Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

The Senate transportation, transportation committee will come to order. Good afternoon and welcome. We have nine measures on today's agenda. First, a few housekeeping rules items. We're going to allow two primary witnesses for each for support and opposition.

Each witness will have two minutes. An additional witnesses will ask to limit yourselves to name, affiliation, and your position on the bill. We'll be hearing the bills in agenda and file order, and we'll be entertaining motions on bills at the appropriate time once we have a quorum established. We have one measure proposed for consent today, item number three, SB 1213 by Reyes. And, with that, I see Senator Cabaldon is in here. Please come forward, and thank you for being here. It's a busy day.

Yes. Thank you

so much, mister chair. And so we're gonna start at item number two. Is that okay, Senator?

That's 1087? 1087. Okay.

For the audience, we're on file item number two, SB 1087. Mister Cabaldon, you may open.

Thank you so much, mister chair. SB 1087 is an effort to recast and modernize California's landmark climate and transportation planning law so that it actually achieves its goals and does so efficiently on the ground in communities across the state. It is a modernization program for SB 375. SB 375 was passed nearly eighteen years ago now.

I'm particularly familiar with it because SB 375 was a statewide policy modeled after what happened in the Sacramento region through the Blueprint for the Future project.

And I was the chair of the Sacramento Region MPO that delivered that project and testified in this very building in support of SB 375 the first time around. SB 375's promise was immense: that we could, by integrating land use planning, transportation planning, and investments, ultimately housing investments as well, reduce congestion, improve mobility, support housing development and economic development, battle air pollution, and also advance our climate goals.

And the regional scale contributions to climate emissions are substantial. So this was the promise of SB 375, and for the first time, it meant bringing all of these topics together and doing it at the regional scale, because none of those issues respect our individual city borders. That was the promise.

It has in many ways achieved several of its goals, and it has become a foundation for many other state policies as well that require conformity with the main document that the SB 375 process produces, which is the Sustainable Communities Strategy or the Alternative Planning Scenario associated with the federally mandated regional transportation plan.

So what we built is a system where the regions are working hard, and local governments and stakeholders at the regional scale are building, and have built, plans to accomplish this. It turns out to be hard work, and not as simple or as easy as we had anticipated. Many other forces are at play, but also other things have changed since SB 375 was passed in terms of the overall economy.

Also, the state of California's commitment to building housing everywhere, which isn't exactly the same frame as SB 375, which was let's build housing in particular parts of the state.

And so the regions have had to harmonize, maybe not conflicting, but not always consonant state policies together. And they have to do it with a lot of effort, and so they're required to produce these regional plans, which are full scope: transportation, land use, climate, air pollution, and housing, every four years at the regional scale. They are immense efforts. I've participated in, I think, six of these twenty five year plans. They are immense efforts.

San Diego has said they've spent $42,000,000 on their last one. $42,000,000 on the planning process, the outreach, and everything else. It doesn't need to be that expensive. It doesn't need to be that involved, especially given that we're not achieving the objectives in terms of actual reductions in emissions. So what SB 1087 seeks to do is to modernize the system in order to accomplish two things.

One is to make it more efficient, so we are not constantly planning and spending money. I was just, Senator Blakespear was probably just referring to your comments about the $42,000,000 that SANDAG spends on these processes. And so we can do that more efficiently, but also so that we can do it more effectively towards accomplishing the goals that we set out to do, which we have made progress on but nowhere near enough.

And so the bill accomplishes this in its current form in a couple of ways. One is to say that those regional plans need to be produced every eight years instead of every four, with a significant progress checkpoint in the middle.

And so that's sort of foundational to making sure that we're doing them right rather than doing them daily. Second, it seeks to address some of the challenges of the execution and implementation, the conflicts between the regions and CARB, which is responsible for setting the climate targets, what have you. There have been disputes and disagreements both about the concept, but largely about, well, you know, when are you getting back to us?

How did you actually come up with this target? How do we model this?

And so the frame of the bill today that you have before you is really focused on these areas from the perspectives of the regional governments, the metropolitan planning organizations, like SANDAG or SCAG. How can we make this system work more efficiently and more effectively achieve those outcomes? That said, what's before us is that lens on this issue.

But what we are attempting to do, with a group of all the stakeholders across the environmental groups, environmental justice groups, housing groups, transportation and construction groups, the metropolitan planning organizations themselves, cities and counties separately from those groups, and others, is to construct a comprehensive modernization of this project that recognizes that many stakeholders are experiencing challenges or disappointments with the SB 375 process, and maybe we can try to solve them together.

The committee analysis reminded me how much of an impossible task this is. I think, with the exception of one reporting requirement in 2019, every single piece of legislation relating to SB 375 noted in the analysis, all of them for the last eight years, they've all failed.

They've all died. So even small changes to SB 375 have been a challenge to achieve.

Our hope is that this year, by trying to not just triangulate the interests, but really figure out how to advance the interests that transportation builders, housing builders, environmentalists, climate advocates, and the cities and counties and regions themselves are advocating, we will be able to achieve a consensus about a bold modernization that will make sure that SB 375 delivers on its promise and does so in a way that's effective.

So with that, I would certainly respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 1087. To testify in support of the bill, first is Kome Ajise, the executive director of the Southern California Association of Governments, and he'll be followed by Julie Snyder, the principal legislative advocate of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senators. Kome Ajise, with the Southern California Association of Governments. SCAG, we are the MPO for the Southern California region. Thank you for allowing me to be here with you today in strong support of this critical bill.

But if you would permit me, I would like to also thank Senator Cabaldon for taking the lead on this. He, of any, has a very rich background in regional governance and regional planning, and so his experience in this is invaluable. As already stated, SB 375 directs MPOs to develop sustainable communities strategies to meet CARB's greenhouse gas target reductions by 2020 and 2035.

While the law strengthened coordination very well between housing, land use, and transportation, major changes since its adoption, from near zero emission vehicle mandates, to the pandemic and the issues that came out of the pandemic, we've seen significant weaknesses in its effectiveness.

Meanwhile, state policies have continued to expand without sufficient alignment of state policies. As an MPO, SCAG is tasked with preparing SCSs, and we've done this since the inception of SB 375. And so we know the process very intimately. Our most recent SCS, which was adopted in 2024, took about four years to get to. We spent about $20,000,000 on that and another $40,000,000 on the companion RTP, so a $60,000,000 endeavor on that effort.

After submitting the SCS to the California Air Resources Board, a substantial amount of staff time was still required to go back and forth and produce supplemental documentation that was required. As a result of that, it took us about three hundred and nine days to get approval. And so the distance between planning and implementation basically was gone. So the collaboration that has occurred as a result of Senator Cabaldon's leadership, I think, is intended to really reform the process. So I want to thank you for the opportunity and would respectfully ask for a yes vote on this bill. Thank you.

Thanks for being here. Next witness, two minutes. Thank you.

Mister chair and members, Julie Snyder with MTC/ABAG. We're pleased to be one of the bill's four cosponsors. I want to start by noting that amendments taken in Senate Environmental Quality Committee at chair Blakespear's request strengthen the environmental impact of the bill by adding a 2045 GHG target. This was sought by stakeholders and aligns the SCS with the state scoping plan. The committee also shifted back to the Air Resources Board

most of the responsibilities that the bill had assigned to the California Transportation Commission, with one exception. The bill continues to leverage the commission's current role promulgating guidelines for the regional transportation plan, including travel demand models, by requiring the commission to incorporate the SCS guidelines into those overall RTP guidelines. We believe a single set of guidelines will really facilitate our ability to coordinate and meet the full range of statutory obligations.

SB 1087 also begins to address one of the major challenges to achieving our climate and mobility goals as noted in the analysis, that is inadequate and disjointed funding. The bill aligns two key state programs more closely with the SCS.

It prioritizes Solutions for Congested Corridors funding for the near term projects that will help regions meet their GHG targets. It also ensures that SHOPP, or the State Highway Operation and Protection Program, funds projects more consistently in terms of their scope and their timelines with the SCS. So from across the group of stakeholders that the Senator mentioned, in our now going on seven month stakeholder discussions, we've heard a consistent message:

that regions should devote more time to programs and to projects that reduce GHG, improve housing affordability, and provide mobility options. SB 1087 will drive this change, and that's why we are thrilled to be cosponsoring it.

We respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon, chair and members. Chris Lee here on behalf of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, a proud cosponsor in support, and also on behalf of the Sonoma County Transportation and Climate Authority in support.

Thanks for being here.

Mario Orso, CEO of SANDAG, and cosponsor in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Vincenzo Caparelli here on behalf of California Association of Councils of Governments in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Han Kang from the city of San Jose, and we're in support of the bill as well.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jordan Grimes with Greenbelt Alliance. We have a support if amended position and align ourselves with other environmental organizations, but are deeply appreciative of all the work the Senator has done and that the MPOs are doing, and we look forward to continuing those conversations.

Thank you.

Doctor Pam O'Dell, Climate Action California, in support.

Thank you. Witnesses in opposition? Go ahead. You can go right here.

Go right here. Thank you. You'll both have two minutes each. Who would like to open?

Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Sofia Rafikova. I'm a policy advocate with the Coalition for Clean Air. We have an oppose unless amended position on SB 1087, as we are concerned this bill would lessen the intent of SB 375 and would no longer hold agencies accountable to meeting their regional climate targets. While recent amendments have clarified, the CTC no longer has the authority to approve SCS plans,

under SB 1087, they would still be tasked with updating the SCS guidelines. CTC does not have the same technical expertise that CARB has and isn't bound by the scoping plan to the same level of commitment in reducing climate emissions. With CTC's track record of approving polluting projects, we're concerned that giving authority to CTC would further slow down progress on complying with SB 32.

SB 1087 would also allow agencies to still access SB 1 funding even if they can no longer demonstrate how they will reach their climate targets and have to submit an APS. Despite state efforts, both TCEP and SCCP programs still generate a net increase in VMT through the projects they fund.

Though SB 1087 states that only GHG reducing projects may be funded, our own analysis shows that highway expansion projects are often flagged as reducing GHG emissions because environmental analysis fails to account for induced demand. Similarly, 1087 would require GHG targets to include all on road transportation sectors, including progress made on zero emission vehicles. Our state already has many regulations and funding programs that encourage the transition to zero emission, and CARB already tracks how those programs reduce GHG emissions.

With SB 375 remaining as one of the few regulations focused on reducing VMT, having targets also consider ZEVs would dilute its focus and make it harder to meet climate targets. And finally, recent amendments have created a blanket exemption from CEQA for the SCS planning process, meaning that local agencies would not be required to engage with and incorporate feedback from members of the region in developing SCS plans.

Ten seconds.

We're committed to working with the author to address these concerns through the stakeholder process, but urge you not to pass this bill without additional steps to ensure the regions do their utmost to reduce climate emissions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Cassie Gilson with Axiom Advisors on behalf of the California Building Industry Association in the oppose unless amended position. I want to thank the author and his staff and the sponsors for their early outreach and continued vigorous engagement with us. It's really appreciated, and we look forward to the continued discussion should the bill pass out today. We don't dispute the premise of the bill: after close to two decades,

it's prudent to examine what is working in SB 375 and what isn't. And for context, CBIA was one of the infamous coalition of the impossible that supported the original passage of SB 375. So it's not an inherent objection. And there are several components of the bill that make a lot of sense: going from four year to eight year cycles and ensuring greater transparency with the methodology that CARB is using to set the regional targets are all common sense measures included in the bill.

But the consequences of revamping wrong can be really catastrophic for housing.

And with that in mind, I just want to flag two of the primary concerns for CBIA. The first is with regards to vehicle miles traveled. It's really important that the COGs, in implementing their statutory mandate here, focus on greenhouse gas reductions and that there is not a focus on VMT being used as a proxy for environmental benefits.

GHG reductions is appropriately the statutory mandate here, and we would like to work with the author going forward to ensure that there isn't an unrelated focus on VMT that isn't tied directly to GHG reduction. The second issue is that if additional monies are to be granted to the COGs, it must be with the explicit prohibition that they not be used to promote

Ten seconds.

Yeah, to promote policies like rent control or zoning, or affordable housing, that aren't the appropriate mandate of SB 375. Thank you.

Thanks for being here. Other witnesses in opposition for identification purposes?

Good afternoon, vice chair and Senator Blakespear. Jeanne Wardwaller on behalf of Climate Plan, NRDC, and the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability. With deep respect to the author, we are in a tweener position still. We've submitted a letter of concern to the committee. We still have a few significant concerns and also some recommendations to strengthen implementation of the SCSs.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, senators. Matthew Baker with Planning and Conservation League. We were signatories to the same letter of concern, but we thank the author for his leadership on this issue and his willingness to work with stakeholders. We're committed to seeing that process through. We think it's headed in the right direction.

Thank you.

Got it for you, vice chair and members. Mark Vukovich on behalf of Streets for All, also a signatory to that letter, but we really appreciate the stakeholder engagement process and appreciate the amendments that were taken in Senate EQ.

Thank you. Back to the committee. Senator Blakespear.

Yes. Thank you. Well, I appreciate the author for bringing this forward. This is an enormously complex topic. As was mentioned by the author, there are so many bills that have attempted to make changes that have been unsuccessful.

So I appreciate you digging into this. I think it is a real problem when our governmental agencies are spending $40,000,000 and $60,000,000 on rounds and layers of planning that we are then, by nature, not spending on implementing. So it is really an urgent problem. I just wanted to make a couple of comments about what the opposition said.

So one is, I'll lend my support to the idea that these should not be hijacked for other uses like rent control or other social engineering type of things.

So I hope that's not something that is going to be happening. I don't perceive it's currently in the bill. I wanted to give the author a chance to respond to that.

It's not currently in the bill. It's not in the bill, period. There has been an issue raised in our stakeholder conversations specifically about MTC/ABAG and the Bay Area's plan, which I'll be honest, I had heard nothing about. I still don't know much about that. So the issue has been raised about what region's scope of authority should be in their plans.

So that's now one of the 4,000 issues that's on the table, but it's not authorized in the bill. It's not blessed in the bill in any way.

Right. Well, if there's a need to clarify that this is actually related to GHG emissions and transportation planning and not a whole bunch of other things, I'd be supportive of that. The other thing is this issue around VMT, having been the chair of SANDAG and gone through the regional planning process, which we actually rarely refer to as SCSs. That wasn't the nomenclature we used. We more referred to it as the regional plan, the regional plan update.

And the disconnect between that and the housing element process, which I also went through as the mayor of my city, of figuring out how to get compliant with housing element law as it changed, and not referring back to the SCS or the regional plan really much at all. I'm having a hard time reconciling the opposition's statement, and maybe Miss Gilson, if she wanted to say a little more about that, but I was going to ask the author to address it.

But the question of VMT relates to the density that cities need to add because of the housing element update. I'm just not really seeing that connection. So maybe if you could just elucidate that a bit.

The issue with VMT is that it's layered on top of GHG. Right? So in the context here, COGs are given a target by CARB to reduce their GHG. We want them to focus on GHG. What we're seeing more and more is that folks are going after VMT reductions without the clear corresponding, oh, this is the GHG reduction we need.

And the fact that, I think this comes out of a larger VMT conversation that we're having in the legislature, which is, why are we talking about VMT disconnected from greenhouse gas emissions reductions? And the cost per door to new homes of this conversation around VMT is quite significant, in the 15 to, some argue, hundreds of thousands of dollars per door impact. And so I think that's why you see CBIA with such a sort of visceral reaction to this.

And I appreciate the author's comment that this ought to be focused on GHG, and then also very much appreciate the focus, to your comment, on the planning purposes for which 375 was originally conceived. And that's, I think, why we're hopeful, continuing to work with stakeholders, that we will be able to get there. But the costs of the VMT being disconnected are really quite significant.

Right. Okay. Thank you. And thank you, through the chair, I'm just going to ask the author.

Do you have any response to that concern or issue? Or

This is probably one of the top, maybe the top three issues in the stakeholder conversations. Of all of the individual issues, it's the hardest one to crack, because there are folks who feel strongly in both directions. VMT instead of GHG, GHG instead of VMT, some both. So if we fall down on this, that is likely to be the contributor.

So I don't have a personal point of view about it at this point. Just trying to help folks sort this out. But it is a critical issue for all the reasons that have been said about its impact on climate, and also its impact on our ability to achieve the other goals that are also in the regional transportation plans.

Okay. Thank you. And then my last comment is, I made this comment in the environmental quality committee, but I just want to make sure to say it here too, that it's really important that the bill not get bogged down with so much obligation around the four year update, that moving it to an eight year planning cycle effectively doesn't change things, because the four year update is so onerous and extensive that you're basically doing the same thing as you're already doing.

So I just want to make sure that I say that I support keeping that to a minimum so that we're able to see the savings that we were hoping for with this bill in time and energy and money. Thank you.

So, Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, mister Chair, and thank you also to the other members of the committee for both the leadership on this issue over time, but also surfacing all of the key questions.

Look, this is a challenging process, but we're trying to put together a multi stakeholder comprehensive agreement on the major reforms that are needed in order for SB 375 to work and to cost less in both cash and in time and in litigation and everything else. That's really the purpose here. I mean, you know the challenge as well as I do.

If every stakeholder group that has 10 items is insistent on getting all 10 items or nothing, then we will not get much further on this legislation. We're trying to figure out what are the absolute essential elements that folks are concerned about, but also things that they really want to see happen, some of which will be bills that have failed over and over and over again in the legislature. So I think what's in the bill today is a useful start in this effort. It is really driven by the MPOs' needs, but they are the closest to it.

So that's no surprise in the case that they're making about how inefficient the system can be, how mind boggling, as executive director Ajise was saying, to spend four years making a plan that you have to do every four years and then waiting three hundred days to get it through the state approval process.

I mean, it's worse than painting the Golden Gate Bridge. Right? You're still, you have to start over again before you're even done. You're a year still working, trying to get the prior plan done. So it just doesn't make sense.

We cannot, and you can disagree about the original SB 375 goals and what have you, but if we're in this now, we want to make sure it's efficient, it's effective, so that we can achieve the climate goals that we're trying to achieve. Also, the other housing and community goals that SCSs and MTPs and everything else are intended to accomplish, but do it in a way that's efficient, and that's going to accomplish it.

I mean, I just highlight also the CEQA exemption piece that was heavily surfaced in the EQ committee. And this was not my position when we started the bill, but the EQ committee pointed out that no one has ever used a RTP/SCS CEQA document to tier off of.

No one's ever used it further down the line to say, hey, I don't have to do as much environmental analysis on this project because it was all done in the SCS. No one has done that. So it's not working.

It's not contributing. All these projects, the individual projects, the general plans, everything else will continue to be subject to CEQA as is appropriate, but the regional document itself doesn't contribute to the revelations that should come through the CEQA process, and it's just an unnecessary expense.

And so with that, I appreciate, hopefully, the committee's indulgence to let us keep trying to advance the goals that all of the stakeholders, supporters, and opponents have articulated today. And so I'd respectfully ask for an aye vote, and perhaps say wish me luck.

We'll we'll bring that up once we have a quorum moving forward. Senator, you have a second item, file item number two SB 1315. Would you like to open on that on that bill?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair. I didn't press anything.

Thank you, Mister Chair. So SB 1315, is an attempt to start to build the the data and the information that we need to be to have a more thoughtful, comprehensive response to, not autonomous vehicles where we have the legislature and DMV have spent a lot of effort. But in the space in between, the the autonomous features that are available on cars that are intended to be driven by humans. We do have regulations in this space as well, but not not nearly as much.

And and some of the preliminary evidence shows this is actually the most the most problematic area for safety. I mean, there's areas both human drivers and autonomous vehicles also less of a problems for safety, but one particular one is in this space.

And and there's also been some moves by several of the autonomous vehicle, the the car companies that are in the space, signals, about where they're intending to go and using insurance policies and other things in order to move more and more people towards a sub a subscription based semi autonomous driving feature. So this bill doesn't tackle all of that. Our original vision was to try to take some of that on directly. Some of the challenges are are emergent though.

You know, we're it it's clear that stuff is coming and potential threats to to the ability of California's to drive cars that they bought that were human driver human driven cars when they purchased them.

We're trying to get ahead of that issue, but this is the the bill is a modest attempt now to simply make sure that we start to build the information infrastructure to do that. And so it merely requires manufacturers when they push out software updates in this space of semi autonomous vehicles that they provide that report to the insurance commissioner, which we will then be able to use over time in order to make smarter policies here as well.

So now it's a modest bill, in that respect, but it but the looming the potential of an instant change in California as a result of semi autonomous features, plus tort law, plus insurance policies, potentially inducing a wholesale change in our right to drive our own vehicles that we purchase to drive as human beings. The potential is there, and it's been described as an infinite money glitch by at least one of the car company's owners.

And so this bill doesn't stop it, but it starts to build the the tools and the and the data for us to be able to be responsive.

And so I would urge an aye vote.

Okay. Do you have witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? See none. So, we'll, once we get a quorum, we'll bring that up.

Thank you, Senator, for both the measures. Thanks for being here. Members, we have, Senator McNerney is let's see. He's in the crowd right there. And that's file number 4SB1275.

You said it front?

Yeah. I know. I would love to have you there. Thank you, Senator, for being here. You may open when you're ready.

Well, good afternoon, vice chair Strickland and distinguished member of the committee. It's my pleasure here today to present, SBL1275. The point of 1275 is to send is to save taxpayers California taxpayers money and to send less money to Washington DC in one fell swoop. It's an innovative approach, and it attacks a a significant problem. As you may know, California is a donor state.

We spend much more money to the settle Federal Government than we get in return. One number is that last year, we spent we, we received about $25,000,000,000, less, and then we then we paid into the Federal Government of taxes. That's the largest imbalance in the nation, and, this is an incentive when taxpayers buy a new car.

Basically, what SB 1275 does is it eliminates the, general fund portion of the state sales tax and of of motor motor vehicles is the five year bill with a one time addition to the vehicle license fee. Now, the, the sales tax portion is, is not federally tax deductible, So you're gonna pay a tax on that, and you're not gonna get a deduction.

But the registration fee, the one time registration fee is federally tax deductible. So California buyers will get a tax deduction when they buy a new car, and it could amount to thousands of dollars. So I think this is a a one time deal when you buy a new car, and it will save of it will reduce the federal tax burden by about $250,000,000 annually. That's the estimate on it. So that's a very simple way to describe what I'm trying to do here.

With us today, I have a technical wisis witness, Chaz Alamo. He's a legislative analyst for the law of of for the LAO, and he will provide brief comments and ask for questions. He is not opposed or in favor of the bill, but just a technical witness. And with that, I will turn it back to the chair.

But would you like to you're just here to answer questions? Or

I'm happy to introduce myself and and sort of the premise of the the bill idea if that's okay.

Okay. Yes.

Thank you. Again, my name is Chaz Alamo. I'm the income tax analyst at the legislative analyst office. Thank you for having me, committee chair and member. Senator McNerney reached out to our office for some counsel and ideas last fall about ways to address the affordability challenge facing Californians.

But within the federal tax space, if you will. And so that's why I got called in, because I do tax policy. As you may know, federal tax law allows tax filers to deduct either their state income and property taxes, or their state sales taxes. Most California filers deduct their income and property taxes, because they tend to be higher here in California.

And so our office sought to find an area where you have a large one time purchase, that we currently that taxpayers currently owe a sales tax on, but we could in a feasible and sort of seamless way for the taxpayer transition that sales tax to instead be an ad valorem property tax in the form of the VLF.

The best example of one of these opportunities is when someone purchases a newer used vehicle. It's a large purchase. The dealers are managing the tax transaction both for sales and VLF at the time of purchase. And in many ways, under this tax policy changes proposed, the buyer may not even notice a difference. Except when they are filing their taxes in the next year, if they are an itemizer, they will be able to deduct an additional amount of this additional VLF from their federal income taxes.

As a bit of an example, because this is sort of abstract, the average car now in the state sells for about $50,000. And so the state's general fund portion sales tax on that purchase is $2,000. Under SB 1275, the taxpayer would instead pay an additional VLF of $2,000 instead of the sales tax. And then they'd be able to deduct if they itemize that $2,000 from their federal income taxes. Most filers who are in this this sort of itemizing gap

Ten seconds. Ten seconds.

Of course. Are subject to a federal income tax rate of about 25%. So that's a $500 savings on their federal income taxes for those filers. Happy to take any questions.

Thanks so much for being here. I really appreciate it. Any witnesses in support for identification purposes? Any witnesses in opposition? Back to the committee?

Yes. This is a novel idea, and it's quite creative, and I applaud you for coming up with it. So I'm curious to see how it goes as it moves through the process, if there are any problems that emerge that we haven't thought of. But I'm looking forward to supporting it, and we'll make a motion when it gets to it.

Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. Thank the committee for for entertaining the bill. As chair of revenue and tax, I wanna find ways to send less money to Washington. I reached out to the LAO.

They responded with this idea, and so we we went with it. I think it's a a great way to save taxpayers money and to send a little bit less to Washington.

Well, thank you. Once we have a quorum, we'll bring it up. Thank you, Senator, for being here. Thank you.

Well, thank you. Once we have a quorum, we'll bring it up. Thank you, Senator, for being here. Thank you.

For the audience, we're gonna bring up the chairman's Bill, file item number nine, SB 1392, by the chairman Cortese.

Chairman, you can open when you're ready. Okay. Have a seat right here if you want. Thank you for being here.

Anytime for you. You know, just letting us take this out of the order. So Sure. I hear you. Done.

Alright. Thank you, mister chairman. Appreciate, the presentation opportunity on SB 1392, otherwise known as Leno's law. We feel it's common sense update to the existing smog exemption statute. Last year, this committee heard SB 712, the original Leno's law bill, proposing to exempt a small group of vehicles from smog requirements.

And I do wanna indicate, not sure it was at the top of my speaking points, but, once again, this is a joint authored bill. Although I'm the lead author, it's, joint authored by, Center Grove as well. That said, here we are. And SB 1392 is a narrowly tailored version of last year's bill, making eligible small fraction of cars, the total fleet of cars out there on the road.

The cars must be used principally for historic display charities and parades and cannot be daily drivers.

As a car guy myself, I've been firsthand seen firsthand how the current emissions mandates impact people who maintain renovated vintage vehicles, from screening tools that can't gauge emissions, to a lack of facilities and professionals, to lack of parts that are available, for cars in the years that we're talking about here with the exemptions. California's smog exemption for the oldest vehicles, which is 1975 and older, currently has not been meaningfully updated in nearly two decades. Actually, I think that's twenty two years to be exact.

Haven't looked it up earlier today. In that time, the vehicles that sit just outside that threshold of 1975 have kept aging into a new reality.

Not only are they aging out through permanent retirement, no longer in California's fleet. I mean, obviously, this is a diminishing number of vehicles over time. But the ones that are around are 40 or 50 years old. And and that means the ones that we're talking about here today for potential exemption. These are vintage vehicles in every meaningful sense.

The cars this bill would impact are typically show cars. They've been meticulously renovated and minimally driven for the sake of historic preservation, and yet the law doesn't treat them that way. They're not daily drivers. They're carefully maintained and often driven just a few 100 miles a year and used for shows, parades, charitable events, and exhibitions. The Bureau of Automotive Repair confirms that mid nineteen seventies through mid nineteen nineties vehicles account for fewer than 600,000 of California's 35,000,000 registered vehicles.

I realize that data point includes a whole bunch of vehicles that aren't covered by this bill, so I don't wanna confuse matters. This bill is is trying to add or create an exemption that's similar to the '75 and earlier exemption for a maximum of ten years. So we're talking about through '85 if you add everything up that's in this bill, definitely pre nineteen nineties. So so it's a smaller even smaller fraction of the total number of vehicles that are out there.

We have 35,000,000 registered vehicles in California.

So to put it in perspective, SB 1392, addresses, very little of that, but an important part of it for folks who are dealing with these vehicles. The emissions impact is minimal. Valley Clean Air Now, an organization focused on the San Joaquin Valley, one of the most pollution burden regions in the country supports this bill.

They know that roughly 3% of California's cars produce approximately 35% of light duty vehicle emissions, And those are high mileage malfunctioning daily drivers, not collector cars, saved for display or modified, to operate more cleanly. The infrastructure to test and repair these vehicles is disappearing.

Fewer smog stations maintain the equipment to test late nineteen seventies and early nineteen eighties systems. Parts from defunct manufacturers like American Motors and Olson Bill are no longer available. Ironically, the current smog requirement prevents stores from installing cleaner aftermarket equipment that would actually reduce emissions. Because if you do that, you're not gonna get a smog check. At least you're not gonna get a pass.

SB 1392 provides a tailored exemption for vehicles that are at least 41 model years old and meet the statutory definition of a collector vehicle. It includes meaningful safeguards, including a prohibition on use as their primary transportation and a requirement that the vehicles are used primarily for shows, parades, and historic displays. It's an adjustment that aligns the law with the actual use and impact these days of this particular class of vehicle. And I want to be transparent.

The bill will be a work in progress to some extent.

It was last year. That's how we got to this more narrowed point this year. And my goal is to just make the laws clear and simple and easy to follow for enthusiasts while ensuring that the law includes the right guardrails. I think we can have environmentally sound policies, that are also policies that, allow average Californians, who do this kind of of work and collect these kind of cars, you know, to live with a scheme that actually works for them.

So we'll try to strengthen the verification framework going forward.

We'll try to ensure that compliance is very straightforward and make sure the exemptions are not misused. Those of us who have listened carefully to DMV and any number of hearings, including informational hearings, know that it's significant for them to when we create programs that cause them to have to go back into standing up a program, for lack of a better way to put it.

And so we've narrowed this down to the point where having their algorithm stop sending the small renewal notices out, especially in this first five year tranche, it should be the simple matter of moving the dial from seventy five five years forward. There's really nothing that people have to fill out or create in terms of this bill. Automotive heritage like this.

Big, big events from Pebble Beach to Pomona, the Petersen Automotive Museum, the Antique Automobile Club of America, Valley Canyon, Monterey County, and the classic car community across the state support this bill. The law hasn't kept pace with the times, and these cars have. I ask for your support for SB1392, and I'd like to introduce our witness, Mike Hennessy with Hennessy Automotive. Actually, we have witnesses. I'm sorry.

And Francine Mata with the Sacramento Lowriders Council. Victor Bunoz of CEMA will be available for technical questions. And I should indicate that mister Hennessy's quite capable of responding to technical questions as he has operated not just as a restorer, but also as a DMV licensed transfer dealer, auctioneer, bidder, and car show enthusiast who's actually won awards for his own NPR style program called The Car Guy, if I remember it properly. And You watch this shit.

Informing people, you know, how to try to navigate some of these rules.

So we're happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. I'll turn it over to witnesses now.

So thank you. I don't know which one of you wants to go first, but two minute sheets.

I don't mind. I'm always ready to talk.

Yeah. Please.

Thank you. But the only thing I do know is I don't think I I lectured a college, on this topic. I won't say I'm an expert at it. Never been an expert really anything too much, but I know this topic pretty well. I talk teach it.

I do a television show. Been in the business for forty something years. And I know by looking at everybody here, I cannot educate you all on this topic. But I do know that there change needs to be done, and I thought Senator Cortesi, he would started it and talked to me about it, threw in my inputs. And There's no doubt that this is a clean bill.

This is the right thing to really do. The cost of these things, if any of you remember, somebody might not have a car or old enough over 50 years old. How often do you see a '70, I mean, an '80 Camaro driving down the street during the week? You don't. These cars are used on weekends, events.

And by the way, if you believe in charity, I would like you to support it in one way. These people bring these cars to charity events so people see them, remember them, and they they pay to be there. And if we take away some of this and the technology in the eighties, I I was promised not to go there, but it was terrible. It was terrible for the technology. So there's people like my shop to smog them.

I mean, we're pulling our hair out. The equipment to smog these vehicles is not updated. The equipment is the manufacturers that make it don't even have equipment good enough to even do it anymore. We're pulling our hair out and trying to get parts for them, like Senator mentioned, like figure American Motors. People remember Rambler, of course.

That's America Road. Started from Nash, and I'm not gonna give you history lesson. But that's how these things started. These companies went out of business, and Oldsmobile drops the ball. So trying to get a part called OEM, which means manufacturer original manufacturer's parts, they're not out there.

And if you gotta get a used part from an auto wrecker, I mean, we're not gonna we're not fixing the smog problem. There's ways to cure it. And I think this is a good program. It's a good bill, and I recommend it highly.

Thank you. Next witness.

Problem. It took me four weeks to get my tags and it's been wild. Good afternoon, chair, committee members. My name is Francine Mata, president and cofounder of the Sacramento Lowrider Commission. Also, cofounder of the California Lowrider Alliance, representing over 28 cities across California.

I'm here on behalf of the Lowrider community. Our community is rooted in family, culture, and community service. Cars. I have I'm actually an owner of two cars. They are built in our garages with our families.

Besides us teaching respect, discipline, and pride, and beyond that, we are a major community contributor. We organize charity events, give back to families in need, mentor young people, partner with schools, and create safe, positive spaces in our communities. Pathway to connection, purpose, and opportunity. It's a form of positive mental health. It's our art on wheels.

And it all each one tells a story. These are not daily drivers. They are used for shows, parades, community events. We just did an exhibit at the California State Fair, record breaking 200,000 attendees. And we will be doing that again this year.

They are preserved with care and driven sparingly. S P thirteen ninety two reflects that reality. It provides a limited responsible pathway for our collector vehicles that represent only a small fraction of cars on the road that are very rarely driven. Becoming harder and harder and more expensive, not because we don't care, but because the systems and parts for these vehicles are disappearing. This bill strikes a balance protecting our environment while preserving culture and community.

We're asking for

One second, Celeste.

I'm asking for fair recognition of a culture that continues to give back to California. And I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Thanks for being here.

Thank you.

Thanks for being here. I understand you're here for technical questions. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you.

Any witnesses in support for identification purposes?

Good afternoon. Tina Teteo from Modesto in support of SB 13902.

Thank you.

Jerry Thompson, Modesto, home of American Graffiti, and and also a member of the California Lowrider Alliance and the Cultural, Lowrider Police Car Project with Modesto High. We're heavily in support of this 1392.

Thanks for being here. Next up.

Good afternoon. My name is Gloria Baca. I support Francie Mattis, my daughter, and I support I support this bill.

Thank you. Thanks for being here. Thank you, mister chair. Matt Robinson, with Shogut, Rantu, Schmelzer, and Lang, I was asked to convey the support of San Joaquin County supervisor Rickman. Thank you.

My name is Colonel Steve Potolos Stockton, and I'm here to, again, support Blenow's Law. I'm leaving each of you an explanation of why I'm supporting this law.

Thank you. Alright. Is there any witnesses in opposition? We'll have to clear a couple of the seats here. Thank you for being here.

Please come have a seat. You'll each get two minutes. You could decide which one goes first.

Thank you, mister chairman. Brendan Twohig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. That's the air pollution control officers from all 35 local air districts. Air Air districts don't administer the smog check program, but we're supporters because it's an equitable way of achieving emissions reductions essential to meeting federal and state health based Clean Air Standards, which is much more difficult now with the federal rollbacks. While we appreciate California's rich automotive history, unfortunately, this bill will substantially increase air pollution and harm public health.

This bill changes the definition of Collector Motor Motor Vehicle, including removing the requirement that you actually be a collector. So a vehicle owner can now qualify for the exemption if they just think to themselves, that the vehicle will be used primarily in shows, parades, charitable functions, and that it will not be used as their primary mode of transportation. With the words primarily and primary and no accountability, it's basically ten years of old cars that would automatically be exempt.

California Air Resources Board data, shows that a nineteen eighty two passenger car that passes smog would emit approximately a 123 times the NOx emissions of a twenty twenty five car. If the 1982 car is driven 7,500 miles a year, which is allowed under this bill, that's the equivalent of a twenty twenty five car being driven 922,500 miles a year.

So while they're only about eighty two hundred nineteen eighty two cars, if they're all on the road in one day, that's the NOx emissions equivalence of one million twenty twenty five cars. So, these are just numbers from one model year of cars that actually pass smog. So we're concerned that emissions control systems degrade over time.

Ten seconds.

Yes, sir. That emissions controls emissions degrade over time. And then also we're concerned about tampering. And so if all that happens, they don't go through through smog, then all the emissions data I just mentioned goes up. Thank you.

We're opposed. Thank you. Next

witness, two minutes.

Bill McGavin with the Coalition for Clean Air in opposition. We've been supporters of the smog check program since it started in the nineteen eighties, and it's been an effective program. But despite that and other successes, California still has, by far, the worst air pollution in the country, and we're in violation of both federal and state air quality standards that puts us at risk of federal sanctions, which could mean the loss of transportation funding. It also damages our health. Thousands of Californians die every year from air pollution.

So we should be doing everything we can to reduce that air pollution. This bill goes in the other direction. It would add, according to the Air Resources Board, 1.58 tons per day of excess emissions of NOx, oxides of nitrogen, which is the pollutant we worry about the most because it leads to both smog and soot. Since I know most people don't think in terms of tons per day of NOx, let me put that in perspective. It'd be the equivalent of adding roughly 30 additional model year 2020 vehicles to the road for each exempted model year 1976 to 1985 vehicles. So, for those reasons, we ask you to hold the bill.

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

Alan Ebbs with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jacob Evans with Sierra California in opposition and registering opposition for California environmental voters, the union of concerned scientists, natural resource of defense council, Regional Asthma Management Prevention, and Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Back to the committee. Senator Blakesberg.

Thank you. Well, regrettably, I am going to need to vote no on this, as we communicated to the chair in advance. But this is the second year of this of this effort, so Jay Leno's Law two point o, basically, based on last year's s p seven twelve from Senator Grove, which I also voted no on in transportation and also on the floor. And the reason for that is basically what the opposition said, which is that it will increase air pollution and reduce public health.

And I think this bill actually is possibly worse than last year's because it removes the requirement that a vehicle be insured as a collector vehicle.

And the insurance process is actually a check on making sure that, the vehicle is used on a limited basis. So I'm, I'm very concerned about it just being the fact that somebody can self attest to themselves that this car qualifies, and then they don't need to, to get any type of, a smog check. And so I I I'll just I just wanna highlight the opposition argument. It's just three sentences, and I'd just like to read them because I think that this is really instructive.

Without regular inspections through smog check, vehicle emissions control systems can degrade to the point of being entirely ineffective, be tampered with, or removed altogether, which will result in untold air pollution impacts even greater than illustrated above, making California's already challenging air quality issues even more difficult to address.

Again, older vehicles are not held to the same address. Again, older vehicles are not held to the same emission standard as newer vehicles. In fact, they are not even held to the emission standards they achieved when they were new many years ago. This is because smog check takes into consideration factors such as the age, make, and model of each vehicle and allows for the expected deterioration of the vehicle's emissions control over time.

It's therefore important to ensure that the emissions control systems of significantly older vehicles are still operating as intended.

So I as I said last year about the bill, I would be willing to consider something. I'm not concerned about the good actors, something that allowed for an older vehicle to be to be driven to a parade, and it's driven on the road for one mile along the parade as a collector item. But to me, this just opens the potential floodgates for an enormous number of cars to qualify, which is not in the best interest of the state.

So so, with that, I respectfully am going to need to be voting no today. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. If, if I don't mind, I would just say I'm coauthor of this bill. I think this is a very sensible bill. I think autos and classic cars are part of our culture here in California. One of my favorite bands of all time is the Beach Boys, and almost every song is having to do our car car culture here in California.

As a former mayor of Huntington Beach, we've had a lot of classic cars come through. Main Street was economic development for our city, in Huntington Beach. And many of the coast of Orange County I know, they've had classic car shows where people come in and and see a lot of the old cars that are out there. And and we have the largest parade West Of Mississippi, fourth of July parade. And you see a lot of these classic cars in our parade.

And so I think this is a reasonable measure. I'm proud to be a co author. I'm hoping that this actually gets to the governor's, desk and get signed, because I think it'll be very good for for California. So, with that, we don't have a quorum, mister chairman. So we'll have to take that up when we have a quorum.

Would you like to close?

Yeah. First of all, let me thank the witnesses for being here. In, some cases, who traveled a long distance to be here and to offer their I would I thought one of the most important things that mister Hennessy said had nothing to do with data and details, specifically, although I think it should be explored, which was how many nineteen eighty Camaros do we see out there. Then I would invite a tour of Sacramento in just even a five square block area and all the parking garages.

I'm willing to take a look at all of them, and I would challenge the opposition to identify the five years of cars in this first tranche, and the five years of cars in second tranche.

You aren't gonna find them. I drive back and forth from San Jose. I don't get to fly, twice twice a week, up and down Highway 5 with an EV. I have two EVs. I have two old collector cars that don't need exemptions, because they're already exempt by statute.

The only time I see a car in this era, in this vintage, is on the back of a trailer being pulled by a pickup truck because people aren't gonna put miles on a forty one year old collector car and depreciate the car. And I and I worry that how the sequence of things actually works, and I'll be quick, how the sequence of things actually work in terms of the registration and the small certification of a vehicle is out of whack with some of the opposition arguments.

For example, to put collector car insurance on a vehicle at initial transfer when it's in all likelihood at 40 years old, a project car that's barely running or not running.

And to say that you now have to go out to a very select group of insurance companies and pay a high premium to put collector car insurance on that vehicle just so you can transfer it from the seller to the buyer, because the only way you can transfer from the seller to the buyer is with a smog check.

A smog check, probably on a car where the parts aren't available to comply with a smog check, which is, you know, the biggest problem that we're having on the on the author side with the status quo.

So, you know, I wish the opposition formal opposition could come up with something better than the idea that all these cars, whatever the number is, it's not many. We'll get better data if we can out of DMV. You know how hard that is, Senator. But it's few cars. But to even think that all those cars would be traveling on the road all in the same day, I'm sorry.

I it's it's it's fanciful. I mean, it's just it's it's not gonna happen. It doesn't happen. If it did happen, we could all go out there right now and take a look at it. It's just not the way the real world operates.

But with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote. And of course, to the chair, I appreciate your co authorship. Yes.

No. Thank you. Thanks again. And thanks to the witnesses for being here. Thank you.

I have five seconds.

We're closed. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you for traveling up here though. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate it. Mister chair, would you I don't see another witness. Would you like to bring up your other item?

All right.

Mister chair? There's no other witness. Would you like to bring up your other item? Oh, sure. Sure.

For the audience, this would be file item number 8 SB1375 by chairman Cortese. You may open when you're ready, mister chairman.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you again, Mr. Chair and Member. We're working on plural still. I will start by accepting the committee amendments and expressing gratitude to you and your staff for the work on this on this bill, which is SB 1375.

SB 1375 is a narrow and targeted solution for situations where major transit and rail projects have already completed extensive environmental review through multiple adopted plans and prior environmental documents. In those cases, repeating the same analysis does not improve environmental protection.

It only adds years of delay and millions of cost. SB 1375 allows qualifying projects to avoid that duplication so that resources can be invested directly in delivering public projects that improve mobility, reduce emissions, and strengthen communities.

The Diridon Station Modernization Project in San Jose is one example on which years environmental work has already been completed for several partner agencies. The modernization effort there will connect multiple rail and transit systems, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and enable transit oriented housing and economic development.

SB 1375 keeps all other environmental laws, permits, and community commitments fully in place. That includes protections for water and habitat, historic resources, construction impacts, and continued public engagement, all left alone or worked into the bill.

The committee amendments strengthen this balance, as they reinforce our commitment to community engagement, environmental stewardship, while recognizing environmental mobility benefits of these transit and rail projects.

SB 1375 responsibly saves time and public funds to enable the delivery of key statewide mobility, climate, and economic development projects. I do wanna say before I forget, we appreciate the work of policy committees, plural, so far on this, because it has taken a lot of work to get it right, including at the prior committee, and my gratitude again for that.

With us today is Sergio Lopez, Campbell City Council Member, Chair of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. And I believe Eric Eidlin is here, Station Planning Manager for the City of San Jose Department of Transportation, which has a project that would fit into this matrix.

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

Thank you very much, Chair and Committee Member. My name is Sergio Lopez. And as noted, I serve on the Campbell City Council and as Chair of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. I wanna thank Senator Cortese, first of all, for his leadership and unwavering commitment to bring critical projects like this one to life in our region and across the state.

I'm here to express my strongest support for Senate Bill 1375, which will thoughtfully reduce duplicate of reviews and save public funds to enable the timely delivery of critical transit projects. SB 1375 helps our communities deliver public transit projects that'll create a cleaner, more connected transportation system and support our regional economy.

Across Santa Clara County, we are working to build a world class multimodal transit network. The Diridon Station Modernization Project in San Jose is a leading example of the type of public project that will benefit from SB 1375.

It's made possible by bringing together multiple systems, including Caltrain, VTA, Capitol Corridor, ACE, and eventually BART, all in partnership with our neighbors, such as the City of San Jose. This kind of investment opens and supports thousands of good paying jobs.

It opens the door to new housing near transit and drives economic development in the heart of our communities, and all this while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by making transit the most reliable and attractive option. Thank you again, Senator Cortese, for championing this effort, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for being here. Next witness for two minutes.

Just very quickly, I'd like to echo. First, thanks for hearing this bill, and thanks for Senator Cortese for championing it. I think the speakers have already said everything there is to say about this. It's a project with great, long term environmental benefits. There have been there's been a lot of study in the area. We've had rigorous community outreach. So, yeah. We think this is this is something worth supporting. Thank you very much.

Thanks for being here. Any witnesses in support for identification purposes?

Steve Hansen from Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association, also known as SPUR, in strong support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Michael Pimentel here on behalf of Caltrain. We don't yet have a formal position of support. However, we're bringing it to our board with the support recommendation soon. Thank the author.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

David Martinez with Streets for All in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses identification in opposition? Seeing none. Any questions? Seeing none. Or Senator.

I was gonna say I saw this bill in EQ, and we were happy to work on it. And I think it's a great bill, and I will support it and make a motion when we get to that point. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, would you like to close?

Yeah. I, again, appreciate the opportunity today to present a bill in another policy committee, hopefully, with your support. And I do want to, again, acknowledge Senator Blakespear in her committee. She did more than just see the bill.

She really guided the policy process significantly before it got to Transportation Committee to make sure that we would have the kind of support that you saw today. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll bring it up as soon as we get a quorum. Members, if you're watching and you have a bill in Transportation, please come down. We only have a few more bills left, and please come down and present your bills.

Just for purposes of, making sure people are clear who might be watching from watching virtually. We'll formally recess, but just for a few minutes, we hope until the author comes in and immediately end the recess and reconvene. This is the first bill I'll preside over. Thanks to vice chair Strickland who's carried the day thus far. And, Senator Hurtado, whenever you're ready, if your witnesses are here, you may approach and, present. This is, our file item five, I believe, SB 1287.

Thank you, mister chair and members. I am here to present SB 1287, the Short Line Railroad Modernization Act of 2026. SB 1287 is about making smart targeted investments where they matter most in our transportation network. It creates a modest targeted tax credit to encourage private investment in short line railroad infrastructure, improving track, strengthening bridges, reducing emissions, and improving safety and reliability across California's short line rail network. For the Central Valley, this is critical.

Short line railroads are the backbone of our goods movement system. Short line railroads move some of the most productive agricultural goods in the world, linking small and mid sized growers, processors, and manufacturers to ports, major rail carriers, and national and international markets. The problem is that many of these rail lines are operating on infrastructure that is decades old, and in some cases, over a 100 years old. That means lower weight limits, lower speeds, and missed economic opportunities.

When short line rails can't operate efficiently, that freight shifts onto trucks.

One rail car equals three to five trucks. And in my district, we see our rural highways more congested, more wear and tear on our roads, and more emissions in communities there that are already struggling with some of the worst air quality in the nation. SB 1287 helps change that by modernizing short line rail, we reduce truck traffic, lower emissions, and improve air quality in the valley and across California, especially in communities that have carried a disproportionate pollution burden for far too long.

This bill is also about economic opportunity. Upgraded rail infrastructure lowers transportation cost, allows for heavier and more efficient shipments, and helps our small businesses and agricultural producers stay competitive in a global market.

It also encourages new development near rail serve sites, supports job creation, and strengthens local economies throughout the valley. This proposal is also grounded in prior state work. The concept was identified in Caltrans 2019 short line rail improvement plan, aligning with our broader goals around climate, freight movement, and sustainable infrastructure. I do want to make clear that it's it's not a handout. It's a public private partnership and rail operators must make the investment first to qualify for the credit.

And while the program is capped at 18,000,000 annually, if fully utilized, these investments are expected to generate new economic activity, increase property values, and ultimately grow state and local revenue state and local tax revenues. With me today, I have Ross Lane from Genesee in Wyoming and Ken Beard, president of the California Short Line Railroad Association. We also have Justin Bentus from Mickelson and Company available to answer any technical questions related to tax

credits. Alright. We can move to the witnesses at this time, and you can proceed in whatever order you wish. I'll have a couple minutes each.

Well, thank you, mister chairman, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Ross Lane. I represent Genesee, Wyoming. We operate six small class three freight railroads in the state. None of them make up what you would consider a network, but we really operate from a border, with Oregon all the way down to the border with Mexico.

I wanna thank the Senator, her staff, and committee staff as well for all their work to get us, this far and and for all the support supporting our shoreline railroads. Shoreline railroads connect farms, manufacturers, ports, inland ports, and coastal ports, and small businesses to our national freight rail network. Think of us as the horizon airlines to the Alaska Airlines system or the county and dirt roads to our nation's interstate system.

Without shoreline railroads, Californians would pay more and even higher prices in the form of worse air quality and overcrowded public roads in addition to what they would pay at their local grocery stores and other manufacturers. Small railroads like the San Joaquin Valley Railroad that operates in the center's district and the California Northern Railroad, both G and W properties that operate in the Sacramento area, mirror the local economies in which they operate.

On any day, California Short Line Railroad could be moving wine, televisions, fertilizer, lumber products to build more housing in the state, or agricultural products to feed more Californians. Many of these shoreline railroads are operating on infrastructure that's a 100 over a 100 years old in some cases.

They operate safely today, but they don't generate enough revenue to make the kinds of transformational investments needed to support the state's goals of reducing emissions, reducing wear and tear on public roads, and increasing economic development activity in both rural areas and coastal communities. Excuse me.

This bill would also partner, with the state of California to reduce emissions and reduce public roadway damage, which we believe, using a conservative benefit cost analysis, more than pays for itself, just by the reduction in wear and tear on public roads itself.

In short, this is a targeted bill. It supports our state's shoreline railroads and supports communities across the state. I respectfully urge an aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, mister chairman and members of the committee. My name is Kenan Beard. I'm the president of the Sierra Northern Railway, a freight operating short line with operations throughout the state of California. In addition, I'm also the president of the California Short Line Railroad Association. This is a trade association representing more than 25 short line railroads in the state of California.

Today, I'll be speaking on their behalf. Short lines are the first mile, last mile of our freight rail network. We handle over 25% of the freight rail coming to and going from California. Many of these lines that the short lines operate were acquired from class one operators after years of neglect. Today, short line operators have brought new life to these branch lines.

They continue to require significant investment to remain safe, reliable, and economically viable. Short line railroaders typically spend 85% of their revenue in operating the railroad. That leaves very little money left over to upgrade and maintain the railroad. Bills like twelve eighty seven will allow us to improve the track, upgrade our bridges, and add safety improvements along the railroad. It allows us to stretch every dollar further.

Freight rail is the safest form of re ground transportation in The United States. Railroads can move one ton of freight over 500 miles on a gallon of diesel. Three to four times more efficient than diesel trucks, producing 75% fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Every freight car shipped takes three to four trucks off the highway, which reduces wear and tear on our California roads, congestion, and creates a safe safer environment on the highway.

Short lines are vital to the state of California and our rural commuter and agricultural economy.

All major ports in California are served by a short line railroad. In addition, short line railroads connect disadvantaged communities to the national freight network. Short line railroads operate trans loads, inland ports, enabling small communities to have access to clean, efficient rail transportation. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your support of s p twelve eighty seven. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you for being here. We'll go to others in the room who would like to express support at this time.

Mister chair, members, Michael Pimentel here on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Tracy Owls with Modesto and Empire Traction Company, Modesto in support of 1287.

Good afternoon. Justin Bentus with Nicholson and Company. We support the bill.

Good afternoon. Kennan Beard with Sierra Northern Railway, and we support 1287. Thank you.

Dennis Albiani on behalf of the California Grain and Feed Association and Pacific Egg and Poultry Association, we support. Thank you.

Alright. We'll now go to opposition witnesses. Do we have anyone who is a lead opposition witness? I see none. Anyone who wishes to speak in opposition, he can come forward at this time.

I'm seeing none. We'll come back to the committee for comment, questions, or a motion.

I'll move it when it comes to the agenda.

We don't have a quorum. Thank you for reminding me, vice chair. So you're welcome to close at this time, Senator, and when we get a quorum, we'll take it up.

Thank you, mister chair. I respectfully ask for a nigh vote.

Thank you for being here. Appreciate everyone's testimony. Closer.

I'm sorry to the audience, but we're gonna go for a brief recess, and we'll come back once we get authors or a quorum.

Our final author Really? Senator Dahle. We have one more question.

Oh, we have oh, I thought you guys got mister Chernobyl here. Alright. Our second to the last author, Senator Dahle, on SB 1064 is our file item 7, and you may proceed whenever you're ready. Thank you.

Thank you, chair and members. At Senate bill 1054 bring comments into ARB Clean Truck Checks. This is a simple bill about new used vehicles. These vehicles driven no less than one thousand miles a year. This bill applies to on road heavy duty equipment, heavy duty vehicles, off road diesel vehicles, and special equipment vehicles.

This bill does not change the emission standards. Under SB1064, these vehicles will be tested no more than twice no. Once a year. According to ARB, less than 1% trucks fail the the Clean Air check eight months, eight months. This is a fractional adjustment in the house for affordability.

Did it all state omni in this budget?

Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you very much. So as the assembly member I'm sorry. Senator.

As the Senate Freudian slip. As the Senator mentioned, these these supplies to very low mileage trucks and yardage vehicles. We Dennis Albiani on behalf of California Grain and Feed Association of Pacific Ag and Poultry. These we use the yard vehicles to pull materials around the yards. The trucks are under 1,000 miles.

And so if you're in a rural area and you have to drive, say, 50 miles to the the Smog Check, that leaves, you know, 900 more miles left. And if you have to do that twice a year, you can see the challenges. It also takes, you know, a truck driver off the duty for that period of time, both transportation as well as the smog jack. And as the Senator, articulated, this does not change any of the standards. It's just less frequency.

And these, vehicles are being driven less frequently by this fact that they are under a thousand miles if they're on road, and yard, carts are usually used seasonal, within, like, the packing shed or those types of variants. So, we actually believe that if you really sharpen your pencil and do the calculations, that this could actually save, air emissions due to the fact that they're still meeting the standards and, you're not having to travel those distances more than once a year. And now right now, it's twice.

So we think this is a good good practical approach, and look forward to, working with folks as as the bill moves along. Thank you.

Thank you. And, we'll go to others that wanna support.

Thank you, mister chair. Matt Robinson, on behalf of the California Moving and Storage Association, we also operate a lot of low mileage trucks, in California, and I appreciate the senator's efforts. Thank you.

Alright. Do we have opposition witnesses? Are you the lead opposition witness? Oh, please come forward. You have a couple minutes?

I'll take not nearly that much. Bill Magavern with the Coalition for Clean Air also speaking this afternoon for the Union of Concerned Scientists. We're strongly opposed to the bill in print, which of course is much broader than what was just presented. With the proposed amendment, we look forward to reviewing the text of the amendment and also getting an analysis from CARB of what they expect to be the emission impacts.

If mister Albiani is correct and it will reduce emissions, then we'll be very happy to see that.

So we look forward to seeing that analysis. Thank you.

Thank you. Let me before we come back to the committee, let me ask if there's anyone else who wants to express opposition. You may come forward.

Doctor Pam O'Dell, Climate Action California still remain opposed. Looking forward to CARB's analysis. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no others, let me just ask, Senator Dahle, you referenced in your opening, I think in a couple places, the committee amendments. Just wanted to make sure you're on the record as accepting them.

Yeah. I'm it says yeah

Okay. Thank you so much. We'll bring it back to the committee. I guess we Oh, we only have the quorum.

We don't have the quorum yet. So we've been like this all day long. So we're asking we're asking colleagues to send members this way if you see them, and we'll take up your bill as soon as we can. Thank you so much for the presentation.

Okay.

Oh, did you have a question? I apologize, Senator. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

And that's there's no further comments or questions from the committee.

Thank you.

Thank you. We're gonna be in another short term, we hope, recess until we get the remaining author, and then we're hoping to get the entire band together so we can go through these bills and get everybody's votes on the record. Thank you.

Essentially, the the premise of this bill was now that SB 79 is law and it is coming into effect, there are a lot of areas like mine that are captured within that bill. Where you can't walk safely on the street or ride a bike without fear of getting run over. This is what I do.

I live along the Orange Line in Los Angeles and have to walk my kids in a stroller on streets without sidewalks where people are driving 70 miles an hour, and, it is scary. And yet we are technically transit oriented zone, even though we have no sidewalks, no bike lanes, somehow we're gonna be adding more density there.

I want to make that paradigm work. Even though I did not support the measure, I still wanna make 79 work. So this is really an effort to get more active transportation projects in those zones, so that the communities at least will start to trust these projects before they come in. So that I don't have to weave in and out of traffic with the stroller while thousands of new units come online in our region.

So anyhow, I'm I'm hoping this study does go somewhere and that we don't just leave it sitting on the shelf.

But, you know, we know how these things go. So just wanted to put that on your radar for those of you who are also impacted by 79 and wanna see more ATP in your region so people can walk, bike, and live safely in their communities. I would respectfully ask for aye vote on it. I'll turn to Marc Vukcevich.

Marc Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All. I'll also be brief. You know, when we introduced this version of the bill, it was a very, you know, big swing. I think, you know, ruffled a lot of feathers understandably. But with the goal was to just get more street safety funding.

When the great Senator from Pico Rivera at the DUI hearing asked the first panel what would you do if you could wave a magic wand, you know, their answer was fund more street safety projects in California. And, you know, the ATP is a really constrained source of funds.

And so we were looking just to try to find a way to get more street safety funding and, you know, what we proposed didn't work and we get that. And so just appreciate working, and I sincere all sincerely appreciate working with the committee staff and the Chair so deeply on on this policy, and I think we're thrilled to take the amendments. And thank you so much.

Alright. Before we take any more testimony, we're gonna establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Alright. We have a quorum. We'll come back to the bill presentation at this time. And others who wish to express support, come up now. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jeanie Ward-Waller on behalf of PeopleForBikes and ClimatePlan in support.

Good afternoon. Sofia Rafikova with the Coalition for Clean Air in support of the bill as is in print, also registering support on behalf of the Planning Conservation League.

Okay. Opposition? If you're lead opposition, you can come on up and sit down here. You have a couple of minutes. You can identify yourself.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I don't know if this is on. There we go. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Chris Lee with Politico Group here removing opposition on behalf of several clients, including Transportation California, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Merced County Association of Governments, the Nevada County Transportation Commission, and the Tulare County Association of Governments.

Largely a lot of rural communities that would have had funding taken away from priorities projects that they have, but appreciate the work of the committee and the author to address all of those concerns. And again, we'll be removing opposition based on the amendments.

Thank you. Let me pause and just make sure the Senator is the author is taking the amendments. Okay. Thank you. And next witness, you're welcome to express opposition if you wish.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I just wanna echo who spoke for me. I'm sorry. Vincenzo Caporale here on behalf...

You're a tweener basically.

We're removing opposition on behalf of the California Association of Councils of Governments for the same reasons that the previous speaker spoke.

Thank you. Thank you for being here to do that. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Express a position? Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee. Senator Grayson? Alright. We have a first motion of the day. Is there any other comments, questions? If not, we'll hurry up with get to the roll call right after we allow the Senator to close.

Thanks for your consideration. I do hope that we'll stay committed to trying to find some way to make SB 79 work, especially in those areas where it's not safe to walk on the street or to bike or to get around. We and we know we want more people biking and walking.

But not everywhere is San Francisco. So, with the author here, I'm hoping that we can all pitch in and help along for areas like mine where people drive very fast and I'm trying to walk. So with that respect, I ask for your aye vote.

Alright. And thank you for working with the committee staff as well. We'll call the roll on this bill. Motion by Grayson.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay. We're at 5-0. We'll keep the roll open on that bill. Thank you again. Okay. You wanna take you wanna switch I guess you can't do that. Go ahead.

You you could probably just move over. You wanna move over one and then let her take this one? Okay. Seems like you have enough spaces anyway. Remarkably for such a big committee.

Okay. We're just doing musical chairs up here to allow for microphone issues, and we'll come back to the assistant now, lift the call. First of all, actually, we can entertain a motion on the consent calendar. Alright. Do we have a motion? Moved by Senator Grayson, And we'll call the roll.

[Roll Call]

In the temporary temporarily recess again, we're waiting for one member to conclude a bill in another committee. As soon as she's here, we can wrap up our voting, and we'll adjourn the committee. Thank you. Okay. We are going to reconvene the Senate Committee on Transportation, and end the temporary recess we were into.

So we are fully back in session, and I'm gonna turn to the assistant and ask her to starting with consent to call through today's bills at this time for absent members. Thank you.

[Roll Call]