remaining concerns before the amendment deadline for the next committee hearing that they commit to not moving the bill this year to allow adequate time to address the remaining concerns during the policy committee process given what is at stake here in the current moment.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Blakespear.

Yes, thank you. This is a great bill and I move it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Senator Archuleta.

Yeah, I'm gonna support the bill. Question, the cost, right now when I drive into Orange County and I'm riding with my sister in law, she's able to get right in and it's perfect. Love it.

What is the cost of that and what is it if you a traveling salesman and you're going to Arizona and New Mexico and coming back into California would be the difference between going into the other states and having that one versus just the one that we have now.

And I'll start. I'll let Mr. Chamberlain respond. But I'll start by saying nothing in this bill changes anything about the cost structure either within California toll agencies or externally. But you can speak to how some of the costs happen between states perhaps.

Yeah. So Senator Archuleta, I think clarification might be needed on what you might mean on cost. Is it cost per transaction for toll agencies to process that transaction or the cost to travel in the express lane or the toll roads in General?

Okay. So in the long run I guess you'll save money.

So to answer your question on cost per transaction, it's about a 95% savings in- in processing that transaction if it's done through national interoperability.

Thank you. The bill has been moved. Would you like to close?

Thank you.

Oh, I'm sorry, Senator.

No, thank you. Mr. Chair, I do just want to say to the author I support the direction of the bill. I am concerned with some of the transparency privacy concerns that were raised by the opposition. So won't be supporting it today, but look forward to seeing amendments as you continue.

Thank you.

Would you like to close?

Thank you. Mr. Vice Chair, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the Committee on Judiciary. [roll call]

Thank you. Next up, members, file item number 10. AB 1014 by Assemblyman Rogers.

So that Bill has 6, 0. It'll remain on call. Thank you, assemblywoman.

Thank you.

Assemblyman you may open.

Good afternoon, senators. Thank you so much. Today I present AB 1014. This is a district sponsored bipartisan bill. Under existing law, speed limits that are set for state highways generally have to go through a process where in which a speed assessment is done and then the speed limit is set at the 85th percentile.

In many parts of California, especially through my rural district, that local communities are concerned with doing a speed assessment because existing law requires the speed limit to go up even if they're seeking to have the speed limit go down, this bill makes that adjustment and says that in areas where in which there are many pedestrians or bicyclists in my area, folks trying to cross the freeway with canoes to get to the ocean, that the local CHP can work with local jurisdictions to set a more appropriate speed limit and actually can go 5 miles per hour under that 85th percentile if the conditions warrant.

I have a couple of witnesses with me today. First is Clifton Wilson, the legislative advocate on behalf of Del Norte county, as well as Kendra Ramsey, the Executive Director for Calbike.

Thank you for being here. Two minutes.

Honorable Chairmembers, my name is Clifton Wilson and I am here today on behalf of the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors in support and as one of the proud sponsors of AB 1014. First off, I just want to say thank you to the assemblymember for authoring this important measure.

As we see in Del Norte County, AB 1014 as an opportunity for the communities of Haiuchi and Gaskey to address their long standing safety concerns on Highway 199, specifically with the intersections of the Jedediah Smith West Redwood State park, the Six Rivers National Forest and the Smith River National Recreation Area.

These locations are of particular importance because they continue to be hazardous areas where pedestrians are at high risk of injury and unfortunately sometimes death due to the fast moving vehicles and the added traffic and the volume of the cars. And as he said, they are moving along the roadways with very limited space.

You see, under existing law, as assemblymember already said, these communities, the speed limit's generally a little too safe in that area, unsafe in that area. And a large part of the problem is that Caltrans hands are tied in those areas and they cannot limit or lower those speed limits on those state highways.

Also, as mentioned, setting up by the 85th percentile can result in higher speed limits, and this is even in areas with pedestrian or cyclist traffic. Simply put, speed limits that are not adjusted to reflect local conditions puts pedestrians, cyclists and other vulnerable users at significant risk.

Again, Del Norte county sees AB 1014 as a way to save lives and enable tailored speed reductions in dangerous zones where tourists cross highways and where recreational amenities attract vulnerable road users.

AB 1014 is a practical, cost effective, targeted fix that addresses unique local concerns by empowering Caltrans to consider community input and contextual risk, not just vehicle speed data. For these reasons, the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors is pleased to sponsor and support AB 1014 and we respectfully request your IBO on this measure.

Thank you for being here. Next witness in support. Two minutes.

Great. Thank you. Chair, members of the committee, I'm Kendra Ramsey. I'm the Executive Director of the California Bicycle Coalition. We also want to thank the assemblymember for authoring this bill.

We strongly support this common sense policy change that will allow Caltrans to improve road safety and particularly in those areas with vulnerable road users by providing more flexibility in setting speed limits. We've been working to make our state highway system safer and more accessible for people walking and biking.

Many state routes serve as local streets both in our rural, suburban and urban areas, and they often pass through towns and cities. These roads provide access to schools, hospitals, senior centers, shops, homes, recreational areas, and they're often the most direct routes across a neighborhood or a region.

People walk by can take transit to destinations on these corridors, yet most of these streets operate as mini freeways. We often find state highways that serve community arterials or main streets are the most dangerous for vulnerable road users.

Speed is a major factor in traffic collisions that result in pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities or injuries on the state highway system. While traffic speed enforcement is critical to efforts currently, Caltrans has little discretion in lowering or maintaining speed limits on these state highways as needed for vulnerable road user safety.

This bill complements what AB 43 in 2021 successfully began, that cities were given more control over setting the speed limits and reducing them on local roads. AB 1014 is a simple and necessary extension on state rights of way.

We should do everything possible to protect the safety of vulnerable road users and well being of all people in our communities. By providing this greater flexibility to Caltrans, AB 1014 will enhance public safety and ensure that local jurisdictions as well as the state can respond effectively to evolving safety concerns in their communities.

For these reasons, Cal Bike strongly supports this measure. Thank you in advance.

Thank you for being here. Any witnesses in support? Identification purposes only. Me toos.

Kasha Hunt here with Nossaman on behalf of the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors in support.

Thanks for being here.

Mark Fuksovich on behalf of our partner Streets are for Everyone and Us Streets for All, thank you.

Thank you.

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

Chris Lee on behalf of the Sonoma County Transportation and Climate Authorities and the Nevada County Transportation Commission, both in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none going back to the committee. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I've got a question. Would the Highway Patrol or the local police departments be able to consult with the local city councils and- and work this thing out where the city manager and everybody gets involved, where they would agree in this particular city that reduction really, really would be effective versus someone else?

Would they have that ability to come together?

Yeah, it's a great question. So the intent of the ill isn't to take away who the decision maker is. Right.

So even local jurisdictions that would like to be able to do this speed assessment without automatically raising the speed limits, they still are not going to be able to set the speed limit themselves on state highways, but it allows that broader input.

And then for Caltrans to be able to make those distinctions and not arbitrarily have to raise it, but actually go lower? But that's a data input or a conversation input.

That procedure is set. Yep. Very good. Now move the bill. Appropriate time.

Well, now's our appropriate time. Any seeing nothing else from the Members? Secretary? Oh, would you like to close assembly?

I'm just grateful for your time. And I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you, secretary. Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriation. [roll call]

So that bill 6 to 1 will remain on call. Thank you. Thanks, my Senator. Thank you. Next up, members, we have item number four by Assemblyman or Assemblymember Addis. Senator Blakespear will present this bill. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Come up. Assembly one. Come on. My fault. I'm sorry. I'm new. I don't know all the assemblymembers.

That's my fault. I apologize.

It's okay. I snuck in.

That's okay. I'll make it quick so that way the senator can present. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I present AB 1223, which gives the Sacramento Transportation Authority a modernized legal framework to be better serve local transportation needs.

I apologize.

The bill allows STA to propose sales tax measures in specific parts of the county, rather than requiring a countywide vote. It also makes clear that STA can issue bonds and work with the Capital Area Regional Tolling Authority to finance projects when appropriate.

This gives STA and local communities more flexibility to plan transportation improvements with local support, such as fixing aging corridors, expanding active transportation, and supporting infield development. The bill does not create any new toll lanes and does not change STA's public process or oversight requirements. Here in support is Kevin Bussey from the Sacramento Transportation Authority.

Thank you for being here. Two minutes.

I've turned this on. Okay. Good afternoon, chair and committee members, Kevin Bussey. So this bill is a concept of the SDA governing board, which is 16 elected officials from the County of Sacramento and all seven cities.

They looked at this from a conceptual level in October of last year and then again in November, asking essentially to move forward this legislation. And this provides, you know, our agency with a lot more flexibility than we currently have. It gives us flexibility to do a sales tax measure that's not necessarily countywide.

In addition to that, it gives us flexibility on utilizing some of our funding for some of these toll roads that are potentially coming to Sacramento county, and then finally gives us a little bit more flexibility on how we use our funds to support our transportation projects, as well as some of the underlying related utility infrastructure.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the Suffolk Counties Coalition Sacramento is one of our members. We're proud to support their ability to use their resources and flexibility to best serve their communities and would ask for your support as well. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Next up.

Audrey Retajczyk on behalf of the County of Sacramento, in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Going back to the members. Do I hear a motion? Yes, the bill's been moved. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due pass to the Committee on Revenue and Taxation. [roll call]

So that bills 5, 2 will remain on call. Thank you. Now I am going to call up Senator Blakespear because she has another committee to go to. So she's going to present item number four. I know, but she has to go. Thank you. senator. You may open.

This should be relatively fast. I'm here. Thank you, chair. Thank you, members, I'm here to present SB 761 which will give the Monterrey Salinas Transit District the opportunity to fund and continue vital programs and operations and that serve vulnerable populations across Monterey County.

In 2014, the Monterey Salinas Transit District proposed Measure G, a county wide 1/8 cent sales tax ballot measure to support public transit. Since its passing, Measure Q has generated approximately 8.5 million annually which has funded transportation services and equipment for veterans, senior citizens and people with disabilities.

However, measure Q is set to expire in 2030 unless it is renewed by voters or a new measure comes forward to replacement the lost revenue. AB 761 would authorize the MST board to propose a sales tax ballot measure to voters upon approval of 2/3 of its board of directors without needing approval from its member jurisdictions.

To be clear, this bill would not give MST the power to impose a tax itself. It would simply allow the agency to propose a ballot measure giving voters the opportunity to decide. The bill will also specify that an increase in the MST sales tax would not count toward the 2% combined rate limit for local taxes.

And with me today in support, I have Matt Robinson on behalf of MST.

Thank you. Two minutes in support.

There we go. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Matt Robinson with the Monterey Salinas Transit District, thank you for the time today. Senator Blakespear, appreciate you presenting the bill. She covered every single one of my talking points, so I'll be extremely brief.

The measure so far has generated about eight and a half million a year. As she said. This goes for services for the elderly, for disabled and for veterans. That is required by law in the statutes that was passed by the voters. This would give us the opportunity to extend that beyond the 2030 sunset date that was mentioned.

I would just emphasize that we are setting ourselves up for a super majority approval in the county. Our last measure passed was 73% of the vote. So overwhelming support for these services in Monterey County and we hope to see similar results when we go to the ballot for the extension of measure Q.

There were some other things that were mentioned in terms of our process to getting to the ballot, making a slight tweak there to allow the board, which is represented by all the localities of Monterey County, to make that decision instead of having to go around to all the cities like we did the first time that was done.

Because that was the first time we ever did something like this in Monterey County. So we wanted to be crystal clear we had local support. We also have support of the county and of our transportation authority at Monterey County as well. And I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Mitch Weiss on behalf of the transportation agency from Monterey County, in support.

Thank you.

Kasha Hunt with Nossaman on behalf of the County of Monterey Board of Supervisors and support.

Thanks for being here. Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Go back to the committee. Anybody would like to move this? Senator Archuleta will move the bill. Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. I should have said at the beginning that I'm presenting this for Assemblymember Addis and it's file item number four on our agenda. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Revenue and Taxation. [roll call]

That bill is five, two will remain on call. Assemblyman Gonzalez, thanks for being patient. I'm sorry about that. Thank you. Please open on your item.

Awesome. Thank you.

This is file item number five, AB 770 for the members.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Members. I'm pleased to present AB 770, which creates a target exemption under the Outdoor Advertising Act to allow the City of Los Angeles to establish a sign a signed district at the Los Angeles Convention Center.

This exemption will enable the city to unlock a critical revenue stream to support the renovation and modernization of the Los Angeles Convention center, which is key to the venue for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Located in downtown Los Angeles, the LA Convention center is one of the largest convention centers in the country and hosts a wide variety of events, including concerts, trade shows, exhibitions and conventions, and so forth. While expansion plans have been discussed for years, they may become a top priority following LA's successful bid for the 2020 Games.

The convention center is slated to host at least five Olympic sporting events.

In preparation, the City has proposed a major expansion modernization including 340,000 square feet of new space, upgraded public amenities, installation of exterior digital signage, and the project is expected to create 8,700 temporary jobs and 2,200 permanent jobs, attract an additional 500,000 visitors annually and generate over $550 million in economic impact over the next 30 years.

A critical funding source for this project is projected revenue generated by the proposed digital advertising signage. AB770 ensures that the City can establish a signed district that complies with state law and activates its revenue stream. This bill enjoys broad support, including from organized labor.

It's a priority bill for the LA County Federation of Labor, the business community, local residents and Mayor Karen Bass with us this afternoon in witness of support is Freddie Quintana, Senior Director of State Affairs, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Keith Dunn on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. Take it away.

Thank you for being here. You have two minutes.

Here we go. Good afternoon, Chair and Senators. My name is Freddie Quintana and I serve as the Senior Director of State affairs to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, the sponsor of this legislation. Mayor Bass, labor groups and business groups have united to advance the LA Convention center renovation project which is vital to downtown LA's economic recovery.

AB 770 is modeled after existing law which passed with bipartisan support in 2016 and will grant the City of Los Angeles authority to specifically erect two signs in downtown LA attached to our convention center.

The Los Angeles Convention center has a proud history, having served as the main press headquarters during the 1984 Olympic Games and is now set to host at least five events during the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Today, the convention center is advancing a major renovation project that includes 40,000 square feet of space, upgrades to public amenities and installation of new exterior signage. As the good member from Los Angeles said, this is going to create jobs.

This is going to have a major economic impact in our region and it will be something we actualize over a 30 year period. The renovation financing plan includes essential revenue that will be generated by the proposed sign district. From discussions with many of your offices, we understand the concerns about the federal funding.

This bill allows the City of Los Angeles to follow a procedure that has been utilized in other cases of a potential violation of the federal State Outdoor Advertising control Agreement of 1968.

And under the bill's process, if the city receives a notification stating we may be violating that agreement, we can take down a sign, we can reach a settlement to continue operations, or we can incur a financial penalty until the sign is removed.

This is all an existing process and to date there has not been a single case which caused a reduction in federal funds. If we receive a notice, we can remove the signs or reach an agreement to avoid penalties. Period.

This renovation project will have a generational impact on Los Angeles and the sign district is crucial to ensure the project will be completed by early 2028. For these reasons and on behalf of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thanks for being here. Next witness support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Councils. I'll be brief. You've heard a lot of the reasons. I'll tell you. The expansion of the convention center is not just about tourism or development. It's an investment in the workers, families and Angelenos.

It's a critical path towards building a ladder out of poverty to provide people opportunities. And again, we've covered some of the logistics on how that can happen and what could happen.

If there's some discussions with the Federal Government how to adjust for that, I would just tell you that this is one step closer to bringing people opportunities to work out of poverty. And for those reasons, we would ask for your support. Thank you.

Thanks for being here. Other witnesses in support please come up, Mr.

Chairman. Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Chair. Members Matt Brod for the Teamsters and support thanks for being here. Other witnesses? Support Witnesses? Opposition come forward and you have two minutes.

Who would like to go first? Thank you, Senator. Steve Cruz on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association. Joining me here today is Mr. Ron Bills who are legislative counsel for the Association. We are here in respectful opposition to the bill. The Association represents over 90% of the state's billboards.

We were originally supportive of the original contents in the bill and have been in discussions and to his credit the member let us know some time ago that this was in the works and ultimately we had to oppose the exemption for the convention center.

So having said that, what the bill does as he stated is it creates an exemption for billboards that would be in violation of federal law.

The in doing so would undermine long standing state and federal regulations designed to promote fairness among advertisers, protect highway safety and avoid significant financial penalties for non compliance with the federal High Bike Beautification Act. For reference, the siding and operating of billboards are heavily regulated for the industry and for our members.

These regulations include compliance with federal regulations dealing specifically with square footage, size and spacing between displays. Under current law, for example, billboards have a maximum allowable size of 1,200 square feet.

According to the LA City staff report, AB 770 would authorize up to 36 boards with many exceeding these size and spacing requirements with one super sign at 26,000 square feet directly adjacent to Highway 10 and 110. And let me just be clear on the federal because I heard Mr.

Quintana made comments to the federal enforcement of the violations. The Secretary of the Department of Transportation has direct authority to reduce offending states federal highway funds by 10%. For California it's approximately 400 million and I think the concern is not speculative given the current environment.

And in fact there's a similar bill that Governor Newsom vetoed in 2022 and citing this concern, I'll just read it quickly.

While I appreciate that revenues generated by these billboards provide certain local economic benefits, this bill disregards recent correspondence with FHWA which indicates the state's transportation funding is at risk due to federal regulations restricting the use of this kind of advertisement. The potential impact for California is a loss of 400 million.

It was also referenced in the Committee analysis that the Committee has had policies against that. Having said that and I'll close, we have talked to the Assembly Member provided some amendments that we think would mitigate those concerns. It won't make them go away. It would mitigate.

That language has been in prior bills before so we will continue to try to work with them. But I think it's our responsibility to make, you know, it clear to the Committee of Transportation that there is that risk out there. So with that, I'll close.

Thank you. You did 2 minutes and 30 seconds.

So if you could do a minute 30 to make it fair, that's quite a try to go for it in 30 or politician. Yeah. Hi, I'm Ron Bills. Prior to retiring, I was chief counsel at Caltrans and had the opportunity to work with our federal friends on different issues.

I do want to clarify that this particular penalty is not something they have to go to court to impose. The current Administration can do it directly. The remedy the state would have, there could be informal communications, no doubt about, but the Administration does not have to do that.

The remedy goes to a administrative law court at the Department of Transportation under the direct supervision of the Secretary of Transportation. So this penalty could be imposed directly. Of course there's always chance for legal action, but it is a very high risk. And proponents are right that there are other bills that are also in violation.

None of them go as far as this one with this great amount of square footage and not in such a predominant spot. I mean that's a two edged sword. Once it becomes very valuable advertising because it is a great spot next to the i10 and I think the 105 is right there.

At the other hand, no Fed is going to miss where it is. It just stands out. So it's not in some of the side cities in LA where it might be. I'd be happy to answer any questions and I hope I made close to my minute 30.

You actually. Three seconds to spare. That's fantastic. Any other witnesses in opposition, please come up for identification purposes.

Mr. Vice Chair and Members. Megan Loper, on behalf of Veal Outdoor Advertising and General Outdoor Advertising, we apologize that we just missed the Committee's deadline but did share our concerns with the author and with the staff and your offices as well. And we are in opposition.

Thank you. Now it comes back to the members. Any questions?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is obviously a local bill for Los Angeles city and in the County of Los Angeles and the Assembly Members. 100% correct when it comes with the anticipation of what's going to happen in Los Angeles and in that General region.

So having the ability to promote and bring in a workforce development and it goes on and on. But I'm glad that you're reaching a happy medium, it sounds like because there are federal implications here that they're going to adjust if need be and I'm sure that you can too.

So with that spirit in mind, and I think what it's going to produce, I'll be happy to move it and support it. Thank you.

The bill's been moved by Senator Archuleta. Any other questions from the Committee? I'll just add, I know the mayor very well. As you know. I respect where you guys are coming from. If you're willing to risk those funds. You know, I understand the economic impact. I drive by that location all the time.

I'm willing to support it today. But I do encourage you to talk to the opposition and see if we can come to an agreement that, you know, I actually think this industry is over regulated. That's not a good argument, by the way, for you. To me it's like I wish it was not.

I wish it was this way for everybody to be candid. I'm just telling you where I'm coming from. But I would hope that the mayor's office and you and the author can talk to opposition. We move forward.

I'm very supportive of the bill because I do think this is good economics and it's good for the workers and you get business and economics together in a bill. I'm going to support that bill. But please try to work with opposition if you can as it moves forward. Thank you, Secretary. Oh, would you like to close?

Yeah, I'll be quick. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for those comments. And yes, I've been talking to Mr. Cruz for months on all these moving pieces to that. And this bill just simply kind of creates that out of the box thinking that we need to do to save Los Angeles.

We worked with Caltron Caltrans on this issue a number of years in the proposal and coming up with the solutions. And they have reviewed the proposal and have confirmed that it meets the standards for sign spacing, size, brightness and location. So I want to make sure I clear that up. Also.

Working as a district Director in a district office for 15 years, I know that area like the back of my hand and I know those issues. And Caltrans has put put in place fines that they created as a backfill in case they do get penalized. So there is a system in place for that.

So I'll give the state credit where credit is due on those pieces. But I will close out by saying that AB 770 is more than a funding mechanism. It's a beacon for what's possible when a city invests in its people and it prepares to welcome the world just as the Olympic torch symbolizes unity and hope.

This project lights the way for a more vibrant, inclusive and forward looking Los Angeles. And I respectfully ask her. I vote. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill has four. Two will remain on call. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. For the audience, we don't have authors, so we're going to probably take a five minute recess and hopefully our sergeants will call offices authors to get authors here so we can get the agenda done. Thank you.

We'll take a five minute recess.

Is this number six coming up?

Yeah, come on out Assemblymember. Members, this is file item number six, AB 902, by Assemblymember Schultz. Is everybody ready?

Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair and Committee Members. I'm pleased to present AB 902 today and I'd like to thank the Committee for their work on this Bill. Before I go forward, I would like to accept the suggested Committee amendments listed at the bottom of page five of your Committee analysis.

Okay, Assemblymember, you may open.

As proposed to be amended, AB 902 would require lead agencies starting in 2028 to implement wildlife crossings in identified connectivity projects where a new highway is created or a new lane is proposed to be added to an existing highway.

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

Between 2016 and 2020, over 44,000 collisions with large wildlife were reported to or by the California Highway Patrol. On average, five people are killed and over 250 people are injured in California in reported wildlife vehicle collisions every year.

AB 902 would require lead agencies proposing a new highway or new lane located in a connectivity area to incorporate wildlife passage features to avoid, minimize or mitigate impairing wildlife connectivity to the extent that it's feasible. Despite California's progress in prioritizing wildlife connectivity, local and county transportation planning processes do not currently require consideration of wildlife habitats and wildlife connectivity.

Considering connectivity on local and county roads will improve species resiliency, protect animals and people from dangerous collisions, improve climate resiliency and preserve California's remarkable biodiversity. This could include adding features like overpasses, underpasses, lighting and directional fencing to guide wildlife away from vehicular traffic. Wildlife crossings can improve wildlife movement while reducing wildlife vehicle collisions by up to 98%.

In summation, with better planning and design of transportation projects, California can better protect both people and wildlife that call it home. Testifying with me in support of AB 902 today is former Ventura County Supervisor, Linda Parks and Mary Galloway, who is the California Program Director for Wildlands Network. And with that, I'll respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for being here. You have two minutes.

Thank you, good afternoon Assistant Chair Strickland and Committee. My name's Linda Parks. I was on the Ventura County supervisors for 20 years, and before that I was a mayor, Council Member and Planning Commissioner of the City of Thousand Oaks. I'm here today to voice my strong support for AB 902, which is much needed and very feasible.

While on the Board of Supervisors, we approved and implemented the county's Wildlife Corridor Ordinance, a first of its kind in the state, and it won an award of excellence for implementing land use practices that promote wildlife connectivity. Over my time in office, I found that the most worthwhile projects were those that saved lives.

AB 902 prevents vehicle wildlife collisions and saves both human and animal lives. We know that roads, regardless of jurisdiction, are a leading cause of death for many wildlife, including deer and mountain lions and such. And millions of animal wildlife collisions occur in the United States every year. Yet there are measures that can be taken to fix that.

When changes are made to the state highway system, consideration must be given to reducing impacts to wildlife. By expanding this to local and county roads, AB 902 will protect animals and people from dangerous collisions on our roads and help preserve California's biodiversity.

Coordinated planning will increase certainty and economic efficiency on major road projects, while at the same time achieving the state's connectivity and conservation goals. Local governments want safe communities and they want also to protect their natural resources, including wildlife.

I want to thank Assemblymember Schultz and the Legislature for your past leadership in improving safety and protecting wildlife throughout the state. Designing transportation infrastructure and development to avoid collisions and allow for wildlife connectivity with the passage of the Safe Roads and Wildlife Protection Act, the Room to Roam Act are important steps, and this is one too that will help fill that gap.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next witness in support.

Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of AB 902. My name is Mari Galloway. I'm a lifelong Californian and Director of the Wildlands Networks California Program, where I lead landscape scale collaboratives with local, state and federal agencies and communities across California to reconnect habitats for wildlife.

I support AB 902 because we have a responsibility not just to protect wildlife, but to uphold our public trust responsibilities when we alter our transportation infrastructure. Wildlife movement isn't just an ecological issue, it's a safety one, and one that's too often overlooked on roads that fall outside the state highway system.

Research from road ecologists shows that when traffic exceeds 2,500 vehicles per day, roads become a death trap for wildlife. At volumes of over 10,000, it becomes a permanent barrier, cutting off migration routes and genetically isolating populations.

And while we've made progress considering wildlife connectivity on the state highway system, other transportation infrastructure, like county roads that span tens of thousands of miles, still fall through the cracks of current legislation. In California, over 6,700 miles of county roads meet the death trap threshold. Nearly 650 miles cut through protected natural areas.

Nearly 500 intersect lands with the highest levels of habitat protection. Places where we should expect wildlife to thrive, not die crossing roads. This is not theoretical. In San Diego, federally endangered peninsular bighorn sheep face similar dangers along County Road S22. In Santa Clara County, we are watching a native newt population vanish on Alma Bridge Road.

AB 902 gives us a chance to address this by making sure all jurisdictions incorporate wildlife connectivity into their planning, not just Caltrans. This is about helping lead agencies advancing transportation projects to access the same tools and foresight we're already using on the state highway system system. The problem is clear, the data is compelling, and the fix is reasonable.

I'm grateful to Governor Newsom and the Legislature for your leadership in reconnecting California's landscapes through passing the Safe Roads and Wildlife Protection act and Room to Roam Act. This Bill is the next step towards smarter, safer and more responsible infrastructure planning for wildlife and for us. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Other witnesses in support.

Good afternoon. Tasha Newman on behalf of the Peninsula Open Space Trust and the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority in support.

Thanks for being here. Next up.

Alex Loomer on behalf of California Plant Society, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Protection Information Center, Pacific Forest Trust and San Diego Humane Society in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of Prosperity California in strong support.

Thanks for being here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson with Humane World for Animals, formerly the Humane Society of the United States, in support. Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jake Schultz on behalf of Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District and East Bay Regional Park District in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Karen Stout on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund in strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Tiffany Yap from the Center for- on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity in support. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Witnesses in opposition. You get two minutes if you want to come up forward.

We'll be quick. Damon Conklin with League of California Cities and also on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. We've been working with the author's office and the Committee. Want to thank them for a really great analysis. There's some issues that we've been looking for clarification around making sure that routine small traffic infrastructure don't get caught up in this. And we're looking forward to continuing to work with the author's office if the Bill were to advance. So we've been opposed unless amended.

Thank you. Next up.

Chris Lee on behalf of The Urban Counties of California, also with an opposed unless amended position on the current version of the Bill, but think we can resolve those concerns as aligned with the the comments made by the League of Cities. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others opposition? Seeing none going back to the Committee, Senator Seyarto.

All right, thank you very much. And I like the intent of this Bill. My concern is the practicality of the Bill, especially as it relates to areas that are growing that are already infrastructure underfunded. And you know, having a wildlife corridor that goes over a state highway type system.

We have probably the first one in California in Riverside County and it added $3 million and delayed the project by six years. That's how long people had to keep driving around that whole area because we didn't have a through road that was supposed to be put in.

On smaller roads, on the smaller highways because this says local roads. Is that correct? We're going to try to figure out how to do this over local roads?

Without looking at the Bill right in front of me, I believe that's correct, yes.

Okay. Are they planning on doing under crossings, over crossings? How is that practical? That's my question. How is that practical? One thing to spend $3 million on one bridge that goes over a couple of lanes of highway. But when you're talking about a small road, how are cities going to fund that type of infrastructure?

And if they can't, then it just delays that which delays the housing building process, which we are under tremendous pressure in the Inland Empire to do. So it just seems to set all of our infrastructure needs back. How are we going to deal with areas like mine?

What I'd like to do, if it's alright, Senator, is offer a brief comment, but we obviously have an experienced supervisor in the room. I would love to hear from her. Yeah, that's perfect. What I would just say right out the gate is that certainly the intent of the Bill is not to stymie any of our other objectives.

The Bill is designed for local lead agencies to plan and implement to the extent feasible.

I imagine there could be scenarios where we need that flexibility, where it may not be feasible, but certainly the risk posed to wildlife and to public safety require that we seriously plan for this issue and implement strategic solutions to the extent that we can. With that, Madam supervisor, would you like.

I think, about multi beneficial projects. For example, when you are putting in a road and you're having to put in flooding control systems, you also provide a culvert. And that is one way that animals can get back and forth under the road.

And as the Assembly Member mentioned too, just that simple fencing can channel the wildlife to that culvert. Or, you know, the most advanced would be, you know, a bridge over. But at this point there are a lot of other less expensive ways of doing it. And this requires that consideration.

And they're not foolproof because we have that fencing that directing. We have signs that say all animals go that way. But we do wind up with roadkill, unfortunately, because they do manage to somehow dig under or get over or whatever it is they want to go across the road.

In the Thousand Oaks area on Highway 23, the Caltrans did a fantastic job putting chain link fence along the road that led to, you know, required the animals essentially, if they want to cross, they have to go through this culvert.

You need to put the sign up for them.

It helps.

Thank you.

May I also add something in addition to the limit of the Bill being feasible is that it also only requires in certain areas where we know are important wildlife corridors. And it's also limited to county projects that are either adding a lane or building a new highway. So that's, that's exempting a lot of different transportation projects.

If we're going to mandate this on cities and counties, then I would like to see state funding for specifically this go towards that because I don't want money for roads, especially in areas like we have that need it badly, that's already shorted to get taken away from that pot to do this because then hardly or neither of them are going to get done adequately.

So I need state funding in this Bill to be able to vote for it. Our state, our state mandated funding bills, our propositions that we had many years ago, keep being superseded in all these bills with one which just says this does not require the state to refund communities. And I'm just dumbfounded that we allow that. Thank you.

Go ahead, Senator Archuleta.

Assemblymember, so any construction of roads and highways in the future would have to have a study to see how it could help our wildlife, the study. And then if the study shows that it needs it, then it's going to be mandated that the construction has to happen. Is that correct?

I think the purpose of it is mitigation.

Supervisor, put the mic a little bit closer.

So the purpose of it is that kind of mitigation that you would be doing through CEQA at any point. And it's, as was mentioned, it's when you add a lane or an entire road.

So this is for the entire state. So funding is pretty important as well for every project that we're looking at. And up in the northern part of the state, we have a lot of mountain areas and so on.

And it also allows for a credit with the Fish and Wildlife, so you can pay your way out of it essentially too. But as I was saying, there are so many opportunities, particularly when you're building a road or you're adding lanes, that you can add things like culverts and fencing and have that consideration.

It's kind of an easy measure. And bringing it back to it's not just wildlife, it's helping to make our roads safer because there are a lot of collisions.

And Senator Archuleta, if I may, in response to your question and partially in response to Senator Seyarto, I want to commend the Committee amendments, proposed amendments, because they further narrow the scope of the Bill. It would have to be a significant impact on wildlife, not just any impact. And it really touches on the importance of if feasible.

And again, while there may be a study and an analysis, we understand that local governments need that flexibility. There may be a significant impact, but the mitigation measure may not be feasible.

Or perhaps there is a measure that's perfectly feasible, but if not a significant impact, that has some carve outs with regards to the mandate that Senator Seyarto was referring to. So I just wanted to compliment Committee staff working on those amendments.

Thank you. Anything else from the Members? Well, I'll close with just saying I am familiar with the Thousand Oaks area. They've done a remarkable job in Ventura County on this issue. Got a lot of animals going back and forth, mountain lions, et cetera. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

I just want to thank the Committee for your Attention, your comments, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote today and we'll continue to work with the opposition should it pass through.

Do I have a motion? Did someone move the Bill? The Bill has been moved. Thank you, Assemblymember. Thank you.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water. Senators Cortese? Strickland? Strickland, aye. Archuleta?Archuleta, aye. Arreguin? Blakespear? Blakespear, aye. Cervantes? Dahle? Dahle, no. Gonzalez? Gonzalez, aye. Grayson? Grayson, aye. Limon? Menjivar?

Medjivar, aye. Richardson? Richardson, aye. Seyarto? Seyarto, no. Umberg? Umberg, aye. Valladares?

Bill's E2 remains on call.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

So, what we're going to do, Members, while we're waiting on our final, on our final Bill—our final Bill is item 15, AB 1299, we've done everything before that—so, what I would like to do for all the Members is lift the call as we go through. So, Secretary, do we want to go from consent then to.

Okay, first one is consent—the consent calendar. You can read it. Go ahead.

[Roll Call]

And so, we're going to lift the call now on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

So, that Bill is out, 12-0, but we'll keep it on call for the remainder.

[Roll Call]

Item one.

[Roll Call]

So, that's 8-3, will remain on call. Next up.