Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

Alright. The Assembly Transportation Committee is now called to order. Good afternoon and welcome everyone. The hearing room is open for the attendance of this hearing and it can be watched from a live stream on the Assembly's website. We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California.

In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. We will not accept disrupt behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. We encourage the public to provide written testimony by visiting the committee's website. Please note that any written testimony submitted to the committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted.

We will allow two minutes each for two primary witnesses in support and opposition of the bill. As a reminder, primary witnesses in support must be those accompanying the author or who otherwise have registered a support position with the committee. And the primary witness in opposition must have their opposition registered with the committee. All other support and opposition can be stated at the standing mic when called upon by simply stating name, affiliation, and position. I'd like to start today's proceeding by welcoming the newest member of our committee, assembly member doctor Sharp Collins. We are so glad to have you here with us and look forward to our work together.

Yes. She was on time. She beat most of our veteran members.

That's how we know she was new.

That is true. New members tend to be on time. But we're gonna set a good example so she can stay on time. Right? Alright.

I don't believe we have a quorum yet. Not yet. So that means we will be starting as a subcommittee, if I remember if that's correct terminology. So we do have six bills that we'll discuss today. None of them are on consent.

We do have the author present for our first file item, AB 1837 by Gonzales. I invite you to speak with your witnesses. As a reminder, you all have two minutes apiece, and you can start at your convenience, sir.

Thank you, madam chair and members. First, I would like to thank you, thank you to the chair and to the committee staff for their collaboration and extreme work on this bill. 1813 will remove the sunset on the authority for public transit agencies to use forward facing cameras to enforce parking violations in public transit only lanes. This authority first came to into place in 2021 for San Francisco and has been expanded to the rest of the state.

We know this technology works and has helped to address key issues of public transit efficiency and public safety by disincentivizing parking and stopping in transit lanes.

In San Francisco, these cameras have cut transit delays by 20%. Agencies like LA Metro and my district have just started using these cameras and have been experiencing the same benefits. If we let the authority expire, our transit lanes will clog back up, reducing transit efficiency and public safety. It is essential that our buses continue to move effectively, efficiently, and safely throughout our cities, and AB 1837 ensures we can keep doing just that.

With me this afternoon, primary witness in support, Matt Robinson, legislative advocate with the California Transit Association, and Mark Buckovich with director of state policy and streets for all. Take it away.

Thank you, madam chair. My name is Matt Robinson with the California Transit Association. We are one of the cosponsors of AB 1837. I appreciate both the chair and our author working with us on recent amendments to the bill. But as the committee analysis notes, transit agencies have been using forward facing camera technology successfully to enforce and deter illegal parking in certain areas for almost twenty years now.

We led the effort to expand the program to a statewide pilot in 2021. And in doing so, we adopted in statute agency enforcement discretion, meaning our folks can look at the tapes, and if they see a hardship, they can go ahead and not issue the violation. We added initial notifications and warning periods before an agency could could begin actually citing folks. They had to post signage, do communications, outreach efforts, and and then issue warning tickets for the first sixty days.

We also added an appeals process into statute, and we put in very important data sharing and privacy restrictions in the law. Today, we've got five of our member agencies that have implemented the programs and have found success in both improved on time performance and reductions in parking violations. As the committee analysis does a great job of capturing, many of these data points that our agencies have seen in this regard. The one point I wanted to close on was that in 2021, prior law had only had our ability to enforce in parking only lane or I'm sorry, in transit only lanes.

We were approached by folks from our elderly riders, our disabled riders who came to us and said, we are seeing folks blocking our bus stops, and we can't get the vehicles to the curb. And that makes me have to get off the bus and cross the street, essentially, to just get to the bus stop. It's hard.

There are mobility issues, etcetera, etcetera. And so we added the bus stops as one of the areas that could be cited for illegal parking. It gives me great joy to see that it's actually worked in that regard. The buses have been able to get to the curb in these instances in addition to just deterring these violations from occurring. And so with that, madam chair, respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I will hand it over to our cosponsor for Streets for All.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Good evening, madam chair and members. My name is Marc Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All. This bill is simple. It makes permanent a pilot program that's already working using cameras to keep bus lanes and bus and now bus stops clear so transit can actually function as intended. Right now, buses across California are routine routinely delayed by vehicles blocking lanes and stops.

It slows down service slows down service. It makes trips unreliable, and it ultimately pushes people away from transit and the reliability it needs. When a bus is forced to make a stop in the middle of a street or away from its actual stop, It creates a safety hazard or a significant inconvenience to riders, especially disabled riders, and people seniors and also, and also children as well. Excuse me. This bill addresses this with a proven targeted solution.

Camera based enforcement is consistent, scalable, and doesn't require pulling limited law enforcement resources away from higher priority needs. It ensures that buses are used for an their intended bus lanes are used for their intended purposes, which is moving people efficiently. This pilot works. We hope we can see it expanded statewide.

And I, lastly, I just wanna mention also just from the worker perspective that this is a a priority of transit operators as well to see this as reducing the stress of their job in terms of how they actually have to navigate the roads and avoid collisions at all times of day.

And so this is also a big part of transit operators, and we're also kind of at still in the middle of a transit operator shortage. When buses can move quickly, working class people can move quickly and move to the things that they deserve, and that's important equity policy, and we hope the committee can support the bill. Thank you.

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

Nurpiq. Brandon Nurpiqui on behalf of County Connection in support.

Madam chair and members, Michael Pimentel here on behalf of Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority as well as Monterey Salinas Transit in support. Thank you.

Madam chair and member, Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. We've seen a 20% reduction in transit delays. And also, I wanted to voice support on behalf of the city of Santa Monica and its Big Blue bus. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco in support. Thank you.

Steve Wallauch on behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District in support as well as the Napa Valley Transportation Authority in the California Association for Coordinated Transportation and Support.

Madam chair and members, Gregg Fishman with Sacramento Regional Transit in support. Thank you.

Chair members, apologies. We just got our position late, but California Police Chiefs Association appreciate the author and support. Thank you.

Thank you. We do now have a quorum, so I'm gonna ask, madam secretary, could you please call the roll?

Wilson. Here. Wilson here. Davies. Here. Davies here. Aguilar Curry. Aguilar Curry here. Ahrens, Carrillo. Here. Carrillo here. Harabedian. Hart. Here. Hart here. Hoover. Jackson. Here. Jackson here. Lackey. Here. Lackey here. Macedo. Papan. Ransom. Rogers. Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins here. Ward. Here. Ward here.

Thank you. We do have a quorum. Now moving on to opposition. We don't have any registered on file, so there are no witnesses. But I wanted to be sure to give members of the public an opportunity to add on.

If you are in opposition to the bill. Now would be an appropriate time to come forward with name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, I'll move it to committee. Assemblymember Jackson.

Thank you very much. Can you tell us a little bit about I I mean, you you stressed the numbers in terms of how much more time you were it was able to gain by making sure that folks were not in the wrong places. But can you tell me a little bit what your what the error rate is? Meaning, the system captured them and it turned out that it wasn't what it what the system said it was. What is the error rate on this?

I'd have to get back to you on that, Assemblymember Jackson. I'd have to check with the individual operators. What we have done is had, subject to existing law, reports that are transmitted to legislative staff. Some of those reports, because the pilot programs were so new still, have come in, only recently. My understanding is that, the error rate is significantly lower than I think what's been reported in other uses of technology out there like this.

But let me get back to you if that's alright. We haven't had anybody raise it as an issue in any of the reports. One of the things that look is looked at is that very instance of either errors or or privacy issues and whatnot in in In the specific legislation, and that has not been a thing for the agencies thus far.

Because, generally, when I start seeing things in terms of automated type citation stuff, I tend to get a little bit alarmed. Obviously, you know, I got caught by a camera, but that's another story. It wasn't me. But I think that But I do appreciate the restraint in this bill, by the way. So I'm not saying I'm opposed to it necessarily.

I just wanna make sure that we're asking the right questions too because I heard a lot of the benefits to it, which are great benefits. I also wanna make sure that we capture the other side as well and that we can take equally as serious in terms of convenience versus justice.

Yes, sir.

Right? And so if you can please share any data that you have about that, I will I will love to do it before it comes to the floor.

Absolutely. And I I would venture to guess that it's gonna be different based on the system and and how they actually go about capturing the violations. There's the very old school way, where in in San Francisco MTA's case, they would they have two parking enforcement officers that watch rolling video all day. And they go, psst, violation. Psst.

Yeah. And others, they they use more advanced technologies to To issue the citations subject to review by all of their parking enforcement officers. And so we're hoping that that's enough of a backstop to where we don't see a ton of errors. And I it hasn't been brought to my attention, so I'm I guess I'm ignorantly saying it's not a thing, but I will get back to you with more certain information.

Yeah. Appreciate it.

Yeah. And I will just add that existing law does allow, the alleged violators to review the video image evidence of the alleged violation during, normal business hours at no cost to the person who received the the the ticket.

Appreciate it.

And also noting, for you as some of the member Jackson, and working through the amends, there was a thought to expand the pilot I mean, to expand it where you're looking at parking in a bicycle lane or even double parking and those of that nature because of the chance of an error rate more likely with those, we had those stricken from the bill and the author agreed to those mends as he referenced earlier.

And I appreciate the author agreeing to them because the level of restraint in this bill is also important and and I actually appreciate it. Yep. Thank you. Thank you.

Assembly member Lackey.

Yeah. I wasn't gonna talk about this, but there's I've I've got some concerns about guilty till proven innocent situation when the data is so insecure. There's have been a lot of complaints about this technology. And as as was just indicated, you can view the video, but these don't go to court, first of all. It's like a hearing.

And when you go to that hearing, that's sacrifice just to go to the hearing when you feel like it it was an it could be an error. We we don't really know. We don't have the data. So I I'm just very unsure.

So LA Metro began issuing citations with fines starting in February '25. From February '26, the system issued a 127,437 citations. Over time, the number of citations issued per bus decreased by 33%. And the program ultimately generated $222,000,000 of fine revenues. 75% of that revenue went to LA Metro, and 25% went from the city of Los Angeles. An analysis of proving the bus speed was not conducted at that time, but it does reference the fact that it did go down.

Yeah.

And I would I would just add, when we were working through this in 2021, there were emerging technologies that we tried to head off. And and in this legislation, what's in the current law that came from a lot of work with our next committee, privacy and consumer protection, we have some of the most stringent data sharing, data destruction requirements in law. In fact, many of them have been modeled in more recent programs on automated speed enforcement, for example.

And we have been exempted from more recent legislation that has also tried to take a more stringent approach to data sharing because our provisions are about as strong as you can get.

If if I may add as well, Assemblymember, you know, this is this is treating like a a parking ticket. And so this is sort of functionally the same in those in those circumstance. And so there's a technological level of review, and then there's a human level of review from there. And not necessarily trying to convince you, but I wanna give you that certainty that we have that overlapping and concentric layers of review that led to that lead to the certainty of the violation. And there's still an avenue to to protest an appeal.

Alright. Seeing no others, you know, I appreciate you bringing the bill forward. And, this has been a pilot program for twenty years, since 2007, and so we know the data that we have plus the data from other countries that shown it to be successful. So I will be supporting the bill today. I'll give you an opportunity to close.

This is a simple bill when buses when buses move, our communities move. AP, 1837 keeps it that way. Let's not hit the brakes on progress. Thank you and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Sounds good. Is there a motion? So I have Sharp, Collins, and Hart. With that, madam secretary, could you call the roll?

AB 1837. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye.

Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Aguiar Curry? Aguiar Curry, aye.

Ahrens? Ahrens, aye. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye.

Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, aye. Heart? I.

Hart, I. Hoover? Jackson? I. Jackson, I.

Not voting.

Lackey?

Lackey, not voting. Macedo, Papan, Ransom, Rogers, Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins I Ward. Ward I.

We have, 10 votes, and we'll hold the roll open for other members to add on. Alright. Item number two is AB 1944 Lee. I do not see him here, so I will, ask the sergeant to make a call to his office. Oh, you're doing his oh, I'm sorry.

You're doing both. I didn't realize. Alright. Well, don't call his office. I was looking for Ahren's because he has a Bill item number 3.

I was gonna move on. We'll start with item number 2, AB 1944 Lee, presented by assembly member Ahren.

Thank you, Chair and Members. I'm here today presenting on AB 1944 on behalf of our colleague assembly member, Alex Lee. California has set ambitious zero emission goals for our public transit systems, which transit agencies are working hard to meet. In 2015, the legislature passed AB 1250 which set a maximum curb weight of 25,000 pounds per axle for zero emission buses. This limit was designed to decrease by 1,000 every two years with a final maximum weight of 22,000 pounds in 2022.

This approach came from negotiations with cities, counties who raised concerns about the potential impact of heavier buses on trans public transportation infrastructure. This declining schedule was believed to provide sufficient time for advancement in battery technology to reduce weight while maintaining high performance standards. However, improvements in battery weight have, unfortunately, not kept up pace with earlier expectations. Transit agencies are struggling to acquire buses that both meet the current weight limits and provide the range needed for longer routes, which often require additional batteries.

AB 1944 provides a practical responsible solution by postponing the implementation timeline of these axle weight limits while maintaining the final weight cap established in 2015.

This adjustment ensures that transit agencies can continue to provide reliable and quality public transportation while providing while working towards our zero emission goals. And with me today, in support, I have Michael Pimentel, the executive director for the California Transit Association.

Madam Chair and Members, good to be with you this afternoon. I'm Michael Pimentel, executive director of the California Transit Association, and I'm pleased to voice our support for AB 1944. The association is the sponsor of this Bill, which would facilitate, as you just heard, compliance with the innovative clean transit regulation by providing transit agencies and bus manufacturers with additional time to meet the axle weight limits for zero emission buses in current law.

As you may know, in December 2018, CARB adopted the ICT regulation requiring transit agencies to convert their bus fleets to zero emission technologies by no later than 2040. The regulation functions by way of a tiered purchase mandate, which requires transit agencies purchase a fixed percentage of zero emission buses with each bus procurement.

Under the regulation, this fixed percentage increases every three years until in 2029, it reaches 100%. Now ZEB deployments continue to increase and the short range ZEBs are deployed on available shorter routes, transit agencies will soon be forced to procure ZEBs with extended ranges to complete longer routes, account for climate, and protect against battery degradation. With today's technologies, extended range ranges require additional batteries, which result in additional weight that meet or in some cases exceed the axle weight limits in current law.

This Bill simply aims to address this conflict and to provide agencies with additional time to procure buses that exceed today's weight limits. In doing so, this bill would acknowledge, as we we heard, the descending schedule of axle weights and current law that we helped establish previously and allow for there to be continued advancements in these technologies.

Importantly, as as noted, by leaving unchanged the maximum actual weight limits in current law, this bill would respect the agreement that was struck between the association of local government interest and AB 1250. I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Madam chair, Brandon Ebeck on behalf of Monterey Salinas Transit District and County Connection in support.

Steve Wallace on behalf of the Napa Valley Transportation Authority in support. The Alameda Contra Costa Transit District will be considering a support position on Wednesday.

Greg Fishman, Sacramento Regional Transit in support.

Thank you. We don't have any registered opposition, but would like to give an opportunity for members of the public who would like to add on as an opponent of the Bill, now would be an appropriate time to do so. You can come to the mic and note your name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving to members of the committee who might have any questions, comments, or concerns. It's moved by Harabedian, second by Davies.

Alright. With that, we know that California has ambitious climate goals. And so mobile sources are the single largest contributor to the state's greenhouse gas, nitrogen oxide, and diesel particulate matter emissions. Technology continues to advance quickly and through zero emission transit bus weights have not declined as fast as we expected. And so I appreciate that this Bill provides flexibility, flexibility for transit agencies to acquire zero emission transit buses that would otherwise be too heavy under current law, and I will be supporting this Bill today.

We have a motion by Harabedian and a second by Davies. I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1944. The motion is do pass. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye.

Davies. Aye. Davies, aye. Aguiar-Curry. Aye.

Aguiar-Curry, aye. Ahrens. Aye. Ahrens, aye. Carrillo. Aye.

Carillo, aye. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian, aye. Hart. Aye.

Hart, aye. Hoover. Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. Lackey.

Aye. Lackey, aye. Macedo, Papan, Ransom, Rogers. Sharp-Collins. Sharp-Collins, aye. Ward. Aye.

Ward, aye.

That has 11 votes. We'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. Now we'll be move on to item number three, AB 1599 Ahren's.

Move the Bill.

Second. We have a motion by Aguiar-Curry and a second by Sharp-Collins.

Thank you. Good evening, members. AB 1599 requires Caltrans to establish a centralized California transit stop registry with standardized information for all public transit stops in the state of California. Respectfully ask for your aye vote for innovation.

Thank you. Alright. Moving on to

With me.

Oh, sorry.

With me today is Eli Littman, the executive director of Move LA, and David Acevedo, the state director for AARP.

Sounds good.

Thank you. Getting set up here. Hi. My name is, Eli Lidman. I'm the executive director for, Move LA.

I use he/they pronouns. I'd like to thank our, cosponsors on this, ARP, and help from Streets for All. I'd like to thank the assembly member. What we have now is fragmented and inconsistent data, and that's not fun for anyone because transit stop names, locations, identifiers can vary across different agencies, across different datasets, and it creates confusion.

I miss my connection on the 212 bus in Inglewood because I thought I was standing at the right bus stop, and it turned out it was 300 feet, north of me.

And and that was because I was looking should have been looking at the world, not my phone, but that's another issue that I'll debate with my children. I also think that we we are also seeing huge inefficiencies for transit agencies. They need to maintain and update multiple datasets, and they're responding to data correction requests from third parties, right, from these apps that we're all using. It's also a barrier to seamless trip planning, which is a a reason why people don't ride transit as consistently.

And this inconsistent stop information is undermining the reliability statewide as well as regionally because with regional mobility apps, and these transfers are just not seamless.

So without a single source of truth, we lack a centralized registry of transit stops, public infrastructure that all agencies can reference. So that's what this Bill would simply do, improve data quality, and interoperability and create that, common frame of reference. Ultimately, though, and I want this to to highlight this point, this is gonna save Caltrans millions potentially.

Because of SB 960 requirements, which was passed in 2024, it funds the development, construction, and repair of roads, bridges, and other critical transportation infrastructure in the state, including the state highway operation and protection program. Caltrans doesn't know where all of these bus stops are.

So this Bill fixes that and helps Caltrans do its job, which you've already said for it to do, right, and saves the state millions over time. And it also ensures that all of our transit agencies all too fun.

Have you able to wrap up.

Awesome. I was that was my last sentence, so you got me.

Great. Go ahead.

Good evening. My name is David Azevedo, associate director for advocacy and community engagement with AARP California. Thank you, Chair Wilson and members of this committee for allowing me to speak on behalf of the 3,200,000 AARP members across the state. So we believe at AARP that you can't manage what you don't measure. Reliable data is the foundation of effective policy making and the ability to monitor and improve results.

That is why AARP is cosponsoring AB 1599 and making it a priority bill this legislative session. By standardizing how we collect data about the state's tens of thousands of bus stops, this cost saving bill will help transit riders better find and utilize bus stops, improving the customer service experience, and increasing ridership, which we all want. Older adults depend on public transit. It connects our members with their jobs, family, health care, and social activities.

Public transit is a fraction of the cost of car ownership these days, and that was before skyrocketing gas prices.

For people on fixed and limited incomes, public transit is not a nice to have. It is the difference between going to work and health appointments, seeing family and friends, or being stuck at home socially isolated. When transit information is inaccurate or inconsistent and undermines confidence in in the system and discourages use. Just this past week, I and millions of other users experienced LA Metro's transit data outage.

I was unable to see transit times on my phone and on station screens preventing me from planning my trip effectively.

This specific example shows just how dependent transit riders are on accurate and consistent information, which AB 1599 will help address. And as Eli kind of mentioned there very quickly, it's a significant cost saving measure when you look at things like SB 960. We're really excited about that. AARP was a big supporter of that bill.

And so for these reasons, AARP has made it a priority piece of legislation this session, and we thank assembly member Ahrens, for sponsoring such an important bill and for our partners at Move LA and others, to help make transit more accessible, connected, and responsive to older adult riders in the Golden State.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Appreciate that. So now moving on to folks who would like to add on their support, name, affiliation, and position.

Tom Folks with Streets for All. We're a proud cosponsor of the Bill. Thank you.

Jeanie Ward-Waller representing Climate Plan in support.

Michael Pimentel with the California Transit Association. We don't yet have a position on the Bill, but did wanna express our interest, our willingness to engage with the author and sponsors on this Bill, some areas of implementation that we need to continue to improve as this Bill moves forward, but appreciate the measure being brought forward.

Thank you. We don't have any registered opposition, and so wanted to give an opportunity for any members of the public who wanted to note their opposition. Now would be an appropriate time to come to the mic, name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving it back to committee. We do already have a motion and a second.

Alright. Oh, go ahead. Doctor Sharp-Collins.

I just wanted to thank the author for bringing forth this Bill. This is a huge concern. I'm also in in my district and I would like to be at it as a co author.

Love to have you as co author, doctor Sharp-Collins. Thank you.

Alright. I'll note, to the author, standardizing stop data will help improve the transit experience for so many. Will make it easier for users to navigate across multiple transit agencies. Actually, I had an opportunity to just consider this Bill in the fall, but you beat me to the punch. Gotcha.

So with that, I would like to also be added as a co author if you have me. Yeah. I appreciate you bringing this Bill forward. It's a simple change, even though we do have to work on the areas of implementation, but it really will enhance the transit experience. I'll give you an opportunity to close it.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on, we have a motion by Aguiar-Curry, a second by Sharp-Collins. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1599. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye.

Davies. Aye. Davies, aye. Aguiar-Curry. Aguiar-Curry, aye.

Ahrens. Ahrens, aye. Carrillo. Aye. Carrillo, aye.

Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian, aye. Hart. Hart, aye. Hoover.

Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. Lackey. Aye.

Lackey, aye. Macedo, Papen, Ransom, Rogers.

Sharp Collins, Sharp Collins, aye. Ward. Aye. Ward, aye.

That has 11 votes, and we'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. Now I'll be passing over the, gavel to, Vice Chair Davies. I have three bills, and I will do a call out to our members who are not here and encourage you to start making your way so that we can finish. Thank you.

Alright. Assemblymember Wilson, if you'd like to go ahead.

Sounds good. I'll start talking as my witnesses come up. This is, AB 1608 file item four. Well, good evening, members. As you all know, I'm a strong supporter of the California High Speed Rail project because of the potential transformative value it can bring to our state by simultaneously improving mobility and reducing ground greenhouse gas emissions.

Currently, the project is having a strong positive economic impact in the Central Valley, and I'm confident it will ultimately bring these benefits statewide. This project has faced many challenges during construction, including lack of funding to complete the project, lawsuits, challenges, acquiring right of way, and moving utilities. These challenges have resulted in project delays and unnecessary cost increases. Every dollar on this project counts because we have lost a federal funding partner.

And at this time, we are completely reliant on state funding to deliver the significant infrastructure project.

Independent effective oversight is critical to the success of any large infrastructure project and ensuring that every dollar is spent wisely. The legislature created the office of the inspector general in 2022, and the, inspector general has already proven its value in the short time that it's been in operation. However, the office has faced challenges hiring necessary staff because it did not have access to the position qualifications and contract authority it needed to hire staff with the appropriate qualifications and acquire specialized services in a timely manner.

When the office was created, the legislature did not include provisions requiring the office to make its reports public or protections to ensure that the inspector general could keep confidential for a period of time information that could harm the state and jeopardize whistleblowers. Concerns were initially raised that this Bill would keep information confidential.

In fact, this Bill does the exact opposite by requiring the inspector general to make its reports public, which is not required in current law. Moreover, this Bill does not go beyond providing any protections for the inspector general that are in excess of the current protections that the state auditor and inspector generals within the state have. My office and the inspector general have worked closely with the First Amendment Coalition to make as much information as possible available to the public.

In response to our amendments, the First Amendment Coalition is now in support of this Bill called calling the amended Bill a model framework for how independent offices of inspector general can balance legitimate confidentiality needs with the public's right to know about government activities. So I greatly appreciate their contribution to help us draft legislation that appropriate balances legitimate confidentiality needs with the public's right to know.

So in closing, I ask for your support on this purpose important Bill that will improve transparency and oversight. So I would now like to introduce my witnesses. First, we have Ben Belknap, our instructor general for the office of inspector general for high speed rail, and Ginny LaRoe, advocacy director for the First Amendment Coalition.

You each have two minutes.

Thank you, madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Ben Belnap, inspector general for the California High Speed Rail. The passage of AB 1608 will result in more timely and robust oversight of the California's high speed rail project. This project is at a critical inflection point. My office estimates that we are only two years away from major schedule delays caused by near term funding shortages.

To avoid these delays, the high speed rail authority must secure financing. At the same time, it is also trying to complete major, procurements necessary to keep the project, the project on schedule. Without having yet resolved this immediate problem, the authority has signaled that it plans to expand up to 500,000,000, up to the $500,000,000 cap on spending outside of Merced to Bakersfield segment imposed by SB one ninety eight and is requesting that lawmakers lift this cap entirely.

The office of inspector general, the high speed rail, provides independent oversight of the project and is an important resource to state lawmakers at this critical time. Two months ago, my office published a review of the authority's procurement processes, and we are currently reviewing the accuracy and completeness of the draft the authority's draft business plan.

When that review is complete, my office will finish a review requested by Senator Cortesi of the cost and benefits of implementing various project reforms proposed by the authority, including the suggested changes to SB one ninety eight. We also plan to complete our review of the authority's construction quality program, review how compliance with environmental requirements is affecting the project, and review the authority's change order processes.

However, my office has been slowed in in its efforts to complete these reviews by a lack of access to job classifications that match the skill set required of its staff and a lack of purchasing authority that will allow it to hire needed expertise in a timely manner.

Excuse me. If you could please finish up.

Certainly. AB 1608 would resolve these issues expeditiously, and I plead for your support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jenny Lareau with First Amendment Coalition couldn't be here, but I am Dani Cando Keiser with Keiser Advocacy speaking on behalf of SAC. BAC is a California nonprofit that promotes and defends free speech, a free press, and the people's right to know. We believe that the broadcast the broadest range of engaged and informed communities is essential to the health of our democracy. We work with members of the public and press to exercise their rights of access, especially under the California Public Records Act.

We're pleased to support AB 16 o eight as it was amended on March 10. With those amendments, the bill provides what we think will be a model framework for how independent offices of inspector general can balance legitimate confidentiality needs to perform watchdog duties with the public's right to know about government activities. The Bill makes clear that the inspector general's office has a mandate to produce and publish reports of its reviews and investigations on its website, subject to only limited withholding provisions.

And with the recent amendments, the withholding provisions are narrowly tailored, require the IG to provide an explanation of the reason for any withholding or redaction, and only allow for withholding or redaction if it would be, quote, if it would pose a substantial and articulate pull risk to the project or to state operations. Additionally, withholdings pursuant to that provision are not indefinite.

We appreciate the productive dialogue with the Chair and author and the attorney and the inspector general's office and committee in developing language that appropriately balances legitimate confidentiality needs of the IG's office with the public's right to know. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. We're gonna move to public testimony, me too. Those that are in support, if you'd like to come up to the mic and name, agency, and position only. Okay.

Seeing none. And I don't believe we have any opposition witnesses. Correct? Okay. Then we'll also then do public testimony, me too, on opposition.

If so, please come up to the mic. Seeing none, then we will move on to, members' comments. And if I'd like to just start out, if I may, with the question. Thank you, madam Chair, for your recent amendments. I do wanna ask you about the newest language of would pose a substantial and articulable risk to the project or to state operations for all future IG reports.

I know that is not defined currently in the Bill, so I was hoping you could expand on what kinds of things you believe would qualify as substantially risk to the project? And should Californians be given that information regardless since taxpayer dollars are helping fund the project? Thank you.

Thank you. I'll begin and then I'll give it over to the IG to also answer this. And so this really is to prevent the disclosure of information that would reveal weaknesses, including those involving information security, physical security, fraud detection controls, or pending litigations. Those that could be exploited by individuals attempting to harm or inappropriately benefit from the project.

And so an example of physical security could be, the results of a hypothetical analysis in which the OIG, compares the deployment of security resources with the timing of security incidents.

If there was, for example, a mismatch in which security personnel were made available and when security threats more often occur, making that finding public before the corrections were actually made could be problematic.

And in regards to the word articulable, we are gonna have to, according to the amended Bill, describe what we've redacted and describe why. We will also eventually have to release that, and people have the opportunity to see what what was the IG's judgment on that. Well, it will I will have to show my work. And I think that's a great control over this process.

Members, any other questions?

Thank you, madam Vice Chair. I just wanna thank the chair for bringing this and to say to the inspector general, I've really enjoyed our conversations, and I think that you just bring a great approach. And and I think all of us are are are relieved and and heartened to see your activity here, and I think this Bill will go a long way to, you know, boost confidence in the project. So thank you for the Bill, and happy to support it.

Any other members? Alright. Seeing none, would you like to finish? Thanks.

Absolutely. Thank you. We have worked hard to make sure that all stakeholders were engaged and that we ensured that the language matched our legislative intent, and we've been able, to do that. This project has had challenges in the past, and we wanna make sure going forward, it's done in the most efficient and effective way possible.

The best way to do that is to equip the OIG, for high speed rail, our eyes and ears, to this project with everything they need to be able to do that in the the with the maximum accountability and maximum transportation and with I mean, transportation transparency.

With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Alright. Do I have a motion?

Second? Second. I'll get the second. Okay. Okay.

Bear with me.

Alright. Sharp-Collins. Wonderful. Aguiar-Curry. Alright.

Thank you. Alright. You wanna go ahead and take a roll call?

AB 1608. The motion is do passed to the committee on judiciary. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye.

Davies. No. Davies, no. Aguiar-Curry. Aye. Aguiar-Curry, aye. Ahrens.

Ahrens, aye. Carrillo. Carrillo, aye. Harabedian. Harabedian, aye.

Hart. Hart, aye. Hoover. Jackson. Aye.

Jackson, aye. Lackey. No. Lackey, no. Macedo. Papan. Ransom.

Aye. Ransom, aye. Rogers. Sharp-Collins. Sharp-Collins, aye.

Ward. Aye. Ward, aye.

Alright. We have 10-2, and it's out. And we'll leave that open. Okay. We're gonna move on to Assembly Member Wilson's AB 1613.

Alright. As my witnesses swap out, I'll go ahead and get started. So I'm pleased to present AB 1613. This is a bill that would create a California off highway vehicle safety and stewardship course as a self guided certification of knowledge of safe operating practice for OHVs and require operators of OHVs to take this course in order to access off highway lands beginning in 2029.

Both federal and state statute have standard for the safe operations of an OHV. However, there is no requirement that operators know these are existing or other safety standards. Additionally, there is no requirement that they have the ability to demonstrate their knowledge through a certification program.

Because of this gap in law, misuse, property damage, accidents, injuries, and even deaths have become a problem in our state parks and other public lands that allow OHV recreation. California has even ranked the highest in fatalities amongst death associated with OHVs across the country.

As a result of this need, stakeholder conversations, including several safety summits over the past few years with members of the community, law enforcement, and the department have revealed a common interest in providing additional training and education to the OHV community.

AB 1613 is the culmination of years of work amongst the community and is not only modeled after similar programs in other states like Utah and Arizona, but is modeled after California's own successful voter ID card that the legislature approved over a decade ago.

It is time that California take the reasonable step forward in our OHV lands in order to improve safety and enact the change of the OHV community has been seeking. And so with that, I'd like to introduce my two witnesses, Amy Granat, Executive Director of Sierra Access Coalition, and Jane Arteaga, President of the California Outdoor Recreation Foundation.

Thank you, ladies. You each have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I am Jane Arteaga, President of the California Outdoor Recreation Foundation, also known as CORF, and we are partners with California State Parks. After a 37 year career with the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, I retired as the California BLM Transportation Travel Management Specialist and an OHV Program Lead.

You can tell I was a government employee. I'm here today in support of AB 1613. And we thank you, Chair Wilson, for your steadfast commitment and your thoughtful approach to OHV safety and public land management. Over the past several years, we've seen major shift in the outdoor recreation. During COVID, people felt safe outdoors.

Between 2020 and 2023, sales of the most user friendly and affordable OHV increased 220%. This rapid growth invited many new OHVers with no experience understanding the rules of the roads. Accidents and injuries and environmental impacts increase. In response, California OHMVR Division convened annual safety summits. AB 1613 evolved from a collaborative stakeholder process in the summits.

It ensures that both new and experienced OHVers are equipped to operate safely and protect lands we all enjoy. Because we know OHV participation will continue to grow, AB 16 strikes the balance to reduce accidents, protect natural resources, and save lives. I respectfully ask you to support, and I thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Madam Co-Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Amy Granat, and I've served as advocate for the off road community for over twenty years. Currently, I serve as Executive Director of Sierra Access Coalition.

We have seen personally the increase in off road recreation and some of the accidents and incidences that have evolved from that increase have been difficult to see, difficult to watch, and heartbreaking to hear about. The community did get together and with the leadership of California State Parks started these safety summits that have there have been four held to date.

And through the participation of a very diverse group, this language was developed. We thank Assembly Member Wilson for her leadership and her staffs in helping us hone the testimony. To many of us, you know, in the off road community seeing these accidents is unacceptable. So we started asking ourselves, what can we do? And the answer to all of this is education.

We have a world class system in California that we love. Now we have the opportunity to develop a world class educational program to correlate and help us help each other to protect public land. The mandate that is proposed in the bill will wisely apply to all riders and drivers on public land that are designated for off road recreation and in our state parks. This includes hunters. This includes anglers.

This includes hikers for hiking the Pacific Crest Trail, for example. This includes people who use dirt roads. Everybody has to have the same education. So we respectfully ask for your support for the bill and look forward to continuing to develop the community based band aid and program for to help off road recreation. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. We're gonna move to public testimony, me too's in support.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts in support.

Any others? Alright. I don't believe we have a witness in opposition. So we will move to public testimony if there's any public against. Me too? Nope? Alrighty. Let's move it to Members. Comments? Any questions or comments? No? Alright. If you'd like to close.

Thank you so much. I appreciate my witnesses testifying. As you can see from their experience, this is really something that came from the community up and not the top down, which is a great way to do a bill. With that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

AB 1613. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife. It was moved by Carrillo and seconded by Ahrens. [Roll Call]

Okay. We have 10 aye votes, and we'll leave that roll open. Alright. We're gonna finish up with AB 1662.

I'll start talking now, my witnesses is coming up. Alright. Final one, AB 1662. Members, I'm pleased to present this bill. It is a bill that will require the DMV to assess points on a driver's record for point accessible offenses that are dismissed upon successful completion of a diversion program.

Now while these programs are useful tools for judges to carry out discretion based upon the details of the specific case and whether the incident rises to criminal behavior, it does not preclude the fact that a point accessible offense or even a deadly collision has occurred.

This is why I've introduced this bill to resolve this loophole. This will ensure potentially dangerous drivers will continue to be held civically liable. Sorry, accountable to the DMV for behavior that endangers Californians regardless of whether they are diverted from criminal charges.

While I recognize that points on the record may carry consequences in the form of higher insurance rates or even the loss of a driver's license, it is also the primary civil administrative tool we have to ensure we are tracking a driver's behavior and keeping potentially dangerous drivers accountable for their driving.

I'd like to now introduce my witnesses, Jonathan Feldman on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, and Justin Fanslau on behalf of the Safe Road Safe California Roads Coalition.

Gentlemen, you have two minutes each. Yep. Yeah. Turn it on.

Okay. Now it's on. Thank you, Chair and Members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in support of this important bill that we feel is necessary to instill back some of the integrity in our negligent operator point system.

As the author had stated, you know, the misdemeanor diversion doesn't necessarily waive the fact that there was repetitive, dangerous, and reckless driving that doesn't danger all of us, when it's not addressed effectively.

And so utilizing this administrative tool, not necessarily as a punishment in and of itself, but to identify that behavior to a point where an individual loses their privilege to drive and has to find public modes of transportation. And I know that this body has done a tremendous amount of work to ensure that there are means for someone to get to work, to pick up their children.

But, again, if the individual is endangering the public again and again and again, there has to be something that's done administratively to stop that behavior. And so we think this bill is fantastic in terms of its public safety benefits. Request your aye vote.

Good evening. Justin Fanslau here on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition. We are supporting a whole bunch of bills this year, large part because the legislature has responded to the CalMatters article. And a number of you are carrying bills, Ms. Ransom, Mr. Lackey. Mr. Archuleta in the Senate has a bill. Ms. Petrie-Norris has a bill.

There's over a dozen bills that we're supporting this year because it pointed to many loopholes. And one of the biggest head scratchers of all is this notion that I could go outside right now, run a stop sign, get a ticket, and receive a point on my driving record.

If I go outside right now, run a stop sign, kill somebody, get diverted through a diversion program, successfully complete that program, there's no point in my license. That's amazingly silly. It's something we should fix. So thank you, Assembly Member, for being part of the package, and we look forward to supporting this all the way through. Thanks.

Alright. Thank you. We're going to move to public testimony in support.

Hello. David Martinez with Streets for All in support.

Any others in support? Alright. We're gonna move it to opposition witnesses. Thank you. You have two minutes, sir.

Chair and Members. My name is Aubrey Rodríguez. I am a leg advocate with ACLU Cal Action. While we deeply appreciate the author's motive in carrying the bill, we believe alternative non-punitive measures are best when trying to keep our roads safe.

Diversion allows people to complete rehabilitation programs in lieu of prosecution, and upon successful completion, their case is dismissed. Diversion is a crucial tool to clear the court calendar and reduce jail and prison overcrowding, and research has shown that diversion programs reduce recidivism by half.

Policies that weaken or remove incentives to complete diversion, such as AB 1662, undermine these benefits and place a strain on an overly burdened criminal legal system that will ultimately diminish public safety. Receiving points on a driving record can have devastating impacts on low income Californians, including increased cost of insurance and potentially losing your driver's license.

As someone who grew up in Southern California, and as is the case for many in the state, a car is crucial in becoming self reliant. There's no debate how willfully behind our public transit infrastructure is, which is why losing your license makes it incredibly difficult to maintain employment, as many Californians commute to their place of work in order to survive our housing crisis.

While this committee is prioritizing the need to improve our public transit system, the reality is we have far to go in providing people a real option to become self reliant without the need of a vehicle. So by increasing the likelihood someone will have their license suspended, resulting in them potentially losing their job, we are effectively dooming them to economic ruin.

And it's important to remember that people who complete diversion programs are legally innocent and have not been convicted of any crime. Punishing people who complete diversion cuts against the presumption of innocence that is at the very core of our criminal legal system and contradicts our commitment to rehabilitation. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1662. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. We're going to have public testimony in opposition. Alright. Seeing none. I'm gonna move it to Members. And I'd like to just start out by saying this bill is... Thank you so much for this. It's long overdue. And I understand what the witness talking about concerns of basically having transportation.

We're talking about murder. We're talking about family members losing their loved ones and comparing it to, you know, having a point on your record. So I'd like to be considered for co-author. And again, thank you so much.

Glad to have you.

Alright. I'm gonna take this to Assembly Member Ransom.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So first of all, I wanna thank the author for bringing this bill. I think it's imperative that we create balance. I've spent a lot of my career working in restorative justice, and I completely understand that we have to have balance. However, the data shows that it's important that we do something to curb the epidemic that we are facing.

And a huge part of what it means to be restorative is accountability. You cannot have restorative justice without accountability. And while I appreciate the concerns that were brought, I've also heard concerns from stakeholders. We have to think about the fact that there are victims in people's negligence and in their recklessness. And as we're talking about diversion programs, this bill diverts people from the grief.

We are trying to stop people from being innocent victims of someone else's, whether it's recklessness, whether it is a mental condition, or whatever it is. And so there is already through the diversion programs, there is already opportunities built in for people who maybe they made a mistake and it's just gonna be a one time thing.

They'll have an opportunity to have their record cleared. But to say that we don't want them to at least have an incentive, all of the incentives are leading to you just get a free pass. There's nothing that says you have to remain accountable in our current system.

And having had friends and family and seen people who were just innocent victims, I think it is wholly unfair that we would stick to the status quo. So with that said, I respectfully support this bill. I ask that we really think about, as we are opposing bills like this, and we know that we're not trying to create additional criminal penalties.

This bill does not create additional criminal penalties. This bill says that you do not just get a free pass. And if we really want people to take us seriously when we're talking about being restorative, then we have to think about what we do to ensure that we are disincentivizing reckless, terrible behavior that is harmful to the state and to this community.

So I really ask that you consider that as you show up to oppose bills because it's just really not fair to the families and the people who are losing people to reckless driving. So with that, I would ask to be added as a co-author. Thank you.

Thank you. Happy to have you. If I may, just for a moment to, between the exchange is that. You know, diversion programs are good. You know, there has to be balance around them, and I think we've wrestled with that, you know, as a legislature is how do you divert.

But at the same time not letting, you know, really bad folks use, take advantage of that system. But the point of diversion in this particular aspect is to not bog down the criminal justice system, as you noted as a part of your testimony.

This is what we're, what we're talking about is an administrative procedure or civilly getting a point on your record as was given in the testimony before from Mr. Fanslau. I can go out and I can run a stop sign and get a point on my record and get a ticket and get a point, or I can run a stop sign and kill someone and not get a point. And that doesn't seem fair.

And lastly, I'll say in response to this exchange is that diversion requires the defendant's consent and recognition that something took place warranting their need to complete a diversion program. So, yes, they get all that wiped away on the criminal side, but in order to do that, they had to admit to something.

So it's not like punish you know, like, there's no punishment. Right? They get no punishment and they're free to go. Right? And what I'm saying that they don't get punishment and they are free to go, but on their record, is a point.

And if as long as they don't do anything for a certain amount of time, that point just disappears. It's if they repeat the behavior, they will begin to experience the consequences from their initial action. I know, Mr. Fanslau, did you wanna note something in regard to what I was saying? Okay. Great. Alright. I was about to ask who else had a question, but I will give it back to Vice Chair Davies.

Assembly Member Jackson.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wanna thank the Chair for the conversation we had. As she knows, I was one who had that knee jerk reaction in terms of, hold on. I thought it was diversion. Why are we adding points here? But I was not aware that you can even not even have a point.

I too was moved by the CalMatters article, and I do believe we need to have more balance when it comes to making sure that people are driving responsibly. And if we find people who are not being driven responsibly, then that privilege should be taken away, especially if they continue to damage property and take away human lives most importantly.

And so I appreciate, I do consider this a balanced approach. We do need to track those who are repeat offenders when it comes to breaking the law. I'm trying to get a point off myself. And so I think that I appreciate the balance in this, and I'm looking forward to supporting the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Ahrens.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have to agree with my colleagues. I think this is striking the right balance. And I was also moved by the CalMatters article, as a freshman legislator knowing that 40,000 people have died in the past decade on California roads.

Two million people have been injured, and the status quo is just not cutting it. And, you know, always respect the dialogue, but Sacramento has gotta stop upholding the status quo and try new things. Doesn't mean it's going to be perfect.

We can look at it, but I appreciate the author's willingness to really dig in and try to address some of the more chronic abusers and holding them accountable. Because what's not acceptable is allowing 40,000 more people to die on our roads in the next decade or or more. And we virtually do nothing in the name of wanting to protect a program that is not working. So I'd love to be added as co-author of this bill.

Happy to have you.

Assembly Member Lackey.

Yeah. I just wanna say how excited I am to wait twelve years to see this kind of balanced approach, and it's bipartisan. Usually, people on my side fight for this stuff and we haven't resonated very strongly. So I'm very, very excited.

And I also should mention the opposition to those of you who don't know in the court system. Oftentimes, even though the points amount to a negligent operator and driving privileges are revoked, they can be reinstated to and from employment.

So they're not automatically gonna lose their job as alleged. In most instances, the court does not want someone to not be able to support their family. And so it's very strict guidelines only to and from employment and can't even go to the store.

They just gotta go to and from employment and that is a privilege that is granted routinely. And I just wanted to throw that out there for anybody who thought that people are gonna be losing their jobs over this. So I'm very very proud to be a co-author here, and I'm so excited to see that this is a bipartisan support.

Assembly Member Hart.

Yeah. Can you help me understand more the analogy that you made about somebody driving through a stop sign and them getting a point on their license? And if they drive through the stop sign and they hit somebody and there's, you know, a horrible injury, they don't get a point if they go through the diversion program. So what would they, they wouldn't get just a point in this situation. They would get their driver's license revoked. Right?

No. So what would happen is is because we have created a diversion system that you can then go through the diversion. So, yes, you'd get all the impact that the immediate police would be involved, all of that. Then you would go through a diversion system, and then all of that would go away.

On the criminal side.

On the criminal side. And currently today on the point, you would never get the point.

I understand that. So what would happen now?

So with this bill, you would you could still go through diversion and get the criminal side taken away, but the point, you would still have the point on your driver's record.

But it's more than a point. It's revocation of your license.

No. It's only a point. And then if you get another point within a certain amount of time, then you then you start facing consequences of that. So there's a period of time, and I'll look to someone knows it here or staff may know it, how long it is. How long is it before you can get another, if you get another point, then you start to experience the consequences?

It depends. In the first twelve months, if you get four points on your license is when your license can be suspended. And you can always go to traffic violators school within an eighteen month time period and have a point removed for that purpose.

And the circumstance the Chair is mentioning, the reason you can go to diversion is you can only go to diversion for misdemeanor offense. If I run a stop sign, it's an infraction. And so if I kill someone and there's no intent, it's vehicular manslaughter.

And you get a misdemeanor, then I can go through a diversion case. And that's where you wind up in circumstance where someone goes through diversion and doesn't get any points on their license. Versus if I just run the stop sign, I'm gonna get a point on my license without it. Okay.

Well, thank you. That's really helpful.

And so that's why we talk about this as fixing a loophole. When we created the diversion system, we were trying to keep people out of the criminal justice system that were committing things that weren't intentional. I didn't mean to go run someone over. I didn't mean to look, and if you're looking at your phone, we can talk about that.

But if you're doing something reckless, you didn't intend for that person to die, which is very different than if you were intentionally using your vehicle to kill someone. And so we wanted that diversion system in the legislature. And when I say we, the legislatures sometime ago set that mechanism up.

But I don't think we intended to not track folks and their poor driving. I will say this, everybody's, a few people have mentioned the CalMatters article, which is extremely important. So kudos for good journalism. But on in it, it talked about 400 drivers accused of a fatal crash went on to receive another ticket and get into another collision.

None of them had the original incident on their driver's record. So 400 folks since 2019. That's a lot of people who did it multiple times, but we have to stop them. We have to have, as my colleague noted, is that there has to be accountability so that you can change your behavior and then essentially get into that restorative justice system.

Alright. Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry.

Great, bill. I'd like to be added as co-author.

Absolutely. Glad to have you.

Any other comments, Members? Nope. No. Assembly Member Macedo.

Just would like to be added as a co-author. I think this is an incredible bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Glad to have you.

Alright. Seeing no more comments, if you'd like to close.

I love the discussion. We have to ensure that accountability is on our roads. I appreciate the testimony that was provided, including in the opposition. As former as Chair Emeritus of the Black Caucus, you know, criminal justice reform is at the top of the work that we do.

It's one of our pillars. And so I recognize that, and that's why I was being really mindful about this bill to have that balance. And so with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. Call the vote.

AB 1662. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Alright. That gets out with 16 votes. And we will go ahead. Anyone else that hasn't voted down the other bills?

Alright. We're gonna go from the top. Are we missing any Members that plan to come? Okay. Alright. With that, starting from file item number 1, AB 1837, González.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. 14 aye votes, one no vote. Moving on to item number two, AB 1944, Lee.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. It has 14... I'm sorry, 15 aye votes, one no vote. Moving on to item number three, AB 1599.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. It has 16 aye votes. Moving on to item number four, AB 1608 Wilson.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bill is out. It has 12 I votes and four no votes. Moving on to item number five, ab 1613 Wilson. Hart.

[Roll Call]

Eleven four. That bill is out. It has 11 aye votes and four no votes. Alright. Item six was already reported on.

With that, the, assembly transportation hearing is, closed. What is it? adjourned. It's like, what's the word? I'm tired.