Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

Good afternoon. Thank you everyone for your patience as we finished up, session today. The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. The hearing room is open for the attendance of this hearing, and it can be watched from a live stream on the assembly website. We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California.

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

We will allow two minutes each for two primary witnesses in support and opposition of the bill.

As a reminder, primary witnesses in support must be those accompanying the author or who will otherwise have registered a support position with the committee, and the primary witnesses in opposition must have their opposition registered with the committee in advance. All other support and opposition can be stated at the standing mic when called upon to simply state name, affiliation, and position. We'd like to welcome assembly member Avila Farias to our committee today who will be filling in for assembly member Ward.

With that, we will begin our hearing as noted. As you can probably see, we do not yet have a quorum.

So we will, hear our bills in, as a subcommittee. We have 12 bills on our proposed consent calendar, and we'll get to those when we have a quorum. Now we'll move on to, our first committee hearing. Well, hold on. I'll also note that we're going to hear AB 2595 Pappan, which has been added to our agenda without reference to file per joint rule 62 a.

We see I see our first author is in the room. As noted, we are starting as a subcommittee. You may join us as your convenience. This is AB 1588 file item order number one. Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, good afternoon. I would first-- I'd like to thank the Chair and the committee staff for their thoughtful work and collaboration on this bill, and I also wanna thank my sponsor, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, for his work with us as well. Today, I'm presenting AB 1588, a bill that will strengthen accountability and protect public safety in our communities.

Far too long, sideshows and street takeovers have been blocking intersections and harming communities across California, and especially in San Francisco. These events do more than disrupt traffic. They put residents, small businesses, and first responders at risk, especially when emergency vehicles cannot get through, as we've seen what happened when the Bay Bridge was completely shut down because of one of these sideshows.

And they may have once been occasional gatherings, but these sideshows have become more organized, more frequent, involving repeat offenders, unlicensed dirt bikes, and coordinated crowds that overwhelm existing enforcement tools, and thanks to in part to social media and how these are advertised. Increasingly, these events also are associated with illegal firearms--which you all know how much I love those--turning already dangerous situations into potentially deadly ones.

Since February of last year, enhanced enforcement efforts in the East Bay have led to the seizure of more than 100 illegal guns at these sideshows, underscoring how quickly these gatherings can escalate from reckless behavior into serious threats to human life.

Despite steps taken by cities in the state, enforcement has not kept pace with how these events operate today, leaving officers without clear authority to intervene early and leaving communities frustrated when the same dangerous behavior continues over and over again.

This weekend, a sideshow in Hayward saw over 50 cars destroying an intersection with one car violently slamming into spectators. And if you've seen the footage--which, if you've had the TV on, I don't know how you missed it-- you'll see the cars slamming into bodies to spectators, and I don't know how anyone can look at that and not think something needs to be done.

AB 1588 closes key enforcement gaps by updating state law to reflect how these sideshows are operating today, including adding motorbikes and dirt bikes to the sideshow framework so officers can take action when unlicensed vehicles are used to block streets and perform dangerous stunts. This bill also strengthens accountability by aligning penalties for sideshows with those already in place for speed contests.

Together, these changes give law enforcement the tools they need to respond effectively and protect our communities. I don't think public safety here should take a back seat to this reckless behavior. AB 1588 was amended last week to significantly narrow its scope which has resulted in the removal of significant statewide opposition groups, including the California Public Defenders Association, Smart Justice, La Defensa, and the Justice to Jobs Coalition.

I wanna thank all of them for working with us to make this bill as strong as it can be. Here with me today is Sergeant Ben Shi from the San Francisco Police Department Stunt Driving Response Unit and Jolena Voorhis with the League of California Cities.

Go ahead.

Good morning.

Oh, wait. Let me have you press the microphone button so everyone can hear you.

How am I doing?

Doing good. Doing good. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Wilson, Vice Chair Davies, and members of the Assembly Transportation Committee. My name is Benjamin Shi, Star 2089. I'm a sergeant with the San Francisco Police Department, an attorney and a member of the Bar in good standing, and one of my specialty areas is sideshow investigations and enforcement, responding to the needs of the community when it arises.

I'm here today to speak in support of Assembly Bill 1588, which seeks to address the worrying trends of illegal sideshows and street races taking place in San Francisco, the Bay Area, and in the wider State of California.

AB 1588 simply closes some loopholes in current law by adding missing vehicle classes, such as motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATVs. They add these vehicles into state sideshow law, which are commonly used vehicles in sideshow events. Secondly, this bill also brings sideshow offenses online with existing law related to exhibition of speed and speed contests. As part of my role in San Francisco, I respond to community town halls. It's part of what I do.

In these town halls, a recurring plea of the community is requesting action on some of these missing categories of vehicles: i.e. dirt bikes, motorcycles, off-road vehicles. A common question I receive from the community is simply this: is there pending legislation to address this topic? Also, in my experience, I simply go to these illegal sideshows. I went to six this weekend. I haven't slept since Friday.

These illegal sideshows, street takeovers, and street races have become increasingly common and a dangerous problem in San Francisco and throughout California. The CHP is keeping numbers on this. In 2021, there was 7,003--

I'll have to have you wrap up.

--7,300 sideshows resulting in 264 crashes and 30 fatalities. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Madam Chair and members, Jolena Voorhis, Legislative Advocate, here on behalf of the League of California Cities. We are in support of AB 1588, which would increase some penalties and consequences for operation of sideshows. As you may know, vehicle sideshows and street takeovers are dangerous events where public spaces are taken over to engage in reckless driving behavior and stunts that pose a danger to drivers and pedestrians.

These events threaten the safety of those involved as well as cause noise pollution, traffic obstructions, and property damage. Organized groups continue to endanger communities with these reckless activities.

Recent incidents highlight the seriousness of this issue, including the death of a 16-year-old who fell from an overpass during a East Bay sideshow last September and the killing of an 18-year-old during a sideshow in Monterey County last November. Cal Cities has heard from many of our member cities across the state on this issue. Many have been forced to enact local ordinances to address this ongoing threat that sideshows pose to public safety.

In Southern California, the Cities of Norwalk, Pico Rivera, and Paramount have expressed that sideshows put their residents at risk and often occur in high-traffic areas and impede emergency services. According-- I think he mentioned Department of Highway Patrol, so I'll skip over that.

AB 1588 would help to address the continuation of these incidences by making sideshows equivalent to street racing and allow for the impoundment of vehicles at a sideshow. Without additional statewide determents or funding for continued enforcement by law enforcement, these organized incidents will continue to harm our communities and strain local resources. Therefore, we are in strong support of AB 1588 and urge the community to pass this important legislation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. With that, we'll move on to members of the public who would like to add their support. Name, affiliation, and position. We'll get the mic on for you. Just a moment. Go ahead.

Steven Lopez for the City and County of San Francisco, in strong support.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of Mayor Daniel Lurie, City and County of San Francisco, proud sponsor of the bill and in support, and also would like to register support for the City of Beverly Hills and the Board of Supervisors for San Joaquin County. Thank you.

Chair and members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. Strong support.

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

Good afternoon. Arieta Buchon, on behalf of AAA Northern California, in support.

Thank you. Now, we'll be moving on to opposition. We do not have any registered opposition, so there won't be that type of witness testimony, but allowing folks in the community to come and give public testimony noting opposition. Name, affiliation, and position.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action, in strong opposition.

Seeing no others, as a reminder, we are operating as a subcommittee. I would encourage members of this committee to make their way here so we can establish a quorum. But looking to our committee members for questions, comments, concerns. Rogers.

Thank you, Chair. So I actually just wanted to chime in a little bit on it because we-- in Santa Rosa, we were experiencing a really significant rash of sideshows a couple of years ago when I was on the council and when I was mayor, and we did all of the things that I suspect San Francisco was doing, the Botts' dots and the coordination to try to get pre-staging of public safety personnel.

But what we really found moved the needle was actually passing an ordinance to allow our City Attorney to hold people who had been a part of the sideshows accountable for the damage to the roads and the water quality violations. And that actually was an opportunity for us to get them into court and into diversion programs--ultimately is what we had settled on--but that was the thing that seemed to capture people's attention the most was the price tag of the damage that was being done to the community.

We talk about the noise, we talk about the public safety interference, but that was the other component that the public was really just fed up with was that their roads were getting torn up by these events. And once we started to do that and hold the folks who are helping to organize via social media accountable for that same damage with an economic incentive, that's when we really started to see the needle moving.

So I just wanted to make that suggestion if San Francisco has not done that yet or some of the East Bay folks, because we had a lot of folks coming from the East Bay coming to our small community and we were quickly able to kinda stamp that out. So thank you.

All right. Thank you. Going to Vice Chair Davies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanna say thank you so much for bringing that. Having the South Orange County area too, when I was on City Council, we were dealing with this and we still are, and I think it's important that we realize that a lot of them are juveniles that are coming and to make sure that they understand as well that this isn't okay but it's very dangerous. And I'm glad that we have this bill and it sounds like a good solution, so I'd be honored to be a co-author as well. Thank you.

All right. Seeing no other comments from the committee, I'll note that the rise in sideshows and street takeovers across the state really is alarming, and I appreciate you working with the Public Safety Committee to align the penalties in this bill with the existing penalties for speed racing. And I thank you for removing the provisions of this bill that would have allowed locals to crush the cars involved and instead permit them to be impounded after conviction. I will be supporting your bill today at the appropriate time, but I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate that, and thank you for asking to be a co-author, Member Davies. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, and at the appropriate time, we will entertain a motion. All right. With that-- let's see. I see our next author is in the room.

So moving on to file item two, AB 1654. To the author, you can begin at your convenience. Oh, I didn't know you were active. Oh, okay. That's what it was. Okay. Alright. To the author.

Good afternoon, members of the, committee. I'm here to present assembly bill sixteen fifty four, which has garnered, a good amount of national media attention. First, let's start with the fatalities. A number of, fatal accidents, where we had, individuals that were unlawfully driving large vehicles, trucks, getting into accidents. They never should have had commercial driver's licenses in the first place.

These commercial driver's licenses, CDLs, were issued, by the state of California unlawfully in violation of federal rules. As a result of the fatalities and the national outrage, the Department of Transportation secretary announced that if California continued to issue CDLs in violation of federal regulations and federal law, that we would lose our privilege as a state to issue any commercial driver's licenses. As you know, CDLs are an important tool for the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Californians.

It's important that we keep the ability to issue CDLs, and that is why AB 1654 is being brought forward, to ensure that this legislature clarifies that we, as a state, will comply with federal law. Under AB 1654, the, commercial driver's license cannot be issued to an individual who's not compliant with federal law.

In order to show compliance with federal law, the individual must show that they are lawfully eligible to get a CDL. One way to do that is to check their their status through something called the save program, the system Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements. This would allow someone here, who is lawfully present in The United States to continue to get a CDL. And this is a program that works very well across the country. This is no mystery.

There's no rocket science here. We're simply bringing California into compliance with federal law. Now, we do listen to critiques, of, people who oppose the bill. And as a result, I will be amending, section a one to clarify that the department shall verify the applicant's US citizenship or lawful presence. There was one letter that we don't agree that the, with their interpretation.

But to be crystal clear, we wanna make sure that if an individual shows that they are a citizen or that they qualify under the save database, that they certainly can participate in the commercial driver's license program. If they're not, then they should not get a CDL because we need to make sure that we're compliant with federal law. Jobs are at stake. And, of course, I would argue that this state was negligent in issuing the CDLs to people who were not lawfully, eligible.

And as a result of this state, California, issuing the CDLs, we have people who have died, and that is on this state government's back.

Let's make sure that we've learned the lesson, that we can clean up the act, and that's why I urge your support for AB 1654.

Thank you. I I see you have no witnesses with you, but I would like to note, if there's any member of the public who would like to rise in support of this bill, now would be appropriate time to do so. Name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving on to opposition. Do we have opposition testimony today?

I don't think we do. We do have registered opposition. But for those who would like to, note their opposition publicly, now would be an appropriate time to come to the microphone, name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving it to members of the committee who would like to make any comments, questions, or concerns. Alright.

Seeing none, I'll note. So the the act that you referenced called, the Save Act as a short is, stands for

Save program.

Save program. Sorry.

There's two different things here.

Yes. Right. You're right. You're right. SAVE program, is called the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program is the full name, and it was created to verify immigrants.

The DMV, per federal regulation, uses SAVE, this program, to verify legal status for immigrants applying for a commercial driver's license. Now your bill goes beyond federal regulations. It requires everyone to be verified using SAVE, and SAVE is not a complete database of US citizens per immigration and custom enforcement. In your haste to demonize immigrants, you drafted a bill that would take away commercial driver's license from US citizens that are not in the SAVE base database.

It was noted during your testimony that you, would like to amend the bill, to have an or statement, related to that.

But I would like to note that the DMV had to revoke over 10,000 driver's license because the Federal Government changed what legal immigrants were eligible for commercial driver's license. DMV complies with federal law, and codifying federal regulations could potentially cause issues should those regulations change. I see no need to, codify federal regulations. And so with that, I will not be supporting your bill today.

We are meeting right now as a subcommittee because we do not we're missing members, and I would say, to members who are not here, please come so we can establish a quorum, and hear testimonies as a as a full committee.

But, at the appropriate time, I'll entertain a motion. But now we give you an opportunity to close.

I would ask for an aye vote. I would note that, we simply are trying to make sure that we don't lose, the ability for Californians to earn, a good income by having commercial driver's licenses and, engaging in trucking. The message was sent loud and clear. California is not operating in a manner that's consistent with other states. It's not off operating in a manner, that manages risk and negligence.

This is the least we can do to show the families of those that died because we unlawfully issued CDLs to to people on who were not here legally, that we that we are sorry, that we are sorry for what was done, and that we will bring California into compliance like all the other states. It's not difficult. To suggest that somehow this is a burden or difficult, I think is a, an inadequate statement to those victims' families. I urge you an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Alright. And at the appropriate time, we'll entertain a motion on that bill, and I would note that I was the only one who spoke on the bill and did not in any way say that it was a burden or, difficult to do. With that, I'm moving on to item number let's see. So the author that is here is item number six. And I believe you have three bills, six, seven, and eight.

So we'll do those in order. I have to go present in another committee. It's time sensitive. So I'm gonna pass this over to madam chair, and hopefully, two more members come to this room to make up for me being gone so we can establish a quorum and vote on your bills. Alright?

Thank you, madam chair. I'd like to start with AB 17 sorry, 1976, if we could. Appreciate your leadership, Chair, in the space, and the conversations we've had both with you and your committee consultants. As many of you know, I've done work in the housing space by looking at how we can make our process more streamlined and more efficient in getting projects approved and implemented.

And in fact, we've looked at that across—permitting reform—across many different issues, making sure we can expedite renewable energy projects, making sure we can expedite climate resiliency projects.

And I've now been very eager to get involved in transportation projects and making sure it's easier to get what we need done for our communities. And the reason I'm I care a lot about pedestrian and bicycle safety is pretty simple. We have about eleven hundred, twelve hundred, pedestrian cyclist deaths every year in California. That is a 50% increase since 2014—an increase in pedestrian cyclist deaths. That is not the direction we should be going in.

So, I've been radicalized on pedestrian bicycle safety and think we should make it easier to implement these projects. And there are many well-intended laws out there and a number of processes and regulations that have made it harder to get much needed transportation projects approved and done, specifically projects that would improve safety in local communities and accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists. For example, we've seen different jurisdictions having high thresholds just to get the process of getting a simple speed bump approved.

There are also instances where excessive public meetings have delayed projects from being completed or approved at all.

To address some of these challenges we have—that have—caused these delays for these much needed projects this bill would limit public meetings after the approval of a bicycle or pedestrian safety project through the circulation element of the general plan, limit canceling of contracts without having a public meeting if a city or county makes formal findings, limit the threshold for the request of a traffic calming measure to no more than a majority of the total number of persons whose residents are located in whole or part within a thousand feet of the proposed traffic calming measure, and update the Pedestrian Mall Act.

There are some concerns that stakeholders have raised around some of these issues, specifically as it pertains to the limitation of public meetings, and in—and input—and the canceling of contracts. And I've had a lot of good conversations with both members of—on this committee—as well as some organizations as well. We had some meetings on a Friday around this.

So, I will be making amendments to that, and I've heard some of the concerns raised by members of the committee, and should the bill get out today, and it's going to local gov next and then into Appropriations Committee, where I'm committed to making those amendments. But I do think we have a real problem here that we're trying to solve.

It's not an easy solution, and I think, hopefully, we can find the sweet spot that allows for the much needed public input, but also doesn't allow for the weaponization to stop projects from happening in their tracks. I'm actually gonna let my witnesses here self introduce because I think they can best describe their work. And when the time is right, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And just a reminder, witnesses, you have two minutes each. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello. Thank you all. My name is George Spies, and I'm an Advocate with Traffic Violence Rapid Response, a pedestrian safety organization in Oakland. Oakland, like a lot of cities around California, has many dangerous high traffic streets, especially for pedestrians and people on bicycles.

The status quo on California streets is killing four thousand people a year and seriously injuring hundreds of thousands of others, an outside proportion of whom are children, seniors, and disadvantaged people who are out on foot. Currently, our laws and governance procedures give outsized power to those objecting to change, creating a systemic bias for this deadly status quo. However, the problem can actually be solved, and transportation engineers know the solution.

We need to allow them to enact these solutions in their jurisdictions as quickly as possible to lessen fatalities and serious injuries and the permanent impacts for the families and communities they leave behind. And there is plenty of evidence that streets safer for pedestrians and bikes are also safer for everyone in cars and is a boon to retail businesses.

In Oakland, we saw how excessive project delays can lead to loss of life. The 14th Street Complete Streets Project on the modes—on the most—dangerous street in Oakland's downtown went through three years of public review. One week before the final vote, Dmitry Putilov was struck and killed in front of his children when trying to cross 14th Street. This is not a fluke; it's a pattern.

By examining the state's Twitter's database, one can see that death on our roads is not mysterious, but utterly predictable. Dmitry's death was not the first on 14th Street, but hopefully, it will be the last. It took far too long to get it done, and our DOT staff watched in helpless horror as people continued to die while they spent their time mollifying people who did not understand the threat or the engineering principles or the solutions.

I urge you to pass AB 1976 and allow life saving projects to move forward swiftly. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Mark Fuksovich on behalf of Streets for All. People in the state too often are killed and injured on our streets where we know that design is the answer or how to factor in that. We know how to make those streets safer. We know that traffic calming works.

We know that protected bikeways and pedestrian improvements and people-centered design save lives. But even after communities do the work and plans are adopted and engagement has happened, after that project is ready to move, our outdated laws and process and procedure hurt and that those hurdles still give opponents endless chance endless chances to stall we can and kill those projects. I just wanna—I'm gonna go off script and just I wanna make an analogy to the housing process that we have.

With housing, we adopt the zoning code.

We all have the community input to adopt that zoning code. We agree as a community to adopt that zoning code. And then once there's a housing project that's in compliance with that zoning code, that housing project does not have to go through additional levels of public review or public process because the project is in compliance with the zoning code. And that's what we're proposing to do here. And as the assembly member mentioned, we are planning on limiting that portion.

But I wanna just acknowledge that that's what we're really trying to do here is that when something is within a, a, an approved planning process that we wanna make sure we can deliver that project, that's critical safety project as fast as possible. And so, that's what this is about. This is about getting projects built without duplicative process, especially if it's already an adopted plan. Once the project is advancing into implementation, it simply can't be canceled on a whim. There must be real findings.

It also makes neighborhood traffic calming more attainable by stopping unreasonable petition thresholds that often make basic safety improvements impossible to achieve when a neighborhood is asking for it. And lastly, the AB 1976 modernizes the Pedestrian Mall Act of 1960. I'm assuming everyone's been reading up on that. This is the law that enabled 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica, the little pedestrianized area in front of Mayauella here in, here in, in Sacramento.

This is a a wonderful thing that we think we just need to improve and and upgrade to make sure we can have more pedestrianized spaces as well.

So, we respect—respectfully—urge an aye vote on AB 1976. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We're gonna move to public testimony, a me too. So, if you'd like to come on up to the microphone, name, organization, position on the bill. Do we have any in support? Okay.

Seeing none. We're gonna move back and see, do we have any witnesses in opposition?

And gentlemen, two minutes each. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Chris Lee here on behalf of the Urban Counties of California. Respectfully oppose unless amended. There's definitely some positive aspects to this bill, and we appreciate the overarching goal of improving safety and quickly delivering projects. But we have fundamental concerns with the limitations on public outreach as well as local budgetary decisions.

Taking the public outreach portions first, we really think that the restriction on community input meetings could actually backfire. There's plenty of opportunities where when projects have been included in a general plan two or five or ten years ago, And when you're finally actually going forward to design and build that project, that community input can actually provide helpful input from people who are going to use the facility. And so the idea that by limiting the opportunities for public input, we're gonna expedite these things.

We might not be achieving the goals that the sponsors actually want to receive. It's also inconsistent with funding requirements that we often have from the state and Federal Government for public outreach.

I don't think hanging our hat on a very old plan update is gonna be sufficient for very competitive funding from the active transportation program or from the Federal Government. Speaking specifically to the budgetary related language, these are fundamental legislative decisions taken by local government agencies who need to be held accountable to the voters who are ultimately funding all of these projects. So we wouldn't be opposed to things like timely use of funds policies.

We're not objecting to similar provisions in the author's other bill that's up today, but this extends beyond just state funding. It includes local general funds, sales tax revenues, federal funding, and things of those natures.

And we just fundamentally think that those budgetary decisions belong at the local level between legislators there and the voters that they're accountable to. So with those changes to sections five and six, we would be happy to remove our opposition to the bill. Look forward to reviewing the amendments and continuing to have conversations with the author. But today, respectfully oppose unless submitted.

Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities, shares similar concerns, as previously noted. You know, we our members are aggressively working, to build these projects. We're incentivized. We wanna see more multimodal transportation projects in our communities. And but this bill, unfortunately, as it's currently written, assumes that once a project is identified in that circular element, which are are aspirational policy frameworks, that, you know, that however, these are not general plans.

These are these are not site specific approvals. Cities need to look at a corridor level, you know, issues such as emergency access, ADA, egress, curb management, space removal, traffic diversion. And we want outreach to businesses to see how they're going to be impacted because just because food and cocktails and beverages thrive potentially in a particular pedestrian mall, some businesses that have different types of products that lend to having vehicles traffic. So they should be allowed to have some opportunity to comment and provide local leaders on those impacts to their businesses.

And so, for the pedestrian malls there, we've looked at, the Miracle Mile in Stockton, those all resulted in, hundreds, if not near a couple thousand community input. And we we respect the community to be able to have

that opportunity to help refine and partner with the community to be able to have that opportunity to help refine and partner with us, to shape and shift some of these projects. And so, you know, we, we feel that, this bill is, makes some good good efforts, in in some aspects, but, for undermining kind of the local community input, we have unfortunately must respectfully oppose.

Thank you. We're gonna pause for a moment and it looks like we have quorum. So we'll go ahead and do roll call.

[Roll Call]

Alright. We have a quorum. We'll be moving on to public testimony in opposition. If we have anyone in the audience, they'd like to come up to the mic. And again, name, organization, and position on the bill, please.

Mark Newburger, California State Association of Counties. I'd like to line our comments to those provided by Urban Counties of California and Cal Cities were also opposed unless amended as provided by in the testimony of Urban Counties.

Thank you. Alright. Seeing no more opposition, we're gonna move it to the members. We'll go with assembly member doctor Jackson.

Thank you very much, madam chair. Assembly member Wilson wanted me to convey some comments to you, Assemblymember Wicks. She just wants to first thank you for working with the committee on amendments and that remove the speed limit provisions from the bill. Also, as you've stated before that you've heard from local governments in which, you have been having discussions with. And as you know, Assemblymember Wilson also sits on local government, and so her vote today doesn't necessarily reflect her vote in committee.

But she also understands that, you're trying to expedite the development of bike and pedestrian projects and measures to increase safety in our neighborhoods. However, she does have concerns with prohibiting a city council or board of supervisors from seeking community input on the details of the project. But with that, she will be supporting your bill today and so that you can continue to work with the opposition and address any outstanding concerns. So with that, madam Sherrill, I'll move the bill.

Okay. Assembly member Hart.

I think Assemblymember Jackson just said everything I was gonna say, which is, you know, I keep working on the bill. I'll vote for it today, but have definitely some serious concerns about, you know, squelching public input at the local government level. That's important. It makes projects better, and that's an important part of the process. But I know you're gonna try and hit that sweet spot. So thank you for your work.

Assemblymember Rogers.

Thank you so much. I just wanted to brag for a minute. A couple of days ago, we got to do the groundbreaking for a new bicycle pedestrian overcrossing in Santa Rosa, a a community that has historically been bisected by the freeway. They started that when I was five. And to be able to be there at each of the iterations over the last fifteen years in particular, you do see how every single well intended policy can just create delays or create challenges.

And I'll say even with that one, even though the response from the public with the groundbreaking was overwhelmingly positive, we do still continue to hear from people who don't ride their boat their their bikes that this, isn't how they would have planned things, because they're car drivers.

And I think that that attitude has made it so it's much more difficult to get pedestrian bicycle infrastructure in place, which creates a chicken and the egg because then we don't have safe infrastructure to get people to walk and to bike. I think that you've identified a very real issue that isn't just for bike and ped. We talk about it with housing.

We don't wanna remove people's ability to participate in local government, but the question is, at what point in the process do we have their participation?

And allowing for the upfront discussions about what people's community will look like is a really key component of making sure that people feel heard, but then also making sure that the folks who frankly don't get their way can't just do death by a thousand cuts for the next three decades to prevent a project from getting built, I think, is also something that this legislature should be working on. I hear your commitment to con to continue to work with our local, government folks.

I know that you will, but I think you've been a a strong advocate for no sacred cows in the the legislature, and this has more committees to go. So I'm happy to support today.

Assemblymember Ransom.

Yes. Thank you, Assemblymember. I I too understand exactly what you were trying to solve having been in local government and council and planning commission and understanding the whole, you know, delay and kick the can down the road mentality. I appreciate exactly what it is that you were trying to do.

And with that said, I also share concerns about local government because sometimes, especially when it comes to general plans and and the circular circular plans that happen, the way that it's experienced by actual people and experience in the community is different than how we plan it to be.

And I do feel that it's really important that we have that input And I can list several examples, but I I think Miracle Mile was brought up, which is a a city, a long stretch in my community where the the way it was originally planned did not work well for safety.

And so I think it's really important that we hear from, you know, give more opportunity for public input before we plan these things, especially since general plans have, you know, you're planning well into the future and you're you need to really take into consideration how it's being used with the businesses and the actual flow of traffic and things like that. So, I will have an opportunity again.

I know that you're working on amendments and and we know that you're very gracious when it comes to being able to work with folks. And so I look forward to seeing this again in local government.

Assemblymember Papan.

We talked earlier. I know we'll get to a balance. I I will be voting for it today. I just needed to state for the record, especially since the opposition mentioned my city and a thousand people getting input on their pedestrian mall. So I thank you, and I know we'll reach the balance. Thanks for the effort.

Members, any more comments? Alright. If you'd like to close.

Thank you for the conversations we've had. I think, mister Rogers, you kind of articulated exactly what we're trying to do here. And and to the other comments from members, I'm we're trying to find that sweet spot. You know, I think, you know, the abundance book came out. Was it a year and a half ago?

And it was all about high speed rail, and that's a sexy topic in the transportation world to talk about how it hasn't worked. And yet we see the similar problem for pedestrian and bicycle safety across the state of California, projects taking way too long to actually deliver. And I think in the end of the day, constituents want our government to deliver for them. Right? They want safety.

They want, to be able to know they can walk down the street. Their kids can walk to school. They can ride their bikes safely. And so that's what really what we're trying to do is do it efficiently. I welcome conversations with opposition as I always do.

I do think there's a way we can land in a place that I think honors the need for local input, but doesn't allow for sort of the weaponization and death by a thousand cuts. So that is my mission that I've chosen to accept. Hopefully, we will get there. I I I believe we can. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. We have a motion by Jackson and a second by Rogers. Please take roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We don't have enough votes. We're gonna hold the roll open. And Assemblymember Wicks, are you good to go with 2015 next? I am.

Okay. Thank you, madam chair and members. This is my third, bill focused on, again, traffic safety. So I drove up here, and every day, I plug in work in my Google Maps. And I do that because I wanna see if it's gonna take me up by 80 or six eighty depending on if there's a car accident or not.

We all do it. We do it everywhere we go. So there's a lot of utility to the map apps. Right? Waze, Google Maps, etcetera.

They've also fundamentally altered how we drive in our cities and our towns, and they really optimize for the fastest route possible, which, again, especially when you're late, is such a value. You wanna know the fastest way to get there. But often without regard to weight limits, any sort of restrictions, school zones, you know, other slower speed limits, all the other pieces of traffic safety that we put in place to accommodate.

They send streets down really narrow local roads that are not prepared for the high volume of traffic that they're receiving because that's faster than going through an arterial that has stoplights. Well, it has stoplights for a reason because it's got, you know, crosswalks and other things.

And so, I don't know the solution to this challenge, but I think we should figure it out. And so that's what this bill does. It's basically, requires Caltrans to conduct a to conduct a study on third party navigation apps on our state highway system and our local streets and our road networks, so we can understand the impacts of this. Our cars are really dictated now by Map Apps.

Long are the days gone when we used to know how to get somewhere from point a to point b in our towns, and which is a whole other thing, but we'll set that aside.

Understanding how the map apps have impacted our streets is really important. Obviously, there's stuff cities can do to deal with the high volume of traffic that some local streets are experiencing, but that all comes at a cost. It costs money to put in that type of traffic calming. So the goal of the bill is to really understand the problem and see if there's potentially gonna be a solution.

I welcome anyone to the table who wants to figure out this challenge and see if we can come up with some kind of a solution so that we can, you know, ensure that the map apps are not just optimizing for speed, but also optimizing for safety.

And with that, Mark is gonna provide comment as well on this one and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good good afternoon, chair and members. Mark Verkiewicz on behalf of Streets For All. AB 2015 addresses a real problem on California streets, which is private navigation apps are making routing decisions that can directly undermine local goals. And that's local safety goals, that's local congestion goals, noise goals, even small business district goals and economic opportunity. Across the state, cities are working to create safer, Calmer neighborhoods.

They design slow streets, invest in pedestrian safety, try to keep cut through traffic off of roads that were never meant to function like highway relief valves. But too often, a third party app sees a few seconds of time saving and sends a driver through those neighborhoods anyways. Because this grid that we have in our neighborhoods was designed sixty years ago before we could have predicted an algorithmic app sending people through it. And so that means more speeding on local roads.

It means more conflict in pedestrian heavy areas, more wear and tear on roads the local governments have to maintain and didn't expect to maintain.

And in some cases, it can make it also harder for emergency vehicles to get where they need to go in in some circumstances. Problem is simple. Local governments are making these decisions, and yet a unelected algorithm is deciding what actually happens on the road. And cities don't really have the tools to respond or or the actual tools to respond are incredibly expensive or involve redesigning a street grid back, you know, like it was a 100 years ago.

And so AB 2015 is smart and measured in terms of, you know, where we are now.

We're studying the problem and trying to really figure out what are we gonna do about congestion displacement, infrastructure safety, emergency response, and develop real time policy recommendations for how platforms should better align the state and local goals. Yeah. This is a community issue. And if the community decided a a residential neighborhood should be residential, I think that matters, and that that really matters for how our streets should be laid out and how, the feel of our neighborhood should be.

So, this bill helps California better understand a problem and prepares the state to act responsibly with any policy recommendations.

We respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

K. Thank you. We're gonna move to public testimony. If we have anyone, me too, or in support, head on up to the microphone. Seeing none, do we have any opposition?

Come on down.

George Spees, traffic violence rapid response, Oakland, strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, do we have any public testimony in opposition? Seeing none, I'm gonna move it over to, committee members, and we'll go with, Assemblymember Rogers.

Think about it, vice chair. Just as a kind of a a question slash suggestion, I like the direction that you're going with the bill. It also raises for me that many folks now are getting into their car, plugging in an address, and then the car is literally driving them.

And so just wanna make sure that you capture that in the bill as well, even if it's not one of those third party, ones that we apps that we typically use, still probably has the same impact on our local roads and and would hate for you to have to come back and do the bill again.

Okay. Assembly member, doctor Jackson.

I don't know why he's giving you more ideas, but, Lord, have mercy. But on behalf of the chair, she appreciates you accepting the amendments that direct Caltrans to study this issue and make recommendations to the legislature to see if there's a way to balance the benefits of the navigation systems within with the harms, and she will be supporting the bill today.

Alright. Members, any more comments? No? Alrighty. We'll take it back to you.

Well, again, appreciate mister Rogers' comments. Happy to take more wild, crazy ideas that we can put into bills. And I think this is a real issue that hits low income, high income neighborhoods across the board. So we wanna figure out a solution. And with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. Let's go with ROCO.

AB 2015, do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Wilson, Davies? Yes. Davies, yes. Aguilar Curry, Avila Fefarious, Arons.

Carrillo. Harabedian. Part. Part Aye. Hoover.

Aye. Hoover, Aye. Jackson. Aye. Jackson, Aye.

Lackey.

Not voting.

Lackey. Not voting. Masito. Happen. Hapen, Aye, Ransom.

Ransom, Aye, Rogers. Aye. Rogers, Aye. Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins, Aye.

Okay. We're still holding off on more votes. I will leave that roll open. And you've got that seat warming up there. Yep.

So let's finish up with AB 2168.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members. AB 2168 makes a series of modest common-sense improvements to ensure California's Active Transportation Program funds are spent effectively and efficiently. The ATP is our state's primary funding source for biking and walking infrastructure, supporting projects that increase safety, promote public health, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The program is chronically oversubscribed. Current ATP guidelines do not adequately prioritize the locations where Active Transportation investments generate the greatest turn on investment.

Specifically, the program's existing definition of Safe Routes to Transit fails to specify the broader landscape of transit-supportive geography where active transportation improvements can most effectively connect people to transit and reduce VMT. The ATP also lacks meaningful accountability mechanism for grantees who fail to spend awarded funds on time.

AB 2168 modernizes the definition of Safe Routes to Transit, shifting focus towards transit-rich corridors, infill opportunity areas, station walk sheds, and underserved or rural areas, places where Active Transportation investments provide the deepest community benefit, giving people the option to potentially not drive at all. This legislation adds transit access as an explicit project selection criteria, aligning with California's broader climate and housing goals.

It directs the state to provide recommendations to maximize complementary commitments of state transportation improvement projects or programs to scale funding for larger or network-level Active Transportation improvements, and it establishes a graduated penalty structure for grantees who fail to spend funds on time.

Taken together, this bill reasonably reforms the program's focus, rewards strategic investment, and holds awardees accountable. Kendra Ramsey will be testifying in support today, who's the Executive Director of the California Bicycle Coalition.

Good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. We are really excited about this bill and thank Assembly Member Wicks for her leadership on bicycling and walking and for sponsoring this bill, or introducing this bill. Our organization has been deeply engaged with the Active Transportation Program since advocating for its creation and are a proud sponsor of this bill. Investments in Active Transportation infrastructure not only improve safety and mobility in our communities but also support public health, economic vitality, and environmental sustainability.

AB 2168 represents a thoughtful and necessary step on better aligning transportation funding with these goals. The intent of the program has always been on biking and walking as transportation modes, and including Safe Routes to Transit, the focus is on the full trip someone takes. Biking and walking can be part of a full trip. The bus might be needed to get you on your full destination.

This bill modernizes the definition of Safe Routes to Transit to include more than just the mass transit and school bus stops included in the original description. It also includes critical infrastructure, such as transit facilities in rural communities and small towns, as well as other types of transit facilities and infrastructure that we know and use today.

This bill also addresses a critical issue where agencies have failed to utilize funds in a timely manner. At a time when the lion's share of eligible projects to this program are going unfunded, we're talking about hundreds of projects in each two-year cycle that spend their time and energy applying for funding and are not awarded funding, and these are areas where you heard earlier testimony about areas needing improvements, and people are being killed in the time that it takes to get projects funded and built. And this is just critical investments that we need to be made.

It also adds a provision to help leverage the small amount of ATP funds needed to bring in other funding, specifically from the STIP Program to help bring in full networks for biking and walking in our communities, and that just basically gives an incentive for agencies to provide more funding throughout their network. Really, our communities can't wait for these investments, and for these reasons, we respectfully request your support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. We're gonna move to public testimony. Do we have anyone in support? Name, organization, and position on the bill.

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

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson, on behalf of the Monterey-Salinas Transit District. We have a support if amended position. We've had some really good conversations with the author and look forward to continuing in those. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Are you gonna be testifying or just comment?

Just making a Okay. Brief comment. Chris Lee with Politico Group here on behalf of the Nevada County Transportation Commission. We had an opposed position on the bill, the prior version of the bill. The amendments address most of our concerns.

We just have some lingering technical concerns with the STIP related language, but we think we can work those out and wanna thank the author for working with us.

Okay. Thank you. We're gonna move it over to members. Comments? Alrighty.

Assemblymember doctor Jackson.

Channeling my best, Lori Wilson. She appreciates you amending your bill to address her concerns about disadvantaging less urban areas of the state and requiring local agencies to spend a set percentage of their transportation dollars on ATP projects. She believes the biggest underlying problem is that this program cannot meet the overwhelming demand for funding, for ATP projects, but she will be so supporting, this bill today, and I will move the bill.

Alright. No more comments. Oh, we'll take it back to the author.

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. Alright. We have a motion by doctor Jackson and a second by Assemblymember Ransom. Call roll, please.

[Roll Call]

Alright. Again, we're going to hold off until we have more of the quorum here. Okay. We are now going to be moving with, Assemblymember Bauer Kahan on AB 1947. 1942.

I promise mister Lackey, I will be fast. I have to get home to my children, so I apologize.

then mister Lackey, you'll be next? As for the witnesses, just a reminder, two minutes each, please.

Yeah. Please. Thank you, madam vice chair and members of the committee, and I wanna thank the committee staff for their work and collaboration on this bill. I'm not gonna belabor the point that ebikes, for many of our communities, are becoming a real concern and and, frankly, a safety issue. We get calls in my district office every week about this issue.

Two weeks ago, it was a grandmother who was walking one of her grandchildren home on one of our bike and pedestrian trails who was hit by a young rider who took off. Just this weekend, I heard from a friend that she was going through a green light at one of our intersections in one of the towns I represent, and, three teenagers on what appear to be teenagers on e bikes ran the red light, and she almost hit them.

This bill is, really focused on the question of accountability. Our streets have laws. People cannot run stop signs even on bikes.

They cannot, run a red light. But these bikes, which go speeds that frankly, are more than I go when I'm driving through town, are not you will hear from my my witness, one of my police chiefs, they are struggling to hold these individuals accountable because they either have to chase them, which frankly is dangerous, or let them go, which results in the behavior continuing. And so the bill, as drafted, would have required would require the DMV to put registration onto these cars.

I under on these bikes. I understand that, this committee has issues with us giving this responsibility to the DMV, and so the chair and I have had many productive conversations, and as we if this bill moves out of committee today, we will continue to work on how to create this kind of accountability, but in a way that does not burden the DMV.

And so, you know, I'm here because our kids are hurting themselves. The safety issue is real, and we really wanna make sure people are following the rules of the road. So with me to testify in support is Thomas Rosberg, chief of police in Danville Police Department, and doctor Russell Rodriguez, our chief medical officer and emergency medicine physician at John Muir Medical Center.

I apologize. Good afternoon. Chief Tom Rosberg, on behalf of the town of Danville, support of AB 1942. From a law enforcement perspective, this is about safety through clarity. We're seeing dangerous mismatch between high powered ebikes and rider readiness, particularly among our youth.

Many young riders are operating ebikes at significant speeds across parks, trails, and sidewalks, creating risk for themselves and the public. While statewide data varies, our local experience is clear. Young riders account for a growing number of our accidents. Our partners at John Muir Health report that e bike injuries have doubled in the past year, and many of our teens are suffering motorcycle level injuries. The challenge we face is accountability.

Many of these devices look identical but have very different capabilities. In the field, it it is extremely difficult for officers to distinguish between an ebike or take appropriate action in real time. AB 1942 addresses this gap by requiring registration and visible license plates for class two and three ebikes. This revision is a way to identify higher speed devices and intervene intervene before unsafe behavior results in serious injury.

We recognize the burden, potential burden on the DMV and support workable alternatives and achieve the same goal and safety account accountability.

As with many complex issues, a single new requirement may not be the only solution. California law enforcement needs clearly identified laws to encourage and enforce safe riding behavior. Local agencies are doing everything they can through education and enforcement, but we need clear statewide tools to be successful. Our goal is simple. Keep our young riders and our community safe.

We ask for your support and additional guidance and regulations. Thank you.

Thanks. Alright. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Russell Rodriguez. I'm the chief medical officer at John Muir Health in Contra Costa County.

I'm also a practicing emergency medicine physician for the past about twenty years. On behalf of John Muir Health, I wanna thank Assemblymember Bauer Kahan for leadership in calling more attention to this issue and for looking for ways to make, riding e bay ebikes safer. As, chief police said, our over the past year, John Mar Health's trauma center has seen about double the number of injuries, in both riders and pedestrians struck by riders of ebikes, which is a very alarming trend for us.

I've taken care of several of these patients myself in the emergency department, and I would say that the injuries or suffering are not consistent with what we would usually see with a with a bicycle. These are motorcycle level accidents.

They're high speed, and these are oftentimes young young adolescents or kids that don't know the rules of the road. We're seeing a lot of neurologic and orthopedic injuries among these these riders. So with, obviously, faster speed comes more severe collisions and the likelihood of serious or even fatal injuries. We've seen skull fractures, significant back and spinal cord injuries, broken bones, and dislocations. This trend that we're seeing is mirrored across the country.

According to the American College of Surgeons, the rate of e bike injuries is increasing annually, and head head injuries are occurring more frequently. E bikes can be a great transportation option, but they need to be operated safely and responsibly like any motorized vehicle. John Muir Health wants a healthy and safe community. Our responsibilities at trauma centers is to treat injuries, but it is also to do what we can to prevent them, which is why I'm here today.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue.

Thank you very much. We're going to have public testimony in support. If you'd like to come up, again, name, organization, and position.

Thank you, ma'am chair. Ryan Spencer on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association in support.

Matt Robinson on behalf of the California Medical Association in support. Thank you.

Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the town of Hillsborough in support.

Kelly McMillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, California in support

Carlyn Shelby on behalf of the Tri Valley Cities Coalition comprised of the communities of Danville, Dublin, San Ramon, Livermore, and Pleasant in strong support. Thank you.

Brian McCarthy on behalf of the cities of Irvine, Santa Barbara, Lafayette, Orinda, and Newport Beach in support. Thanks.

Any more witnesses? Nope. Okay. K. Thank you.

Alright. Do we have any, witnesses in opposition? If so, please come up.

Madam Vice Chair, I need to run to another committee. So if you don't mind, I'm taking my, testimony from here.

Sure. That's are you are you fine with that, Assemblymember? Okay.

Good afternoon. Mark Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All. We really understand the concern that is driving this policy. You know, we've we've sponsored five different ebike bills over the last four years because we are trying to address the growing pains that are on our roadway. But we we have fundamental challenges with this bill.

You know, this bill requiring registration and license plates for class twos and class threes means new cost, new bureaucracy, new enforcement burdens placed on legal ebike riders who are following the law that compared to all of the illegal ebike riders who are either riding devices that are not legal or not following the laws. And that's sort of our core issue here is that, you know, the Moneta Transportation Institute report that this legislature commissioned really identified Emotos as the main problem.

These devices that look like ebikes, it's like tortoise tort turtle tortoise, but they are different fundamentally. They look like ebikes, and yet they're they're tearing up our roadway. And if I may, share as well to the you know, at the assembly member's press conference in in her district, you mentioned, bicycles going 35, 40 miles per hour.

Those are not legal ebikes in the state of California. That's the problem, and that's the issue that we want to solve. That's an issue that we're trying to tackle in eleven sixty seven by some by Senator Blake Spear this year. And, and and, yeah, and I think that's sort of the challenge that we have with this policy here. I'll also add that there's also an equity based concern here.

We supported AB 199 by Harabedian four years ago or three years ago, which decriminalized or sorry. Excuse me. Which eliminated the licensure requirements that some cities had for bicycles because a lot of cities were openly saying to us I I called the city in Orange County, which openly said that they were using that as pretext to remove, homeless people from their parks.

And so by instituting this, you know, registration requirement, this licensure requirement again, we feels like this we feel like this takes steps backwards in terms of what we're trying to achieve in terms of our VMT and bikeability goals. And fundamentally and most problematically before the safety aspect does not solve the Emoto problem, which is destroying our neighborhoods and destroying even the reputation of legal e bikes. Thank you so much

Alright. Again, name, organization. Do you wanna respond?

No. I'm the other

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah. Gotcha. I figured I would sit at the normal spot.

Please go ahead and you have two minutes Thank you.

Kendra Ramsey again from California Bicycle Coalition. We are the voice of the everyday bicyclist. We have relationships with bike coalitions throughout the state that represent tens of thousands of folks that use bikes for transportation, and we oppose this bill. We feel it's a significant step backward for the sustainable transportation landscape and climate policy in California.

E bikes are a critical tool in reducing, car dependency, improving air quality, and expanding access for mobility, especially for working families, older adults, and communities underserved by transit. A car averages cost of about $12,000 for a family, and that's if you own it outright. So the ability to have an e bike to get to daily needs, it's how I pick my daughter up from preschool, is really a great resource for folks. And imposing motor vehicle style registration requirements really undermines these goals.

This would create unnecessary financial and administrative barriers for people who rely on e bikes for their daily transportation.

It would disproportionately impact lower income riders, discourage adoption of a mode of travel that California has actively worked to support through multimillion dollar incentive programs administered by a state agency. Further treating ebikes like motor vehicles contradicts adopted state policy. Legal e bikes are recognized as bicycles. They have substantially lower speeds, weight, and public safety risks than cars. Requiring license plates is counterproductive and doesn't address the safety concerns as Mark just mentioned.

EModels, as my colleague just mentioned, are really the safety challenge here. The Mineta Report on e bike safety really outlined this well. Instead, we feel that this bill targets law abiding riders of legal e bikes, creating a bureaucracy that will really not take any high speed devices off this road off the road. We've talked to many of our partners in the micromobility industry that share our concerns with how folks would access their products.

We've talked to many folks who ride legal ebikes that are concerned about how they would continue to do so, and, really, that this would not help increase safety outcomes for ebike riders or the public Please forgive us up.

For these reader for these reasons, we respectfully request a no vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Alright. We're gonna go to opposition testimony. Again, name, organization, and opposition, please.

Scott Mace on behalf of the California Association of Bicycling Organizations in opposition.

Thank you.

Richard Tidd, Daly City, ebike rider. Strong opposition.

Hi. Carl London on behalf of Gullahherne Strategies, which represents Lime. They're also opposed to the bill, but hoping to work with the author on a amendment that addresses micro mobility issues. Thank you.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the city of San Mateo, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Ross Parrish, a member of the public, born and raised in Oakland, now Sacramento resident. Just encouraging the assembly member to treat the crisis of auto safety with the same level of alarm as the current e bike concern.

Thank you.

Kyle Chittock representing Area 13 e bikes opposed.

Jeanie Ward Waller on behalf of People for Bikes in opposition. I've also been asked to add on for San Diego three fifty, three fifty Bay Area Action, and the Environmental Protection Information Center.

Brett Thurber from The New Wheel Electric Bikes, strongly opposed.

Bobby Napoli with Gazelle Bikes, strongly opposed.

Susan, Georgia, public citizen, also a ebike rider, senior, and physician, and I oppose.

Bob Mittelstaedt for ebike access. We oppose unless amended to exclude class three ebikes, and we'd like it to focus on e motorcycles, which are the real problem. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Members, comments? We'll we'll start with the Assemblymember Papan and then follow with the Assemblymember Sharp Collins.

Thank you, madam chair. And thank you to the author for bringing the bill. I think there's no dispute that we've got injuries that are increasing, and the severity of those injuries are certainly increasing. So I just wanna talk though about the logistics of the bill. In my college days, I rode a moped and I had a California license plate right on there that I paid for.

So I I will be supporting the bill because I do not see that this is such a significant burden, that we will be impeding the use of what is a clean vehicle. Getting people to the last mile has a lot of value. So but I don't see this as a huge impediment. So I thank you for bringing the bill, and I'll move the bill also.

Alright. I'm on the opposite side. I understand the intention of this particular bill. I do agree with opposition that this bill will place a strain on the DMV as far as the registration of all bikes as there is no VIN number right now for ebikes, but also many of the bikes do share an actual serial number.

And then when you start looking at the serial numbers that are put on batteries, once the batteries die, you're gonna go get a new battery, and then that number changes as well.

So that that's that's that's one of the issues. However, one of the main reasons why I cannot support this, today is because I'm looking at my own community. I'm looking at Southeast San Diego and other parts of the 79th District. Black and brown communities often face over policing. And because of that, I strongly have a fear that this bill is gonna open up the door for children to be stopped for not having a registered bike.

When you think about the underserved communities, a lot of people just cannot afford it. So furthermore, there is no way to demonstrate proof of of the purchase for the e bike, which places our children in a difficult situation if they're stopped by the police because now they cannot show proof that it belongs to them. So then what actually happens? So I recognize the importance of, you know, the need to keep California safe as e bikes, you know, there there is a rise in them.

They're super popular. They look cool. I I totally get the whole issue. I was driving the other day and somebody shot across the street too. So I definitely I I understand that. But for me, the fear is that that this bill itself would put people in harm's way whether they're providing protections and particularly for the black and brown community when you have a lot of over policing.

And so, with that, that's that's the reason why I cannot support today. I'm I'm open to hear should the bill get out. I'm open to hear additional conversations. Hopefully hopefully that there were some other changes to the bill. And if it gets out and gets to the floor, we can have a deeper conversation for for me to come back to reconsider.

But just for today, I I won't be able to to support. Alright.

I didn't see it wanting to make a comment. So oh, that's true. Just comments. Thank you, vice chair Davies, for, chairing this committee while I was over in natural resources. With that, I think you wanted to make comments on the bill, so the floor is yours.

Thank you. Appreciate it, and welcome back. Hopefully, it was a good experience.

Yes. It was.

I wanna thank you for bringing this up. I've been working since I've been up here six years now, working with ebike safety and, you know, trying to get certification so that our kids do have a little bit better idea of the rules of the road. And the bottom line is law enforce law enforcement, it's very tough to do what you do if you don't know who's who's bike that is. And so I know you can't stop them. You don't wanna be chasing them.

But you can't tell if someone's 16 years old and is okay with the class three or if they're 13 years old. And we're looking at accidents happening every day. We just had a 80 year old man and his dog run down. He's in critical condition, by a 14 year old. Again, no rules of the road.

And so I think there's a lot of complications in putting this together. I understand that. I've talked to law enforcement. It's like and I think that's what we were talking about is trying to put together even, you know, sitting down going, what is it that we need to do? So just having everyone come to the table so everybody's input is in there.

So we are protecting we are protecting, those that are riding these as well. It's the bad actors that we're trying to deal with. And so I think I think we can find a a good medium. I would like to be coauthored on this bill. And, I I trust that and I know the how thorough you are that, everyone comes to the table, we'll have, we'll have good solutions.

Thank you. And I'd like to be a coauthor, if I didn't say that. Thanks. Hoover?

Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. I I'm not gonna ask to be a coauthor, but, I I do share some of the concerns that have been raised by my colleague, just in terms of the logistics of this and and sorta how it can work. But I I do, think that you'll continue to work with Opposition, I would hope. And, so for today, you know, I definitely think it's really important issue. It's an important that, you know, we're protecting our kids.

This could be one of the the best solutions to do that. And and I do appreciate that this is, sort of addressing this without, going after the bikes themselves and, like, the flexibility and freedom for adults to continue to ride them and access them. So I think, I will be supporting the bill today, but would just encourage you to continue working with, Opposition. Thanks.

Seeing no other, thank you to the author. I've appreciated the conversations that you and I have had on this bill, and we have talked about ways, to work together, on this in the future. And as I noted, I had several concerns about how it'd be implemented, whether it is appropriate to require ebikes to have a license plate. This bill would require DMV to stand up a new license and registration process for ebikes.

Unlike motor vehicles, ebikes do not have a standardized vehicle identification number or VIN, which could make it difficult to properly register the device to an individual person.

Moreover, bikes do not come with proof of purchase that connects the purchaser to the serial number on the ebike. DMV has indicated it would have to manually inspect every bicycle in order to register it, which could create a massive backlog at DMV offices at a time when the state is trying to reduce in person visits. Moreover, the motor vehicle account, which funds the DMV and CHP is facing insolvency.

I'm concerned that the registration fee required to fund implementation of this bill would wind up costing ebike purchasers more than what we pay to register cars or mopeds. I'm also concerned that the bill would place a burden on ebike riders that would discourage people from purchasing them and could potentially make thousands of people violators of the law if they are aware unaware that suddenly have to register the ebike that they have owned for years.

And with that, that's we've talked about this already of why I wouldn't be able to support your bill today and will be, staining. However, if it gets out of this committee, I know you've committed that you will continue to work to figure out the sweet spot on balancing, you know, registration and who appropriately should do that as well as safety. And so I'm looking forward to that conversation. With that, is there oh, there has been a move by Pappan and a second by Macedo. Give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you, madam chair. And just because you were not in the room, I in my opening, I did commit to continue to work on you and referenced also our conversations, and appreciate your your willingness to work with me and the many conversations we've had on the subject because I know both of us, first and foremost, are committed to protecting our communities.

And so, that is the goal of this legislation, and I wanna thank all of my colleagues for their comments, and, especially, not especially because I appreciate you all the same amount, but thank you to our colleague from San Diego for her comments. The perspective you bring is different than mine, and so I appreciate you bringing that and, you know, look forward to continue conversations on this if it gets out or if not.

Because I think this is an important issue that I will work on either way, but appreciate the perspective.

And, as this bill takes a new form, which I anticipate it will moving forward, we'll see where that goes. But, appreciate all of the conversation and this committee is so dedicated to addressing what we heard from my witnesses today, which is the real safety issues that exist. And with that, respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you. With the motion made by Pappen and seconded by Macedo, madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll hold that roll open for members to add on. As Assemblymember Lackey prepares to present his bill, we did ask for a special order, because of time sensitive nature. We'll work on consent calendar. Can I get a motion?

I got a motion by Sharp Collins and a second by Davies. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out, but we'll hold the roll open for members. Those bills are out, but we'll hold the roll open for members to add on. With that, moving on to item—we have two items for this author, AB 1685 and AB 1687. Did you have a preference for order? Okay.

We'll start with 1685. At your convenience, sir.

Okay. Again, thank you for allowing us to present this bill, and we like to thank you for working with our office on these DUI bills, and, of course, we'll be accepting the amendments. And as a former CHP officer, I've seen the dangers and heartbreak of drunk driving. They're very, very real, and they're very personal to me. The California DMV uses the negligent operator treatment system, also known as NOTS, or "Nots," to assign points to a driver's record based on traffic-related convictions and violations.

These points are used to determine whether a driver's privilege to operate a motor vehicle should be suspended or revoked. If a person accumulates four points in twelve months, six points in twenty four months, or eight points in thirty six months, the DMV may suspend their licenses. Currently, a conviction for vehicular manslaughter and vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated results in a person having two points on their license. This is the same number of points assessed for reckless driving and driving over a 100 miles an hour.

This is grossly unacceptable and taking a person's life should not be equal to speeding on the freeway.

AB 1685, which is this bill, makes a necessary change to the NOTS System by adding three points to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, becoming the first conviction to have this high of a, a point assessment. And so, with me to testify on behalf of this bill is Terry McHale with the California Highway Patrol Association and Mike Sharif on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition.

Madam chair, Terry McHale with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the California Association of Highway Patrolmen. We've represented the Highway Patrol for over forty years, and the stories that are always the most poignant, the stories that always bring the greatest grief, are those that deal with fatal drunk driving accidents, the most avoidable of the accidents. The analysis that was written, Madam Chair, was poignant also when I recognized that it was pointed out that over a six-year period, 45,000 people died from drunk driving.

If we were to put that in a sports perspective, that fills a baseball stadium. Over a six year period, we have filled a baseball stadium with people who have died from drunk driving.

We appreciate very much this committee also dealing with the gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, making that a three-point offense also. I'd conclude with this, even with the three points, the suspension of the license continues to be cumulative. This is a very fair, long overdue, very necessary bill, and we ask for an ice—an aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you, madam chair and members. Mike Sharif with Fanshawe Government Affairs on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition. As mentioned, this bill increases points on the driver's record for vehicular manslaughter and other offenses. Quite simply, when driving offenses result in a fatality, our administrative consequences should match that level of harm. Today, they fall short.

For victims' families, no policy can undo their loss, but aligning our laws with the severity of these crimes points in a meaningful way that California takes these offenses seriously. AB 1685 promotes safer roads and underscores the responsibility every driver has to protect others. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we'll move on to members of the audience who would like to add their support—name, affiliation, and position.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Usha Mutchler, on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association, in support.

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

Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, in support.

Serena Scott, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support.

Rhonda Campbell with Mothers Against Drunk Driving, here in support.

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriffs Association, California Narcotic Officers Association, and a coalition of local law enforcement groups, also in support. Thank you.

With that, we'll move on to opposition testimony. At your convenience. Thank you.

Chair and members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez, and I'm a Ledge Advocate with ACLU California Action. I wanna start by commending the author for his commitment to public safety and his intentions with this bill, as we can acknowledge his heart is in the right place, even if we often find ourselves on opposite sides many times.

Our main issue with this proposal is that assessing an additional point on a person's driving record for a vehicular homicide with—while intoxicated—with gross negligence is duplicative and unnecessary if the overarching goal is to get people convicted of this type of homicide off our streets. The DMV is already required to revoke the driving privilege of a person convicted of this crime, which is found in Vehicle Code 13351, Subdivision A, Subparagraph 3.

In addition, our courts and the DMV may suspend a person's driving license for receiving conviction for several other offenses.

At the ACLU, we encourage policymakers to search for alternative solutions to this issue that aren't carceral or overly punitive. When it comes to road safety, our approach should be rooted in belief that human life is worth protecting before tragedy strikes, not responding after the fact. ACLU National recently published a report on April 13 last week titled, "Safe Roads for All," that discusses evidence-based strategies for keeping our roads safe.

In this report, we discussed road designs where a town in Indiana installed more than 150 roundabouts, more than on any other city in the US and experienced 80% fewer crashes with injuries. We found that traveling in passenger vehicles is 74 times deadlier than traveling by bus, emphasizing the importance of public transit.

Offering a voucher program for rideshares is effective at reducing rates of impaired driving as well, and usage of these programs depend on community buy in, awareness, and reduction in barriers. Finally, DUI treatment and diversion programs should include free appropriately tailored IID technology with meaningful due process and privacy protections. Given the punitive and duplicative approach in this bill, we respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their opposition, now would be appropriate time to come to the microphone. Name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none.

Moving to members of the committee. We have a motion by Sharp Collins. Second by Davies. Alright.

Assemblymember Lackey, so, thank you for working with this committee to strengthen this bill. You know, when analyzing the bill, we discovered that vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated carried two points and that gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, the more serious offense, carried only one. So, I really appreciate you working with the committee to make this a stronger bill to target gross vehicular manslaughter by making it a three-point offense. And people may be wondering why these points matter.

And it was noted, from the analysis that was prepared from committee staff is, and this is on page four that I'm reading, "An individual is considered a negligent operator if they receive four or more points in a twelve-month period, six in twenty four months, or eight in thirty six months." So, although this point might not prevent somebody—they've already done it, it's after the fact—but it will be sure that if they do that again within a certain amount of period that they are a negligent operator and should not have a license.

I'll be supporting your bill today, giving you an opportunity now that we have a motion and a second to close.

Thank you, madam chair. I would just close by stating that in my opinion, when we have loss of life, this is not only a matter of justice, but it's also a value statement that we actually, we care about the fact that someone has lost their life, and that's a permanent penalty. So, I think this penalty is more than fair, and I hope we can earn your support.

Thank you. With that, motion made by Sharp Collins, seconded by Davies. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out and we'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. Now, moving on to AB 1687.

Microphone again, please.

Appreciate that. AB 1687 is my last DUI bill, which will increase the Department of Motor Vehicles revocation period for a third DUI conviction from three years to eight years, and I know that sounds like a lot, but hear me out. This bill also adds that a person may be able to apply for an interlock device after four years with the requirement to have it within their vehicle for at least two years. A recent DMV analysis followed drivers who received a DUI in 2005.

Over the next 15 years, over 25% of those drivers were arrested again for another DUI. Among those drivers, 40% already had three or more DUIs at the time of the 2005 arrest. California was one of the leaders in the nation against driving under the influence. No longer is that the case.

In New Jersey, a person convicted of repeat DUIs cannot get their license back until eight years after their conviction, while in Nebraska, it is 15 years, and Connecticut will permanently revoke a license for that repeat offense. However, in California, a person could get their license back after three years and could continue to add more DUIs to the record.

This bill will require the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately revoke the license of a person convicted of three DUIs for eight years unless the driver agrees to install the interlock device. By expanding the revocation period for repeat offenders, AB 1687 will help make California roads safer by keeping repeat drunk drivers from being behind the wheel.

I have two witnesses to the right of me, and I have Rhonda Campbell, on behalf of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and Ryan Sherman, Legislative Advocate for the California Narcotics Officers Association. You may go.

Hi. Thank you so much for having me this afternoon. My name is Rhonda Campbell, and I'm here on behalf of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, in strong support of this bill. I'm not here today to just talk about policy. I'm here today because my sister, Irene, is gone.

Irene was killed by a repeat offender drunk driver, someone who had already been given chances and someone who had already showed a pattern of dangerous impaired driving and yet still made the choice to get behind the wheel impaired again. Because of that choice, my family will never be the same. Irene isn't here for birthdays. She's not at our holidays. No more phone calls. No more laughter.

No more memories to be made. There's just a space where she should be for the rest of our lives. There are moments that never leave you. I will never forget standing next to the casket as it was closed and hearing the scream that came out of my mother's mouth. It was gut-wrenching and it was haunting.

It was the sound of a parent losing their child in a way that should never happen. That moment replays in my mind and it always will. That is the real impact of repeat DUI offenders. When someone has three or more DUI convictions, it's not a mistake. It's a pattern, and that pattern destroys families like mine.

Under current law, they can regain their driving privileges after just three years. Three years is nothing compared to what my family and others have lost. Every day, I work with families just like mine, families whose lives have been shattered by the exact same preventable choice. Their stories are different, but the pain is the same. This bill is about accountability, it's about prevention, and it's about stopping repeat behavior before it becomes another funeral. Irene's life mattered, my family's loss matters, and the families I represent at MADD, their lives matter as well. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members. Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers Association and a number of other law enforcement groups around the state, in strong support of the bill. As the author stated, AB 1687 will better hold repeat DUI offenders accountable and does so by requiring the DMV to immediately revoke the driver's license of individuals with three or more DUI-related convictions.

Importantly, 1687 prohibits reinstatement of the license for at least eight years following the revocation, ensuring that these dangerous drivers will be legally restricted from endangering everyone else on our roads. There have been a lot of bills introduced this year with the DUI crisis in mind in our state.

AB 1687 is a reasonable measured approach, which seeks to protect California drivers from the careless and deadly acts of repeat DUI offenders. This is not a silver bullet on its own, however. AB 1687, though, better reflects the severity of the crime and will help accelerate license revocations for those who pose real and present danger on the road, and this will make our roads safer by keeping them off our roads, at least for the period of time this bill prohibits. We owe it to the families of the victims and repeat offenders-- of the repeat offenders, and to those we may be able to protect to pass AB 1687. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, Chairs and members. Usha Mutschler, on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association, in support. Thank you.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, in support.

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

Marc Vukcevich, on behalf of Streets For All, in support.

Serena Scott, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support.

Terry McHale with the California Association of Highway Patrol, in support.

Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, in support.

Thank you. Now moving on to opposition. Hello, again.

Chair and members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I'm a ledge advocate with the ACLU California Action. I wanna start by thanking the witness for sharing your story. I know it takes a lot of courage to be that vulnerable in public. Under this bill, after four years, a person may apply to the DMV to have their driving privilege reinstated on a condition they install and maintain an IID for two years.

We do not have issues with IIDs when they are implemented in a way that is evidence-based, publicly funded, appropriately tailored, and with meaningful due process and privacy protections, but this bill falls short of the simple standard. Mandating IIDs without making it accessible to everyone creates a two-tiered system of justice, one where affluent Californians can comply with IID requirements, whereas other who are lower income are more severely punished.

And although existing law allows for discounted IIDs fees based on income, these programs are often poorly advertised, difficult to access, and inconsistently enforced and still require significant upfront payments. I mentioned last time in this committee that some may believe is irrelevant, but our public transit infrastructure is very much relevant to this conversation when you deprive someone of a vehicle, which is a necessity to survive in our economic system.

Many Californians live an hour or more away from their place of work in order to survive our housing crisis to afford a place to rent. Depriving them of a car without proper public infrastructure then dooms them to economic ruin. By vastly increasing the period of license revocation without providing accessible mental health and substance use services and robust investments in public transit, we are setting people up for job loss, housing instability, and social isolation, which creates more tragedies.

I implore every legislator to reimagine public safety and try to solve these issues at the root cause rather than being reactive with excessive punishment that only exacerbate these problems and not solve them. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1687. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to members of the public that would like to note their opposition as well, now would be an appropriate time to come to the mic. Name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving back to members of the committee. Jackson.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. My question is, the revocation for eight years, does that happen after the first DUI? Not the second, but the third. You know, I totally understand the issues of equity when it comes to people being able to afford devices and those type of things, but it seems to me that this Legislature this year is taking a stance, that we are going to value human life, and that too many people have been losing lives unnecessarily due to other people not taking human life seriously.

And the reason, Mr. Lackey, I've been-- I'm in support of your bills is probably one of the--I don't even know if I've ever voted for one of your bills, to be honest--is-- and nor have you voted for mine. But we do agree on one thing, and that is the value of human life. And that one time may be a mistake. The second time, you know, I don't know. Maybe you're just-- but a third time means that you believe that your actions are more important than someone else's life, and we have to draw the line.

For the witness of MADD, I understand what it means. I've heard the wail of a mother--my mother--when my brother died, and you never forget that sound. Never forget that sound. Never heard it in my life before. And so I think that we are agreeing at this point that we're gonna value everyone's life, and you lose your freedom or your privileges when you start determining that someone else's life is not worth your own discipline, self-discipline.

And so that's why I'm voting for these bills, because at some point, enough has to be enough. And so I do believe that it is a balanced approach. I do believe that there's a measure of accountability that needs to happen, and if you value your own ability to be self-sufficient, be able to get to work and all those things, in some cases, you need to have better self-restraint, and then in some cases, you need to recognize when you need help.

And so if you're someone who has a second DUI, it's time for help so you don't need to get to that third one. And so this is also a call that we value their life too, because we don't want them to lose their life by continuing their intoxication habits. And so I just wanna go on record to say, you know-- and even though you've been working with Terry McHale, I won't hold that against you either. So with that, I look forward to supporting this bill.

Ransom.

I'm gonna be very brief because I believe Dr. Jackson pretty much said it all. I just wanna say that this is an important step for the State of California. When we talk about data and evidence-base, the evidence is very clear when you look at the data for California that in extreme cases, over 10 years, repeated drunk drivers have up to 16 DUIs and still continue to have a license. That is unfathomable, it is reckless, and we have to have this balance of accountability.

This state and these legislators, we care deeply about making sure that people have access to mental health and trauma-informed care and substance use treatment, and at the same time, we also have to value the lives of innocent people who, at no fault of their own-- they're not the ones, you know, making these choices because these are ultimately choices.

Yes, you might have some problems, but you are still making a choice that impacts someone else's life, and their families are ever changed. It's just the fact that 25% of our fatalities on the roadways are DUIs who are not their first offense, not their second offense.

This is not only a call to action, this is a responsibility and we really need to rethink how we approach victimizing offenders. We have to find a way to really be fair to just the innocent people, and so while I appreciate that we don't want people to be, you know, double jeopardy or-- this is not that, and this is also, you know-- I appreciate that people need to get to work. Well, you have to make better choices.

You have to make better choices. And I really think that this is a tool that-- we're behind. California is behind in this area, and as a result, families have suffered great losses. And I think we need to say that, in this year, the buck stops here, and with that, I'm happy to support this bill.

Thank you. Before I go to Vice Chair Davies, I wanna clarify that it's not even three or more, that if you look on the first page of the analysis, A through I, it's a combination of any one of these three things, and within those three things, you have to have repeated it the within that.

So it really is serious and repeatedly. You know, I think the minimum times that you would have to done something is five or six times before this actually goes into effect, which is, you know, terrible. Vice Chair Davies.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanna say to my members up here, I'm so proud that we are finally attacking this the way we need to. For too long, being up here, watching the victim being put last and watching the lives go and watching our numbers go up with DUIs and the number of deaths, I'm just so proud that we're really concentrating on this and putting human life first and accountability as well. So I would like to thank Assembly Member Lackey for bringing this up, I would be honored to be a co-author, and, again, thank you so much.

All right. Seeing-- oh, we have a motion and a second. Thank you. I appreciate you working-- well, first of all, being a part of the whole DUI package, and I know this is something that you've cared about since the moment you've gotten to the Assembly and finally, as you're sunsetting your legislative career, to see this--really all of this--come to pass.

And part of it is around the advocacy within the Legislature, but good journalism as well that laid it out so clearly what the issue was in California and how we had an an opportunity through legislation to fix that.

I appreciate you working with Public Safety Committee to narrow the focus of this bill to the serious and repeat violators as we've talked about and discussed. Bill passed out of Public Safety Committee unanimously. That is a hard feat, and you were able to do that, and so I will be supporting this bill today in this committee. We have a motion made by Sharp-Collins and a second by Macedo. I'll give you an opportunity to close.

As you can tell, this-- oh, it's pretty heartfelt for me. When I got here in 2014, this had no chance, and I've been here since that time, and I continue to try to have an impact, and I'm very thankful. I don't take any credit. CalMatters is what woke people up, and I'm very thankful. Whatever it takes, and not taking any credit away from any of you and your objectivity. My colleague from Riverside is right. We see things from a different lens most of the time, but the fact you can come together on this issue is big.

It's different when you see the numbers. We see a lot of numbers as legislators, and they're all important, but when you see the tragedy, it's different. And when you see it over and over and over and over again, it becomes part of you. And this problem will always be part of me.

And I'm just thankful, thankful for your aye support, and I think people forget how dangerous it is to drive under the influence. I don't drink, so I don't have that challenge, but I can tell you I see it. And what's really heartbreaking is when you have taken someone into custody that has taken the life of another person; you see them cry. It's a terrible thing.

I get no satisfaction about placing people under arrest or putting them into custody, but my heart goes out to people who lose their life and lose their family. Their family loses people. It's really real to me, more so than it is to you, and I don't hold that against you. I just want you to know that it feels good that you're actually believing me. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Lackey, and thank you for your service to California. We appreciate you, and glad to have you on this committee and the expertise that you bring. Madam Secretary, we have a motion made by Sharp-Collins and a second by Macedo. Please call the roll.

AB 1687: do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call].

Thank you. That bill is out. We'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. With that, we're moving on at the top of the file item, and our next author is here. File Item Number Nine: AB 2196: Ta. To the author, you can begin at your convenience.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present AB 2196. This bill will allow DMV to create reciprocal foreign travel license exchange program exclusively for Class C licenses with Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. This that is not applied to trucking or motorcycle licenses. California already led visitor from other country driving using their foreign travel license.

In practice, we already trust these licenses as proof that someone can drive safely. AB 2196 simply extend the same idea to people who become California resident through a clear and structured process. If we trust someone to drive on their first day here, we should not suddenly distrust them when they become a resident. This bill align our law with what we already do, like adding accountability to form agreement with trust partners. It is not a new idea across the country.

46 out of 50 state already have at least one driver license exchange agreement with a foreign country. 37 state have agreement with Taiwan. 25 state have agreement with at least two of the country in this bill, and 8 state have agreement with all three. This show the abroad is widely used and accepted. California has strong economy and cultural tie with Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea.

Focused this country follow the same approach other state use when creating agreement. This bill is also fiscally responsible. Other state have already created similar agreement, giving California a clear model to follow. Other program in the past raised concerns about the high cost and really complicate it.

AB 2196 take a focus and practical first step. I'm happy to introduce Deputy Director General John Chu of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in San Francisco, and Keijiro Hora, the Executive Director of the Japanese Chamber of Commerce of Northern California. Sir, please.

Honorable Chair Wilson and distinguished Members of Transportation Committee, good afternoon. My name is John Chu. I am the Deputy Director General of the Taipei Economic and Culture Office in San Francisco, which is the de facto consulate general of the government of Taiwan in Northern California.

On behalf of my government, I would like to call for your support of bill AB 2196, which authorizes the California DMV to complete a reciprocal driver's license agreement with Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea and waive road tests for qualified foreign applicant. This bill will benefit both California and this country under the following reason.

First, the ease of living is a crucial factor for attracting foreign investment. During recent years, the surge in AI demand had accelerated a strategic influx of Taiwan leading semiconductor and high-tech firm into California. More than 1,500 Taiwan invested foreign firms are established in California. Around 8,000 to 9,000 new Taiwanese student come to study in California every year.

If we aim to attract more Taiwanese and foreign investment, enterprises, and student, this bill will be an essential supporting major and incentives. Second, Taiwan upholds strict standard of road safety and criteria for the issuing of driver licenses. Currently, across the United States, 37 out of 50 state have signed driver's license reciprocal agreement with Taiwan.

And thank you, sir. I will have to have you wrap up your testimony.

Thank you. So far, more than 16,000 Taiwanese people with US residence visas have exchange for US driver's licenses in the state in which they are residing. This widespread precedent affirm that Taiwan rigorous driver's license standards are like those within the United States.

Hi. My name is Keijiro Hora, Executive Director of Japan Chamber of Commerce of Northern California. I'm here, JCCNC and Japan Business Association of Southern California representing more than 700 member companies. So we do understand our challenges, JCCNC and the JBA, together, we conducted the survey on the foreign driver license issue among our members, and we received around 400 responses. The results are clear.

Obtaining a California driver's license is significant burden. Many respondent reported long DMV appointment wait times, multiple steps, and needed to take several days off work to complete testing requirement. On average, the process takes 20-30 hours and also to around two months to obtain the license.

According to our survey, everyone, even everyone have that driver's license in Japan. This delay directly impact both daily life and the business productivity. And importantly, around over 80% of the respondent support a mutual waiver system and 86% indicates that even waiving the driving test alone would provide a meaningful benefit.

In addition, many of our members are aware that several other states already have similar waiver arrangement in place. This makes California current system comparatively more burdensome. At the same time, many respondents recognize the importance of understanding local traffic law and support maintaining the appropriate requirement such as written knowledge test.

This bill offered practical and balanced solution reducing the unnecessary burden while maintaining the safety. On behalf of JCCNC and the JBA, the biggest foreign direct investment to California, we respectfully request your support for AB 2196. Thank you so much.

Thank you. With that, looking to members of the public who would like to add on their support of this bill. Now would be appropriate time to come to the mic. Name, affiliation, and position.

Hi. My name is Takeshi Ishihara, Deputy Consul General Japan at the Japanese Consulate General in San Francisco. This bill will have a...

We'll have to have you note support.

We strongly support at Japanese consulate. This will have a very good impact, as explained by Mr. Hora. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And just to note, during this time, it's just add on testimony. And so it would just name, affiliation, and position. Thank you.

... from Taiwan Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in San Francisco. And represent the Taiwanese community in California. We strongly support this bill.

Takaaki Nakajima, member of Japanese Chamber of Commerce Northern California, I strongly support.

Thank you. Alright. With that, now we'll move on to opposition testimony. You may begin at your convenience. Standing at the mic. Okay.

Good afternoon. Marc from Streets for All. I just wanna acknowledge this is this is not our highest priority bill. We're not gonna roast the Member over this. But I just wanna flag something from the analysis that, you know, the country of Japan drives on the left and has completely different driving laws and just like every other country. And so I just want to acknowledge that fact and have that acknowledged by the legislature. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, giving an opportunity for other members of the public who would like to add on in opposition to this bill. Now would be an appropriate time to come to the mic with name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, we'll move on to Members of the Committee. We have a motion and a second. Any other comments?

Alright. Well, we've had a an opportunity to talk. But California does law requires all foreign residents who establish residency in California to take the behind the wheel examination to get a driver's license. I believe this is a fair rule to ensure driver safety.

I do not support creating a two tier system where residents from some countries have this process waived while others are subject to the rule. I will note in the committee analysis on page three that it's noted that the legislature is not the appropriate body to determine when foreign jurisdictions, excuse me, maintaining driver standards equivalent to California.

And by selecting specific countries for reciprocity via statute, we risk making these determinations based on geopolitical relationships rather than objective safety. There is a process which by DMV can allow reciprocity. And so I support using that process for reciprocity. There was a motion made by Hoover and seconded by Lackey. I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Yes. I understand your concerns, and I respectfully ask you for your aye vote.

Thank you. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 2196, do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay. We'll add... We'll add, we'll leave the roll open for Members to be able to add on. Thank you.

Alright. With that, moving on to, in file item order, let's see, File Item 10, AB 2263, Kalra. You can begin at your convenience.

Thank you, madam chair and members, and I wanna thank the committee and their staff for working with us on this bill, AB 2263—will give the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, also known as VTA, the statutory authority to build affordable housing for their employees. VTA employs an estimated 2,300 employees who manage and operate Santa Clara County's public transportation services.

While VTA workers may be making competitive middle-class wages, they work and hope to live in one of the most expensive housing markets of the nation.

For instance, the median home sale price in 2025 was over $1,600,000 and the median rent in 2025 was $3,400. The high cost of housing has priced many of the VTA workers out of the area, leading them to live outside of the immediate work area or, in many cases, outside of the county, thereby creating long commutes for these workers, which is counter to the transit agency's goals.

AB 2263 will give VTA the authority to build affordable housing for its employees, ensure their work—ensuring their workers can live closer to work, decrease their commutes, reduce driver fatigue, and improve their overall safety for all drivers and pedestrians on the road. With me to provide supporting testimony is the chairperson of the VTA Board of Directors, Sergio Lopez, and Jessica O'Malley-Solis, VTA's Director for Multimodal Planning and Real Estate, to answer any technical questions.

Thank you, Chair Wilson, Vice Chair Davies, and members of this committee. My name is Sergio Lopez. I serve on the Campbell City Council, and I'm here as Chair of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Thank you, Assemblymember Kalra, for authoring AB 2263 and for your steadfast support of VTA and our employees. VTA has a very robust transit-oriented development program.

AB 2263 would enable VTA, as part of this program, to designate a percentage of the housing units that we provide to our community with a preference for our employees. A majority of the housing units proposed under AB 2263 would be open to the general public and would serve a mix of households, including low and moderate-income residents, consistent with VTA's existing transit-oriented communities program.

AB 2263 would help VTA to address workforce retention and commute challenges while still serving our broader community and ensuring compliance with federal and state fair housing principles. With the median rent nearly double the national average in our county, VTA employees are often forced to choose to live in more affordable communities which are farther from their work. One in four VTA employees are commuting more than an hour each way, and 10% are commuting more than two hours each way.

In a survey of employees, 90% indicated interest in employee housing program. By offering opportunities for employees to live close to work, we hope to contribute to their quality of life and allow more opportunities to ride our public transit system, while ensuring the welfare and well-being of our employees. I wanna thank Assemblymember Kalra and this committee for hearing AB 2263 and respectfully urge your approval of this bill.

We actually do have a motion and a second already. Now we have a third. Are we gonna get a fourth? No. It's fine.

Okay. With that, your, your turn.

Good afternoon, chair, committee members. My name is Jessie O'Malley-Solis, and I'm the Director of Multimodal Planning and Real Estate for VTA. I'm here to answer any technical questions you may have regarding TOD, our program, and our employee need for this bill. And we're so thankful for Assemblymember Kalra for authorship, and on behalf of VTA employees, we hope that you support this bill.

Thank you. With that, moving on to members of the public who would like to note their support for this bill. Now would be an appropriate time to come to the mic, giving your name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none. Noting—moving to opposition testimony, we do not have any registered opposition, but if there's a member of the public present who would like to note their opposition, now would be an appropriate time to come forward—name, affiliation, and position.

Seeing none. Moving to members of this committee for questions, comments, concerns. Seeing none. Alright. I appreciate you working with committee staff on amendments to this bill. It would provide an unprecedented explicit authority to construct employee housing that has not been granted to any other transportation agency.

And so, I'm concerned about the necessity of granting new authorities to deliver housing projects, given the fact that you already have the authority, the over 1,400 projects or proposed units in development. This will go to local gov, and I'm looking forward to continuing that conversation next week. I appreciate the amendments that you have taken in Transportation Committee, and we'll be supporting your bill. We have a motion made by Papan and Harabedian—and seconded by Harabedian. I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Again, thank you, Madam Chair, to you and your staff, for working with us on this legislation. Being able to have the opportunity to develop some of the properties of ETA into mixed use opportunities, but in particular, to provide housing for our workforce is of critical importance, and I think this will be an innovative opportunity for us to see how this might be able to be replicated statewide. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Absolutely. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out and we'll hold the roll open for members to add on. Can you say that over the microphone, please?

I would like to be added as a coauthor to the Kalra bill, please.

Okay. With that, moving on in file item order, number 13, AB 2284. You may begin at your convenience.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening. I think we're getting close to evening. Good evening. Good afternoon. And Members of the Committee. AB 2284 is a straightforward bill that requires the Attorney General in partnership with biking nonprofit groups to maintain and publish an online list of e bike products that do not comply with the state's labeling or advertising standards.

There's no such central repository in existence in the state of California. And this bill is I'm proud to have sponsored by bike streets sponsored by Streets For All. It's also received support from the California Orthopedic Association, PeopleForBikes, the City of Carlsbad, the City of Huntington Beach, and the City of San Mateo.

There is no registered opposition to the bill. Some bad faith companies are engaging in false marketing by advertising high powered electric vehicles, such as mopeds, motorcycles, and other devices that exceeds, excuse me, exceeds speed or power thresholds as electric bicycles. These products do not meet the legal definition of an e bike yet are falsely labeled and sold as such.

This deceptive practice misleads consumers, exposes them to unanticipated risks, and undermines public trust. AB 2284 is a common sense measure that will improve rider safety by enabling consumers to easily identify e bike products that do not meet California standards or requirements. Ultimately, this isn't about stopping people from riding e bikes.

I want them to be safe. This measure will provide a useful resource for law enforcement, school districts, and parents when identifying noncompliant or potentially dangerous devices. I have with me today Marc Vukcevich from Streets for All and Bob Mittelstaedt from EbikeAccess who can answer any questions you might have. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Bob Mittelstaedt. I'm a co-founder of EbikeAccess. We advocate for expanded access for legal e bikes, and we are against illegal electric motorcycles. Based on my two years plus working on this issue, I am here to tell you that this bill will be the most consequential bill, the most important bill on solving the e bike, e motorcycle problem if it's enacted, along with AB 1167, which we also support.

And here's why. We all now agree that there's a difference between e bikes, throttle e bikes that cut off at 20 miles per hour, and the electric motorcycles that don't. Most e bikes that are sold with a throttle now can go faster than 20, so they are electric motorcycles and they need registration, driver's license, safety equipment, and so forth.

I wanted to see what the kids were actually riding. So I volunteered with Safe Routes to School, and I went around and counted the bikes and figured out what brands they were. My work is reported in the New York Times, and it forms the basis of part of the Mineta Transportation Institute.

The conclusion that over 80% of what our kids are riding to school with the throttles are illegal motorcycles, not e bikes. The 80... But people tend to call these e bikes even though they're not. You heard testimony earlier about an 80 year old who was killed by a 14 year old on an e bike. Not so. The press release said it was an e motorcycle.

You heard the doctors say that they're seeing motorcycle like injuries. You know why that is? Because the kids are riding motorcycles. So the beauty of this bill is the challenge that the law enforcement have on the street and the schools have on the street is how do you tell the difference. What this bill does is it helps the police tell the difference by coming up with a list of the brands. It's just like if there was...

We'll have to have you wrap up your testimony.

Okay. If there was contaminated baby food on the shelf, we would tell the public who's manufacturing that, and that's what this bill does. Thank you.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee. Marc Vukcevich with Streets for All. Across California, schools, parents, and local PD are dealing with dealing with this growing problem and confusion about these electric two wheel devices that are shaped or look like e bikes or called e bikes and are marketed and even perceived as e bikes, but they don't actually fit California's legal definition of e bikes.

And the problem is these devices are incredibly dangerous. I'm looking at here, I did not have time to share this with the committee. I think I handed some to your offices. I'm looking at here a device that my boss went into at a middle school last week. And this device, for all intents and purposes, looks like a dirt bike. It's labeled as being 1,200 pounds, and it is at a middle school right now.

And yet our schools, I talk to schools all the time, and they don't know what the heck is on their campus. They are lost as to what's on their campus because they can't, like a lawyer, understand the three classes of e bikes and the wattage changes and all of the things that the legislature is doing. And good changes, by the way, the legislature is doing.

And so you have these devices that parents are buying that are they think is a is a device for a child and yet is not legal, is exceedingly dangerous, and brands that are sold at I'm looking at this one sold at Costco that a colleague shared with me the other day. Or this device sold with the brand Segway that they think is appropriate for their child, but is not.

And so this idea the bill idea here is let's give the lawyers at the Attorney General's Office let's have them write a list so that local law enforcement and school districts can say, hey. What the heck is this in front of me? Because I can't identify this in the field if it's at night, or I can't identify this at all because I'm not an attorney. I don't understand what is an e bike, what isn't an e bike, because I'm a school administrator, and I do school policy.

And that's the purpose of this bill is to help our locals with something that they are struggling with. They're struggling every single day to identify what the heck a child is riding. But not just children, but especially and most dangerously and most worrisome children are riding. So we think this is a modest bill, and we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon. Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the Cities of Carlsbad and San Mateo in support.

Good evening. Jeanie Ward-Waller on behalf of PeopleForBikes and CalBike. I've also been asked to add on for San Diego 350, 350 Bay Area Action, and the Environmental Protection Information Center in support.

Ryan Spencer with the California Orthopedic Association in support.

Brett Thurber and for The New Wheel Electric Bikes in support.

Richard Tidd from Daly City, e bike rider, support.

Bobby Napoli, Gazelle Bicycles, in support.

Matt Robinson with the California Medical Association in support.

Kyle Chittock, Area 13 Ebikes, support.

Ed Merrill, San Francisco senior in support. Strong support.

Thank you. Now moving on to opposition. None was registered. So now would be appropriate time if there's any members of the public who would like to note their opposition to come to the microphone and give your name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none. Moving to Members of the Committee. Aguiar-Curry.

I was just looking through the bill. I wanna apologize. I didn't see, has there been consultation with the Attorney General's Office yet?

No, Assembly Member. We initially introduced this bill as being a CHP mandate, and we talked to CHP and we understood that they had issues. So we made it an Attorney General mandate. We haven't had a chance to talk to them.

But they just released a press release, a very comprehensive press release as of, I think, Tuesday of last week, urging and identifying this as a rampant problem for consumers and parents to be aware of, and we've reached out since.

And I also would mention that in my community interactions with all of our local law enforcement, they can't, just as the witnesses said, they cannot identify these bikes. They say they want a central repository, an official place where law enforcement can go to check the efficacy, the legitimacy of these bicycles.

So when the Highway Patrol wanted to do it, they actually supported it, but they felt they didn't have the wherewithal to do it. But it was the Attorney General was a likely repository.

And if I could just add very quickly, the committee analysis recommends that the Attorney General be encouraged to investigate and to prosecute these companies. This preparing a list of the illegal ones would be a first step that they presumably are undertaking already. So this would go hand in hand with that approach.

I don't believe that would be an accurate statement as a first step. But I'll note, seeing no other Committee Members. So the issue, and the author and I have had a chance to talk about this with hopes to figure out a way a pathway forward. Is tasking the Attorney General with maintaining a list of commonly perceived e bikes that are actually illegal creates a never ending task.

A list that is not updated weekly becomes obsolete immediately, leading to a scenario where the state is effectively providing outdated or incorrect legal guidance to the public. If the Attorney General fails to update the list to reflect new software patches or hardware modifications that bring a once illegal bike into compliance, riders face an immediate risk of having their property seized.

In an enforcement scenario, if a bike's model name is on the AG's blacklist, but the owner has legally modified it to meet class one or class two standards, law enforcement is likely to default to the state's official list. Even if the owner is allowed to do it because they have gotten appropriate licenses, which you can do.

You can get additional licenses to be able to ride bikes that are e bikes that are considered legal if you don't have those licenses. It's noted in the analysis. And so without a real time list of legal bikes, compliant cyclists could have their bikes towed based on an administrative error rather than a mechanical reality. And as I've talked to with the author, I believe there is a better approach.

There's two opportunities to engage the Attorney General, which note that Attorney General's Office hasn't been engaged on this bill as of yet. Is for one, the bicycle organizations and the public to help the Attorney General's Office and city attorneys identify devices that are falsely advertised or falsely advertising themselves of as electric bicycles and use the existing law to bring false advertising claims against those companies to stop them from entering the market.

Secondly, the AG has a voluntary, voluntary not by law, bulletin program about issues in the community. Being able to call on the AG when they're seeing consistent problems with particular bikes entering the market that are absolutely illegal and kids shouldn't be riding them, being able to then do those types of bulletins to the community.

And the suggestion was us as a committee writing a letter to the AG noting those two avenues that the AG has the authority to do already and doesn't need a new law. I encourage you to go on that route. And, because of that encouragement and the issues involving the AG's office without any type of technical assistance.

Given the fact that when it was given to the CHP, the technical assistance they provided said it wasn't able to be done with their resources. And I would I would, estimate that the AG significantly, I mean, and similarly do not have those resources, so I won't be able to support your bill today. Looking for a motion from the committee.

I haven't heard one yet, But actually, oh, there we go. I was gonna say you can actually close without a motion. But I have it from Vice Chair Davies and seconded by Assembly Member Lackey. I got you. I got you. To the author, opportunity to close.

Thank you very much. I certainly respectfully request an aye vote. And I enjoyed our conversation last week and talking about it and your recommendation about a letter. I've looked into the letter with a number of law enforcement people and their position is those letters are not on a regular basis from the Attorney General's Office of bulletins.

And it's not the same as a website that would have illustrations of the bikes that are permissible. So it's just in terms of being effective in the in the information, the distribution of information of what is legal and what is not legal.

In fact, right now in Orange County, there's a case going on where a parent bought a bike, a class 3 bike for his child who's now in the hospital in critical condition. And if a parent is going to buy, make that purchase, or a friend or a parent, they need there needs to be a place to go, a central repository. No one's going to know to look up the Attorney General's bulletins. Very few people know that's an outlet.

But just like the gentleman said, there if you know that something is being marketed and it's illegal and the law enforcement's involved or the Department of Justice is involved, people. We through communication, and this is what these folks will do is communicate the availability of such information.

My belief is that, while I appreciate there may be something a little bit different approach, but we are at such a crisis. Just this weekend, a young boy injured and critically injured an 84 year old man in my district in Lake Forest.

These accidents, we all are reading these news reports every single week, but parents do not have a place to go to say, is this legal? And the stores will not tell them. They are the store, some nefarious stores are selling bikes that are clearly not legal.

So I'm just trying to help parents be safe in our communities. We hear this all over. I'm sure we all hear this. So long winded answer, I truly respect your point of view. I'm just trying to move this a little bit forward to keep our communities safe, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much.