Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation

Before we start, is Allison Lyman in the room? Okay. Thank you. We just wanted to make sure you're here so we can go to you at the appropriate time. Alrighty.

Now we can't see TVs. Is that intentional? Are they off? Okay. Do we do do we wait or but it is being there oop-- There we go. Wonderful. Okay. Alright. The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order.

Good--is it afternoon or evening? I'm gonna go with evening. Good evening, everyone. Welcome. The hearing room is open for attendees, and it can be watched from a livestream 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 otherwise have registered a support position with the committee. And primary witnesses and opposition must have their opposition registered with the committee. All other support and opposition can be stated at the standing mic when called upon to simply state your name excuse me the affiliation and position. With that, we will begin our hearing.

Noticing a lack of a quorum, we will start as a subcommittee. We have 13 bills on our proposed consent calendar. File items 4, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25. I'll read those in detail when we do have a quorum. We will be discussing 11 bills today.

We will not be hearing file Item 14, SB 1292, Richardson. With that, we do have an author present. We typically go in file-item order. However, if an author is not present, we do skip the roll, so please note that. We have Senator Blakespear here. You may begin. You have three bills Bbfore this committee. File item one, SB 569. File item two, SB 741. File item three, SB 1161.

We did note that file item four, SB 1324 is on consent. With that, you may begin at your convenience.

Well, good evening, Chair and colleagues. Thank you to the Chair and committee staff for your work on this bill. Every year, Californians are seriously injured or killed while walking and biking on our roadways. In 2023 alone, more than 1,250 Californians walking or biking were killed. In the aftermath of these tragedies, many communities have responded by installing and upgrading protected bikeways to improve physical separation and sight lines.

SB 569 would protect cyclists and pedestrians by prohibiting removal or changes to bikeways in ways that reduce safety, accessibility, or mobility for cyclists and pedestrians. For the last two decades, California has increasingly recognized that slower streets and roads designed for all users, not just drivers, are safer for everyone. That commitment is reflected in billions of dollars of state investment in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, including a $ billion general fund augmentation to the Active Transportation Program, ATP, in 2022.

A key part of this effort is improving cyclist safety. A key part of improving cyclist safety has been funding for protected bikeways that physically separate people riding bicycles from two ton vehicles.

Yet we have seen instances where communities have considered removing or downgrading protected bikeways after they have already been built. I've witnessed two cities in my district go through this process, and there are other examples from throughout the state. Most recently, the city of Encinitas has directed staff to evaluate removing portions of a barrier protected bikeway in favor of a painted bike lane and wider, faster car lanes. The project was constructed predominantly using state general fund grant money.

Under California's Active Transportation Program, ATP, bikeways funded through the program are already protected from being converted to non-active transportation uses for twenty years or their useful life, whichever is less.

This standard makes sense as and is in line with other state programs. For example, if a project uses state money to construct affordable housing, new city leadership can't come in, rip out the affordable housing, and zone for McMansions. The state has a statewide interest in ensuring that California's roads are getting progressively safer. SB 569 would apply a similar standard to bikeways that are constructed with State General Fund Dollars as already applies to projects constructed with ATP or Active Transportation Program dollars.

This ensures that taxpayer funded safety improvements continue to serve the purpose for which they were funded.

The bill would also require a public meeting and hearing before significant modifications are approved. This gives community members an opportunity to evaluate how changes would impact their safety and mobility and weigh in before a decision is made. As amended, SB 569 reflects a simple principle. When we invest public dollars in infrastructure to save lives and protect road users, those safety improvements should not be undone without good reason and without assurance that the safety of cyclists and pedestrians won't be compromised.

With me today in support, I have Kendra Ramsey on behalf of the California Bicycle Coalition and Casey Gupta, a bicycle advocate.

And you each have two minutes.

You can begin at your convenience. Thank you.

Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Casey Gupta, and I'm a high school student in San Diego County. I'm here today in strong support of SB 569. Part of the reason I'm here is that about a year ago, the Encinitas City Council voted to remove a protected bike lane right down the street from my school on Santa Fe Drive. That decision made this issue feel incredibly real to me.

It affects whether students like me feel safe biking to school, local businesses, to transit, or around our community. Santa Fe Drive also has a painful history. Before protected bike lanes were installed, 14 year old Ryan Huang was tragically struck and killed on that very street in 2007. I mentioned Ryan's story respectfully because it shows why safety improvements like this matter. Protected bikeways are not just lines on a map or a nice extra feature.

They're often built in response to real danger, real crashes, and real lives lost. When a protected bike lane is removed or weakened, it doesn't just change the street design. It changes whether people feel safe enough to bike at all. For students, that can mean losing the ability to bike independently in our own community. It pushes people away from active transportation and into cars, which means more traffic, more pollution, and fewer choices.

That's why SB 569 is so important. If a bikeway is built using state dollars, it should not be casually reverted to a non-active transportation use or modified in a way that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of people walking and biking. Public investments in safety should protect people for the life of the project. This bill doesn't just stop cities from ever making changes. It simply says that those changes should remain consistent with active transportation and go through a transparent public process.

That's a reasonable standard especially when the infrastructure exists to protect people. California should be building safer streets and expanding transportation's choices, not removing infrastructure that protects students and families. As a high school student, I want to grow up in a state where biking to school and around my community is normal, safe, and accessible. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Wilson and members of the committee. I'm Kendra Ramsey. I'm the Executive Director of the California Bicycle Coalition. We're the voice of the everyday bicyclist in the State Capitol, and we work directly with local bike coalitions throughout the state representing tens of thousands of members. These are people who ride bikes to work, to school, and run errands, families, children, and older adults.

We'd like to thank Senator Blakespear, for her leadership in introducing this bill, which we're a proud sponsor of. The bill represents an important step to protect public investments in safe bike infrastructure, something that my organization has worked many years on. People throughout California rely on bicycles for transportation. While sharing a lane with a vehicle or riding in a traditional bike lane only separated from cars by paint may be acceptable to experienced recreational cyclists represented by the, namely by the registered opposition of this bill. The everyday bicyclists I represent often fear for their safety in those types of facilities.

I know I often do when I'm riding with my my three year old on the back of my bike. When state funds are invested to construct bike infrastructure, our community members should be able to rely on those investments for years to come. The voices of business owners who desire parking at their doorstep, commuters seeking to save a minute on their daily drive, or other or even avid cyclists who dislike protected infrastructure shouldn't outweigh the need of for safety for the majority of people riding bikes.

SB 569 protects the investment of state funds in safer bicycling infrastructure by extending the requirements set forth in the Active Transportation Program to maintain the facilities built with state dollars. At a time when our communities are facing rising traffic fatalities of bicyclists and other other vulnerable road users, our public investments to create safer roads should not be subject to changes in leadership or backlash from people with clout.

This bill provides transparency for these changes and a requirement to maintain safety for people on bikes if changes are made. For these reasons, we respectfully request your support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving on to members of the community who would like to add on in testimony, name, affiliation, and position. We'll get the mic on just one second.

Good evening, Chair and members. Jeanie Ward-Waller on behalf of PeopleForBikes in support. I'm also adding on for the Pasadena Complete Streets Coalition, TransForm, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, SanDiego350, Move LA, 350 Bay Area Action, CCAJ, and the Safe Routes Partnership. Thank you.

Marc Vukcevich on behalf of Streets For All in support. Thank you.

Zak Accuardi on behalf of NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council, in support. Thank you.

Alright. Before we move on to opposition testimony, we're going to do the quorum. So we I believe we do have someone who's testifying today. So if you can make your way to the front, as we do the quorum. Madam secretary.

[Roll Call].

Alright. A quorum has been established. Now we'll hear from opposition. Mr. Mayor, may you go go ahead. Oh, wait, microphone. Look for the button and make sure it's lit.

There we go.

There we go.

Good afternoon. Bruce Ehlers, Mayor of Encinitas. The City of Encinitas opposes SB 569. However, if you recommend proceeding, we ask for clarifying amendments limiting the applicability to future funding. The bill currently appears to only apply to new projects.

This is good. The Committee's own analysis dated June 29 states this bill applies to bikeway conversions, quote, on a going-forward basis, end quote. It further states that it applies to jurisdictions that accept State General Fund monies in the future tense. Both phrases strongly imply the bill is not retroactive. We desire that it not apply to completed projects.

The bill's wording should be amended to apply only to new funding of new projects. We believe the bill also too narrowly defines safety and does not consider overall safety impacts, thus preventing cities from fixing unsafe or poorly designed projects. For example, Santa Fe Drive in Encinitas. We believe the bill would ignore several unsafe conditions and mandate the preservation of a poorly implemented Class IV bike lane. Specifically, the bill ignores right-hook safety threats located at seven driveways.

These driveways are heavily traveled and serve a subdivision, a pickleball club, and a large church. The right hook is especially dangerous in this case since the bike lane is hidden by a row of diagonally parked vehicles that obscure drivers' views of bikes using the bike lane. Encinitas is sensitive to this situation since in 2020, Dr. Jennings Worley was tragically killed in Encinitas on a protected bike lane due to a right hook. Number two, the Fire Department reported that emergency vehicles were trapped in peak traffic. Ambulances could not pass.

The congested congested drivers had no space to pull over. Class II bike lanes would fix this issue. Fixing it is especially important since our hospital is located just a few blocks to the west.

And I'll have to have you wrap up.

Okay. The bill also ignores several other factors. Most importantly, the U.S. Post Office found the new Santa Fe Drive unsafe for mail delivery and stopped all mail delivery along there. So with that, I I hope you'll oppose SB 569. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their opposition to this bill. Come to the microphone and note your name, affiliation, and position.

Molly Hintlian, Encinitas. I oppose SB 569.

Pete Albanese, Encinitas. I oppose SB 569.

Rachel Graves Hill, I register my opposition to SB 569.

Thank you. Was that was there more? Go go ahead. Come on. Sorry about that.

Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities. We're a tweener here. Removed our opposition. Just wanted to thank the committee and the author for working on the amendments, and we're hoping to, if the bill moves forward, find some clarifying provisions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Bringing it back to committee before I go to Assemblymember Ward, just noting that this bill because of the effective date of the new year, would not be retroactive. So it would be funds received, after the bill is implemented. So it would not count funds received all the way up including till December 31 of this year. And then note that the language, found in, 2c, if you're using your, for--members of this committee, it's on page three, line seven and eight.

It doesn't factor in--you can factor in overall safety, but it just notes that when in factoring in that safety, it can't be, modified in a manner that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of a non-motorized users. So that has to be taken into consideration. Assemblymember Ward.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm glad you started there. I wanna thank the author for working on this. I've really liked your analogy in the beginning that, you know, and I've principle that a lot of the public investments that we're doing, like you said, we're not gonna do affordable housing and then have, like, you know, four years later, a new governing body decide they're gonna tear that down.

The same should be for a lot of our public investments because these are expensive investments meant to really able to provide, you know, a better quality of life that we're having for our neighborhoods.

I know you know that well, both of us coming from local governments and neighboring jurisdictions. And I wondered, and I'm glad the Chair really raised that too because I wondered if you could speak to sort of this case study that we're talking about here today where if there is something that was implemented that is sort of, in hindsight, posing some kind of a problem, nothing would prohibit you from being able to continue to provide modifications for that.

Your intention is that, you know, we we wanna make sure that we're not losing the utility and the functionality that we're having there for shared use of this space. But if we need to tweak alignments, arrangements, or or infrastructure in a way that is going to, improve safety gaps that weren't previously noted and designed, that would still be permissible under this bill. Correct?

Yes. Thank you, Assemblymember, for that question. Absolutely. That would still be allowed. So there are there's nothing that prohibits adding in speed bumps, doing better signage, putting in landscaping.

I mean, there's a difference between removal of, for example, a barrier protected bike lane that's been built versus making modifications that would increase safety. Also, just note that in order for a a barrier protected bike lane or any bikeway to be put in, it goes through the full city process. So the fire department, the City Council, the traffic engineers, the coastal commission in this case too, because it's a coastal community. I mean, all all levels apply to this project those types of projects going in.

And so having a a similar rigor to any suggestion of taking a project out is really what what is the aim here of this bill.

That's right. And, yeah. We know that, you know, the we talk often about how long this process can be, like, from the get go. We've served on those decision making bodies before, and and they're pretty onerous. And there's a lot of review that goes into that.

Would this necessarily disqualify? Sometimes we use--or general funds would be eligible for pilot projects, and I wonder if that would also be something that would be captured by this bill.

I would think so. I mean, any anytime it's being used, it's not--this aligns general fund money with ATP money where we already have a robust approach to how we manage, our active transportation projects, but I don't there's nothing in here that would disqualify a pilot project.

Let me give you an example because I've seen throughout several of our communities, you know, both home in San Diego as well. Here's our adopted work home here, but Sacramento that, you know, in the state of COVID and post-COVID years, we saw a lot of safe streets being implemented. Right? Where successfully, we're able to look at areas that we can really pedestrianize. And, you know, of course, there's a lot of business objection at first.

We thought we would pilot it. We would try it out. Ended up, like, you know, being wildly successful by the public and actually increased a lot of activity, only a few years later to have the barriers removed and everything sort of returned to, you know, what it was pre-2020 and all the kind of, new character and enjoyment and safety that came from those kinds of features, you know, was no longer there.

And I guess I wonder is if and as this bill continues to move forward, if you wanna be able to look into that to, you know, really ensure that funds that were used towards pilot programs, even when though you are sometimes qualifying this as a pilot program with an intended expiration date. Right?

That if the pilot is successful by some metrics that we are looking to achieve, that somehow your bill might still be a hook, that could really help that turn into more of a permanent feature, I think that's something to sort of, you know, really drill down onto.

Yeah. It's an interesting idea. It would definitely be an expansion of this bill because as it's currently drafted, it applies to bikeways. Oh. So it doesn't apply to all infrastructure. So but, you you know, there could be a future bill or or an expansion. But at the moment, SB 569 applies to bikeways.

And this would just be your class four?

Yes.

Okay. Got it. And that is heavy infrastructure as it is. That's gonna be a lot of, like, material and a lot of investment. And then you had mentioned, or I thought I saw too in the analysis here--that or maybe you mentioned this as well--that we would not remove the, you would not be eligible to remove any of this infrastructure, quote, without good reason. And so is that well defined, and how do we really define, like, when a situation might arise that would qualify as good reason?

Well, the language in the bill is, it doesn't refer to good reason. What it refers to is that the bikeway constructed in whole or in part with money from the State General Fund shall not be reverted to a non-active transportation use or modified in a manner that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of nonmotorized uses for a minimum of 20 years. So it's specifically reducing safety.

And I think there's when there's a physically barrier-protected bike lane that's been built, ripping that out and using just paint to protect a bicyclist from a truck or car is a reduction in safety. So that, you know, that, I think, is what is clear, but it would apply in different circumstances to different types of infrastructure.

And what would happen under this situation? You know, we intend to be able to put in this infrastructure because we know often safety is one of the biggest barriers for many people to begin to sort of make that leap and want to begin to use new infrastructure. And we do see that inducement often when that infrastructure goes in, but on occasion, sometimes that might really be lacking.

So what happens when we have something that, unfortunately, is not providing that that inducement or otherwise is wildly so unpopular that nobody really wants to use it. Right?

When there's overt nonutilization, is there any sort of out for reconsideration of how we're gonna use right-of-way that may still provide maybe new options for nonvehicular multimodal travel options. But in other words, are there, you know, what other kind of factors might, would you wanna be stuck with something for 20 years that literally, like, hardly anybody, if nobody, is using?

Right. Through the Chair, if you don't mind, if I continue to answer his questions. I mean, I think the point of this is to establish a standard, and so it's safety, accessibility, or mobility of nonmotorized users. So if the city, county, regional, or other local agency that's proposing this, because always this is coming from a government agency, if they make the case, you know, that it meets this standard, then there would be options for that type of flexibility.

So and I think we see that in the Active Transportation Program. So, it, you know, this is aligning with a standard that we already have, but it's also recognizing that we don't want what I've seen in both of my cities, and I'll use the other example in the City of Vista, there were barrier-protected bike lanes that were put in, and there was an immediate backlash, particularly in one of the councilmember's districts.

And the city immediately went in based on the direction of the Council and all the people who were upset about the fact that it was a barrier-protected bike lane. It was next to speeding traffic. So that visual barrier of having an actual post that came up really was providing a lot of additional safety for the people riding in Vista, but they removed it from only a section that was in that councilmember's district.

So it kept the barrier protection in some people's districts, then it took it out in the middle, and then it continued on the other side. And that happening all within a couple of months of something going in without having any availability to live with it, to evaluate it, to have the public hearings that are necessary. You know, I think that's an example where you could very well argue that that does not improve safety for bicyclists.

But, you know, there are obviously, every city is different with these examples, but there have been we we have found, and I'm sure there are more, but these are just the four we found in four different cities throughout the state that have had similar types of of community backlash.

Yeah. No. We've heard that. Certainly haven't served in the whole local government too. No. Like I said, you know, from a principle standpoint, especially, we wanna make sure we're getting good use of our public funds over a really good period of time as well, you know, right just on the intent of where you're going here with this bill.

And I appreciate your clarification on a lot of the questions because I think we're, you know, kind of all hopefully reading from the same point that I think there are some opportunities and nuances within the bill that can, I think, help satisfy some of the, you know, more particular situations that may come up from time to time? I really wanna thank those that came up from San Diego County as well.

It's a long journey to come up here to provide your time to be able to testify here today. With that, I'll be happy to support the bill today, madam Chair, and I'll move the bill.

Thank you. You have a motion and a second. So thank you. You know, I appreciate both you and your staff working collaboratively on this bill. And as you noted, it's really modeled after ATP, the Active Transportation Program.

And, the key difference though is if you use active transportation dollars, you cannot change it for 20 years or a useful life. And so this allows something different if you're using state funds whole or in part, a modification to accommodate both temporary and permanent changes as long as you're taking into consideration, as you noted from your testimony, safety, mobility, and accessibility for nonmotorized users.

And so given that, this would be precedent setting, but at the same time, it is based on a precedent already for other types of state dollars, it's reasonable. And as was noted, I appreciate everyone who came up from San Diego County today. As noted, it is it is not retroactive.

It is something that guides decision forwarding. And I'm sure as the author has been amenable for changes in my committee as she continues through the legislative process. If further clarification of definitions need to be done, I'm sure she'd be open to that too. I'll be supporting your bill. We have a motion on the floor by, Ward and a second by Harabedian. And with that, I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you for, the questioning today, Assemblymember Ward, and I appreciate your support of this bill and respectfully request an aye vote.

Madam secretary, please call the roll.

SB 569, the motion is do pass. [Roll Call].

Alright. We'll hold that role open for members to be able to add on. Moving on to item number two, SB 741.

Okay. Thank you. Moving on to my next bill, SB 741. I accept the committee amendments. Thank you to the Chair, staff, and stakeholders for working together on this bill.

SB 741 builds on what works in the low carbon transit operations program, also known as LC TOP, by streamlining administration and enabling transit agencies to maximize funding and improve services. Last year, the California Transportation Agency recommended in its transit transformation transformation task force that the state should streamline grant programs to reduce administrative costs and enhance transit services. This follows through on that recommendation. Presently, transit agencies are facing big challenges with stagnant ridership that hasn't fully recovered from the pandemic, capital needs, and deteriorating finances.

As I've said multiple times this year, we need public transportation to succeed, to cut greenhouse gas emissions and meet the state's climate goals, to offer a legitimate alternative to driving and reduce traffic congestion, and to provide low income working Californians who can't afford vehicles a reliable efficient way to get around.

For over a decade, investments in LCTOP have shown that transit is one of the state's most effective tools for reducing emissions. At the same time, though, the program's red tape and requirements have become burdensome. Much of what LCTOP asked for today is not needed and only serves to add to the workload for transit agencies that are nearing the breaking point. Without action, transit agencies will be forced to consider service cuts and delay reliability improvements that undermine the goal of reducing transportation sector emissions.

We can run LCTOP more efficiently and maintain accountability and robust oversight.

This will help public transit to meet its goals to be accessible to riders and build ridership through frequent reliable service that's crucial to reducing climate emissions. With me today in support, I have Michael Pimentel on behalf of the California Transit Association and Marc Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All.

Madam Chair and members, I'm Michael Pimentel, executive director of the California Transit Association. I'm here today to voice my organization's support for SB 741, Blakespear. The association is a proud sponsor of this bill, and we thank Senator Blakespear for leadership in introducing it. Members, this bill rests on a very simple premise that investment in public transit projects and services benefit the environment and help the state meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets.

It's a premise that's embedded in the state's foundational climate policy documents like the scoping plan and the mobile source strategy as well as the state's climate focused transportation policy documents like the California Transportation Plan and the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure.

But it's a premise that in our view is insufficiently the state's greenhouse gas reduction fund supported programs, including the low carbon trans operations program in which the state annually requires transit agencies to prove that proposed investments in transit service, new vehicles, or new transit passes that increase transit ridership, in fact, reduce emissions.

As we approach an everly, ever fiscally constrained future for transit agencies and state alike, the association believes that we must partner with the state to ensure that limited funding is spent on delivering benefits to Californians, not completing paperwork, and to establish appropriate funding flexibility that allows transit agency to meet their evolving local and operational and capital needs.

And so to that end, this bill would declare in statute the specific transit projects and services eligible for funding, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, streamline and simplify the administration of the program, and create additional flexibility for transit agencies to use their share of funding to meet their local needs. And with that, I wanna encourage your aye vote today. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Wilson, members. Mark Vukcevich on behalf of Streets For All. We are not a public transit operator. I wanna acknowledge that at the front, but we're here from this perspective of public transit lovers and riders and a community of people who feel passionately about public transit and the communities it creates. And, we believe in this bill, and we believe that SB 741 is important because it recognizes the moment that transit is now.

You know, transit, I I actually disagree with Senator Blakespear. It's not stagnant. It is a recovering, ridership post pandemic, and it's still growing every single year and trying to meet the moment, despite tough budget situations from both the state level, uncertainty at the Federal Government, and also outdated process and outdated ways that we we think and fund transit. And I think that's what part of this bill is trying to do.

And so California has set major goals around climate, clean air, equity, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and VMT.

And, you know, people want this. People want a workable public transit system. Young people aren't getting driver's license and they're riding e bikes all over the place. That's the next bill. And, you know, we can't ask people to meet the moment and meet our goals and meet their desires if we have a public transit system that's not working for them, if the bus is infrequent or unreliable, or if a fare program disappears or the different system just the system disappears altogether.

So that's why this bill matters. The SB 741 updates LCTOP so that safe client dollars can be used for things that make transit more useful to riders, you know, maintaining and expanding bus, rail, and ferry services, supporting fare subsidies, and improving fare and network integration. It doesn't create a new program. It improves an existing program.

And so, from our perspective, a bus that comes more often, a fare that a student can afford, and a system that is easier to transfer is not just an operational improvement. It is a fundamental need of the system. And so, if we are serious about our transit systems and our public transit in California, I I urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair, Brendan Repicky on behalf of the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District and Sunline Transit Agency in support and on behalf of Via Transportation support if amended. Thank you.

Thank you, madam Chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of your third favorite transit system, County Connection, in strong support.

Thank you, madam Chair. Spencer Street, on behalf of the North County Transit San Diego Railroad, in support. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and members. Moira Topp here on behalf of the Orange County Transportation Authority, in support.

Thank you. Sharon Gonzalez on behalf of the City of Carlsbad in support.

Evening. Zak Accuardi, NRDC, Natural Resources Defense Council. We're support if amended.

Casey Gupta from RIDE San Diego and San Diego Three Fifty in support if amended.

Jeanie Ward-Waller on behalf of Climate Plan, Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, and Move LA. We're in a support if amended position and appreciate the author and sponsor for working with us. Thanks.

Thank you. It looks like we do not have any opposition registered for witnesses. I believe no opposition registered. Correct. With that, we'll bring it to committee for any questions, comments, or concerns.

Alright. Seeing none, I'd like to say to the author, I appreciate your work to streamline this program to make it easier for transit agencies to use formula funds without the onerous reporting requirements. And I definitely appreciate you restoring the provisions of the law requiring that 50% of the LCTOP funds are expended in disadvantaged communities. I will be supporting your bill today and ask that you continue to work with the advocates that came up support as if amended as the bill progresses.

With that, we have a motion, by Davies and seconded by Sharp-Collins, give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

With that, madam secretary, please call the roll.

SB 741. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll call]

Alright. We'll hold that roll open for members to be able to add on. Excuse me. As we transition our witnesses, we're gonna go ahead, while we have a quorum presence, vote on our consent calendar. There are 13 bills on the consent calendar.

Item four, SB 1324. Item seven, SB 897. Item nine, SB 1029. Item 10, SB 1069. Item 15, SB 1293.

Item 16, SB 1382. Item 18, ACR 128. Item 19, SCR 108. Item 20, SCR 117. Item 21, SCR 119.

Item 22, SCR 121. Item 23, SCR 124. Item 25, SCR 155. And we have a motion made by Assemblymember Ward followed by Sharp Coll seconded, excuse me, by Sharp-Collins. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

11 votes. We'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. Moving on to item number 3, SB 1167.

Thank you, Chair and colleagues. This is my third and last bill in front of you today. I'm pleased to author SB 1167, which is sponsored by four of the biggest groups working on E-bike issues, Cal Bike, People for Bikes, Streets for All, and Streets are for Everyone.

I gladly accept the committee's amendments. This bill addresses misrepresentation in the E-bike marketplace and strengthens consumer protections around how electric bicycles are marketed and sold.

Often, any bicycle shaped device with an electric motor is labeled an E-bike, regardless of its power and speed capabilities. This can lead consumers to think that they're all similar and that there's no difference between the vehicles, the speeds they go, the danger involved, or the safety requirements, but that's not true.

That's why California law already clearly defines what qualifies as an E-bike. It can have no more than 750 watts of power and go no faster than 20 miles per hour on a throttle or 28 miles per hour when pedal assisted. Due to the popularity of E-bike, manufacturers and sellers have not held fast to the legal definition.

They have blurred the distinction, advertising more power for motor vehicles as E-bikes. This false advertising can cause consumers to underestimate the danger of using these faster motor vehicles.

Just to illustrate E-bike popularity, according to People four Bikes, E-bikes are the number one growth driver for the bicycle industry over the past five years, responsible for 63% of the growth in dollar sales of all bicycles between 2019 and 2023. In my hometown of Encinitas and indeed throughout my district, E-bikes are hugely popular.

Everywhere on the streets, we see people of all ages using them, and we've heard or read about E-bike crashes and kids getting hurt. In San Diego County, research released from Rady Children's Hospital showed there were two hundred and sixty-two traumatic emergencies on electric two-wheel devices handled by a hospital in 2025.

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

Specifically, SB 1167 will clarify the definition of E-bikes and specify that motor driven cycles, mopeds, motorcycles, and other motor vehicles are not E-bikes, require manufacturers and sellers to disclose if a device is not an E-bikes, including advising consumers that vehicle registration and rider licensing is required.

Standardizing the location of E-bike labels to be easily seen without having to turn the bicycle upside down and requiring law enforcement officers to include that labeling information on incident reports.

Finally, prohibiting any two or three wheeled device that can exceed 20 miles per hour from being used on public roads unless it meets the requirements of a device explicitly authorized for use on public roads. With me today, I have Mark Vucevich on behalf of Streets for All and Jeanne Wardwaller on behalf of People for Bikes. Go ahead.

Good evening, Chair members. Marc Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All. First and foremost, I just want to thank the committee, the incredibly well written analysis, and the amendments that were worked on. Just want to appreciate that. SB 1167 is a targeted street safety and consumer protection bill.

It does not punish legal E-bikes. It protects them in an effort to deal with the E-Moto problem. So legal E-bikes are the one of the most important tools we have for replacing car trips, lowering transportation costs, giving young and older people more independence, helping Californians get around getting around without being a drive.

Right now, public confidence is in E-bikes is being undermined by a different category of vehicle, which is high powered electric mopeds, motor driven cycles, and e motors that are being marketed, sold, and used as if they were ordinary bicycles or E-bikes. That confusion matters.

A legal E-bike is limited to 750 watts, must fit within California's class system. I can't stress that enough, but many devices being sold as e bikes can reach 30, 40, 50 miles per hour, and these are things that parents are buying for their children or buying for themselves.

Oftentimes without registering their device, having any insurance on it, no uncertain turn signals, no vehicle identification number, all of the stuff that we expect of a vehicle.

So, that creates two problems. It creates a real safety problem on our street and bike lanes and near schools for pedestrians, and it also creates a perceived E-bike problem where the perils and the issues of E-motos are being placed onto the legal market that's trying to do the right thing.

Many of these are good faith California companies, that is the leaders of the E-bikes brands in California, in The United States, doing the right thing, and so, SB 1167 addresses the actual problem. It clarifies what is and is not an E-bike.

It prohibits false advertising, requires clear labels and disclosures, improve improves crash reporting, helps law enforcement parents, schools, retailers, and consumers tell the difference.

This bill basically says, E-bikes are welcome, but anything that's not an e bike that might be trying to deceive you into thinking it's an E-bike, is not. For those reasons, Streetsville respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Expert two-minute testimony. Oh, wait. One more.

One more. I'll be quick, I promise. Good evening again, Chair and members. Jeanne Ward-Waller representing People four Bikes. People four Bikes is the national advocate and trade association for manufacturers and distributors of bicycles and electric bicycles.

We thank Senator Blake Spear for her authorship and are proud to cosponsor this bill to address the explosion of high speed Emotors and the impacts on safe streets. Electric bicycles, as the Senator said, are the only reliably growing segment of the bicycle market, and they expand access to affordable, sustainable transportation at a time when the cost of driving is climbing fast.

Protecting the integrity of what qualifies as a legal electric bicycle is essential to maintaining safe streets and public confidence in this important mode. However, consumers are increasingly encountering E-motos marketed as E-bikes that do not meet California's legal definition, and it's no wonder people are confused about what they are buying.

Some E-motos have motors with thousands of Watts of power and can reach highway speeds as, Mark just said of up to 65 miles per hour. We know from recent research that children and teens are now riding more E-motos than E-bikes, so it's critical that we have clear disclosures and accountability in advertising, to ensure parents know what they're buying.

By clarifying the definition of what is not an electric bicycle, SB 1167 ensures that E-motos cannot be legally marketed as e bikes. The changes in this bill will help consumers make informed decisions, provide a clear framework for regulating E-motos, and align vehicle use with safety standards. We urge your aye vote on SB 1167.

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

Hello. Kendra Ramsey, California Bicycle Coalition, cosponsor of the bill, in support. Thank you.

Damon Conklin with the League California Cities, in support.

Casey Gupta Wright, San Diego. San Diego 350, in support.

Julie Snyder with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, in support.

Nicole Wertleman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Sharon Gonzales on behalf of the cities of Carlsbad, Coronado, San Mateo, and the Marin County Council of Mayors and council members. Thank you.

Moyra Top on behalf of the Orange County Transportation Authority, in support.

Good evening. Scott Cox on behalf of the East Bay Regional Parks District, in strong support.

AARP California, in strong support.

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

Matt Robinson on behalf of the city of Goleta, the San Mateo City County Association of Governments, as well as the California Medical Association, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Now moving on to opposition testimony. You may proceed.

Good evening, Chair members. My name is Jack Wurston, and I am here representing the Motorcycle Industry Council, a not-for-profit trade association representing manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and aftermarket companies. We appreciate the author, sponsors, and your staff for working with us and believe the bill has improved greatly since its introduction.

However, we unfortunately have an opposed unless amended position on the bill today. I want to begin by making clear that we appreciate the author's intent and agree that consumer confusion around E-bikes is a legitimate issue.

We both want to avoid somebody who intends to buy an electric bicycle, ending up with a more powerful electric motorcycle but defining E-bike in statute, to only apply to electric bicycle industries both use it broadly.

Compare this to the term scooter. A scooter could be one used by a child at a park. An electric sit-on scooter could be used by a commuter and registered as a motorcycle. A stand-up scooter could be rented on share programs, and other scooters are used by individuals with mobility issues for shopping or other tasks.

Just as no, one industry owns the term scooter, no, one industry owns the term E-bike. Many companies already use E-bike in their brand names and product lines, providing clear disclosures to ensure that consumers are educated on what they are purchasing. The provisions in this bill would make those companies illegal upon enactment.

It is also important to note that California does not define E-bike in statute today and neither does federal law. In fact, the Consumer Product Safety Commission already classifies higher powered products as off highway motorcycles, and they proposed a rule just last week that reinforces that these terms are broadly used.

That framework highlights the gap between state and federal terminology. Finally, we proposed various alternatives to the author such as labeling, point of sale disclosures, and clear advertising, and we look to continue working with her on this important issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to other members of the public who would like to note their opposition to this bill. Now would be appropriate time to come to the microphone with name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving to members of this committee starting with vice Chair Davies.

Thank you, madam Chair. I just want to thank the Senator for bringing this bill forward. Obviously, we have a big concern in my district as well. The number of not only accidents, but of deaths, especially with these E-motor bikes, is horrendous, and it's not getting any better, and you're watching these kids.

A lot of the parents don't even know the speed of these bikes. They've never actually ridden on one. So, we've got to do everything we can to not only protect the riders, and most of them are in their teens, but also those that are walking on sidewalks in cars. So, thank you so much for bringing this, and now I think I already did a motion or we've got it going.

Excuse me. Happy to have you moving. Is that a second by Rogers? There we go. So we have a motion by Davies and a second by oh, Rogers.

Dr. Sharp Collins, go ahead.

Little quick thing. I would like to thank the Senator for bringing this forward. Also being from San Diego, there is a huge concern in regard to the E-bikes within itself. Having been on this committee for a short time, there's been a lot of bills that has come into play to talk about this.

Based on what I've read, this has been one of the clearest bills that I've heard to help me understand as a parent in regard to what the expectations are when it comes to E-bikes. So, with that, once again, thank you for pushing forth this bill, and I would like to be at it as a co-author if you will have me. Thank you.

Alright. Seeing no others, thank you for working, with the committee and the Motorcycle Industry Council on the definitions for moped and motor driven cycle. The Mineta report issued late last year highlights the concern both around E-bikes as well as bicycle shaped devices.

Too many children are riding motorized vehicles that are marketed as an E-bike, but in fact can go speeds much faster than permitted by law.

So, I believe that your legislation in conjunction with the legislation that came through us committee, authored by the Chair will help address the safety concerns for both E-bikes and for the much faster devices that have been appearing on the road. We have a motion made by Davies and seconded by Rogers, give you an opportunity to close.

Thank you. Yes. Chair, you just summarized the situation perfectly, so I'll close with that. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, madam secretary.

SB 1167. The motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [ROLL CALL]

With that, we'll hold the row open for members to be able to add on. I'm going in follow item order, moving on to item number 8, SB 953. The author may begin at his convenience.

Thank you, madam Chair and members. First, I'd like to thank Assemblymember Davies for being prepared and willing to present on my behalf, but we got out on time for me to get here. So, but I appreciate your willingness to do that. So, SB 953 addresses a serious gap in California law.

When a driver causes a death through vehicular manslaughter and then receives misdemeanor diversion, that conduct will have no reflection on their driving record. This bill ensures that even after diversion, the underlying conduct remains recognized for what it is, a major driving risk.

Under current laws, a speeding ticket can now have a greater reflection on your driving record than killing someone with your car. A dismissal after diversion does not change the fact that a fatality occurred, and some people on the road are at increased risk.

By not sharing this information with the DMV, the DMV cannot do its job of determining who poses a risk and who does not. The CalMatters "license to kill" series documented systemic failures in California's driving accountability system and found that dangerous drivers repeatedly avoided consequences and oversight.

DMV records often failed to reflect serious risk patterns, and many individuals involved in fatal crashes remained legally on the road. There is a serious issue where California has allowed drivers with dangerous histories to continue driving, and people, unfortunately, are dying.

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

This bill only applies two points to the driving record in vehicular manslaughter misdemeanor cases, and judges still retain full discretion to grant diversion. It has long been the case that vehicular manslaughter offenses result in the addition of two points on the driving record, so this does not create anything new.

The DMV point system is designed to identify high risk drivers. Without points, these drivers now remain invisible to the system, even after a fatal incident. Families of victims expect that the system will acknowledge the seriousness of the loss and take steps to prevent recurrence.

To dismiss one's driving record dismisses the value of a lost life. SB 953 affirms that a loss of life carries lasting weight. A death on our roads should never disappear from our records. Here with me today is Allison Lyman, the mother of Connor Lyman, who has tragically lost his life on the roadways. This is personally important to her.

Press the button so that it's lit. There you go.

Okay. There we go. Thank you, Senator Nilo. My name is Allison Lyman. I am the mother of Connor, a victim of vehicular manslaughter. There is a crisis happening on our roads. 4,000 innocent lives are killed on California roads every year. 4,000 lives. Behind each one is a family devastated. Communities destroyed.

They should multiply each death by a 100. That's a more accurate number. I died the day my son was killed. We all know the statistics and failures exposed in license to kill by CalMatters. The laws in our state do not reflect the gravity of these crimes and do not hold reckless drivers accountable.

This must change to save lives. My 23-year-old son, Connor, was killed on 04/23/2025 by a reckless and negligent driver. Connor is not just one of 4,000. Connor was my only son. He was my firstborn.

He was a devoted big brother, a classically trained pianist, and a piano teacher while he attended Sacramento City College. He dreamed of becoming a lawyer. He made this world a better place and he filled our home with his magnificent music. The silence is now heartbreaking. When I buried my child, the funeral home covered only his hands.

His beautiful hands that had played piano for nearly his entire life. I saw my son in the hospital. His strong healthy body had been broken. The violence of his death is something I will carry forever. No parent should ever have to experience the trauma or live with those memories.

Under California law, Connor's death is a misdemeanor. Because his killing is classified as low level and nonviolent, the driver charged with taking his life is eligible for a diversion program, allowing them to avoid a conviction simply by completing coursework or community service. This means there's no record of the crime, no record of Connor's death.

A driver who's already proven dangerous is allowed to continue driving without consequence. The system fails families who have lost loved ones and endangers every Californian each time these individuals get behind the wheel.

SB 953 is a necessary common-sense reform. By adding two DMV points when a misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter case is dismissed through diversion, the state will finally have a mechanism to track, repeat dangerous drivers. It takes four points to suspend a license. SB 953 does not overreach. It simply ensures that a fatality is not erased.

That Connor is not erased. I'm asking you to support SB 953. It is a measured reasonable step towards accountability and towards protecting the public from drivers who have already taken an innocent life. For Connor, for Misha, for Jada, for Julian, for Grace, for Huey, for Brayden, for Braun, for Luis, for Drew, for the 4,000 other innocent lives. Please vote yes on SB 953.

Thank you.

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

Mark Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All in support of the bill. Thank you.

Julia Lyman on behalf of my big brother Connor in strong support.

John Lyman, father of Connor, strong support.

Alright. Now moving on to opposition. As I understand it, we don't have any opposition witnesses. But if we do have members of the public who would like to register their opposition, now would be an appropriate time to come forward, Name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving.

We have a motion and a second. I don't see any other comments. So, thank you, Senator oh, I'm sorry. I missed you. Doctor Sharp Collins.

I just wanted to, again, thank Senator Nilo for bringing this forward. I had a chance to hear this bill in in public safety, and I was moved by Connor's story. I just wanted to share with you on that day, I felt that he was there because there was a song that I played for you, not knowing that that was one of his favorite songs to play. Yeah.

So, I just felt like he was there with us and wanted to make sure that people understood that this was a very important bill to be able to move forward and just thank you once again for sharing your overall story, and I will be supporting the bill today.

Thank you. Seeing no other so I'm looking members of the committee giving comments. We do have a motion made by Agar Kuryan, seconded by Ransom. So, I appreciate you billing bringing this bill forward.

As noted, I introduced a similar bill that would have continued to add points on a person's license for all misdemeanor vehicle code violations, not just vehicular manslaughter, but including those.

Mine's been amended to not impose new DMV programming costs. I know that is somewhat of a hurdle for this bill. I'll be supporting your bill, today, and I hope that the governor's office continues to work with the legislature on addressing, this important and critical issue. I'll give you an opportunity to close.

Well, one of the principles of salesmanship is when it appears you've closed the deal, you shut up. So just let me say I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

With that, madam secretary, please call the roll.

SB 953. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee.

I was ahead of you.

[ROLL CALL]

Alright. You had some very excited people to vote for that today.

Thank you.

With that, we'll hold the role open for members to be able to add on.

Thank you very much.

Alright. I see for file item order, I see, we have an author present. Items, there's two bills by this author, item number 5, SB 739, and item number 6, SB 1218.

Madam Chair, if it's okay, can we take up SB 1218 first?

That's fine.

Thank you, and I'd like to invite my witnesses to please join me.

We have the honorable madam mayor coming.

May I present?

Yes. My apologies, at your convenience, sir.

Good evening, madam Chair and members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 1218, which is my number one priority bill for this year, just to start out with that, which would give local law enforcement and certain code enforcement employees the authority to put a wheel boot on an individual's vehicle if the owner has repeatedly failed to resolve illegal dumping citations.

I wanna start by sincerely thanking the Chair and committee staff for their work with my office and the sponsors and their work to, frankly, make this a better bill by suggesting that we focus on vehicle booting rather than DMV enforcement. This will not only reduce the cost for the state, but will streamline enforcement for local governments, and I'm pleased to accept the committee's amendments.

This amended bill will allow for a local authority to immobilize or boot a vehicle for a person who has five or more outstanding illegal dumping citations or failure to appear notices for illegal dumping or two or more unpaid citations for illegal dumping of commercial quantities. And to just, cite the definition of commercial quantities in existing law, it's waste matter equal to or an excess of one cubic yard.

This is consistent with existing legal authority provided to local governments for the enforcement of unpaid parking and traffic citations. And put this in context, illegal dumping is a persistent public health environment on quality of life crisis in the city of Oakland, which I live in and represent, and in cities throughout the state of California. Abandoned waste attracts additional dumping, creates fire hazards, blocks sidewalks, harms businesses, and disproportionately impacts low income communities and communities of color.

Despite significant investments in many communities to clean up dump waste, including increased staffing, increased bulky pickup services, and aggressive pursuit of grant funding, enforcement remains the critical missing component. Currently in Oakland and across jurisdictions, illegal dumping citations are routinely ignored, and collection rates for administrative citations remain unacceptably low.

Cities across our state lack a meaningful enforcement tool to ensure compliance, and repeat offenders often face little deterrence. And to put this in context, between 2021 and 2024, Oakland issued nearly 3,000 illegal dumping citations, totaling 1,300,000 in fines, where the city has only been able to collect 11% of the total fines issued. And last year, the city of Oakland received 25,000 calls reporting incidences of illegal dumping. As a result, Oakland crews have removed 15,000,000 pounds of waste. This is a necessary action for cities to take.

And when the city routinely cleans up hot spot areas, it sends a signal to perpetrators that their actions do not have consequences, and those areas are dumped again. In closing, I wanna acknowledge the comments made by opposition regarding the impact of enforcement policies on indigent people. Currently, penal code section 374.3 already authorizes the court to consider the defendant's ability to pay when issuing fines for illegal dumping.

Additionally, the amended bill authorization for booting would not be triggered after one violation, but after repeated repeated unpaid citations, including incidences of dumping commercial quantities of waste. This is not intended to penalize a person who dumps furniture at the side of the road because they're cleaning their home or students who are moving out of their college or dorm or good Samaritans who wanna help the homeless or even persons experiencing homelessness.

The authorization to boot only applies due to the repeated act of dumping waste on our streets and in public spaces and failing to pay outstanding citations. This is intended to deal with licensed and unlicensed haulers who dump material in public spaces, to deal with contractors who dump construction debris on our streets, and people who consistently decide to trash our communities.

Similar to the authority provided to local agencies to boot vehicles due to unpaid parking and traffic citations, this bill will establish a meaningful consequence for unpaid dumping citations. SB 1218 will deter repeat illegal dumping, improve compliance, and support cleaner and safer neighborhoods. And before I turn over the witnesses, I wanna acknowledge, that I have a number of constituents who are here who came all the way from the East Bay, to lend their support for this bill.

And I wanna particularly thank Faith in Action East Bay for being here today, who you'll hear from very shortly, and for their advocacy in addressing legal legal dumping and for cleaner neighborhoods in the East Bay. And with me to testify in support of the bill is my mayor, the mayor of the City of Oakland, the honorable Barbara Lee, and Amaka Watson from SEIU 1021, and a City of Oakland environmental enforcement officer. Thank you.

Go ahead.

Thank you very much. My name is Barbara Lee, and I'm the mayor of the City Of Oakland, and I'm here in support of Senate bill 1218 authored by Senator Jesse Arreguin. First, I wanna thank Senator Arreguin for his leadership and for partnering with the

city of Oakland to city of Oakland to address a challenge, a real challenge, that communities across California continue to face. I also wanna thank you, madam Chair and your staff for working with us on amendments to this bill. We are pleased, as Senator Arreguin said, to accept those amendments, including replacing DMV enforcement mechanism with the use of vehicle immobilization or booting for the nonpayment of illegal dumping citations.

And I also wanna community partners, including Faith in Action, SEIU, for their activism, and for their work in reminding us that true democracy only works through the power of the people, as we know in Oakland and say so often. Illegal dumping is one of the issues Oakland residents raise with me most often because it affects every single neighborhood in our city, especially disproportionately communities of color from West Oakland to Deep East Oakland.

So let me be clear. Illegal dumping is not a random act. It concentrates in the same communities that have experienced structural racism, institutional neglect, and decades of long term disinvestment. Black and brown neighborhoods and low income neighborhoods are targeted because they have been under resourced and under protected for generations. This is an equity issue, and it deserves to be treated as one.

Clean streets are bound more than appearance. They are about public safety, public health, neighborhood pride, human dignity, and the quality of life. And actually, when I was first elected, I had instituted keep the town clean with with the faith community and young people, who go out every single weekend to clean streets and around especially schools. Oakland has invested millions of dollars cleaning up illegally dumped waste, but cannot clean our way out of this problem without meaningful accountability.

The buck must stop somewhere, and this bill ensures it stops with the people doing the dumping, not with the residents who have already carried the burden for much too long.

Illegal dumping is a deliberate act that preys on vulnerable communities and disproportionately harms working class neighborhoods. Whether it's household trash, construction debris, or discarded appliances, these materials too often end up dumped in our neighborhoods instead of being properly disposed of. Illegal dumping

We'll have to have you wrap up.

Excuse me, madam Chair.

I said we'll have to have you wrap up if you wanna give your closing statement.

Oh, ok, I will definitely wrap up and just say thank you again because we need this enforcement tool. Senate bill 1218 does that together with Crankstart, which has invested $9,000,000 also in our efforts toward illegal dumping. I think we finally have a partnership that's gonna go a long way. Thank you again. I just wanted to say thanks to all of you.

I'm sitting here remembering when I was in the Assembly. I served on the Assembly transportation committee, so I know the importance of your party.

I do remember that. I was gonna say welcome home.

Thank you all again.

Alright. To our next witness.

Good evening. My name is Amaka Watson. I've been employed with the city of Oakland for twenty five years. I'm currently an environmental enforcement officer with the city of Oakland and SEIU 1021 elected union officer. Thank you for the opportunity for me to speak before you today.

Illegal dumping continues to be a major public health and quality of life issue across California. California law already prohibits illegal dumping. However, citations are often ignored, collection rates remain extremely low, and cities spend significant resources on cleanup but lack effective enforcement tools to ensure compliance. Our goal is not to target or criminalize people who live in low income, marginalized, and disenfranchised communities, including unhoused or otherwise struggling in our communities.

We understand that illegal dumping is often a symptom of broader challenges facing a city that has experienced decades of disinvestment.

What we do seek to address are the bad actors who normally and repeatedly dump large amounts of waste in our neighborhoods. Illegal dumping severely impacts our most vulnerable communities, making neighborhoods appear more blighted, less safe, and creating serious public health and environmental hazards. To be clear, my work is not solely focused on a single bag of trash left on the curb. I also focus on a large scale dumping operations involving hundreds of pounds of waste.

These are significant dumping incidents that create environmental hazards, burdens to city resources, and negatively impact entire neighborhoods.

Every day we see waste being brought in our neighborhoods, often from outside our outside the city of Oakland, dumped in places where residents are already facing significant challenges. The people who live in these communities deserve clean, safe streets just like anyone else. That is why SEIU 1021 supports this bill. It provides the enforcement tools we need to hold major illegal dumpers and irresponsible haulers accountable. Right now, our ability to make a meaningful impact is limited.

This legislation fills that gap. I leave you by saying, I am not investigating a single bag of trash. I'm investigating truckloads of debris, construction waste, furniture, and other materials dumped by repeat offenders who treat our neighborhoods like a landfill. This bill gives us the tools to hold these actors accountable for all of our residents, unhoused and housed. I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

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

Good evening. Amy Costa on behalf of Alameda County in strong support.

Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities in support.

Nick Gorman with the Port of Oakland in strong support. Thank you for the author for his leadership.

Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the cities of Thousand Oaks in El Cerrito in support.

Melissa Cosio here with Pacific Gas and Electric Company, PG and E in strong support. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

I support the bill.

John Brockett, Faith in Action East Bay, I strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Barbara Lafitte-Oluwole, Faith in Action East Bay, I strongly support.

Yes. Thank you.

My name is Lydia Arias from Oakland. I support. Thank you.

My name is Gloria Avalos, Faith and Action East Bay, I support. We deserve clean streets.

Thank you.

My name is Maria Martinez. I support this.

Madam Chair and committee members, Niccolo De Luca here on behalf of the city of Union City, Emeryville, and Antioch in strong support. And thank you the to the author for all of his leadership.

My name is Anna Romero. I'm from Richmond. Faith in Action. I'm support.

My name is Rosa Garcia. I'm support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to opposition. We don't have any testifying or do we? We do. Come on come on forward. I wanna confirm your affiliation. Sounds good. Thank you.

You may begin. And just know that we had given an extra twenty-five seconds to the other testifiers, so you will also get an extra twenty-five seconds.

Also, before I begin, my understanding is through the Chair, I may be able to get four minutes if I'm the only opposition. Is that accurate?

Not for this committee. Okay. But but the other ones did get two minutes and twenty-five seconds each, so you will get two minutes and twenty-five seconds.

Understood. Thank you. Good evening, Chair and committee members. My name is Marshall Arnwein. I am a legislative advocate for the ACLU California action.

We are here in respectful opposition to SB 1218. Basically, thanks to author and the sponsors for the opportunity to share our concerns with the bill. The ACLU understands the bill's intent to address illegal dumping due to public health concerns. The ACLU shares the goal of improving public health. However, we do not share their approach of enforcement mechanisms proposed in the bill to address this problem.

Because of that, the ACLU must remain in respectful opposition. We first oppose the bill because it will not solve the root issue. The ACLU respectfully opposes the committee's proposal to give local authorities the authority to immobilize a vehicle for a person who has five or more unpaid citations or fail to appear notices for legal dumping or two or more unpaid citations for legal dumping in commercial quantities, especially if there's no nexus to the vehicle being used for the dumping.

This will essentially be a debt collection with similar Fourth Amendment concerns that was raised in the 2021 court case, Coalition of Homelessness versus the City of San Francisco, regarding towing safely parked vehicles solely because their owners have accrued five or more parking unpaid parking tickets. In 2023, the California Court of Appeal held that San Francisco's policy of towing lawfully and safely parked vehicles without a warrant, solely due to unpaid parking tickets, violates the California constitution.

The ACLU recommends exhausting all non enforcement mechanisms against community members as a case study to learn if this will improve reducing illegal dumping. The Oakland's audit report provides numerous economically viable solutions to prevent illegal dumping that is not economically punitive to Oakland residents. For example, the city should strengthen its commercial enforcement strategies to identify and penalize the thousands of local businesses currently operating without mandatory garbage collection contracts.

The city should also address the underlying economic drivers of the crisis by making legal waste disposal less expensive and more convenient for residents to deter the displacement of waste onto public streets. For these reasons, we respect the request a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Looking to members of the public who would like to add on their opposition to this bill, please come to the mic at this time noting name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving to members of this committee. We have a motion. I believe we have a, yes, we have a we have a motion and a second. Carrillo?

Thank you, madam Chair. I wanna thank the author for bringing this measure forward. We know that illegal dumping is an issue across the state. The region that I represent, the Antelope Valley and the Victor Valley, the High Desert, we do have a serious problem with the with the high illegal dumping. The desert really has become a place where commercial dumping takes place.

If you were able to see what's happening over there, you would think that there is a a dump site in the High Desert in various location, not just in one, but across the desert. So I'm happy to support this, and I thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you.

Jackson.

Thank you very much, madam Chair. Senator, you brought in the big guns. That's not right. I I think that madam Chair, I think you're you're you're right on it. I mean, I'm I'm more scared of the boot than I am the DMV action.

I'll tell you that right now. And so I got a boot once, and I never did that again. So not for dumping, of course. Not for dumping. But overall, there's no doubt for those of us also who are districts, whether we have large vacant lots and we have a lot of land of available, there's certainly there are certainly, unfortunately, people who are taking advantage of that, and I'm sure cost creating such a cost at the local level.

So thank you very much, madam mayor, for highlighting this issue and ensuring that we really offer a real deterrent and something that's really can really teach a lesson in terms of making sure that people are respecting their neighbors, respecting their communities, and respecting other people's communities who are actually going out further to others to be able to dump. So I look forward to supporting this bill.

Thank you. Ransom.

Yes. Very briefly. So first of all, I wanna commend the author on working with the committee because that's hard, you know, to have folks, you know, tinker with your bill. But I wanna say that you ended in, I think, a better place because, one, it's you you could create two double negatives with people now driving on licenses without registration.

I think this is definitely an incentive, but I also wanna recognize that the opposition had some really good points that could possibly be considered in conjunction to what you have presented here because there is, you know, an opportunity for us to make sure that people who do wanna, you know, be able to get rid of household waste and things like that can do that.

But I wanna say that I really appreciate that this bill gets at the heart of the matter, which is disincentivizing, folks who are going to and what we normally see is they go to the poor neighborhoods and they dump off things because they already have blight. And, it's just not fair.

It's not okay. And I think that this is a great compromise on this bill. And so, hopefully, you and the opposition can work together to maybe add some of those other things, and thank you for bringing it.

Thank you. Seeing no others, just appreciate the opportunity, to work with you on this bill. As you know, I had concerns with it being on DMV registration for a couple of things. One of the things that at this committee, we always get is this involvement in DMV adding this extreme cost.

And when we have a DMV fund that our our, not our motor motor vehicle fund being close to insolvent, it poses a lot of issues and good bills go to die when when you get to a Props because of that.

But also, as my colleague noted is we want people to register their vehicles. And if you don't register your vehicle because there's this large ticket on there, that means the state doesn't get these resources as it relates to registration, which goes to our motor vehicle count, plus our roads. And in addition, six months later, that vehicle can now be towed.

And that person is in a worse situation because now they have a towed vehicle and they have to pay fees at a towing facility very different than that immediate deal locally with the boot. And so I think that that is a one time charge versus an ongoing charge, and so it helps.

So I appreciate you working with this committee to figure out, a way forward and into making that happen. And thank you, Madam Mayor, for your leadership, into addressing the needs of your constituent. And as members on this committee have noted, who've served in local gov, we heard it too, and we hear it even as Assembly members. And so thank you for taking charge at that. We have a motion made by Sharp-Collins and a seconded by Davies. I'll give you an opportunity to close, sir.

Well, once again, thank you very much, madam Chair, and to committee staff for your work and partnership with my office. I think we land in a much better place. That's gonna be easier for cities like Oakland to implement. And, I wanna thank mayor Lee for taking the time to be here. I think it demonstrates the importance of this issue to the city of Oakland.

And I wanna thank her for her leadership in tackling this intractable issue. And, you know, to the opposition witness, happy to continue conversations. I just wanna acknowledge the the work that is happening in Oakland focusing the three e's of eradication, education, and enforcement. And there's a great deal of work that's happening, through not just increasing removal of waste, you know, having partnerships with community based organizations, the work with the the private sector.

The mayor was able to secure a multimillion dollar grant to to expand enforcement efforts to address illegal dumping in Oakland.

But the enforcement piece is the challenge. That's what this bill gets to. And once again, you know, the penal code already has provisions that allow courts to consider cases of hardship in determining whether to impose these fines. There are these a mechanism to consider hardship, and this is not dealing with somebody who's just dumping waste at a at a street corner one time or somebody who's unhoused.

It's people, mostly businesses, that consistently dump waste, large quantities of waste in our neighborhoods, in on our streets, in our public spaces causing significant harm in environmental impacts. That's what this bill is seeking to address with that respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Madam secretary.

SB 1218, the motion is do passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

Alright. We'll hold that roll open for members to be able to add on. Thank you. With that, we'll move on to item number five, SB 739. Once our witnesses are set, you may begin at your convenience.

Well, good evening once again, madam Chair, members of the Assembly Transportation Committee. It's my pleasure to present Senate bill 739.

This bill would upgrade the Clean Mile standard and incentive program to ensure that the program is meeting its greenhouse gas emissions and electric vehicle miles travel targets that transportation network companies or TNCs need to comply with.

I want to once again thank the Chair and the committee for the work with my office and our sponsors on the amendments that were put in print last week, and so we did accept the committee amendments.

The bill as amended would allow the California Air Resources Board and the California Public Utilities Commission to adjust the current clean mile standard targets, so that they reflect the changing policy and, economic landscape relating to electric vehicles.

As a strong climate supporter, it is unfortunate that the current Federal Government has been so hostile toward California's climate targets, and the modest adjustments in my bill will allow for the Clean Mile standard to continue to be on a trajectory to grow the zero-emission market for TNC drivers, which was the original goal of the legislation.

Without these changes in this bill, we would be placing hundreds of thousands of California rideshare drivers in a difficult position where they could lose platform access, if they don't adopt zero emission vehicles.

Many of these drivers are working a second or third job to help make ends meet, and we do not yet provide assistance to these drivers to purchase ZEVs through the driver assistance fund even though that fund was created several years ago and fees are going towards that fund.

Currently, the clean mile standard is requiring TNCs and drivers to meet an electric vehicle's miles traveled target of 13% by 2025, and that target more than triples next year to 50%.

The bill as amended with the committee's amendments would provide for interim targets of 17% by 2027 and 19% by 2028 so that we can continue to make progress on these targets while the respective state agencies work through adjustments.

Finally, before I introduce this bill, one of the points of feedback that I received was that the law as written did not provide state agencies with the flexibility that was needed to adjust the targets. As written, the law only allows for either implementing the targets or delaying them. My bill will provide that flexibility expressly.

Ultimately, this is about making sure that we are moving towards a transition of our TNC vehicles towards zero emissions, which is an important goal just like we're moving other vehicle fleets towards zero emissions.

Recognizing the significant changes in the economic and policy landscape, the loss of federal incentives, changes to the EV market, which make it more difficult to procure these vehicles.

It's not about going backwards. It's about making sure that we can move forwards in a way that's workable for the drivers, the companies, and for the state as well. With me to testify are the cosponsors of the bill, John Finley representing Uber and Malcolm McFarland representing Lyft.

Gentlemen, just to remind you, you have two minutes each. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and members. My name is Malcolm Macfarlane the second here on behalf of Lyft in support of Senate Bill 739. Lyft would like to thank Chair Wilson and this committee for the thoughtful engagement on this issue.

California deserves the climate policy that works, and Senate bill 739 updates the original 2018 clean mile standard targets to reflect the realities of what's achievable today. To be clear, Lyft is committed to supporting California's climate goals and has demonstrated that commitment in action.

We have met every EVMT target since the Clean Mile standard took effect, electrifying our platform at over twice the statewide adoption rate since 2023. Also, we have invested over $64,000,000 in driver bonuses, EV rentals, and in app tools to make driving electric easier.

Lyft remains committed to continuing those investments, which this bill appropriately directs the commission to consider when evaluating any enforcement action.

California's clean mile standard targets were set using 2018 data before a global pandemic reshaped rideshare, before the federal EV tax credit was eliminated, and before $5,000,000,000 in EV charging infrastructure funding was halted. These are documented and structural barriers.

For many drivers, affordability and availability remain real challenges that fall disproportionately on low- and moderate-income drivers. Notably, the CPUC's own unanticipated barriers report recommends pausing enforcement of these targets that acknowledges are no longer achievable.

Senate bill 739 fills that gap and makes reasonable adjustments to the CMS program supported by a two-year review process and requires an annual EVMT increase to ensure continued progress toward electrification and note until new targets are adopted and implemented by the board.

Achieving California's climate goals require targets grounded in current market realities. Lyft would like to thank Senator Erdogan and his for his leadership on this important issue and Assembly member Jackson for his co-sponsorship, and we respectfully ask this committee for your support on this bill. Thank you.

Good evening, madam Chair, members. John Finley here on behalf of Uber in strong support of Senate Bill 739. Uber is still deeply committed to a zero-emission future. We've invested hundreds of millions of dollars in driver incentives, vehicle discounts, education initiatives, and charging partnerships, and it's working.

Today, nearly one in five miles on the Uber platform in the state of California is already fully electric, but the current CMS framework is no longer economically or technically feasible.

This perfect storm of high electricity costs, rising interest rates, elimination of federal tax credits, and ongoing constraints on EV supply and access to affordable public charging infrastructure led the CPUC staff just last week, to recommend a three year pause on the CMS program.

Forcing an unworkable standard on TNCs won't accelerate EV adoption faster than it's already happening. It will simply risk the premature deactivation of thousands of low-income working Californians who cannot yet afford or otherwise unable to transition to electric vehicles. SB 739 provides a realistic and durable path forward.

It provides CARB with the authority to recalibrate the CMS targets in light of existing market conditions and the most up to date data. CARB can then more regularly reevaluate and adjust those targets based on future market conditions and policies.

Currently, CARB and CPUC only possess the authority to delay adoption or implementation of the existing targets and its trajectory. Despite significant challenges, Uber is not backing away.

This year alone, we committed a $100,000,000 to expand public fast charging globally and launched a nationwide go electric grant program offering a $4,000 incentive for drivers who make the switch to EVs.

We are doing our part, and we ask California to continue to do the same by passing a flexible framework that protects drivers while continuing climate progress. We thank Senator Aragin for bringing this issue forward. Respectfully urge an aye vote on SB 739. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to members of the committee who would like to show their support. Not committee. Sorry. Members of the public. Name, affiliation, and position.

Timothy Byrd Junior on behalf of Cal Asian Chamber and TechNet in support. Thank you.

Sorry. Moving on to opposition testimony.

Good evening, madam Chair and members. Bill McGavin with the Coalition for Clean Air. We worked with Senator Skinner several years ago on the legislation that required the establishment the queen miles standard. And the impetus behind that was the fact that the ride hailing vehicles are taking a disproportionate amount of the miles traveled on our roads and therefore account, if they're in internal combustion engines, for a disproportionate amount of the air pollutants and greenhouse gases emitted. So that rationale still holds today.

However, we do agree that we're facing challenges to transportation electrification that we did not have before the Trump administration launched its war on California's air quality. I wanna thank the the committee and the author and the sponsors for last week's amendments, which really do fix a lot of the flaws that we saw in the bill. And so, I think we're getting closer together.

However, we still have problems with some of the language, particularly the provision the commission shall not adopt or enforce any penalties against TNCs for failure to meet any targets or goals. The legislature should not be immunizing anybody for their noncompliance.

We also think the interim targets are too low and that the factors to be considered for the future targets tilt towards nonambition. But, look forward to continuing to work on this bill.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm doctor Benjamin Liu, and I'm the cleaner advocacy manager for the American Lung Association. We joined the Coalition for Clean Air and Others in respectful opposition to SB 739. According to the American Lung Association's latest state of the airport, over 80% of Californians still live in communities impacted by unhealthy levels of air pollution.

Fuel combustion in the transportation sector is the primary source for smog forming ozone pollution and a significant contributor to fine PM 2.5 particles. This pollution leads to to both acute and chronic health emergencies such as asthma, heart attacks and stroke, developmental harm, lung cancer, and premature death. These are costly and disruptive health emergencies that strain family budgets and contribute to the affordability crisis in our state.

SB 739 seeks to make changes that undermine the effectiveness of the Clean Miles Standard at a time when California's clean air programs are under attack by the federal administration challenging our ability to protect our health. This program passed in this body in 2018 and was designed designed to reduce emissions from transportation network companies by making it easier for drivers to switch to zero emission vehicles.

TNC vehicles travel significantly more miles per year than equivalent personal vehicles and represent an outsized portion of total light duty emissions. The latest amendments in print, we appreciate the latest amendments in print as of June 25. We think they're a step in the right direction. But we as my colleague said, we think there's still some more work to do.

Specifically, the the amendments prescribed decelerating targets in 2027 and 2028, which run counter to the mission of the program to drive ZEV adoption to meet the state's impending 2030 emissions goals.

We support efforts to quickly disperse funds from the existing driver's assistance program for the benefit of transitioning low and medium income drivers to EVs and encourage the bill sponsors to do so as well. No text in the current bill as amended gives direction to PUC to this effect. Absent further direction, PUC is on track to begin distributing funds by September of this year. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to vote no on SB 739.

With with the Federal Government dismantling clean air policies, it's important for California to uphold its clean air programs.

Thank you. Thank you. With that, we'll move on to members of the public who would like to note their opposition, including name, affiliation, and position.

Good evening, Chair and members. Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Union of Concerned Scientists in opposition. Thank you.

Zak Accuardi at NRDC in opposition.

Thank you. Moving now to members of the committee, Ahrens.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this really thoughtful bill forward. I appreciate all the work that you've done in this space. And and, you know, just as a member from the Bay Area as a whole, I appreciate I appreciate your work on this and and your very long experience in on the local level serving as mayor as well. I'd love to be added as a co author and move the bill. Thank you, madam Chair.

Alright. Jackson then Hart.

Thank you very much, Senator, for for doing this bill. Obviously, you know, I represent this body on CARB, and I and I believe that this is one of those examples where a cookie cutter approach does not always solve the problems we're trying to solve. Particularly, what's concerning to me with the current regulations is that who's most likely to be a Uber or Lyft driver? What type of income are they trying to achieve?

But then also with this regulation, then now say, because I can't afford an EV vehicle, am I not able to then provide for my family or whatever else I'm trying to do?

And I don't think that that is that that would be appropriate given the population they may that actually utilize the work provided the gig work provided by Lyft and and Uber drivers. And and such a mandate I mean, we we're having a hard enough time trying to continue to provide subsidies for people to buy new EV vehicles. We've yet to really do enough on used EV vehicles.

And God forbid, you live in an apartment complex and you don't even have the infrastructure to utilize an EV vehicle. So all that around, I think that if we're going to try to mandate these drivers, because that's what's gonna trickle down to, is what now type of drivers can participate in in this type of employment that we gotta have a more holistic approach that includes budget items with this.

So notwithstanding that, I believe that this is something, definitely, this bill is important because it doesn't just affect the companies, but it affects the ripple effects also goes down to people who are struggling, people who are trying to make a a a generate income on a daily basis. So thank you very much for this bill. Looking forward to continue to support it and looking forward to, helping us being steered when it gets to the floor.

Thank you, Hart, then Ward.

Yeah. Thank you, the Senator, for carrying this bill, and appreciate the comments, from doctor Jackson about the dilemma for drivers. And I really appreciate the comments from the companies about trying to lean into this challenge. We can't abandon the goal. We we can adjust the goal.

And, clearly, the goal was unrealistic and needs to be adjusted. But I do think there's a balancing act between, you know, a cliff and ambition that needs to be pushed. And that's the challenge, is trying to find that balance point where we're making progress, we're actually addressing the the the issue, and, frankly, saving drivers money because it is economically advantageous to be operating electric vehicle compared to a combustion, fossil fuel vehicle. You're gonna save money on maintenance and and operational cost too.

But that that hurdle of getting the electric vehicle is a challenge, and I appreciate that the companies are stepping up, providing some of that financial incentive.

And that's the space that I'd like to see us push harder. How how can the companies do more? How can we have realistic but ambitious goals?

And, you know, I think this bill is on that path, and we'll continue to be paying attention and looking and trying to hear more from the companies and from the sponsors, about how we can do that and find that sweet spot, make this effective, and have the right impact on the driving community and the air pollution in our communities as well. So thanks for your work together.

Ward?

Thank you, madam Chair. I wanna thank the author for bringing this forward, and I'm gonna take a moment just to really note that we have to underscore that, yes, there's been a slowdown of ZEV adoptions, but that is specifically because of these federal rollbacks and a lot of the policies that are hitting California hard. We know that prior to those happening that we are having on a quarterly basis nearly 24, 25% and rising percentage of new vehicles sold that were fully electric.

And that was to be celebrated because our incentives are working. They're making it so that that price point is coming into play where more and more Californians are able to be able to choose that as a good option right now.

And, yes, we were probably on the precipice of being able to do a lot more work on the used vehicle on the second generation systems right now. And so it's no surprise that slow vehicle ZEV adoption is now the new newer normal that we're in, but that was a policy choice that is failing, I think, these goals that we could be making right now.

So I recognize that you're trying to be able to align a program that really started and predated that also had laudable goals about where we're heading right now.

And wanted to thank you for taking the committee amendments that I think are starting to be able to really marry that because the question that I had, and I wonder if you could respond to this, is that one thing I didn't wanna be able to see was somehow a differential treatment right now of one user, one vehicle type over the general public. Right?

And recognizing that these are vehicles users that are probably producing a lot more vehicle miles traveled out there right now. It's especially important that we are having parity right now in how we are aligning, you know, our our program goals, modified that they may be in the new era that we're in. How how how can you respond to, with these amendments, how things might be moving forward as far as that issue of parity?

Certainly. Well, thank you very much, Assemblymember, for the question. The intention of the bill and and and the amendments is not to suspend the the program. Right? It's to phase in implementation of program with targets that more realistically reflect the availability of ZEVs and the ability of the comp of the drivers and the companies to be able to implement this mandate.

And one key component of this as was referenced by opposition is the fund that the CPUC administers, which a surcharge is collect on every single ride and money is being collected in that fund and the and the agency has yet to administer any money towards drivers to provide a monetary incentives for them to purchase ZEVs. We hope that that will change soon.

Based on my conversations with CPUC, it sounds like that's in progress. So we don't I don't think we necessarily need to prescribe that they have to expend that money as they're in the process of doing that. But that's one step. But, you know, we have electrification goals for light and heavy duty vehicles. We're obviously trying to, you know, increase the private individuals' adoption of ZEVs and really focusing on infrastructure, you know, in order to help increase the, the purchasing and adoption of ZEVs.

This is intended to help keep the goal of the Clean Mile Standard moving forward, but to provide the the the direction and flexibility to adjust the targets to phase in over time, so that the the implementation can reflect the realities of the current market and the availability of of vehicles in the market as well.

Very much. Yeah. I get I think, you know, that that that that that nuance, that distinction that you're talking about here with where we're at with this bill and and the and the improved amendments you're having. And then just one question for the opposition because I recognize that amendments can sometimes kinda come in meaningful that they are, and you've I appreciate that you're recognizing those as well as a significant step in the right direction.

And and I I may have mis transcribed something that you were saying here too about, you know, maybe continued concern, something you were looking at.

But the idea that that, I I think this is your your quote, that that CARB, you know, still would need to be able to, I think, recalibrate some of its programs. That's something they can already do right now under the existing CMS program. Do you still see a disconnect or a disalignment if if, in this amended version, this now becomes a new standard that the the CMS program could still be able to sort of, you know, help to kind of, like, connect these dots?

You know, if that makes sense.

K.

I actually did not testify to that, because the the amendments actually changed that situation. So, no, that that was not part of my testimony.

I was talking about the way that this language sets up the future targets.

Okay.

And, you know, I think some of those factors make sense, but there is a reference there to the rate of adoption in the general public. And this is really a different sector from the general public. So that to me would kind of militate towards a target that's less ambitious than it should be.

Would you say that that target is any different than a target that we might be now headed towards given

Assemblymember Ward if, you, we can hold one second just to clarify. The original bill's language had a correlation between the general public and the TNCs, we did remove that language in the amendment.

So I'm referring to page seven of the amended bill line 38 where it says the review shall include but is not limited to review of, and it says data relative to current and future electric transportation adoption rates for the general public.

Okay. So that is what I would call a a reason for opening the for them to adjust, a reason to that could be a reason why they would adjust, but there's no requirement that they then factor that in to that adjustment. And so it's just a reason for opening the book, so to speak, to say, okay.

We might need to readjust this because we see a huge disconnect, but we intentionally did not keep language that said that they had to actually consider that when adopting the rule. It's just a reason to start the conversation that the rule might need to be adjust.

And that was very distinct, for me as Chair, is that it could be a reason why you'd wanna adjust the rule, but not there shouldn't be any because we really don't have a correlation for you to use and considering what the new rule should be.

The change you made was very significant. I think just maybe going forward, we might wanna review this language, make sure we've got the factors right.

Yeah. Madam Chair, I think you answered my question more eloquently, so I appreciate that. I wanna thank everyone for working on this bill and look forward to seeing it move forward.

Hi. Doctor Sharp-Collins.

Hi. So I too would like to thank the Senator for bringing forth the bill. I just wanted to share a couple of things as the assistant majority leader of for policy and and research. I had research done into the challenges facing the state as we work to reach our self goals. And so we currently have ambitious climate goals that we want to meet, but we must also pair those goals with the reality of our current political and economic situation.

When we talk about ZEV sales for 2025, they were significantly below the 35% goal for '26, making it nearly impossible to meet the 2030 climate goals. And so I'm sharing that, as we continue to move forward and and have these conversations, but I do want to appreciate the author's effort to ensure that we can strike some type of balance between meeting goals and the affordability and TNC drivers being able to continue supporting their overall families.

So, yeah, so with that, I will be moving forward with the bill. But I just wanted to state the fact that we did have some research done to help highlight some of the key concerns that we will be facing moving forward in regards to reaching these goals. So I just wanna share that with you.

Okay. Seeing no other comments. First of all, thank you for bringing this forward. I appreciate your work from your staff and the sponsors, really to find a viable path forward. Transportation network companies or TNC, as you've all, heard here from the public, have reshaped mobility across the globe over the past decade.

And one of the negative side effects of TNC driver, I'm sorry, is that TNC drivers have an outside impact on emissions due to the number of miles driven without passengers. The state recognized this impact and created the Clean Mile Standard, which is meant to reduce emissions from the vehicle fleets that TNCs rely on. Due to many headwinds facing the zero emission vehicle market, the target set in the Clean Miles Standard are no longer achievable at their current rate.

So this bill will require TNCs to continue to make progress in cutting emissions while our state agency revisit the emission targets. So I will be supporting your bill today.

A motion has been made by Aguiar-Curry and seconded by Ahrens. I'll give you an opportunity to close, sir.

Well, thank you very much once again, madam Chair, for your work on this bill. I think it's moving it in a much better direction trying to strike that balance as members talked about. And thank you to the committee members for the thoughtful comments and to the opposition as well. And we look forward to continued conversations. I think we have the shared goal of wanting to make sure that this program works.

And, you know, the opposition talked about the impact of our cleaner policies and cleaner goals as a representative of West Oakland, which is an AB 617 community. You know, they're they're dealing with significant impacts due to the impact of light and heavy duty vehicles on asthma and other health impacts that my constituents are facing. No doubt that the reason that we're in this situation is because of actions by this federal administration to suspend incentives and to undermine California's clean air policies.

It's important that we continue to demonstrate leadership. We wanna make sure that we adjust targets and implement this program in a way that is setting us up for success and not failure, that we're gonna get these funds out the door to help drivers be able to make that transition towards ZEV, and that we can consider market conditions as we're adjusting and implementing this program. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, madam secretary.

SB 739, the motion is do passed to the communications and conveyance committee.[Roll call]

All right. We'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. Thank you. All right. To our next author, thank you for your patience.

I hope we've been a little bit entertaining for you. Moving on to file item 11, SB 1087.

I'm here to wish share happy birthday and also, incidentally, to present SB1087

Before rumors get started, somebody has been saying it's my birthday. I have gotten It's not. It is technically not my birthday today, but it is the early birthday wishes I'm down for. So there we go. We're just we're less than thirty days away. So from now on, I think from now until my birthday, I'm expecting a happy birthday wish every single day. With that, you may begin.

I have gotten It's not.

It is technically not my birthday today, but it is the early birthday wishes I'm down for. So there we go. We're just we're less than thirty days away. So from now on, I think from now until my birthday, I'm expecting a happy birthday wish every single day. With that, you may begin.

Thank you, madam Chair. So it in eighteen years ago, the legislature enacted and the governor signed SB 375, which was the landmark law in California and in the country that for the first time integrated tran transportation planning investments, land use, air and, criteria air pollution control, and importantly, industry three seventy five climate change and climate objectives under the theory that if regions, could plan and invest for sustainable communities, smart growth, and effective transit systems to support them, that we could deliver substantial climate benefits and meet the state's climate targets.

So it in eighteen years ago, the legislature enacted and the governor signed SB 375, which was the landmark law in California and in the country that for the first time integrated tran transportation planning investments, land use, air and, criteria air pollution control, and importantly, industry three seventy five climate change and climate objectives under the theory that if regions, could plan and invest for sustainable communities, smart growth, and effective transit systems to support them, that we could deliver substantial climate benefits and meet the state's climate targets.

I was here, not in this building, but over in the other one testifying in support of it because SB 375 was was based on the Sacramento region's, blueprint for the future project, and I was the Chair of SACOG. And and the bill and the projects throughout the state and all the regions won all every possible national award from business, from housing, from the environmental community, and others, and there was great expectation about how these would work.

Now the the the policy is still right, but the system that we have built to get there is fraying a bit, and it consumes more resources in the process than in the in achieving the goals. And so SB 1087 is attempt to modernize SB 375 in a way to help to improve our achievements of the sustainability and climate goals by making the process more effective and more aligned with our state and regional goals.

And so SB 1087 is attempt to modernize SB 375 in a way to help to improve our achievements of the sustainability and climate goals by making the process more effective and more aligned with our state and regional goals.

The this is a comp this is the most in all my years in the legislature, all one and a half of them, this is the most delicately balanced, piece of legislation that I have worked on personally, as we've attempted to bring together over the last now year a a group of a broad group of stakeholders from every segment of interested parties.

And that's Because there have been several other bills in the past met maybe some have been introduced here, to try to deal with issues with SB 375. And the the road or the class three bikeway is littered with debt legislation, because no it it all all the interests have ganged up on each other, and we've gotten they've not been able to get anything done.

So our effort this year was to assemble this the broadest possible group of stakeholders in order to craft a a solution to modernization of SB 375 that would win the broadest support. And so I'm I'm I'm thank you very much to the Chair for both the necessary grace and the necessary termination of grace in order to get to an agreement in which most everybody around the table and this is months and months, hours and hundreds of hours of time. Most everyone was able to accomplish 30 or 35% of what they wanted and only had to give up 15% of what they didn't want.

And so I'm I'm I'm thank you very much to the Chair for both the necessary grace and the necessary termination of grace in order to get to an agreement in which most everybody around the table and this is months and months, hours and hundreds of hours of time. Most everyone was able to accomplish 30 or 35% of what they wanted and only had to give up 15% of what they didn't want.

So you will not see rab ram rabbit enthusiasm that you like excitement about this bill because there are a lot of trade offs that are involved as we try to make sure that this is an effective and efficient process. Thank you. So so I say that just a couple of the key the key highlights here.

The bill the bill really is intended to focus on implementation. Under current law, regions are expected to produce sustainable community strategies as a connection with a regional transportation program every four years. As a former cog Chair, I've participated in one hundred years of sustainable community strategies by doing four SCSs, in that process. This bill would change that to every eight years. As a as a one side example, SANDAG in San Diego says that in their last, SES RTPF that they spent $40,000,000 on the plan.

That doesn't deliver any project or implement anything, simply the plan. That's not a sustainable, way to do sustainable communities planning. So the bill, changes that that that that time window to eight years instead of four and requires an implementation progress report in between to hold the process accountable. It also recognizes that since SB 375, the state has made pretty radical changes to our housing policies, including linking SB 375 implementation in time and space to the RHNA regional housing needs allocation process. And this bill expressly includes housing and housing affordability in the goals that are required to be set in the targets.

It also recognizes that since SB 375, the state has made pretty radical changes to our housing policies, including linking SB 375 implementation in time and space to the RHNA regional housing needs allocation process. And this bill expressly includes housing and housing affordability in the goals that are required to be set in the targets.

The and and the bill requires CARB to reconvene its regional targets advisory committee to balance all of these goals, as we achieve the greenhouse gas the greenhouse gas emission, targets. And then finally, the the bill, tries to earn the the trust that is needed, by accounting for the existing conditions, some of the electrical v electric vehicle conversation that you already, that you just had, and also to preserve CARB's ability to oversee and to guide the process, but also providing real process accountability so that regions can take action in order to to succeed.

And then finally, the the bill, tries to earn the the trust that is needed, by accounting for the existing conditions, some of the electrical v electric vehicle conversation that you already, that you just had, and also to preserve CARB's ability to oversee and to guide the process, but also providing real process accountability so that regions can take action in order to to succeed.

And in doing so, also recognizing that the state has a key role to play and that under SB 375, the regions have made plans, prioritize transportation investments, and sometimes the state does not do its part and align its own investments within those regions to achieve those goals. And we can't regions cannot achieve the goals that the state's not a good neighbor and a good partner in doing so, and this bill seems to maximize seeks to maximize that alignment.

And so, again, I really wanna thank the the Chair and the staff of this committee. We would not be here today without you, and also all of the stakeholders, whether they are here today in support, whether they're here supportive amended, whether they're here respectful, opposed. We have really, a a a a a lot of folks have really gone the extra mile in order to try to achieve this level of modernization. This is not the be all and end all of every possible thing you can do in SB 375.

We would not be here today without you, and also all of the stakeholders, whether they are here today in support, whether they're here supportive amended, whether they're here respectful, opposed. We have really, a a a a a lot of folks have really gone the extra mile in order to try to achieve this level of modernization. This is not the be all and end all of every possible thing you can do in SB 375.

I know everybody around the table in our stakeholder group has much bigger plans that they'd like to pursue, but this bill provides the foundational modernization of f SB 375 to make sure that it is efficient, that allows us to actually achieve those goals and and maximize the likelihood that we will do so. And with that, madam, I'm sure I would like to ask for an aye vote and introduce, the witnesses on the bill today.

James Corliss, executive director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and Kome Ajise, the executive director of the Southern California Association of Governments.

Good evening, Chair Wilson and members of the committee. My name is Komei Ajise. I'm the executive director of the Southern California Association of Governments, and, we are a proud sponsor of ten eighty seven. And it's great to be here. I also wanna thank Senator Kabaldin for taking on this challenge and leading the effort on on ten eighty seven.

At SCAG, we are charged with what the Senator talked about, preparing SESs, and we've done this from the very beginning. And we know the ins and outs of how this is done. We are not walking away from the need to do SESs. In fact, the March has strengthened the work we do in regional planning and and also strengthen the coordination between land use and transportation. It's done this well.

But over time, we've lost effectiveness. And what we're asking for in in October is the opportunity to modernize, the process. Our last recent SES, which was in 2024, took us four years to prepare and over $20,000,000 to complete to complete. Now in the in the process, we we went back and forth with with our counterparts at CARB, and we did not improve any project in the process. And it took three hundred and nine days to get through it.

Now in in all in all honesty, this was this has just been overlay overlay of process over time. And so we find ourselves in a position where we feel like it is good government to, in fact, work on modernizing October. With the 2035 deadline fast approaching, the state's four largest MPOs get came together and brought together all of these stakeholders that that Senator Kabaldin talked about in an in an attempt to fix what's not working in March and spend less time on technical compliance and more time on implementing strategies and delivering results. In the end, this bill reflects a tremendous amount of work that's gone into collaboration, and we sincerely appreciate all of the time that's been put into it because it's enough or not.

With the 2035 deadline fast approaching, the state's four largest MPOs get came together and brought together all of these stakeholders that that Senator Kabaldin talked about in an in an attempt to fix what's not working in March and spend less time on technical compliance and more time on implementing strategies and delivering results. In the end, this bill reflects a tremendous amount of work that's gone into collaboration, and we sincerely appreciate all of the time that's been put into it because it's enough or not.

And it's brought a lot of stakeholders to the table and including this committee staff, and we appreciate all that effort. Their expertise has really helped to work through all the concerns and hopefully resolve many of the issues in build consensus. So I wanna thank you for this opportunity, and we'll happy we'll be happy to answer any questions. We we humbly ask an aye vote on this bill.

Their expertise has really helped to work through all the concerns and hopefully resolve many of the issues in build consensus. So I wanna thank you for this opportunity, and we'll happy we'll be happy to answer any questions. We we humbly ask an aye vote on this bill.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Wilson, committee members. I'm, James Corless, executive director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments or SACOG, and we're a proud cosponsor of SB 1087. For us at SACOG, the challenge is not just developing a vision for a more sustainable future, but the challenge is actually implementing it. Last November, our board adopted our long range plan, the 2025 blueprint. It's a plan that prepares our region for 600,000 more people, 260,000 more jobs, 278,000 more homes by 2050.

But the adoption of that plan was never intended to be the finish line. It was the starting point for implementation. An example of this implementation that is gonna be facilitated by SB 1087 is a very bottom up program we developed here in this region called Green Means Go. Green Means Go has invested nearly $30,000,000 in backbone infrastructure to unlock infill development in locally designated green zones or infill areas that came directly out of our our last sustainable community strategy.

Those investments are expected to unlock 8,000 infill housing units, approximately 6,000 of which will be affordable homes.

And today in our region, 28 cities and counties have adopted these green zones, aligning local land use decision decisions with our regional vision. Thanks to the legislature's action several years ago, we've used our regional early action pro program, REAP funding to help our cities and counties update zoning, remove barriers to housing production, and advance implementation ready projects. Those implementation efforts are paying off. In 2024, our region saw the highest number of housing production numbers that we've had in two decades.

We had more multifamily units built than we've had this century, and one third of all the units in our region were built in these green zones, and that's a tripling over five years since this program began began.

So SB 1087 helps uS Build on that kind of momentum by extending the SES update cycle to eight years, aligning state investments with adopted regional plan, the bill allows us to spend less time on planning and updating our plans and more time delivering housing, infrastructure, and transportation projects. It makes the SCS a stronger project delivery tool, not just a planning document. And with that, I respectfully request your aye vote on SB 1087.

Thank you. With that, we'll move to members of the public, for your to register your support for this bill. Name, affiliation, and position.

Good evening. Chris Lee on behalf of the Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority and the Sonoma County Transportation and Climate Authorities, both in support.

Thank you, madam Chair and members. Lauren de Valencia representing the city of Rio Vista in support.

Thank you, Michelle Robalcaba with Nielsen Reximer on behalf of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors in support.

Zach Chiardi of NRDC, a cosponsor of SB 375 in support.

Good evening, Chair Vincenzo Caparelli on behalf of California Association of Council Governments in support.

Good evening, Chair and members. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the San Diego Association of Governments or SANDAG, one of the co sponsors of the bill, in support. Thank you.

Good evening, madam Chair and members. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance and the Student Homes Coalition. Strong support today. Thank you.

Sharon Gonzales on behalf of the city of El Cerrito in support.

Good evening, Chair and members. Matthew Baker with claim conservation. They were in a support if amended position. We really appreciate all the time and effort that the the author and the MPOs and all the stakeholders put into this and look forward to continuing the conversation.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Placer County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Michael Pimentel with the California Transit Association in support. Thank you.

Julie Snyder with Bill cosponsor MTC ABAG, in strong support. Thank you.

Happy birthday, Chair and members. Mark Fucovich on behalf of Streets for All. Support if amended. Would love to get to a support position.

Totally stole my line. Matt Robinson on behalf of the Solano Transportation Authority in support. Okay.

Good evening, madam Chair. Chris Schumona on behalf of the California Trucking Association. Just wanna give a huge thank to the author. Thank you to the author and sponsors for working with us on the freight issues in the bill and with the amendments we are neutral. Thank you.

Damon Conklin with LEAGUE California Cities. We're supportive of the conversation. We appreciate the collaboration, and we'll be, hopefully working with the author as the bill moves forward. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and members. Jeanne Wardwaller for Climate Plan, Cal Bike, The Nature Conservancy, and Wildlife Conservation Network. We are in a supportive amended position. Really appreciate the author and sponsors for the long road we've been on and the Chair and your staff for the bill the amendments on

the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Moving on to opposition.