Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. Good afternoon. Thank you for your patience and welcome, everyone. The hearing room is open for the attendees and it can be watched from a live stream on the Assembly's website.

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

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

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

As a reminder, primary witnesses in support must be those accompanying the author or will otherwise have registered a support position with the Committee and the primary witnesses in opposition must have their opposition registered with the Committee.

All other support and oppositions can be standing at the MIC when called upon to simply state name, affiliation and position, also known as MeToo. Comments Please note that Assembly Member Bennett will replace Assembly Member Harabian and that Assembly Member Koza will replace Assembly Member Agiar Curry. In today's hearing, I do not think we have a quorum.

Is that correct? We do not have a quorum. So with that we'll begin our hearing as a Committee, a Subcommitee, and then we'll proceed with the first we see we have an author here. Thank you to the Senator who is here even before me. So we do have an author here.

So we will start with item number five, Senate Bill 86. We typically go in file, item order unless, you know there's an author here and no other authors are present. To the author. You may begin when you are ready. Either one.

How do you turn this on? It's on. Well, good afternoon, chair and Members. I'm presenting SB86. This bill will expand and extend the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financings Authority, also known as CAETFA. It'll expand their sales and use tax exclusion program.

Basically, this program provides sales tax incentives to companies in California that work in renewable energy, advanced transportation and advanced manufacturing. This bill is highly successful and it's set to expire in less than a year. At the end of this year, basically, SB86 will reauthorize the program until January 12031.

It will increase the amount of funding from $100 million a year to $200 million a year and expand the program to include fusion energy cutting edge technology with potential to produce unlimited amounts of clean energy. The CAETFA's SDE program is one of the few incentive programs in California that encourages clean energy manufacturing in the state.

SB86 is essential for ensuring that California is not just a state for clean energy research and innovation, but also a state for clean energy manufacturing and quality job creation. With us today, I have two witness. One sponsor is our California's own State Treasurer, Fiona Ma, and the other is Vijay Singh of cfid. Thank you very much.

And I'll turn it over to the Treasurer.

Thank you. Before we have our the honorable Treasurer Ma speak, I would like to establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

All right, we have a quorum. So we've moved from a Subcommitee to a Committee that can actually vote on this bill or give a motion on this bill. So with that, we'll go to our witnesses. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair Wilson, for hearing our bill today. And thank you to the author, Senator McCarthy. This program was established in the Treasurer's office starting in 2010.

And it is one of the only incentive programs that we really have here in the state to encourage this type of energy manufacturing, transportation, recycling technologies and companies to come here to California.

These programs not only reduce greenhouse emissions, including carbon capture, air and water pollution, energy consumption and lithium, which was like our last iteration of this bill.

Currently, since 2010, CAETFA has incentivized $16.5 billion in clean tech and environmental projects here in California, funding 385 projects in over 40 counties, creating or retaining 158,000 plus jobs, creating a net benefit of $1.9 billion to our communities and regional economies.

Just in Madam Chair's District, Phillips 66 Company in Rodeo received a sales tax exemption for a renewable diesel project, resulting in over $74 million in net benefits and the creation of 42 jobs in 2022. This is the second time in my seven years that I have been here for a Sunset Extension.

It'd be really great if we didn't have to keep extending this very successful program. We do hold an open competition. It's very transparent. We have it broken down into different company sizes and obviously different technologies. It's been over subscribed since I've been here for seven years.

So this is one of the programs that is working and I think we have one of our recipients here to talk about the benefits to his specific company. So thank you.

Of the mic. Sorry about that. Chair Vice Chair Members of the Assembly, My name is Vijay Singh. I am the Vice President of Manufacturing Operations for Cepheid at our site in Lodi.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of The Senate Bill 86 and the impact of the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority Program and its impact on Cepheid's growth, sustainability, work and contribution to our local community.

Cepheid is a molecular diagnostics company dedicated to improving healthcare by pioneering medical diagnostics that combines speed, accuracy and flexibility to bring PCR results at the point of care. At a danaher company, Cepheid solutions deliver accountable results when they are needed the most. From central laboratories to hospitals to near patient settings.

Since 2021, when Cephrid started as a sales tax exemption participant, our company has grown our manufacturing operation in Lodi where we have now our largest manufacturing facility. Our Lodi location has over 600,000 square feet dedicated to production, manufacturing and engineering of our products. We are currently adding another building improving our footprint in Lodi.

A key component of our growth story has been around environmental stewardship and sustainability. The CAETVA program has supported our efforts to achieve environmental excellence in our company operations and product packaging.

We practice continuous improvement by reducing the environmental impact of our business operation by investment in environmental programs that have significantly improved recycling diversion and reduced green reduced energy consumption. We are fully compliant with the environmental regulatory programs. We focus on minimizing our hazardous waste and diversion to fuel blending.

We adhere strictly to the control of air and water emissions and through that we've achieved multiple Environmental Excellence Recognition Awards. Lastly, CAETVA has supported cepheid's ability to support our local communities. In addition to the economic contribution that come with the expansion of our facility, Cepheid regularly provides local volunteer opportunities supported through our company in Lodi.

Cepheid has been recognized as a vital partner of the community as showcased by receiving the Lodi Chambers of Business of the Year Award in 2021.

Thank you. All right, with that we're going to move to Members of the community or public who would like to offer add on testimony me-too testimony name, affiliation and position.

Ben O'Brien on behalf of California Life Sciences in support.

Crystal Reynas with California Against Waste in support.

Good Afternoon. Don Gilbert on behalf of Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts in support.

Good afternoon. Christina Rico on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in support.

Good afternoon. Noam Elroy on behalf of the California Compost Coalition in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members, Beth Olasso on behalf of Water Reeves California in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Obed Franco here on behalf of the California Electric Transportation Coalition and the California Biomass Energy Alliance in support.

Good afternoon. Sarah Bridges on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Keshav Kumar on behalf of Heirloom Carbon, a proud prior recipient of CAETFA funding, in strong support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jennifer Rowe with Capital Advocacy on behalf of Robert Bosch and their semiconductor facility in Roseville in support. Thank you.

Hello, Chair, Members. Ryan Elaine, on behalf of the California Retailers Association in support. Thank you.

Philip Herrera on behalf of the Cal Chamber in strong support.

Good afternoon. Jake Potter on behalf of the City of Livermore, strong support.

Good afternoon. Matt Kloppenstein on behalf of or at Summit Advocacy on behalf of the Bioenergy Association of California, Energy Source Minerals and Searles Valley Minerals all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving on to opposition testimony. I don't see any registered opposition, but just wanted to confirm somebody walking up. Come on up.

Good afternoon, Chairmembers. Mark Newberger, California State Association of Counties, also providing comments on behalf of Cal Cities. I'll make this very brief. We oppose the bill. We are very appreciative of the recent amendments from the authors and stakeholders to add a sunset date and reduce the maximum amount of the exclusion from 300 to 200 million.

However, we still have concerns about the estimated revenue loss for local government resulting from this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much. And you're right, you. You were opposed. Listed as opposition. With that, just to confirm, is there anyone else in the room who would like to add on in their opposition to this bF ill? Name, affiliation and position? Seeing none.

Now moving back to Members of the Committee to see if there are any questions, comments or concerns. Is there a motion? I got a move by Coloza and a second by Macedo. All right. To the author. Give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you, Committee. And I was hoping someone would ask me about Fusion, but no one did.

You can include it in your clothes as you close.

I'll let you guys off the hook on that one. But no, this is a great bill. It passes the Net benefits test. In other words, counties are going to get more revenue from this bill than they're going to be losing from the reduction in taxes. I'm very proud of it.

I want to see renewable energy and I want to see California lead the way in renewable and transportation recycling. And this bill will get us there. So thank you, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you to the author. You know, this KA program has provided benefits for manufacturers of green technology in the state that include biofuels, zero emission vehicle infrastructure, food production, biopharmaceuticals and aerospace. And as our treasurer noted, this exclusion has generated a net benefit of $1.8 billion since its inception in 2010.

And so that is why I am excited and proud to be able give to support the bill today and encourage an eye from Members of my Committee. With that, Madam Secretary, could you call the roll?

[Roll call]

That bill has 12-1 votes, and we'll hold it open for other members to add on. Thank you. All right, we will move back into file item order and dispense with our proposed consent calendar first. Now, we have 11 bills on consent.

Please note that file item 12, SB661 Hurtado has been removed from the consent calendar and will be heard today. The remaining bills. 11 bills. I'll read them in order. First, SB 695. Sorry. File item 2, SB695, file item 4, SB 78, file item 8, SB 298, file item 9, SB 480, file item 11, SB 586, file item 13 SB 727, file item 14, SCR 54, file item 15, ACR 71, file item 16, ACR 81, file item 17, ACR 96, file item 18, ACR 96. Is there a motion? All right, we got a motion by Jackson and a second by Vice Chair Davies. With that, Madam Secretary, could you please call the roll?

[Roll Call].

The consent calendar has 12 votes. We'll hold the roll open for other members to add on. We'll be moving now to general business. We have seven bills to discuss today. As noted, we already heard file item number five. Now we'll be moving to file item number one, SB 545.

If the author is ready, you can begin at your convenience.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair and members. I'm pleased to present SB 545. California is building the nation's first 220 mile per hour fully electrified high speed rail system powered by 100% renewable energy.

As most of us know, the transformative project has already created 15,372 high quality jobs, engaged 908 small businesses, and will prevent 142.6 million metric tons of carbon emissions through 2079 when fully built out.

When voters pass Prop 1a, the $9.95 billion bond to provide the nation's first high speed rail project, the vision was that the state would cover a third of the cost, the federal government would provide a third of the cost and private investors would provide the remaining third.

The anticipated infusion of private investment dollars has not yet materialized, but there are billions of dollars in potential development opportunities, including extensive greenfield sites, the potential to develop real estate around stations, manage infrastructure such as tunnels, or establish usage fees for trains passing through along the nearly 500-mile corridor.

So, SB 545 simply directs the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development, otherwise known as GO-Biz, to conduct a comprehensive study due by January 1, 2028, of these and other economic opportunities along the high-speed rail corridor. The study would focus on land value, development incentives and public private partnerships along the California high speed rail corridor.

Revenue generated from the economic activities will boost local communities and their economies and help pay for the construction and ongoing maintenance and operations of the high-speed rail system. By leveraging these benefits and strategies, the California high speed rail project can serve as a catalyst for economic growth, business expansion and long-term investment on the corridor.

Join us today to testify are Joe Cruz, Executive Director of the California State Council of Labors and Angie Manetti representing the Mayor of Fresno. This bill is a broad coalition of support that includes business, labor, social justice groups, local elected officials and has no opposition. I respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

All right, we have a motion by Krell and a second by Jackson. We'll move on to testimony.

Madam Chair and members; Joe Cruz, on behalf of the California State Council of Laborers and thank you Senator for your commitment to high-speed rail in California. The laborers have been involved in this project for a very long time.

We proudly have 600 members a day working on this project in the Central Valley which is providing a lot of really good paying jobs. But to speak to the bill, the high-speed rail corridor represents an opportunity and to provide a catalyst for community revitalization and regional prosperity.

By planning for commercial and residential development along the railway corridor, we are unlocking new opportunities, create jobs, attract investment and spark innovation. Transit oriented developments aren't just smart planning. It's a long - they're a long-term vision that turns mobility into momentum for our local economies.

SB 545 requires GO-Biz to conduct a study that sets the foundation for leveraging commercial and residential development along the high-speed rail corridor and creates a lot of economic opportunities.

If we're aligning our infrastructure with our economic development like we're going to do in the with high-speed rail, we're building for a future that moves all of us forward. So, we thank you for your time.

We look forward to working with you to continue to build this project out and turn a vision into a reality for all Californians. So, we urge an aye vote.

Okay. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Angie Manetti here in support of SB 545 on behalf of Fresno Mayor Jerry Dyer. This bill will help validate what we've already what many of us on the ground already know. Completing California's high-speed rail will unlock transformative economic potential not just for Fresno, but for valley cities along the corridor.

Fresno's downtown was once a thriving hub of commerce, housing and connectivity through robust public transportation system. However, prolonged construction and road delays have slowed momentum significantly. Downtown's rebirth is a core priority for the city.

For over a decade, Fresno has been planning around what would be the nation's first high speed rail, which is the heart of our work through by right development and zoning for 75,000 housing units close to the station. We are aggressively pursuing infill opportunities and new career opportunities as well. SB 545 is timely and strategic.

This will be a tool to equip us with the data to pursue private investment, boost development, and enhance economic opportunities throughout the state. As Mayor Dyer often says, downtown Fresno is on the verge of a major comeback and high-speed rail will be the catalyst that will make it happen. We urge your support for SB 545.

Thank you. Now we'll move on to members of the public who would like to add on their testimony, name, affiliation and position.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council, the District Council of Iron Workers of California, the Association of California High Speed Trains and the City of Palmdale in support. I would just echo Mr. Cruz's comments about the opportunity for work but also the transformative nature of our transportation project. So thank you very much. Ask for your support.

Thank you. And as a reminder, name, organization, and position.

Madam Chair and members, Jason Bryant on behalf of Transportation California; we're in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Christina Rico on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, State Pipe Trades Council and Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, in support.

Katie McCammon on behalf of Climate Action California, in support.

Audrey Ratajczak on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. We were opposed but with the most recent amendments were now neutral. So, thank you to the Senator and the Chair.

Thank you, Chair and members. Matt Cremins, California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, in support.

Thank you. Now moving on to any to potential opposition. Let's see, we do not have any on file but give that opportunity for anyone to add on who did not have an opportunity to register opposition in time. Now would be an appropriate time to come to the mic and note your name, affiliation and position on the bill.

Seeing none. Moving now to members of the committee. Carillo.

Thank you, Madam Chair, to thank the author for bringing this measure forward. I can see the value on this legislation not only in the cities like Fresno but also in the City of Palmdale where a high-speed rail station is proposed to be there and the connection to Brightline eventually through the high desert corridor.

That will absolutely be an opportunity for the region to take advantage of this study. Look forward to that. Thank you again for bringing this measure forward and I'd like to ask if you consider him as a coauthor of the bill.

Thank you. Moving on to Rogers.

Thank you so much and, Senator, happy to support the bill. I think that it's really good for us to gather that information. We actually did something similar or have been doing something similar for the SMART train in Sonoma and Marin to figure out how to best build that out.

And then I actually would wonder once we have that study in place whether there's further work that the legislature can do to create almost an enhanced infrastructure finance district type structure around the different hubs that are going to see this work in this economic activity to actually help fund and build out that train.

So, we'd be happy to work with you on that in the future.

Thank you. Seeing no other comments. I'll note to the Senator, as you know I'm a strong supporter of the high speedboat project and had an opportunity to visit another country and see theirs in place.

And what was really interesting was to see the activity around each of the stations and how that was an intentional development and is really a beautiful thing. And so, I look forward to seeing the results of this study, especially identification of additional funding mechanisms that can support the construction of the actual high speed rail project.

And I will be happily supporting this bill today. I'll give you, the author, an opportunity to close.

Thank you for that, Madam Chair, and for the work of your committee staff with us. It's very, very much appreciated. And to the comments, I just want to acknowledge them and yes, we will, Assemblymember Carrillo. We will. We'd love to have you as a coauthor and your comments are spot on.

We actually have language in the bill that says that the California side of the High Desert project will be accounted for here in much the manner that Assemblymember Rogers was talking about in terms of where can we come in with those kind of facility districts and so forth. We have included that.

And then to Assemblymember Rogers; just spot on. Exactly what we're trying to do. It's an old-fashioned toolbox that has worked to create places like Silicon Valley in the past and we think it'll work here as well and contribute to this project. With that, I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion on the floor by Carillo, seconded by Jackson. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

That bill has nine votes with nine aye votes with one no. We'll hold the row open for members to be able to add on. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, continuing in file item order, we have file item number three, SB63 Wiener. Sir, you may begin at your convenience.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you for working with us and hearing this bill today. SB 63, colleagues, is a critical piece of legislation for the future of public transportation in the Bay Area. In fact, it's hard to see a strong and viable future for Bay Area transit without SB 63.

First of all, I want to just express that I accept the committee's amendments outlined in the analysis. And again, we appreciate the committee working with us. We also appreciate the committee's flexibility, understanding this bill is a work in progress as we go through the extremely detailed. I'll use that adjective.

And complicated regional negotiations among all of the Bay Area, five Bay Area counties and various transit systems, and business and labor and everyone else. So, we really appreciate it, and I know that we'll be coming back to the committee later, and we look forward to continuing to work with committee colleague.

For those from the Bay Area or who have visited the Bay Area, you'll know that public transportation is part of our region's lifeblood. The Bay Area would not be the Bay Area without public transportation.

And we know that so many people in the Bay Area, it's how they get to work, it's how they get to school, it's how they get to the supermarket. And without transit, so many people would be simply stranded people who can't afford to have a car.

Some people would just have a lower quality of life by being forced to drive everywhere. And even for the many people who don't take transit, they their life would be worse because traffic congestion would be dramatically worse. And we see that whenever BART has an issue, even if for just a few hours, it gridlocks our major freeways.

So, we cannot allow this to happen. And unfortunately, if nothing happens, if we do nothing, we will have unraveling transit systems. BART will essentially collapse. Muni will reduce service by as much as 50%. Caltrain, AC Transit: it'll just be absolutely devastating for our region's economy, for congestion, for quality of life.

This has been an issue for a long time in terms of structural operating challenges for our transit systems. And the Bay Area has kicked the can down the road for a long time. It did not start with the pandemic, but the pandemic made it worse and exposed it.

And even though Muni is now back up to 80% of pre pandemic ridership. Caltrain is at 70%. BART continues to struggle at about 45%. This is a very, very real problem. And so, it's time for the Bay Area -

We've done the work that we can do in the budget and I'm proud and happy to do that work and I appreciate all of your colleague's support. But we're now at a point where the Bay Area needs to engage in self-help. And SB 63 will authorize a regional revenue measure to support transit operations. It'll be either.

Right now, it's structured as a three-county measure for Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Francisco counties. We are in active conversations with San Mateo and Santa Clara counties about the possibility of being included. And it's structured as a 10-to-15-year sales tax for transit operations. So, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And with me today to testify is Julie Kirschbaum, who is the Director of Transportation in San Francisco. And then also Emily Loper, the Vice President of Transportation Policy for the Bay Area Council.

Good afternoon, Chair Wilson and members of the committee. I'm Julie Kirschbaum. I am the Director of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. I've had the privilege of working at the SFMTA since 2007, including the last six years as the Transit Director.

I began my current role earlier this year and now have a slightly broader scope, including bicycles, pedestrians, taxis, as well as other roadway safety. I'm here today to testify in support of SB 63 and to convey to you the dire situation that Bay Area transit agencies are in that this legislation will help to alleviate.

Muni has the largest daily ridership of any transit agency in the Bay Area and the eighth highest in the nation. And even though Muni is San Francisco-based, it carries over half of all Bay Area transit riders, and almost half of the Bay Area interagency transfers include a Muni trip.

Muni is a tool used by many Bay Area workers and serves as a critical lifeline for seniors, people with disabilities and people with low incomes. The work that has been put into Muni, we're very proud of it is fast, frequent, reliable, clean and safe, and that is contributing to our highest customer ratings in almost two decades.

There are about a dozen Muni routes whose ridership is higher than it was before the pandemic, and we are seeing steady system wide ridership recovery with May 2025 being our highest month on record since COVID. A well-functioning transit system is critical to the economic recovery of the entire Bay Area and that recovery is in jeopardy.

The fiscal cliff that the Bay Area transit agencies have been warning about is just around the corner. In the summer of 2026, the state and federal pandemic relief funding that has bridged the shortfall for our agency will run out and we will face a $322 million annual deficit.

And we'll have to have you wrap up.

The SFMTA has worked hard for self-help to both generate new revenue and decrease expenditure significantly. But without this bill we will be forced to make devastating cuts. So, we do urge you to approve, and we appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Wilson and members of the committee. Emily Loper with Bay Area Council; so, the Bay Area Council is proud to have led the advocacy to create the BART system over 50 years ago. And today, BART and Muni and all of our transit systems continue to be the lifeblood of our regional economy.

Hundreds of thousands of residents of all income levels depend on public transit to get to work every day. And maintaining a high functioning system is essential for our economy and our overall quality of life and safety. The Bay Area and conditions on these systems have improved substantially in recent years.

We need this regional measure to ensure that these systems continue to operate and to build on those rider improvements going forward. Yet we know raising new revenue will not be easy. We know that residents are feeling the strain of the rising cost of living and polling has shown that voters are skeptical about the need for new money.

So, in order to restore that public confidence in these systems and to pass this measurement, we must focus on providing a better service while also using each taxpayer dollar as efficiently as possible. That's why we've called for this financial efficiency review of that has been integrated into the bill.

This review will identify areas to improve the cost effectiveness of operations while maintaining and improving service for riders. And we're also working on amendments with the authors and relevant stakeholders to ensure the meaningful implementation of those rights recommendations. We also know that a rider focused improvements and system are essential to pass this measure.

Voters are unlikely to support a tax measure that a tax increase that only funds the status quo operations and they expect a world class system. So, this is our opportunity to deliver a more regionally coordinated system that improves the rider experience and attracts more riders.

That's why we need sufficient funds for MTC to deliver the transit transformation initiatives. This regional measure will stabilize our transit agencies and keep our economy running. And the Bay Area Council is prepared to help lead the campaign to make it happen.

This campaign will require a disciplined and real all in commitment from all stakeholders involved to raise the money and execute a successful campaign. So, we thank Senators Wiener and Arreguin for their leadership on this critical issue and urge your aye vote for. Thanks very much.

Thank you. Now moving on. Members of the public who wish to add on their support name, affiliation and position.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Keith Dunn on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council, as well as the District Council of Iron Workers State of California and Vicinity and the Self-Help Counties Coalition.

Dylan Elliott, on behalf of San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, in support.

Jesse Koehler, on behalf of the Board of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, in support.

Katie McCammon, on behalf of Climate Action California, and support.

Eduardo Rubalcava, member of the AARP Capital Response Team; speaking on behalf of 3.2. million AARP Members in California, in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the City of Alameda, also in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sebastian Petty of SPUR, in support.

Good afternoon. Christina Rico on behalf of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Carlin Shelby on behalf of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority in the City of Emeryville, and strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Coby Pizzotti on behalf of the City of El Cerrito, in support.

Good afternoon. Steve Wallach on behalf of the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, and support. And on behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, they have a support and seek amendment position.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Bill Churchill, General Manager of County Connection; strongly support and thank you for your efforts.

Good afternoon. Chris Lee here on behalf of the Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority; had a supportive amended position and look forward to reviewing the amendments but want to thank the committee and the author for those amendments. Thanks.

Good afternoon. Devon Ryan on behalf of Caltrain. We deeply appreciate the work of the author, our delegation members, and our local partners on this to address critical transit needs and we are in strong support of the bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Alex Walker on behalf of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, and strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of the San Francisco Bay Ferry. Appreciate the committee amendments. Look forward to continuing the conversation and we are in very strong support.

Hi. Georgia Gann Dohrmann with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and support.

Good afternoon. Kiana Valentine on behalf of the San Mateo County Transportation District and Transportation Authority; no position today but wanted to acknowledge the very positive conversations that have been going between the county's various agencies and the Senator and other Bay Area members.

We are optimistic that conversations will continue to progress, and the boards are meeting in early August to make a final decision. So, thank you so much.

Madam Chair, Niccolo De Luca here on behalf of the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority, supportive if amended. Very grateful for the author and his staff for all the work. Really grateful for your recent amendments. Thank you. We're getting closer. We appreciate everyone's hard work. So, thanks.

I think I'm the beginning of the end of the tweener caucus here. Terry Brennan, on behalf of SEIU California. Along with ATU, AFCSME, TWU, UAW: community organizations that are part of an organization called Bay Area Forward. We are very supportive the intent of this bill and the seriousness of the crisis you're trying to solve.

We are concerned, however, that the current framing of the bill comes up short of what we need to actually fund the holes that are there. The sales tax is maybe not going to get the whole time.

Keep it brief if you can.

Not going to get the whole thing done; there are other alternatives we've explored, we'd like to discuss. Senators Arreguin and Wiener have gone above and beyond the call. There's more work to be done. We look forward to working with them and we'd love to move the bill forward.

Thank you. All right, moving on to opposition. I had I lost my place with the last tweeners. Is there anyone who would like to see speak in opposition of the bill? I know we have registered opposition, but none saying that they were going to speak in testimony. Okay, anyone who would like to note.

We had our tweeners, but anyone who would like to note opposition, now would be appropriate time to do so. Name affiliation and position. All right, seeing none moving back to committees. We'll go to Rogers and then I see you over there, Ransom.

First of all, thank you so much for bringing the measure. Big supporter of public transit. In fact, my favorite reframe for constituents is when they complain about traffic. I remind them that they're not in traffic, they are traffic. Right. And being able to move people is critical.

My only concern with the measure is seeing some of the polling around it. And I've talked with folks specifically about whether or not this would actually cover the needs of the districts to be able to accomplish what we need to rebuild that ridership.

My understanding is that, even with this, San Francisco would have to come back and do their own measure as well, which complicates things. I just - what I would like to see is you not narrowing it or limiting yourself to one option. Right.

Because this is such a critical moment for public transit; not just for these counties, but other counties that rely on it as well, like some of my counties, that keeping it broader to be able to make the best decision at. The time that you pull the trigger, to start going after a funding measure.

Based on what the polling shows is going to be successful. Because I'm not convinced that a sales tax is going to be successful in this moment where people are feeling strapped.

Where we know that affordability is the number one issue and where we see in the polling that it drops almost 10%, I think is what I saw when you asked that question and remind people that they're feeling strapped. And if there's any opposition, that's a concern for me. And so, I'll be supportive of the bill today.

But I would like you to seriously consider broadening the bill to include other forms of revenue. Even just, you know, we've got a conversation going amongst some of the members about the Water's Edge designation as a statewide opportunity to potentially bring in different revenue. I just love to see this to be a little bit broader.

And then before I give you a chance to respond, but I just want to make sure we talk more broadly in your response about polling. We don't want to get too close to a line. And so, if you can talk broadly about support or other support.

Thank you. I would just say that there have been many surveys - that various surveys that have been done and the surveys show that there is support. I wish it were landslide support, but it's not. But I do think that we can succeed.

I want to be really crystal clear about what I really think, and that is we should not have to do this bill, and we should not have to have a revenue measure.

The State of California should fund public transportation just like the State of New York does and the State of Illinois and the State of Pennsylvania and the State of Massachusetts that, you know, they step up and fund public transportation. California does not do what it needs to do.

And we've done a good job on some capital stuff, especially when we had a one-time big surplus amount we put into capital. And that's great. But in terms of ongoing sustainable funding for transit, because we know the Bay Area is so reliant on transit and you know, LA is doing great.

There are other parts of the state that are expanding their transit systems, and the state should be paying that out of the general fund. That's not the reality that we're facing right now. So, we have to engage in self-help when we're doing that. There are ongoing conversations about revenue source. They're all complicated.

Every single one has pros and cons with the voters, pros and cons with stakeholders who might run a campaign against it. And so, you know, it's all complicated. This is now my third run at it. The Chair will remember two years ago when I and some happened when we tried for a bridge toll increase. It didn't work.

We tried nine counties last year. That didn't work and now we're back at it. So that's my perspective and I do appreciate the desire for flexibility.

Yeah, I mean, like I said, also I'm supportive today. I just want as many options as possible because it is such a critical moment for public transit.

Can I - one more thing. Because last year was, it was an important step to go through a painful process last year with the nine counties and ultimately, we had to pause it because there was too much rancor within the region.

The reason we wanted to do it last year and last year's measure did have multiple options in it is to give a full year plus for the region to really get it all together and craft something to be able to go out with. We're now - it's a much shorter time frame because it's we're talking about November 26th.

But I hear you and I don't, I don't disagree with you fundamentally.

I agree with you on funding at the state level.

Thank you. Now moving to Ransom.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this very important topic to us. My district is commuting to the Bay Area over 100,000 folks so definitely we need to do something to strengthen not only the system, but the interconnection between the system which would improve ridership across the board for, for everyone.

So, I'd hope to see that we did hear some kind of support if amended or opposed unless amended or in between conversations.

So, I'm wondering if you can speak to whether or not you've already started committing to working with business and or labor in regards to potential amendments that you would be willing to entertain to ensure maybe the strongest, not only the strongest bill that we can work with, but also a strong ballot measure.

Yeah. So, we're - for the last few months, Senator Arreguin and I have been in conversation with, we've been meeting with SEIU, SEIU 1021 in particular, but also AFSCME, ATU, and some of the other unions that that were mentioned before. And we're very appreciative of their engagement.

And they - and labor and SEIU in particular has really stepped up on transit funding in the budget, and we're very appreciative of that collaboration. We're also in very close conversation with the business community, and we're now, we want everyone. And there's conversations happening between business and labor because ultimately, we all need to be in this together.

So, I don't want to prejudge about what the results will be. As I, you know, just mentioned, there are serious pros and cons to every single revenue source. And so, we just, whatever we do, we just need to get everyone together and that those are the conversations that we're having now.

Got it. Thank you. I appreciate the continued collaboration and conversations as your bill progresses. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Ahrens.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to just thank the author for all of your work and all of the stakeholders work on this measure and so important for our region to come together and have a dedicated revenue source.

I just want to say how much I agree with the need for California to step up and not have these dire emergency situations where if this does not pass, then, you know, mass transit in the Bay Area and beyond as we know it will fail. And we should not be putting ourselves in that position.

But with that being said, we'll be supporting certainly this measure. But I was wondering if you can sort of speak to - I know that, you know, you sort of mentioned the rancor of how these regions come together.

And I know that in my county, Santa Clara County is not currently in the bill, but there are opportunities for a few counties to add in even with the passage of the bill. And I'm wondering if you can just sort of clarify that and speak to it.

Yeah, and so last year, you know, we had the nine counties. There were some challenges in the North Bay because of the need to reauthorize the sales tax for smart. And then Santa Clara County was really just not ready or just there. There was just not support in Santa Clara County last year.

And so that's why when we restarted it this year, we started it with the three counties that we knew had a real interest level of being in, which are the three core BART counties. And we immediately started working with San Mateo County.

I want to thank somebody over Papan for playing a really constructive role in sort of laying out what the issues were and working with us. So, we appreciate that.

And so those conversations were proceeding to see if there was a path with San Mateo County and then Santa Clara County expressed that maybe the county might be interested. And I was - that was music to my ears. And we would love for this to be a five-county measure.

And so, we've been in active conversations with Santa Clara County. The one thing I will say is that this has to all be set in the bill.

It can't be an opt in after the bill is signed into law if it's successful, just because of the nature of it's creating a new district for the purposes of the measure. And so that's why we put the August 11 deadline, and it was a little earlier.

We were asked to extend it because of the timing of meetings in San Mateo County. And so, we did that. And so, we have another month or so to figure it out.

Well, I'll say, I know that we just - the countdown is certainly started, but I know that there are amendments being proposed and I know that I'm continuing to have conversations with our county about adding in. I think that, you know, I would agree with you on all of your points.

I also feel like there are not any good options to not involved. So, I know that there are negotiations ongoing and I know that you've always operated in good faith and happy to support the bill today. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Caloza.

Thank you so much. Chair Wilson. Hi, Senator Wiener. First, thank you so much for all of your tremendous work on this bill and your support for public transit. You have a penchant for taking on some really easy issues this year, so I commend you.

I just wanted to follow up on Assemblymember Ransom's question about some of the additional pending concerns that we heard. I know SEIU was kind of a tweener. It sounded like, from what we heard. Could you elaborate a little bit more about kind of the ongoing conversations with labor, what you're committed to doing?

If you could just share a little bit more.

Yeah. So, it's currently structured as a sales tax. SEIU and some other unions, AFSCME, ATU, et cetera, have come forward expressing that they would like consideration of a gross receipts tax instead of a sales tax because it could generate more revenue.

And, and you know, there's been concern, I think, in the business community about a regional gross receipts tax. We also, we have a gross receipts tax in San Francisco and which we switched to 10 or 12 years ago from a payroll tax. And it is a better, I think, business tax to have.

You have to get it right. San Francisco screwed up its, excuse my language Madam Chair, but did screw up its gross receipts tax in a ballot measure seven years ago that effectively drove the payments industry out of San Francisco entirely. So, you have - you have to get it right.

So those are the conversations that are happening. And obviously, if the business community is intensely opposed to gross receipts tax and that would trigger a campaign, that's a challenge for any ballot measure. And so that's why we're trying to thread the needle and really bring people together. And there are more direct conversations happening now, which is good.

And I just. We need to just all the major stakeholders, because if we don't have everyone together, it's going to be really hard to be successful in this endeavor. And so, we need to figure it out together. So, I can't make any commitments today, but those conversations are happening, and I'm not sure where they'll go.

Okay, thank you so much, Senator, for sharing a little bit more on that. And I'm subbing today for our majority leader, Aguiar-Curry, who couldn't be here, but I know she expressed some of those same concerns about just making sure that our workers and labor was at the table.

So just wanted to echo that as I'm channeling her today. But did you want to add anything more?

No, I will just say that regardless, bottom line, if there is no success, obviously it's going to be terrible for riders, but also terrible for workers, which is why we're appreciative for labor's engagement here.

Thank you, Senator. And I'll tell you the good news. I'm happy to move your bill at appropriate time.

Thank you, Assemblymember.

All right, we have a motion, Caloza; is there a second? I wanted to second Lowenthal since we had a motion. I wanted to give an opportunity for a second. All right. Thank you. All right, Papan.

Well, well, well, here we are. I really don't have a question. I know we've had extended conversations. Those will continue.

I just want to let you know that, you know, I'm voting today with the understanding that there is engagement, as you well know, between my county's transit agencies and the folks in my county, the stakeholders, the particulars of which are not currently in this bill. And those discussions are continuing and it's if fruitful.

I want to thank Madam Chair for her assistance in seeing this bill, perhaps come back to this committee, and for further consideration about the things that do affect San Mateo County. And I thank you for your engagement, certainly with our county. It has been quite a ride, no question about it.

The county brings its own issues and attributes and all of those good things. And we got a little Muni in our county. We got BART, we got Caltrain, and we do have our own bus system, too. And so VTA's got their own issues. So, we'll continue the discussion.

I will be voting today for the bill, and I look forward to what we can get on paper.

Thank you.

All right. Just making sure no other committee member has comments there or not. I'll note, you know, we know. Thank you, Senator Wiener, for your work. As my colleague noted, you take all the easy things so that we can get things done here in California.

And we know that this bill is vital, vitally important to the Bay Area, especially the four major transit operators that are listed at the beginning of the bill. They cover 80% of the transit rides in the Bay Area and 30% of all transit riders in the state. That's a pretty big deal.

And so, without them, people can't move. And we know what traffic looks like when one of those is out. You noted in your testimony. And it is, and it is true, the more people who choose to get into their cars in the Bay Area makes it harder for every single person.

And so that's why it was important for me, even when this bill, prior iteration of this bill was before our committee, to see it get to the finish line. However, we've gotten to this place where we thought it was going to be a bit more baked before it got to this committee, and it wasn't.

And so that was a bit frustrating. We have a lot of questions and people are asking them, and there's still more work to be done. And I appreciate your commitment for continuing that work. We have to know which counties are participating.

We have to know what a detailed expenditure plan looks like so that our constituencies can be fully informed.

And so, I look forward to my committee being involved in those discussions as well as some key members of this committee being involved in discussions to ensure that we get this across the finish line and be able to deliver on behalf of the Bay Area. And so, with that, there has been a motion by...

Let's see, who was that? Caloza, filling in for our majority leader. And a second by Lowenthal. I thought it was Lowenthal, is that - it was Lowenthal. But the second by Lowenthal, and so, with that, I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I also, I do want to just really thank my joint author and partner in this bill: Senator Arreguin, who's been just tremendous in partnering with us. And I think, colleagues, we said what needed to be said. I appreciate the conversation, and I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

That bill has nine aye votes and three no votes. We'll leave the roll open for members to add on. Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues.

Alrighty. Moving on to item number six, SB 263 Gonzalez. You may begin at your convenience.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I'm here today to present SB 263, which directs the California Transportation Agency to conduct a study on the impacts of tariffs in California. Tariffs imposed without careful strategic planning will raise costs for California families and businesses and harm our workers.

In fact, I just saw an article from Jp Morgan Chase that said that it is estimated that direct costs on employers would be at $82 billion. That would be realized in price hikes, hiring freezes, lower profit margins as well as layoffs, which is unfortunate.

In the Port of Long beach that I represent, as well as LA and Oakland have a combined 91 canceled ship arrivals in May and June, impacting jobs for port workers and truckers, supply chain issues and higher consumer prices.

And the Department of Finance is also projecting an almost $8 billion drop in state revenues due to tariffs, which has contributed to our budget deficit. SB263 will ensure policymakers have comprehensive statewide data to help us understand the negative impacts on these tariffs and the design and design a data driven policy to mitigate negative effects on our state.

Testifying in support today, I have Jennifer Cohen from the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association and Rachel Michelin from the California Retailers Association. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote. Thank you.

Papan is the Aye and I'm sorry, I the motion and Lowenthal is the second. We'll begin with testimony.

Good afternoon. I'm Jennifer Cohen, with the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. We are a trade Association representing marine terminal operators and ocean going shippers. Needless to say, our Members have had a front row seat for recent trade fluctuations.

Thank you to Senator Gonzalez and all the supporters of SB 263 for recognizing what an important role trade plays in California's economic fabric. From 38 billion in tax revenue to 3 million jobs, air, land and sea based trade fuels our state's economy.

Given these profound economic impacts, it's imperative that the state have a clear picture of what is at risk. This study needed to provide a clear picture of the role of trade for the state and how trade policy changes can impact California positively and negatively.

This critical information will enable more advanced economic planning, budgeting and agility in responding to trade policy changes, volatility and to evaluate future proposals and fluctuations. It is prudent investment in protecting the state and will ultimately provide California with a stronger foundation for policy and fiscal decision making. Thank you so much.

Good afternoon. Rachel Michelin, the President and CEO for the California Retailers Association. We are the only statewide trade Association representing the full spectrum of retail grocery, medication pharmacies and consumer goods. We are the consumer facing dealing with consumers on a daily basis. Our Members are major national brands to independent locally owned businesses.

We we generate more than $73 billion in annual sales and employ approximately 2.7 million individuals. We account for one fifth of the state's total workforce. That does not include all of the folks like at the port who support our retail industry as well.

SB263 is critical a comprehensive state led study is needed to evaluate the impacts of tariffs on California's consumers and businesses, ensuring that policymakers and regulators have the necessary data to respond appropriately and protect the the state's economic vitality and affordability.

Given the immense scale and economic significance of California's retail sector, the imposition of tariffs could have a direct and adverse impact on both the state's economy and California consumers. As California's continue to face a cost of living crisis, additional tariffs risk further increasing the financial burden on families and exuberate the affordability challenges.

With tariffs now ranging from 10% to to as high as 145% and affecting a wide range of goods, it is increasingly difficult to quantify the full scope of their impact on retail sales and consumer confidence.

Preliminary analysis from the Budget Lab at Yale estimates that these tariffs could translate to an average of $3,800 in increases to annual household costs, placing significant strain on family budgets and altering spending patterns. This is especially true as California families start their back to school shopping and retailers large and small gear up for the holiday season.

The retail sector is a key driver of California's economy. The Data provided from SB263 is imperative as policymakers, regulators and retailers work to navigate the uncertainties that these tariffs could have for years to come. For these reasons, I ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Now moving on to members of the public who are in support. Name, affiliation and position.

Chair, Members. Jonathan Feldman, with the City of Long Beach and support.

Good afternoon Madam Chair, Members. Chris Shimoda, on behalf of the California Trucking Association and support.

Hi, Good afternoon. Kathryn Eager, with Wideman Group on behalf of Supply Chain Federation in support.

Sarah Bridges, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in support.

Madam Chair, Members. Dan Cha, on behalf of The Port of Long Beach in support.

Good Afternoon, Chair and Members. Keshav Kumar, with Pacific Maritime Association in strong support.

Good. Afternoon Chair and Members. John Kendrick, from The California Chamber of Commerce in support.

All right, moving on to Members of the public who are in opposition. We don't have any registered on file and so just to be sure there's no members of the public present, now would be an appropriate time if you're in opposition this bill to stand, give your name, affiliation and position. Seeing none moving back to Committee. Lowenthal.

Thank you Senator for bringing this bill forward. I'm proud to be a co author on this bill. This affects our community collectively, but this, this affects the entire state, the entire country.

And if you look at today's stock market, look at stock market today dropping 400 plus points with the announcements of tariffs to Japan and otherwise 25% and other Southeast Asian countries as well as South Africa. And the announcement came with letters that said the tariffs may change at his whim.

And I can tell you, not speaking with legislators hat on. But as a business person, pricing is a critical component. But planning is such an important part of running any successful business anywhere. And we have no ability to plan right now.

The suit I just bought as a matter of fact because the place where I get suits where was having a discount the pre tariff pricing for suits because they simply do not know what their cost of materials to go out and sell business suits are going to be afterwards. Businesses cannot plan without levels of certainty.

And I certainly think that this study is going to help contribute to how we can make things more certain going forward. Thank you Senator, so much.

All right, Jackson.

Thank you very much Senator for this important bill for those of us who have significant footprints of the goods movement. Of course goods start in your district at the ports and then come to mine in the Inland Empire for where they are stored before they go out to the rest of the world.

And certainly if there are economic impacts at the ports, they will have ripple effects throughout the goods movement system. And so very important bill would love to excite to see.

Well maybe I'm not excited to see what the impact is going to be, but looking forward to seeing so that people really know how much and how important the goods movement is to our entire economy and the harmful effects these tariffs can really have.

And so I would love to be a co author if you, if you would have me.

All right, Ransom.

Thank you. Thank you Senator for bringing this very forward thinking approach to something that's still kind of up in the air. And I think that's what leads me to my question as another Assembly Member, just me just mentioned, you know, we wake up different days depending on, you know, what which way the wind blows.

We may get a different tariff or you know, a different negotiated tariff. And I'm just wondering since we're going to be doing a study how you plan to solve for things that are all over the place. Have you already thought about that? And if you can speak to that, I'd love to hear. So that we know that.

I know this is an urgency bill that we want to have a response by January, but we just never know what we're going to be dealing with at the federal level. So we'd love to know how you plan to address that in this study.

Yeah, thank you very much. And that's a very important question. I think what we've noticed from the last Trump term, the first Trump term, was The Port of LA experienced a 19% drop in cargo just in a very short period of time.

We already know that there are studies out there now that say again, as I said in my first introduction, that $82 billion may be the hit towards the employers that are literally dealing with this every single day. The consumer prices are vast. They're going up on just about everything.

I was also just similar to what Assemblymember Lowenthal said. I was in the market to buy a new car. And that might be off the table because it's about $20,000 more than I had expected it to be.

But because it's moving so fast, we think that even in these bips of time that we know, like July 9th is supposed to be the end date for the reprieve on the 90 days for the 10%. So we'll see what happens in two days.

But even in this time, that 90 day reprieve, it has caused such a ripple effect and we need to make sure that we are accounting for that. So we do want an urgency.

We understand it's a very short time frame, but I think that these, you know, the changes in the economics, I think are worthy of accounting for. And then we also have built in as well, which I was going to mention a measurement, the type of model and measurement that we need to apply.

So that way the next time this happens, that there is something in place that will fully analyze with this specific model and metrics on what to do next time, just to be a little bit more prepared. So I hope that answers your question.

It does. Thank you. We can appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, Rogers, thank you.

I too would just like to be added as a co author and if the Chair is looking for a motion, happy to make one.

I think we have one, Papan and Lowenthal, but we here we have a third and a fourth. All right, thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair. I want to start by saying I think the study, I have no problems with the study. But I don't think the study goes far enough when my family comes from the food supply chain.

So when I tell you that we have perishable products, that the movement of this product is very important, I watch closely not just what's going on with the tariffs, but what's going on here in the State of California.

And a big part of that is we're wondering if gas prices go up or insurance prices go up, what the transport of those goods mean.

So that's my only hope is along the pathway of this bill, maybe we include more as far as what even our regulations here in the State of California are doing to impact the cost on the supply chain across the board, because we know that that's impacting the cost because we have to pass those costs along to the consum in order to stay in business.

So I really look forward to maybe working with you of how we can insert that because our food supply chain and supply chain in General is vital to the State of California and how we can make sure that this study is truly impactful to allow people to assemblymember Lowenthal's point to plan being in agriculture right now, we can only plan about six months at a time.

We no longer can plan a year ahead of a time, predominantly because of the fluctuating cost of doing business in California. So thank you very much and if.

I might respond through the chair. Thank you. And I look forward to working with you. I think that would be really good. The perishable items, I think has been something that we've been talking through, especially with the directors at the Port of Long beach about.

And actually just overall just having more of a synergy between the port executives that many of us represent along the coast along with the agriculture community. I think that would be important. I don't know if I can help you on the regulatory items. I think that's very separate. I mean, this is tariffs. These are happening now.

And I think that's what we really want to focus on is the tariffs that are literally moving every single minute and every second of the day that are causing billions of dollars in lost revenue, in layoffs, in hiring freezes. And then in addition to that, just consumer prices that are going up drastically for folks, everyday people.

I can afford $20,000 maybe in addition to my, you know, the new car I want to get, but not the average person. And that's what we want to make sure that we are doing here. And again, this is not. Doesn't seek a specific outcome. It's outcome neutral. And so I think the more the merrier.

I'd love to work with you on that overall. Thank you.

Thank you, Caloza.

Thank you. Chair Wilson. Hi, Senator Gonzalez. Just wanted to give my appreciation to you for bringing this bill forward. Also would love to partner with. I am chairing a new Select Committee on Asia California Trade and Investment, which will look at trade and tariffs. Our Chair is also a Member of my Select Committee.

Would love to invite you to the table and see how we can partner together, including your witnesses. So proud to support this bill. And thanks again.

Thank you. I don't see any other Members wanting to comment. Thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward. As it's been noted from various Members of the Committee, we live in tumultuous times where each day things change. You notice that you noted that in two days the expiration on the pause will be.

But then when I was listening to the news this morning, they said, but the pause, even though it expires in two days, it won't start until August 1st, which is a lot of uncertainty. And so this will shed light on the economic impacts that the recent trade and reciprocal tariffs.

I'm sorry, recent tariffs and reciprocal tariffs will have on international trade and subsequently our economy. And so with that, I'll be supporting the Bill. I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Just want to say thank you. Respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Sounds good. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

SB 263, the motion is do passed to the Committee on Economic Development, Growth and Household Impact. [Roll Call]

That bill has 11 votes and we'll hold the roll open for Members to be able to add on. We'll go in as we normally go on file order. However, we have an author here, and so we will proceed.

And we'll ask the sergeants to call our final two authors and let them know that we are wrapping up item number 12, SB 661. Hurtado.

You can proceed at your convenience.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. I'm here to present SB 661, the Airport Expansion and Regional Optimization Act. SB 661 is simple. It redirects existing sales tax revenue from jet fuel back to airports for aviation related purposes. I'm bringing this bill forward because in a state that's as big and dynamic as ours, we should have access to air travel, you know,

rural communities. Air travel shouldn't depend on your zip code or the region where you live. We've seen this kind of neglect before. When rural transit systems were left underfunded, when highway expansion skipped over communities that needed the most, and when smaller cities had to fight just to keep a single commercial route.

And now those same communities, growing communities like my very own, the City of Bakersfield, are being told that if they want affordable flights or a new airline service or updated terminals, they'll need to wait again. And the reality is that we need to modernize and embrace for the next generation of aviation.

I mean, I'm just shocked by all the wonderful things that are that are coming out and I'm really excited about it. And that's why I think we also need this bill. SB 661 says no more waiting.

I want to make it very clear that SB 661 is not a new tax reestablishes a dedicated funding stream for California airports by using existing jet fuel sales tax revenue, revenue already generated at our airports to invest back into our airport infrastructure, air service expansion and other aviation related purposes like workforce development.

For the Central Valley and rural communities, this means shorter commutes to access flights. It means better infrastructure to support cargo and commerce. It means jobs in aviation, logistics, hospitality and other related industries that don't require leaving town. So for California as a whole, it means a more resilient, balanced transportation network with an airport system that works together.

One where no single region shoulders that weight and no community is left behind. I also want to note that SB 661 is a critical step toward bringing California into long overdue compliance with federal law, which requires that revenues from aviation fuel taxes be used exclusively for airport related purposes in state aviation programs.

For over a decade, California has remained out of alignment with this mandate, putting the state at serious risk. And under the Current Federal Administration, the FAA has made it clear that continued non compliance could result in the loss of vital federal funding and even legal action by the U.S. attorney's office.

SB 661 not only helps resolve this long standing dispute with the Federal Government, it helps protect also supports California's transportation goals and complements our climate efforts.

And lastly, I want to acknowledge that we are working with airport stakeholders on the formula to adjust the funding distribution so that it is equitable and better serves the needs of all airports and their different functions.

I appreciate the input received by the stakeholders, and we are very optimistic that we will land on a set of amendments that we all can agree on. So with me today, I have Jim Lights representing the California Airport Council, who has been working with my office on this bill.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Jim Lights. On behalf of the California Airports Council, I'd like to really underscore one of the things that Senator Hurtado said.

The most important portion of this bill is section three, which moves California into compliance on the revenue use rule the FAA puts forward for tax revenues generated from the sale of aviation fuels. We are almost 11 years after the FAA notified the state that we are not in compliance, and we are still not in compliance.

This bill will take care of that problem. At the end of the day, it will generate funds for all airports, both commercial and general aviation airports. And one of the things that we'd like to underscore is, I think January showed us that we never know which airports are going to be called upon to support aerial firefighting.

And so we need to make sure that our aviation infrastructure is ready to go statewide, not just in the rural areas where a fire may occur.

So with that, we are in strong support and very optimistic that we will come up with an expenditure allocation formula that will be comfortable for the taxpayers in this discussion as well as the airports. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Kathy Van Osten representing United Airlines. And on behalf of Alberto Tirico, who couldn't be here today, Airlines for America, our Association, as the taxpayer, as we were referred to, we do have a very keen interest in this bill.

We have been working with the Airports Council for about a decade now to really try to push towards this direction. And we're very grateful for the senator for taking this on and advancing this as a taxpayer.

We also want to make sure that the distribution of these revenues, as much of it goes back to the airport of origin as possible. We're working with senator and her staff on what this would look like. But we do want to make sure that the customer's needs are met.

Health and safety standards, public safety standards, everything that goes into the operations of, of running an airport, running an airline, that there is as good of and positive experience as possible. This bill will go a long way to returning a lot of these funds. To the airports as opposed to the state general fund.

We have been very frustrated. That hasn't happened yet. So we're grateful. And we also share the perspective that we do expect to come up with a distribution formula that everybody can agree to. So we're hoping to have that nailed down soon.

And so with the caveat that we do want to make sure this formula is appropriate and reflects all of the stakeholders needs that we can advance the bill, keep it moving and hopefully get it to the governor for a signature.

Thank you. Now moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their support name, affiliation and position.

Madam Chair and members, Mike Belote on behalf of Delta Air Lines, I'd like to align my comments with our very able colleague from United. Thank you.

Madam Chair and members, Don Gilbert for San Francisco International Airport ask for your support. Thank you, ma'am.

Chair and members, Kobe Pizotti on behalf of the cities of Bakersfield and Merced in strong support.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and members Obed Franco here on behalf of Southwest Airlines, we'd like also like to align our comments with our able colleague from United as well.

Thank you. Now moving on to opposition. I don't believe there's any registered on file wanted to confirm and there's anyone in the members, any member of the public who would like to note their opposition. Name, organization and position. Seeing none, moving to members of the committee. Rogers.

Thank you, senator. So I just wanted a quick clarification if I could because what I heard from the senator was that part of this realignment would better support airports in rural areas. Heard from one witness that during the firefighting all of the airports were called upon and that we need to invest in our rural and small airports.

But then from another witness I heard as many dollars going back to the point of origin which seems to benefit the big airports currently. So given that, one of the questions that isn't being answered right now in hearing of this bill is the negotiations about where that percentage formula will come down.

My question really is what is the purpose of the bill other than just realigning the dollars from the General Fund back to airports? Is the purpose of the bill to support rural and small airports as well, or is it to realign the dollars so that they go back to the area where the jet fuel is being sold?

So I can respond to that and if my witnesses would like to add. You sure can. What I'll answer to the chair is that yes, I mean obviously I represent a rural community and the goal is to ensure that these funds are able to go back to those communities and right now they're not.

And so I drive by all the time by my Bakersfield airport and that's really what drove me to draft this bill in the first place. I it needs to be modernized. It needs financial support. There's existing revenues that should be going to it and are not. And I think that it needs to happen. Right.

The money needs to come back. But yes, it does support other airports as well. And I think that part of the problem is that if we focus on one and not the other, then I think there'd be other folks that would be like, hey, I want my fair share as well. And that's, and that's where we're at.

This is about coming together, trying to address a need. Yes, there's a significant need in rural communities, but there's also a need in urban communities as well.

We have a motion by Macedo. Do we have a second, Ahrens? Second by Ahrens. Alrighty. I wanted to continue with Rogers.

Yeah, I was gonna say I'm not sure that everybody had an opportunity to answer that question.

I'm happy to jump in since I'm the one that sort of threw the monkey wrench into the wheel here. I certainly don't want my comments to be interpreted as, you know, the smaller airports shouldn't get revenues under the bill, no matter what.

They are going to get more money than they're currently getting because this money has been diverted from years. The regulation actually went into effect in 1983 and then the Federal Government said, well, you know, it's 1989.

We really want you to do this, so we're going to let you keep what you got right now, whatever taxes are imposed and you can, you know, just the rest would have to go back to the airports. That never happened either.

So there is money that frankly, for decades has been going into the General Fund where it really didn't belong. There might be some legitimate uses, but for the most part not so much.

But the smaller airports will get more revenues whether you have a 50% allocation going directly back to the airport of origin and then some combination of other, you know, large hub, medium hub, non hubs and so forth.

That's what we're working on right now is to try to get that balance right, to make sure that the smaller airports, whether they're in Santa Rosa or Fresno or wherever, that they are getting a fair share. We're not looking to move everything to the large airports. That doesn't benefit United Airlines or the other airlines as well.

So we're just working on those fine points.

I appreciate that. And that's why I wanted to hone in on it a little bit. Is again, also represent a rural community. And the way that we see gas tax allocation for road development already is a challenge compared to other places that have more population.

And I would just hate to see us make this shift where then also air travel is a significant challenge for rural communities relative to other parts of the state as well. So I wanted to make sure that I heard clearly from the author what the intent was of the bill.

Assemblymember Ward.

Thank you. Just so I want to get clarification, I think, on several things that I think are kind of integrated in the discussion here so that we know exactly what we're looking at. So there is the existing fuel excise tax of 18 cents per gallon as well as the existing 2 cents per gallon on aircraft jet fuel.

And that I think has last been updated in 1994, according to our analysis. That's never been escalated to adjust for inflation or that number has never been adjusted. But so let's kind of put that on the board.

The FAA's complaint and the belief that there has been, or I'm sure that I say belief that the demonstration that there's been movement of money from the aviation fund into the General Fund.

The analysis is also telling us that this has potentially been rectified and that since 2020, CDTFA has been receiving information about revenues that are subject to the FAA policy. So is it your testimony that we're still not in compliance?

Because I would have hoped that that analysis, that directive that started back in back in 2020 would have helped to show us what we need to be preserving into that account.

Right. So in a 2019 budget trailer bill, finance required fuel sellers, when they remit their sales taxes, to submit an additional sheet so we could begin to track how much money we're actually talking about. So that started in the first quarter of 2020. So we know how much money we're talking about.

None of it has been reallocated to.

An aviation purpose, however, I mean, that's certainly something that would be apt for a Budget Committee conversation as well that I sit on that, you know, is disappointing that, you know, this hasn't come up. I've not seen that come up before because that's something that I would like to us to sort of make be consistent with.

And I think that that's something that we'd want to be faithful with in making sure that we are preserving a lot of those dollars. Now that's the fuel excise tax and the the 2 cents on aircraft jet fuel. So that 18 cents and that 2 cents there.

But are we also saying that the sales and use tax is also subject to the FAA's orders? Because that is a general tax.

Right. Any tax that was applied I believe after 1986 is subject to this rule. And so we did have a sales tax in place prior to that. It has gone up of course since 1986. This includes local regional, voter approved sales tax add ons for dedicated purposes. They're all subject to this rule.

And so that's why it's not the full sales tax amount that is subject to the reallocation.

Right. Just the 3.9375%. Right. My concern is when we get into that that's So a couple of things if you're moving I see on this, I think I have some more research I would need to do in this and I'm happy to give it a supportive vote here today.

But I would understand between the fuel excise tax and the tax on aircraft jet fuel that that really should be lockbox there for aviation purposes and that we should be, we should be faithful to be able to make sure that's not rated on the sales and use tax.

This I think your Senate Appropriations Committee is acknowledging this would be a shift of more than $54 million now. And that comes out of I assume county funds or other.

There's the state portion, there is the county's portion that somehow is going to come at the cost of something else when at the same time while I know airport operations and expenses have been rising, there's been no escalation since 1994 in the fuel excise tax like we had with SB 1 with our- our gas tax here.

That is sort of adjusting for inflation. And is there any what's utilization of passenger fees, airport fees on per landing basis or per aircraft basis? I mean all I'm aware of is my home airport in San Diego and I'm aware of the $5.60 that we pay for every passenger.

And I know what that goes to in the form of a major airport expansion that we are enjoying right now.

And so I'm just, you know, are we I need to understand whether or not going after sales and use tax 1 is really required of us to do so to be in compliance with the FAA's interpretation and if we agree with the FAA's interpretation because that's going to come at the cost of something else.

And it's not an insignificant cost. And so I'm just, I'm trying to look at all of these different sources of revenues and make sure that we are all being faithful, I guess, in how we are receiving the funds and applying those funds. That I think is the central question that we're trying to achieve here today.

So I don't know if you have any maybe closing thoughts on this fuzzy math.

You're looking at me, so I'm going to take it. I think the important thing to keep in mind here is one, it used to be all of the tax that was supposed to go back to the airports. It was supposed to be 100% of the sales and use tax that would have come back.

The feds back in the 80s said, you know, we're not in compliance. Let's take, for anything that has been imposed after a date certain. So that money for close to 40 years has been going to other purposes.

And, you know, when it is going to other purposes that we like, we tend to not want to really change anything. But the reality is that there has been harm by not being in compliance. From general aviation airports all the way up to LAX. There are immense needs for just making sure that the airport can operate appropriately.

Jim can speak to that much better than I can. But from the airline's perspective, the more that we can make sure that the funds dedicated for a specific purpose for which these are, are going to the purpose for which they were intended and not for what the state feels like they would prefer to go to.

And with the greatest respect for our Department of Finance over the years, it's not just this snapshot in time, but it's over the years there has been a bit of a approach avoidance, for lack of a better term, in terms of dealing with this situation, we stand to lose billions and billions of dollars in federal transportation funds if we don't come into compliance.

That first and foremost should be very concerning to this committee. We are very concerned. We want all of our partners who operate in transportation to have their funds, their needs met with this. There are airport needs that have either gone unfunded or have been severely delayed.

So, you know, this isn't money that will go back into our pocket, but we do want to make sure it's going to the right places for the right reasons and that it's fair and equitable. And will it impact locals generally?

The local sales tax on jet fuel is anywhere between a half a cent, one and a half cents somewhere around there. And all I can do is just acknowledge that, but it wasn't really in compliance to begin with.

And frankly, meeting a county's needs through their airport and taking more of the pressure off from the demands of not being in compliance or not being able to do your repairs, your maintenance, etc. Is also a cost. So it's.

While I would say, you know, I can hear your concern about pulling money out from other programs, frankly, a lot of that money should have been going to the airports to start with.

Right. And thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just close and say again, I see very directly fuel excise taxes and other taxes that are applied directly for aviation fuel as being something that is directly linked to and should support the activity that's there, a general tax, in this case, sales and use tax.

I need more, I'm going to need more research to understand whether or not we agree that this is in compliance with the FAA's orders. They're saying that it is. But how often does a federal agency direct that a state tax needs to go into a certain function? Right. And so we make those decisions. Right.

If we want to suspend the sales news tax on diapers or we want to suspend the sales news tax on heavy manufacturing, as we discussed earlier on a different item right now, because there was an economic benefit there.

And so that, that is, I think the area of study I need to dig into a little bit more to see. And maybe that's, that's what's predated this conversation here too, is a disagreement whether or not they are incorrectly interpreting what applies to that.

If, if they're correct, then we should go ahead and make sure everything is made whole here and everything is sort of closed up here. Ultimately, we do want to support our airports, too, but if that is going to come at some significant cost to something else, that's something that we have to weigh on balance.

Thank you.

Alright, we have two other mics up, so to speak. Papan and then Ransom.

I just have a quick question about proportionality. Is what's reflected in the bill proportional to who brings in what? For example, large hub airports reflect 30% of the taxes collected or where are we on the staff report?

Does suggest you may want to consider that they're not going to ask the question, but I'm going to ask the question, where are we with it?

So we are moving, I think, towards a little bit more equitable allocation. I think if we went back to a return to source, nearly half of the money would go back to LAX and sfo. And so we're trying to give and. There'S a problem there.

I'm teasing. I'm teasing. Having SFO in my district, I just couldn't. Please go ahead.

I understand. So we're trying to make sure that they get a healthy share of that money back. But also it gives us the opportunity, especially because it is supposed to be ongoing funds, to do some work at smaller airports. And I would just add to Assemblymember Ward's question.

The FAA spent 30 years with this rule on the books without enforcing it. And they only announced that they wanted people to get into compliance in 2014. And most states were not in compliance when that was announced. We are one of about six or seven states that remain out of compliance to this day.

Thank you, Ransom.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, senator. And thank you for your presenters. I have a couple of questions. Some have just come to me during listening to this conversation. So the general aviation airport is an airport that's for public use. Is that correct?

Like the, the larger airports, we're not talking about, like, the small airports. So in my community, we don't have an airport where you can take commercial flight, but we do have planes fly in to fill up because it's Tracy. Tracy airport has cheap gas. So they come in, they fill up there.

But it's my understanding they would not. That particular airport would not qualify for the 50% of the dollars going back to your airport because it's a smaller airport. Or would they be considered a general aviation airport under this bill?

They are general aviation, but they would get some money back if they're selling fuel.

Okay, so. But they would not get the 50%. They would get some money back.

Well, the idea is, where we started is that half of the money, 50%, would go back to the airport that generated it, which helps LAX and SFO feel a bit better about this. The other half is where we have the opportunity to be a bit creative and support general aviation airports.

And some of the smaller airports, like Meadow- Meadows Fields in Senator Hurtado's district.

Okay, so when reading the analysis in the bill, it said that 50% would go back to general aviation that had sales, that sells fuel. So the smaller airports, if they sell fuel, would qualify for the 50%. And now when we look at the proportion piece, first of all, how did you all come?

Who came up with the formula? That's. That's the question. I don't know if anybody wants to take credit.

This was lifted largely from a bill that was done, I believe, in 2015 by Senator Mcguire. So we've been working on this for a long time. And that's where the original framework for the formula came from. And then we've been, do we know the original.

Do we know the rationale for the formula? Because the formula was kind of interesting to me. So do we know the rationale for the formula?

Well, I think part of the reason Senator Mcguire's district is also somewhat rural. And so he wanted to make sure that some of the smaller airports in his district benefited from us getting into compliance on these revenues and not having most of it go back to simply the larger commercial airports.

Okay. Now the larger airports will only qualify for the 50% or is it 50% and a proportion based on. So it's.

It is the latter. It's 50% plus what they will get out of the other 50% allocation.

LAX will be amazing. And then other folks will have to still struggle a little bit. And how does that work with the grants? So it. We previously had a reliance, a huge reliance on grants. Sometimes you get them, sometimes you don't. So the 50% can only be used for like infrastructure and upgrades and things like that.

But I did not see that level of detail in the other proportions. So two questions in one. So a does the opposite. The ones who get it as proportionate, do they have the requirement. It says it can be used for education, but is it required to also be used for infrastructure expansion and things like that?

I think there's a lot of flexibility that we're trying to build into the language to give an airport and the state some latitude on how the money is spent. The FAA simply says it must be spent on an aviation purpose. After that, the taxing jurisdiction gets to decide how they want that to be spent.

Okay, and is this going to replace reliance on grants or is this going to be additive? It's going to be additive to the grants, so it should put us in a better position. Okay. So I'm just going to say for the record, I will, I'm still thinking about this.

I will probably support it, but I'm really still feels like this needs a lot of work in regards to understanding the how you plan to do the proportions for folks that are not in that, that large 50% category. So. But I do appreciate the efforts because I know there's a lot of small, struggling airports.

There's actually two in my little town. So I do appreciate the efforts.

Alright. Seeing no other comments from the committee, we do have a motion from Macedo and a second by Ahrens. I'll note that I appreciate your work to return state aviation fuel tax revenues from the General Fund to the aeronautics account and to be used for aviation purposes.

As was noted as a part of the testimony, that these revenues represent approximately $140 million, a percentage of which can be especially impactful to non hub airports. Now, I look forward to your continuing work with the airports and airlines on the final allocation percentage that better represents what the airports pay into this fund.

And I will be supporting your bill today. With that, I'll give the author an opportunity to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. What I will, you know, also add is that when I first introduced this measure, I try to allocate a large fund of this redirection of funds to Bakersfield. And what I quickly realized is that there's a need all across the state and we want to make sure that we get there.

So it is about mice in a district, but it's also about all California, even the smallest, the most rural parts of our state. They need the support and that's what we're working towards. So you have my commitment to ensure that it's an equitable piece of legislation that we're all, you know, for the most part, happy with.

And with that I would, I will respect last for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

SB 661 by Hurtado. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Revenue and Taxation. [roll call]

That bill has 13 votes. We'll hold it open for members to be able to add on. Alright, going in file item file order. Moving on to item number 7, SB 274 Cervantes. The author may start at your convenience.

Thank you Madam Chair and Committee Members for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 274 today. I want to thank your Committee staff for their work with myself and our team on this shall this bill get out of this Committee today.

I certainly look forward to continuing conversations with all stakeholders and Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee today over 230 police and sheriff departments in California use automated license plate recognition systems, with dozens more planning to adopt them. While ALPR technology can be a useful tool tool, it possesses serious risk to privacy when misused.

ALPR are high speed cameras that can rapidly scan numerous computer readable images. These plate readers can be mounted on stationary poles, moving police cruisers or handheld devices. They log the time and date of each, scan the vehicle, GPS coordinates and picture of a car. Some versions can also snap pictures of a vehicle's occupants.

LPR data collects expansive and sensitive accounts of people's movements regardless of whether they are suspected of a criminal activity. The proliferation of LPR technology raises serious civil rights and civil liberty concerns. In fact, LA Police Department alone has accumulated more than 320 million license plate scans.

Sacramento PD recorded up to 1.7 million scans and in just one week. Despite this expansive data collection effort, many departments have not developed a policy to govern the use of ALPR technology or provided privacy protections.

In 2016, Senate Bill 34 required agencies to adopt usage and privacy policies for ALPR Data, but a 2020 state auditors report found widespread non compliance agencies shared ALPR data with hundreds, even thousands of external entities even without ensuring they had a right or need to access it. Many failed to establish required policies or had none at all.

ALPR data was often commingled with sensitive personal information and retained indefinitely, risking the privacy of millions of law abiding Californians. This data includes photos and locations of every vehicle scanned, not just those linked to crimes, capturing travel histories to health clinics, protests, churches, shops and more, creating a chilling effect on civic and personal freedoms.

The misuse isn't theoretical. Officers have used ALPR data for harassment, stalking and retaliation. In Shasta County, an officer used ALPR data to harass the ex boyfriend of a fiance and was charged with six misdemeanors after he used this data to have the ex boyfriend's truck towed and impounded.

In San Diego, a sergeant and the San Diego Police Department use ALPR data to track and stalk his ex girlfriend and her new partner. A national AP investigation revealed similar abuses across the country.

It is critical that we rise to the occasion and ensure that we establish robust safeguards and oversight for the use of ALPR data to protect the privacy of millions and of law abiding Californians.

SB 274 strengthens safeguards by requiring enhanced policies for access and the use of ALPR systems by requiring ALPR operators to require data security training, data privacy training for all employees that access ALPR information. This bill also mandates the Department of Justice to conduct annual random audits of police agents of public agencies.

The bill also limits Data retention to 60 days unless linked to an active investigation or included in a hot list, a database of vehicles of interest maintained through the FBI's NCIC system. Hot lists are defined as a list of license plates or vehicles of interest against which the ALPR system is flagging stolen vehicles or wanted criminals.

It works via an integration into the Federal Bureau of Investigations National Crime Information center which is updated daily. This Bill ensures ALPR technology is used ethically and legally while protecting the privacy and security and safety of all Californians. With me to testify and support is Rebecca Marcus George with the California Public Defenders Association.

Good afternoon Chair, Members. Rebecca Marcus, with the California Public Defenders Association, a statewide organization of public defenders, private defense counsel and investigators speaking in support of SB 274. Limiting the use of automated license plate recognition which could be used for immigration enforcement at sensitive locations, is a crucial step towards protecting these important places.

We when this bill was up in the Assembly, I spent some time describing to the Committee how increased federal immigration enforcement tears at the fabric of our communities, triggering many adverse effects. Additionally, I described the threat of immigration enforcement activity and the significance of the current administration's changes in policy regarding sensitive locations.

Unfortunately, I don't believe it is necessary for me to have to paint that picture for you today. Many of you can see it firsthand in your own communities right now and understand the negative mental, physical and financial strains these enforcement actions are having on individuals as well as their families and entire neighborhoods.

SB 274 is needed to make it clear that this data can only be used for specified narrow purposes rather than sharing information with Federal agents for non crime fighting motives, as CalMatters reported was done more than 100 times in May by law enforcement agencies across Southern California.

SB 274 also takes a positive step towards limiting surveillance of the General public. By limiting retention with specified exemptions. This bill creates an important initial guardrail against unfettered license plate surveillance which infringes on all Californians privacy. I ask for an Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving on, Members of the public who would like to add on their support for this bill. Name, affiliation and position.

I'm starting off the betweeners. Becca Kramer, matter with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of Electronic Frontier Foundation. We do not have the position on the bill as it is in print, but very much appreciate the author's office working with us on this bill.

Thank you. Any other tweeners or supporters? Okay. With that, we will move on to opposition. I believe we have some testifying in opposition. It's our first. We went through a number of bills without it. As a reminder, you have two minutes a piece.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members. Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association here in opposition to the bill, first would like to make clear that law enforcement agencies across the state and the nation have used ALPR data to solve crimes and apprehend criminal suspects and continue to do so today.

While some cases are solved quickly using this technology that same day or maybe a day later, it can also be exceptionally helpful in solving crimes that have occurred deeper in the past.

And setting a data retention limit, such as 60 days in statute, which is based on really nothing at all, will significantly hinder the use of a valuable law enforcement tool.

To be clear, if this bill passes, there will be crimes that go unsolved or have their resolutions delayed if we require the destruction of evidence as we do in this bill as it's currently drafted. And over the years, and respectfully, we've seen efforts to limit ALPR data retention before.

It was based on this notion generally that law enforcement would use the data to track individuals and violate a non existent expectation of privacy when out in the public. And then it was about concerns about other states trying to use California ALPR data to enforce their abortion laws.

And now we're using the concerns over federal immigration enforcement which not commenting on the veracity of any of those things or whether they're right or wrong. But for law enforcement, our intention has remained unchanged and that's to ensure that we aren't arbitrarily tying law enforcement's hands in our crime fighting efforts.

The bottom line is we don't always know when the ALPR data will be useful. We may be able to say, hey, we're looking for a black Ford with license plate ABC123. We can put it on a hot list and there you go and we'd be in compliance with the bill for 60 days.

The challenge is when you're working a cold case, for example, you come back three years later and say, hey, we have evidence that a black Ford crossed the Golden Gate Bridge. We'd like to see if any cars matching that description did so. With with this bill or policy in place, it'd be impossible to do so.

For those reasons, we'd ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Afternoon Chair Members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association echo the comments of my colleague. But I also want to just start by saying I understand and so do the police chiefs, the underlying issues here, privacy, and in this moment, immigration enforcement. I represent California law enforcement. Your police chiefs, they are immigrants themselves.

A lot of the times each one of them is impacted by immigration enforcement. So in this moment, in this time that we're working through, I understand and empathize with everything that every community is dealing with.

And the Police Chiefs Association has a track record over the last 10 years that I've represented them from working collaboratively with the Legislature to set meaningful boundaries that still allow for important law enforcement operations and then utilization of these investigative tools. Unfortunately, I don't think the bill as it stands right now, strikes that balance.

It does improve some oversight, but honestly, I think there's more that can be done and willing to have those conversations with anyone that's interested. But when it comes to the deletion of permanently the information that helps solve these crimes, murders, rapes, robberies, kidnappings, these aren't anecdotes. These aren't hypotheticals. This is real.

Across the country, over a million crimes are solved by ALPR data in the state alone. We're talking about people that have been saved, people that have been exonerated, who have used it as alibis to keep themselves out of trouble in the first place. This data is incredibly important.

It's why we're here with such serious concerns about a retention policy that sets it arbitrarily at a number that we don't think is going to create the type of balance that I'm talking of that meaningfully protects the public, but also gives law enforcement the tools that they need to continue to protect each and every one of your communities.

Again, appreciate everyone's time. We have offered amendments to try and create a better balance. We'll continue to talk to the author's office and future committees as the bill moves forward, but as it stands now, we are very strongly opposed.

Thank you. Now, moving on to others who would like to note their position of opposition, name, affiliation and position.

Good afternoon. Brandon Epp, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, in opposition.

Good afternoon. Ryan Sherman, with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, California Narcotic Officers Association, California Reserve Peace Officers Association, Placer County Deputy Sheriff's Association, and the Police Officer Associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Brea, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Murrieta, Newport Beach, Nevada, Palos Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, Louisiana School Police, Louisiana School Police Management Association, California Coalition of School Safety Professionals, and the California School Police Chiefs Association, all in opposition.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Kobe Pozadi, on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks, in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Now moving on to Members of the Committee who would like to give comments. Ransom.

Comments and questions. So thank you for that. I feel like I am full of questions today. So I want to thank you, Senator, for your, your presentation and for your concern regarding the data and the privacy and how these, these things are used.

I want to start off by saying that in my community, my history, I've actually supported the Flock Cameras, helped connect several cities, helped Fund our sheriff Department, get federal and state funding for these. We've used them to stop, you know, crimes on farms, catalytic converter theft, et cetera, et cetera.

With that said, I'm really curious as to the opposition in regard to what do you think is a reasonable amount of time to store data, data that some people, you know, who are not committing crimes, who are just, you know, traveling about their, their days. How long do you think is reasonable to keep that?

Because when we use it in, when we talk about crime fighting, normally, you know, something happens and you're looking, you're. Are you going to go, you know, someone commits a crime and you want to go back over the data from three years ago over the Bay Bridge or like, what, what's reasonable in your opinion?

Yeah, thanks for that question. I want to first start by saying that I think a lot of the issues at hand are failures to comply with existing law. And so if we look at better enforcement of existing law, we can get at some of the issues that were mentioned earlier.

But when it comes to setting that number, it's been really hard to get a coalition of 335 police chiefs and sheriffs to come up with an actual number.

The amendments that we had offered to the author and put forward to the Committee created sort of a bifurcated system where there was General access to your rank and file officers for a certain period of time.

And then after that point in time, all the data would go into a lockbox where only an administrator would have access to it. So think of your Police Chief or their command staff, and only in response to an enumerated crime being investigated at that moment. So that data is protected.

Only an administrator has access to it and only if there's an active investigation going on to not any crime, not low level minor infractions, but we're talking about the more serious crimes that we are so concerned about solving.

The draft amendments that we had put forward were drafted based off of LAPD's policy, which is a two year General access and then an additional three years, which is long time. Right. Five years total. Obviously that's much longer than 60 days. But again, the Association has a track record of negotiating through these tough, difficult issues.

Obviously, there's a date that we have set. There's a date in the Bill right now and there's a bunch of dates in the middle. And we hope to. Ultimately, I'd say I've had this debate around retention policies every year for four years now. Kind of feels like it's time to settle this one.

And so I hope we can get to a number. I just, you know, I understand we're running short on time here and that there's been other committees that have weighed in and other committees that will weigh in that might not agree with what we proposed, but we're going to keep trying.

Okay. And did our representative from the Sheriff's Association want to chime in on that?

Sure. I largely agree with what my colleague said. We have not, on behalf of the sheriff's been able to come up with a time to where we're comfortable in saying after X days or months or years, we're okay with destroying that information because again, it's pictures of license plates.