Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

The Senate Transportation Committee will come to order. Good afternoon and welcome everybody. We have a total of 15 measures on today's agenda. First, a few housekeeping items. We're going to allow for two primary witnesses, for each support and opposition.

Each witness will have two minutes, and additional witnesses will ask, to limit yourselves to name, affiliation, and your position on the bill. We'll be hearing, bills on the agenda in file order, and we'll be entering motions on bills at the appropriate time when a quorum is established. We have five measures proposed on the consent today. Item one, AB 599. Item two and three, AB 1145 and twenty fifty five.

Item 13, AB 2541. And item 15, AB 2719. So we're gonna act as a subcommittee until we get a quorum. Who is here first? Slochee.

Good to see you, my friend. Come on up.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and committee members. Thank you, for today. As former mayor of Lynwood, I am honored to present AB 1338. I'm grateful to the Committee and Committee Staff, for their thoughtful engagement, so thank you so much for that. AB 1338, it's a district bill that would resolve a unique land utilization challenge in the city of Lynnwood.

This bill would allow the city to transfer a public purpose covenant from the city's Imperial Highway property to an adjacent city owned parcel, allowing for mixed use development and the includes affordable housing. Due to a unique set of challenges, including proximity to the 105 Freeway, the property contamination history, it has made it difficult to develop the land holding the covenant for public purposes.

AB 1338 offers a solution that would allow the city to transfer the covenant to an adjacent property more suitable for affordable housing development. Testifying in support, I would like to introduce Lynwood city manager Suja Lowenthal. We also have Mister John Lam, Lynwood's assistant city attorney, available for any technical questions.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm doctor Suja Lowenthal, and I am the city manager of the city of Lynnwood here in strong support of AB 1338. Lynwood is a fully built out city. We do not have vacant fields or open land waiting to be developed. Every city owned parcel we have is precious, and one of them has sat vacant and blighted for nearly a decade because of a deed restriction we cannot resolve on our own.

In 2016, Caltrans transferred this property to Lynwood with a public purpose covenant attached. Since then, the city has done everything possible to utilize the land, including remediating decades of contamination and complying with surplus land act. After years of obstacles, AB 1338 provides us with the solution we've been looking for. Moving the covenant to an adjoining city owned parcel allows us to preserve public purpose while freeing the site for 55 units of affordable housing. The city thanks Assembly member Solache for his strong advocacy.

AB 1338 will allow the city and the state to work as partners to expand housing and economic development opportunities. Our region needs this housing. Our families are waiting for it, and we urge the legislature to help us clear the final path. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1338.

It's just technical questions. Yes.

Any other support in the room? Any opposition? Well, assuming would you like to close?

Thank you, Mister vice Chair. As you and I share local government experience, we know the importance of of having these, liquid issues resolved. I'm excited that the city of Lynwood, my former, council that I served on, will address, some retail space, affordable housing, and a better place for our community to enjoy for many years to come. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And as soon as we get a quorum, I'll be happy to move your item.

Thank you, mister Vice Chair. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

For being here. Thank you.

Next up, we're going file order. File item number 4 AB 1330 oh, no. That was just done. AB15 file item number 5, AB 1594 Harabedian. Thank you for being here.

Thank you, Mister vice Chair. Appreciate it. And, first, I just wanna thank the committee for all their work on this bill. SB 959 by Senator Portantino in 2022 laid out a process for nonprofit tenants in properties owned by Caltrans in the former 710 Corridor in Pasadena to purchase their properties. They operate out of many homes that were that were bought or purchased in the sixties and seventies by Caltrans.

And as part of the the existence of these nonprofits like Ronald McDonald House, they are trying to purchase these properties, and the bill would allow them to purchase the property for a value in use, which is a price below fair market value. Ronald McDonald, again, is one of those nonprofit tenants and as everyone knows, they do critical work. They provide temporary housing for children that are dealing with serious illness. They have operated there for decades and they do life saving work.

They are currently in a negotiation with Caltrans for the three properties that they operate out of, and Caltrans has inserted a provision within the contract that says that after thirty years, Ronald McDonald House would have to pay back a net equity.

Meaning that in thirty years, they would have to pay back the delta between the use value and the fair market value. That equates to millions of dollars of debt that this nonprofit would have to incur, put on its balance sheet, and it would actually impact their operations. The money would go towards, debt service potentially or at least they would have to accrue some sort of, potential satisfaction of the debt in lieu of actually providing critical care for these children. What this bill does is very narrow.

It only applies to Ronald McDonald House, and all it says is that the appropriate terms, conditions, and restrictions on the sale should not actually include the net equity obligation on the organization.

This will allow the organization to purchase the properties, continue to operate, and won't affect the children, that are being serviced by the nonprofit. And just again, wanna thank the the the whole committee, the Chair, and the staff for their work on it. With me today is Richard Lewis, the executive director of real estate for Ronald McDonald House.

Thank you. But before we go, are you willing to accept the committee's amendments?

Okay. Two minutes. Thank you for being here, sir.

Yes.

Thank you, Chair, members of the committee. Thank you. My name is Richard Lewis, executive director of real estate for the Ronald McDonald House Charities of Southern California. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you in support of AB 1594, and thank you to Assembly member Harabedian for his leadership on this legislation. Ronald McDonald House Charities provide children and their families with a home away from home close to hospitals so they can remain together during treatment.

Each year, our Pasadena House provides nearly 4,000 overnight states providing a home away from home for approximately 440,000 children and their family members. More than 75% of the families we serve identify as low to moderate income, and they travel from throughout California to visit our partners including Huntington Health, Shriners Children's Hospital, and City of Hope.

For more than two years now, we've been working to complete the acquisition of the Ronald McDonald House Pasadena properties, so we can begin much needed renovation and expansion to serve more families. Completing this acquisition is essential to that effort. AB 1594 addresses a narrow but important issue involving the former SR 710 surplus properties.

When the legislature authorized these properties to be sold to nonprofit organizations, its intent was clear To preserve these properties for organizations that provide an ongoing public benefit. For organizations like ours, the current net equity provision creates a long term financial obligation that makes it more difficult to raise private philanthropic support, secure financing, and invest in facilities that continue to serve their intended charitable purpose. Removing that barrier will allow us to focus our resources where they belong on caring for families with critically ill children.

AB 1594 restores the legislature's original intent, protects the public interest, and helps ensure that charitable organizations can continue to invest in these properties. On behalf of the Ronald McDonald House Charities of Southern California and the families we serve, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you for being here. Any other witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for a no vote,

Mister Mitchell.

And I'll move it when we get oh, I'm sorry. Someone I mean, Senator Senator Archuleta. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chair, co Chair. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I am immensely close to the area. Obviously, Cal State LA is right down the street from our district, El Sereno, and, of course, 710 going into Pasadena.

So so I know it well. And as long as I can remember, there's been fights over that property and on and on. And so now here we are with looking at Ronald McDonald House, and I couldn't think of a better nonprofit than Ronald McDonald House with so many of our families that are affected by cancer and issues and so on, and to have a place where the families can stay and and be there.

And that location is near hospitals all over LA County, Whether the patient is there at LA or right down the street at the UCLA USC Hospital, it's imperative that it's there. The question about Caltrans working with it and the equity, and you're looking at at the end not to have to revert back to that original amount, which would be detrimental for the future.

And so for those reasons, I think it's a great bill, great opportunity for the state of California to acknowledge what Ronald McDonald is all about. So with that, at the appropriate time, I'll move it.

We have a quorum.

Thank you, Mister vice Chair, and thank you, Senator, for the kind words. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Next up, I believe, is Assemblyman Lackey. Members, we have two items from the Assemblyman. The first one's filing number 7AB1685. Thank you for being here, sir.

You may open when you're ready.

Isn't it 1685? Yes.

File number 7AB1685.

Alright. Well, thank you, Chair and member. This bill will increase the points for gross vehicular manslaughter from two to three points. As former highway patrol officer, I've seen the dangers and heartbreak drunk driving can actually bring into people's families. The California DMV uses an the negligent operator treatment system, also known as NOTS or NOTS, to assign points to a driver's record based on traffic related convictions and violations.

These points are used to determine whether a driver's privilege to operate a motor vehicle should be suspended or revoked. If a person accumulates four points in twelve months, six points in twenty four months, or eight points in thirty six months, the Department of Motor Vehicles may suspend their license. Currently, a conviction for vehicular manslaughter, and vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and in case you didn't know, that means someone died, results in a person having two points on their license, only two points.

This is the same number of points assessed for reckless driving and driving a 100 miles an hour, but nothing to do with loss of life. This is unacceptable.

Taking a person's life should not be equal to just speeding on the freeway. This bill, sixteen eighty five, makes the necessary change to the NOTS system by adding three points to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, becoming the first conviction to have this high of a point assessment. With me to testify on behalf of this bill is Terry McHale with the California Highway Patrol Association and Justin Fenceloh on behalf of, Safe Roads yeah. The California good grief. Safe California Roads Coalition.

I'm so sorry.

Mister McHale, you have two minutes.

Mister chairman, in your favorite sport, they've only made one major change in basketball in the last hundred years. And what they they didn't change the height of the basket. They didn't change the size of the court, but they added the technical foul. There are some fouls that are so egregious they need to be answered. There needs to be a response.

Every single day, a California highway patrolman comes up on an accident where an innocent person has been killed by someone driving drunk. It is unacceptable, and it is astonishing with Uber and the other options that the number of drunk driving deaths have gone up fifty five percent.

This won't end it, but it sends an absolute clear message that your insurance will go up, that the prosecutors will look at this with with greater gravity and an understanding of teaching of our children and all of society, that there are greater consequences for this avoidable tragedy, we ask for an aye vote.

Your next witness, two minutes. Thank you for being here.

Good afternoon. Justin Fanshaw on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition. Thank you. I'd I'd like to say thank you to the author. This is one of a number of bills that our coalition is supporting this year.

Among them are stronger rules around ignition interlock. We just heard Mister Senator Archuleta's bill this morning on increased penalties. And and one thing that we keep seeing is we keep hearing from witnesses who have endured the ultimate loss, which is what is discussed here, vehicular manslaughter. For those that endure that because someone was drinking while they got behind the car, coalition members that I represent call that murder. So to receive one more point seems very, very small in the scheme of things.

Lastly, I'll I'll let's note, MADD issued a report an update on their national report on state's laws around drunk driving. To no surprise, California, again, received an f. Failure. Eight of the 10 top cities in the country that have the worst DUI rates in the country and worst death rates in the country are here in California. Number two, San Jose.

Number three, Sacramento. We have to do something, and this is a very measured approach to making sure that people know there are consequences on the other side of an impaired grabbing of the keys and driving a car. Thank you.

Thank you. Any support

of identity

Cheney Wardwalla representing People for Bikes in support.

Thank you.

Mark Frixovich on behalf of Streets for All in support.

Thank you.

Gentlemen of Voorhees on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.

Thank you.

Rhonda Campbell, Mothers Against Drunk Driving in support.

Thank you.

Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers and the other police officer associations listed and analysis all in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none goes back to the committee. Senator Archuleta.

Good. Thank you, Assembly member for bringing this forward. Earlier today, you said we've got to do something about a DUI epidemic. You said it. I've said it.

I think everyone in this room can agree that California must step up to increase its penalties on drunk driving. Lives are taken. I think I've made it publicly clear that I lost my own granddaughter to a drunk driver Christmas Eve. It's devastated to the family. And Bronze Law is on the table because of, that family losing their son.

And drunk driving, it's an epidemic that has affected so many families in California. And I was in Orange County earlier this year, and there was an office building here, an office building here, and a walkway in between. And hundreds upon hundreds of pictures of our victims were on these walls, and the podium was upfront and people spoke and I was able to speak. And I spoke on the overall issues pertaining to drunk driving and how it's affecting so many lives.

And economically, look what it's doing to our hospitals.

The number of law enforcement officers that are involved in a in a in a traffic accident where someone dies. Medically, the doctors are filled with with these patients that can no longer walk and some onto the morgue. It's devastating. Your bill, sixteen eighty five Assembly member, is knocking on the door telling us all, telling the DMV they have to be accountable, keep the records.

When these individuals cause a loss of life, drunk driving, whatever it is, that it should be consequence that is recorded on their license, recorded in the record, for for years to come.

And, so I commend you for bringing this bill forward, and I will support it. I will move it at the appropriate time, and I thank you again. Thank you.

Thank you. So we don't have a quorum, so we'll move on, members, to the next item, the Assemblyman Lackey file number 8AB1687. The assemblyman, you may open. K.

Alright. Well, thank you. AB 1687 is my second DUI bill, which will increase the Department of Motor Vehicles revocation period for, get this, a third DUI conviction and moving the penalty from three years to eight years. This bill also adds that a person may be able to apply for an interlock device after four years with the requirement to have it within their vehicle for two years. A recent DMV analysis followed drivers who received a DUI in 2005.

Over the next fifteen years, over twenty five percent of those drivers were arrested again for another DUI. Among those drivers, forty percent already had three or more DUIs at the time of the 2005 arrest. California was once leading the nation against driving under the influence, and now has fallen significantly behind. In New Jersey, a person convicted of repeat DUIs cannot get their license back until eight years after their conviction. While in Nebraska, it is fifteen years, and Connecticut will permanently revoke the license.

However, in California, a person can get their license back after three years and continue to add more DUIs to their record. This bill, AB 1687, will require the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately revoke the license of a person convicted of three DUIs for eight years unless the driver agrees to the installation of an interlock device at year four.

By expanding the revocation period for repeat offenders, this bill sixteen eighty seven will help make California roads safer by keeping repeat drunk drivers from being behind the will. With with me to testify on this bill is Rhonda Campbell on behalf of the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and I'd also like to mention that the author, of the amendments that I have crossed officially naming the bill Irene's Law comes from her sister Irene who was killed by a repeat offender at the age of 12.

I also have with me Ryan Sherman, legislative advocate for the California Narcotic Officers Association.

Yes. She'll have a couple minutes each.

Thank you.

Thank you. Hello again. My name is Rhonda Campbell. I am the state victim services manager for Mothers Against Drunk Driving California, and I'm here today in support of Irene's law. Drunk driving is not an accident.

It's a choice. When that choice is made repeatedly, it becomes clear that some individuals have demonstrated an unwillingness to safely share our roadways. The need for this bill is undeniable. During a recent twelve hour California Highway Patrol maximum enforcement period, officers arrested five zero five impaired drivers. That's more than 42 DURs DUI arrests every hour.

Many of the tragedies mad sees are not caused by first time offenders, but by repeat offenders who continue to regain access to our roads. For me, the issue is personal. When I was a child, my 12 year old sister Irene was killed by a four time repeat offender. I still remember standing beside my mother as Irene's casket was being closed. As the lid was closed, my mother let out a scream that I can still hear more than forty years later.

That scream was the sound of a mother realizing she would never again hold her daughter or watch her grow up. That her grow up. That driver made a choice, but my family received the sentence. Today, I work with families across California who carry the same lifelong grief because of completely preventable crimes. AB 1687 recognizes that driving is a privilege and not a right.

It helps keep California's most dangerous repeat impaired drivers off all roads while still allowing them to earn an opportunity to earn back that privilege through compliance, rehabilitation, and the use of an interlock device. You can't change what happened to Irene, but today, you can help prevent another family from experiencing the same heartbreak that mine did.

For my sister Irene, and for every victim whose voice can no longer be heard, and for every family who still has that we still have the chance to protect, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Next witness, please.

Briefly, Mister Chair. Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association and a couple dozen police officer associations around the state, all in support of the bill. We're we're very pleased to be able to support the bill and recognize that this allows the DMV to revoke a person's driver's license for eight years if they're convicted of three or more specified impaired driving offenses within a ten year period.

We think this is incredibly generous, especially in light of, some of our Lackey's testimony, about how things are handled, similarly in other states. We're pleased to have been able to support this entire package of

the DUI bills this year, including Senator Archuleta's legislation, which is being considered today in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. And we'd also like to thank publicly Assemblymember Lackey for his dedication and commitment to keeping those who travel on California's roads safe. I could repeat things, and I just concur with my colleague here and with the Assemblymember, and respectfully request your aye vote.

Alright. Thank you. Appreciate both witnesses. And, of course, we're very, very sorry for your loss and sorry that you even have to come in and give testimony on this topic. It is it is weighed heavily into the proceedings.

Thank you. We're gonna ask if there's anyone else in the committee room who wishes to support the measure, and we see a line forming at the microphone. Thank you.

Christian Nunez on behalf of Streets are for Everyone in support.

Mark Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All in support.

Julianna Voorhees on behalf of League of California Cities in support.

Kathy Harris in volunteer for MADD in support, and I am the mother of Irene Harris. Thank you.

Cody Boyles on behalf of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen in support.

Jeanie Ward-Waller for People for Bikes in support.

Nicole Wertleman on behalf of San Bernardino County in support.

Alright. Thank you. We'll now move to opposition. Is there anyone who wish to express opposition on the bill? I see no no one come forward.

We'll come back to the committee. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, Mister Chair. And once again, Assemblymanner, thank you for bringing this forward. And, for the record, I am a co author. And for the record, I shared with the Montebello Police Department. For the record, I lost my granddaughter to a drunk driver.

So I'm extremely passionate and involved in every bill that comes across this floor pertaining to loss of life. And every one of you in this audience, if you ever have someone in your family lose their life to a drunk driver, you would join us without a doubt. When you attend that funeral, when you hug that parent because they lost their child. So if I may read, Mr. Chair.

Yes. Go ahead.

Irene Ruth Harris. Irene was 12 years old when she was killed by a drunk driver. The drunk driver ran a stop sign and hit the car she was riding in head on. She was four times he was a four time offender and blew up point 16 after the crash. Irene was a vibrant, happy 12 year old with her whole life ahead of her that was stolen by the irresponsible decision someone made to drink and drive.

Irene was going to change the world that was stolen from her. She would like to be right here with us and try to help make this a better world, a better way of life for everyone. What an angel. May she be with the good Lord, and I am so sorry for your loss. And with that, Mister Chair, I will move the bill at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Senator. Others who wish to comment or ask questions? I'm seeing none. We don't have a quorum established as I understand it. So we do have a motion when the time comes that we establish a quorum.

We'll take the bill up. Appreciate again, appreciate your testimony. Thank you for bringing the bill forward, Assemblymember Lackey.

Thank you.

We will now call upon file item 6 is Assembly member Wilson, AB 1613. Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Or good afternoon.

It's been a long day already. Look.

Alright. Microphone got turned off. You may proceed when ready, Assemblymember. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair and senators. First, I would like to start by noting that I am accepting the committee, mends. Thank you for both you and your staff's work on this bill. I'm pleased to present AB 1613, a bill that would create a California off highway vehicle safety and stewardship course as a self guided certification of knowledge of safe operating practices of OHVs and require operators of OHVs to take this course in order to access off highway lands beginning in 2029.

Both federal and state statute have standards for the safe operation of an OHV.

However, there is no requirement that operators know these existing or other safety standards. Additionally, there is no requirement that they have the ability to demonstrate their knowledge through a certification program. Because of this gap in law, misuse, property damage, accidents, injuries, and even deaths have become a problem in our state parks and other public lands that allow OHV recreation. California has even ranked the highest in fatalities amongst deaths associated with OHVs across the country.

As a result of this, need, stakeholder conversations, including several safety summits over the past few years with commit members of the community, law enforcement, and the department have revealed a common interest a common interest to providing additional training and education to the OHV community.

AB 1613 is the culmination of years of work amongst the community and is not only modeled after similar programs in other states like Utah and Arizona, but it is modeled after California's own successful voter ID card that the legislature approved over a decade ago. It is time that California take this reasonable step forward in our OHV lands in order to improve safety and enact the change the OHV community has been seeking. With me today, I'd like to introduce two witnesses.

Amy Granite, executive director of Sierra Access Coalition, and Diana Mead, director for California Outdoor Recreation Foundation.

Witnesses, you have a couple minutes each and you can proceed.

Good afternoon, Senate Transportation Committee. I'm Diana Mead. I am a proud voter in District Number 9, and I'm proud to be here today. Thank you for the opportunity to address you in support of AB 1613. I would like to thank Assemblywoman Wilson

for her leadership and commitment to safeguarding our natural resources and ensuring safe, sustainable outdoor recreation. During the COVID 19 pandemic, people felt safer outdoors. Between 2020 and 2023, sales of side by side vehicles, among the most accessible and affordable OHVs, increased by a whopping 220%. This rapid growth continues to generate many new riders and drivers with limited experience or understanding of safe riding practices and trail etiquette. Subsequently, we have witnessed unacceptable increases in accidents, injuries, and environmental impacts.

In 2022, California's off highway motor vehicle recreation division responded by sponsoring annual safety summits. These meetings brought together law enforcement, industry, OHV organizations, and land managers to explore solutions. The bill you have before you is a result of that inclusive stakeholder process. It reflects a collaborative effort to address the challenges and effect change. The bill is not reliant on commercial interests and incorporates effectiveness metrics to ensure future improvements as needed.

The bill mandates a practical education first approach to reduce accidents, protect California's natural resources, and save lives while preserving access for responsible recreation. I respectfully ask you to support AB 1613.

Alright. Next witness, please.

Members of the committee, Mister Chair, Amy Granite, twenty year advocate for off road vehicles on public land, and a proud Jeeper. I know what it's like to experience the trails, and I know what it's like to come across riders and drivers that simply do not understand the rules of the road. It's become pretty dangerous out there, in some cases where we have some overcrowded trails. You know, that's another issue that we need to work on.

But in the meantime, we need to all come together and make sure that the riders and drivers of these vehicles understand, first, best management practices when they're off road, trail etiquette when they're off road, and how to share this commodity, our precious public lands, with everyone else who wants to enjoy it.

The public lands allow access to non motorized activities such as hiking and biking, and access for motorized vehicles to go off on trails and challenge their vehicles like I tend to do. The important thing to understand is that you have to do it responsibly. You have to do it and understand what the capabilities of your vehicle are, whether it's a dirt bike, a side by side, a Jeep, or any other vehicle that is capable of traveling on dirt roads.

And I have seen Priuses on dirt roads many times, and a lot of Subarus with kayaks on top. This will help everyone.

The measure AB 1613 with the help of a staff and Assembly member Wilson was really designed for a collaborative approach to this educational mandate. I respectfully ask you to support AB 1613.

Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Are there others here who wish to express support? Please come to the microphone if you want wish to do so. Thank you.

Terry McHale with Aaron Reed and Associates representing a coalition of off highway vehicle recreationists. Really wanna thank the author and her staff who've been very open and willing to discuss this issue. There are some concerns that remain, but we're going to meet on July 7, and we'll work those through and appreciate, Mister chairman, the openness of this committee and being so welcoming. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kiera Ross on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts in support of the bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of the California Medical Association in support. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Is there any opposition that wishes to come forward at this time? Any opposition testimony at all? Alright.

Seeing none, the committee will bring it back to the committee. Senator, go ahead. Yeah.

Well, we've heard DUI bills all day. I've been involved in that. But I see this you know, the old saying, for every action is a reaction. This is training. This is involvement.

This is giving these young people or anyone who drives these vehicles a sense of responsibility in how someone can get hurt. We just heard from the medical side. I'm sure broken bones and and all kinds of things happen with the vehicles. Maybe not fatalities, but people will learn that when they get out there by themselves, they can start drinking. Who knows?

But I see this as an educational opportunity for us to be a safer California, and I think it's a great bill, and I'm gonna support it, obviously, and I will move it at the appropriate time.

Senator Grayson.

Thank you, Mister Chair. And I wanna commend the author for bringing this bill forward. I, as a writer, off-road our vehicles, enjoying space and and all that. I want to believe that, everyone will glean from the education, grow from it, and then operate safely, out there on the trails and different things like that. I do know this, that those that wanna be safe, they they will take advantage of the education and they will operate safely.

If anything, it will protect them from those that don't. And so just because people there there may be some or will be some that don't really glean from that, there's no reason why we should not do this. So with that, I appreciate you bringing the bill forward. Thank you.

I see no other request to speak. Let me both give the offered the author an opportunity to close. But before doing so, I do wanna make sure that you're on the record taking the technical clarifying agreements that we inherited from natural resources Yes. At this time.

Alright. Thank you. And I'm not gonna make a big statement, because we've gone through this stuff pretty thoroughly before the committee meeting, and I came in here with the support. So with that, you can go ahead and close at this time. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you for the you know, there's off road vehicles have an issue of injuries, have an issue with fatalities here in the state of California. And what we found is that there was a culture around off road vehicles that was understood and people were being much more safer. And then the pandemic happened and people went outside and had some resources to buy more vehicles, these types of vehicles who've never had ridden them before.

And that's really where a lot of this stuff created.

It's a new phenomenon where you didn't grow up with it, now you have it, and and there's no rules about it. And so we modeled this after the boater safety law to say there should be some understanding before you, get on a vehicle of this type.

We are still open to as just like the the groups were open over the last three years of talking about this, we are still open to make sure we get this right, because we want people to enjoy our great outdoors here in the state of California. And with that, at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Alright. Well, we're still trying to put a quorum together. And as soon as we have one, I'm sure we'll have a motion. We'll have an opportunity to take up the vote. Thank you for being here.

Thank you for your testimony. We'll continue and file order. We'll move to file item nine, which is Assembly member ransom on AB 2046. And then the Assembly member Wicks will follow Assembly member ransom. Welcome.

Thank you, Senator. Good good well, good afternoon, Senator, Chair and members. I'm here today to talk about Assembly Bill 2046, which expands consumer choice by giving California's access to cleaner, more affordable fuel options. Californians, as we know, consistently pay more at the pump than drivers in other states, and gas prices are once again climbing across the state, putting added pressure on working families and commuters. E 85 is a blend of ethanol and gasoline.

It is a lower carbon fuel option that typically costs less per gallon than regular gasoline. For commuters and working families, it offers a practical way to save money. It's something that you already see on cars who are flex fuel cars they're using. If you're at the gas pump, you'll see the yellow, not the green, that's diesel, but you'll see the yellow, which is flex fuel.

But here, California, we remain the only state that prohibits the use of a proven US EPA approved e 85 conversion kit, which therefore limits the access to this affordable fuel option for many Californians.

AB 2046 will allow these approved conversion kits to operate in California, giving families greater greater flexibility and more affordable choices at the pump. At a time when Californians are struggling with affordability, AB 2046 provides real relief for families across the state. This is a consumer choice bill, which gives Californians a more affordable, cleaner alternative option, which is better than the status quo. We wanna give families more flexibility at the pump instead of being locked into high fuel cost options.

So with me today, I have Alessandro Paqueto and with the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance and Mister Jeff Wilkerson with Pearson Fuels.

So I'm gonna go ahead and give it to my witnesses.

Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Alessandra Briqueto, on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, proud sponsor of AB 2046. At its core, AB 2046 advances three priorities that are central to California's transportation future: affordability, emissions reduction, and fuel reliability. California drivers continue to face some of the highest and most volatile fuel prices in the nation. Ethanol blends, particularly e 85, provide an immediate opportunity to reduce fuel costs.

E 85 is typically priced a dollar 50 to $2 per gallon less than conventional gasoline, providing meaningful savings for families, commuters, and small businesses that rely on their vehicles every day. AB 2046 helps ensure consumers know this lower cost fuel option exists and can access it wherever it is available. The bill also supports California's climate goals. E 85 can reduce life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 80% compared to conventional gasoline.

These emissions reductions are available today using existing fuel flex fuel vehicles and existing fuel fueling infrastructure without requiring consumers to purchase new vehicles or adopt new technology.

Finally, AB 2046 strengthens California's transportation fuel supply. California's fuel market remains vulnerable because of limited in state refining capacity and increasing rely reliance on imported petroleum products. Ethanol is produced from domestic feedstocks, moves through a separate supply chain, and helps diversify the state's transportation fuel mix, making it less susceptible to global oil market disruptions. Expanding access to ethanol blends improves fuel resiliency while providing consumers with greater choice at the pump.

AB 2046 is a practical consumer focused solution that lowers costs, reduces emissions, and strengthens California's transportation fuel supply.

We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there others in the committee room who wish to express support? If so, please come to the microphone at this time. Oh, we have a third

Third. Second. The next one is the second. The gentleman is the second witness. Oh, I apologize.

You're okay. Wouldn't be the first

to try to cut me off.

Yeah. Appreciate it. Just stand by. We'll cut you off after two minutes.

That's fine.

No. I I deeply apologize.

Please proceed. Thank you.

That's no problem.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm Jeff Wilkerson from Pearson Fuels, California's largest e 85 supplier. Pearson Fuels distributes e 85 through hundreds of retail gas stations across the state. We strongly support AB 2046 as a tangible and immediate way to reduce fuel cost for California drivers. E 85 is a liquid fuel containing nominally 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline or renewable naphtha.

Traditionally used in flex fuel vehicles in which the driver has the option to choose gasoline or e 85 depending on price and availability. AB 2046 would help Californians by allowing them to turn their normal internal combustion engine vehicle into an FFV. California is the only state that prohibits EPA approved kits, even though we pay the highest fuel prices in the country and have the most to gain from them. This is fundamentally about choice.

A conversion kit prevents Californians from being locked into one fuel.

Drivers can run gasoline or e 85 by picking whichever is more economical. While e 85 is usually available for a dollar 50 to $2 per gallon less than gasoline, The savings are more drastic when gas prices spike. As the state's average gas price rose above $6 a gallon in May, fuel stations in our network offered E 85 at $3.05 less per gallon than gasoline. That was less than half the cost. We estimate that led to savings of nearly $30,000,000 for the state's consumers.

This bill will let your constituents take advantage of more affordable, cleaner fuel. There's no other solution available that can both decarbonize a vehicle already on our roads and offer Californians a significantly cheaper fuel option. As refineries close and our fuel market grows more isolated and volatile, AB 2,046 gives drivers a hedge by offering protection from outages and price spikes without having to buy a new car.

Absent passage of AB 2046, drivers will continue to be forced to pay whatever it costs to commute to work, school, or family engagements. We urge you to vote aye today, and help bring needed relief to your constituents at the pump.

Thank you.

Thank you. I think now we're done with support witnesses. I guess I probably shouldn't start a new trend where we're counting the Assembly person presenter as one of the witnesses. Although, it it might have a little carry with our caucus, but we'll we'll try not to bring that up. Now we're gonna come to other support witnesses and who have been patiently waiting back there.

Please come on.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Senator. Ceta Mackler on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association in support.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of the Specialty Equipment Market Association, CEMA in support.

Sabrina Glitz with Acxiom Advisors on behalf of Growth Energy in support.

Good afternoon, Chair Cortesi and members. John Kenrick from Cal Chamber in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Espos Van Der Neuze on on behalf of LULAC in support. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Opposition, do we have any? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, no one's coming forward.

Senator Archuleta?

I've got some questions, because I've got a car too that runs on normal gasoline, and I'm sure my wife would be very interested in how to reduce the cost. So tell me about it. How many gas stations across the state do we have that have that 85 rating rather than the normal.

Yes. So there's currently 630 gas stations across California that

638.

Goodness. So it's out there. And what is the cost of the apparatus or what what what do you take out or you put into your vehicle to make this thing work? And what does that cost?

Yes.

I know the answer, but since we do have witnesses, I'll let them in.

Okay. Yeah. You don't take anything out. You just add a device. There are different manufacturers, but generally, 7 to $800 would be the retail cost.

So that would well pay itself back before the the year is up.

That sounds like 7 Phillips in a large vehicle. Say that again, sir. I said it sounds like 7 or 8 Phillips in a large vehicle. Correct. You re you'll have your return on your money.

So sounds pretty interesting. So there you go. Thank you.

Senator, anybody else wishing to express a concern or ask questions? Seeing none, we still aren't at quorum. I apologize for that, but we will ask for a motion. I have a feeling to know where it might come be coming from. As soon as we have a quorum, we'll take up the vote.

Thank you again for your testimony, and thank you for bringing the bill forward.

Awesome. Thank you very much, Senator.

And you can close.

Okay. I appreciate that. Again, this bill is about affordability, you know, this bill, make sure the Californians have the same options as every other state, but also make sure that we have alternatives to high cost fuels and really makes the market more competitive. This is a real solution to the rising prices that are impacting everyday lives, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote when you have a quorum. Thank you.

Alright. I don't think we're allowed to do that, but we'll make an exception for you, Senator, since you've been carrying the day here. If if it's alright with the author, she's not really subject to questions.

If this does get very popular, does the industry have the wherewithal to meet the demand? The and I forgot to ask that question. I'm sorry.

Oh, you said if this gets popular, does the industry have the ability to meet the demand?

If it increases, obviously, the production

of Yes. I think then that's why we're there's the capacity, which is why we're doing the bill. There's a demand for it already, and we that's why we're that's why we're here because we're the only state that doesn't allow people to have access to these kits. And so this is again, it's an ethanol based, ethanol and gasoline based product. And so ethanol is available, and we wanna make sure that people can access this option.

Anyway, with that, I will move the bill at appropriate time.

Got it. Okay. Thank you again. Appreciate it. And we'll call Assemblymember Wicks up here now on her bill, AB 2168.

Let's file item 10. Welcome to you, Assemblymember, and you can proceed whenever you like. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Chair and members. AB 2168 makes a series of modest common sense improvements to ensure California's active transportation program funds are spent effectively and efficiently. The ATP is our state's primary funding source for biking and walking infrastructure, supporting projects that increase safety, promote public health, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The program is chronically oversubscribed, meaning our state must be strategic about where and how we direct our limited active transportation dollars.

Current ATP guidelines do not adequately prioritize the locations where active transportation investments generate the highest return on investment.

Specifically, the program's existing definition of safe routes to transit fails to specify the broader landscape of transit supportive geography where active transportation improvements can most effectively connect people to transit and reduce vehicle miles traveled. The ATP also lacks meaningful accountability mechanisms for grantees who fail to spend award funds on time. Delayed or stalled projects tie up scarce program resources, preventing other worthy applicants from receiving funding and slowing the delivery of critical safety infrastructure.

AB 2168 modernizes the definition of safe routes to transit, shifting focus towards transit rich corridors, infill opportunity areas, station walk sheds, and underserved or rural areas. It adds transit access as an explicit project selection criteria aligning with California's broader climate and housing goals.

And it establishes a guaranteed sorry. A graduated penalty structure for grantees who fail to spend funds on time, helping ensure awarded dollars move from paper to pavement without delay. I wanna thank this committee and the Chair for working closely with my staff and stakeholders to address a series of concerns with the prior version of the bill.

With your collaboration on amendments adopted last week on the twenty second, all organizations except one have removed their opposition, and more than 45 state and regional organizations are now in support. Testifying in support today is Kendra Ramsey, executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition, and when the time is right, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember, and you may proceed whenever you like. I'll have a couple minutes.

Great. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. I'm Kendra Ramsey, executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition. We're We're the voice of the everyday bicyclist in the state capital, and we work directly with local bicycle coalitions throughout the state representing tens of thousands of members.

I'd like to thank Assembly Member Wicks for her leadership on active transportation and introducing this bill. We've been deeply engaged with the active transportation program since its inception and are a proud sponsor of the bill. Investments in active transportation infrastructure not only improve safety and mobility, but also support public health, economic vitality, and the state's climate change goals. AB 2168 represents a thoughtful and necessary step, better aligning transportation funds with these goals.

The intent of the program has always been on biking and walking as transportation modes, and including safe routes to transit, the focus really is on the full trip someone takes.

When the destination is too far to travel by foot or bike alone, many people add a transit ride to complete their journey. The bill modernizes the definition of safe routes to transit with an ATP. The proposed change includes more than mass transit and school bus stops as the original legislation included, lifting up the importance of all types of transit facilities, including critical transit facilities in rural communities and small towns.

The bill also, recently added a requirement to consult with transit agencies along a proposed project corridor, better aligning planning for active travel and transit from project inception. Importantly, the bill makes two changes to help make the most of limited funding.

First, it strengthens the process to address agencies which are failing to utilize their funds in a timely manner at a time when the lion's share projects go unfunded. For example, CTC, California Transportation Commission, just announced that they received 2,900,000,000 in applications for the current cycle, cycle eight, for the 600,000,000 available to award over the four years of the cycle. The current application selection process does not adequately address this issue.

It also the bill also adds a provision to help leverage the small amount of ATP funding available to bring other transportation funding in to invest in full networks for biking and walking. California's can't wait for safe active transportation, infrastructure to make complete multimodal networks in our communities.

For these reasons, we respectfully request your support of this bill. Thank you.

Okay. We have others coming up at this time to, express additional support.

Jeanie Wardwaller on behalf of Climate Plan, People for Bikes, and NRDC. And I've also been asked to add on for a few organizations, so bear with me. Pasadena Complete Streets Coalition, Transform Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, San Diego three fifty, Move LA, three fifty Bay Area Action, CCAJ, and the Safe Routes Partnership in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Steve Wallach on behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District in support.

Thank you, Mister Chair. If you wouldn't mind, just give me twenty seconds. Matt Robinson on behalf of the Monterey Salinas transit district. Just wanna thank the author, her staff, her sponsors for working with us to address a comment that we made as we've worked through these ATP processes in the past that we think not only will benefit MST, but also other transit operators up and down the state. So thank you.

I think Jeanne covered us, but I was able to make it over. Markie Skimason with NRDC in strong support. Thank you.

Christian Nunez on behalf of Streets are for Everyone in support. Thank you.

Mark Folksovich on behalf of Streets for All in support. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Opposition is there any opposition in the committee room? If so, please come forward. I've seen none.

We'll come back to the committee, to the dais. Any questions or concerns? I've seen none. We have to wait for a quorum, but we will let you close. Thank you.

Well, just thank you very much. I think I view this bill as a good government bill, a good pedestrian bicycle safety bill, and a good housing bill, because it's gonna allow us to do more transit oriented development. So and tie that with transportation. So with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote when the time is right.

Thank you very much. Thanks for bringing the bill forward. Okay. I don't see my friend Assemblymember Calra yet. If he's monitoring these proceedings, it'd be a good time to come over.

Or Fong. Fong is we could use Assemblymember Fong.

Or Hedwig.

Or Hadwick. Any of those three. First come, first serve. And on the member so we can have a call. Yeah.

That's that's the real issue.

That's that's the real issue.

Assembly member Fong, if you're ready to present, you can come forward at this time. And this is file item 12, AB 2329. Welcome to our committee. Anytime you're ready, go ahead and proceed.

Thank you

so much,

Mister Chair. Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. First, I would like to accept the committee's amendments to remove two provisions of this bill. Thank you so much to your chief consultant for working with my office. Assembly Bill 2329 assists tenth in its in the sale of surplus property across State Route 710 and increases transparency and fairness in the process.

Beginning in the nineteen fifties, Caltrans started to acquire properties through eminent domain to make way for the 710 Freeway in the Greater Los Angeles area. When the decision was made not to finish the freeway, legislation was passed which established priorities for sales of the homes acquired by Caltrans. The laws prioritizes selling properties back to the original owners, to current and former tenants, to cities, or to housing related entities. However, the problem is that this process has taken years.

Constituents who have contacted my office, offices of other members who represent the area, and our local elected officials have expressed frustration with the process.

Some who who were offered the opportunity to purchase their homes years ago, but that is still not resolved. As time passes, the values of the home continue to increase while the continues while the condition of the homes continue to deteriorate further. Many of the tenants have lived on the properties for decades and simply wish to find a resolution.

Assembly bill 2329 establishes a process whereby the city of South Pasadena and the city of Pasadena would be able to facilitate the sale of the homes if sales do not come to fruition between tenants and Caltrans. The bill also requires documents related to the property to be shared with potential buyers.

And here to testify in support are Sheila Rossi, the mayor of the great city of South Pasadena, and Paige Phillips, a tenant from the great city of South Pasadena. Thank you.

Thank you for both for being here. You'll have a couple minutes each.

Thank you. Thank you for allowing me to speak today on behalf of my family and also behalf of the tenants who are trying to purchase their homes at fair market value. I have three points that I'd like to make, and I'll speak as quickly as I possibly can. The first is the inequity of the current sales process. This process was started in 2019 when Caltrans was ordered to sell the homes.

They put the price the homes on a a a phased process, and for whatever reason, our home ended up on phase four, which means we were offered our home in September 2025, six years after the process began, six years of rising interest rates, and also housing market, which seems very inequitable. The second point I'd like to make is that this legislation helps Caltrans to remain fiscally responsible to the state.

If they were to sell these homes to the tenants, they would at as is condition, considering the cost of repairs, as well as the longevity of the tenants, etcetera, the tenants might be able to afford to purchase these homes, which would generate some revenue. However, otherwise, the cities would be able to purchase them at acquisition price and no revenue would be generated at all. The third point I'd like to make is personal.

My family moved into our home in February 1996, just over thirty years ago. We were the first tenants to occupy the property once Caltrans purchased it. Like many of the Caltrans tenants, we've been this we've been very responsible to our community and been active members of our community. Losing our home because of an inequitable sales process during a housing shortage and an economic setback is inhumane and not necessary. Please pass this legislation.

We are only asking for fairness and transparency and for a process that acknowledges the Caltrans tenants who have built their lives in these homes and so desperately wish to keep them. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you for being here. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for having me here today. My name is Sheila Rossi, and I'm the mayor of the city of South Pasadena. And I'm here in support of AB 2329. I wanna start by telling you about the people who are my reason for being here today.

One is a mother who lives in a small two bedroom house on a busy street. She lost her young child during her decade long file failed sales process. Holding her child in her arms in that home is the last memory that she has of her. That home is everything to her. Others are families who raised their children in these homes and now welcome their grandchildren.

They are senior citizens, and they are scared about losing their homes and losing stability. These are small, modest homes that families have lived in and cared for over decades, even as the state let them fall into disrepair. These properties were taken through eminent domain, not purchased, taken, for a freeway the state decided not to build. The Roberti Act sought to return them to the community and give tenants opportunity to purchase their homes.

The idea that eminent domain could instead be used as a real estate investment strategy is chilling.

And that is what this process has begun to look like. When I reviewed documents our residents brought to me, I found that Caltrans contractor was conditioning access to appraisals on tenants signing nondisclosure agreements. Tenants were being asked to sign away their rights, a fast track for public records that they were already entitled to. The purchase contract requires tenants to take the homes as is, waive their rights to inspect it, and indemnify the state for hazardous conditions.

That's the kind of contract written for a savvy cash investor.

It's not a path to home ownership for long term tenants trying to buy their first home. It's a process that's designed to fail. AB 2329 addresses the failures in this process so the tenants have a fair opportunity to purchase their homes. It asks the price reflect the true condition of these homes so the tenants can secure financing. The state cannot reset the price higher after failing to complete their own sales process.

South Pasadena would prefer to see this process completed at the state level where it belongs, but we are willing to use our position in the waterfall to give our tenants a fair opportunity. If there's any way for these families to purchase their homes they have lived in for so long, we wanna make that possible. These families have waited long enough, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Others in the committee room who wish to express support, you may come up to this microphone at this time. What is allowed is name, affiliation, and your support.

Jim Wong, housing director, City of Pasadena. Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee. I will keep my comments very brief and succinct. The city strongly supports AB 2329. We believe it will provide greater clarity and transparency in the disposition of tenant occupied Caltrans owned homes, and furthermore, enhance the homeownership outcomes.

Thank you.

Thank you. It looks like that concludes, the support testimony. Is there any opposition in the room? Are there opposition witnesses in the room? Anyone who wishes to express opposition?

Seeing none, we'll bring it back, to I'd like to move it when, we have time. Okay. Great. We have an offer of of a motion by vice Chair Strickland. We are short of a quorum as you can gather.

I do need you to state on the record. You may have already. If so, I apologize, but that you're taking the amendments so that our motion is complete.

Absolutely. Thank you so much, Mister Harris. I accept the committee's amendments. I really appreciate your chief consultant working closely with my team.

Thank you. Appreciate your cooperation. Thank you very much. And with that, we'll give you an opportunity to close if there's any more you wanna say. And again, we'll take the bill up for a vote as soon as we have a quorum.

Thank you so much, Mister chairman senators. Really appreciate the comments here today. And thank you to our lead witnesses as well, the mayor and miss Phillips who's been living in her home since 1996 and has processed at this to really move the process along. This bill would help, expedite that and really appreciate, the leadership here from South Pasadena and to our lead witness from Pasadena as well. And so with that respect, I ask for a nigh vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you again. Appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Assemblymember Hadwick, looks like you beat the assemblymember caller here, so you're up.

Judish today, so they have 80. Yeah. Okay. I'll be fast.

Alright. You may go ahead and proceed when you're ready. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'd first like to thank the Chair and committee staff for working collaboratively with me on this critical issue. I'm very grateful for your consideration of this bill and to address the dangerous situation in Lake Tahoe in my district. Lake Tahoe is a beautiful international destination. Sitting on the West shore of the lake, Emerald Bay is famous for its brilliant blue green water, panoramic vistas, and rugged mountain backdrop.

It is widely considered one of the most photographed locations in the world. Every year, millions of travelers from every nation and California visit the Lake Tahoe Basin. Growing visitation and limited roadway capacity have increased safety risks and environmental impacts along state highways in Lake Tahoe Basin. State Route 89 is a two lane, 55 miles per hour highway that runs north to south on the West side of lake and provides access to Emerald Bay.

Along this highway, many people illegally park on the highway shoulder under rock fall areas and teetering over ridges.

This result in both shoulders being clogged, pedestrians walking on the highway, crossing the highway, and traffic congestion. A 2025 safety review of the Emerald Bay corridor documented 759 wrong way drivers recorded over a forty day period and more than 20,500 pedestrians crossing the highway with no crosswalks or pedestrian facilities. AB 2679 advances a safety framework that addresses these dangerous conditions.

This bill allows the California Department of Transportation to work with Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the Tahoe Transportation District, and El Dorado and Placer Counties to improve parking management and public access improvements, such as developing public parking, transit, pedestrian pathways, trash cans, and restrooms. I accept the Senate Transportation Committee's amendment, which was reflected in the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee analysis and will be taken in that committee.

The committee amendment clarifies a variety of provisions and is intended to address concerns from the sole opposition to the bill. I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I'm joined today by Noah Bunyan, and representing Keep Tahoe Blue, and Devin Middlebrook, representing Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.

Alright. You'll have a couple minutes each. You can go in whatever order you prefer.

Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. My name is Noa Bonayan, and I'm with Keep Tahoe Blue, the oldest and largest environmental organization at Lake Tahoe. My organization was founded in 1957 to protect Lake Tahoe's famed clarity, which remains our mission today. I'm here in support of AB 2679, the Safe Tahoe Travel Act of 2026. Simply put, more cars driving more miles around Lake Tahoe worsens water quality by muddying our famed clear blue water.

Pollution and sediment runoff from our roadways are the number one contributor to Lake clarity loss, making it easier and safer for visitors and residents to choose transit, biking, and walking to reach our businesses, beaches, and trails are environmental imperatives at Lake Tahoe. Tahoe's natural beauty supports a regional economy exceeding $5,000,000,000 annually and provides access to outdoor recreation for millions of Californians and visitors each year, including 45 miles of lakeshore and seven California state parks such as Emerald Bay.

On a typical summer day, upwards of 500 cars can be parked on narrow dirt shoulders along the highway at Emerald Bay. This hurts the lake and forces tens of thousands of people to walk across and along a state highway to visit Emerald Bay State Park. AB 2,679 would offer a critical tool to protect the lake and improve safety and access for the millions of people who enjoy Tahoe each year, especially along State Route 89 through Emerald Bay.

By allowing for more local partnerships with Caltrans to manage parking and build safety projects and pedestrian infrastructure, we can improve safety outcomes and lake clarity. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in, support of AB 2679. We urge you to advance this legislation, and and thanks to our bill sponsor.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Thank you, Chair, committee members, and staff. My name is Devin Middlebrook with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency or TRPA. We were formed through a bi state compact between California and Nevada in 1969. Protecting Lake Tahoe. We also serve as the region's Metropolitan Planning Organization.

And in that capacity, we're sponsoring AB 2679 with Assembly member, Hadwick. The bill would enable Caltrans to enter into agreements with local jurisdictions or the Tahoe Transportation District to manage safety and recreation access along our popular highway corridors at Lake Tahoe.

The intent is to create a framework allowing us to designate safety zones along those highway corridors dangerous parking and develop public parking transit stops and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the straight right of way so people can safely access their public lands. Finally, the bill would support regional consistency. Nevada side of Lake Tahoe. We are asking for California legislation to provide consistency on to cons provide consistency on both sides of the lake.

While aspects of what the bill proposes are already allowed under existing law, AB 2679 addresses the unique needs of the Tahoe Basin and incorporates the Tahoe transportation district and our agency, TRPA, as the region's transportation implementation agencies. Finally, we are actively engaged with CalSTA, Caltrans, and California State Park staff on this important legislation.

Thank you for your support in protecting Lake Tahoe for all Californians to enjoy today and in future generations. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Yes. Others that wish to testify, please come forward.

Hi. Good afternoon. Steve Wallauch on behalf of California Tahoe Alliance, as well as Placer County supervisor Cindy Gustafson, and Alvarado County supervisor Brook Lane. Thanks.

Got it. Thank you.

Mark Vukcevich on behalf of Streets for All. Wanna apologize for getting in our opposition late, but wanna say with the accepting of the committee amendments, we have a late breaking neutrality on the bill. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Others in support? Seeing none, we'll move to opposition. Is there anyone here who wishes to oppose this bill?

We have no registered opposition that I know of any further, and no one seems to be coming forward to the microphone, so we're gonna come back to the committee. I'll move the bill when we get a quorum. Okay. Vice Chair Strickland is at the ready with a motion as soon as we can get a quorum. With that, I'm gonna give you an opportunity to close.

We appreciate you working with our committee and bringing the bill forward. We do not have amendments ourselves, but we appreciate you going on the record indicating that you're prepared to take some relative to the opposition concerns. So with that, please close if you like.

Thank you for your consideration, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate.

Okay. Thank you all.

Thank you.

Hopefully, it's gonna be appropriate very, very soon. Because we only have one more bill to hear. That's Assemblymember Kalra. I'm rooting for a quorum here. Might have to have some of the Dodgers come in and start voting.

The Giants fans won't like that. Alright. Assembly Mercala, welcome. You can begin when you're ready, and we'll hear your bill.

Thank you so much, Mister Chair. AB 2263 will give Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, the statutory authority, to set aside affordable housing for their employees. I don't need to tell the Chair this, but to others, VTA is a transit agency that serves Santa Clara County. It's approximately 2,300 employees manage and operate the county's bus and light rail services as well as paratransit, congestion management, and other services.

While VTA workers may be making competitive middle class wages, they are living in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation.

The high cost of housing has priced many of the VTA workers out of the area, leading them to live outside of the immediate work area or outside of the county and creating long commutes for them, which is kind of counter to the VTA mission in many ways.

A B 2263 will give VTA the authority to build affordable housing for its employees, ensure their workers can live closer to work, decrease their commutes, reduce driver fatigue, and improve the overall safety for all drivers and pedestrians on the road. The bill has enjoyed bipartisan support, no opposition, and with me to provide supporting testimonies, Mark Turner, VTA board member, and Jocelyn Hazen, manager of VTA's transit oriented development program.

We appreciate you both being here. Mayor Turner, thank you for coming to Sacramento to testify, and you'll each have a couple minutes to do so. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Cortese and Vice Chair Strickland and all of you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Mark Turner. I'm the mayor of Morgan Hill and a board member for The Valley Transportation Authority.

And I represent both the cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy in doing so. I want to begin by thanking Assemblymember Kalra for authoring AB 2263 and for his ongoing support of VTA and our employees. I'd also like to express my appreciation to this committee and to your staff for the thoughtful attention that you're giving to this bill. VTA has developed a robust transit oriented development program over many years.

AB 2263 would allow us to enhance that work by designating a portion of the housing units in our sites with a preference for d VTA employees.

Importantly, the majority of the housing created under AB 2263 would remain open to the general public and would serve a mix of households with a strong focus on low and moderate income residents, consistent with VTA's existing transit oriented communities program. This legislation would help VTA attract and retain a talented workforce by creating opportunities for employees to live closer to the very system they operate and maintain and to use transit themselves for their daily commute.

In doing so, we would continue to serve the broader community, comply with the federal and state fair housing principles, and encourage greater transit ridership, helping to reduce congestion on our roads. Today, with a median rent nearly double that of the national average, many VTA employees are compelled to live in a more affordable communities further from their workplace. One in four VTA employees currently commutes more than an hour each way, and about 10% commute more than two hours each way.

In a recent employee survey, 90% indicated that they would be interested in an employee housing program if one were available. AB 2263 offers a responsible targeted tool to respond to those realities, to support our workforce, and strengthen the transit system on which our region depends. By offering opportunities for employees to live in the community that they serve, we hope to contribute to their quality of life and allow more opportunities to ride our public transit system.

Again, I'd like to thank Assemblymember Caldera for authoring a AB 2263 and to this committee for hearing it. I respectfully urge your approval of this bill.

Thank

you. Thank you again. Next witness, please.

Thank you, Chair Cortesi, vice Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Hazen, and I serve as the transit oriented development manager at VTA. VTA has a robust transit oriented development program with nearly 3,000 housing units completed or under active development, more than 2,300 of which are deed restricted affordable units. Based on an employee survey, 84% of VTA households fall at or below 120% of area median income, making them eligible for affordable housing. And over 90% of our surveyed workforce expressed interest in employee housing.

This bill would allow VTA to implement an employee housing preference policy, giving our employees the opportunity to live in the affordable housing that we help create through our TOD program, and in the communities that they serve. For many of our workforce, that means the opportunity for shorter commutes, a better quality of life, and the ability to remain in the communities where they provide essential transit service. We are thankful to Assemblymember Carlra for his authorship, and on behalf of VTA employees, we hope to have your support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there others in the committee room who wish to offer support at this time? I'm seeing none. Is there any opposition in the committee room? If so, please come forward.

Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee now. Senator Archuleta.

Thank you. Congratulations, Mister mayor, for for this rate of course Assembly member, but you don't count right now. Yeah. The mayor does. Because every mayor in every city that I can think of, this is a dream come true.

To be able to get your employees, get on trains, be part of the project. So can you just describe the project and how it came together and the number of units and which individuals will be chosen to occupy?

Well, this this we we have approximately a 140 acres that would be available for housing units of which a certain percentage of those would be dedicated for VTA employees. So there's no particular project that we're talking about right now. But overall, as we go forward, this is what would be a great benefit for workforce housing for our employees.

Okay. So I'm assuming as this goes through, what's what's the end result? What do you think? Couple years from now, you'll have the funding and ready to roll? Well, we we don't again, we

have lands available. And so we housing, transit oriented development, private builders come in, so they have the funding.

Okay.

We have the land, and together, it's a perfect relationship. But your employees will have preference? That is correct. On a certain percentage, that is correct.

Good. Yeah. Senator, for a certain percentage, otherwise, these are the market rate, and then there'll be a certain percentage, for for those, of moderate income, households working for VTA. So it provides a workforce housing while also providing market rate housing as well.

I mean, as as you can imagine, like a lot of other kind of suburban areas that are urbanizing, we have a lot of parking lots next to our transit, parking lots next to light rail stations, what have you, that I think could be better used.

And the idea behind this many, many years of planning is that why not? Why not have our transit agencies work with local housing developers, work with our local cities and local jurisdictions, work with the state to figure out how we have a better use of this land. And while we're at it, create some workforce housing.

And and I prefer rather than call it subsidized housing, it's, entry level housing

For the young professional Correct. Firefighters, school teachers, young employees, entry level has has a a good ring to it, and I found it very effective in my community.

Yes.

Yes. But very similar in that regard. Correct.

Good. But I do congratulate you, Assemblymember, for the leadership role you're taking in this and I will move the bill when it is appropriate time.

Alright, Senator. Thank you. I see no other questions or comments at this time. We are I'll move it one. I think we Hartshill had offered already. Oh, you already

mean it? We're we're really hoping for the quorum at this point. So some of you recall, thank you for bringing the bill forward. Mayor, I'll see you in the fourth of July parade. And Good seeing you.

And we do have a quorum at this time. I knew if I stalled a little bit, we'd get there. Yeah. That was heard earlier. We will we'll come back over the roll call and clarify all that in a moment.

But for this bill, it will be the first. The last bill on our file board, but the first bill we get to actually vote on. So that's a good thing. We're gonna did you wanna close first? Did I give you that opportunity already?

Okay.

Well, you can establish corn first if you like. Yeah.

We'll do that.

And then I'll close if I could.

Fine. Mister

Chair, if we're gonna do the quorum, I'll move the consent calendar.

Okay. Let's come let's come back to it as soon as we have the quorum established. Assistant?

Senators Cortese? Here. Cortesi here. Strickland?

Here.

Strickland here. Archuleta?

Here.

Archuleta here. Adegaine, Blake Spear, Dally?

Here.

Dally here. Gonzales, Grayson? Here. Grayson here. Menjivar, Richardson, Sayardo?

Sayardo here. Valadares. Weiner? Weiner here.

Here.

Alright. We've established a quorum. Now you may close.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you for your many years of leadership in working with VTA, and and I think we've done a lot of partnerships on different legislation regarding VTA. There's somewhat of a full circle moment for me. The year that I was VTA Chair was the year that our former general manager, Nuria Fernandez, got hired. And the first thing I said to her of things I wanted done that year is I wanted to audit kind of every parcel of land that VTA had.

At that point, we didn't really have one place.

And so this is many years later, that when we be that was the kind of the beginning of it. And now to be here and actually have such great plans for the for for these sites, is extraordinary. And so I wanna thank you and and the members of this committee because I think that if this can work in our county, I think we can replicate this in other places in the state. And so let us be that pilot program.

Let us be that test case, and I'm confident that we can bring something of value, that can be replicated in all your jurisdictions.

With that respect, we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember. And it's it's great to have an author that understands his subject matter so thoroughly. We are going I think, actually, Senator Archuleta offered the motion first. So now we have a quorum motion by Archuleta, and we'll call the roll call on the bill.

The motion is do passed of committee on appropriations. Senators Cortezi?

Aye.

Cortezi, aye. Strickland?

Archuleta?

Aye.

Aye.

Archuleta, aye. Adegheem? Blake Spear? Dally?

Dally, aye. Gonzales. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye.

Aye. Aye.

Menjivar. Richardson. Cierto. Aye. Sierto, aye.

Valadares. Weiner. Aye. Weiner, aye.

Alright. We're at seven zero and we'll leave it open for absent members.

Alright. Move the consent calendar.

Vice Chair moves consent calendar.

The consent calendar consists of file items one, two, three, thirteen, and 15. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, Aye. Strickland?

Aye. Strickland, Aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, Aye.

Arreguin? Blakespear? Aye. Gonzalez, Grayson? Grayson, Aye.

Menjivar, Richardson, Ciardo, Aye. Viator, Aye.

Alright. Consent's at seven zero, and it remains open. Move move

file item number four, AB 1338.

The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriation. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland?

Aye.

Strickland, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Arreguin, Blakespear, Dahle.

Dahle, aye. Gonzales. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye.

Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Richardson? Seyarto?

Aye. Seyarto, aye. Valladares? Weiner? Aye.

Weiner, aye.

80, and leave that open.

Mister Chair, I'd like to move file item number five AB 1594 by Harabedian.

The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriations. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland?

Aye.

Strickland, aye. Archuleta, aye. Aye. Blakespear? Aye.

Blakespear, aye. Dahle? Aye. Gonzales. Grayson?

Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjivar? Richardson? Seyarto?

Aye. Seyarto, aye. Valladares? Weiner?

Weiner, aye. Grinch, aye. Menjivar, aye.

Aye.

Those next one zero is Archuleta.

Nine zero, and we'll leave that open for absent members. Next one is is Assembly member Wilson's bill, AB 1613. We have a motion by Senator Archuleta. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Alright. We'll call the roll.

The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriation. Senators Cortese?

Aye.

Cortese, aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Archuleta?

Aye. Archuleta, aye. Arreguin. Blakespear? Aye.

Aye. Dahle, no. Gonzales, Grayson? Aye. Grayson, Menjivar?

Aye. Menjivar, Aye. Richardson. No. Seyarto, no.

Valladares. Weiner? Aye. Weiner, Aye. Valladares, no.

Valladares, no.

Six to four and leave that open.

Mister Chair, I'd like to move file item number seven, AB 1685 by Lackey.

Thank you. Call the roll, please.

The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriation. Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland, aye.

Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Arreguin. Blakespear?

Aye. Blakespear, Aye. Dahle. Dahle, Aye. Gonzales, Grayson?

Aye. Grayson, Aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, Aye.

Richardson? Seyarto? Aye. Seyarto, Aye. Valladares?

Aye. Weiner? Aye. Weiner, Aye.

Ten, zero. We'll leave that open.

Mister Chair, I'd like to move file line number eight AB 1687 by Lackey.

The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriation. Senators Cortese? Aye. Aye. Strickland.

Aye. Strickland. Aye. Archuleta. Archuleta.

Aye. Arreguin. Blakespear. Aye. Dahle Aye.

Gonzales. Grayson. Aye. Aye. Menjivar, Aye.

Richardson? Seyarto? Aye. Seyarto, Aye. Valladares?

Aye. Valladares, Aye. Weiner? Aye. Weiner, Aye.

Ten,zero. We've got open.

Mister Chair, I'd like to move file item number nine AB 2046 by Ransom.

Alright. Motion is made by the vice Chair. Call the roll, please.

The motion is do passed with committee on appropriation. Senators Cortese?

Aye.

Cortese, aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Archuleta?

Aye. Archuleta, aye. Arreguin. Aye. Blakespear?

Aye. Aye. Dahle, aye. Gonzales. Grayson.

Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjivar. Aye. Menjivar, aye.

Richardson. Seyarto. Aye. Seyarto. Aye.

Valladares. Aye. Valladares. Aye.

Weiner. Aye. Weiner, aye.

10-0.

Yeah.

Leave that open for absent members. And Next bill is AB 21. I can't read the number. File 68, file item 10 Wicks. Motion is by Senator Archuleta.

Call the roll, please.

The motion is do passed. The committee on appropriation. Senators Cortese? Aye. Aye.

Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Archuleta? Aye.

Archuleta aye. Arreguin. Blakespear? Aye. Blakespear, Aye, Dahle.

No. Gonzalez, Grayson. Aye. Grayson, Aye. Menjivar.

Aye. Menjivar, Aye. Richardson. Seyarto? No.

Seyarto, no. Valladares? No. Valladares, no. Weiner.

Aye. Weiner, Aye.

Six to four, we'll leave the roll open. We're gonna move now to Assembly member call risk file item 11. We don't need to oh, maybe we do have to look to call on that. That's right.

The motion is do pass of committee on appropriations. The Chrome vote is seven to zero with the Chair and vice Chair voting aye. Senators Arreguin. Blakespear? Aye.

Blakespear, aye. Gonzales Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Richardson?

Richardson, aye. Valladares? Aye.

Aye.

Alright. Motion is by vice Chair Strickland. Please call the roll.

The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriations. Senator Cortese?

Cortese, aye. Strickland?

Aye.

Aye.

Strickland, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Arreguin?

Aye. Blakespear aye.

11 to 0, leave that open.

And, Mister Chair, I'd like to move file item number 14, AB 2679 by Hadwick.

Vice Chair Strickland moves file item 14, Hadwick, and we'll call the roll.

The motion is do passed with Committee on Natural Resources and Water. Senator Cortese?

Aye.

Cortese, aye. Strickland?

Strickland, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Arreguin?

Aye.

Blakespear. Aye. Dahle? Dahle, Aye. Gonzales. Grayson?

Aye. Grayson, Aye. Menjivar? Aye. Minjivar, Aye.

Richardson, Aye. Aye. Richardson, Aye. Aye. Seyarto, Aye.

Valladares? Aye. Valladares, Aye. Weiner? Aye.

Weiner, Aye.

Eleven to zero, we'll leave that open. And now we are we Senator Arreguin is he's he's he's or us.

Yeah. No. He's not.

Alright. So we'll just be Arreguin?

Yeah. Yeah.

Alright. I think everyone's No. Yeah. We'll we'll go through them all. Senator Arreguins here, and I think now we have all members necessary here.

Senator Gonzalez is under the weather. She won't be here. So we'll go ahead and let's call again. Thank you.

The consent calendar consists of file items one, two, three, thirteen, and 15. The current vote is seven to zero. Senators Arreguin? Aye. Arreguin, aye.

Blakespear? Aye. Blakespear, aye. Gonzales Menjivar? Aye.

Aye. Menjivar, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye.

Valladares? Aye. Valladares, aye. Which one consent? The consent?

Twelve zero. Twelve zero consent's out.

File item four AB 1338 by Assembly member Solace. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is eight to zero with the Chair and vice Chair voting aye. Senators Arreguin? Arreguin, aye.

Blakespear? Aye. Blakespear, aye. Gonzales Richardson? Aye.

Richardson, aye. Valladares? Aye. Valladares, aye.

Twelve to zero bills out.

File item five AB 1594 by Assembly member Harabedian. The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is nine to zero. Senators Arreguin? Aye.

Arreguin, aye. Gonzales Richardson?

Aye.

Richardson, aye. Valladares? Aye. Valladares, aye.

12, 0. That's out.

File item 6 AB 1613 by Assembly member Wilson. The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriations. The current vote is six to four, with the Chair voting aye and the vice Chair voting no. Senators Arreguin? Aye.

Arreguin, aye. Gonzales Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye.

Eight, four. Bills out.

File item seven, AB 1685 by Assembly member Lackey. The motion is do passed with the committee on appropriations. The current vote is 10 to zero. Senators Arreguin? Aye.

Arreguin, aye. Gonzales Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye.

Twelve, zero, that's out.

File item a AB 1687 by Senator Lackey. The motion is do passed with committee on appropriations. The current vote is 10 to zero. Senators Arreguin? Aye.