Senate Standing Committee on Transportation

Senate Transportation Committee will come to order. Good afternoon and welcome. We have four measures on today's agenda and let me go over the housekeeping items next. We're going to allow for two primary witnesses each for support and opposition. Each witness will have two minutes.

I understand there will be a DMV technical witness available in case there's questions on our first measure. That's noted and, specifically, for, let me just move ahead. We will be hearing bills on the agenda in file order, and we will be entertaining motions on bills at the appropriate time once a quorum is established. And obviously, we're not there yet but do appreciate, the Vice Chair being here. You're, usually, not only on time but ahead of my arrival.

We have two measures proposed for consent today. Item two is ACR 218 Ramos. Item three SCR 193 Weiner. And again, when there's sufficient numbers, we'll take those up. So, off and running here with AB 1830 first and I know we have the author of the audience.

You may come forward as may your witnesses. And you may begin your presentation at any time. Welcome to the Senate Transportation Committee.

Well, thank you and good afternoon, Mister Chair and Mister vice Chair and committee members. I'm really, proud to be here today to present Assembly Bill 1830, a measure to prevent drunk driving tragedies before a car even starts. California and, America is in the midst of a drunk driving epidemic. Drunk drivers kill thirty seven people on American roads each and every day. Tragically, California is the epicenter of this crisis.

With eight out of the 10 deadliest cities for DUI deaths right here in the state of California. These are preventable preventable tragedies and preventable deaths. And the good news is there are steps that we can take to make our roads safer and to save lives in communities all across the state. I wanna thank your staff, committee staff, the administration, and the DMV for the extensive work that has gone into this bill.

And, I'll say that what's before you today is the product of months of technical negotiations with the DMV and the administration to build an ignition interlock device program that works at statewide scale.

For nearly two decades, colleagues have worked to pass some version version of this measure. And, my team and I have been working on this bill for the past three years. I do believe that with your help, and our shared commitment to making California roads safer, this is the year that we get it done. I am gonna go into a fair bit of detail about the bill because I know there's been, some questions and some back and forth. So what does the bill do?

So the bill replaces the limited repeatedly extended pilot program with one permanent statewide IID, ignition interlock device program, which consolidates years of overlapping and sometimes conflicting statutes into a single and coherent framework. The bill requires an ignition interlock device for every alcohol involved DUI conviction, including first time offenders. This aligns California with the policies of 35 other states that already require IIDs for all convicted drunk drivers.

The bill expands and better targets California's financial program, already the most generous in the nation, because we want to ensure that cost is not a barrier to compliance. The bill establishes a separate framework for drug only DUI offenses, recognizing that currently an IID can only detect alcohol, not drug usage.

The bill creates a clear pathway for alcohol related DUI offenders to remain mobile for all personal and professional obligations. It also decouples the running of the IID term from completion of other reinstatement requirements, creating an important distinction between finishing the IID clock and eligibility for full reinstatement. In California, in 2023 alone, ignition interlock devices stopped more than 30,000 attempts to start a car. 30,000 documented moments where this technology kept a drunk driver off the road.

We know that IIDs work because in the 35 states that have a universal ignition interlock requirement, we have seen alcohol and alcohol fatalities and accidents decline.

At the same time that we've seen California rates of DUI deaths and DUI accidents, increase precipitously. California's own DMV found that IIDs are seventy four percent more effective than license suspension alone at reducing recidivism among first time offenders in the first six months after conviction. And the CDC has found that AIDs reduce repeat DUI offenses by some seventy percent. I'll say that two issues have come up consistently in some stakeholders conversations. So I wanna address both of those directly in my opening comments.

The first is related to manufacturing, manufacturer compliance. And we spoke about this at some length in this morning's public safety hearing. We certainly have heard and take seriously concerns that not every certified IID manufacturer has consistently complied with existing income verification and reduced fee requirements.

That's a real problem that we recognize and will continue to work hand in hand with the DMV, the administration, and and, with your committee and staff to ensure that we have strong oversight and enforcement related to the manufacturers and installers of this device as well. And then second, is related to reporting and data collection.

This bill, has included reporting requirements of the DMV language that was carefully negotiated and that we certainly support and stand by. The goal of this measure is really quite simple. As I said, the the goal of AB 1330 is to save lives before the car even starts. I think together, we are in a position to make meaningful progress, to make California roads safer, and to protect families and communities across our state.

I'm really honored to be joined today by Colin Campbell, who is a parent, as well as a member of the National Board for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, as well as Chief Belize who is the chief of police in the city of Tustin, as well as the president of the California Police Chiefs Association of California.

And, I'm also honored that one of my, principal co authors is, is a member of this committee as well. Senator Archuleta, thank you for your partnership on this bill. With that, with your, permission Mister Chair, shall I turn it over to my witnesses?

Yes. And the witness witnesses may speak in whichever order you prefer. A couple minutes each. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Good afternoon Chair, Members. My name is Colin Campbell, a member of MADS National Board of Directors. On 06/12/2019, I was driving my family on vacation in Joshua Tree and a drunk driver going 90 miles an hour slammed into our car.

I was driving with my daughter, 17 year old Ruby. She just got an Ameris scholarship to study at the Art Institute of Chicago. And my 14 year old son Hart, and he was gonna have a wonderful summer dating girls and playing video games. I was knocked unconscious in the crash. When I came to and looked in the back seat, I saw Ruby and Hart and their eyes were wide open and their pupils were pitch black and their necks were snapped.

And both my children were dead. The woman who killed my children drove drunk repeatedly. There were several chances for judges to assign an IID but every time they used judicial discretion and did not do that. And that's why my children are dead tonight. So I have been through the restorative justice program with the woman who killed my children.

Her name is Nicole Packer. I went to prison. I sat with her. I talked with her for four and a half hours. I learned about her life.

I humanized her. She is a mother with three young children. She was struggling with alcohol and drug addiction her entire life And now she has to live with the burden of having killed my children. A mother who killed children. So if she'd had an IID device, it would have saved her.

It would have saved her family. She would do anything to have that device right now, right? But she didn't. And now she has to do with what she's done. And so I I urge you I urge you to consider how important it is that we don't have judicial discretion in this case.

Because what on earth could possibly allow for someone to say, it's okay that you drove drunk. We trust you and we don't want to give you this this benefit. This benefit that could save your life and the lives of other people. It's not a punitive law. That's why I love this law so much.

It's not punitive. It's protective. It's protecting drunk drivers from destroying their lives and other people's lives. So I urge you to to say yes to this bill. Thank you.

Next witness please.

Thank you Chair and Members. Sean Solis, President of California Police Chiefs Association here in strong support of AB 1830. I could tell you that as a police officer, as a police chief, I've heard many conversations like this. I've on viewed and responded to many preventable collisions and many of those were were preventable, fatal DUI driving collisions.

They often occupy my mind, on certain dates. As a police chief, I've sat with families and tried to make some sense of it, try to bring words of comfort. And as difficult as that is, nothing is more difficult than it's when it's caused by a repeat offender because then it's well, where was the system? Where was justice? And so what we have found, what we see is in California, there's over thirteen hundred and fifty fatal DUI collisions each year.

That number seems to be growing but the implementation of IIDs with the second offender, it's not it's not good enough. We need that with the first offense DUI driving. This bill will do just that, have some clarity, some language cleanup. But just as as the witness said, you know, we can bring life back not only to the loss but to the to the suspect, to the person that would cause these tragedies. And so with that, I would just submit in strong support of eighteen thirty.

Alright. Thank you for your testimony. We will now ask if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to express support on this bill. If so, you may come forward to this microphone, to my right and you can identify yourself, any affiliation you may have, and signify, support.

Kevin Guzman to California Medical Association in support.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair. Justin Fanzal on behalf of California Safe Roads Coalition in support. Thank you.

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

Mister Chair and Members, Tim Chang with the Auto Club of Southern California in support.

Mister Chair and Members, Mike Carpenter on behalf of AAA of Northern California in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, members. Alcoholic Justice here and also representing the California Alcohol Policy Alliance in support of AB 1830. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers, Riverside Sheriff's Association, California Reserve Peace Officers, Placer County Deputy Sheriff's Association, all in support. In addition, I've been asked to convey support on behalf of the police officer associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Brea, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Murrieta, Newport Beach, Novato, Palos Verdes, Pomona, and Riverside. In addition to the LA School Police, LA School Police Management Association, California Coalition of School Safety Professionals, and the California School Police Chiefs Association. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you all for your testimony. We'll move now to opposition testimony. And would that be you? You are DMV? Thank you.

Do we have a registered opposition witness? We have none? We have two. Okay. Will you please come forward? Maybe DMV witness, if you don't mind moving the other side of the table. And we appreciate you being here in case there's questions. Alright. And you also can proceed in whichever order you prefer and you'll have a couple minutes each.

Thank you for being here.

Sure. Good afternoon everyone. My name is Esther Mendez. I'm a deputy public defender here on behalf of the local one forty eight public defender union in LA County. And we respectfully oppose this bill for multiple reasons.

One of them is, we cannot ignore the fact that there are private vendors supporting this bill that are waiting to make some money off of this bill. That is the truth. And, this bill is being supported under this, principle of public safety. And, you know, my question is, if public safety is so important, why not just make these interlock devices free to begin with? But it doesn't seem like that's an option with this bill.

There's also this interlock device that's being treated as a mental health resource. This interlock device is not a rehab counselor. It's not a therapist. This interlock device is a machine. And it seems like a lot of talk has been done about people who commit multiple DUIs.

And, statistics show that about 95% of people that get charged with a first time DUI, they don't get charged again. And then there's this behavioral pattern that appears with multiple, DUI charges in a person's background which is recognized in the DSM 5, It's a substance use disorder issue. And this law is going to disproportionately impact poor people.

And this law is taking away discretion from a judge to be able to balance the facts of each case to make the determination if this interlock device makes sense for that case.

And it's going to impose potentially an unreasonable condition on someone who cannot afford to meet this condition. And people that are going to be impacted are not going to be able to follow the law, not because they're evil or because they want to be defiant, but because they cannot afford to follow the law, making them vulnerable to a revolving, never-ending door of incarceration.

It seems that this bill doesn't even, honor the principle of when someone agreeing to be in custody for the maximum amount of time under the law, that they still have to be punished even further by not being able to get their driver's license. And I just wanna say, wrap it up with a personal story of mine. I had an interlock device in my car for my first DUI.

And then I was charged again for a second DUI. And I got an interlock device in my car again. But the difference was that with the second time DUI, I actually went to rehab. And I was able to address the issue. It was not the interlock device that changed the behavioral pattern and I have not done the same act.

I've been sober for ten years and the community is safer because of that.

Congratulations on your sobriety. Thank you. Next witness?

Thank you, Mister Chair and members, Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys. We, respectfully, are in opposition. Couple of things. One is obviously I respect the author, quite a bit.

I've had lots of conversations with the authors' office and lots of respect for the witness who testified earlier about tragedy. And public policy process is much better when those that are impacted can share their stories. So I'm appreciative of that. Our opposition is really kind of in three categories. Number 1, the judicial discretion piece that is in place in current law is critical.

DUIs are one of the only criminal offenses in which there is a wide variety of offenders. There are those who had, you know, half a drink to too many to those who have a very serious alcohol problem and are likely to be repeat offenders and everybody in between. So that's why the judicial discretion has been so important. As was stated earlier, only 96%, of first-time offenders, do not reoffend in the first twelve months after their first offense.

That is according to the DMV, and that statistic has stayed pretty much the same for the last decade.

So we'll now be removing judicial discretion for a judge to mandate an IID on 96%, of offenders, who are not at risk of reoffending within a year. So that's where we struggle. We believe it's more impactful to have a more focused approach. We've offered a number of amendments. One of which is making it mandatory for a first-time offender if that driver has a high blood alcohol level at the time of arrest.

And they have a prior moving violation in the past 2-3 years. Studies show those are the folks that are more likely to reoffend. So if we want to focus on those, we're willing to, you know, settle on some language on that. In addition, I think we need to look at, there is an over enforcement in certain communities. DMV statistics show between 48-50% of DUI arrests every year in California are Latino drivers, significantly above the population.

So we need to look at that. And lastly, we need to increase the penalties for those manufacturers that are not complying with the sliding fee scale. There's a lot of those and the penalties are pretty small. And nobody gets a suspension as a business for failing to comply.

So we we need to look at all those together and I think we can land on something if we do can do that.

Alright. Thank you. Witnesses in opposition, you may come forward and identify yourself and state opposition.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, oppose unless amended.

Good afternoon. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, oppose unless amended.

Javier Rodriguez with ACLU California action in strong opposition.

Alright. Thank you. Looks like that's everyone. And let me bring it back to the dais. Let me comment first, which is, out of order compared to the way we usually do it.

But we, on one hand had a beautiful sobriety story in the context of what's your story. Thank you for sharing that. And we have probably the worst tragedy that we've heard testimony on it in this Committee since I've been Chair. And we've heard some very tragic consequences to a number of things in the in the world of transportation. So, want to acknowledge that. I want to acknowledge others who are monitoring, you know, the proceedings here today or in the committee room or have lived experience perhaps like the legislators in the room including the author as I heard her speak, this morning, of public safety. I want to acknowledge all that. I wanna make it very clear that there's something that the opposition is after that's very compelling to me.

There's other things that I'm willing to be a lot more aggressive about, in terms of supporting legislation and maybe if my concerns are resolved, by the time it gets to the floor, I could be supportive. You know, I'm certainly willing to do that. But coming into this hearing, despite the fact that I know the co-author as well, one of them is my seat mate, we talk about this issue regularly. I mentioned to Senator Archuleta weeks ago, well before the July recess that I had a concern about due process and I wanna be clear about that.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that anything that we do with IIDs needs to be universal. It needs to be in all 58 counties and there needs to be a a lack of discretion in terms of counties enforcing state law. And, I commend the author for trying to create some kind of a a uniform standard here. Clearly, that's needed.

When we ran informational hearings, with the Public Safety Chair, Senator Arreguin, here in this room, not so long ago, it was very clear that we need action.

We need changes. And frankly, some of those changes perhaps are needed with our own agencies here including DMV. But let me pull back to the if I think all those things then why wouldn't I be an aye vote? My concern is wrapped up in a one sentence amendment I asked for yesterday and it was not agreed to. Author doesn't wanna go there evidently.

Sponsors don't wanna go there. I don't know what the cause of the resistance is, but that sentence says where there's a judicial finding of extraordinary circumstances, and I'd sort of be open to what that word means. I think of it as exigent circumstances. There's a judicial finding then the judge will have discretion as to whether to implement the IID.

Meaning, the judge has to, in court, indicate what the finding is and why it's so compelling that you would not, on a first-time offender, apply an IID requirement as part of sentencing.

If we don't allow that in the bill, it can never happen. It could never be argued. You could be in the middle of a 7.0 earthquake, and somebody can take off in their car with two drinks under their belt to rescue somebody else, and they're gonna have an IID because that's what the law says. There's no exclusion for any kind of exigent circumstance. I don't know what all the circumstances are.

I know that I would make a choice, in my situation, if it came down to saving a life, not killing somebody as we just heard about, but saving a life. Perhaps somebody in labor who is premature or something like that. I would move into my vehicle if I felt that I was competent to drive.

That's me and I would expect my defense attorney to at least make that argument to at least make that argument to the judge And this bill forecloses any attorney from even making a representative argument as to what, what these extraordinary circumstances are. I'm not sure if that argument's made, If in a thousand a thousand times, if you get a a different outcome in any of those cases. But my sense of justice as an attorney is that you need to allow that argument to be made in court. And then a judge and it has to be real. A judge has to have the opportunity to say, you know, this is the one in a thousand circumstances that we're gonna take a different path. We have a factual DUI, a judge can't change that. It's a .08, It's a DUI. But if you don't have some ability, on sentencing, to take into account exigent circumstances, extraordinary circumstances, then it doesn't matter if it's my child or yours or a recent graduate from West Point who just happened to go to a party and take off and be right on the edge.

I don't know if the judge wants to take that into account but I would defend and argue all day long that that defendant's attorney has the right to make that argument.

That this was an extraordinary circumstance and we just haven't been able to get that in the bill and it's a compelling enough concern for me as you can probably tell by the way I'm talking about it and the amount of time I'm spending talking about it, which is unlike me as the Chair of this Committee that it's a deep concern for me. It's a deep enough concern for me that I have to cast a no vote for now.

You know, I think that in and of itself will ensure that we have a forward debate if the bill gets there. And perhaps, you know, things are different in the bill by the time we get to the floor. But that's where I'm at.

Do we have a quorum here? Thank you, Vice Chair.

Can I ask for a quorum call?

And I apologize to my Committee colleagues, especially Senator Archuleta who's got probably more compelling things to say than I could ever say for speaking first and kind of preempting the conversation in that sense. But I'm not preempting the conversation. You all have your opportunity now to speak and I'll take...

Quorum call.

I just wanna make sure we have Quorum.

Senator Cortese?

Here. Cortese here.

Here.

Strickland?

Archuleta here. Arreguin?

Strickland here. Archuleta?

Here.

Here.

Arreguin here. Blakespear, Dali, Gonzales, Grayson?

Here.

Grayson here.

Here.

Menjivar, Richardson?

Richardson here. Seyarto, Valladares, Weiner?

Present.

Weiner here.

Okay. Thank you. With the quorum, we're gonna move to Senator Archuleta next.

Thank you, Mister Chair, for allowing us to listen as intensely we, I'm sure we all did, in the audience, all of us, when you said you would not be able to support the bill, I respect that. I respect your opinion. But as we talked about an individual who you said you've got to fight for him because you should be given an opportunity.

I think that it makes it sound, with all due respect, like we were going to hang that individual by his thumbs in the next room for forty-eight hours, or we were gonna incarcerate him for the next ten years immediately, or we were going to remove him from society and his family, for God's sakes, that it sounds so punitive. But this bill is not punitive.

It is preventive. It is an awakening here in California like the other 30 states in this nation that has a bill just like this. Senate Bill, AB I'm sorry. Not Senate. Assembly Bill 1830 addresses an issue.

An issue is how can we prevent people for going and getting behind that wheel the second or third time, whatever it might be, and bringing awareness to the judges that they have the opportunity now to save lives. Now, I congratulate you for coming forward, as a defense attorney and realizing that society has protect you. But if we cheer you for what you've done, well, let's cheer the family that are still being able to walk every single day.

Cheer my family because they're able to get up and go to work every single day after losing my granddaughter, 30 years old with a master's and a whole life ahead of her. And that during that terrible tragedy on Christmas Eve, they could only identify her by her fingerprints.

And that man was able to walk. Why? Because it was his second time, and there was no apparatus of any kind to deter him from driving. Well, now the ignition interlock device is here. It's technology, and it is not punitive.

And we talk about the cost. I think the cost is $65 a year or $65 for half a year. Well, that's a couple of packs of cigarettes. $65, maybe that's a case of beer. I don't know.

But I will tell you, it is not so detrimental that someone couldn't figure it out. And there is subsidies out there. The county of Los Angeles that you represent, there are monies out there for those who said I can't afford it. And anyone who's not working, as you mentioned, EDD, great California agency that provides, opportunities for employment. There are ways to put people to work, to put people on the path of recovery, and to allow them to understand that Mister Campbell just lost his two children.

I can't even imagine that. What I saw in combat as a former paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne, that was one thing. We volunteered to do that. When I served in the Montebello Police Department, we volunteered to serve in law enforcement. The law enforcement's out there in the community, the highway patrol, the chiefs, the first responders, our fire chiefs, our police officers across the nation, insurance, doctors, clinics, hospitals, they would all save money.

The entire state would save money if we can curtail the drunk driver. So this bill, just opening up the door for rehabilitation, It'll open up the door for awareness, and it'll certainly maybe save a life or two every single hour because every single hour of the day, somebody's drinking and driving. Maybe they're not all caught, but they're drinking and driving, and they're gonna kill somebody. This bill is supported by everyone that I know of, and I'm certainly supportive.

So, Mister Chair, I'm hoping that the testimony here today and the support that I'm hoping that you realize will take it to the next level.

Let's put this before the voters. Let's put this before the voters and before the governor's desk. And I really think that AB 1830 should be going forward, and I thank my co-author and all of those that support our children. They're all going back to school in the next few days. I have 10 grandchildren, all going back to school.

But wouldn't be lost again? I don't know. But I will tell you, there is nothing that you can say that will change my mind. But I think there is something that could be said to change your mind, Mister Chair, because facts and data and proof. How many more bodies do we have to lay on the table to realize we've gotta do something?

Mister Campbell, yours are too many. Your angels are in heaven right now, but I I don't know how you survive every single day, every Christmas, every holiday. There's a plate at the table in in the Archuleta home for my granddaughter, and I bet you you got two at your table too. You think about that, ladies and gentlemen. You think about what California is trying to put across today.

We're trying to save lives. Help us do that. So with that, I urge everyone to support this bill and I thank you for the time, Mister Chair.

Okay. Thanks, Senator. Anyone else? Yes. Senator.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and thank you to the author for bringing this forward. Really gave a lot of thought to, where we're at today and especially with this bill. And what we heard today was that 95% of folks do not recommit DUI. But it wasn't until the second DUI that resources and help was sought for. And then we also heard that, an extraordinary number, percentage of folks don't recommit in the first year.

But what about the second year, the third year, the fourth year, and on? And the way I see it is the only way this bill impacts anybody is being caught drinking and driving. And so if you are drinking and driving, my answer would be to stop. However, if I'm going to air today on a vote, I'd rather inconvenience the individual that was caught drinking and driving rather than impact the family with severe injury or death.

And so with that, I will be supporting AB 1830 today.

Senator Arreguin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your comments. To start the discussion.

I wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward, which is addressing a really serious issue that has honestly been overlooked for far too long. And I hope that at the end of this year, we look back and this is the year where we really change the way we deal with impaired and drunk driving in California.

And this is one of a number of bills that have been introduced in both houses including a bill by our colleague, Senator Archuleta, that's intending to deal with the issue of driving under the influence and increasing penalties for repeat offenders. And making sure that we have increased accountability and enforcement of those laws. And I think about the hearing that we had in February where the head of DMV here, talking around this very serious issue.

I think that was really a call to action. Thank you for the conversation we had this morning. And I want to thank the author for the commitment as this bill moves forward. To one make sure that the IID manufacturers installers are implementing the provisions of this bill. Particularly the discount and affordability pieces.

Making sure there's proper notice to, you know, to people who offend around the availability of reduced costs, IIDs. And then also making sure that there's some oversight accountability of the installers. I think that's a really key piece of this as well. So I appreciate the author's commitment to continuing to engage with Public Safety, Transportation, and other relevant stakeholders on that particular issue. I just want to call attention.

So we have DMV here and I raised this issue in the hearing, this morning, around the change of the definition of physical control, in Section 12 of the bill under Section 13352. I think that was, this is a very technical change. Right now the standard is driving. But this uses a new term of physical control. And so, there is an issue that needs to be clarified does this physical control mean that I'm in the car, but I'm not the car isn't on.

I'm not driving the car. We want people to not be driving. We want people to, if maybe if they're intoxicated to sit there and sober up or sleep it off rather than operating a vehicle. And so I wanna make sure that that's not an unintended consequence of that definitional change. And so I think that's an issue that does need to be clarified.

Because it could, potentially, change the standard of applicability that's in existing law. So it asks, you know, the author did, express an interest in further conferring with the administration on this issue and hope that we can clarify that particular point.

Yes. And thank you, Senator, so much for those comments. As we said in this morning's hearing, certainly committed to getting both of those pieces right. And as you said, when when someone installs this device, if it doesn't work and doesn't start the car, that's actually the ideal outcome. So we wanna ensure that there's no, as you said, unintended consequence.

So I'm certainly committed to working with the DMV and administration to make sure that that, is clarified. So thank you.

I know the DMV representative, you were gonna add something.

Yes. I just wanna say that the intent behind the language, I'm sorry, Amy Turner, with Department of Motor Vehicles. The intent of the language is not to expand or change the definition of DUI. Physical control is part of the definition of driver, in vehicle code Section 305.

So that is the same that remains. The language you're speaking to tends to address those who receive a DUI out of state. So a California, for a California driver who goes out of state and commits a DUI there, other states have different definitions. They use physical control operation.

This is just to ensure they can be held accountable here in California

Got it.

For that DUI out of state not a California DUI.

Thank you very much for that clarification. And thank you the author for bringing this bill forward. I will be voting aye today.

Thank you, Senator.

We have a motion by the Vice Chair. And I'm seeing no other comments, so we'll come back to the author to close.

Anyone else?

Move the bill.

Well, thank you so much, Mister Chair. And thank you senators for the robust discussion, and your comments of support. As a mom, of two teenage boys, like so many of us in this room, so many of us in the legislature, this is the kind of thing that keeps me up at night. I feel like our constituents elected us first and foremost to do everything we can to keep our community safe.

And, as my witness, Mister Campbell said, as Senator Archuleta said, the approach that we're taking in this bill is not intended to be punitive.

It is intended to be preventive and to prevent tragedies across the state. To prevent deaths across the state and to prevent, as you said Mister Campbell, drunk drivers from ruining their lives as well. So I appreciate your support. I appreciate your partnership. And, lastly, I just wanna say a huge thank you to, Colin and to everyone who has joined us from MADD.

As I said in our public safety hearing this morning. These parents aren't here to save the lives of their kids. They're advocating for policies. They're supporting this bill. They're supporting others in the package that Senator Arreguin referenced because they wanna keep our kids safe.

And, with that, I respectfully ask for your support to make California roads safer and, to save lives across our great state. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Assembly member, we'll ask the assistant to call the roll.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriation. Senator Cortese?

Cortese, no. Strickland?

No.

Aye.

Strickland, aye. Archuleta?

Aye.

Archuleta, aye. Arreguin?

Arreguin Aye. Blakespear?

Aye.

Aye.

Blakespear aye. Dahle? Gonzalez? Grayson?

Aye.

Grayson aye. Menjivar? Richardson?

Aye.

Richardson aye. Seyarto? Valladares? Weiner?

Aye.

Weiner aye.

Mister Chair, I'd like to move the consent calendar.

Okay. The vote count is 7-1 and we'll leave that open for absent members. Thank you.

Thank you, committee members.

Alright. Thank you. Vice Chair has moved the consent calendar. Call the roll, please.

To adopt the consent calendar, Senator Cortese?

Could you repeat the?

Oh, yes. The consent calendar consists of file item 2, ACR 218 by Assemblymember Ramos and file item 3, SCR 193 by Senator Wiener.

[Roll Call]

Alright. Consent is at eight to zero. We'll also leave that open for absent members. So that, at at this point, we'll recess and, I think the rest of you, those present.

Don't we have one more bill?

Oh, we have sorry. Senator Wiener. You didn't want that bill heard, did you?

My apologies.

Please please proceed.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

Consider a compliment to your bill that I thought it was already done.

Excellent. No worries. Thank you, Mister Chair. I'm here to present SB 607.

This is a bill that we amended in the Assembly that makes important changes to state law to ensure that the Golden Gate Bridge, an iconic symbol, of our state and a critical link between San Francisco and North Bay, remains safe, resilient, and operational for generations to come. This bill modernizes the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District's loan authority to ensure that the district has similar authority already enjoyed by other special districts to take on long term debt through conduit financing.

This bill modernizes the district's authority to use a long term loan to help finance safety projects, including the final phase of a critical seismic retrofit project that ensures that the bridge can continue to be used in the wake of a major earthquake. The district was fortunate enough to count on substantial federal grants, state pass through funding, and bridge toll revenues to fund earlier phases of the project.

However, given the around federal funding and reduced post COVID vehicle bridge crossings, the district needs a modernized approach to financing tools.

With me today to testify is Denis Mulligan, the general manager and CEO of the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Please proceed. You have a couple of minutes.

Thank you. My name is Denis. Thank you. My name is Denis Mulligan. Have the pleasure of serving as the general manager for the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District.

Earlier this year, we issued a notice to proceed for approximately a $1,000,000,000 undertaking to strengthen the, two main towers in the side spans of the bridge. It is three times larger than any other construction contract we have done at the bridge. The previous largest contract was our suicide barrier. And so we have remaining work after this contract.

The toll dollars that we've put in, we've been setting aside over many years, but to manage cash flow challenges, having the same authority as other special districts as other cities and other counties have enjoyed for decades would be instrumental in allowing us to proceed not just with this contract but with the subsequent contract to finalize the work.

So on behalf of Bridge District, I respectfully request your aye vote on this legislation.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else here in the room who wishes to testify and support? You may come to the microphone. I see none. Is there any opposition testimony in the committee room?

Whatsoever? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. There you go. Senator Archuleta first. We have a motion.

Sorry. This is where we have a motion pending from vice Chair. Yeah.

Senator Wiener, I'd just like to compliment you on this bill. You are so in tune with your district, with your city of San Francisco. It's it's commendable. We in Southern California, we think of the the bridge as a monument that's been there forever, not realizing that it does deteriorate. It does need maintenance.

And over the years and the usage and so on, no doubt, and a billion dollars. So this bill just gives permission to go ahead and open up some doors for funding and so on. So I will move the bill to appropriate time and again, congratulations and to San Francisco.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. If there's nothing else, I think we had a motion. Senator Menjivar, I didn't see you.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you.

I apologize. We didn't have a chance to connect. You know, this bill just came out really quickly.

So, a couple of questions. Can you clarify if this allows the entity to, seek a bond without a two thirds approval. And in order to repay that, potentially tolls will increase. So I just want I wanna know if total if if voters are being excluded from the ability for this to happen and if they're being excluded, would anything increase for them to have to pay for unbeknownst to them?

Mister Mulligan can answer that.

Trying to get there in my mic. So as currently contemplated, it would allow our board of directors to authorize conduit finances to borrow money absent a vote of the public. The same thing that AC transit can do today, that BART can do, that the city and county San Francisco can do. So, many, public agencies within California have the ability to borrow money without a vote of the people.

The legislation that triggers that vote of the people was done before anyone in this room probably was alive, hearkening back to a different era where the bridge district would have to fund an election in six counties, some of which are all the way up to the Oregon border and we'd have to have a two thirds vote in each county.

That is not how other public agencies, function in the state today. Our board of directors does have the authority to set our tools. Their board of directors is comprised of members from the six counties that voted to create the district in 1920s and voted to put their factories, vineyards, and homes up as guarantees for the bonds. So the tolls are used to maintain and operate the bridge.

We are somewhat unique in that we also use tolls to subsidize a bus and ferry system that removes thousands of cars from Highway 101 every day from the streets of San Francisco.

And if you watch the morning news in the Bay Area, there's only one bridge where cars travel the speed limit and that's our bridge. And that's because tolls are subsidizing a bus and ferry system. So we do raise tolls a little bit every year to cover cost, to provide first class transit service but also to protect the bridge for future generations.

So, you've already banked in because there's a there's pledge toll revenues to cover paying back the loan. You've already banked in your annual increases of tolls to cover this. It won't be another additional increase to cover this loan repayment?

Our current adopted budget for this fiscal year contemplates taking $50,000,000 from tolls and setting them aside for capital reserves for future capital projects. Last year, we set aside approximately $50,000,000 also. So every year, we set aside toll dollars for capital reserves for projects. That's to match federal funds and also if necessary, if this were to pass to allow us

to borrow money to and also if necessary if this were to pass to allow us to borrow money to finalize and complete the last construction phase on the bridge.

Okay. So, we already have that set aside. So, there's no need to increase.

I I I can't guarantee the future because traffic can fluctuate. Today, overall bridge traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge is down 13% compared to pre pandemic levels. So we have shrunk. Today, we employ 40% fewer bus operators. We've gotten smaller based on the less demand for our transit service.

We did not lay anyone off. We did all that through attrition. But we have scaled our organization down because we have to balance our books every year.

Okay. Thank you.

Alright. If there's nothing else, back to the motion that we had. I meant to Alright. Senator Archuleta's got the motion. We'll go ahead and take a roll call vote at this time.

The motion is that the Assembly amendments be concurred in. Senator Cortese?

Aye.

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

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

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

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

Richardson, Aye. Seyarto? Aye. Seyarto, Aye. Valadares.

Weiner? Aye. Weiner, Aye.

Thank you. I'm sorry. I didn't give you an opportunity to close, Senator.

I respectfully, thank you for your aye vote. Yeah. Thank you.

You're welcome. I started off poorly and I ended poorly on that one. So that's all on me. So the count, the vote count is 11-0. And do we need to keep that open? We need to keep that open for absentees. We're gonna go ahead and call absent Members on the other actions of the other measures at this time. I'll ask the assistant to go ahead and do that.

File item one, AB 1830 by Senator Petrie-Norris. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 7-0 with the Chair voting no and the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

Alright. Vote is at 10-1. We'll leave that open.

File, the consent calendar consists of file item two and three. The motion is to adopt the consent calendar. The current vote is 8-0. [Roll Call]

Alright. 10-0. We'll leave that open. Thank you all who are present, and hopefully we'll get our absent Members here in a moment. We'll informally recess until they get here.

We'll go... We're gonna go ahead. We're gonna go ahead and open up the roll again for your votes. So are we okay over here? Thank you, sergeants. Assistant, go ahead.

File item one, AB 1830 by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. The motion is do pass the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 10-1 with the Chair voting no and the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

11-1, we'll leave it open a little longer.

The consent calendar consists of file item two and three. The current vote is 11-0. [Roll Call]

Alright. 12-0, and leave that open as well.

File item four, SB 607 by Senator Wiener. The motion is that the Assembly amendments be concurred in. The current vote is 11-0. [Roll Call]

12-0. I will leave that open. Thank you, Senator.

We will reconvene Senate Transportation Committee from a brief recess. We'll ask the assistant to open up the roll and call the roll on the items that we took up today. Thank you.

File item one, AB 1830 by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 11-1 with the Chair voting no and the Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

12-1 vote. The bill's out.

The consent calendar consists of file items two and three. The current vote is 12-0. [Roll Call]

Consent is out. 13-0.

File item four, SB 607 by Senator Wiener. The motion is that the Assembly amendments be concurred in. The current vote is 12-0. [Roll Call]

13-0. The bill's out. Thank you. We are adjourned. We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.