Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

He's trying to get over to his committee. The Senate Transportation Committee will come to order. Good afternoon, and welcome. We have 21 measures on today's agenda. A couple housekeeping items as usual.

We're going to allow for two primary witnesses each for the support and opposition. Each witness will have two minutes, and any additional witnesses will ask to limit yourselves to name, affiliation, your position on the bill. Me too's, as we call them. We'll be hearing bills on the agenda in file order, except we're gonna start with Senator Arreguin's bill, which is file item nine, SB 1408. So I'll have him go ahead and come up to, the table at this time.

Thereafter, we will continue and file order starting with the two Grove bills that you would see, in the published file order. We have 12 measures proposed for consent. Actually, one of those, is Senator Grove 's Bill. Also, SB 962 Archuleta, SB 1042, Sayarto, SB 1174 Volodaris, SCR 117, 119, 121, ACR 81, ACR 96 and 97, ACR 101, and ACR 109.

Doesn't look like we're gonna be able to establish a quorum yet, so I'm sure I'll have the assistant call out those consent items later when we have an opportunity to vote on consent.

So noting that we don't have a quorum yet, we're just gonna go right into our first presentation. And Senator Ehrkein, welcome. Know you have to get off to housing committee, so we encourage you to be as concise as you wanna be. Thank you.

Good afternoon, mister chair, and thank you very much for taking my bill out of order. And, good afternoon, colleagues. My pleasure to present SB 148, a district specific bill to address the transportation needs for the county of Contra Costa. This bill would authorize the contra costa transportation authority or CCTA to place a countywide sales tax measure of up to 1% on the ballot in Contra Costa County to continue to fund transportation programs.

Currently, CCTA is receiving funding for measure J, half cent transportation sales tax that was approved by the voters in November 2004.

That measure is set to expire in 2034. And through a stakeholder process, CCTA has adopted an expenditure plan for measure J, which funded major freeway and interchange improvements such as Interstate 680, in addition to local street repair programs, bus and rail infrastructure, and pair transfer for seniors and persons with disabilities.

And CCTA seeks to put a measure in advance of the prior funding lapsing because early renewal ensures a smooth transition between the new measure and measure J to allow for project certainty as transportation projects have a long lead time.

Similarly to measure J, CCTA will prepare an expenditure plan in coordination with local agencies, stakeholders, and the public, and it's anticipated the revenues generated by this new sales tax will continue to fund state highway construction upgrades, local ra- road maintenance and improvements, biking and pedestrian infrastructure, public transit, and mobility expansion programs. And with me to testify on behalf of CCTA is Tim Hill, its executive director.

Thank you, Senator Senator Arreguin, and thank you, chair and committee members. I really appreciate the opportunity for you to hear in this bill. My name is Timothy Hill, the executive director of Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and CCTA is a public agency that is formed by Contra voters in 1988 under measure C to manage the county wide transportation sales tax program, and oversee all the county wide transportation planning in Contra Costa County.

CCTA plans, funds, and implements innovative transportation programs and projects that improve all the residents of quality of life for the residents of Contra Costa. So through that voter approved half cent sales tax measure, measure C and now measure J, CCTA has invested in major projects and programs that boost the local economy, reduce the commute times, and deliver smart and sustainable transportation solutions and options for our daily drivers and commuters in Contra Costa County.

SB 148 authorized CCTA to seek a voter approval for local transportation and transaction use tax to further fund needed transportation improvements. So as you all know, we really wanna build on the foundation of these prior measures. These investments would include state highway construction, biking and pedestrian infrastructure, public transit, and programs that help seniors and disabled move around safely, efficiently throughout the entire Contra Costa County, and where they need to go.

So many who live in Contra Costa County face persistent transportation challenges every single day, through long commutes that reach jobs in all our neighborhood neighboring counties, as well as the region and experience significant traffic congestion on major corridors. The US Census Bureau data shows that people in Brentwood, which is in the Eastern part of Contra Costa County, it's is has the longest average daily commute to work in any US city, and that and that is something we want to address with our measure and future measures.

This makes it difficult for many residents, especially seniors and students, and low income individuals to move around the county, and SB 1408 is a critical step in ensuring continued investment that address all of these issues. This bill recognizes that existing funding limits can constrain local solutions, and by allowing a voter proof sales tax that can exceed current caps under certain conditions, SB 1408 provides flexibility while still maintaining a calendly through voter approval.

So I respectfully urge this committee and your support on SB 1408, and this legislation will be led to investments investments to safer, more connected, and more accessible transportation systems in Contra Costa County. So thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Before we before we call for opposition witnesses, is there anyone here who wishes to speak in support could please come up now? The usual. Thank you.

Mister chair, Brendan Rupicki on behalf of County Connection, wanna thank the author and support.

Anyone else, name, affiliation, and support? Now is the time for that. Seeing none. Is there a lead opposition witness to speak? You can come up to the front table, that would be fine.

Take your time.

Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Jeissy Lee and I'm with the California taxpayers association testifying in opposition to SB 1408, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak today. California has the highest state imposed sales and tax sales and use tax rate in The US at 7.25, In Contra Costa County, the combined state and local use tax is already over 10% in some areas.

We consistently hear from taxpayers who are concerned about affordability in this state, and we believe that circumventing the transactions and used tax cap could drive the cost of goods even higher. Because of the potential for an increased tax burden and affordability concerns, CalTax respectfully opposes the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak in opposition? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee at this time. Senator Archuleta, then Senator Grayson.

Thank you, Senator. This bill, you know, it's a local bill. Transportation across California to America start acting now and and look into the future. My question is, will the the additional funding go 100% towards transportation and issues pertaining to that?

Yes, Senator. This bill would allow for the imposition of a transactions in use tax that would go specifically as stated in the statute, the countywide transportation programs including the many things that the CCTA is already implementing highway projects, state of good repair, funding of public transit I think that's why we have county connection here in support of the bill. This will help a myriad of transportation programs in Contra Costa County and projects.

I'll move the bill at appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Grayson.

Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you for bringing the bill forward. Transportation is vitally important, especially I live right in the middle of the commute that you spoke of from Brentwood to the places of work that people have to go to make a livable wage. They spend literally hours on the road.

And so I am supportive of the efforts of the Contra Costa Transportation authority who has done exemplary at providing transportation modes for us. However, I just want to clarify and state the obvious today, forgive me chair for having to do this. I just want to state the obvious the vote that we make today is not to approve a tax.

The vote that we make today is to put it before the people so that the voters can decide for themselves, whether to, tax or not. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thank you, Senator. Senator Strickland, I let the record show as vice chair Strickland has arrived. Any comments on this is Arreguin bill. We took it out of order.

It's file order number nine. I just wanna give you appropriate heads up on that in case you had a comment on the bill. And then we're going back to file order at the top of the file.

No comment.

No comment. Okay.

It looks like that's all the comments from committee. Just thank you, chair, for bringing a good bill forward, and we can entertain a motion from the good Senator at this time, Senator Archuleta. Yes. Got it. Alright.

Motion by Archuleta. And we can't actually take a vote because we don't have a quorum. So we'll come back to that motion when we do have a quorum. Thank you for being here. Thank you.

Senator Grove, thank you for your patience. You are file number one, and I know the previous presenter asked me to thank you for allowing him to get over to chair's housing committee. Appreciate you being here.

No. Absolutely.

You can proceed whenever you're ready with SB

I'm gonna wait for my witnesses to join me up here. And squeeze in. Thank you.

SB 990.

Thank you, mister chair and members.

I guess I should get to the beginning of this. Sorry.

Thank you, mister chair and members. Today's Senate Bill 990 improves highway exit information along a key rural corridor to better connect travelers with essential services and local businesses. In the Ridgecrest area in the East part of Kern County, there's Highway 395 which has beautiful Red Rock Canyon and miles and miles, over 125 miles worth of the most beautiful desert that you've ever seen.

There's a beautiful little community that's isolated just off 395 in the middle of that 120 mile stretch that offers excellent amenities and hotel reservations or accommodations that are just beautiful brand new hotels. You have, museums that depict our national security issues.

When you look at our base, which is the China Lake naval air warfare center that gives great opportunities for kids to stop and travel and look at the beginnings of where we started in the space and the warfare industry and all the planes and everything that are available, it's a great little isolated community and there's no signs on 395 to tell the people driving down that road on their way to Bishop that this community is available.

Existing law already authorizes similar signage in rural areas to help drivers locate fuel and food and lodging and other essential services. However, certain statutory limitations have prevented signage in this specific location. Travelers specifically that are unfamiliar with the area don't even know we exist out there. SB 990 supports both public safety and public health.

We have an excellent hospital in the area in case that is needed as well. Importantly, this program is fee supported, meaning that businesses that wish to advertise on that sign will pay for the installation and the signage itself on that and there will be no expense to the California taxpayers. By enhancing access to these essential services along the corridor of the along this corridor, SB 990 helps ensure safer and more efficient travel experience.

Today, in support with me of SB 990 is Kari Crutcher, she's the executive director of the Ridgecrest are convention and visitors bureau and Mario Ysit, who's the chief of police of Ridgecrest.

Alright. And I don't know if you walked in after the, announcements, but it's two minutes each for lead witnesses, and please proceed.

Thank you. Like Senator Grove said, my name is Kari Crutcher. I'm the executive director of the Ridgecrest Area Convention and Visitors Bureau, and I appreciate the opportunity. Ridgecrest is asking for support for a targeted exemption to Senate Bill 990 because this is ultimately an issue of safety, visibility, and rural access. Our community is more than a stop along the road.

Ridgecrest is a regional service center that provides hospital care, medical services, lodging, restaurants, fuel, and other essential amenities to travelers. Yet under current signage restrictions, too many drivers are never clearly informed when they are making travel decisions that those services are available just minutes away. That matters because Ridgecrest is already recognized by the state as an essential traveler waypoint.

Ridgecrest is home to an official California welcome center within VISIT California's statewide network of welcome centers, demonstrating the important role our city plays in serving travelers and connecting them with lodging, food, travel services, and location destinations. Our contention is that the problem is not traffic volume, but missed opportunities with both safety and economics.

Even a modest 1% increase in traveler capture could generate meaningful new annual spending for local businesses. In a rural city, that kind of impact supports jobs, tax revenue, business stability, and the services both residents and travelers depend on. California has already made similar allowances for Lincoln and Truckee. Ridgecrest is asking for the same thoughtful consideration. The proposed amendment is narrow and practical, authorizing information signs at two specific State Route 395 locations through 01/01/2037.

This is not a broad exemption. It is a disciplined fix for a real rural economic and public service need. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for your testimony. Next.

Thank you for having me. My name is Mario Ysit. I'm the chief of police for the city of Ridgecrest. It's always hard to follow Kari. But realistically, the Highway 395 Corridor, especially the 120 miles that we're talking about, has a number of crashes since 2020.

2020 to 2024, there have been thousands of crashes along the 395 Corridor, a portion of which is near the Ridgecrest community. Those are often attributed to people who are driving tired. They don't realize that we're just off the highway with lodging, medical services and things of that nature. That's why as the police chief I think it's critically important that we give those folks an opportunity to realize there is some place safe.

If you've ever been driving along that corridor, you don't want to stop and pull over and take a nap.

It's literally the middle of nowhere. When I took the job there, I thought I was lost because we weren't there yet. It was just a little further. So I understand how people can think there's just no option for them. We want to make sure that they understand that Ridgecrest is an option for them and that we have the services that can make their travel safe.

Thank you very much for having us.

Thank you. We'll call now for others who wish to speak in support of the bill.

Please come on up. Name, affiliation and support is what's allowed at this point. Thank you.

Travis Reid, City Manager for City of Ridgecrest, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Okay. Seeing none, do we have a lead opposition witness on this bill? Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition?

Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee. Senator Archuleta?

Oh, thanks Senator for bringing this forward. Your committee, I know, is very, very important to you. When you mentioned out in the middle of nowhere, what-would it be a sign? What what would the sign do?

Would would be able to light up? Are you gonna be able to direct people? How is that gonna help? I I could see the importance of it. There's no doubt.

I've got family out that way, so I agree.

Yeah. No. Thank you. This simply would allow Caltrans to install the business logo signs. So think of when you're traveling on the freeway and you see the Caltrans sign with the business logos of what businesses are at the next exit, that's what we're requesting.

And so we don't currently qualify under the Caltrans regulations, so that's simply what we're asking for is an exemption to put those Caltrans signs in two locations on our highway.

And that's because we're not considered a rural community, we're an isolated community. So there's legislation and there's regulatory processes around a rural community but we have a large population in an isolated location and it's just a few miles off the freeway, but it's very isolated and people don't know it's there. So when they drive down the freeway, you'd see a Caltrans and it would say Starbucks and Taco Bell and the steakhouse and different things that are available.

The hospital.

Good. Yeah. Well, I could see how important it is. My god. Well, I'm glad you brought the bill forward and again, at the appropriate time, I'll move it.

Thank you, sir.

Alright. We aren't at the appropriate time. You guys don't have a quorum, but is there any other comments or questions from committee members? Seeing none.

Good bill.

Good bill. We got a good bill comment. That's always a good sign. Thank you, Senator Grove. And as soon as we have a quorum, we'll take up a vote on the bill.

Thank you, mister chair. And this district bill is really important, and I really appreciate your support on the bill.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Appreciate your close, I should've given you that opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Is Senator McNerney in the house? How about Senator Blakesbury? I see her over here to my right. Alright.

Hello. You may present as soon as you're comfortable and ready, Senator. This is file item six, SB 1167.

I do have two witnesses. Should I invite them up now? Yes. Okay. Well, thank you, chair and colleagues.

I'm pleased to author SB 1167, which is sponsored by four of the biggest groups working on e bike issues. Cal bike, people for bikes, streets for all, and streets are for everyone. I gladly accept the committee's amendments. Thank you for working with us on this bill. This bill represents. This bill addresses misrepresentation in the e bike marketplace and strengthens consumer protections around how electric bicycles are marketed and sold.

Often, any bicycle shaped device with an electric motor is labelled an e bike, regardless of power and speed capabilities. This can lead consumers to think that they're all similar, and that there's no real difference between the vehicles, the speeds they go and the danger that's involved or the safety requirements. But that's simply not true. And that's why California law already clearly defines what qualifies as an e bike.

An e bike can have no more than 750 watts of power and go no faster than 20 miles per hour on a throttle or 28 miles per hour when it is pedal assisted.

Due to the popularity of e bikes, manufacturers and sellers have not held fast to this legal definition. They have blurred that distinction, advertising more powerful motor vehicles as ebikes. This false advertising can cause consumers to underestimate the danger of using these faster motor vehicles. Just to illustrate ebike popularity, according to People for Bikes, e bikes are the number one growth driver for the bike industry over the past five years, responsible for 63% of the growth in dollar sales of all bicycles between 2019 and 2023.

In my hometown of Encinitas, indeed throughout my entire district in Southern California, e bikes are hugely popular and they are everywhere on the street.

We see people of all ages using them and I also receive complaints about them from throughout my district. We've heard or read about e bike crashes and kids getting hurt. In San Diego County, research released from Rady Children's Hospital showed there were 262 traumatic emergencies on electric two wheel devices that were handled by the hospital in 2025.

SB 1167 will address the lack of clarity in the e bike marketplace by better regulating motor vehicles that look like e bikes so purchasers are aware of safety risks and manufacturers and sellers are held responsible for misleading advertisements.

Specifically, SB 1167 will clarify the definition of e bikes and specify that motor driven cycles, mopeds and other motor vehicles are not e bikes, require manufacturers and sellers to disclose if a device is not an e bike, including advising consumers that vehicle registration and rider licensing is required, failure to do so would constitute false advertisement and unfair competition under the business and professions code the bill would standardize the location of e bike labels so they are easily seen without turning the bicycle upside down or requiring law enforcement officers to look underneath a bicycle seat in order to find the label.

The law the bill also requires law enforcement officers to include label information on incident reports so we can actually track what's happening with e bikes. It would also prohibit any two or three wheeled devices that can exceed 20 miles per hour from being used on public roads unless it meets the requirement of advice explicit explicitly authorized for use on public roads. With me today, I have Jeanne Wardwaller on behalf of People for Bikes and Kendra Ramsey on behalf of Cal Bike.

Thank you. And you may proceed in whichever order you prefer.

Great. Thank you. Good afternoon, chair, members of the committee. My name is Kendra Ramsey and I'm the executive director of the California bicycle coalition. We're the voice of the everyday bicyclist in the state capitol and we work directly with local bicycle coalitions throughout the state representing tens of thousands of members.

I'd like to thank Senator Blakespear for her leadership on this issue, and I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. I wanna share with you why legal e bikes are an important part of our transportation landscape. Simply said, legal e bikes are sustainable transportation options that open up bicycling for more trips for more people. Legal e bikes are bicycles. They provide a way for people to go further for more types of trips than a traditional bicycle might.

E bikes are an option for people who might not be physically able to bicycle at all or for more than a short distance, who may need to carry a passenger or cargo, or who may need to carry or who may need to travel on hilly terrain. E bikes help older adults ride to get coffee with friends, maintaining connections and having physical activity. They help workers get to jobs on time when their family can only afford one vehicle.

Car ownership can cost around $12,000 per year and e bikes can afford a huge cost savings for families when they are able to replace a car. People who bike get more physical activity, which helps reduce chronic health conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and some cancers while improving mental health.

More bikes on the road means fewer car trips, that means cleaner air, less traffic congestion, which is great for all of our communities. It also means that drivers see more people on bikes, which helps drivers expect to see people on bikes, which creates safety for all of us. I respectfully request your support on this bill.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Jeanne Wardwaller representing People for Bikes. People for Bikes is the national advocate and trade association for manufacturers, suppliers and distributors of bicycle products, including electric bikes. People for bikes worked with 45 states and the Federal Government to create consistent electric bicycle standards across The U. S.

Based on California's three class law. We thank Senator Blakespear for her authorship and are proud to cosponsor this bill to address the explosion of high speed e motos and their impacts on safe streets. Electrical electric bicycles are the only reliable, reliably growing segment of the bicycle market, and they expand access to affordable sustainable transportation at a time when the cost of driving is climbing fast.

Protecting the integrity of what qualifies as a legal electric bike and access to them is essential to maintaining safe streets and public confidence in this important mode. However, consumers are increasingly encountering e motos instead of e bikes that do not that are marketed as e bikes that do not meet California's legal definition.

Some Emotos have motors with thousands of Watts of power and can reach highway speeds of 65 miles per hour. Particularly terrifying are the growing safety risks to children and teens as Emotos are marketed to younger riders on social media. Recent research tallied devices in bike racks at San Mateo and Marin County Schools and found that 90% were actually e motos. Reports from the medical community and in local news about increasing crashes do not do not make the distinction between legal e bikes from e motos.

By clarifying the definition of what is not an electric bicycle, SB 1167 ensures that e motos cannot legally be marketed as e bikes.

The changes in this bill will help consumers make informed decisions, provide a clear framework for e moto regulation, and align vehicle use with safety standards. We urge your support.

Alright. Thank you, for your testimony. We have others I see lining up to, express support, and anyone else who wants to do that, please line up now. Thank you.

Mark Fucovich, director of state policy for Streets for All. We're one of the sponsors of the bills. Proud to be doing this with Senator Blakespear, with the e bike industry, our fellow advocates, evidence backed policy. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Good afternoon, mister chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of the California Medical Association in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kiara Ross on behalf of the city of Carlsbad in support.

Hi there. Alisa Arcidiacono with Townsend Public Affairs representing the city of Oceanside in support. Thank you.

Tim Chang with the Auto Club of Southern California in support.

Good afternoon. I'm Rita Repetiong on behalf of AAA Northern California in support.

Alright. Thank you. Looks like that's it for support witnesses. Do we have a lead opposition witness on this bill? Seeing none.

Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? You may come up to the microphone now if that's the case. Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee.

I would like to move the bill, and I wanna thank the Senator for, our hard work on this. A very important issue. It's an important issue in my district and throughout the state of California.

So I'll move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you, vice chair. Senator Grayson?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And also thank you, vice chair. Excellent bill. And this is something so vitally important for parents.

I've been battling this in the district for over a year now and something vitally to have the bikes appropriately labeled. For parents, it's an educational issue and knowing what's appropriate for their child that they're buying this bike for for Christmas or a birthday. So it's not only educational for the parents, but it's safety for the children and young people. So with that, if the author is okay, I'd love to become a co author at appropriate time.

Senator Archuleta.

Yes. Senator, I know you've been working on bills like this for years, it seems like. And I know San Diego's very, very supportive of the the work you've been doing. Does the bill address to your satisfaction reckless driving, having someone alter the the bike in such a way that it'll exceed what it was built for? Tell me about that.

Well, the bill is trying to recognize that the DMV is at times reluctant to take on more work. So they having, the DMV need to be involved in licensing different types of e bikes doesn't seem like it would be a successful bill.

So this bill is really focusing on the reality that when you look at an ebike and and there's a great chart that was put out by the Mineta Institute that shows it's about 25 different bicycles in little boxes, and it is impossible to tell which ones are actually ebikes versus e moto, some version of a motorcycle. But many of them you don't pedal at all. It's just all throttle.

And, you know, focusing on the fact that parents don't know what they're buying, they're they're they want their kid to have independence. They want them to be able to go to their soccer game or to school, from ages about maybe 10 or 12 to 16 before they can get a driver's license. And they and so they end up buying these, devices that are so overpowered and they don't actually know what they're buying.

So the bill is really focusing on that particularly because we do see that as an area that has exploded in popularity and is essentially the Wild West. So, so we're focusing on that and not on things related to reckless driving, or, DMV categories in that way.

I think it's also important to note that there is a role for local governments, and you see Huntington Beach and other cities, Oceanside in my district, doing this where they're prohibit they're empowering law enforcement to to, stop reckless riding, to confiscate the bike, to call the parents, to mandate that there be a safety course that's taken. There are things happening at the local government level around e bikes that are really important, but this is just one piece of that puzzle.

Thank you for clarifying that, and I'm definitely supporting the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Seeing none other stuff, thank you very much. I I wanna acknowledge your efforts as well. Senator Archuleta mentioned you've been working in this space for a while, and it it does give the committee, I think, I'd wanna speak for the entire committee, the consultant that did so much work on this.

I'll speak for myself as a chair, some comfort to know that when you bring in a bill in, it's modifying the law literally in a 100 different ways, that you've taken a deep dive, that you have this background in it as as did your sponsors.

So we're charting new territory here and I don't mean this to be dismissive of the bill in any manner, but maybe it's not perfect somewhere. And I didn't feel like that was our charge here in the central transportation committee to try to figure out what the perfect bill is today but to get the law going in the direction of a significant framework and you've done that. I I hope you continue the work in this area.

And as you mentioned, there's other things going on that aren't included in this bill. And as somebody, you know, in terms of the as somebody who is a runner and a dog walker and who deals with the interface out there.

Frankly, not in my district because I think my district is too poor still to afford these things, but here in Sacramento, it feels perilous as recently as this morning because they're very quiet. It's almost the same kind of signaling issue that we we get with very quiet EVs coming up on an intersection and folks don't always have the courtesy to let you know what's happening or that they're coming along. So all this is gonna have to be worked out in the future.

I've been down in your district and have seen firsthand some of what goes on in ordinary what would otherwise be ordinary cul de sacs and sidewalks and and what have you. So can I understand why you've taken this on?

So I certainly support the bill as well. And as soon as we have an opportunity to formally entertain the motion to take a vote, we will.

Okay. Thank you very much. Yes. And just to close

Sorry I didn't mean to cut off your close.

Oh, no. It's okay. I I I very much appreciate the testimony today and just wanna say how important it is to have these four major groups that work on bike issues and ebike and safe streets be focused on what we can do to to firm up the laws and, deal tackle this one particular area because it it is a clear area that needs attention, and there are a lot of other things to do in the ebike space in order to make our roads safer.

But but I'm grateful for the partnership, and I appreciate the help of the committee, and I have high hopes for this bill being successful. So thank you very much again, chair.

Alright. Thank you. We'll welcome you back to the dais, and thank you to the witnesses. We'll move on now to, actually go to file item three, which we kinda leaped over. Senator Senator McNerney is here, and you're welcome to come forward and present if you're ready, Senator.

This is SB 1034, file item three. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Cortese, Vice Chair Strickland, distinguished Members of the Committee. I'm here this afternoon to present SB 1034. I wanna thank the committee staff for their work. There weren't any amendments proposed, but we are open to working with the veterans groups and others to improve the bill at all times. SB 1034 is a common sense measure.

Right now, it's more difficult for disabled veterans to get a parking placard than disabled non veteran civilians. So I'm gonna repeat that. It's more difficult for veterans that are disabled to get parking placards than it is for civilians that are disabled. That doesn't make sense. We need to change that.

Because of this, many eligible veterans don't even apply for benefits that they've earned. This bill aligns the state law, federal standards, and existing rules for civilians. SB 1034 recognizes that veterans often have multiple disabilities. It ensures that veterans aren't excluded just because of a condition that isn't labeled as service connected if they are already rated as 100% permanent and total disabled.

For veterans on fixed incomes, these parking benefits provide important cost savings and gives them their independence. Reliable access to a car is essential, especially for those who struggle with public transit as a result of post traumatic stress. This bill removes barriers so disabled veterans can access care and maintain their quality of life.

With that, I will introduce my testimony. What do you call them? Testifiers? Witnesses. JR Wilson on my right here is the Legislative Director for the Department of California Disabled Veteran Americans and Hector Soto, a veteran advocate for my district. And with that, I will yield to Mr. Wilson.

Alright. You'll have a couple minutes each. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is JR Wilson. I'm the Legislative Director for the Department of California Disabled American Veterans. A little bit about my background, I started with the DAV in 1997 as a national service officer and eventually becoming a supervisor in our Roanoke, Virginia office in Reno, Nevada and San Diego national service offices.

In 2016, I was elected as the Department of California DAV state commander. And I've been the Department of California DAV Legislative Director since 2018. I am here today in strong support of Senate Bill 1034. This bill is about administrative alignment and eliminating unnecessary barriers.

California recognizes disabled individuals through the DMV issued placards and plates based on medical certification. At the same time, the federal government, through the Department of Veterans Affairs, operates the most comprehensive disability evaluation system in the nation.

Within that system, a designation of permanent and total disability has two distinct and equal important meanings. Permanent means the condition is not expected to improve and the veteran will not be subject to future examinations by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Total means the veteran is disabled at the 100% level and compensated at the maximum VA disability rate. Both matter. Together, they represent a final lifelong federal determination of severity of disability. However, current law does not fully recognize that federal determination.

Veterans who have already been deemed permanently and totally disabled must still navigate additional duplicative verification requirements to access certain DMV related benefits. From a policy standpoint, this creates inefficiency and inconsistency between the state and federal system. It is also important to be clear of what this bill does not do.

SB 1034 does not eliminate the requirement for a California disabled person placard. Veterans must still meet California medical eligibility standards and obtain verification from a licensed physician. A doctor must still certify in mobility related disability required under California law.

This bill simply ensures that once a veteran has a verified medical condition under California standards and a federal designation of being both permanent and total, they are not subject to additional redundant barriers beyond that point. Let me briefly illustrate. Maria is a veteran...

You have to wrap up so we don't have too much time for case studies right now. You're in two and a half minutes.

Very good. From a transportation and DMV perspective, this is common sense reform. It reduces duplicative and medical clarification. It improves administrative efficiency and aligns state processes with federal determination. It ensures a consistent treatment and consistent similarity situated disabled veterans. On behalf of the 72,000 DAV life members of California, we respectfully ask for an aye on vote SB 1034. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for your testimony. We do appreciate it. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Hector Soto. I'm here in support of SB 1034. As a disabled veteran myself, I've also spent time advocating for fellow veterans and helping them navigate the veteran benefits administration, the Department of Veteran Affairs amongst various organizations.

Through that work, I have seen firsthand how California's current law creates confusion, inconsistency, and unfair barriers for disabled veterans seeking parking benefits they rightfully deserve. SB 1034 is important because it helps bring fairness and clarity to law.

Right now disabled veterans can face stricter eligibility requirements than other disabled Californians when trying to access parking related benefits. That creates an unnecessary benefit barrier for veterans who already live with serious mobility challenges.

This bill helps correct that by aligning the rules for disabled veterans more closely with the standards already used for other disabled individuals. It provides clearer descriptions of qualifying mobility limitations, makes it makes a lot easier to understand, and helps ensure that veterans with legitimate disabilities are not left out simply because the current statute is too narrow or too vague.

SB 1034 also matters because it recognizes the real life challenges disabled veterans face. For many veterans, access to parking benefits is not a minor inconvenience. It can affect their ability to attend medical appointments among other quality life challenges. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you for your testimony. Are there others here who wish to speak in support of the bill? If so, please come forward to the microphone. This is an opportunity for name, identification, and support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Seth Reeb with Reeb Government Relations representing American Legion Department of California, AMVETS Department of California, the California State Commanders Veterans Council, Military Officers Association of America, and the Vietnam Veterans of America, all in strong support, representing nearly three quarters of a million veterans. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you very much. Anyone else here to speak in support? Seeing none. Do we have a lead witness in opposition? Seeing none. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

It's a great bill. I'll move it once we get a quorum.

Senator?

Well, thank you, gentlemen. And, Senator, supporter of veterans that you've been. I'm just so proud of the work you've been doing as the Chair of the Military and Veterans Committee, and I think that the work you do is fantastic. But let me just ask you a question. I have to scratch my head.

How is it that a disabled veteran who has documentation from the VA that he's a 100% disabled just can't walk into DMV and say, I'd like to apply for the placard. And is he and then at that point, DMV is giving him a hard time? Why wouldn't DMV just say, we got the 100% rating. Why wouldn't you be approved right then on the spot?

I'll let my witness take that.

I think one of the distinctions here is the permanent and total status. It actually streamlines the DMV's requirements. Currently, a veteran that is a 100%, and not all veterans that are a 100%

Yeah. Right. True.

Have that separate distinction. So currently, what they must do is go out and get the disabled placard application, go in to their county veteran service office, get the verification that the mobility issue is service connected. This creates an easier streamline for that veteran that is permanent and total that is also required to get a California disabled placard.

So the technicality in the verbiage, the word permanent?

And total.

That's what it is. Okay. So obviously this bill will take care of that and eliminate that and take care of our veterans. Well, it's about time. Thank you so much. Thank you for your service. And the veterans in the room, thank you for your service and welcome home. Please continue the fight and God bless you for your service. And obviously, I'll support the bill.

Questions or comments from the dais? Seeing none. Still short of a quorum, just barely, I guess. Alright. So we'll take up a motion and a vote on the bill. Obviously, you have an offer of a motion already, and as soon as we have a quorum. We're a little short right now. Alright. Thank you. Did you wanna close, Senator? I didn't mean to cut you off on your close. You're welcome to say a few more words.

I was just gonna ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you. Yeah. Senator Gonzalez. Can you do that? Good stuff. We can provide witnesses if you need them.

They're here.

We're just kidding. That was that was just humor, attempted humor. Please come on forward. Make yourself comfortable. And, Senator, you can present whenever you're ready, of course.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. And members, I'm here to present SB 1279, which authorizes the City of Long Beach to play speed safety cameras along the Pacific Coast Highway. In 2023, I worked as Chair of Transportation as a former Chair of Transportation with assembly member Freedman, authoring AB 645 in which we authorized six cities, including Long Beach, to use speed camera safety systems to reduce speeding.

This pilot program has strict guidelines for privacy and equity, requiring non-punitive warnings for the first 60 days of violation and ensuring that there are a fine starting at only $50 and so many other options for low income recipients of fines as well.

And since implementation, San Francisco, which is one of the pilot program cities, has seen a drop of 72% in speeding, which has been incredible. And in implementing its own speed safety camera program, Long Beach identified a high injury corridor where they could not place cameras, which is the Pacific Coast Highway. And as you may know, unfortunately, Long Beach is ranked among the deadliest cities in California for traffic collisions, per our own California office of traffic safety.

And specifically, PCH accounts for 20% of Long Beach's crash fatalities, it makes up just 1% of its arterial roadways. And the 8 mile stretch runs past parks, elementary schools, and Long Beach City College.

SB 1279 would address this by, this gap by authorizing Long Beach to play speed cameras along this highway with the same place speed cameras along this highway with the same guardrails that follows through the pilot program, and we're continuing to work with many of our stakeholders. In testifying in support of the bill today, I welcome Councilwoman Dr. Suely Saro from Long Beach's 6th District and Paul Van Dyk, the City's Traffic Engineer. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. You may go and proceed. You have a couple minutes each.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I am Councilwoman Dr. Suely Saro from the very cool city of Long Beach. Thank you to Senator Gonzales for authoring SB 1279. I am very proud to support it because it is ultimately about saving lives.

As a Councilwoman, representing the specific section of the Pacific Coast Highway corridor in the bill. I hear directly from residents who are concern about speeding and traffic safety every single day, I hear from parents who are afraid to let their children walk to school, from seniors who feel unsafe crossing the street, from small business owners who worry about the constant risk that a high speed traffic, will bring a car right into their storefront. And I hear from families who have witnessed crashes and near misses.

Far too many in the 6th District sorry, far too many in the 6th District, PCH has become a source of fear and loss. While it makes up less than 1% of our roadway miles, it accounts for 20% of traffic fatalities in our city. So 1 in 5 traffic fatalities in Long Beach happen on this highway.

That alone should compel us to act. And as said, this bill simply allows Long Beach to include its portion of PCH in the existing speed camera pilot program. Right now, we are excluded from using this proven safety tool on one of our most dangerous roads. This bill closes that gaps that gap and gives us the ability to act where it's most needed. On behalf of the City of Long Beach, the 6th Council District, I strongly urge an aye vote and on this item.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness was

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Committee members. My name is Paul Van Dyk. I'm the City Traffic Engineer for the City of Long Beach. My team is tasked with rolling out our Speed Safety Pilot program authorized by AB 645, and I am excited about the possibility of expanding the pilot to include Pacific Coast Highway within the city of Long Beach. Pedestrian exposure is my primary concern on PCH.

30 of the 39 fatal crashes since 2020 have involved pedestrians. As mentioned by the Senator and our council member, PCH in Long Beach is not a waterfront open road, like most of people think of when they think of PCH. It runs through the of our city, touching the largest park in Central Long Beach. Its crosswalks lead directly onto the platform for the A line light rail station, and its sidewalks bring kids to school at Cabrillo High School and Long Beach Poly High School.

And so really making sure that our streets are safe for the communities in Long Beach, for the people in Long Beach that are walking along these streets is why we're here asking for your support for this bill.

I'm available for questions, technical questions, and thank you for your interest and support of SB 1279. Thank you.

Great. Thank you for being here in Sacramento. Those who wish to speak in support can come up now.

Marc Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All. We were one of the sponsors of AB 645 by Assembly member Freedman and proud to see this expanded. Thank you.

Bernie Ojeda, LA County Sheriff's Department on behalf of Sheriff Robert Lewin in support.

Good afternoon. Tim Chang for the Auto Club in support.

Jeanie Ward-Waller on behalf of People for Bikes in support.

Kendra Ramsey, California Bicycle Coalition in support.

Alright. It looks like that's it for support. Do we have any lead opposition? Seeing none, does anybody wish to speak in opposition? You can come to the microphone now.

Mr. Chairman, Terry McHale with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the California Association of Highway Patrol. After really excellent discussion with the Senator's office and appreciation for the committee amendments that are being taken, the Highway Patrol Association has removed their opposition and are neutral on the bill. Thank you very much.

Just just to clarify, my understanding is that the author intends to take amendments in the next committee and privacy committee. So just to avoid confusion here, there's no amendments being taken here.

Well

But we do understand what those

He has a great staff. We're confident they'll do what they promised to do.

So we are as well. Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition or tweet a tweener like we just heard? We'll comeback to the committee at this time.

Senator Archuleta is prepared to move the bill, but I think we need one more member, if my count is right. So as soon as we get one, we'll, establish a quorum, and then we can vote on the bill. But we'll give you an opportunity to close, so you could do that now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanna thank Dr. Saro, as well as, Mr. Van Dyk for being here. This also includes the city of Signal Hill support, I should say, because Signal Hill is shared, by PCH with Long Beach, and we just wanna thank you and our stakeholders for the insightful information, and we're looking forward to bringing safety back to City of Long Beach. Thank you. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Alright. Members were now going over to the chairman's Bills. We'll start with, file item 18, SB 1177.

Thank you, chair. May I proceed?

Thank you. Please. Please, Mr. Chair.

Well, good afternoon, everyone. I'm here to present SP 1177 as was pointed out. This bill will ensure that the legislature continues to consistently receive critical data on the California High Speed Rail Project. The High Speed Rail Project Update Report, also known as the PUR, provides the public and the legislature an opportunity and an important progress check-in every two years, and that is to ensure that the high speed rail authority is on track to meet its goals.

Current law requires the PIRR to include specific information related to the project's budget schedule and potential risk.

Past PIRRs have gone above and beyond, include additional information such as potential revenue options, project timeline comparisons, and background from other international high speed rail projects. This bill will codify the additional information into statute to preserve crucial data for future analysis and ensure long term transparency and accountability in our high speed rail transformation. With us here today to testify in support is, Robert Pearsall. Persall?

Pearsall. Yeah.

With our who is with our sponsor, the US High Speed Rail Association. At the appropriate time, I'll respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Robert Pearsall. I'm the California political director at US High Speed Rail. We are the proud sponsors of Senate Bill 1177.

US High Speed Rail is a coalition of over 50 leading unions, public agencies, and companies. USHSR works with its members and allied progressive environmental groups to advocate at the federal and the state level for public support for world class high speed rail projects across The US. California's high speed rail project will not only revolutionize our transportation system, it will also be a boon to our economy.

In the twenty twenty four, twenty twenty five fiscal year alone, the high speed rail project produced $2,900,000,000 in economic output and investment. In 2025, the California High Speed Rail Authority announced it was conducting a comprehensive review of the high speed rail project, including design criteria, scope, cost, procurement strategy, ridership, and schedule.

The review could identify new ways to accelerate construction, manage costs, and bring in additional revenue, but the legislature will need consistent detailed updates on the authority's progress to ensure those outcomes. As the Senator said, the project update report is currently required to keep the bill the public and the legislature informed about specific project information, including budget, scope, and risk. And it's worth noting that historically, the authority has gone above and beyond to supplement the PUR with additional information.

The additional information we're discussing, the ancillary revenue options, comparative analysis of past project timelines, and background information about international high speed rail projects provides crucial insights into the authority strategy and efficiency. SB 1177 will maintain consistency for stakeholders, legislators, and the public by ensuring that the additional elements from recent PURs are codified in statute and continue to be included in future project update reports.

That's why we're sponsoring thiS Bill. We're thankful to the chair for authoring SB 1177. I'm happy to answer questions here anytime after the hearing. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support? For identification purposes, support? Witnesses in opposition. Rita Tweener.

Yeah. Please come forward.

Good afternoon. Kiara Ross on behalf of the city of Burbank in opposition to the bill.

Okay.

Members, anything? Alright. This is one issue where I know the chairman and I disagree. I wouldn't be doing my job if I just didn't say, instead requiring another report, from my standpoint, I think it's time that we cut bait and just shut down the project personally, but I know I'm in a minority on this committee, but I just wanna put those 2¢in on this. Any other things?

We don't have a quorum, so chairman, when the time comes, mister Archuleta will move the bill. And mister chairman, would you like to close?

And and just I respect your position and and always have in the

Right.

Robust debates we've had over time. This this bill, as as we're putting it forward, is is really to create a a historical record that's in statute that can't be moved. And ironically, I I thought of you when I was, first looking at the bill because there's been times I know you've, appropriately pointed out comments on the record about the bill. And hopefully, in its best version here, this bill would document all of that, pros, cons. Whether the whether the project were to continue, to fruition.

I hope it does. You hope it doesn't. Question, I think, really becomes, does it hurt to have a very, very clear audit trail as to just what the heck happened along the way? So that's all we're trying to do. But again, thank you very much.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you, mister chair. So members now, we're gonna move to the chairman's next bill, file item nineteen, SB 1246.

Hello. How are you doing?

Good. How are you doing?

Mister chair, whenever you're ready to open.

We have another witness that wants to come up.

Alright. Can I pull up here, Megan? I can move up. Okay. Thank you. Well, thank you again, Mr. Chair and members.

Next, I'd like to present SP 1246, which will establish stronger remote operation standards and emergency response protocols for autonomous vehicle operators. Autonomous vehicles are rapidly expanding operations in California, I think, as we all know. And although WAYMO leads the industry with approximately 3,000 deployed vehicles, 30 more companies are going through the DMV's permitting process to enter into the market. Unfortunately, reports of AVs obstructing traffic, competing first responders, and driving through active law enforcement activities, have continued to abound.

While human drivers can react to ambiguous situations in real time, AVs often require input from remote remote human operators.

So as has been said recently in one of our hearings, there are humans involved even with autonomous vehicles. But when remote assistance gets delayed, AVs can freeze in intersections, they can jam traffic, they can block emergency responders. In some scenarios, it's our public sector workers, our first responders, firefighters, paramedics, law enforcement, who then must step in despite the strain it puts on our public resources.

To standardize these remote operations, SB 1246 requires remote drivers and assistance to be based in The US and hold a valid California driver's license. SB 1246 also implements a ratio of one employee to every three vehicles.

Our goal is to ensure AV companies have the capacity to respond immediately to emergencies, like the San Francisco power outage last December. Furthermore, s p twelve forty six gives our first responders the tools and assistance they need. Under this bill, a trained autonomous vehicle worker must arrive to assist first responders on scene within ten minutes. S p twelve forty six also requires every autonomous vehicle to include a manual override system.

And under this bill, these override systems must be approved by the California Highway Patrol in collaboration with the state fire marshal, and all autonomous companies must provide proper standardized training.

Finally, in addition to mandating monthly reporting on immobilizations and response times, SB 1246 establishes clear penalties that go back to local jurisdictions for vehicles that block traffic or interfere with emergency responses. This bill is still in its early stages, but we've already begun conversations with industry stakeholders to find ways to collaborate toward our common goal, keeping our roads safe. I respectfully ask for your aye vote so we can continue our work on this important set of issues.

And with us here today in support, we have Megan Soopers with the California Professional Firefighters and Sterling Haywood, a parking control officer, a member of SEIU ten twenty one in San Francisco. Matt Legg, with our sponsor SEIU California, is also available for

Thank you. Thank you. Who would like to start?

I'm happy to go first. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for being here.

Meagan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. We represent about 37,000 rank and file firefighter EMTs and paramedics across the state. Just, pleased to be in support of this bill and would like to thank the author for continuing to focus on these AV safety issues. As you've heard me and my member say in front of this committee before, we do think it's important for California to have a set of rules and protocols for AVs to operate safely in California.

The analysis does a great job and the author mentioned some of the issues that first responders have faced on the streets in parts of California where AVs are operating today, interfering with emergency response situations, parking on top of fire hoses, blocking, fire station exits, and, creating more dangerous situations than we think is appropriate.

My San Francisco local noted recently in a public hearing that ever since San Francisco became California's laboratory for autonomous vehicles, the San Francisco Fire Department's command staff and labor representatives have asked the AV companies for a public safety manual override option that would allow a police officer or firefighter or other first responder to immobilize an AV without the need to contact a remote operator. They hope the companies would agree to this common sense solution voluntarily, but the years have gone by and here we are.

Instead, companies have encouraged first responders to use a hotline that is dedicated for first responders, but unfortunately, that communication has lacked and not always been quick or effective. In December 2025, the power outage affecting large portions of the city stranded many people across San Francisco. These vehicles blocked intersections and streets and cannot be moved without assistance from the company.

The hotline that was supposed to be a resource in these situations was not quick or responsive. The city had reported that emergency dispatchers made a total of 31 calls to the hotline and were placed on hold for long stretches with one dispatcher waiting on hold for fifty three minutes.

SP twelve forty six would ensure that in the event of an emergency, first responders can get the immediate response and attention from remote assistance that is needed and will ensure that AV operate AVs operating on a highway are equipped with manual override systems accessible to first responders, and we would ask for your support today. Thank you.

Next testimony.

Good afternoon. My name is Sterling Haywood. I'm a SEIU tent member, a park control officer of eighteen years. I'm here to share what's happening in our streets right now and why it's urgent to have legislation to make autonomous vehicles operate safely along the workers who keep our city moving.

In my work, I support street cleaning crews, manage traffic congestion, and try to keep people safe while directing traffic. And more and more, the autonomous vehicles are getting in the way of the work. Despite clearly posted signs street street cleaning schedules, I rarely find ATVs where they shouldn't be. And because there's no driver, there's no way to resolve it, I end up having to site these vehicles. Also, while directing traffic, the risk is even more serious.

On fifth admission, I saw a ATV stop in the middle of an intersection and make a legal u-turn and nearly hit another vehicle. Near the Moscone Center, I watched one star ATV block a lane, then another pull up right behind it, then another one until there was four vehicles stuck backing up traffic as on a busy street.

This isn't my experience, during well, actually, during the Super Bowl weekend, a fellow officer had to physically get into an AV and move it after calling customer service just to clear the road. And during December storms, an autonomous vehicle blocked the emergency responses. City workers and first responders had to stop what they were doing to move these vehicles manually.

Senators, I'm proud to serve the city of San Francisco and its resident, but city workers and first responders shouldn't be treated as roadside assistance for private AV companies. SB 1246 is about accountability and to make sure that these companies take responsibility for these fleets and don't rely on already stretched public workers to fix these problems. It protects the ability of first responders to do their jobs without delay. I respectfully urge you to vote yes on SB 1246. Thank you.

Other witnesses for identification purposes in support?

Matt Broad on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Elmer Lozarde on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Chair members, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association in support.

Sean Flanagan on behalf of the Dawn Project in support.

Good afternoon. Louie Costa with Smart Transportation Division in support.

John Neehia, a good driver for eleven years, representing 800,000 drivers in California in support.

Hi, Margarita from Los Angeles, driver for Uber only for eight years. Please vote yes on support of SB 1246. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Janice Jackson and I've been driving for Uber for ten years over ten years. And I'm in support of SB 1246, and and I'm hoping that you are too as well.

Hi. Hector Castellanos with California Gig Workers Union and also 800,000 drivers in support of SP 1246.

Joseph Augusto, ride share driver for ten years in the San Francisco Bay Area, urging you to support SP1246.

Hi. My name is Vikash Shankar. I'm a rideshare driver for ten years. I'm in Fresno County and I'm in support of SB 1246.

Nicholas Kavalar, Stockton, California. Driver for ten years. Please support SB 1246, urging for that. Thank you.

I'm Jalil Matabi from Fresno, California. I'm five years ride share driver, and I'm in support of SB 1246. Thank you.

Hi. I'm requesting support to SB 141246. I'm member of California Agit Workers Union. Thank you. Hello.

This is Harwin Melendez coming from Los Angeles. Please support SB 1240

six. I'm Mike Robinson, and I support SB 1246.

Jason Eames, San Jose, cyclist, commuter, I support SB 1246.

Simon Washburn, Sacramento, also support SB 1246.

Samuel Burdick, Paradise, California, I support SB 1246.

Rosemary Shahan, president of consumer, Subaru, auto reliability and safety, proud to support SB 1246. Thank you.

Thank you. Now witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Thank you. Two minutes each.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Sarah Boot testifying on behalf of the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association in respectful opposition. California has already made significant updates to its AV safety framework that have not taken effect yet. These new requirements will address many of the issues raised today.

In 2024, the legislature enacted 77, which was developed in coordination with first responders. Once it takes effect this July, companies operating AVs must, among other requirements, continuously monitor each AV and answer calls from first responders within thirty seconds, Have remote human operators who can stop or move an AV as directed by first responders, and direct AVs to leave or avoid an emergency situation within two minutes of a geofencing message initiated by first responders.

And if companies can't meet those requirements, first responders can then issue notifications that will be reported to the DMV, and the DMV can then limit or revoke their licenses their operating permits, excuse me. Meanwhile, the DMV just overhauled its AV regulations after a years long public process, and they're expected to take effect this summer. They govern remote support personnel, first responder interactions, incident response, and data reporting, and they will be the most comprehensive in the country.

In addition, key definitions in the regs differ from those in this bill, and that creates compliance conflicts. We should not layer on a second overlapping system before the first one is even implemented, especially after the companies have spent the last two years building up their compliance programs to meet these new requirements. A better approach is to allow AB 1777 and the DMV's new regulations to take effect, evaluate how they work, and then address any real demonstrated gaps.

Finally, SB 1246 pairs a three strikes you're out rule with very prescriptive mandates, even when the violations stem from unrealistic requirements like a ten minute response time in person. On its face, this bill is not a ban on AV technology in California, but it could act like a de facto ban, shutting down operations based on rigid rules rather than actual safety outcomes.

So for these reasons and more, we respectfully request a no vote. Thank you.

Next witness. Chair Cortese and members of the committee, my name is Chris Childs, and I am here today to express my opposition to Senate bill 1246. I am a native Californian and a retired assistant commissioner with the California Highway Patrol. During nearly twenty eight years with the CHP, I spent the entirety of my career in the pursuit of enhanced traffic safety. As an assistant chief alongside my counterparts at the DMV, I oversaw CHP's regulatory responsibilities toward the autonomous vehicle industry.

My team and I dove deep on AV issues on behalf of the people of this state. We personally visited AV companies across California and developed a strong understanding of how these vehicles support traffic safety on California roads. Based on the many existing requirements for first responder interactions under California's existing AV law and regulations, I know we all share the goal of giving first responders effective tools to respond to activities involving AVs. However, this bill does not achieve that goal.

Instead, it would create requirements that are out of touch with reality.

Requiring local AV technicians to be present on a scene within ten minutes is simply not possible given California's urban conditions and long stretches of highway between exits. As a tenured member of law enforcement, I have responded to hundreds, if not thousands, of emergency calls rolling code three. Response times were often longer than ten minutes. Requiring commercial AVs to be equipped with manual override control systems for first responders is also not necessary as this approach puts first responder safety in jeopardy.

The safest procedure is often for vehicles to remain where they are and to be towed with specialized equipment by highly trained recovery operators.

Never in my twenty eight years of service that I move a big rig truck or witness a fellow first responder move one. Vested interest in working closely with first responders and they have been doing so for many, many years. I know they take this role seriously because I have worked with them as a regulator on behalf of the people of this state.

Creating arbitrary regulations before new and significant requirements go into effect in a few short months will create confusion and will not make our roads safer. For these reasons, I urge the committee to vote no on SB 1246.

Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in opposition? Pride to advocate some purposes.

Good afternoon. Jon Kendrick, California Chamber of Commerce in opposition.

Robert Singleton with Chamber of Progress also strongly opposed.

Good afternoon. Peter Lerone Munoz with the Bay Area Council, respectfully opposed.

Ashanti Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and also on behalf of Aurora Innovation in very respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair members. Jose Torres with TechNet in strong opposition.

Thank you. Members, any questions? Senator Menjivar.

Thank you. You mentioned one of the last things you mentioned that it would put emergency responders first responders in jeopardy. But we have a representative of first responders, and they didn't claim that it would put in them in jeopardy. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on if you're advocating for something, how do you think it would put first responders in jeopardy?

Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the question. The engagement that I've had on this issue, not only specific to this bill but bills in the past, are relevant to the jurisdictions where they're either already on the roads or have a testing permit.

And every local that I have talked to, every firefighter that has had to interact with these vehicles in one way or another, has said to me their number one request has always been the ability to override the system and be able to move the vehicle themselves. They have said to me also, I don't wanna be triple a.

I don't wanna be triple a for I don't wanna be triple a for AVs, but some situations dictate that we need to quickly move this car. And sometimes it's not realistic to wait for someone to come from the company and move it themselves. So So I don't know exactly what it means to say that this would put first responders in jeopardy. I hear what the witness said about being able to move a big rig. That's not what I'm envisioning in this situation.

And what I do think first responders are equipped enough to move a way more or a vehicle of that similar size. I think it's dangerous if they come up to a vehicle and they've said that some multiple situations happen. Sometimes they're shut down completely. The vehicle's not on.

If I could cut you off. I'm sorry. Sure. We've been waiting forever for a quorum.

Please.

So I wanna establish a quorum so we can move forward and get this committee done. Clerk, please call the the role.

Senator Cortese?

Here.

Cortese here. Strickland?

Here.

Strickland here. Archuleta? Here. Archuleta here. Adegin, Blake Spear? Here. Blake Spear here. Dali, Gonzalez? Here. Gonzales here. Grayson? Here. Grayson here. Menjivar? Here. Medjevar here. Richardson, Toyota, Valadares, Weiner.

So we now service transportation.

Sorry about that.

But Thank you. Yeah.

Of course. Yeah. I think the situation where they approach the car and the vehicle is not on is oh, sorry. Where the vehicle is not on and not operating is one thing. What my members say is sometimes they approach the vehicle, it's not moving.

They don't know why it's not moving, but it's on. And that is when they're concerned about it doing something, you know, that they going the wrong direction, being more dangerous at the community. And that is when they wish they could have that option to be able to override it and have that manual override system.

I'd love to hear your response to that. And I'm gonna add another question to you. Well, you mentioned this regarding the times, but we heard from the sponsors gave some examples, fifty three minutes, I think, waiting with an operator. You countered with some of your time, so I'm wondering if you can expand a little bit more also on how are you then responding to these long waits that continue to exist.

Well, I'll just speak to the I think if I recall correctly that that particular time was referring to the San Francisco incident, and I'll I'll defer that to for this other witness to answer that. But with respect to the times when the new laws come into effect this summer, AV companies will have to respond to, a first responders, like, either calling their line or a two way radio that has to be attached to the car now, within thirty seconds.

And if they don't do that, they're in violation of the law and they can suffer significant consequences for that. They have to have somebody that would answer those calls and then enable a first responder to move the car themselves if it makes sense for that type of car or to do it themselves. And if they can't do that, they're in violation.

There's some cars like a Nuro or a Zukes that don't have, like, steering wheels and that type of a thing. So it's like, it doesn't make sense for every type of car. And so that's that's part of the issue, but these new rules when they come into effect should should address a lot of those situations. And if they don't, these companies will be facing consequences for that. But do you wanna speak to the wait times?

And I I can testify that police officers across, well, the country move cars all the time. And my testimony was more revolving around big rigs. And I've never seen I've never seen a police officer move a big rig ever.

Even officers that I know hold class a commercial driver license, they insist that they won't move a big rig on duty because it puts themselves at risk, especially if they don't know what's wrong with the big rig, which is why there's a lot of specialty equipment to move those big rigs.

I mean, respectfully with to the other witness, I've I've never ever seen a fire department personnel ever move any type of vehicle that usually is given over to the police officers on scene, which is typically the way it goes.

Mister Vice, I have one more question to the author. Senator, DMV is going to be coming up with these guidelines. Does your bill go above that? Are there gaps that you anticipate these guidelines are going to have as to your bill? The purpose for your bill?

Because opposition says is asking that we wait because DMV is coming up with their guidelines. So I'm asking, does your bill go above the guidelines that are coming up because you think a gap would still exist?

Oh, yeah. That's a great question. So AB 1777, the Ting bill was in effect a subset of what's going on here. It was it did not address these issues. For example, it did not address the issue of of remote operators and what qualifications they should have.

It doesn't It did not address response time as you know in your own communities that EMTs and fire, for example, for good reason have mandated response times, contractual response times. And if they don't meet those, that's it's a big problem, including ambulance services, private ambulance services. Those kinds of things just haven't been addressed so far. So that direction has not been given to DMV.

If they go beyond, certainly during the course of this year as we're, moving the bill forward, assuming we can keep moving it forward, Obviously, I'm willing to make adjustments, you know, amend out areas that are redone in or, you know, don't need to be addressed.

But the legislative direction so far has not, you know, has only touched on a couple of issues frankly, and we just think there's a lot a lot more that needs to be done and things are moving very, very quickly. So kicking the can down the road from a legislative standpoint and waiting for rulemaking to happen, you know, might be might be awfully late.

Thank you, Senator.

Anybody else? Go ahead. Senator. Senator Gonzales.

Mister chair, and thank you to the offer for bringing it forward.

But I do have a question on the, on the coordination among state agencies because, you know, AVs in general as I've worked on this work as well, it's it can be very confusing and it's brand new, it's sort of still nascent technology, but how do you see the coordination amongst the state agencies working and actually ensuring that there is, you know, the accident data reporting that you have all of the that we do have the true enforcement, that is the intent of the bill.

So, you know, the DMV obviously regulating the vehicles and then PUC, the robo taxi, side of things. So how do you see that? How do you envision that?

And then, so this could be the best bill, possible.

Uniformity is gonna be a big issue, and the bill starts to address that. I'm not sure one bill is gonna get all the way. There is no uniform guidelines that have been established by anyone in the state of California in terms of the the issues that we've been talking about here, response times training.

So we have called for CHP to be the agency that given it's a statewide law enforcement agency that takes responsibility for trying to bring uniform guidelines into play in terms of of fundamental law enforcement issues, rules of the road issues in terms of training. You know, as it stands right now, we don't have coordination with dispatch.

I know you know this as a former chair of this very committee. To this day, there's no dispatch coordination. So all the work that we've done in local governments and at the state level to make sure that when someone calls, you know, 911 and says, I've got a I've got a problem out here. Somebody's trapped under a car.

We have not only mandated response times, but we have dispatch as some of us know from dealing with emergencies, you know, working right through with us all the way to the point of actual response.

Right now, our AV industry is in a separate universe. So that needs to be coordinated, absolutely needs to be coordinated.

I think the beginning point here was to say there needs to be a set response time and I want to say I'm open to moving the ten minutes, but I would just say even to the opposition, let's discuss that because there's very few first responder agencies that are allowed ten minutes and I'm not sure what the liability issues are going to be, you know, if we're not synced up with those response issues.

For example, a fire coming out because someone's trapped under a car could be could be no responsibility, no direct responsibility of the of the AV company, of the industry itself. But what may become the problem, the liability problem is they don't show up for fifteen minutes and you've got first responders here that are unable unable to take any kind of meaningful physical control of the vehicle.

That's not good. And and I I Aye, you know, beg to to differ with the opposition witness that says that or implies that first responders of of any type don't come out and immediately call heavy equipment and tow companies. Not for this bill is not about tractor trailer rigs. This is upon we all know what the vehicles look like.

The ability to move one of those as quickly as first responders needed to be moved or to override it, it just seems critical to life and death situations.

Anyway, sorry about the long response, mister chair.

Well, I appreciate it. And I would say, I know sort of, in addition to that is the data as well. I know that we have been talking about some AV companies do provide data, some definitely do not as we've known. And the DMV has not been great in some cases in ensuring that we're getting that data on crash accidents and NHTSA sort of nowadays sort of seems like a black hole and you don't we don't understand which is doing what.

So the data is certainly very, very important.

I'm wondering and maybe this is for public safety on either side, on whether, you know, looking ahead, how there will be categories for this specific issue, maybe not even just on the, crash data injury side, like the death or injury side, but also on the, you know, just having to be like the triple a,

like you said, which we

should not be having our public safety personnel do. So I'm wondering what the data will maybe evolve into, after this bill or as, you know, you're waiting for DMV, additional reporting.

As as is widely known, the safety rating of autonomous vehicles is far superior in terms of, deaths per million miles, which is the mileage death rate, as opposed to human drivers and human error related crashes. So I think we all envision a a future where there's better traffic safety for everybody.

But on the data side, how is that gonna but

Yeah. I don't know if you've had Thank you, Senator. I don't know if I have an exact answer to your question, but I think we're also very interested to see that data as well, not necessarily just for incidents where, you know, somebody may die in an accident, but just like the number of incidents reported of, you know, a disabled car in a dangerous location or the ability to to block a fire from leaving this the fire engine from leaving the station.

Like, those kinds of things we're hoping get reported as well, and that will hopefully inform our operation and the training that our members do to interact with the vehicles, but also hopefully the way the vehicles continue to evolve in their, rollout as well.

Yep. That's helpful.

Yeah.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Thank you. So I just have a couple things, before we go to the chairman to close. I agree with the Senator from Long Beach. When we look at the data, I hope when we look at the data, we compare apples to apples. Just like when we talk about accidents.

What is it, accidents from these AB vehicles versus that are normal people driving the car. The data I've seen that the AVs are actually more, are safer. But and and again, going into wait times, more blocking, I understand first responders. They're they're there to try to help keep us safe. The more the most essential role of government is public safety.

But I can tell you many times where I've seen cars that broke down that are in the middle of the road, and it takes a tow truck fifteen, twenty minutes. So I want to know, like, when we look forward on this and data, let's compare apples to apples. Because a lot of times, they're, oh, ten minutes is too long. Yeah. Ten minutes is way too long in an emergency situation.

But someone driving a car that breaks down that car, a lot of times it's longer than that ten minutes. That you're expecting an autonomous vehicle to be better than what we have currently today on everyday life. And so those are the kinds of things that we need to take a look at. I'm actually excited about this because I think we're going to have a major reduction in car accidents through these kinds of vehicles.

So it's 10-0. That will remain on call. Now, Members, we're going to file item number 20 by the Chairman, SB 1250.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair and Members. Wildlife vehicle, this... I'm sorry. I'm presenting SB 1250. And wildlife vehicle collisions are a real and growing safety issue on California roads, costing hundreds of millions of dollars annually and putting drivers at risk. SB 1250 ensures we plan for these hazards as part of our transportation system and not after the fact. But across...

Can we please close the door?

Across California, drivers regularly encounter animals in the roadway with little warning. These situations can lead to serious collisions, and do, injuries and significant vehicle damage as well. Wildlife related incidents are not isolated events.

They occur by the thousands each year and are concentrated in specific well documented locations on our highway system. In many cases, it's not only the initial collision that poses a risk. Drivers may break suddenly or swerve to avoid an animal, creating dangerous conditions for surrounding vehicles and increasing the likelihood of secondary crashes.

These are recurring, avoidable costs that place ongoing demands on public resources and on California drivers. Importantly, these incidents are not random. We now have strong data identifying collision hot spots, specific stretches of highway where these events occur repeatedly over time. And I've heard directly from rural transportation commissioners across the state who are dealing with these exact conditions on the ground.

For example, along US Highway 50 in El Dorado County, one of the primary evacuation routes connecting the Sacramento region to Lake Tahoe, wildlife vehicle collisions are not just an environmental concern, they're a serious public safety issue.

This corridor is one of the highest ranking in the state for wildlife collisions. And when the incidents occur, they can shut down the entire route with no visible detours, impacting commuters, emergency response, and evacuation capacity.

Because these locations are known, they can be addressed in a targeted and strategic way using the same planning tools we already apply to roadway safety risks. And I do wanna emphasize this is a planning bill. We also know what works.

Wildlife crossings combined with appropriate fencing and design features significantly reduce collisions in many cases by well over 80%. These are established engineering solutions that improve roadway safety outcomes when displayed in the right locations.

I wanna be very clear. SB 1250 does not take funding away from other transportation priorities or create new hurdles for projects to move forward. It simply integrates wildlife connectivity into the same planning process we already use. As you know from reading the analysis, there's already been some bill history on this topic that has moved this issue forward.

So when the state is investing in a corridor, we need to be able to address multiple safety needs at once rather than coming back later and spending more time and more money to fix the same stretch of road twice. Right now, however, these improvements are often treated as stand alone projects, separate from routine highway planning and investment.

And I think there's reasons for that, and the bill tries to address those reasons. As a result, we miss opportunities to address known safety risks during scheduled roadway work, leading to delays, duplication of effort, and less efficient use of transportation resources.

The bill addresses a gap by integrating wildlife connectivity into the state's transportation asset management framework. That's the planning we want to have happen. This bill this builds on the work Caltrans is already doing, as I mentioned a minute ago. We do have legislative history that's been enacted on this.

It's right there in the analysis. This is fundamentally about planning smarter. And for rural regions in particular this matters because these are often high speed corridors with limited alternatives where a single incident can disrupt an entire region.

By allowing known collision risks, by aligning them with existing transportation planning and funding processes, the state can improve roadway safety outcomes, reduce the frequency and severity of avoidable incidents, and deliver infrastructure improvements in a more coordinated and cost effective manner. This bill reflects a practical approach.

I wanna briefly address the concerns raised by the one opposition letter that we have. We recently had the opportunity to connect with CBIA. I appreciate the productive conversation. I typically have very productive conversations with them, particularly over the last five plus years.

It appears some concerns stem from a misunderstanding of the bill's intent. We will work with them to make sure that there's whatever additional clarity there needs to be. But they are currently refining proposed amendments and I remain committed, as I said, to work that out with them.

Here with me today to testify in support of the bill, we have Michael Jarred on behalf of the Nature Conservancy, and I believe we have Jeanie Ward-Waller on behalf of Pew Climate Plan and National Wildlife Federation. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Michael Jarred, associate director at The Nature Conservancy, and we are proud to sponsor SB 1250, which would support better planning and agency coordination at for wildlife connectivity.

TNC thanks Senator Cortese for his leadership on this important issue. TNC's leadership in connectivity conservation spans more than 25 years and includes the landmark California missing linkages effort launched in 2000.

This body of work together with our partnership in the California Wildlife Reconnected network supports the alignment of ecological movement corridors with planned highway upgrades to deliver safe roads and resilient landscapes.

California's highways connect our communities and carry millions of drivers safely to work, school, and home every day. Too often, those same roadways become places where drivers encounter animals with little warning, creating dangerous situations that can lead to serious crashes, injuries, delays, and costly damage. We know these collisions are preventable with the right planning.

SB 1250 adds wildlife connectivity to the transportation asset management plan, which would change a piecemeal approach to wildlife connectivity to one that is systematic and consistent with other aspects of transportation planning, helping Caltrans to streamline and accelerate work they are already doing.

Vehicle wildlife collisions are preventable safety problem on California's roads. Analysis by the UC Davis Road Ecology Center documents an annual statewide cost of above 250 million. Studies show that wildlife crossings paired with continuous fencing typically cut large mammal collisions by 80 to 97%.

There are examples of successes that SB 1250 will build on, such as Caltrans District 9 Highway 395 Sonora Junction. During the development of a broader safety project, Caltrans staff integrated two wildlife underpasses into a transportation project in an area where over 50% of collisions involve deer with only a 1% increase in cost. Thank you.

I'll wrap up. Many of these projects are eligible for funding through the Wildlife Conservation Board, federal funds, and private funds. With the right planning, there's a huge opportunity to leverage funds and to make our roads safer, reduce traffic congestion, and benefit our wildlife. For all these reasons, TNC urges your support of SB 1250. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon again, Chair and Members. Jeanie Ward-Waller representing Pew Climate Plan and National Wildlife Federation. I also served at Caltrans for a number of years and oversaw on the planning program, so I understand how this issue functions internally.

SB 1250 is about bringing structure and accountability to Caltrans efforts to make highways safer through upgrades coincident with planned projects while protecting our unique natural systems. As Michael said, wildlife vehicle collisions have real and significant costs, emergency response, medical bills, vehicle repairs, and traffic delays that show up in both the state and household budgets.

Well designed wildlife crossings paired with fencing should be treated as the highly effective safety treatments they are, not optional enhancements. That's why the state enacted AB 2344 in 2022 to set the policy direction to identify and address the most significant hot spots.

SB 1250 doesn't mandate any new projects or create a new funding program. Instead, it does something practical and fiscally responsible. It establishes performance goals for wildlife connectivity alongside other transportation objectives to plan, track, and manage over time.

This bill helps the state address wildlife crossings on routine road maintenance projects through the shop, digging once to address all priority needs at a location at one time. And to be clear, the types of improvements we are talking about may be as minor as replacing a drainage culvert that already needs to be replaced with a slightly larger culvert that can accommodate key species.

The alternative is an expensive and piecemeal approach where wildlife crossings are implemented as stand alone projects that could involve coming back to a location where a recent pavement project was just completed, disrupting and frustrating the public with traffic closures the second time to tear up the road for a new project.

Ten seconds.

In a time of significant pressure on the transportation budget, SB 1250 ensures that limited dollars are spent efficiently on multi benefit projects that address all the goals. We urge your aye vote on SB 1250.

Thank you. Thank you. Other witnesses in support for identification purposes.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. Proud to support a bill that is a good idea and not always in our wheelhouse, but happy to support.

Marc Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All in support.

Jake Schultz on behalf of the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, and the Habitat... And the California Habitat Conservation Planning Coalition in strong support. Thank you.

Kim... Kim Delfino in support on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and California Native Plant Society. But also been asked to read the support for El Dorado County Transportation Commission, Climate Center, San Diego 350.

Planning and Conservation League, Road Ecology Center at UC Davis, 350 Bay Area Action, Wildlife Conservation Network, Endangered Habitats League, Pathways for Wildlife, Eco San Diego, Wildlife Habitat Conservation Coalition, the Native American Environmental Protection Coalition, and the Trust for Public Land. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of San Diego Humane Society and our Project Wildlife in strong support.

Nickolaus Sackett on behalf of Social Compassion in Legislation and our thousands of supporters in California. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mari Galloway on behalf of Wildlands Network in strong support.

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

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

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in strong support. Thank you.

Kendra Ramsey for California Bicycle Coalition in support.

Hi. Jaymee Go on behalf of TreePeople in support.

Thank you, Committee Members. My name is Kyron Mason, and I'm with Environment California. This year, we have been working very hard across the state to support...

Sir, only for identification purposes in support. We've already had testimony.

Okay. This is Environment California in support. Thank you.

Chris Lee on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you. Witnesses in opposition?

Hi. Audrey Ratajczak. I'm here... Sorry, with a cold. On behalf of CBIA. And we appreciate the author and the sponsors for working with us and their willingness to engage. We're actively working with them to address our remaining concerns. It would be helpful for the committee to know that we've also clarified some of the items that are in our letter and we're currently working with them, as the Senator mentioned, in good faith.

The only outstanding issue we think we have right now is the definition of wildlife connectivity asset, and we're working through. We think it might be interpreted a little bit more broadly than intended, so we're working to address that and think we'll get to a good spot. So thank you.

Thank you. Members, any questions? Senator Blakespear.

Yes. Thank you. I'm a proud co-author on this bill. I appreciate that you are bringing this forward, and I wanna recognize how great it is that we have multiple legislators that are seeing the need to focus on coexistence, wildlife coexistence.

We just had Laura Richardson presenting her bill on grizzly bears, over at Natural Resources. And I also have a bill that compliments this. It's SB 1135, and it would reestablish the wildlife coexistence program within the Department of Fish and Wildlife in order to better manage and reduce human wildlife conflicts.

And so I just want to recognize that it's so important that we think about our major transportation systems and wildlife. And so to have the Chair of Transportation focusing on safety, but also on wildlife, health, and biodiversity, and championing this bill is just critically important.

And I really, when I read this bill and saw it as an idea, it was such a natural next step after requiring Caltrans to think about bicycle and pedestrian planning before when they're doing projects. Because it's the same idea that was also mentioned by your supporters here, who that we wanna dig once.

You know, we wanna build once, and if you could build a little bit bigger culvert, why not do that? And then also thinking ahead about what it is that's creating the safety problems on the roads, and it's just a win win in every way. So I wanna express my full participation and support and enthusiasm for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anything else? Senator Menjivar.

Thank you. I mean, I don't disagree with anything that my colleague mentioned. You mentioned the importance of it. I do have some concerns, given especially that Assembly Member Schultz had a bill in this hearing and the analysis from Approps kind of worried me regarding the potential of hindering projects from being fulfilled given the increase in cost to it.

So if I have infrastructure, highway infrastructures that need to be addressed, which I do, I have one of the worst highways in California. Is this gonna hinder them getting maintained and upgraded if there's not enough funding to do the extra part that your bill is asking to do?

This bill is fundamentally does nothing in terms of of the funding side, what we would call the fiscal side at all. It's just literally requiring institutionalizing awareness at the planning document level. And that's where there's really been a problem.

So just if I can just use a quick case study. In Santa Clara County, if you've ever tried to go from San Jose to Santa Cruz, you go over Highway 17. There's a huge reservoir on one side of Highway 17 and there's, you know, redwoods and open space on the other side. And there's a project there that was being worked on for years by open space authority folks who have some jurisdiction on both sides.

Caltrans was somewhat aware of what they were doing, the money they were raising, the grant funding that they had, but there was there was absolutely nothing in the planning process that even demonstrated that there's a pedestrian bridge going over Highway 17 and a new box culvert for the wildlife at the pedestrian bridge for humans in a box culvert under.

When I first met with the folks five years ago, I said, have you gone through the transportation planning process? And they had no idea what I was talking about. Not because they're stupid or anything, but they know a lot about, you know, outside of the right of way, how to navigate funding issues and right of way issues, purchase property, acquire easements on private property and so forth. None of that is what this bill implicates.

This bill is just saying that when people are coming into that literal intersectionality with one of our highways, that the CTC in this process should have an inventory, that they should have that mapped and it should be logged in the planning process. That Highway 17 to my knowledge other than routine maintenance would have never had any other project there.

So whatever comes of that ultimately, and the project is not complete now, would either be, you know, from the open space folks investing. Without going into the details, we have an even more graphic example on Highway 152 going from San Jose over to the Central Valley, major goods movement corridor with elk, Tule Elk on both sides of the of the highway, and no and no institutionalized crossing.

And there's gonna be road work going on there to accommodate San Luis Reservoir expansion now, but there's no corresponding planning document that shows that the habitat conservation plan. Which is put in a trail again underneath right underneath 152, even has a project that exists from... It's as if on the transportation world that project doesn't even exist. So this is what we're trying to do is just raise awareness.

I think there's actually an argument that in those cases, like the last one I just mentioned, it's actually going to create efficiencies so that the engineering is factoring in what needs to be done to either get people or wildlife or both back and forth. And both those examples, by the way, they're human pedestrian crossings. They're basically ATV projects, active transportation projects as well as, you know, wildlife accommodation projects.

I'd like to, because I don't think I... I apologize, Senator, that I feel like my question didn't really get answered here. Because the sponsor talked about, you know, efficiency. We should do one project versus two instead of coming back. When I hear that, that means at the get go of that first project, it won't be completed unless you're incorporating what we're asking this bill to do.

And the Senate Appropriations message of the previous bill, very similar to this, said adding cost to individual projects may result in the funding of fewer overall transportation infrastructure improvements. And that's what I'm worried about. Is this...

I think that was a very inappropriate comment in the analysis because it was thoroughly explained, you know, to the staff in this committee that there's no mandate in this bill. In fact, we invited amendments to the bill from this committee staff that would make that even more clear.

I'm more than happy going forward to make that more clear, Senator. But there's no funding mandate in this bill whatsoever. So, and in fact, those projects, you know, unless unless you for the purposes of efficiency are gonna be individual projects.

They're they're not well, they're not, this bill does not force the merger of a wildlife crossing project with an existing project. And obviously, we have a competitive system. I serve on the CTC. We have a competitive system, a formula based system that rewards the highest and best projects.

So it's possible if the CTC looks at we have a wildlife project here, we have this highway project we absolutely have to get done for goods movement. We have X amount of dollars. That they move forward with project A and not project B and you lose the efficiency of building the corridor at the same time, but so be it.

That's how the process works. And we're all in competition with each other in that way. And our projects, of course, in our own districts are in competition with each other. And so it's very Darwinian in that way. But nothing in this bill says that somehow these projects leap ahead or even onto an equal footing with a project that's, you know, either shovel ready or or more critical to transportation infrastructure.

So it doesn't prioritize, like so I get that point. Thank you for that. And is it the intent of the bill to not also say one project now gets assessed and there is opportunity to do a wildlife connectivity, there's enough funding for that project. And but it cannot address or include funding for wildlife connectivity. Can it still move forward without including that connectivity?

Yeah. I think you're here nodding heads. I'll let them answer, you know.

I'm happy to speak to it.

I know I won't prioritize. I got that.

As the author, I know you want author's commitment. I want them to answer the question and I will tell you I'll admit to what the sponsor's answer.

I'll just, I'll just describe a little bit of how this works internally to Caltrans now. The asset management plan is where Caltrans sets broad statewide targets. So they built in things like bike and pedestrian connectivity in recent years.

They've also built in things like climate resiliency. So in a lot of cases, culverts, drainage culverts, and bridges are already being upsized because we're seeing bigger storms, more precipitation. What our bill does is they say also consider the wildlife connectivity needs in priority locations based on a list that Caltrans has already identified.

And while you're already doing that work, either include the connectivity or at least consider it. It's not going to delay projects. It's setting this as a goal as at a statewide level so future projects will consider this. It's not gonna impact existing projects that are moving forward now. Nothing will get delayed that is already in the pipeline.

And it... Okay. Okay. Thank you.

As as I said, we've requested language to help clarify that, taking the comment in the analysis in good faith. We don't think the problem exists in the first place, but to the extent we need to call that out so there's no confusion, I'm happy to do that going forward.

So I need a motion, I assume, Senator Blakespear. It's been moved. Anything else, Members? If not, Senator Chairman, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water. [Roll Call]

The bills eight to one remains on call. Mister chairman, your last bill file 21 SCR 129.

Okay. Thank you, again, mister chair one last time. I assure this is the last one. I'd like to present SCR 129, the Rusty Areias Highway Resolution, which recognizes the extraordinary contributions of Rusty Areias, a former assembly member and former director of the Department of Parks and Recreation for the State of California. I'm not sure that's exactly the title of our state parks department, but I apologize for that.

Rusty Areias spent twelve years in the state assembly where he was widely recognized as a leader on transportation, agriculture, land preservation issues, and more. He authored over 100 pieces of legislation that were signed into law by two Republican governors. During his tenure on the Assembly Transportation Committee, mister Reyes was instrumental in securing a $150,000,000 for improvements to State Route 152 over Pacheco Pass Highway. That's the same highway I was just referring to on the prior bill.

I do want to, of course, point out that a $150,000,000 in terms of present value today would be a much more significant contribution to our transportation infrastructure.

Later as director of the California Department of Parks, mister Areias oversaw the passage of $6,000,000,000 in park bonds and raised park attendance by 23,000,000 people, that's documented. It was also critical in securing 300 acres of farmland in an area I'm very familiar with within Senate District 15 during the time that he served as our parks director. That is now called Marshall Cottle Park in Santa Clara County.

This was approximately $500,000,000 of of land surrounded by residential development in the heart of San Jose, again 300 acres, which was successfully acquired by state parks as a direct result of mister Areias' efforts to meet with and get the landowner to agree to dedicate that property to the state of California.

SCR 129 pays tribute, and by the way, that property is fully being fully utilized now as as a working farm, a 300 acre working farm, which accommodates students and field trips and everything else you can imagine.

SCR 129, as a resolution, pays tribute to a career of service by designating a portion of Highway 152 in Santa Clara County as a Rusty Areias Highway. The resolution is co-authored by 21 members of the legislature and supported by former director of Caltrans, Will Kempton, former speaker Willie Brown, and congressman John Garamendi. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Witness, Mister McHale?

Mister chairman, members of the committee, I'll be brief. Many years ago forty years ago, I got started in this business working on the 5th Floor of the annex, and two doors down was assembly member Dominic Cortese's office. And I could hear Dominic Cortese coming to work every day. He had no understanding of rank, and whoever he crossed, it was always a funny comment, usually irreverent. And it was it was great to to know him.

And while I think his son inherited his mother's personality, I do believe that he got his father's sense of commitment to public safety. Senator Cortese has seen for over forty five years the work of the person that I worked for, Rusty Areias, and the extraordinary contributions that he has made to California. The offices, mister Cortese and mister Areias, were adjacent, although the district that mister Areias represented was more rural. Mister Areias fit his district.

He was an outstanding young farmer in America, and he was also a vibrant leader in a very active rural caucus.

And while it is true that he tended to wear the new Calvin Klein jeans more than the traditional Wranglers and there was probably more snakeskin in his boots than there was cowhide, it would be absolutely wrong to suggest that there was more flash than substance. It is a matter of record that two Republican governors signed Rusty Areias' legislation, a moderate Democrat, more than any other. As part of the gang of five, he came within a heart attack.

Richard Longshore flying to Sacramento from San Jose had a heart attack on the morning that he was to give the 41st vote to change the speakership. And because he died, the speakership of Willie Brown continued for fifteen years.

Subsequent to that battle, Willie Brown and Rusty Arreas became extremely close friends and have for a generation worked together on projects. And as a matter of record that Willie Brown is one of the strongest supporters of this resolution. As the chair of the emergency response committee, Rusty led the response to the Loma Prieta earthquake and modernized how we respond to emergency services, and he was personally asked by the firefighters of California to be the sponsors of the California Firefighter Memorial that is in our capital park.

As chair of agriculture, he wrote the legislation that delineated and outlawed the six most onerous and despicable, pesticides in the state of California, which made our food safer and made it safer to work in the fields. In education, he wrote the seminal document that created the University of California, Merced, and has subsequently, in a move and a nod to the people of the Central Valley, and to Rusty Areias' work in particular, the governor has appointed him as a regent to the University of California system.

He was the chair of the Coastal Commission, and in rooms where rancor often reigns, he was a reasoned and reasonable voice, and that area thrived economically while at the same time, our precious coastal environment was preserved. As director of parks, he cut fees so that inner city kids could enjoy parks that they had never seen before. But it is on transportation that we remember him today.

Highway 152 was considered perhaps the most dangerous area to drive in California, yet urban legislators wanted to focus on congestion issues. Rusty Areias brought up busloads of young people to the capital to talk about the dangerous drive they made every single day, and consequently, $150,000,000 was set aside to make that road more accessible.

Rusty John Areias is in the twilight of a career of public service that is rare and long lasting. The late John Burton said to me that he had been asked by hundreds of people for favors. He said the only time Rusty Areias ever asked for a favor was when he was asking for someone else. His joy and boundless personality that Rusty brought to public service was backed up by doing the hard jobs that needed to be done.

To steal from a great Irish poet, Rusty walked the road less traveled so that those of us who followed him would have an easier pathway to go.

I believe this resolution is well written, and I hope that you will support it.

Thank you, for the testimony. I would like to, just point of personal privilege, move the bill, to a point that you mentioned. As you know, I spoke on behalf of Senator John Burton, in his passing at a different time in in this legislative body where everybody got along and could agree to disagree without being disagreeable. I I knew the assemblyman, he's a champion. He's someone who really fought for California to the point where I got a call today from Senator Jim Burulty urging me to support.

I was already supportive before he called, but it just goes to show you, you know, the bipartisan nature that we used to have in this body that we can bring back again. So I would like to be the person who moves this bill, on that note. But, Senator Menjivar?

Mister vice chair, I think we are still very, respectful of each other in the States that in.

We we already do our comment.

Yeah. Okay. I'll talk to you offline on some of the stuff, if you don't mind. Senator,