Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

The Senate Transportation Committee will come to order. Good afternoon and welcome. Please call our authors that come to the committee. We have a total of 15 measures on today's agenda. First, a few housekeeping items.

We're gonna allow, two primary witnesses each to support the opposition. Each witness will have two minutes. An additional witnesses will have a limit yourself to name, affiliation, and your position on the bill. We'll be hearing bills on agenda and file order, and we'll be entertaining motions on bills at their

appropriate time once we have established a quorum. We have seven measures on the consent today but we can't take those up because we don't have a quorum.

And so I do see an author that would if you would like to entertain, come in here as a as a a subcommittee. We would love for you to come up, Senator Nilo, for our audience is file item number two, SB 953 by Senator Nilo. Senator, you're welcome to open when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate getting up as early as I can because I have another committee meeting going on currently

We all do that.

I need to get back to. So I am here, if I can get my pages separated, To present SB 953, which address addresses a serious gap in California law. When a driver causes a death through vehicular manslaughter and then receives mental health diversion,

that conduct will have absolutely no reflection on their driving record. This bill ensures that even after diversion, the underlying conduct remains recognized for what it is a major driving risk.

Under current laws, a speeding ticket can now have a greater reflection on a driver's driving record than killing somebody with a car.

A dismissal after diversion does not change the fact that a fatality occurred. By not sharing this information with the DMV, the DMV cannot do its job of determining who poses a risk and who does not.

The CalMatters article, which I have here, licensed to kill series documented systemic failures in California's driver accountability system and found that dangerous drivers repeatedly avoided consequences and oversight.

DMV records often failed to reflect serious risk patterns, and many individuals involved in fatal crashes remained legally on the road.

The article, points out this is a serious issue where California has allowed drivers with dangerous histories to continue driving.

SB 953 directly responds to this failure by ensuring fatal conduct is captured in the DMV point system, preventing risk from being hidden behind diversion outcomes. This bill does not impact one's criminal penalties.

The bill only applies two points to a driving record in vehicular manslaughter cases, and judges still retain full discretion to grant diversion. It's long been the case that vehicular manslaughter offenses result in the addition excuse me.

It it has long been the case that vehicular manslaughter offenses result in additional two points on a driving record.

This bill does not create anything new. The DMV point system is designed to identify high risk drivers. Without points, these drivers now remain invisible to the system even after a fatal incident.

Families of victims expect the system will acknowledge the seriousness of the loss and take steps to prevent recurrence. To dismiss one's driving record dismisses the value of a lost life.

SB 953 affirms that a loss of life carries lasting weight. A death on our roads should never disappear from our records. I have two witnesses here with me today. Allison Lyman, the mother of Connor Lyman who was tragically lost on our roadways.

And Cody Boyles on behalf of the Association of Highway Patrolmen. Allison.

Two minutes each. Thank you for being here.

Sorry. Just checking. Okay. Thank you. My name is Allison Lyman. I'm here on behalf of my beautiful 23 year old son, Connor. I'm here to give Connor a voice that he no longer has and to give a voice to all the innocent lives taken by reckless drivers on our roads.

I'm here to ask you to save lives by voting yes on SB 953. Connor was senselessly killed by a reckless and negligent driver on April 23, 2025 in Elk Grove while coming home from the gym. We are nine days away from the one year of my son's death.

Connor was my only son. He was a devoted big brother. His little sister is here today. He was a classically trained pianist. He was so gifted.

He was teaching piano while attending college. He had dreams. I heard his music every day. The silence is now excruciating. I saw Connor's broken body in the hospital when I buried my child and I saw him in his casket.

The funeral home covered only his hands. His beautiful hands that had played piano nearly his entire life had been crushed. The violence of his death is something I will carry forever. Under California law, my son's death is a misdemeanor.

Because his killing is considered low level and nonviolent, the driver charged with taking his life is eligible for a diversion program, meaning they can avoid a conviction simply by completing coursework or community service.

There will be no record of Connor's death, no record of their crime on their criminal or driving record. As mentioned, CalMatters wrote about, Connor in their series License to Kill. They titled it When a Speeding Ticket Can Be Worse Than Killing Someone With Your Car in California and sadly this is correct.

At least with the speeding ticket, there are points on your record. The system fails families who have lost loved ones and in dangers every Californian each time these individuals get behind the wheel.

SB 953 is a necessary common sense reform. By adding two points, two DMV points when a misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter case is dismissed through diversion, the state will finally have a mechanism to track repeat dangerous drivers and hold them accountable. They do it again.

This is the heart of this bill, a way to track reckless drivers that have taken lives, human lives on our roads. Takes four points to suspend a license.

SB 953 does not overreach. It simply ensures that a fatality is not erased and the state is able to track repeat dangerous drivers. It will save lives. Please support SB953. Thank you for hearing Connor's story.

Thank you and condolences in the memory of Connor. Thank you for being here. Next witness next witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Cody Boyles on behalf of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, which represents nearly 16,000 active and retired, CHP officers. I would like to thank Senator Nilo, for, bringing this bill forward.

Under current law, driver who commits a misdemeanor, vehicular manslaughter, but completes diversion, can avoid receiving the full two points on the record and as a result can avoid the full consequences of, what they have done.

SB 953 ensures that even in the case even if a case is dismissed for diversion, two points will still be applied to that individual's driving record. This matters because the point system, while not is not about a punishment, but is designed to identify high risk, drivers and keep them off the road and hopefully

avoid these types of horrific act accidents, in the future. CHP officers understand better than anyone that vehicular manslaughter is not a minor mistake, and it has life altering and devastating consequences for victims and for their families. It's for these reasons that we strongly support SB 953.

Thank you for being here. Any witnesses, for identification purposes to, voice for support?

Good afternoon, Vice Chair and Committee. Yeah. Strong support of this bill, Mark from Streets for all strong support of the bill, and appreciate the author bringing it forward. Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Good afternoon. Iria Rapitan on behalf of AAA Northern California and Southern California in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mike Sharif with Fanshawe Government Affairs on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition in support.

Thank you.

Christina Thompson on behalf of Connor Lopez. Strong support.

Thank you.

Christine Clinkenbeard, grandmother of Connor Lopez, and I'm in strong support of this bill.

Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you.

Yes. I would most appreciate an Aye vote and at the appropriate time when you have a quorum.

We will move this when we have a quorum. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for being here. Thank you. For folks in the audience, we'll just wait until we have a Member show up for a presentation presenting a bill. Thank you.

For the audience, we have a we have an author here. It's gonna be file item number 13, SB 1292 by Senator Richardson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's, you like that seat, You may have to pry you out of it. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members.

I would like to start by thanking the Chairman, Committee staff for working with me and my office to incorporate the amendments that strengthen the bill's language and clarifies the intent of this legislation. I am accepting officially those amendments.

Importantly, within those amendments, I want to highlight the narrowing scope of the bill to now be limited to only select cities such as Los Angeles, Long Beach, Inglewood, and others.

Parking curb space particularly in urban communities, downtown businesses, and residential districts are some of the most valuable and contested pieces of public right away across California.

Traditionally designed around short term parking and passenger pickup to maximize use. Parking space is now even further limited due to the additional vehicles and e-commerce deliveries, food delivery services, ride hailing, and emerging autonomous vehicle fleets.

In particular, commercial curb curbs need to have increased, I'm sorry. In particular, commercial curbs, need to, this isn't I'm sorry. It has increased rapidly over the past decade and is projected to grow substantially through 2030.

Yet, much of this use occurs without effective price monitoring, time limits, and worse compliance. So what we're saying there is that the curb, the use of curves is increasing. It's getting even more significant as we're looking towards 2030.

And if we don't look at ways to effectively, monitor that people are exceeding the time limits, we're not going to have available parking. As a result, double parking, blocked bike lanes, unsafe loading behaviors, and more have become more common in many communities.

Local governments currently lack the adequate authority, manpower, and tools to manage modern curb activity effectively. First, the rapid growth in the last lane delivery and on demand, on demand services have overwhelmed existing curb regulations.

Research from the Los Angeles Department of Transportation conducted under USDOT smart grant found that nearly half of all loading activity was non compliant. With vehicles overstaying posted time limits and crowding out legitimate loading needs.

Commercial vehicles paid for curb access less than five to less than 5% of the time undetermining, the turnover and the fairness that's needed of other people who need these spots.

Second, poor curb compliance creates measurable public harm. Double parking and illegal stopping reduces traffic speeds, increases congestion, blocks transit and bike lanes, and introduces significant safety risks for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers themselves.

These impacts are especially acute in dense commercial and residential districts near schools, hospitals, and transit hubs. Third, autonomous vehicles are now in the discussion.

Because AVs cannot receive traditional citations and do not interact with meters, cities and are unable to manage, cities are unable to manage AV curbs use in the same manner as they would with human driven vehicles.

This creates an enforcement inequity and limits city's ability to plan for the future in which autonomous vehicles may represent most of the parking curb users.

Under SB 1292, local government would have the authority if desired to adopt an an ordinance and or resolution authorizing the use of stationary cameras or sensors with clear public signage to manage parking curb activity at specific locations. I wanna re highlight that.

Again, it is the local government that have would have the ability through proper governing process, City Council meetings, and so on, to adopt a resolution. This is not a mandate, but simply giving them the opportunity to do so.

Eligible locations including passenger and commercial loading zones, smart and zero emission delivery zones, bike lanes, non stopping zones, and crosswalks, all would potentially be in play and could benefit.

Participation is entirely optional and each jurisdiction retains full control over over where and how systems are deployed. And frankly, whether they continue at all if they find them to be helpful. Importantly, SB 1292 requires human review of all citations.

So we want people to understand we're not talking about doing away with parking enforcement. Parking enforcement individuals would still need to review the citations.

This would just give us the opportunity to make sure that more people who are misusing the zone area would in fact seek the, just punishment to say, hey, you can't just park here indefinitely.

Because frankly, we don't have enough parking officers throughout to monitor properly. Importantly, SB 1292, as said, requires human review of all citations.

This bill is designed to be a tool in the toolbox for parking enforcement, non substitute parking enforcers, not, excuse me, not substituting parking enforcers work, and that is expressed clearly throughout this bill.

Here with me today to speak in support of the bill is, Mark on behalf of Streets for All alongside Jordan Justice from Autonomous to provide, technical support. Excuse me. Jordan will be here to provide, technical support and additional questions if needed. With that, I'll pause.

Thank you. Thanks for being here. Two minutes each.

Good morning. Good afternoon, Vice Chair and Members. Maybe there we go. Good afternoon, vice chair and members. Mark Vukcevich from Streets for All sponsor the bill.

SB 1292 is a and and fundamentally a local control bill. It gives cities a tool that they increasingly need to manage a curb environment that has changed dramatically in a very short period of time.

As the birthday Senator mentioned, fifteen years ago, cities were not dealing with today's combination of Uber and Lyft pickups, app based food delivery, same day package delivery.

We're talking about three hour delivery, six hour delivery, same day delivery, you know, zero emission delivery zones, autonomous vehicles. But cities our cities are dealing with all of that right now.

In many in dense commercial corridors in downtown areas, the curb has become one of the most contested parts of the public right of way. Local governments should not be man forced to manage a curb, a 2026 curb with 2006 tools.

Cities know where their problems are. They know which commercial corridors are clogged by double parking, which loading zones are abused, which crosswalks and bike lane bike lanes are routinely blocked,

and which areas need better turnover, clearer rules, and more reliable enforcement. And SB 1292 gives them those tools to do that. And that matters for safety too, when crosswalks, bike lanes, and loading areas and no stopping zones are blocked, that results not just in

inconvenience, but an actual safety issue, a predictable safety issue. And it matters for small businesses and economic health of commercial districts.

When curbs are chaotic and loading loading zones are constantly blocked or misused, and when delivery pickups and short customer stops have no reliable place to happen, it is businesses and commercial downtowns that pay the price.

This bill gives a better way to keep curbs functioning and improve turnover and support deliveries to make busy commercial quarters work. Importantly, the bill moves forward out of this committee with a more tailored approach.

The amendments make it a measured pilot of a small number of cities the ability to use this modern tool. A number of those are Olympic cities, I'll note as well.

Lastly, I just wanna note that we won't, we don't want parking tickets, we want parking compliance, and we think that's what the bill's gonna fundamentally help them with. Yeah. We believe this bill matches the tools or gives tools for the moment, and we respectfully urge a Aye vote.

Thank you.

I'm just here to to answer any technical or operational questions. I'm Trevor Justice, CEO of Automotive.

Thank you for being here. Any other witnesses for identification purposes for support?

Good morning. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Matthew Seiverling on behalf of the California Mobility and Parking Association in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Chair. I'm a bit of a tweener position, but with the committee amendments, the California Trucking Association is gonna be neutral on the bill. Just wanna thank the author and sponsors for working with us and wish you author a happy birthday.

Thank you.

Oh, happy birthday. Yeah. Oh, and there you go.

There you go.

Any other witness to support? Witnesses in opposition? Seeing no questions. Oh, witness to opposition. Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Happy birthday, by the way. Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy, and I just wanted to say that we thank the author and the committee for the amendments. I'm optimistic that we will be able to lift our opposition down the line, but we are still taking a look. But thank you.

Thank you for being here. Seeing nothing else. I oh, go ahead. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. Do you realize that three of my cities in my district are supportive? That we're we're hoping that the entire committee will approve.

But also I have to point out California contract cities, City of Norwalk, City of Pico Rivera, and the city of, of course, Los Angeles, but, Norwalk, Pico Rivera, and the surrounding areas.

So I would like to point out to everyone that, the technology that we have, this will just keep traffic moving and keep the businesses to be able to receive the clientele they need. And that's why, contract cities is for and I think it'll really expedite things.

And I know it'll be posted that has so important that it's posted. And then for reviewing, then it'll be done if there's an issue. And so I I think it's a win win all the way around.

I would like to be a cosponsor if you wish. Yeah. I'd love to. And with that, I'll move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator. I believe I missed someone, coming forward. I'm sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's my my fault.

It's actually on me. Andrew Antwih. Apologize for the late timing, but I hope, the committee will indulge, expressions of support on behalf of the city of Santa Monica and the city of West Hollywood.

Thank you for being here. I really appreciate it. I go ahead, Senator.

Thank you for this bill. And I appreciate hearing, information from the supporters, supporting testimony. I just wanted to share that, there's nothing more frustrating and irritating as a bike rider than having the bike lane be used as a parking assist lane.

And that happens all the time when the way that we design our streets is that the people riding the bicycle are right next to those who are trying to parallel park. And in really busy areas, it becomes a big problem.

Because if they're speeding traffic, you have to come to a full stop or swerve out into traffic. So being able to use tools like this to, actually enforce the laws to say actually you can't use this as a parking assist lane or a part or, you know, temporary parking to run-in to drop things

off or all the different things. And as I run a book club through my Senate districts, the District 38 book call club called Our California. And we're reading right now Paved Paradise. And the book is How Parking Explains the World.

And one of the things that's so interesting in the book is a description of how many times people are trying to find parking and they're they're stopping in the traffic lanes and it's creating enormous amounts of congestion, especially in really dense cities.

So, you know, the suburban cities are maybe a little bit different. But in really dense cities, it can substantially affect the experience of businesses and being downtown and people who are trying to use the sidewalk, the streets, the bike lanes in other ways.

So I appreciate looking at the the tools that we have and trying to to move us toward a system where we are more efficient. We are u using the areas that have been have been designated in the ways that they should be.

It's just basically a modernization. So I wanna applaud the author for doing it and thank you again.

Thank you.

And I'll move the bill when appropriate.

Thank you.

So, I just wanna say, coming in, I was leaning against it but I really like the amendments and the fact that you're doing a pilot program. Let's see how it works moving forward. So you'll have my support when at the appropriate time, this comes up.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Means a lot. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank Would you like to close?

I'd like to respectfully ask for an Aye vote on SB 1292.

Thank you. Thanks for being here.

Sure. Thank you.

And then I see Members we have the Senator Rubio. Senator are you prepared? Yes. Okay. As file item four members, SB 1228 by Senator Rubio. Happy birthday again. We're ready when you are.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair, Members, for the opportunity to present this bill, SB 1228. This is a bill that is narrowly tailored to preserve existing economic activities in former redevelopment areas.

Thank you to the Chair and, his committee for, the the work that was done on this bill.

The goal of this bill is simple. It allows a small number of existing outdoor advertisement displays to continue operating under current law rather than abruptly shutting down due to statutory sunsets.

Without legislative action, a handful of legally established LED messaging centers will be forced out of compliance. This creates unnecessary disruptions for local governments, businesses, and workers who rely on these displays.

More importantly, these displays generate critical local revenue that are, really needed to support law enforcement, senior services, youth programs, and so much more.

And in some communities, these revenues make up a significant share of their revenue. This is the same bill from last year. We just worked out the concerns and it follows these three requirements.

It needs to be deemed in compliance with the California Outdoor Advertising Act. It applies to apply for permits for permanent placement and applies only to existing qualifying displays, not any it's not a new, it doesn't allow for new billboards or an expansion of development.

So, it is very targeted, very necessary, and it's not, again, we took it out last year with no no votes, but we tackled some of the concerns, so I think we're in a good place.

Thank you. And I would like to invite my main witnesses, Ed Manning, from The Garden Casino and Jeff Sievers representing In N Out Burger.

Thanks for being here. Two minutes each. Okay.

So I'm subbing in for Ed Manning, John Deere from KP Public Affairs. Poor poor man substitute for, Ed. I'm speaking today on behalf of The Gardens Casino and we're pleased to be a cosponsor of Senate Bill 1228.

For over a decade, the legislature has recognized the importance of preserving these on premises LED messaging centers that were legally operating within former redevelopment areas.

When redevelopment agencies were dissolved in 2012, there were certain inadvertent, result that created a conflict for those signs under the outdoor advertising act.

Previous legislation, which is SB originally 684, and then AB 1175 just moved to extend the life stage of the exemptions. Last year after the governor vetoed SB 783 by Senator Rubio, he cited the need for a lasting permanent solution.

The sponsors got to work over the fall, worked with Caltrans and the governor's office to come up with this solution, language provided by Caltrans and the governor's office, and it's a direct result, of that effort.

So creates a permanent compliance path for a small narrowly tailored universe of messaging centers that existed as of December 31, 2011. And this is not just a corporate concern.

The urgency of the bill is a local concern. In our particular instance, the, our city, relies on us for 60% of their revenue. And if we don't either pass the bill or remove the sign, we're looking it up to 10,000, dollars a day in fines and penalties.

So it's a simple non controversial fix. I hope you will support, respectfully ask for your aye vote, and happy to answer any questions as well after Thank you.

Two of those chats.

Thanks you, witness.

Thank you, everybody. Jeff Sievers here today on behalf of In-N-Out Burger. In-N-Out Burger has over 300 stores in California, 30,000 employees and a lot of signs.

All of them are compliant. But this one in city of Glendora, which was originally permitted by the city of Glendora and Caltrans back in 2002, runs the risk of being out of compliance without this kind of fix.

As as John mentioned, last year, Senator Rubio, put a bill to extend it further. And to the credit of the governor's, staff and with the help of Senator Rubio, they said enough kicking the can down the road.

Let's come up with a solution that actually solves the problem instead of just extending a sunset.

This language is a result of that conversations and was drafted by Caltrans with input from the senator's office and input from those who in support. So we're trying to make sure that a sign that has been there for over twenty years remains there.

It stands as significant investment. It advertises in an area around the Glendora marketplace. It brings in revenue for the city. And once again, I wanna say it was permitted by the city and Caltrans. It's been it's been legal.

It was all part of redevelopment. We just wanted to continue to exist. So this very narrowly crafted solution created by Caltrans, allows a few of these signs if they go through the process and get a new permit, not a new sign, we're not talking about that,

just comply with with the laws in this, then they can continue to operate and not be subject to needing a sunset.

So we are greatly appreciative for Senator Rubio and Caltrans and governor's office for coming up with a solution. We strongly support it and hope you will too.

Thank you. Any witnesses in support for identification purposes? Witnesses in opposition?

Yes.

Yes. Please, two minutes.

Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Amy Lerseth. Yes. My name is Amy Lerseth. I'm here testifying on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association.

Various facts respectfully opposing the bill and we were able to meet with JD as recently as yesterday and we think that we have some fixes that would satisfy both sides, perhaps. We understand the intent of the to address the redevelopment air era signage.

This bill raises serious concerns, though, for us related to federal compliance, regulatory consistency, and fairness within the industry. Outdoor advertising adjacent to highways is governed by both state law and the Fie Federal Highway Beautification Act.

Maintaining compliance is critical to preserving California's eligibility for federal transportation funding. SB 1228 would allow certain non conforming signs to continue operating without requiring compliance with federal standards, which increases the risk of non compliance.

The FHA has previously indicated that continued operation of non compliant displays violates federal law and failure to maintain compliance could put up to 10% of the the state's federal highway funds at risk.

The approximately $580,000,000 Additionally, creating project specific exemptions undermines the uniform regulatory framework established under the Outdoor Advertising Act and creates inequities by allowing some operators to function outside the rules that apply to

everyone else. Importantly, many of these redevelopment area signs can be brought into compliance under existing law, which is something we discussed yesterday. We disagree that it's an abrupt change. The system ended in 2012, about 14 years ago.

So the sunset has been coming repeatedly. We remain committed to working collaborative collaboratively with the author and the sponsors to develop a path forward. But for these reasons, we must respectfully oppose.

Thank you. Other witnesses, for identification purposes and opposition? Seeing none. Senator Blakespear. Yeah. I hear you. Yeah. Subtitles.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the author's effort to tackle this problem, which as was noted, has gone on for several years. I I and I plan to support the bill. I am concerned though about, in general, basically, billboard visual pollution.

So I you know, recognizing that it's still a value that we have scenic corridors, and we want to be able to experience driving along them without being barraged by advertisements. So and that's why we have the Federal Highway Beautification Act was to address that.

So I just wanna make sure that that's logged for the record, that there are those of us who care about that, and that having signs, trying to figure out ways for them to be more permissive and be more places and be larger without going through a review.

And also just in general as a policy is something that I I'm not I just basically don't support that. But I guess one of the things that I wasn't able to get my bearings on with this, because I know that this is specifically for, RDA, redevelopment areas.

So how how much how many places in the state does this affect? Do do we have any and I think your what your sponsors

Yes. Go ahead.

Sure. I just heard from I asked this from Caltrans and this morning, they told me it's 37 signs.

Okay. And is a site can you describe what a site is? Is it like one sign or what's a site?

A sign.

Oh, a sign.

Yep. 37 signs.

37 signs. Okay. And that's statewide or are they concentrated in one part of the state?

I've also asked for cities. I do not have that yet, but I will share with your office as soon as we get them. But they're not all like, they're obviously not all really congregated, but I'm not sure if there's

With the preponderance of Southern California. There's only a couple of Northern California.

Oh, okay. This is all through the chair. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. Thank you. Yes. And so, I guess, one question. The governor did veto a comparable bill from the author last year, and it was because of the risk of losing this.

I think it was 400,000,000 in annual federal highway funds that was referenced by the opposition. What what do you think has changed, you know, this year that would make that different?

So again, I'm just gonna because there was a lot of negotiations with not only, with my office, the governor's office, but they were in the throes of it. So I'm gonna defer to them to answer that question. Yeah.

And I would just add that it wasn't it wasn't vetoed because of the threat of the money. It was this determination to actually create a solution for a few of these signs that, you know, were deemed to say, these are a value to the community and we wanna keep them there.

So in this in the case for the In-N-Out sign, it sits along an elevated freeway. So it has a very long pole, but it's a monument sign.

So no lights and it just says In-N-Out Burger on it.

And that's it. You wouldn't know that it was there. It used to advertise the entire marketplace, but because, Caltrans said, well, hey, that violates it. So it had just have In N Out Burger name on it. But it's it doesn't jeopardize it.

The decision to veto was to come up with a permanent solution, and that's why with Senator Rubio's help, this her staff's help, Caltrans, the governor's office, and us, we all sort of got together and said, hey, how do we actually solve this?

And the language that Caltrans came up with is they look at it as a very, very narrow, extension for a few of these signs.

Okay. And so the bill preempts local zoning ordinances. Right?

No. Our sign was permitted by the locals. So we're not talking about changing a sign. This sign's been around for twenty four years. I don't know how long how long your sign has been, but the same these signs have been there.

They were permitted by the city. So all we're talking about doing is getting under the the rules, for Caltrans, under the Outdoor Advertising Act, a new permit, but not to change the sign, which is just going to allow it to continue to exist.

There's value in those signs and there's value for the community. Right.

If I may add a little bit to that. So I mean, I do show your concern because I know you were a former council member and and so is Iowa and redevelopment went away and it left a lot of our communities with a lot of very significant issues.

And I think you could do both. So by way of example, you know, I had these, billboards that, that were already there. They were already existing.

And as I'm pushing for this, a very narrow exemption. I'm also on record passing an ordinance locally in my city to, to stop oversaturation. So so again, I'm with you on that. This is just to try and make sure that they can maintain what they have. It's not a new billboard, not an expansion.

And so the fear of all these billboards popping popping up is just not gonna happen. This is again '37, I believe he said, just to help the locals keep by, you know, a little bit of advertisement because I know as a council member that was a way of encouraging people to stop

by and shop in our communities, you know. I will take credit for In-N-Out since it started in my city of Baldwin Park and we have In-N-Out University and burgers.

And so again, it was just a way of, preserving what we have, not an expansion. So I see your I hear your concern and that's not gonna happen.

So if there was a proposal through the Chair. If there was a proposal to expand like the lighting or the footprint or something, it would have to go through a local process still. This isn't attempting to exempt that.

Yeah. We there's no attempt to to do anything with the building permit question that you had. What the bill does do is it says that section 5443, which is the savings clause, doesn't apply to these signs, but that's as they existed.

So if we wanted to change or that you would go and by and by the way, neither of the sponsors have any problems with their local government, like, entities supporting, but, yes, that would, you know, so Yeah.

I understand where your question comes from, but, like, changes and things like that would require the normal.

Right. Yeah. And I do I mean, unless they've come in late, I do know that the opposition doesn't include any of these three dozen or 34 different locations at none of those cities. So nobody is voicing that they feel that their power is being taken away from them. So okay.

That's the end of my questions. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

Senator Archuleta.

The sign in Hawaiian Gardens is used to be in my district until we changed. Beautiful sign, well maintained, very professional, and it's right off the freeway and it does attract people to go into the casino. Obviously, In-N-Out that speaks for itself.

So I think what we're trying to do here is maintain a business professional friendly state, not just the cities, but the states.

And I know that, do you foresee any problems in the permitting process once this bill goes through from each of the municipalities?

Sure.

So we what what the bill does is it says you have to go through the regular Caltrans permit, so it's sort of like it's a reset and now you apply. And Caltrans, has said that they do not anticipate any problems with getting that permit.

As I was, talking about with, Senator Blakespear, we don't anticipate any local, pushback or problems. And certainly, the entities we represent would make sure that we were, working together with them.

And it only pertains to these two cities.

There's no. There's 37 signs. But where the sponsor.

The sponsor up to the 37. Yeah. Not just these two.

Right.

Okay. And so with that in mind, again, if we're ever gonna be business friendly, this is the way to start. So I'll move the bill at appropriate time.

And I would just like to add, I have local pressure to support this bill and if you do amend it down the line, I would love to be a co author. I I do represent Hawaiian Gardens and I do eat out, In-N-Out all the time. So anyways, I would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. Again, I can appreciate all the concerns but, you know, in years past, it was just extending and extending what we currently had.

And so, you know, I agree with the governor's office that at this point, we just needed a permanent solution instead of just bringing it up every single year.

And again, as a local former local council member who took this issue very seriously. I don't see an issue, and I don't think it's gonna have any conflict with local elected officials.

They still retain the right to to speak up and and do what they normally do. So with that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote. Thank you.

And we'll bring it up right when we have a quorum, but thank you for the hard work on this bill.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.

Senator Senator Cervantes, you're ready. Are you ready? Thank you. Members, this is file item number three, SB1013. We're ready when you are.

Mr. Chair, thank you and committee members for allowing me to present Senate Bill 1013 today. This bill is about one simple principle, protecting the privacy and safety of Californians while ensuring law enforcement tools are used responsibly.

SB 1013 mandates that operators and end users of automated license plate recognitions, ALPR systems, strengthen their safeguards regarding employee access and usage of these systems. The bill requires the Department of Justice to condense.

I'm Senator, do you mind if I cut you out? I'm sorry. We very rarely have a quorum. I don't wanna get a quorum established right away. I'm sorry about that. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. Thanks again, Senator. I apologize about that.

The bill requires the Department of Justice to conduct annual randomized audits of public agency operators and end users to ensure they have implemented a usage and privacy policy in compliance with the law,

which we have seen gross violations of despite SB 34 Hill and SB 54, the California Values Act. SB 1013 also requires ALPR operators to operate to require data security training and data privacy training for all employees that access ALPR information.

The bill additionally stipulates that any ALPR data collected must be retained for no longer than 30 days if on a hot list. This legislation seeks to protect individuals' privacy rights while ensuring that law enforcement tools are used responsibly and ethically.

Over the past decade, automated license plate recognition systems have quietly become a tool for law enforcement already used by over two thirty police and sheriff departments in California.

While these systems can aid investigations, they collect and store the location and images of every vehicle, not just those tied to criminal activity.

That means millions of law abiding Californians are having their movements tracked, creating vast databases of sensitive personal information.

In 2016, the legislature passed SB 34 Hill to require safeguards around ALPR usage, yet a 2020 state audit report found widespread non compliance.

Agencies shared ALPR data with hundreds, even thousands, of outside entities, including federal immigration authorities in direct violation of state law. Many agencies failed to establish required policies or had none at all.

Some commingled ALPR data with other sensitive personal information with few safeguards on employee access. Six years later, the violations continue.

Privacy advocates reported in 2023 that 71 California law enforcement agencies had broken the law. Still, just late last year, San Francisco Police Department allowed out of state officers to run 1,600,000 illegal searches, including for ICE.

We have also seen abuses in Marin, Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and Sacramento Counties, where ALPR systems have been used to track immigrants, facilitate unlawful data sharing, and even stalk or harass private citizens.

When law enforcement officers misuse ALPR data to stalk ex partners, harass journalists, or target immigrant communities. It erodes public trust and puts lives at risk.

The Associated Press has documented officers across the country abusing access to confidential databases for personal gain. California is not immune.

In fact, several cities and counties have suspended their ALPR contracts, such as, the plea the police department in the Northern California city of Mountain View, who suspended the use of automated license plate reader cameras after the discovery and

unauthorized access to data by federal and state agencies earlier this year. And we continue to see more articles that are being published around, LPR data in cities that are stopping that within their jurisdiction and stopping those contracts.

Last month in March, the state of Washington signed legislation to regulate ALPR use and retain ALPR data for just twenty one days. We cannot allow this technology to become a tool of surveillance, intimidation, or abuse.

My bill provides the accountability needed, And I want to, just share with you today, we have two witnesses who are here, expert testimony who's going to be a professor, a clinical professor of practice and technology of law at UC Berkeley.

That is professor Crump. And that we also have a second witness, a Director of the Salmirola Son Law and Technology Public Policy Clinic, Mike Katz-McCabe, who's joined us.

Thank you. Two minutes each. Thanks for being here.

Hi. Thanks for having us. Good afternoon to you all and thanks for inviting me. I'm going to focus on the data retention piece of this. And I urge the committee to support a data retention limit. I think the thirty day limit proposed in the bill is a reasonable and

evidence based approach. But the most critical step is to impose some bright line rule that limits the extent to which we're aggregating this data and that recognizes the privacy harm caused by mass data aggregation, which can be done while

preserving the ability of law enforcement agencies to use this tool. According to the California state auditor, over 99.9% of the 320 million plate hits Los Angeles stored at the time of its 2020 audit were not on a hot list when the image was created.

Those people were overwhelmingly innocent and they're now logged in a law enforcement database. Los Angeles is not anomalous. The auditor found that between 82, 92% of all investigator searches were for records less than six months old.

This objective evidence suggests that while very old plate reader data may occasionally be useful, its primary investigative utility is realized almost immediately.

Beyond this, the auditors report demonstrated that law enforcement agencies unfortunately do not consistently treat ALPR data with care, suggesting that data deletion at some point is necessary to protect Californian's privacy.

Many major California law enforcement agencies have already recognized the need for a retention limit. My co witness is going to talk more about this, but San Diego, Oakland, San Jose all have thirty day limits already.

And many other states have retention limits. In addition to what the Senator mentioned, Maine, Montana, and Arkansas also have statewide data retention limits for ALPR.

Finally, I just wanted to say something about the opposition letters I reviewed, which is that they contain a lot of anecdotes but they don't contain any data.

Not a single one of those offers any data to contradict the auditors report that the vast majority of ALPR usage takes place quickly after the data is collected undermining the idea that you need to keep this data for a long time.

So, with that, I'd be happy, when the time comes to answer any questions about any aspect.

Thanks for being here. Next witness. Two minutes.

Good afternoon. Honorable committee Members. My name is Mike Katz-Lacabe. I'm the Director of research for Oakland Privacy. I come before you today and to speak in support of SB 1013.

In February 2020, the California state auditor issued a report on automated license plate readers that began, quote, to better protect the privacy of local law enforcement agencies must improve their policies, procedures, and monitoring for the use and

retention of license plate images and corresponding data. SB 1013 helps to ensure that more than six years later, these recommendations are implemented.

Research by journalists and privacy organizations have documented that law enforcement agencies are typically unaware of who they are sharing data with or the reason that their data is being searched, despite policies that require periodic audits.

Too many times, audit logs can obtain from public records requests have revealed that law enforcement performing searches on behalf of immigration agencies were that were somehow missed by those periodic audits.

SB 1013 addresses this by requiring audits by the California Department of nearly every law enforcement agency that we reviewed, there are no documented policies or procedures for how or why a license plate is added to a hot list or when, if ever,

it is removed. Hot lists are ad hoc and can even be created and maintained by individual users with no oversight, putting California drivers at risk of being stocked by those with access to ALPR systems.

SB 1013 addresses this issue by defining legitimate sources and reasons for license plates being added to a hotlist. Finally, SB 1013 implements a maximum data retention time of thirty days for license plate reader data. Why is this reasonable?

Our review of 191 California agencies using license plate readers showed that 164 of them retained data for 30 days or less, and that is the, in the absence of any restrictions currently.

Ten seconds.

The argument that more than a 30 day retention period is necessary for investigations or public safety is just not borne out by actual practice and agencies with longer retention and agencies with longer retention periods are outliers. Thank you.

Thanks for being here. Other witnesses in support for identification purposes.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Tracy Rosenberg, Advocacy Director, Oakland Privacy to register support.

Thank you. Any others? Witnesses in opposition. Come forward. You have you have two minutes each. Thank you for being here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association here in opposition to SB 1013.

SB 34 as the author noted installed the LPR Operator and end user requirements, including a provision that requires an end user to implement a usage policy.

A usage and privacy policy that includes the length of time that a ALPR Information will be retained and the process that the ALPR end user will utilize to determine if and when to destroy ALPR Information.

This law, however, did not take the excessive step of installing a thirty day or any time frame as SB 1013 would. Law enforcement agencies across the state nation have used ALPR data to solve crimes and apprehend criminal suspects and continue to do so

today. While some cases are solved quickly using this technology, it can also be exceptionally helpful in solving crimes that have occurred deeper in the past.

Setting a data retention limit such as thirty days in the statute will significantly hinder the use of a valuable law enforcement tool. This is not a tool of intimidation. It's a tool to find murderers and kidnap victims.

Additionally, the bill limits the hot list to which ALPR data can be to which ALPR data can be compared. The bill also prohibits an ALPR query unless the requesting entity has a case file number.

In many situations that necessitate the use of ALPR data, there will be no case file. And this will drastically reduce the availability and utility of this vital crime fighting tool especially in fresh cases where a crime has just occurred or a person has just gone missing.

I would note that a nearly identical bill was vetoed last year.

That bill had a sixty day retention limit. And to the question of data, I would just ask the committee, how many cases that are solved crimes detective would be enough to overcome the perceived harm allegedly caused by collecting license plate data

and location info? For those reasons, we'd ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Briefly, Mr. Chair. Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers Association and a number of other law enforcement groups. In opposition to the bill. We'd like to just note and concur with comments from my colleague.

We don't have an issue with the training or the policy requirements or even the audit requirements in the bill. Our biggest concern is that because there is no expectation of privacy in public, limiting the access to this data and restricting it.

That's the big concern for us. And also with the limitations on what would qualify in the hot list as stated earlier. That's a concern as well.

If violations do occur and as the proponents have suggested that there have been some, if violations occur, then those should be dealt with accordingly pursuant to the law. I don't know that we need to apply more laws and more restrictions to, this technology.

If, they just need to be essentially prosecuted. People violate the law, they should be held accountable for that. And adding more laws and restrictions, I don't know that that will actually address the concerns of the proponents without that.

So for those reasons and those other stated, we respectfully request no vote.

Thank you for being here. Other witnesses in opposition for identification purposes? Seeing none. Members? Senator Archuleta.

Yeah. Thank you for bringing it forward. I'm gonna support the bill and, I'd rather catch a handful or maybe double hand, of these, people that come through our cities that have committed crimes and so on.

And I think with the technology that we have in law enforcement today, I think we can be really proactive and I'd rather say 10, 15 or 20 in a month be captured, caught and prosecuted than not have any system at all.

And as we progress along that, the privacy issues have been addressed, and I and I think that, overall, justice will be served if we go forward with the bill rather than not.

And I know that my brothers and sisters in law enforcement are probably going, what are you thinking? Well, I'm thinking about those that might get away if we didn't have a system at all, and that's what I'm talking about.

And I think, the author has put down as many provisions as she possibly could for public safety and and and of course privacy as well. So I'm gonna move the bill at the appropriate time.

The appropriate time right now. Listen. Okay. The bill's been moved. We have a quorum. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are exactly over 338 agencies nationwide that have implemented best practices and policy in a thirty day retention policy for ALPR data.

Colleagues, this bill is not about taking tools away from law enforcement it's about insuring that those tools are used lawfully, ethically, and responsibly before its too late. No entity should avoid accountability and I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

The bill's been moved. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due you pass with Committee on Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection. [Roll Call]

That's four to one and it'll remain on call. Thank you, Senator. Members, let's go to, our consent calendar. It's, file item 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 14. Can I get a a motion?

The it's been moved. Secretary called the role for the consent calendar.

The motion to adopt the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

So that's 6-0 remains on call. Members, we went through a few of these bills. File item number two by Niello. Do I have a motion? It's been moved. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

6-0 that remains on call. Members next, file line number four, SB 1228 by Rubio. Can I get a motion? It's been moved. Secretary, call the roll.

The motion is due pass with committee on appropriation. [Roll Call]

6-0 That remains on call. Last item, file item 13. SB 1292 by Richardson. Can I get a motion? Bill's been moved. Please call the roll.

The motion is due passed to the committee on privacy digital technologies and consumer protection. [Roll Call]

Again, six zero remains on call. Thank you.

Yeah. We're gonna go out of file order and move to file item 12, SB 1218, Senator Arreguin. And, welcome and please begin whenever you're ready.

Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, fellow committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1218 which establishes an accountability mechanism for illegal dumping by requiring the California Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to renew the

registration of a vehicle if the registered owner has outstanding illegal dumping fines, following the same processes in existing law for outstanding parking citations.

Illegal dumping is a persistent public health, environmental, and quality of life crisis in the city of Oakland, which I live in and represent, as well as across the state of California. Abandoned waste attracts leak additional dumping, creates fire hazards, blocks sidewalks,

harms local businesses, and disproportionately impacts low income communities and communities of color. Despite significant investments across many jurisdictions in cleaning up illegal dumping sites, including expanded weekend staffing,

increased bulky pickup services, and aggressive pursuit of grant funding, enforcement remains the critical missing component.

Currently in Oakland and across jurisdictions, illegal dumping citations are routinely ignored, and collection rates for administrative citations remain unacceptably low. Cities across our state lack a meaningful enforcement tool to ensure compliance,

and repeat offenders face little deterrents. Between 2021 and 2024, as an example, the city of Oakland issued nearly 3,000 illegal dumping citations totaling $1,300,000 in fines. However, the city was only able to collect 11% of the total fines issued.

Last year, Oakland received 25,000 calls reporting illegal dumping. And as a result, Oakland crews have removed 15,000,000 pounds of trash.

While this is a necessary action for cities to take, when the city routinely cleans up these hot spot areas, it sends a signal to perpetrators that their actions do not have consequences and that their dumping will be addressed by the city and further allows for that

type of repeat behavior. Assembly Bill 128 Senate Bill 1218 provides a straightforward and proven solution.

The bill will amend the California vehicle code to require payment or resolution of illegal dumping fines before the DMV vehicle registration can be completed. This aligns with an existing enforcement mechanism already in place for unpaid parking citations.

By establishing a meaningful consequence for unpaid citations, SB 1218 will deter repeat illegal dumping, improve compliance, and support cleaner and safer neighborhoods.

With me to testify in support of the bill is Liam Garland, the Director of Public Works for the city of Oakland, and Cesar Mesias on behalf of Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee.

Please proceed.

Good afternoon, honorable Chair and committee Members. My name is Liam Garland and I am the Public Works Director for the City of Oakland. I am here in strong support of Senate Bill 1218.

First, I wanna thank Senator Arreguin for his leadership on this important policy topic and for his work on this bill. Illegal dumping is not a minor nuisance.

It is a serious public health, environmental, and quality of life issue affecting communities across California. In cities like Oakland, we see firsthand how abandoned debris creates fire hazards, blocks sidewalks, harms local businesses, and disproportionately impacts low income

communities and communities of color. Despite significant investments in cleanup, which includes expanded services, staffing, and grant funding, enforcement remains the missing piece.

As Senator Arreguin pointed out, our current collections rate at 11% means that these dumping citations are routinely being ignored. Without real consequences, repeat offenders continue to dump waste and communities continue to suffer.

SB 1218 offers a simple, practical, and proven solution. It requires illegal dumping fines be paid or resolved before a vehicle registration can be renewed using the same framework that California already successfully applies to unpaid parking tickets.

This bill does not create a new bureaucracy. It uses existing systems to establish clear and enforceable consequences. When a citation is tied to a vehicle and remains unpaid, registration cannot be completed until the issue is resolved.

Importantly, this bill is not about generating revenue. It's about accountability and fairness. Cities like Oakland already provide due process protections, including appeals, payment plans, and community service options for those facing financial hardship.

What SB 1218 does is create a real deterrent. One that will improve compliance, reduce illegal dumping, and allow cities to invest limited resources into prevention rather than constant cleanup.

This is a practical cost effective step to protect our neighborhoods, our environment, and our public resources. I respectfully urge your Aye vote on SB 1218. Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon Chair and committee Members. My name is Cesar Macias. I manage state and federal affairs for Mayor Barbara Lee. I want to thank Senator Arreguin for his leadership on this important, policy topic and for his work on this bill.

I want to stress that addressing illegal dumping, which includes this piece of legislation, is a top priority for mayor Barbally.

We are currently revising our own local ordinance to provide greater enforcement, and we are grateful for the support from the legislature. We're happy to answer any technical questions y'all may have, and thank you for your consideration.

I respectfully urge your Aye vote on SB 1218.

Thank you. Alright. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak, name, affiliation, support? Mr. Chair, Paul Yoder on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you.

Chair, Members, Jael Dentas on behalf of Alameda County Board of Supervisors in support.

Our honorable Chair, Niccolo De Luca on behalf of Compton Mayor, Amber Shariff in strong support. City of Union City and the City of Antioch.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the committee, Andrew Antwih with Shalyut or Antwih, Smelzer and Lang here today on behalf of Alameda Stop Waste in support.

Good afternoon. Leila Romero on behalf of League of California Cities and Californians Against Waste in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have a lead opposition witness? I see none. Do we have anyone who wishes to speak in opposition in the committee room? If so, please come forward at this time.

I see none. We'll come back to the committee. Senator Blakespear.

Thank you. I just wanna commend the author on this really great idea and good bill and the supporters. When I was in local government and the sheriff of SANDAG, we established a litter abatement subcommittee, worked on tarp your load,

focused on the reality that our public spaces need to not be dumping grounds. And we we're we have pride in our state. We want it to be clean.

And so figuring out the mechanisms to actually, get from 3,000 illegal dumping citations totaling 1,300,000 and only collecting a 100,000 of that.

You know, that really shows that it's clearly what we currently have in existence is not working. So I appreciate the focus on this and I very much support it. Thank you.

Senator Archuleta.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, what a great idea and I am in strong support of your bill. But I do have a question. Can we and I'm hoping that Alameda County is going to publicize this to include the general public because $100,000 from a million,

that's $900,000 that you're not getting to promote your city or provide for public safety or whatever. And I think that you really have to step it up on promotion because this is very, very important.

A cleaner city, a cleaner Oakland, a cleaner Alameda County, my God, that's fantastic. And I think it'll be an example for all the cities here in California that we need to step it up to take care of our cities and to make these people pay.

So because of that, now they have to be caught in the act, obviously. Right? So in order to be cited. So we talked about cameras not too long ago. Maybe those can be implemented as well.

But dumping trash in the streets and and the waste that's there and everything else, I'm so glad you're gonna do something about it, Senator. And I think this is a great step forward. So if I can be a co author, I would love to do that. So I will move the bill. Thank you.

Thanks, Senator Archuleta. Senator Menjivar is next then followed by Senator Richardson.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I wanna ask for the same thing. I'd love to be a co author. I think that's very clever approach to this. When I was a staffer, I would work with the city attorney of LA and we would have investigative teams literally hiding in bushes.

Because we had hot spots in my in my district. And I've been trying to figure out find a way on how to just change human behavior and I think this is a very clever way to approach it. Thank you for bringing this forward.

Thank you. Senator. Senator Richardson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to join with my colleagues in requesting to be a joint or co author. I think, this is an excellent, tool in the toolbox. It's also consistent with other bills that you did last year and I think it shows your intent to really, put, teeth into this and to address the issue.

So I commend you and wanted to move the bill but we'll definitely support it and hope that you'll add me to your list. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Thank you. Almost said, Mr. Chair. I'll serve with you on another committee.

Thank you very much for your hard work on this and and please continue in the future. I think Senator Archuleta has a good idea about maybe AI will get us to the point where cameras can surveil only people who are dumping and not everybody else in the surrounding area.

If it gets that good. That said, you're welcome to close.

I take note of the request to co author. Very much appreciate the support. And really this is intending to have a a tool to hold people accountable and to make sure we can keep our neighborhoods and community safe. So respect faster than Aye vote.

Alright. Thank you. With that, we'll call the rule. We need a motion. I'm sorry. It's been moved by Senator Archuleta. Richardson. By Richardson. Alright. Well, we have two two motions. I'll let the assistant sort that out.

The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriation. [Roll Call]

Alright. We're at 8-0 , and we'll keep the bill on call. Yeah, please. Well, Senator Blakespear is making her way up. I have a I have a silly thing I say sometimes or have been for years when I forget to thank someone.

I tell them I'm gonna thank you twice the next time. And so I wanna thank, our Vice Chair Strickland, for presiding at such length last committee meeting and then doing so this this same here.

I know it's a a bit of work to do it obviously and appreciate the help very much and I'll probably have to thank you a third time before the day is over. Thank you.

Senator Blaise, you may begin on item 10 SB 1136 whenever you're ready.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, and colleagues for the opportunity to present SB 1136. I'd like to first, thank the committee for working with me on this bill as well as the statewide rail operators for their collaboration.

Rail ridership dropped significantly during the pandemic, and it has not fully recovered. People's work patterns and their transportation needs have been changing, and rail needs to keep up and respond. That's why I have authored SB 1136.

We know that large events such as concerts and sporting events attract tens of thousands of spectators to go to the same place who need to get to and from that very specific place at a specific time.

Rail could and should be shouldering a much larger share of the transportation burden for those events. I heard on the radio just yesterday that BART had its biggest day of ridership ever due to people using it to get to and from a Giants game.

SB 1136 is focused on riders and meeting their needs, making sure rail lines are coordinating and planning so passengers can easily get to and from a large event without the hassle of driving and parking.

Inner City Rail Services typically connect passengers between cities over long distances, generally along a single rail corridor. The operations of inner city services are fully state funded and locally managed. So they're state funded and locally managed.

This bill requires that the state's three inner city rail agencies that are responsible, its Pacific Surfliner, Capitol Corridor, and Goldrunner, identify large event venues near stations and find ways to improve the service to those events.

Additionally, SB 1136 improves coordination with the state's commuter or regional rail operators. These services include Metrolink, Coaster, Caltrain, Smart, and Ace. These regional services are also locally managed.

However, these services include more frequent train stops than inner city rail and services, and they're funded with a mix of local and state resources.

When these operators have a service line that operates fully within an inner city rail corridor, all operators must improve trip planning and integrate fares.

These strategies make it easier to take the train, giving potential riders more options and increasing ridership. With me today to testify in support is Steve Roberts, president of the Rail Passenger Association of California and Nevada. Kinda welcome. You can sit.

Come on up. You may take a seat anywhere. You'll have a couple minutes to present. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair and Members of the committee, my name is Steve Roberts, and I'm the President of the all volunteer Rail Passenger Association of California in Nevada. I wanna thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in in support of this bill.

I think it's a good one. We recommend Railpac recommends the approval of SB 1136 because Metrolink and and Coaster are in the midst of transition to become regional rail operators and not rush hour oriented commuter rail operators.

And expand to a focus on a variety of travel markets. And it's also these important these agencies fully leverage the synergies of their systems as well as with the Los Angeles Corridor Service.

SB 1136's goal is to maximize the service package offered to the residents of Southern California and accelerate the transition to regional rail operations by incentivizing the managing agencies to coordinate and and, expand their service packages.

These strategies can include through through service with a one seat ride, single integrated timetable listing all services, ticket cross honoring, schedule coordination where transfers are required.

RailPAC also recommends that Caltrans and the managing agencies utilize some of the tools under development as part of California's integrated travel project to fulfill some of the goals of this legislation.

Moving forward, there are challenges. The first is capacity. The network must have the capacity to offer auto competitive service for these special events. We're talking about moving large numbers of people to a single point and that often requires capacity.

Unfortunately, there are capacity projects planned for decades and some even funded that the current governance structure in Southern Southern California can't seem to get built.

The second difficulty is in agreeing on the revenue division for joint services. The issue is concerns of ridership not increasing and revenues being shifted from one carrier to the other carrier.

I have experience with this in my years at Amtrak in trying to work this out. So I urge the committee to support this legislation.

Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it. Anyone else who wishes to speak in support, please come up now.

Marc Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All in support.

Michael Pimentel here on behalf of the California Transit Association. We have a Tweener position. Have issued a work with author position to the committee. We look forward to engaging with the author further on the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Spencer Street on behalf of North County Transit, San Diego Railroad, similar to CTA in a tweener position appreciative of recent amendments removing the state rail assistance tie in, working with the author's office on the fair integration piece.

Looking forward to that connection. Thank you.

Thank you. I've seen no others in support. Is there any one is there a lead opposition in the room? If not, is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee at this time.

Any comments? Senator Archuleta?

I just, have one question. Senator, are you coordinating the bus system to coordinate with the rails? I mean, if there's a huge activity in San Diego hypothetically and you wanna get people moved and to bring the buses in to get off the buses, get on the trains and come

into Los Angeles hypothetically. Whatever it is. Are you working on that? Because this is a great bill and I think it's it'll it'll pass a committee. No no problem. I'm just wondering if you've taken it to that next level. Look into that window.

Yeah. That's a good phase two.

Okay. Good phase two. Alright. I'll move the bill.

Alright. Thank you, Senator. Anybody else wishing to ask a question or comment? Seeing none, we have a motion by Senator Archuleta and we can call the roll. I'm sorry.

Would you like to close, Senator?

Yes. Thank you. Yes. This bill is a really important beginning step into figuring out how the legislature can meaningfully be involved in helping transit be more successful, particularly fixed rail. Fixed rail is has obviously received enormous amounts of public investment.

Hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars have gone into building these train these train lines. And they really are struggling.

There's a a fiscal cliff coming for most of the transit agencies. And in my part of the state, Southern California, being down a million riders from pre pandemic levels and not being able to get back, is really to me, it begs the question of recognizing where do people wanna go?

If they aren't going to work five days a week in the office, they used to go across city lines, potentially long distances, 40 or 50 miles.

But they do wanna go to the sporting games, and they do wanna go to the concerts, and they do wanna go to the Olympic venues. I mean, all the different things that draw tens of thousands of people.

We should be figuring out ways to make it clear that these should be priority trips. So transit agencies, and our our inner city rail should be should be taking as many people as possible to those trips. And it's for every reason.

It's for our climate goals, but it's also for people's quality of life. You know, I had have had complaints in Southern, the Southern part Southern Orange County about someone wanting to go to a Padres game. And there was only one train and it was full.

And it had been full for three days because she looked three days before the game and couldn't get a ticket. And it's like that kind of thing really is a problem. So this bill is meant to try to get inside of that.

And it's enormously complex, of course, and we're working very closely with the transit association and the different operators.

And I look forward to our continued partnership there, but we really need do need to have some innovation and creativity if we're going to have rail be part of our future in California, which I really very much want it to be.

Alright. Well, thank you for all your efforts in that regard, especially along those lines.

Thank you.

It's very noticeable. Thank you. We'll come back to the assistant now on the motion by Archuleta and ask for a roll call vote.

The motion is due passed with committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

Alright. 8-0, the bill's on call. Maybe we can get word out to Senator stern that we need him here ASAP unless unless there's some kind of a conflict that he has. And in the meantime, I can present my bill if the Vice Chair will allow it.

What what? Might as well present Yeah. Mine and then Yeah. Lift the call. Yeah. Yeah.

No. No. We're not lifting it right now. Okay. Members, so now, second to last bill, we're almost there.

File item 15, SB 1425 by the Chairman. So whenever the Chairman's ready, you can open.

Well, thank you, Vice Chair Strickland acting as Chair currently and Members. I'm pleased to present SB 1425. As we all know, California is building the nation's first 220 mile per hour fully electrified high speed rail system, and there will be massive development potential along that corridor.

While the authority is charged with managing the land, it lacks the legal authority to regulate encroachments that may delay the building operation and maintenance of the project.

SB 1425 will facilitate timing construction by establishing a permitting program for new encroachments that are consistent with the functions and operations of the projects right of way.

To be clear, this bill does not impact or replace existing agreements for utility relocation identified during the project scoping process. It simply applies to new or expanding encroachments.

A codified permit process will provide the authority of the tools necessary to work more effectively with local property owners, businesses, and public entities to bolster the surrounding communities and expand on the corridor.

With us today to testify, in support is Robert Pearsall, the California political director of the use US High Speed Rail.

Thank you. And at the appropriate time, I'd ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you for being here. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Members of the committee. My name is Robert Pearsall. I'm the California political director for US High Speed Rail, the proud sponsor of Senate Bill 1425.

A coalition of over 50 leading unions, public agencies, and companies, US High Speed Rail is co chaired by former US DOT Secretaries Ray LaHood and Anthony Fox, and formerly by the recently passed Rod Deardon senior.

USHSR works with its Members and allied progressive and environmental groups to advocate for public support for world class high speed rail projects across The US.

SB 1425 will establish a permit program administered by the authority for encroachments on its rights of way. This measure allows the authority to accommodate utilities that are trying to expand their business in the Central Valley.

Right now, those businesses and utilities cannot access rights of way because there is no permitting process. While the authority is charged with managing these lands, it lacks the legal authority to regulate encroachments that interfere with high speed rail construction and operations.

Common encroachments include utility and broadband lines, signage, fencing, water pipes, sewage drainage, vegetation management, all of which are critical to the region where the project is developing.

It is vital that the authority be able to protect the infrastructure from encroachments that may interfere with or delay construction, operation, or maintenance of a high speed rail project.

Without statutory authority, the project will continue to experience unauthorized encroachments and barriers to land development. A clear permitting process will help and ensure the authority can protect the project's land, facilities, and rights of way, while working more effectively with local

property owners and businesses. For these reasons, US High Speed Rail supports SB 1425 and respectfully request your aye vote on this important measure. And we are thankful to the Chair for authoring this bill. I'm happy to take questions. Thank you.

Thanks for being here. Other members in support?

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of State Building Construction Trades Council. I would just add that this project has got a lot of challenges, but we should all be able to come together and decide that it's for agencies to talk to other agencies to find the most efficient ways to move

forward so that we can decrease some of those ongoing obligations. We have other agencies that do it fairly well. I was just reminded that DWR does this. Caltrans has an existing authority. I think there's some space to find a way to work together to save costs on this project. We ask for your support. Thank you.

Mark Vukcevich, on behalf of Streets for All in support.

Good afternoon. Jonathan Cole with Climate Action California in support.

Steve Roberts, Real Passenger Association of California in support.

Okay. Witnesses in opposition.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members. Brian White here on behalf of Los Angeles Department of Auto and Power. First, I wanna say we don't have an approved position. We're working on getting approved position, but I have been talking to the office staff and the high speed rail authority.

Our main concern is that as the largest utility in in the country, we also have infrastructure ourselves. We have right of ways and encroachments. So we wanna make sure that the high speed rail authority's infrastructure doesn't supersede the protections that we also need when we actually have to do

projects as we're trying to meet climate change projects, wildfire threats, and and other, infrastructure, things that our rate payers have to pay for.

So we'll continue to work with the author, try and fix some language, but we are worried about the the enforcement and the penalties that are in the bill, and and those are things that we don't wanna take lightly. So appreciate your your, indulgence. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Next next witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Member. Sharon Gonzales on behalf of the City of Burbank and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Any other witnesses? Back to the Members. Any questions? Seeing none, the only thing I would add, you know where I stand, Mr. Chairman. I don't even go far into that, but would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you very much. With regard to the opposition, I mean, all so many of us have served in local government, or dealt with local government, in in our positions that we currently hold.

And I just wanna make sure that, whether it's Los Angeles or anybody else, they know that if we need to put clarifying language in the bill to make sure it's understood that encroachments will tend to be in a a reciprocal thing here along the way, and they the process needs to be,

fair and streamlined for everybody as things go along. I do wanna mention, with regard to Burbank that I read their opposition letter. They they have an issue with water wells and an aquifer in their particular area. I don't feel like that is directly pertinent to the bill, but we'll keep talking to them.

I'm extremely sensitive to it as someone who came from a farming background and and had to defend wells and aquifers from encroachment and from eminent domain actions. Hopefully, that message is getting to Burbank who's here loud and clear.

If there is a direct connection here, we'll work on it. I don't think there is though. I do think it's it's been an opportunity for them to air a grievance that they've had for some time and I respect that. With that, I'd respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. The bill's been moved by Senator Archuleta. Sir, clerk, please call the roll.

The motion is due passed in the committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

That 8-0 and that will remain on call Members.

Thank you again, Mr. Vice Chair, for your efforts and we're welcoming Senator Stern, to the podium. He is, I believe, the last bill that we will be hearing today. Great position to be in. Everybody's suddenly in a happy mood. That said, you can begin whenever you like.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will, I'll be brief here. I know you've had a long hearing. I just wanna start by thanking the chair and the committee staff for their help with the bill. And I wanna be clear.

I'm gonna accept the amendments on page twelve and thirteen of the analysis. I've been working on this issue since I got to legislature and even before I was a legislator when high speed rail first came to be and we identified the cap and trade program as the funding source.

As someone who believes in the system and wants to see it work, part of the original deal was that while we started in the Central Valley and focused there, that we would ensure that at the book ends where ridership was awaiting and had a ton of demand both in the North and South that we would

be concurrently working. So this bill is really a continuation of what that original commitment was, which is not to derail this project in any way or delay at all our efforts in the Merced to Bakersfield segment. We want to see that happen.

And the code section already makes this segment a priority and the amendments adopted in the committee today make clear that this bill is not intended to delay that segment of the project.

This bill is really about ensuring that the high speed rail authority has all the tools it needs to meet its long term goal of developing the statewide network that extends well beyond Merced to Bakersfield and that we start building concurrently.

There is work to be done and especially if we're going to leverage private dollars in an era where we know the feds can't be counted on anymore and that limited state funds and ever more limited supply of state funds from our cap and trade program are available.

We need to be looking at these p three partnerships to make this project work. Last year, as you all may know, the Trump administration clawed back about 4,000,000,000 in high speed rail funding that does jeopardize some of these efforts.

But to avoid the delays that may be caused by this effort and to get back on track, SB 1411 makes a few important changes to help them succeed in this mission by leveraging private capital currently sitting on the sidelines that's waiting to hop on board on local transit feeder lines that will ultimately

connect to bookends bringing passengers in the North and the South to high speed rail stations. Concurrent law the current law also imposes a $500,000,000 cap on projects effectively setting a bar on what can be planned and developed between the high speed rail authority,

its local transit partners, and private partnerships. Essentially sidelining a bunch of private capital that's just waiting there to to be invested.

SP fourteen eleven would remove the project cap, sending a bigger market signal and giving flexibility to the authority to attract that capital from those partners to seriously discuss and potentially invest and develop transit projects that create jobs and advance our goals.

It also clarifies the high speed rail authority's ability to engage in additional activities that maximize the activities that maximize the efficiency of delivering the project, including projects developed that authorize, public and private partnership agreements,

allowing the authority to develop what we call, quote, early works that include design, engineering work, identification, and acquisition of long lead strategic right away parcels.