Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

The Senate Committee on Transportation is called to order. Wanna welcome everyone. We have a total of 22 measures on today's agenda. We're going to allow for two primary witnesses, each for the sport and opposition. Each witness will have two minutes.

I will remind about that along the way. Any additional witnesses will ask to limit yourselves to name, affiliation, and your position on the bill. You may hear us refer to that as me too's if you're new around here. We will be hearing bills on the agenda and file order, and we will be entertaining motions on bills at the appropriate time once a quorum is established.

We are not gonna be able to establish a quorum at this time, so we will continue on as a committee of the whole.

And I should note right at the outset, we'll come back to this later, but there are eight measures proposed for consent today. In case there are early arrivals that were interested in any of these, Item one, AB 1569 by Davies. Item three, AB- 1599 by Ahren's. Item six, AB 1756, Assemblymember Gonzalez. Item eight, AB 1913, Soria.

Item 11, AB 2372, Hoover. Item 14, AB 2307, Sanchez. Item 15, AB 2437, Chen. And item 21, AB 2788, which is the Committee on Transportation's item. With that, we're going to proceed, as I said, until we get a quorum by calling authors.

And we're gonna try to stay in the sequence of file order even though I know that we're gonna be jumping around a little bit. So per that file order, item number two is AB1588, Assemblymember Stefani, and you may come forward and present at this time. Please proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Chair. First, I'd like to thank San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie who brought this idea to my office, and he is the sponsor of this bill. Today, I'm presenting AB 1588, a bill that will strengthen accountability and protect public safety in our communities. For far too long, side shows and street takeovers have been blocking intersections and harming communities across California. These events do more to then more than just disrupt traffic.

They put residents, small businesses, and first responders at risk, especially when emergency vehicles cannot get through as we have seen when the Bay Bridge has been completely shut down a couple of times. What may have been occasional gallery gatherings have been, have become more organized and more frequent, often involving repeat offenders, unlicensed dirt bikes, and coordinated crowds that overwhelm existing enforcement tools. Increasingly, these events are also associated with illegal firearms, turning already dangerous situations into potentially deadly ones.

Since February of last year, enhanced enforcement efforts in the East Bay have led to the seizure of more than 100 illegal guns at sideshows, underscoring how quickly these gatherings can escalate from reckless behavior to serious threats to human life. Despite steps taken by cities and the state, enforcement has not kept pace with how these events operate today, leaving officers without clear authority to intervene early and leaving communities frustrated when the same dangerous behavior continues over and over again.

A sideshow in Hayward just two months ago saw over 50 cars destroying an intersection with one car violently slamming into spectators. Two weeks ago, sideshows erupted across San Jose where fireworks exploded and a car was recorded slamming into a spectator at the Capitol Square Mall. Following these events, the San Jose Police Department told communities they couldn't perform large scale enforcement, leaving offenders without accountability and victims without justice.

AB 158 closes key enforcement gaps by updating state law to reflect how sideshows actually operate today, including adding motorbikes and dirt bikes to the sideshow framework so officers can take action when unlicensed vehicles are used to block streets and perform dangerous stunts. This bill also strengthens accountability by aligning penalties for sideshows with those already in place for speed contests.

Together, these changes give law enforcement the tools they need to respond effectively and to protect our communities. AB 1588 was amended last week to significantly narrow its scope, which has resulted in the removal of significant state statewide opposition groups, including the California Public Defenders Association, Smart Justice, La Defensea, Oakland Privacy, and the Justice to Jobs Coalition.

So here with me today is Carl Necheta, the government affairs manager with the San Francisco Police Department, and Damien Kevitt, the founder and executive executive director of Streets Are For Everyone.

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

Good afternoon, Chair Cortesi, Vice Chair Strickland, members of the committee. My name is Carl Necita, and I'm government affairs manager for the San Francisco Police Department. I'm here today on behalf of the department in support of Assembly Bill 1588 by Assemblymember Stephanie, which seeks to address the worrying trend of illegal sideshows and street races taking place in the San Francisco Bay Area and the state of California. These events are not simply traffic violations.

They often involve the coordinated blockage of intersections, roadways, freeway ramps, and other transportation infrastructure while drivers engage in dangerous stunts, exhibitions of speed, reckless driving, and other unlawful activity.

AB 1588 responds by modernizing California's sideshow laws. The bill provides greater clarity regarding the types of vehicles commonly involved in these events. It updates the definition of a sideshow to better reflect how these gather gatherings occur today and aligns penalties with, the existing exhibition of speed offenses and street racing. From the San Francisco Police Department's perspective, the impacts of sideshows extend beyond just the participants. Sideshows just disrupt neighborhoods with noise, property damage, and prolonged road rate closures.

They create dangerous conditions for pedestrians, bystanders, motorists, and can impede access for emergency vehicles. Our officers and command staff regularly hear from residents and business owners who are concerned by the frequency of these events and the risks they create. Officers also report that sideshows have evolved in recent years. We increasingly see motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATVs, and other off highway vehicles participating alongside traditional vehicles. We also continue to see increasingly organized activity coordinated online through social media.

AB 1588 is a measured proposal that provides law enforcement with clearer tools to address conduct that threatens public safety. On behalf of the San Francisco Police Department, we wanna thank Assembly member Stephanie for her work on this issue and respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Chair Cortese, vice Chair Strickland, members of the committee, my name is Damian Kavitt. I am the executive director of Streets Are For Everyone. We are a nonprofit based in Southern California working on road safety issues across California. We are also one of the bill's sponsors. To start, I'd like to share a number.

That number is 288. That is the number of street takeovers that CHP was aware of that occurred just in LA County in the last six months alone. While that's an average of 1.5 per day, the truth is most of them happened between Thursday and Saturday. The LA County Department of Public Works reported these takeovers cost the county hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in infrastructure damage. The cost to multiple agencies across the county is far higher.

But let's not just look at the numbers. Let's look at how this affects people. Currently, Streets Are For Everyone is engaged in a study of the impact of street takeovers on businesses, community members, and where they in areas where they happen. I can't give you the final data because the study is in progress, but I can tell you with certainty this. These incidents impact physical and mental health, economic and socioeconomic facts beyond the intersection where they take place.

But again, let's not talk about stats, but about people. One example of the toll these street takeovers have is Raymond. On February 19, 27 year old Raymond Oliveras was crossing the road in front of his newly purchased home with his high school sweetheart and new fiance, Maria Rivera Cruz, also 27, when he was hit by a person leaving a street takeover doing 70 miles per hour. Raymond died at the scene. His fiance survived, but with serious life altering injuries.

On behalf of Raymond, Maria, and so many others whose lives are impacted by street takeovers, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. We'll now call others who would like to express the support position at the microphone and again, name, affiliation, and support.

Mister Chair, Brendan Orpicky on behalf of the California City Transportation Initiative in support.

Chair and members, Carlyn Shelby on behalf of the communities of the Hayward and Fremont in strong support. Thank you.

Eileen Mariano on behalf of bill sponsor, mayor Daniel Lurie in support.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, as well as the Board of Supervisors for the County of San Joaquin. Thank you. Both in support.

Good afternoon. Serena Scott on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support. Thank you.

Mister Chair, members, Mike Carpenter on behalf of AAA of Northern California and the Auto Club of Southern California in support.

Mark Firkovich on behalf of Streets for All in support.

Alright. Thank you, everyone who testified on the support side. Opposition, do we have a registered opposition witness? I don't believe so, although they're still listed opposition. Why don't we just call for those who'd like to express opposition, if any, and come to the microphone at this time?

Last call in the committee room for opposition, on AB 1588. Alright. We'll come back to the dais and there are no questions and comments at this time. As you know, we're still awaiting a quorum Assembly member. I just want to thank you for bringing this forward.

I think this is long overdue. I it didn't escape me that you cited the San Jose incident which is literally a couple blocks from my weekend home, my permanent home. And it's, you know, I think there's whole lot of other things that go on with this in terms of sort of the cascading effect which include road rage that we're not even really diving into deeply here.

So anything that we can do to take the temperature down on this and get enforcement where it should be in terms of the toolbox is a great thing. And with that, I'll turn it back to you to close and as soon as we get a quorum, we'll look for a motion.

Thank you, Senator. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I know you have a full calendar. So

Thank you. Alright. Thank you to the witnesses as well. Assembly member Wicks. Assemblymember Wicks is is here on file item 12, which is AB 2015.

Welcome, ma'am. You can proceed whenever you're ready. Thanks.

Thank you, Mister Chair, staff, members. AB 2015, that's what I'm here to present. Third party Navigation Apps like Google Maps, Apple Maps, Waze have fundamentally altered how drivers move through our cities and towns by really optimizing speed as the most important criteria for many of these apps. The algorithms regularly divert traffic off of state highways and onto local streets and roads, often without regard to weight limit, access restrictions, school zones or other conditions that local governments have established to protect their communities.

AB 2015 requires Caltrans to connect a study on the impact of third party navigation apps on the state highway system and local streets and road networks.

This assessment is actually this is a very simple bill. Essentially it does is requires an assessment looking at congestion displacement, local infrastructure, safety metrics and emergency response. That's basically the bill. We have been tackling this because we're trying to understand the impacts of the map apps. I use the map apps, we all use the map apps, but also they do divert traffic often on local streets that aren't really equipped to address the issue.

As we looked into it, we realize it's pretty complicated actually. So we thought a study would be the best way to look at this to really understand if there's something we wanna do for it. And in talking to many of our cities, they grapple with this as well. The map apps have a lot of ability to send traffic down streets that a lot of the DOT directors hadn't anticipated for.

So this is really an effort to study the issue and figure out if there's things we can do to make sure that our roads are safe and our streets are safe and keep our pedestrians and cyclists safe as well.

And also still get people from point a to point b in the most effective efficient way possible. So that's the bill. And with that, we have our witness here from Streets for All who's willing to testify.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Mark Quicklitz on behalf of Streets for All, proud sponsor. This bill is about a simple principle. The public right of way should be governed by the public, and our governing agencies is not quietly managed by private navigate navigation algorithms. Google Maps, Apple Maps, and Waze have become increasingly powerful tools.

But when they optimize every trip for the fastest possible route, they can shift traffic off of highways and arterials and onto neighborhood streets, school zones, slow streets, and roads, most importantly, that were just never designed for high volumes of, throughput traffic. This is real consequences for more cut through traffic, more wear and tear on local infrastructure that changes paving schedules, more conflicts with people walking and biking, and kids going to school, and potentially even slower emergency response time.

Local governments built their grids and land use patterns decades ago, well before map apps, and have spent years adopting safety plans, setting traffic rules, and engaging communities on what their transportation system needs to look like. And those decisions should not, but are are unfortunately being overwritten by private companies chasing these marginal time savings for individual drivers that, at scale, leads to bigger consequences. So a v 2015 is a modest, thoughtful first step.

I I don't wanna come off across as a hater of of these map apps. We all use them. They're all very helpful. But it asks Caltrans to study the problem of what these are doing to our transportation grid and our transportation system to see if there's a public policy solution that needs to be recommended. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you for your testimony. Others who wish to express the support position, please come forward at this time. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Steve Wallach on behalf of the Alameda County Transportation Commission in support. Thank

you. Good afternoon. Damian Kevin. Streets are for everyone in support.

Thank you. I'm seeing no other support witnesses. We do not show any registered opposition. Is there anyone here in the committee room who wishes to express opposition? If you do, please come to the microphone at this time.

I've seen none. We'll come back to the committee. Comments or concerns by anyone? Okay. We're building up member by member here toward a quorum.

Let me just let me just say this is just almost anecdotal but the first year I was here on behalf of a neighborhood association that happened to be right on the border have an intersection right on the border of Campbell and San Jose. A residential intersection would have one of the highest crash rates of of anywhere in either city, asked me to try something like this.

We actually were trying to go straight to implementation as I mentioned, it sounds like you were too and, it is a little complicated in the study. Hopefully, what comes back from the study will, will create the opportunity to actually implement some change because it is a big problem. Thank you for bringing the bill forward and I'll let you close as soon as we get a quorum.

We'll we'll take the bill up.

Just respectfully ask for your eye vote. Thank you.

Assemblymember Wilson, she's gonna defer to the first assemblymember who walked into the room today. Assemblymember Colosa, please come forward. She has filed item 19. And as I was saying, ordinarily, we'll try to stick with at least the general the sequence of file order, if not the exact file order, but make an exception here today. And, Assemblymember, you may commence whenever you're ready.

Thank you so much, Chair. Thank you to Assemblymember Wilson for her kindness and grace. Thank you to the Chair again and to members of the committee for this opportunity to present AB 2717, and thank you to the committee consultants and staff for all their hard work on this bill. California is home to some of the most iconic sports and entertainment venues in the world.

We have the Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, the Colosseum in Alameda, and everyone's favorite stadium, the Dodger Stadium in my district, Assembly District 52, just to name a few.

And despite its acclaim, many of these facilities need updating. AB 2717 extends an existing sunset date to 01/01/2032 to ensure that professional sports arenas that hold 15,000 seats or more are able to keep seeking local approval for off-site advertising displays connected to their operations. This extension secures stability as they work to improve the fan experience, increase revenue, and attract visitors.

With California set to host major global events like the twenty twenty eight Summer Olympics and the World Cup, our stadiums and arenas need every tool and resource to be equipped to meet the moment. Beyond economic benefits, these displays can serve the public good by supporting voting centers, community events, and delivering critical information such as Amber alerts and emergency notifications.

AB 2717 ensures our venues remain both economically viable and responsive to the needs of the communities they are meant to serve. Importantly, AB 2,717 reinforces the role state and local governments in maintaining accountability and ensures that decisions about outdoor advertising are made transparently with proper consideration for the impacts it makes on neighborhoods, drivers, and the environment. With that, here with me today to testify as my witness is Melissa Cortez on behalf of the Los Angeles Dodgers.

Thank you. There we go.

Thank you. Melissa Cortez on behalf of the Los Angeles Dodgers. This bill simply extends the now expired sunset to allow our teams, teams like the Dodgers to erect two off-site billboards. Billboards would be used not just for advertising for Dodger related events, but for public and civic engagement as well as we consider our team part of the Los Angeles community.

We did work early on to remove the opposition from the Billboard Association and more recently, have taken amendments to address some concerns raised by the Clippers and the Sharks.

We look forward to your support today and I'm happy here to answer any questions. And thank you to the Chair and the author of the bill.

Thank you for your testimony. Do we have registered opposition here? Me too. You can come I'm sorry. I didn't go to support.

My apologies.

McKay Carney here on behalf of the San Jose Sharks. Apologies for not getting our letter in time, in support, and we thank the author for working with us on our amendments. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you for being here. Any other support, witnesses, people who wanna express support come up now? If not, we'll move to opposition. Do we have an opposition witness?

If not, is there anyone here who wishes to testify against the dodgy I mean, against the bill?

It's not very nice, Chair.

That's okay. Okay. With that, we'll come back to the the day as I do.

I'll I'll move it when

Alright. Vice Chair Strickland is prepared to to move the bill when we get, that opportunity and I know, we have a diehard Dodger pen. I kinda expected you to raise your hand, Senator Richardson. Please go ahead.

Well that's good that you know I bleed blue. That's that's a good thing. Spoken as our Chair who's a definite Giants and other fans but I must say he's an equal opportunity provider and indulges on my fun pictures that I send as I go to the Dodgers, stadium and enjoy the game. I just wanted to speak, one in support of the bill, to request to be listed as a co author. I don't, think I am as of yet, so would like to do so.

But in my district in addition to being a Dodger fan, I also have SoFi in my district. I have Intuit. I have the forum. I have dignity where soccer is played in many. I think I'm really the entertainment capital district.

But that being said, I want to say in Inglewood I've seen the signs also used to help direct traffic to note where congestion occurs. There's many aspects as has been stated that the information can be communicated. And when someone's driving in and you know, you're going to a major venue where thousands and thousands of people are going beyond the advertisement and all of that, the other ways that the signage is used is particularly helpful.

So I concur with Mister Strickland to move the bill when appropriate and look forward to supporting him. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you and it appears to be all the comments other than the fact that I'll say all joking aside and all fandom aside, this is an important bill. We we obviously took a look at it objectively and the staff was comfortable that we needed to to do the extension on the sunset. So thank you for bringing it forward and we'll turn it back to you for any closing comments.

Thank you so much, Senator. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, on AB 2717. I was about to say go Dodgers, but you may not vote I if I do that. But thank you for I'm

warning you my name. I'm still suffering from the nineteen eighty eight World Series. Okay?

It was a great World Series.

There's a

long story to that. But

When do you see 2026?

Thank you, Chair.

Not coming down to those two teams, unfortunately. But maybe one of them. Anyway, again, all joking aside, again, respect the fact that you brought it forward. Let me let you finish your close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you so much. Alright. Now, the benevolent Chair Wilson is coming forward. We appreciate you. Your bill eighteen sixteen o eight is up first unless you wanna take them in a different order.

I know you have to No.

That's that's particularly fine. And so thank you for recognizing my benevolence given that my family is a Giants fan, family household. You know exactly how benevolent I can be.

Bay Area folks try to stick together. Right?

Yes. We are we are kind people. Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you, members of this committee.

I am really excited to be able to present AB 1608 to you all. Now this makes changes to the Office of Inspector General, OIG, high speed rail, and it strengthens independence and oversight capabilities of this office. I am a strong supporter of California high speed rail project because of the potential transformative value it can bring to the state by simultaneously improving mobility and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Currently, the project is having a strong positive economic impact in my hometown in the Central Valley, and I'm confident it will ultimately bring these benefits statewide. However, we all know that this project has faced many challenges during the construction, And some of that relates to the lack of funding to complete the project.

Some of that relates to acquiring rights of way and moving utilities. These challenges have resulted in project delays and unnecessary cost increases. And every dollar on this project counts because we have lost federal funding a federal funding partner and at this time are completely reliant on state funding to deliver this significant infrastructure project. So independent effective oversight is absolutely critical to the success of not only this project but of any large infrastructure project and we have to ensure that every single dollar spent is spent wisely.

In 2022, the legislature created the office of inspector general, and we know that it has already proven its value in the short time that it's been in operation.

As a reminder, the office of inspector general is our eyes and ears, not only the legislature, but the members of the public. And then when the office was created, the legislature did not include provisions requiring the office to make its reports public or protections to ensure that the inspector general could keep confidential for a period of time information that could harm the state and jeopardize whistleblowers. Concerns were initially raised that this bill would keep information confidential, not our intent.

In fact, this bill does the exact opposite by requiring the inspector general to make its reports public, which is not currently required by law. Moreover, this bill does not go beyond providing any protections for the inspector general that are in excess of the current protections that the state auditor and inspector generals within the state for other departments have.

My office and the inspector general have worked closely with the First Amendment Coalition. You'll hear from them very shortly, to make as much information as possible available to the public without jeopardizing the project. So in response to our amendment amendments, the first amendment coalition is now in support of this bill, noting that it can balance legitimate confidentiality needs with the public's right to know about government activities.

And you can best believe myself and my colleagues in the Assembly firmly believe that the public has a right to know about government activities. And so I appreciate their contributions to help us draft legislation that appropriately balances that legitimate confidentiality with the public's right to know.

And so I ask for your support on this bill that will improve transparency and oversight for a very complex and large infrastructure project here in the state. And I'll remind everyone, no matter how you feel about this project, you should feel very hopeful and optimistic about having eyes and ears looking at this project. And so my first witness is Ben Belknap. He's the inspector general, office of the inspector general high speed rail. And then Donnie Kondo Kiser representing the First Amendment Coalition.

Please proceed, Mister Belknap. Welcome.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair, Mister vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Ben Belknap, inspector general for the California High Speed Rail. The passage of AB 168 will result in more timely robust oversight of California's High Speed Rail project. My office provides independent oversight of the project and is an important resource to state lawmakers as they make critical decisions regarding the project.

Earlier this year, my office published a review of the authority's procurement processes, and we are currently reviewing the accuracy and completeness of the authority's business plan.

When that review is complete, my office will finish a review requested by Chair Cortesi of the costs and benefits of implementing various project reforms proposed by the authority. We also plan to complete our review of the authority's construction quality program and review the authority's change order process. However, my office has been slowed in its effort to complete these reviews by a lack of access to job classifications that match the skill set required of my staff.

As a result, my office has, despite year round recruiting efforts, only been able to fill around half of its staff positions. Further, a lack of purchasing authority has delayed by roughly two years our ability to obtain commonly used off the shelf software products that would securely receive and then allow us to investigate whistleblower complaints.

And this lack of purchasing authority has increased the cost, per procuring the software by tenfold. This lack of purchase authority has not allowed my office to hire expertise when needed in a timely manner. In addition to establishing reporting requirements and work paper retention, framework that Chair Wilson referred to, AB 168 would grant my office access to job classifications already in use by other oversight agencies and would provide my office with purchase authority up to a million dollars.

Absent AB 168, my office can develop its own classifications through SBB and can seek a purchasing delegation through DGS, but both of these tasks take years and would require more administrative resources than my office presently has. For these reasons, I urge your support of AB 168.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Danny Kando Kizer here on behalf of the First Amendment Coalition in support. First Amendment Coalition is a California nonprofit that promotes and defends free speech, a free press, and the people's right to know. FACT works with members of the public and press to exercise their rights of access under the California Public Records Act. We thank Assemblymember Wilson and the stakeholders for the productive dialogue on the amendments that were introduced on March 10.

With these amendments addressing our concerns, we're pleased to support. The bill provides what we think is a model framework for how independent offices of Inspector General can balance legitimate confidentiality needs to perform watchdog duties with the public's right to know about government activities. AB 1608 makes clear that the IG's office has a mandate to produce and publish reports of its reviews and investigations on its website, subject to only limited withholding provisions.

The withholding provisions are narrowly tailored, require the IG to provide an explanation of the reason for any withholding or redaction, and allow for withholding or redaction only if it would quote, pose a substantial and articulable risk to the project or to the state's operations. Additionally, withholdings pursuant to that provision are not indefinite.

Again, we thank Assemblymember Wilson and stakeholders and we urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Others who would like to express support, please come to the microphone at this time. I see no one step forward from the committee room. Do we have opposition here wishing to testify? Anyone in the committee room wishing to express opposition?

Alright. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais and vice vice Chair Strickland.

I'll I'll be brief because I'm not gonna go over all the reasons why I'm against this project. One being, I commend the Federal Government for coming forward stripping the funding because they're actually saving federal tax dollars that I think are being wasted. That currently is a California resident. I think California should pull the plug. It'd be better spent this money on local projects.

That's just my, viewpoint. But in terms of this bill specifically, I did talk to an inspector general, and he says that this is, you know, better than what's in current law. However, where we are in this language, it says we cannot release to the public if it jeopardizes the public project, if it jeopardizes the project. And then also, they can, you know, keep it confidential and the only reporting will be to the chairs of the Assembly committee on transportation and Senate committee Chair.

So if it was truly transparent, wouldn't you want the vice chairs of these committees and all the committee members of both the Assembly and the Senate Transportation Committee to be notified on all this information?

And is it okay to answer this question? Sure. Thank you. And thank you for your comments. And I recognize that not everybody is a supporter of High Speed Rail and, you know, absolutely, you're prerogative as a not only a member of the community, but a member of this legislature to have that view.

And a taxpayer.

And a taxpayer, but that's that's what I meant by member of community. But noting that, you know, this particular legislation is around the the inspector general who's provides the oversight and accountability, and you had two questions around transparency. And so I'll I'll start with the first one about holding things confidential that could jeopardize state operation. The I'm sorry. The operations of high speed rail.

And so we've been pretty clear in the build in the bill and language around what that is, and it's talking about security, whether that be something that is information security, physical security, things of those natures is what is, being held that would expose that would give the opportunity for the, high speed rel authority to with resolve that issue prior to being released.

And that would be in the if it's held confidential, it would be noted on the website and a part of the report that this was held confidential with the articulable reason around what that not the the specific weakness of the security, but noting there was a security issue. And then once that issue was resolved, it then would be made public.

And the public can assess whether that was justifiable or not and give, you know, a fuss to the inspector general if they want to, and then legislatures, if they didn't like that, could tighten up that law.

But the intent is is that if I tell you how to break into my house, I'm gonna use my house as an example, If if we find a weakness of how to break in the house before you tell everybody how to break into my house, I should be allowed to fix how to break in my house.

And then you can tell everybody this is how you could have broken in the house, and that is the intent primarily of the confidentiality portion. Then when it comes to who gets notified. So when there is a confidentiality report, the the bill says that the office of inspector general at their discretion may give to a certain set of individuals, but not limited to. So they can give it to whomever they deem can resolve the issue. So the legislature is not always going to get notified.

They might simply just be saying that there's something that's held confidential. If there is a reason to give it to the legislature, it is because the legislature can do something about it, which is then given to who has authority and oversight to the high speed rail. It is the chairs of those committees. It is not the vice chairs. And so that's why we noted that, that it is the chairs of the committee that provide oversight to the high speed rail authority.

And as noted, it is a may. They don't have to get it. They would only get it if the office of inspector general determines that that is the best person to give it to to be able to resolve the specific issue that they're holding confidential. And so that is, I would say, likely rare that we would have to do legislation to resolve a security risk.

Primarily, that will be the high speed RHEL authority, but we put that language in there to ensure that the legislature, if had the opportunity to resolve an issue, is included.

And like I said, we kept it on who had the authority to do something about it, and that would be the chairs of the committee.

And and in all due respect all due respect, the if the Chair had the authority, wouldn't need the members of the committee, majority vote. That's why, you know, I think the way it's written is highly partisan that you're only giving it to the chairs, that you're not giving it to actual members of the committee because you need a majority of the members of the committee. The Chair can't decide on its own, both in the Assembly and Senate.

You need a majority of the membership of this committee. And I think every member of the Transportation Committee, if drafted, it should be every member of this committee should be notified regardless of party and every member of the committee, both in the Assembly and Senate, in my opinion.

Because I just And you said, it's just

note that it's not parties and it doesn't say

Well, it says the Chair. It says the Chair which is the majority party which

majority party.

you Happens to currently be

Okay. Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna use an ad. But again

Sorry. My apologies.

So You're welcome to include further responses in your calls, as you know, Chair. So I So Make sure he has the four and

So, again, if it was, I I firmly believe it should be every member of this committee, because again, you need the majority of every member of the committee, both in the Assembly and Senate, to act as you said. And then also, I just think this takes us as a step in the wrong direction on a project that has been suspect that's had many change orders.

Again, we can go into larger thing and talk about, you know, how just a few weeks ago, we had an informational hearing that we walked away with more questions than we did answers. We're nonpartisan. Legislative analysts use the term unrealistic when it comes to this plan, and this bill moving forward that has less transparency, I think is not good for the taxpayers because again it's their money that we're spending.

They have a right to know how their money is being spent in in my opinion.

Thank you, vice Chair. Other comments, Senator Richardson?

Yes. Mister chairman, I have a question for my colleague if would be allowed.

For your colleagues?

Yeah. My colleague here. The vice Chair. Would the vice Chair, support and recommend, to the, body to support if vice chairs were included?

I don't say vice chairs. I think every member of the committee. I I I don't Well,

let me

I'll get to that point. I'm saying if No. If the author No.

I think every No. Not just vice chairs. Supportive. Not just vice chairs and chairs. I think every member of the committee.

Well I'm gonna have to interrupt because by rule we can't negotiate amendments on the days anyway. But I appreciate the sentiment of the inquiry and to get to to get to the the vice chair's actual interest that he's trying to solve or satisfy here. But but but at the end of the day, we're not gonna be able to to fashion an amendment here.

Right. Well, to be helpful to the author is the reason why I asked that question and I'm sure the author will follow-up. What I wanted to do to assist the author of maybe the question of why not every member. When I served in Congress, we had what was called, you know, the gang of five. And so for example, particularly regarding the intelligence committee and I believe the author spoke to safety and all of that.

Sometimes, you know, I I'm not a Chair but, you know, sometimes, you know, of course, all committees wanna know something, but sometimes things need to be first held

at the Chair and the

vice Chair level. And then when at the Chair and the vice Chair level. And then when it's deemed appropriate to cascade it down to everyone it happens. But sometimes you can't always do all members just for the sake of confidentiality, security, and so on. And that's a very commonly held practice for example in Congress as you know where they have the gang of five or particularly as I said with intelligence where they restrict it to the Chair, the vice Chair, you know of both ends.

So for the sake of the author, I'm sure she heard the comments and the questions. But I just wanted to say maybe one of the reasons why it's not extended to all. And I'm sure she heard your questions also regarding the role of both parties. I can say having been a part of the minority in the past I've experienced that.

I understand your comments but back to the issue of the bill, I think the issue of being able to have information, being able to have transparency and accountability, especially in light of the significant amount of investment that the public has made in this particular project.

When the time is appropriate I'll move the bill. Thank you.

Thank you Senator. Anyone else? Thank you. We will then turn back to the author. You know I appreciate you bringing this forward.

I do appreciate the OIG's willingness to work with you to get to the right numbers. I don't know if a million on the appropriation piece of it is the right amount or not. I think we've received some inquiries about that.

I do know that you have a lot more staff, a lot more folks than the rest of us see from time to time only because the CEO indicates to me that you work well that there are people you know working pretty regularly together to try to get to the right conclusions which I think is probably appreciated by all of us. Directing my comments for the record to the Inspector General as a witness.

But I'm not asking for response to that. I just would acknowledge that that may come up at some point obviously down the road as it always does with appropriations issues. With that, Assemblymember Wilson, you're welcome to close. We still don't have a quorum, but we're getting close, and then we'll entertain a motion at that time.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the dialogue, surrounding this bill from both both senators, the vice Chair, and a member of this committee. And and here's where I can say we probably all agree is that the public has a right to know how the money how their money is being spent from every single department, including high speed rail. And they're with such a large and complex project, they absolutely should have proper accountability, proper oversight, and proper insight.

And I believe that's what the office of inspector general provides us is proper accountability, proper oversight, proper insight. Just recently in a hearing that we had, it was revealed or or talked about the almost half $1,000,000,000 purchase order that they had to review that was likely done improperly.

That that that we only know that because the office of inspector general. And so I wanna be sure that we equip them with everything they need to ensure that the high speed rail construction project is one of success and that is delivered as efficiently and as effectively as possible with oversight, accountability, and insight. So I ask for your support on this important bill to give the inspector general the tools it needs to perform the critical oversight that this project needs.

With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. Thank you, Assemblymember. And as I said, we'll as soon as we have a quorum, we'll start taking taking up motions on these bills. Let you move on to item well, item five, AB 2346 at this time. Thank you to

the witnesses.

Please proceed again whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair. You know, we both Chair transportation and we deal with planes, trains, and automobiles, and sometimes bikes. And so that's what I'm here today, to present on AB 2346. So alongside joint author, Assemblymember Berman, I am proud to author AB 2346, a measure aimed at modernizing California's e bike safety laws and protecting our communities while ensuring we preserve access to this growing mode of accessible transportation.

We appreciate the committee working with us on amendments and thank all the organization that provided us with feedback throughout this process.

As e bike technology continues to rapidly grow, our laws must keep the pace to ensure that the safety on our roads, bike paths, and sidewalks are for the communities that utilize them. California is currently experiencing a sharp increase in serious e bike related injuries. Physicians across California are also raising alarms about the growing number of preventable injuries tied to high speeds and lack of safeguards particularly amongst children and teenagers.

These devices are often marked like toys but can operate at high speeds and are legally available for young children to use. Utilizing the internet and other social media apps, e bikes can also be easily modified to exceed legal speeds putting riders and the public at risk with some modifications ramping up to extreme high speeds.

AB2346 implements targeted and practical solutions such as but not limited to one, requiring speedometers on class two e bikes and attached or integrated lights on all e bikes. Two, establishing a clear statewide 10 miles per hour on sidewalk. Three, providing local government authority to set speed limits on bike paths and trails where needed. And four, requiring clear consumer education at the point of sale so riders understand California's law laws.

These changes focus on behaviors to reduce dangerous speeds and improve user awareness, not to restrict user access.

I want people to use e bikes. It's great for our environment and it's great for users of all ages. So as amended, AB2346 is a balanced approach that improves public safety, empowers local communities and supports the continued growth and access of sustainable transportation. With me today is doctor Timothy Browder, a trauma surgeon at San Francisco General Hospital, and Lieutenant Jason Schafer with the Irvine Police Department.

Thank you very much. You can proceed whatever order you wish. You'll have a couple minutes each. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee. My name is doctor Timothy Browder. I'm a professor of surgery at UCSF and the trauma medical director at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. I'm here today on behalf of the California Medical Association in strong support of AB 2346. I want to thank Assemblymember Wilson for addressing an escalating public health crisis that we see every day in our trauma base.

In my role, I oversee the care of every major trauma patient in San Francisco. To understand the scale of this issue, our team tracked e bike injuries over a recent twelve month period. During that time, the z s ZSFGH trauma team treated a hundred and two patients specifically for e bike related trauma. The severity is what distinguishes these from traditional bike accidents. Fifty six patients, more than half, required hospital admission due to the severity of their injuries.

Seventeen patients required intensive care unit stays, often for traumatic brain injuries or multiple organ trauma. Only thirty six of the one hundred and two riders were documented wearing a helmet. These aren't just statistics. They are families devastated by preventable accidents. Last year, we saw two fatalities directly linked to these incidents.

We're seeing a high concentration of injuries in children and young adults, many of whom now face lifelong disability. From our bedside conversations, it is clear that parents and consumers are confused. They often do not realize how fast these devices go or that modifying them is illegal. AB 2346 offers a common sense solution by requiring clear information at the point of sale regarding classifications, helmet laws, and the dangers of modification.

We cannot wait for our laws to catch up while we continue to see these numbers climb.

Lives are being lost, and as a trauma surgeon, I see the physical toll of that delay every day. I respectfully urge an aye vote on AB 2346. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Chair Cortesi and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jason Schafer, and I'm a twenty two year veteran police officer with the Irvine Police Department. For the past several years, I worked extensively on e bike safety, education, and enforcement issues in our community. I am here today in support of AB 2346. Like many communities across California, Irvine has experienced a dramatic increase in e bike youth, particularly among use.

While e bikes provide tremendous mobility benefits, we've also seen increased complaints regarding unsafe riding behavior, conflicts on shared use use paths, and confusion among riders and parents about California's e bike laws. AB 2346 takes a practical and balanced approach to these challenges. The bill improves education and consumer awareness by requiring retailers to provide clear information regarding e bike classifications, speed capabilities, age restrictions, helmet requirements, and California law. In our experience, many parents and riders simply do not know the rules.

The bill also strengthens labeling requirements, making it easier for riders, parents, and law enforcement officers to be able to identify an e bikes classification, assisted speed, and motor wattage.

In addition, common sense equipment requirements, including the front and rear lighting, help to improve visibility for all roadway and trail users. AB 2346 also provides local agencies with flexibility to address conditions unique to their communities. The city of Irvine recently adopted an e bike ordinance that includes a 10 mile an hour sidewalk speed limit and other safety measures. We have seen firsthand how clear, understandable rules help help promote safer riding behavior and improve safety for both riders and pedestrians.

AB 2346 is not about discouraging e bike use.

It is about promoting responsible operation, improving public awareness, and giving local communities responsible tools to protect the safety of everyone using our roads, sidewalks, and shared pathways. For all those reasons, the city of Irvine is proud to support AB 2346, and thanks the author for her leadership on this issue.

Thank you for your testimony. We'll ask those in support to come to the microphone at this time.

Thank you, Chair. Angela Hill with the California Medical Association, sponsor

of

the bill. We thank the author. I'm here for technical assistance as well if needed. And also doing a Me Too for the California Orthopedic Association, another cosponsor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of the San Mateo City County Association of Governments in support.

Chair and members, Carlin Shelby on behalf of the communities of Danville, Dublin, Livermore, San Ramon, Pleasanton, Santa Barbara, Brea, Chino Hills, Lafayette, Newport Beach, Orinda, and Walnut Creek, all in very strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kelly McMillan on behalf of the Children's Specialty Care Coalition and the American Academy of Pediatrics California in support.

Good afternoon. Ethan Nagler on behalf of the cities of Carlsbad, Coronado, San Mateo, and the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council members all in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Mike Carpenter on behalf of AAA of Northern California and the Auto Club of Southern California in support.

Good afternoon. Kai Klassen on behalf of East Bay Regional Parks District in support. Thank you, Arthur.

Alright. Thank you all. I think we do have opposition witnesses. You can come forward if you like. I think there's plenty of room.

Yeah.

Good for you to all stay here in case there's questions if you don't mind. Thank you.

One? Okay.

We have

a couple.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Jeanne Wardwaller representing People for Bikes, the National Trade Association for bicycle and e bike manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. With respect to the author, we are still opposed to the bill unless amended. We deeply appreciate the author and sponsor for working with us. We've worked really closely over the last several months and the bill has improved significantly.

I'll just highlight two of our remaining concerns with the bill. One is the mandate for lighting to be included with a class one e bike at point of sale. We believe this is unnecessary because California law already requires bicycles to be equipped with lights and reflectors while operating at night. This requirement is an issue for buyers of things like electric mountain bikes or other performance style bicycles that are operated primarily off road or during daylight hours.

Riders prefer to select lighting systems that match their intended use, while many riders may have no need for on road lighting at all.

We also have concerns with the disclosures that sellers are required to give consumers at point of sale. As drafted. It could be interpreted to require summaries of all the traffic laws that apply to bicycles and e bikes, including those that generally apply to all roadway users, which is a big task to require of local bike shops. We also oppose the mandate that sellers provide a written recommendation that 16 year olds not ride an e bike faster than 15 miles per hour.

We're afraid this disclosure, since it carries civil penalties for noncompliance, could actually create liability exposure for the retailers.

We're committed to continuing to work with the author to address our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Are there others in the committee room who wish to express opposition? If so, please come to the microphone at this time. Seeing none, we'll come oh, yes, please.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Just wanted to express that after the most recent set of amendments, Streets Follett will be dropping our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you for clarifying that. Last call for opposition or tweeters for that matter. Seeing none, we'll come back to the dais and Senator Archuleta and then Senator Blakesphere.

Thank you for presenting the the bill and to the the police officer. Can you give us an idea how many accidents happen in the evening? We we're asking for lighting and coming into the hospital. Is it is it especially in the weekends, I would imagine. But is there a large proportion that comes in in the evening hour in the weekends, that sort of thing?

I was on call last night, and I got a bad e bike injury admitted to the hospital last night. So it happens all the time. During the day, at night, on the weekends. Okay. I think most often, you know, when we're talking children, it's gonna be daylight hours on weekends.

Yeah.

So so they they are they're required to wear helmets. Are they not?

Yes, sir.

Yeah. Do you find sometimes they don't?

Most of the days that I go out on patrol, especially going around schools during drop off and pickup hours, I do see a lot of young riders either not wearing a helmet or improperly wearing their helmet. The most common is the helmet would be on their head and not strapped underneath their chin.

You know, a lot of this go back to the parents, but are you able to stop some of these kids and pull them over and they put on the helmet or, you know, walk the bike home and come back with a helmet, whatever?

Not only am I able to, sir. That's something I do on a routine basis. Yes.

I I think the I think the bill saves lives, and I think that's what we're trying to do with all due respect, to the opposition. The point is this is getting to be more and more common, and it was predominantly to be honest with you, I heard that it is in the upper scale neighborhoods. Now it's not. I see them everywhere. And as that grows, I think public safety is in jeopardy to a degree.

Their safety is in jeopardy. So anything we can do in this direction and I'd like to also point out that my colleague, to the right is a big proponent of safety in her district of Orange County. And so I'm hoping you have some comments because I'm gonna go ahead and move the bill when it's appropriate, but I would certainly like to hear more about Orange County.

Okay. Well, thank you, Senator Archuleta. I appreciate that. So I I support this bill and I wanna thank the author for bringing it forward. I have a corollary bill related to ebikes.

There are clearly a lot of problems that we are seeing. I think it's really important to recognize that we are lumping together in this conversation e ebikes with e motos, electric motorcycles and and just flat out motorcycles that are being marketed as if they're ebikes but they're actually not. And that's that's something that my bill is addressing but I think it's also just important to recognize that people do as the your witnesses both testified, people don't know what they're buying.

And so having more disclosure, and and more clarity around what's not allowed like I appreciate what, is written in the bill that there has to be a point of sale disclosure in 12 font and it actually says at the end that you might have to insure this device if you modify it and it becomes a motorized bicycle or a motorcycle because it's it's pointing out that you're not allowed to modify and if you do, you know, removing the the upper limit on the butt on the vehicle so that it can go just, you know, up to however much speed really does, of course, increase the severity of the injuries.

So I appreciate that you're really tackling this, and I appreciate the testimony of the two witnesses who came.

I also just wanna recognize, our strong partnership with the opposition to this bill, and and I'd I'd I'll just add my personal perspective as an owner. We our family has five ebikes including my 80 year old mom who rides hers to her workout every week. And I think it is nice to have lights that are already embedded in the bicycle in the driving that car or that bicycle riding it at night if you're coming home from the soccer practice and then the sun has set.

So or, you know, people who like my husband who is a mountain biker, he doesn't have an e mountain bike, but he is very much aware of what kind of lights he wants and the various parts. And those things I mean, I think people who are really involved in their bicycle are going to be changing out the parts to make sure they get exactly what they want.

But for your average eight to 80 person, the the average bicycle or user having a a front lamp that with white light and a backlight that's red, I think that makes a lot of sense. So, and that's just, of course, with great respect for the opposition on that part.

But but I I do really appreciate what's the amount of effort and the the the changes we're seeing around e bikes right now from our attorney general, reaching issuing an alert and then to Amazon saying you are selling things that are actually not allowed to be sold in the state of California and Amazon stopping selling those Emotos to these types of bills that we're seeing that we're that I think we're able to generate consensus about the path forward.

And this is my fourth year in the legislature and every year I feel like we've seen bills on e bikes that don't make it. And there has been also a relationship with the DMV, what is the role around potential licensing and and registering, I mean, not licensing.

And so now we're be beginning to see really good progress. So I hope that our safety will improve and we will have fewer accidents and less severe injuries and families that are devastated from the the things that are happening to to kids and adults on our streets. So, I am a enthusiastic supporter and thank you again to the author.

Senator Richardson.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to first of all thank the author for bringing this bill forward. When I look at this year it's actually kind of exciting because we're addressing issues like e bike e motor whatever the name might be called. We're addressing autonomous vehicles.

We're really getting at I think some of the hearts of real problems that are facing us in our communities. I wanna applaud both the author and, of course, the chairman for his work as well. A couple of years ago, and I lost touch with the family, but, there was a young lady named Molly and her mom was very active on Twitter. But when it switched to x, I you know I lost the account and the contact.

But she was an example of a young girl who had one of these bicycles or motor bikes or whatever they are.

And unfortunately with picking up the speed actually ran into I think it was a pole or something and had severe damage and ended up passing. And so I think to the point about notification, it's really important because a lot of parents, they're under the pressure that, you know, Johnny next door got one and, you know, hey, my kids gotta have it for their birthday. And so, you know, they're getting it. The kid doesn't want a traditional bike. They want this bike.

And so they're getting it under the auspice of thinking that it's something reasonable and safe. And in all actuality, it comes with with a much greater responsibility. So I applaud the author on on really pushing for the transparency in the information. The last point I'd like to make is having to do with the whole thing of e bikes. With all due respect to the opposition, I don't believe these are bikes.

These are not bikes. If a person if that whatever apparatus it is moves faster than an a regular person riding a bike or who can run that is not a bicycle that is a motorbike. It's something else but it is not a bicycle. And so I think it's really important for us to really begin to weigh in and deal with this problem.

I have seen repeatedly in my community these apparatuses that move faster than I'm driving in the neighborhood, which is approximately 25, 30 miles per hour.

And if one of these apparatuses is doing that, that is not a bicycle and that is not safe because in most cases, I haven't seen them stop for stop signs. I haven't seen them yield to traffic. I haven't seen them stick out their arm to say I'm turning left, coming flying down the hill into the oncoming traffic. This is a very huge safety issue. And so, again I applaud the author for the work on this.

I look forward to supporting the bill and just can't stress enough that whatever we can do to strengthen policy I think is desperately important because this is a serious problem in our communities. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, Senator Boladares.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to echo the sentiments of my colleagues here on the dais and thank you for bringing this forward. You know, my city, city in Santa Clarita, where I'm from is, been having lots of issues. There was a very, very lengthy City Council meeting just over a month ago, where several residents came forward to talk we have a Paseo system in in Santa Clarita, which is lovely for families.

But there is an increase of accidents as a result of ebikes. And part of the frustration at the local level and the city level is not understanding a classification and what is leak, what is an ebike. They're classified as essentially regular bikes at this point, and I think your bill is really looking to take some of the beginning steps to making making ebike both accessible but safe for our communities. I do I I am a little curious though.

There are some things I'm not sure if maybe law enforcement can weigh in here.

What what approximately what speed does 750 watts get you on one of these ebikes? And the reason why I asked is because that's, I guess, the watt classification is what is confusing for some localities on whether or not it's legal.

I don't know how Watts corresponds to speed. In my experience, different devices will go different speeds. You may have a 250 watt electric bicycle that can go up to 20 or you may have a thousand watt, which would not be qualifies in ebike could go 20 as well. So I think it just depends on the particular brands from that and that's from just from what I've seen out in the field.

And and that's part of the the if you'd like to wait in, the part of the point is at the local level, there's not a lot of clarification on, you know, what the wattage versus speed, which is what your bill gets to as well. Would love to have you weigh on weigh in on this as well, maybe before I ask some questions about speed.

Yeah. Just quickly, on behalf of the manufacturers that make these, the the responsible bicycle manufacturers put a governor on the bicycle that actually prevents it from going over the legal speed. So the motors are capable they're up to seven fifty watts. That's what defines a legal electric bicycle. That motor could power the bike faster, but it's actually cut off.

And the reason for that is sometimes you have to go uphill, maybe you're carrying more weight on the bike, so you need more power in the motor to be able to do those things. But the but the responsible manufacturers will make it so that the bikes cannot be tampered with and they shut off providing more power to you at 20 miles per hour or if it's a class three, the higher powered ones can go up to 28.

But to be a legally bike, they have to shut off at 20 or 28 miles per hour. Otherwise, they fall into this e moto category which is a motorcycle or a moped in in terms of the bill that Senator Blake Spear has been moving. Okay.

So, I mean, did you I don't

wanna I was just

gonna note that so this addresses speed, not not the wattage. The wattage is an issue, and we had a bill going through the Assembly that we're hoping to address that.

know if you

And that still is an issue that needs to be addressed is that certain wattages allow you allow you to go to a higher speed as testimony provider, but we focus more on the ability for our locals to to have a statewide speed limit and then for our locals to also be able to address that pathway by pathway.

Okay. At the local level, which I think is the point is is the local our local communities just aren't sure what they're allowed to regulate or not allowed to regulate. In terms of the speeds, you know, again, I think about this through the lens of, you know, a family being on a trail. You're not necessarily even riding, but you're just walking or jogging or, you know, pushing a stroller, having your toddler run down a Paseo or or or a trail.

Do why did we choose ten, fifteen, or 20?

Is that just a starting point?

So there have been cities that have done 10 as the city of Irvine has noted. There's been a few cities that has done 10. And when you think about a because the sidewalk sidewalk is a shared pathway, like you said. If somebody could be pushing a stroller, walking the dog, people of all ages. And so if you're on a shared pathway, 10 is, like, an appropriate speed where you can go and react.

Think about being in a car, why we sped set speed limits is because we say, can you stop? If you can see something, can you stop in time? If you're going 60 miles an hour on a regular residential road and a kid jumps out in front of you, you are not likely to stop, which is why we typically set it to about anywhere from 15 to 35 depending on the jurisdiction.

So the same thing on a sidewalk is what we're saying is you can if you're going 10 miles an hour, you can reasonably foresee a need to stop or avoid an incident. And then also every pathway is different.

You think about a sidewalk that's just, you know, trying to think of one across the street. But, you know, there's your standard sidewalk, but if you go in front of our building, that sidewalk is wider. So a jurisdiction, a local jurisdiction can say, well, it's a wider pathway. I'd like to be able to get flexibility because you can go faster because you have a greater chances of being deviating and still being on concrete versus, like, deviating into the grass.

Got it. And I think there is still a lot of work to do in this area, you know, especially around education. You know, I think you should have a license to to to ride some of these bikes. But I also think that any younger rider needs some basic education on kind of the rules of the road as well. So there lot there's lots of work, to do here and, you know, would love to be a co author if you would have me.

happy to support the bill and move it forward if it hasn't been.

I'm so

We have a motion offered by Senator Archuleta. Thank you. We're ready to take them up because of lack of quorum anyway. So we will do that later. Alright.

I think we, Senator Gonzales, did you have any comments or questions? We got close and then I think we lost the quorum before we had a chance. So we'll come back now to the author in just a moment. Let me just say thank you. Let me just say thank you, in absentia at the moment to Senator Blake Spear for the work that she's doing which seems or sounds, complimentary or she said kind of corollary It

is complimentary. That you

are are doing. I don't have a lot to say other than this issue has, grown on me as an important issue because the area I live is very poverty slash affluence integrated and I think it's because of that it has sort of adopted the community's affordability quotient is pretty low at times and and but we're starting to see that we're starting to see e bikes a lot more.

But what really convinced me was a couple trips to Southern California last spring to Carlsbad in Senator Blakesburg's district. More recently, I was out in Los Angeles two consecutive weekends with e bike going right down Sunset Boulevard at night with no lights and the kid who was riding it couldn't have been more than, you know, four feet tall.

And, you know, one of the things I appreciate the all the work to protect them, to protect the children, to protect the riders themselves, you know, protect the community who wanna call them cyclists or not.

There's also the distraction effect here which is true of everything we do and we try to regulate on our roads. It's not just about that individual on that unit being safe but what's going on relative to drivers being distracted and merging and all the things that occur of braiding and weaving and everything else. So I think we do have a lot of work to do and I think there's a lot of registration and and and that type of work to do as well.

But in the meantime, I think this has been a great body of work that's come through this Yeah. Committee this year, a huge leap forward and hopefully it it results in enrolled and acted legislation.

I'll turn it back to you.

Thank you, chairman, and thank you to the members of the committee that provided questions and made comments. I really appreciate the robust discussion. Thank you to my those that have testified as well as to opposition. We've worked with them throughout this bill and have made adjustments and changes and recognize there's still two things that they're concerned about, and we'll see if there's a pathway.

One of the things we try to address with the integrated versus attached, being able to sell attached light, didn't have to be integrated, which was where we started and and recognizing the disclosure, particularly around the age 16.

That was one that originally was a part of the bill as if you you had it was part of law enforcement that law enforcement could stop someone under the age of 16 for something. And so we had heard concerns from members of the community not wanting people to be criminally justice involved and lots of things. And so we moved it to a disclosure to be able to say, because a lot of times grandparents' parents are coming in and buying these bikes to say, hey.

Maybe you shouldn't buy a bike that's you know, if it's somebody 16 that can go faster than 15 miles an hour or making them aware. So they're telling their child, you're not allowed to go more than 15 miles an hour, but you don't have to involve law enforcement because part of it, to your point, Senator, is about education, and we have to do more.

We have a pilot that is existing right now and potentially another pilot being added, another city being added that pilot to talk about what does it look like to be able to have a education policy prior to be able to ride a bike. But I will say this is I consider this almost the omnibus bill because it has been bipartisan of as it relates to ebikes.

We want, ebikes to be used, but we also want, you called it apparatus center bicycle shaped devices that are not e bikes to to not be used. Right? We want safe communities and everybody who's using a pathway or bikeway to be safe.

And I think this bill drives at at keeping existing riders who are doing the right thing. It protects them, but it also, you know, puts some serious guidelines around folks who are not doing the right thing. And with that, at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Vote.

Okay. Thank you. Assemblymember Wilson, we will have a motion. We know that for sure because we've had a couple of authors offers for it. So we know that's coming and since they have a quorum, we'll start taking up votes.

Yep. Thank you. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. We appreciate it. Looks like some of the repellent.

Thank

you, sir.

Some of the repellent. Oh, I think it's

Scared him away.

Scared him away. Good job for you. I know he was patiently awaiting his turn. Assembly member, AB 1919, welcome, and you may commence whenever you're ready.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chair and senators. In 2022, the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Metro worked with communities across its service territory to plan a network of bus services dubbed reimagine metro that would be faster, more frequent, and reliable in areas of high transit demand. Reimagine metro phase one launched in December 2023, implemented new higher frequency routes from Watsonville to Santa Cruz.

Reimagine metro phase two, which began implementation of March and March twenty twenty four, expanded metro's network of frequent routes and increased ridership by 43%.

Reimagine metro phases one and two were funded by a one time infusion of $28,300,000 in 2023. This funding will run out in 2026. To prevent service and job cuts after this funding runs out, the metro must secure additional state or local funding. Failure to secure additional funds will impact service to residents of Santa Cruz and Watsonville and will lead to significant metro employee layoffs.

AB 1919 would simply add election procedures to address the gap in current law, which fails to outline how a qualified voter initiative for a local jurisdiction without elections procedures like metro may be placed on the ballot.

This Central Coast Caucus legislative priority bill simply gives voters in my district the power to decide the future of their transit system while protecting union jobs through a citizen's initiative. With me to testify in support is Michael Pimentel, legislative advocate at SYASL Partners, and bus operator Bonnie Bernard.

Okay. Thank you. Mister Pimentel, you may proceed when ready.

Alright. Mister Chair and members, good to be with you this afternoon. I'm Michael Pimentel here on behalf of the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, also known as Metro. Metro is a sponsor of AB 1919, and we wanna thank Assemblymember Pellerin for carrying this measure. The author's remarks, the committee's analysis are all straightforward and comprehensive.

And so I just wanna emphasize, one point, and that is that Santa Cruz residents today, organized under the Friends of Metro Campaign, are working to gather signatures to sponsor a citizen's initiative to support Metro service. As Assemblymember Pellerin noted, Metro's authorizing statutes in the public utilities codes, sections do not explicitly identify the steps that local officials must follow to place a citizen initiative on the ballot. This bill simply establishes those procedures in our authorizing statutes eliminating that ambiguity.

And with that, we encourage your aye vote today on AB 1919. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members of the committee. My name is Bonnie Bernard. I'm bus operator 783 with Santa Cruz Metro and a proud proud member of local twenty three smart. As a resident of Santa Cruz County, I have seen an increase in ridership, confident ridership, since we have implemented the Reimagine Metro. Reimagine Metro.

It has made it more reliable and more service available. I've had first time riders become regulars because of the fact that they can get to work now and not have to go through all the traffic in our county. Our high cost of living has put a burden on fuel and, also we have not a lot of parking. I'm sure you guys get that here too. We have a very diverse rural routing system within our county.

In there we are the only public transportation for seniors, low income, disabled and the youth in our county. We service 67 schools as their school transportation, that's 90% of our schools in the county. Without a new source of revenue, a reliable source of revenue, we will stand to lose 100 jobs within our agency. Their employment would also put a further burden on our community and our county.

With that, many of us have gone to work alongside the Friends of Santa Cruz Metro to collect signatures in support of this measure.

I'd like to thank you for your time and respectfully ask for your

I vote.

Well thank you for your testimony. Do we have others here who wish to express the support position? Please come on forward.

Good afternoon. Brian Ramos, bus operator, Santa Cruz Metro member, Local twenty three in support.

Mister Chair members, Louis Costa with Smart Transportation Division Safety and Legislative Board and proud support.

Alright. I've seen no one else come forward. Do we have registered opposition? Anyone wishing to testify? Anyone wishing to come forward and express opposition at the microphone?

Seeing none of that, we'll come back to the dais.

Do we

have questions or concerns here? There's we don't have a quorum yet, do we? We have not established it, I know. If we had it here, I would establish it right now. That said, we'll come back to the author.

Thank you very much for bringing the bill forward. Obviously, we're neighboring communities, so I know in in a in a different sort of way as as a Chair here, what you're dealing with, what you're proud of, what's going on in your district. So, thank you for bringing the bill forward and you have an opportunity to close at this time.

Sure. I'm I'm sure when you all come visit Santa Cruz, you'd like to see less congestion on the streets and highways. And when you do come visit our beautiful beaches and redwoods and this simple build, so simply ask to let my people vote. Thank you so much.

Alright. Thank you all for being here. Okay. Oh, yeah. Assemblymember Hoover, please come on up.

This would be file item 10 AB 2012. You're welcome to start whenever you want.

Thank you, Mister Chair, members. AB 2012 simply clarifies that a special permit is not required to move a manufactured home if the applicant has obtained an annual permit. California's housing crisis requires creative solutions to increase affordability and availability. Factory built housing and manufactured homes offer an innovative approach to alleviating our shortage across the state. This will help lower transportation cost for these homes.

And with me today is Graciela Castillo Krings on behalf of the California Housing Consortium.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Graciela Castillo Crings here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium. AB 2012 is one of a bill of pack sorry, it's one bill in a package that is being moved forward this year to really look at innovative ways of lowering construction costs in the state of California. What we are hoping to do with this piece of legislation is make it a little easier, streamline how we move some of the modules and units throughout the state.

We are not eliminating any of the protections that are already in state law. We are just asking that instead of multiple permits, we are able to apply to one and just ensure that we're working closely with both CHP and Caltrans. And we are very grateful to the author for all the work that his staff and he are doing on this bill. So with that, we respectfully urge and I vote.

Alright. Thank you for your testimony. Are there others here who wish to express support? Please do so.

Good afternoon, Chair, members. We appreciate this bill. California Conference of Carpenters are in strong support.

Thank you.

Thanks for being here. Anyone else on the support side? I've seen none. Do we have opposition here present wishing to testify? Does anyone wish to express opposition as me too?

Seeing none, we'll come back to the dais. Does anyone wish to comment, amongst colleagues? Senator Archuleta? Yes.

I I see that if the individual who transports has a permit, an annual permit, he's able to use that permit rather than having to get a permit for each movement. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. So it's an umbrella permit per se?

Yeah. It's it's essentially streamlining a process that that already exists, and I think it's going to help at least reduce costs a little bit for transporting these homes, which we're already using to build a number of projects in California.

And and I call it an umbrella permit. Yeah. I think that would work.

Good way to look at it.

You could that way you don't have to do it every

Correct.

Each and every item that you move or mobile.

Or yeah. Correct.

Okay. Well, I'll go ahead and move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Alright. Well, we have an offered motion by Archuleta, which we can't take up right now, and I recommendation from me, and you're welcome to close.

Thank you. Appreciate the conversation, which respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time. Thanks so much, Mister Scholl.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. And we have Assemblymember Nguyen, here on AB 2024. You may come up and testify, excuse me, and present at this time. If witnesses, they can come up.

Great. Thank you, Mister Chair and members. I'm here to present AB 2024, a narrow cleanup bill to address delays and permitting process under the Outdoor Advertising Act. I wanna note that this is in no way approval of any request, but more so just streamlining the process. So that way, when a request is submitted in, that's a a that there's that it's accepted and not acted on, but that the application moves through the full process.

What we're finding now is that when they're submitting an application, it's just sitting there and it delays. So what we're asking is so that way this is to reduce delays, make sure the process is working as intended. And here to testify in support is Amy on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association.

Thank you. Amy Lerseth. I'm here as the Senator said or as pardon me the Assembly member said, testifying on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association in support of AB 2024. This is a straightforward cleanup measure that provides important technical clarifications to ensure consistent implementation of California's outdoor advertising act. Under current law, the billboard relocation is allowed as an alternative to monetary compensation when displays are moved for public projects.

However, inconsistent administrative practices have created confusion, delays, and in some cases, unnecessary costs. This bill simply reinforces what the law already intends. It ensures that the relocation remains a viable option where permitted, clarifies that one for one relocation should not be subject to additional requirements, and help ensure that accepted permit applications are processed in a timely manner. These changes are important because relocation in lieu of compensation is a tool that helps reduce public cost and avoid public pardon me, project delays.

When relocation is limited or delayed, it can increase cost for public projects and create uncertainty for all parties involved.

AB 2024 targets common sense updates that improve regulatory certainty, streamlines permitting and supports more efficient project delivery without expanding existing law. For these reasons we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for your testimony. Do we have others that wish to express support? Please come forward. I'm seeing none. Oh yes we do.

Please come on up.

Good afternoon. Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors in support.

Great. Thank you. Anybody else on the support side? Alright. Seeing none.

Any opposition witnesses? Any opposition testimony, please come forward. Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee.

No. At

the appropriate. At the appropriate time.

Okay. Alright. So we have a standing motion from Senator Archulet at the appropriate time to be in a complete sentence here.

The appropriate time?

It's no joke anymore. We have a quorum. Oh. We do. We were waiting on you, man.

Alright. We're gonna somebody we're gonna pause for a moment so we

can vote

on your bill. And we'll ask the assistant to call the roll.

Senators Cortese? Here. Cortese here. Strickland?

Here.

Strickland here. Archuleta? Here. Archuleta here. Aregame, Lixbeer, Dali, Gonzales?

Here. Gonzales here. Greyson, Menjivar, Richardson? Here. Richardson here.