Assembly Transportation Committee

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Before we start, is Allison Lyman in the room? Okay, thank you. We just wanted to make sure you're here so we can go to you at the appropriate time. Okay. Thank you. Thank you All righty Now we can't see TVs. Is that intentional? Are they off? Okay. Do we wait? But it is being there. There we go. Wonderful. Okay. All right. The Assembly Transportation Committee is called to order. Good. Is it afternoon or evening? I'm going to go with evening. Good evening, everyone. Welcome. The hearing room is open for attendees and it can be watched from a live stream on the Assembly website. We seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process so that we can have effective deliberation and decisions on the critical issues facing California. In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. We encourage the public to provide written testimony by visiting the committee website. Please note that any written testimony submitted to the committee is considered public comment and may be read into the record or reprinted. We will allow two minutes each for two primary witnesses in support and opposition of the bill. As a reminder, primary witnesses in support must be those accompanying the author or who otherwise have registered a support position with the committee. and primary witnesses in opposition must have their opposition registered with the committee. All other support in opposition can be stated at the standing mic when called upon to simply state your name, affiliation, and position. With that, we will begin our hearing. Noticing a lack of a quorum, we will start as a subcommittee. We have 13 bills on our proposed consent calendar. file items 4, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25. I'll read those in detail when we do have a quorum. We will be discussing 11 bills today. We will not be hearing file item number 14, SB 1292, Richardson. With that, we do have an offer present. we typically go and file item order. However, if an author is not president, we do skip the role. So please note that. We have Senator Blakespeare here. You may begin. You have three bills before this committee. File item one, SB 569. File item two, SB 741. File item three, SB 1161. We did note the file item four, SB 121324 is on consent. With that, you may begin at your convenience. Well, good evening, Chair and colleagues. Thank you to the Chair and committee staff for your work on this bill. Every year, Californians are seriously injured or killed while walking and biking on our roadways. In 2023 alone, more than 1,250 Californians walking or biking were killed. In the aftermath of these tragedies, many communities have responded by installing and upgrading protected bikeways to improve physical separation and sight lines. SB 569 would protect cyclists and pedestrians by prohibiting removal or changes to bikeways in ways that reduce safety, accessibility, or mobility for cyclists and pedestrians. For the last two decades, California has increasingly recognized that slower streets and roads designed for all users, not just drivers, are safer for everyone. That commitment is reflected in billions of dollars of state investment in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, including a $1 billion general fund augmentation to the Active Transportation Program, ATP, in 2022. A key part of improving cyclist safety has been funding for protected bikeways that physically separate people riding bicycles from two-ton vehicles. Yet we have seen instances where communities have considered removing or downgrading protected bikeways after they have already been built. I've witnessed two cities in my district go through this process, and there are other examples from throughout the state. Most recently, the city of Encinitas has directed staff to evaluate removing portions of a barrier-protected bikeway in favor of a painted bike lane and wider, faster car lanes. The project was constructed predominantly using state general fund grant money. Under California's active transportation program, ATP, bikeways funded through the program are already protected from being converted to non-active transportation uses for 20 years or their useful life, whichever is less. This standard makes sense and is in line with other state programs. For example, if a project uses state money to construct affordable housing, new city leadership can't come in, rip out the affordable housing, and zone for McMansions. The state has a statewide interest in ensuring that California's roads are getting progressively safer. SB 569 would apply a similar standard to bikeways that are constructed with state general fund dollars, as already applies to projects constructed with ATP or active transportation program dollars. This ensures that taxpayer-funded safety improvements continue to serve the purpose for which they were funded. The bill would also require a public meeting and hearing before significant modifications are approved. This gives community members an opportunity to evaluate how changes would impact their safety and mobility and weigh in before a decision is made. As amended, SB 569 reflects a simple principle. When we invest public dollars in infrastructure to save lives and protect road users, those safety improvements should not be undone without good reason and without assurance that the safety of cyclists and pedestrians won't be compromised. With me today in support, I have Kendra Ramsey on behalf of the California Bicycle Coalition and Casey Gupta, a bicycle advocate. And you each have two minutes. You can begin at your convenience. Thank you. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Casey Gupta, and I'm a high school student in San Diego County. I'm here today in strong support of SB 569. Part of the reason I'm here is that about a year ago, the Encina City Council voted to remove a protected bike lane right down the street from my school on Santa Fe Drive. That decision made this issue feel incredibly real to me. It affects whether students like me feel safe biking to school, local businesses, to transit, or around our community. Santa Fe Drive also has a painful history. Before protected bike lanes were installed, 14-year-old Ryan Huang was tragically struck and killed on that very street in 2007. I mention Ryan's story respectfully because it shows why safety improvements like this matter. Protected bikeways are not just lines on a map or a nice extra feature. They often built in response to real danger real crashes and real lives lost When a protected bike lane is removed or weakened it doesn just change the street design It changes whether people feel safe enough to bike at all For students, that can mean losing the ability to bike independently in our own community. It pushes people away from active transportation and into cars, which means more traffic, more pollution, and fewer choices. That's why SB 569 is so important. If a bikeway is built using state dollars, it should not be casually reverted to a non-active transportation use or modified in a way that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of people walking and biking. Public investments in safety should protect people for the life of the project. This bill doesn't just stop cities from ever making changes. It simply says that those changes should remain consistent with active transportation and go through a transparent public process. That's a reasonable standard, especially when the infrastructure exists to protect people. California should be building safer streets and expanding transportation choices, not removing infrastructure that protects students and families. As a high school student, I want to grow up in a state where biking to school and around my community is normal, safe, and accessible. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Wilson and members of the committee. I'm Kendra Ramsey. I'm the Executive Director of the California Bicycle Coalition. We're the voice of the everyday bicyclist in the state capitol, and we work directly with local bike coalitions throughout the state, representing tens of thousands of members. These are people who ride bikes to work, to school, and run errands, families, children, and older adults. We'd like to thank Senator Blakespeare for her leadership and introducing this bill, which we're a proud sponsor of. The bill represents an important step to protect public investments in safe bike infrastructure, something that my organization has worked many years on. People throughout California rely on bicycles for transportation. While sharing a lane with a vehicle or riding in a traditional bike lane only separated from cars by paint may be acceptable to experienced recreational cyclists represented by the, namely by the registered opposition to this bill, everyday bicyclists I represent often fear for their safety in those types of facilities. I know I often do when I'm riding with my three-year-old on the back of my bike. When state funds are invested to construct bike infrastructure, our community members should be able to rely on those investments for years to come. The voices of business owners who desire parking near their doorstep, commuters seeking to save a minute on their daily drive, or even avid cyclists who dislike protected infrastructure, shouldn't outweigh the need for safety for the majority of people riding bikes. SB 569 protects the investment of state funds in safer bicycling infrastructure by extending the requirements set forth in the active transportation program to maintain the facilities built with state dollars. At a time when our communities are facing rising traffic fatalities of bicyclists and other vulnerable road users, our public investments to create safer roads should not be subject to changes in leadership or backlash from people with clout. This bill provides transparency for these changes and a requirement to maintain safety for people on bikes if changes are made. For these reasons, we respectfully request your support of this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Now moving on to members of the community who would like to add on in testimony, name, affiliation, and position. We'll get the mic on. Just one second. Test? Okay. Good evening, Chair and members. Christine Ward-Waller, on behalf of People for Bikes and Support, I'm also adding on for the Pasadena Complete Streets Coalition, Transform, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, San Diego 350 Move LA 350 Bay Area Action CCAJ and the Safe Routes Partnership Thank you Mark Fuchs on behalf of Streets for All in support Thank you. Zach Icardi, on behalf of NRDC, the Natural Resources Defense Council, in support. Thank you. Thank you. All right, before we move on to opposition testimony, we're going to do the quorum. So I believe we do have someone who's testifying today. So if you can make your way to the front as we do the quorum. Madam Secretary. Wilson here. Wilson here. Davies. Davies here. Aguirre-Curray. Ahrens. Ahrens here. Carrillo. Carabedian. Carabedian here. Hart. Hart here. Hoover. Jackson. Jackson here. Lackey. Macedo. Pappen. Ransom. Rogers. Rogers here. Sharp-Collins. Sharp-Collins here. Ward. Ward here. All right. A quorum has been established. Now we'll hear from opposition. Mr. Mayor, may you go ahead? Oh, wait. Microphone. Look for the button and make sure it's lit. There we go. There we go. Good afternoon. Bruce Halers, Mayor of Encinitas. The City of Encinitas opposes SB 569. However, if you recommend proceeding, we ask for clarifying amendments limiting the applicability to future funding. The bill currently appears to be only to apply to new projects. This is good. The committee's own analysis, dated June 29th, states this bill applies to bikeway conversions, quote, on a going-forward basis, end quote. It further states that it applies to jurisdictions that accept state general fund monies in the future tense. Both phrases strongly imply the bill is not retroactive. We desire that it not apply to completed projects. The bill's wording should be amended to apply only to new funding of new projects. We believe the bill also too narrowly defines safety and does not consider overall safety impacts, thus preventing cities from fixing unsafe or poorly designed projects. For example, Santa Fe Drive in Encinitas. We believe the bill would ignore several unsafe conditions and mandate the preservation of a poorly implemented Class 4 bike lane. Specifically, the bill ignores right-hook safety threats located at seven driveways. These driveways are heavily traveled and serve a subdivision, a pickleball club, and a large church. The right hook is especially dangerous in this case since the bike lane is hidden by a row of diagonally parked vehicles that obscure drivers' views of bikes using the bike lane. Encinitas is sensitive to this situation since in 2020, Dr. Jennings Worsley was tragically killed in Encinitas on a protected bike lane due to a right hook. Number two, the fire department reported that emergency vehicles were trapped in peak traffic. Ambulances could not pass. The congested drivers had no space to pull over. Class two bike lanes would fix this issue. Fixing it is especially important since our hospital is located just a few blocks to the west. And I'll have to have you wrap up. Okay. The bill also ignores several other factors. Most importantly the U Post Office found the new Santa Fe Drive unsafe for mail delivery and stopped all mail delivery long there So with that I hope you oppose SB 569 Thank you Thank you Moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their opposition to this bill Come to the microphone and note your name, affiliation, and position. Molly Hintlian, Encinitas. I oppose SB 569. Pete Albanese, Encinitas, I oppose SB 569. Rachel Graves Hill, I register my opposition to SB 569. Thank you. Was that – was there more? Go ahead. Come on. Sorry about that. Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities. We're a tweener here. Removed our opposition. Just wanted to thank the committee and the author for working on the amendments, and we're hoping to, if the bill moves forward, find some clarifying provisions. Thank you very much. Thank you. Bringing it back to committee, before I go to Assemblymember Ward, just noting that this bill, because of the effective date of the new year, would not be retroactive. So it would be funds received after the bill is implemented. So it would not count funds received all the way up, including until December 31st of this year. And then note that the language found in 2C, if you're using your—for members of this committee, it's on page 3, line 7 and 8. It doesn't factor in – you can factor in overall safety, but it just notes that when in factoring in that safety, it can't be modified in a manner that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of a non-motorized user. So that has to be taken into consideration. Assemblymember Ward. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm glad you started there. I want to thank the author for working on this. I've really liked your analogy in the beginning that, you know, and I've principle that a lot of the public investments that we're doing, like you said, we're not going to do affordable housing and then have like, you know, four years later, a new governing body decide they're going to tear that down. The same should be for a lot of our public investments because these are expensive investments meant to really able to provide, you know, a better quality of life that we're having for our neighborhoods. I know you know that well, both of us coming from local governments and neighboring jurisdictions. And I wondered, and I'm glad the chair really raised that too, because I wondered if you could speak to sort of this case study that we're talking about here today, where if there is something that was implemented that is sort of in hindsight posing some kind of a problem, nothing would prohibit you from being able to continue to provide modifications for that. your intention is that we want to make sure that we're not losing the utility and the functionality that we're having there for shared use of this space. But if we need to tweak alignments, arrangements, or infrastructure in a way that is going to improve safety gaps that weren't previously noted in design, that would still be permissible under this bill, correct? Yes. Thank you, Assemblymember, for that question. Absolutely, that would still be allowed. So There's nothing that prohibits adding in speed bumps, doing better signage, putting in landscaping. There's a difference between removal of, for example, a barrier-protected bike lane that's been built versus making modifications that would increase safety. Also, just note that in order for a barrier-protected bike lane or any bikeway to be put in, it goes through the full city process. So the fire department, the city council, the traffic engineers, the Coastal Commissioners, in this case, too, because it's a coastal community. I mean, all levels apply to this project, those types of projects going in. And so having a similar rigor to any suggestion of taking a project out is really what is the aim here of this bill. That's right. And, yeah, we note that we talk often about how long those processes can be, like from the get-go. We've served on those decision-making bodies before, and they're pretty onerous. There's a lot of review that goes into that. Would this necessarily disqualify sometimes we use or general funds would be eligible for pilot projects? And I wonder if that would also be something that would be captured by this bill. I would think so. I mean, any any time it's being used, it's not this aligns general fund money with ATP money where we already have a robust approach to how we manage our active transportation projects. but I don't, there's nothing in here that would disqualify a pilot project. Let me give you an example, because I've seen throughout several our communities, you know, both home in San Diego as well. Here's our adopted work home here in Sacramento that, you know, in the spate of COVID and post COVID years, we saw a lot of safe streets being implemented, right? Where successfully we're able to look at areas that we could really pedestrianize. And, you know, of course there's a lot of business objection at first. We thought we would pilot it. We would try it out. Ended up like, you know, being wildly successful by the public and actually increase a lot of activity, only a few years later to have the barriers removed and everything sort of returned to, you know, what it was pre-2020 and all the kind of new character and enjoyment and safety that came from those kinds of features, you know, was no longer there. And I guess I wonder if and as this bill continues to move forward, if you want to be able to look into that to, you know, really ensure that funds that were used towards pilot programs, even though you are sometimes qualifying this as a pilot program with an intended expiration date, right, that if the pilot is successful by some metrics that we are looking to achieve, that somehow your bill might still be a hook that could really help that turn into more of a permanent feature. I think that's something to sort of, you know, really drill down on, too. Yeah, it's an interesting idea. It would definitely be an expansion of this bill because as it's currently drafted, it applies to bikeways. So it doesn't apply to all infrastructure But there could be a future bill Or an expansion But at the moment SP569 applies to bikeways And this would just be your class 4? Yes Got it And that is heavy infrastructure as it is That's going to be a lot of material And a lot of investment And then you had mentioned I saw too in the analysis here Or maybe you mentioned this as well That we would not remove the you would not be eligible to remove any of this infrastructure, quote, without good reason. And so is that well defined? And how do we really define like when a situation might arise that would qualify as good reason? Well, the language in the bill is it doesn't refer to good reason. What it refers to is that the bikeway constructed in whole or in part with money from the state general fund shall not be reverted to a non-active transportation use or modified in a manner that reduces the safety, accessibility, or mobility of non-motorized uses for a minimum of 20 years. So it's specifically reducing safety. And I think when there's a physically barrier-protected bike lane that been built ripping that out and using just paint to protect a bicyclist from a truck or car is a reduction in safety So that you know that I think is what is clear but it would apply in different circumstances to different types of infrastructure And what would happen under this situation? you know, we intend to be able to put in this infrastructure because we know often safety is one of the biggest barriers for many people to begin to sort of make that leap and want to begin to use new infrastructure. And we do see that inducement often when that infrastructure goes in. But on occasion, sometimes that might really be lacking. So what happens when we have something that unfortunately is not providing that inducement or otherwise is wildly so unpopular that nobody really wants to use it, right? When there's overt non-utilization, is there any sort of out for reconsideration of how we're going to use right-of-way that may still provide maybe new options for non-vehicular multimodal travel options? options, but in other words, what other kind of factors? Would you want to be stuck with something for 20 years that literally hardly anybody, if nobody, is using? Right. Through the chair, if you don't mind, if I continue to answer his questions. Yeah. I mean, I think the point of this is to establish a standard. And so it's safety, accessibility, or mobility of non-motorized users. So if the city, county, regional, or other local agency that's proposing this, because always this is coming from a government agency, if they make the case that it meets this standard, then there would be options for that type of flexibility. And I think we see that in the active transportation program. So, you know, this is aligning with a standard that we already have, but it's also recognizing that we don't want what I've seen in the two, both of my cities, and I'll use the other example in the city of Vista, there were barrier protected bike lanes that were put in. And there was an immediate backlash, particularly in one of the council members districts. And the city immediately went in based on the direction of the council and all the people who were upset about the fact that it was a barrier protected bike lane. It was next to speeding traffic. So that visual barrier of having an actual post that came up really was providing a lot of additional safety for the people riding in Vista. but they removed it from only a section that was in that council member's district. So it kept the barrier protection in some people's districts, then it took it out in the middle, and then it continued on the other side. And that happening all within a couple of months of something going in without having any ability to live with it, to evaluate it, to have the public hearings that are necessary. I think that's an example where you could very well argue that that does not improve safety for bicyclists. But, you know, there are obviously every city is different with this examples. But there have been we we have found and I'm sure there are more, but these are just the four we found in four different cities throughout the state that have had similar types of of community backlash. Yeah, we've heard that certainly haven't served in local government, too. No, like I said, you know, from a principal standpoint, especially we want to make sure we're getting good use of our public funds over a really good period of time as well. You know, right just on the intent of where you're going here with this bill. And I appreciate your clarification on a lot of the questions because I think we you know kind of all hopefully reading from the same point that I think there are some opportunities and nuances within the bill that can I think help satisfy some of the you know more particular situations that may come up from time to time I really want to thank those that came up from San Diego County as well It a long journey to come up here to provide your time to be able to testify here today With that I be happy to support the bill today Madam Chair and I move the bill Thank you. We have a motion and a second. So thank you. I appreciate both you and your staff working collaboratively on this bill. And as you noted, it is really modeled after ATP, the active transportation program. And the key difference, though, is if you use active transportation dollars, you cannot change it for 20 years or a useful life. And so this allows something different if you're using state funds, whole or in part, a modification to accommodate both temporary and permanent changes as long as you're taking in consideration, as you noted from your testimony, safety, mobility, and accessibility for non-motorized users. And so, given that this would be precedent-setting, but at the same time it is based on a precedent already for other types of state dollars, it's reasonable. And as was noted, I appreciate everyone who came up from San Diego County today. As noted, it is not retroactive. It is something that guides decision-forwarding. And I'm sure as the author has been amenable for changes in my committee as she continues through the legislative process, if further clarification of definitions need to be done, I'm sure she'd be open to that, too. I'll be supporting your bill. We have a motion on the floor by Ward and a second by Herbedian. And with that, I'll give you an opportunity to close. Thank you for the questioning today, Assemblymember Ward. And I appreciate your support of this bill and respectfully request an aye vote. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. SB 569, the motion is due pass. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies? Not voting. Davies, not voting. Aguirre-Curri? Ahrens? Aye. Ahrens, aye. Carrillo? Arabedian? Aye. Arabedian, aye. Hart? Hart, aye. Hoover? Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye. Lackey? Macedo? Pappin? Ransom? Rogers? Sharp-Collins? Sharp Collins I Ward Ward I Alright we'll hold that Roll open for members to be able to add on Moving on to item number 2 SB 741 Okay thank you Moving on to my next bill SB 741 I accept the committee amendments Thank you to the chair, staff, and stakeholders For working together on this bill SB 741 builds on what works in the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, also known as LCTOP, by streamlining administration and enabling transit agencies to maximize funding and improve services. Last year, the California Transportation Agency recommended in its Transit Transformation Task Force that the state should streamline grant programs to reduce administrative costs and enhance transit services. This follows through on that recommendation. Presently, transit agencies are facing big challenges with stagnant ridership that hasn't fully recovered from the pandemic, capital needs and deteriorating finances. As I've said multiple times this year, we need public transportation to succeed, to cut greenhouse gas emissions and meet the state's climate goals, to offer a legitimate alternative to driving and reduce traffic congestion, and to provide low-income working Californians who can't afford vehicles a reliable, efficient way to get around. For over a decade, investments in LCTOP have shown that transit is one of the state's most effective tools for reducing emissions. At the same time, though, the program's red tape and requirements have become burdensome. Much of what LCTOP asked for today is not needed and only serves to add to the workload for transit agencies that are nearing the breaking point Without action transit agencies will be forced to consider service cuts and delay reliability improvements that undermine the goal of reducing transportation sector emissions We can run LCTOP more efficiently and maintain accountability and robust oversight. This will help public transit to meet its goals to be accessible to riders and build ridership through frequent reliable service. That's crucial to reducing climate emissions. With me today in support, I have Michael Pimentel on behalf of the California Transit Association and Mark Vukovic on behalf of Streets for All. Madam Chair and members, I'm Michael Pimentel, Executive Director of the California Transit Association, and I'm here today to voice my organization's support for SB741 Blakespear. The association is a proud sponsor of this bill, and we thank Senator Blakespear for her leadership in introducing it. Members, this bill rests on a very simple premise, that investment in public transit projects and services benefit the environment and help the state meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets. It's a premise that's embedded in the state's foundational climate policy documents like the scoping plan and the mobile source strategy, as well as the state's climate-focused transportation policy documents like the California Transportation Plan and the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure. But it's a premise that, in our view, is insufficiently reflected in the state's greenhouse gas reduction fund-supported programs, including the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, in which the state annually requires transit agencies to prove that proposed investments in transit service, new vehicles, or new transit passes that increase transit ridership, in fact, reduce emissions. As we approach an ever fiscally constrained future for transit agencies and the state alike, the association believes that we must partner with the state to ensure that limited funding is spent on delivering benefits to Californians, not completing paperwork, and to establish appropriate funding flexibility that allows transit agencies to meet their evolving local and operational and capital needs. And so to that end, this bill would declare in statute the specific transit projects and services eligible for funding, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, streamline and simplify the administration of the program, and create additional flexibility for transit agencies to use their share of funding to meet their local needs. And with that, I want to encourage your aye vote today. Thank you. Good evening, Chair Wilson. Members, Mark Wickswitch on behalf of Streets for All. We are not a public transit operator. I want to acknowledge that up the front, but we're here from this perspective of public transit lovers and riders and a community of people who feel passionately about public transit and the communities it creates. And we believe in this bill and we believe that SB 741 is important because it recognizes the moment that transit is now. You know, transit, I actually disagree with Senator Blakespeare. It's not stagnant. It is a recovering ridership post-pandemic and it's still growing every single year and trying to meet the moment. despite tough budget situations from both the state level, uncertainty at the federal government, and also outdated process and outdated ways that we think can fund transit. And I think that's what part of this bill is trying to do. And so California has set major goals around climate, clean air, equity, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and VMT. And, you know, people want this. People want a workable public transit system. Young people aren't getting driver's license and they're riding e-bikes all over the place. That's the next bill. And, you know, we can't ask people to meet the moment and meet our goals and meet their desires if we have a public transit system that's not working for them, if the bus is infrequent or unreliable, or if a fare program disappears or the different system disappears altogether. So that's why this bill matters. The SB 741 updates LCTOP so that state claim dollars can be used for things that make transit more useful to riders. You know, maintaining and expanding bus, rail, and ferry services, supporting fair subsidies, and improving fair and network integration. It doesn't create a new program. It improves an existing program. And so from our perspective, a bus that comes more often, a fair that a student can afford, and a system that is easier to transfer is not just an operational improvement. It is a fundamental need of the system. And so if we are serious about our transit systems and our public transit in California, I urge you to support this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Now moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their support, name, affiliation, and position. Madam Chair, Brendan Rupicki on behalf of the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District and Sunline Transit Agency in support, and on behalf of VIA Transportation support if amended. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of your third favorite transit system, County Connection, in strong support. Thank you, Madam Chair. Spencer Street on behalf of the North County Transit, San Diego Railroad, in support. Thank you. Good evening, Sharon. Members, Moira Top here on behalf of the Orange County Transportation Authority in support. Thank you. Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the City of Carlsbad in support. Evening, Sacchi Cardi, NRDC, Natural Resources Defense Council, where support if amended. Casey Gupta from RIDE San Diego and San Diego 350 in support if amended. Jeannie Ward-Waller on behalf of Climate Plan, Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, and MOVE LA. We're in a support if amended position and appreciate the author and sponsor for working with us. Thanks. Thank you. It looks like we do not have any opposition registered for witnesses. I believe no opposition registered. Correct. With that, we'll bring it to committee for any questions, comments, or concerns. All right. Seeing none, I'd like to say to the author, I appreciate your work to streamline this program to make it easier for transit agencies to use formula funds without the onerous reporting requirements. And I definitely appreciate you restoring the provisions of the law requiring that 50 percent of the LC top funds are expended in disadvantaged communities. I will be supporting your bill today and ask that you continue to work with the advocates that came up. Support is if amended as the bill progresses. With that, we have a motion by Davies and seconded by Sharp Collins, giving an opportunity to close. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll. SB 741, the motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Aguiar-Curry? Ahrens? Aye. Ahrens, aye. Carrillo? Parabedian? Aye. Parabedian, aye. Hart? Hart, aye. Hoover? Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye. Lackey? Macedo? Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye. Ransom? Rogers? Aye. Rogers, aye. Sharp-Collins? Sharp-Collins, aye. Ward? Ward, aye. All right. We'll hold that roll open for members to be able to add on. Excuse me. As we transition our witnesses, we're going to go ahead, while we have a quorum present, vote on our consent calendar. There are 13 bills on the consent calendar. Item 4, SB 1324. Item 7, SB 897. Item 9 SB 1029 Item 10 SB 1069 Item 15 SB 1293 Item 16 SB 1382 Item 18 ACR 128 Item 19, SCR 108. Item 20, SCR 117. Item 21, SCR 119. Item 22, SCR 121. Item 23, SCR 124. Item 25, SCR 155. And we have a motion made by Assemblymember Ward followed by Sharp Collins. Seconded, excuse me, by Sharp Collins. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies. Davies, aye. Aguirre-Curray. Aye. Aguirre-Curray, aye. Ahrens. Aye. Ahrens, aye. Carrillo. Harabedian. Aye. Harabedian, aye. Hart. Hart, aye. Hoover. Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. Lackey. Aye. Macedo, Pappin, Pappin I, Ransom, Rogers, Rogers I, Sharp Collins, Sharp Collins I, Ward, Ward I. 11. All right. We'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. Moving on to item number three, SB 1167. Thank you, Chair and colleagues. This is my third and last bill in front of you today. I'm pleased to author SB 1167, which is sponsored by four of the biggest groups working on e-bike issues. Cowbike, People for Bikes, Streets for All, and Streets are for Everyone. I gladly accept the committee's amendments. This bill addresses misrepresentation in the e-bike marketplace and strengthens consumer protections around how electric bicycles are marketed and sold. Often, any bicycle-shaped device with an electric motor is labeled an e-bike, regardless of its power and speed capabilities. This can lead consumers to think that they're all similar and that there's no difference between the vehicles, the speeds they go, the danger involved, or the safety requirements. But that's not true. And that's why California law already clearly defines what qualifies as an e-bike. It can have no more than 750 watts of power and go no faster than 20 miles per hour on a throttle or 28 miles per hour when pedal-assisted. Due to the popularity of e-bikes, manufacturers and sellers have not held fast to the legal definition. They have blurred the distinction, advertising more power for motor vehicles as e-bikes. This false advertising can cause consumers to underestimate the danger of using these faster motor vehicles. Just to illustrate e-bike popularity, according to People for Bikes, e-bikes are the number one growth driver for the bicycle industry over the past five years, responsible for 63% of the growth in dollar sales of all bicycles between 2019 and 2023. In my hometown of Encinitas, and indeed throughout my district, e-bikes are hugely popular and everywhere on the streets. We see people of all ages using them, and we've heard or read about e-bike crashes and kids getting hurt. In San Diego County, research released from Rady Children's Hospital showed there were 262 traumatic emergencies on electric two-wheel devices handled by a hospital in 2025. SB 1167 will address the lack of clarity in the e-bike marketplace by better regulating motor vehicles that look like e-bikes so purchasers are aware of safety risks and manufacturers and sellers can be held responsible for misleading advertising. specifically SB 1167 will clarify the definition of e-bikes and specify that motor driven cycles mopeds motorcycles and other motor vehicles are not e require manufacturers and sellers to disclose if a device is not an e including advising consumers that vehicle registration and rider licensing is required standardizing the location of e-bike labels to be easily seen without having to turn the bicycle upside down, and requiring law enforcement officers to include that labeling information on incident reports. And finally, prohibiting any two- or three-wheeled device that can exceed 20 miles per hour from being used on public roads unless it meets the requirements of a device explicitly authorized for use on public roads. With me today, I have Mark Vucevic on behalf of Streets for All and Jeannie Ward-Waller on behalf of People for Bikes. Go ahead. Good evening, Chair and members. Mark Vucevic on behalf of Streets for All. First and foremost, I just want to thank the committee, the incredibly well-written analysis and the amendments that were worked on. I just want to appreciate that. SB 1167 is a targeted street safety and consumer protection bill. It does not punish legal e-bikes. It protects them in an effort to deal with the e-moto problem. So legal e-bikes are one of the most important tools we have for replacing car trips, lowering transportation costs, giving young and older people more independence, helping Californians getting around without needing to drive. Right now, public confidence in e-bikes is being undermined by a different category of vehicle, which is high-powered electric mopeds, motor-driven cycles, and e-motos that are being marketed, sold, and used as if they were ordinary bicycles or e-bikes. That confusion matters. A legal e-bike is limited to 750 watts, must fit within California's class system. I can't stress that enough. But many devices being sold as e-bikes can reach 30, 40, 50 miles per hour, and these are things that parents are buying for their children or buying for themselves. Oftentimes, times without registering their device, having any insurance on it, no insert turn signals, no vehicle identification number, all of the stuff that we expect of a motor of a vehicle, excuse me. And so that creates two problems. It creates a real safety problem on our street and bike lanes and near schools for pedestrians. And it also creates a perceived e-bike problem where the perils and the issues of e-motors are being placed onto the legal market that's trying to do the right thing. And many of these are good faith California companies that are the leaders of the e-bike brands in the United States doing the right thing. And so SB 1167 addresses the actual problem. It clarifies what is and is not an e-bike. It prohibits false advertising, requires clear labels and disclosures, improves crash reporting, helps law enforcement, parents, schools, retailers, and consumers tell the difference. This bill basically says e-bikes are welcome, but anything that's not an e-bike that might be trying to deceive you into thinking it's an e-bike is not. For those reasons, streets for all respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. Expert two-minute testimony. Oh, wait, one more. There you go. One more. I'll be quick, I promise. Good evening again, Chair and members. Jeannie Ward-Waller representing People for Bikes. People for Bikes is the national advocate and trade association for manufacturers and distributors of bicycles and electric bicycles. We thank Senator Blakespear for her authorship and are proud to co-sponsor this bill to address the explosion of high-speed e-motos and the impacts on safe streets. Electric bicycles, as the senator said, are the only reliably growing segment of the bicycle market, and they expand access to affordable, sustainable transportation at a time when the cost of driving is climbing fast. Protecting the integrity of what qualifies as a legal electric bicycle is essential to maintaining safe streets and public confidence in this important mode. However consumers are increasingly encountering e marketed as e that did not meet California legal definition and it no wonder people are confused about what they are buying Some e have motors with thousands of watts of power and can reach highway speeds as Mark just said of up to 65 miles per hour We know from recent research that children and teens are now riding more e-motos than e-bikes, so it's critical that we have clear disclosures and accountability in advertising to ensure parents know what they're buying. By clarifying the definition of what is not an electric bicycle, SB 1167 ensures that e-motos cannot be legally marketed as e-bikes. The changes in this bill will help consumers make informed decisions, provide a clear framework for regulating e-motos, and align vehicle use with safety standards. We urge your aye vote on SB 1167. Thank you. With that, moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their support, name, affiliation, and position. Hello, Kendra Ramsey, California Bicycle Coalition, co-sponsor of the bill, in support. Thank you. Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities, in support. Casey Gupta, Ride San Diego, San Diego 350, in support. Julie Snyder with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Area Governments, in support. Nicole Wordleman, on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, in support. Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the cities of Carlsbad, Coronado, San Mateo, and the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members. Thank you. Moira Topp on behalf of the Orange County Transportation Authority in support. Good evening. Scott Cox on behalf of the East Bay Regional Parks District in strong support. AARP California in strong support. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco in support. Thank you. Matt Robinson on behalf of the city of Goleta, the San Mateo City County Association of Governments, as well as the California Medical Association, all in support. Thank you. Thank you. Now moving on to opposition testimony. You may proceed. Good evening, Chair members. My name is Jack Wurston, and I am here representing the Motorcycle Industry Council, a not-for-profit trade association representing manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and aftermarket companies. We appreciate the authors, sponsors, and your staff for working with us and believe the bill has improved greatly since its introduction. However, we unfortunately have an opposed, unless amended, position on the bill today. I want to begin by making clear that we appreciate the author's intent and agree that consumer confusion around e-bikes is a legitimate issue. We want to avoid, we both want to avoid somebody who intends to buy an electric bicycle ending up with a more powerful electric motorcycle. But defining e-bike in statute to only apply to electric bicycle as this bill does is not the right approach. The term e-bike is generic in the marketplace. Consumers use it broadly, companies use it broadly, and the bicycle and motorcycle industries both use it broadly. Compare this to the term scooter. A scooter could be one used by a child at a park. An electric sit-on scooter could be used by a commuter and registered as a motorcycle. A stand-up scooter could be rented on share programs. And other scooters are used by individuals with mobility issues for shopping or other tasks. Just as no one industry owns the term scooter, no one industry owns the term e-bike. Many companies already use e-bike in their brand names and product lines, providing clear disclosure to ensure that consumers are educated on what they are purchasing. The provisions in this bill would make those companies illegal upon enactment. It is also important to note that California does not define e-bike in statute today, and neither does federal law. In fact, the Consumer Product Safety Commission already classifies higher-powered products as off-highway motorcycles, and they proposed a rule just last week that reinforces that these terms are broadly used. That framework highlights the gap between state and federal terminology. Finally, we proposed various alternatives to the author, such as labeling, point-of-sale disclosures, and clear advertising, and we look to continue working with her on this important issue. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to other members of the public who would like to note their opposition to this bill. Now would be appropriate time to come to the microphone with name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving to members of this committee, starting with Vice Chair Davies. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank the senator for bringing this bill forward. Obviously, we have a big concern in my district as well. And the number of not only accidents but of deaths, especially with these e-motor bikes, is horrendous. And it's not getting any better. And you're watching these kids. And a lot of the parents don't even know the speed of these bikes. I've never actually ridden on one. So we've got to do everything we can to not only protect the riders, and most of them are in their teens. but also those that are walking on sidewalks and cars. So thank you so much for bringing this. And now I think I already did a motion or we've got to go on. Excuse me. Happy to have you moving. Was that a second by Rogers? There we go. So we have a motion by Davies and a second by Rogers. Wait, but we have Dr. Sharp Collins. Go ahead. I would like to thank the Senator for bringing this forward. also being from San Diego there is a huge concern in regards to the e-bikes within itself having been on this committee for a short time there's been a lot of bills that has come into play to talk about this but based on what I've read this has been one of the most clearest bills that I've heard to help me understand as a parent in regards to what the expectations are when it comes to e-bikes so with that once again thank you for pushing for this bill, and I would like to be at it as a co-author if you would have me. Thank you. All right. Seeing no others, thank you for working with the committee and the Motorcycle Industry Council on the definitions for moped and motor-driven cycle. The Minetta report issued late last year highlights the concern both around e-bikes as well as bicycle-shaped devices. Too many children are riding motorized vehicles that are marketed as an e-bike, but in fact can go speeds much faster than permitted by law. And so I believe that your legislation in conjunction with the legislation that came through our committee, authored by the chair, will help address the safety concerns for both e-bikes and for the much faster devices that have been appearing on the road. We have a motion made by Davies and seconded by Rogers, give you an opportunity to close. Thank you. Yes, Chair, you just summarized the situation perfectly, so I'll close with that. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Madam Secretary. SB 1167, the motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies? Davies, aye. Aguirre-Curray? Aguirre-Curray, aye. Ahrens Carrillo Parabedian Hart Hart aye Hoover Jackson Jackson I Lackey Macedo Pappin Pappin I Ransom Rogers Rogers I Sharp Collins Sharp Collins I Ward All right. With that, we'll hold the row open for members to be able to add on. Going in file item order, moving on to item number eight, SB 953. The author may begin at his convenience. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. And first, I'd like to thank Assemblymember Davies for being prepared and willing to present on my behalf. But we got out on time for me to get here. But I appreciate your willingness to do that. So SB 953 addresses a serious gap in California law. When a driver causes a death through vehicular manslaughter and then receives misdemeanor diversion, that conduct will have no reflection on their driving record. This bill ensures that even after diversion, the underlying conduct remains recognized for what it is, a major driving risk. Under current laws, a speeding ticket can now have a greater reflection on your driving record than killing someone with your car. A dismissal after diversion does not change the fact that a fatality occurred and some people on the road are at increased risk. By not sharing this information with the DMV, the DMV cannot do its job of determining who poses a risk and who does not. The CalMatters License to Kill series documented systemic failures in California's driving accountability system and found that dangerous drivers repeatedly avoided consequences and oversight. DMV records often failed to reflect serious risk patterns, and many individuals involved in fatal crashes remained legally on the road. There is a serious issue where California has allowed drivers with dangerous histories to continue driving, and people, unfortunately, are dying. SB 953 directly responds to this failure by ensuring that fatal conduct is captured in the DMV point system, preventing risk from being hidden behind diversion outcomes. This bill does not impact one's criminal penalties. This bill only applies two points to the driving record in vehicular manslaughter misdemeanor cases, and judges still retain full discretion to grant diversion. It has long been the case that vehicular manslaughter offenses result in the addition of two points on the driving record so this does not create anything new the DMV point system is designed to identify high drivers Without points these drivers now remain invisible to the system even after a fatal incident Families of victims expect that the system will acknowledge the seriousness of the loss and take steps to prevent recurrence. To dismiss one's driving record dismisses the value of a lost life. SB 953 affirms that a loss of life carries lasting weight. A death on our roads should never disappear from our records. Here with me today is Alison Lyman, the mother of Connor Lyman, who tragically lost his life on the roadways. This is personally important to her. Press the button so that it's lit. There you go. Okay, there we go. Thank you, Senator Nilo. My name is Allison Lyman. I am the mother of Connor, a victim of vehicular manslaughter. There is a crisis happening on our roads. 4,000 innocent lives are killed on California roads every year. 4,000 lives. Behind each one is a family, devastated, communities destroyed. They should multiply each death by 100. That's a more accurate number. I died the day my son was killed. We all know the statistics and failures exposed in License to Kill by CalMatters. The laws in our state do not reflect the gravity of these crimes and do not hold reckless drivers accountable. this must change to save lives. My 23-year-old son, Connor, was killed on April 23, 2025 by a reckless and negligent driver. Connor is not just one of 4,000. Connor was my only son. He was my firstborn. He was a devoted big brother, a classically trained pianist, and a piano teacher while he attended Sacramento City College. He dreamed of becoming a lawyer. He made this world a better place and he filled our home with his magnificent music, the silence is now heartbreaking. When I buried my child, the funeral home covered only his hands, his beautiful hands that had played piano for nearly his entire life. I saw my son in the hospital. His strong, healthy body had been broken. The violence of his death is something I will carry forever. No parent should ever have to experience the trauma or live with those memories. Under California law, Connor's Death is a misdemeanor. Because his killing is classified as low-level and nonviolent, the driver charged with taking his life is eligible for a diversion program, allowing them to avoid a conviction simply by completing coursework or community service. This means there is no record of the crime, no record of Connor's death. A driver who has already proven dangerous is allowed to continue driving without consequence. The system fails families who have lost loved ones and it endangers every Californian each time these individuals get behind the wheel. SB 953 is a necessary common sense reform. By adding two DMV points when a misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter case is dismissed through diversion, the state will finally have a mechanism to track repeat dangerous drivers. It takes four points to suspend a license. SB 953 does not overreach. It simply ensures that a fatality is not erased. That Connor is not erased I asking you to support SB 953 It is a measured reasonable step towards accountability and towards protecting the public from drivers who have already taken an innocent life For Connor, for Misha, for Jada, for Julian, for Grace, for Yui, for Brayden, for Braun, for Luis, for Drew, for the 4,000 other innocent lives. Please vote yes on SB 953. Thank you. Thank you. Now moving on to other members of the public who would like to add on their support, name, affiliation, and position. Mark Vuksovich on behalf of Streets for All in support of the bill. Thank you. Julia Lyman on behalf of my big brother Connor in strong support. John Lyman, father of Connor, strong support. All right. Now moving on to opposition. As I understand it, we don't have any opposition witnesses, but if we do have members of the public who would like to register their opposition, now would be an appropriate time to come forward, name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving. We have a motion and a second. I don't see any other comments. So thank you, Senator. Oh, I'm sorry. I missed you. It's okay. Dr. Sharp-Collins. No, I just wanted to, again, thank Senator Nilo for bringing this forward. I had a chance to hear this bill in public safety, and I was moved by Connor's story. and I just wanted to share with you on that day I felt that he was there because there was a song that I played for you not knowing that that was one of his favorite songs to play so I just felt like he was there with us and wanted to make sure that people understood that this was a very important bill to be able to move forward and just thank you once again for sharing your overall story and I will be supporting the bill today Thank you So seeing no other, as I'm looking, members of the committee giving comments. We do have a motion made by Aguirre-Curray and seconded by Ransom. So I appreciate you bringing this bill forward. As noted, I introduced a similar bill that would have continued to add points on a person's license for all misdemeanor vehicle code. violations, not just vehicular manslaughter, but including those. Mine's been amended to not impose new DMV programming costs. I know that is somewhat of a hurdle for this bill. I'll be supporting your bill today, and I hope that the governor's office continues to work with the legislature on addressing this important and critical issue. I'll give you an opportunity to close. Well, one of the principles of salesmanship is when it appears you've closed the deal, you shut up. So just let me say I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With that, Madam Secretary, please call the roll. SB 953, the motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Aye. Wilson? Oops, I was ahead of you. Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Aguirre-Curri. Aguirre-Curri, aye. Aarons, aye. Carrillo. Herobedian. Herobedian, aye. Hart. Hart, aye. Hoover. Jackson. Jackson, aye. Lackey. Macedo. Happen. Ramp, aye. Happen, aye. Ransom. Ransom, aye. Rogers. Rogers, aye. Sharp, Collins. Sharp, Collins, aye. Ward. All right, you had some Very excited people to vote for that today. Thank you. With that, we'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. Thank you very much. All right. I see for file item order, I see we have an author present. Items, there's two bills by this author. Item number five, SB 739, and item number six, SB 1218. Madam Chair, if it's okay, can we take up SB 1218 first? That's fine. Great. Thank you. And I'd like to invite my witnesses to please join me. We have the Honorable Madam Mayor coming. May I present? Yes, my apologies at your convenience, sir. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 1218, which is my number one priority bill for this year, just to start out with that, which would give local law enforcement and certain code enforcement employees the authority to put a wheel boot on an individual's vehicle if the owner has repeatedly failed to resolve illegal dumping citations. I want to start by sincerely thanking the chair and committee staff for their work with my office and the sponsors and their work to frankly make this a better bill by suggesting that we focus on vehicle booting rather than DMV enforcement. This will not only reduce the cost for the state, but will streamline enforcement for local governments, and I am pleased to accept the committee's amendments. This amended bill will allow for a local authority to immobilize or boot a vehicle for a person who has five or more outstanding illegal dumping citations or failure to appear notices for illegal dumping or two or more unpaid citations for illegal dumping of commercial quantities. And just to cite the definition of commercial quantities in existing law, it's waste matter equal to or in excess of one cubic yard. This is consistent with existing legal authority provided to local governments for the enforcement of unpaid parking and traffic citations. And to put this in context, illegal dumping is a persistent public health environmental and quality of life crisis in the city of Oakland, which I live in and represent, and in cities throughout the state of California. Abandoned waste attracts additional dumping, creates fire hazards, blocks sidewalks, harms businesses, and disproportionately impacts low-income communities and communities of color. Despite significant investments in many communities to clean up dump waste, including increased staffing, increased bulky pickup services, and aggressive pursuit of grant funding, enforcement remains the critical missing component. Currently in Oakland and across jurisdictions, illegal dumping citations are routinely ignored, and collection rates for administrative citations remain unacceptably low. Cities across our state lack a meaningful enforcement tool to ensure compliance, and repeat offenders often face little deterrent. And to put this in context between 2021 and 2024 Oakland issued nearly 3 illegal dumping citations totaling 1 million in fines where the city has only been able to collect 11 of the total fines issued And last year the city of Oakland received 25 calls reporting incidences of illegal dumping As a result Oakland crews have removed 15 million pounds of waste This is a necessary action for cities to take, and when the city routinely cleans up hotspot areas, it sends a signal to perpetrators that their actions do not have consequences and those areas are dumped again. In closing, I want to acknowledge the comments made by opposition regarding the impact of enforcement policies on indigent people. Currently, Penal Code Section 374.3 already authorizes the court to consider the defendant's ability to pay when issuing fines for illegal dumping. Additionally, the amended bill authorization for booting would not be triggered after one violation, but after repeated unpaid citations, including incidences of dumping commercial quantities of waste. This is not intended to penalize a person who dumps furniture at the side of the road because they're cleaning their home or students who are moving out of their college dorm or good Samaritans who want to help the homeless or even persons experiencing homelessness. The authorization to boot only applies due to the repeated act of dumping waste on our streets and in public spaces and failing to pay outstanding citations. This is intended to deal with licensed and unlicensed haulers who dump material in public spaces, to deal with contractors who dump construction debris on our streets, and people who consistently decide to trash our communities. Similar to the authority provided to local agencies to boot vehicles due to unpaid parking and traffic citations, this bill will establish a meaningful consequence for unpaid dumping citations. SB 1218 will deter repeat illegal dumping, improve compliance, and support cleaner and safer neighborhoods. And before I turn over to the witnesses, I want to acknowledge that I have a number of constituents who are here who came all the way from the East Bay to lend their support for this bill. And I want to particularly thank Faith in Action East Bay for being here today, who you'll hear from very shortly, and for their advocacy in addressing illegal dumping and for cleaner neighborhoods in the East Bay. And with me to testify in support of the bill is my mayor, the mayor of the city of Oakland, the Honorable Barbara Lee, and Amaka Watson from SEIU 1021, and a city of Oakland environmental enforcement officer. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you very much. My name is Barbara Lee, and I'm the mayor of the city of Oakland, and I'm here in support of Senate Bill 1218, authored by Senator Jesse Ottegang. First, I want to thank Senator Ottegang for his leadership and for partnering with the city of Oakland to address a challenge, a real challenge, that communities across California continue to face. I also want to thank you, Madam Chair, and your staff for working with us on amendments to this bill. We are pleased, as Senator Aldean said, to accept those amendments, including replacing DMV enforcement mechanism with the use of vehicle immobilization or booting for the nonpayment of illegal dumping citations. citations. And I also want to thank our community partners, including Faith in Action and SEIU, for their activism and for their work in reminding us that true democracy only works through the power of the people, as we know in Oakland and say so often. Illegal dumping is one of the issues Oakland residents raise with me most often because it affects every single neighborhood in our city, especially disproportionately communities of color from West Oakland to deep East Oakland so let me be clear illegal dumping it's not a random act it concentrates in the same communities that have experienced structural racism institutional neglect and decades of long disinvestment black and brown neighborhoods and low neighborhoods are targeted because they have been under and under for generations This is an equity issue and it deserves to be treated as one. Clean streets are about more than appearance. They are about public safety, public health, neighborhood pride, human dignity, and the quality of life. And actually, when I was first elected, I instituted Keep the Town Clean with the faith community and young people who go out every single weekend to clean streets and around especially schools. Oakland has invested millions of dollars cleaning up illegally dumped waste, but cannot clean our way out of this problem without meaningful accountability. The buck must stop somewhere, and this bill ensures it stops with the people doing the dumping, not with the residents who have already carried the burden for much too long. Illegal dumping is a deliberate act that preys on vulnerable communities and disproportionately harms working-class neighborhoods. Whether it's household trash, construction debris, or discarded appliances, these materials too often end up dumped in our neighborhoods instead of being properly disposed of. Illegal dumping? Excuse me, Madam Chair. I said we'll have to have you wrap up if you want to give your closing statements. Oh, okay. I will definitely wrap up and just say thank you again because we need this enforcement tool. Senate Bill 1218 does that together with CrankStart, which has invested $9 million also in our efforts toward illegal dumping. I think we finally have a partnership that's going to go a long way. Thank you again. I just wanted to say thanks to all of you. I'm sitting here remembering when I was in the Assembly, I served on the Assembly Transportation Committee, so I know the importance of your work. I do remember that. I was going to say welcome home. Thank you all again. All right, to our next witness. Good evening. My name is Amaka Watson. I've been employed with the City of Oakland for 25 years. I'm currently an Environmental Enforcement Officer with the City of Oakland and SCIU 1021 elected union officer. Thank you for the opportunity for me to speak before you today. Illegal dumping continues to be a major public health and quality of life issue across California. California law already prohibits illegal dumping. However, citations are often ignored, collection rates remain extremely low, and cities spend significant resources on cleanup but lack effective enforcement tools to ensure compliance. Our goal is not to target or criminalize people who live in low-income, marginalized, and disenfranchised communities, including unhoused or otherwise struggling in our communities. We understand that illegal dumping is often a symptom of broader challenges facing a city that has experienced decades of disinvestment. What we do seek to address are the bad actors who normally and repeatedly dump large amounts of waste in our neighborhoods. Illegal dumping severely impacts our most vulnerable communities, making neighborhoods appear more blighted, less safe, and creating serious public health and environmental hazards. To be clear, my work is not solely focused on a single bag of trash left on the curb. I also focus on a large scale dumping operations involving hundreds of pounds of waste. These are significant dumping incidents that create environmental hazards, burdens to city resources and negatively impact entire neighborhoods. Every day we see waste being brought in our neighborhoods, often from outside our outside the city of Oakland. dumped in places where residents are already facing significant challenges. The people who live in these communities deserve clean safe streets just like anyone else That is why SCIU 1021 supports this bill It provides the enforcement tools we need to hold major illegal dumpers and irresponsible haulers accountable. Right now, our ability to make a meaningful impact is limited. This legislation fills that gap. I leave you by saying I am not investigating a single bag of trash. I'm investigating truckloads of debris, construction waste, furniture, and other materials dumped by repeat offenders who treat our neighborhoods like a landfill. This bill gives us the tools to hold these actors accountable for all of our residents, unhoused and housed. I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. With that, we'll move on to members of the public who would like to add on their support, name, affiliation, and position. Good evening. Amy Costa on behalf of Alameda County in strong support. Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities in support. Nick Roman with the Port of Oakland in strong support. Thank you for the author for its leadership. Sharon Gonzalo is on behalf of the cities of Thousand Oaks and El Cerrito in support. Melissa Kosia with Pacific Gas and Electric Company, PG&E in strong support. Thank you. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you. Manuel Arias, Faith in Action East Bay. I support the bill. John Brockett, Faith in Action East Bay. I strongly support this bill. Thank you. Barbara Lafitte Oluwole, Faith in Action East Bay. I strongly support. My name is Lydia Arias from Auckland. I support. Thank you. They have the bill. Yes, thank you. My name is Gloria Avalos. Fagan Action is Bay. I support. We deserve clean streets. Thank you. My name is Maria Martinez. I support. Madam Chair and committee members, Nicolo De Luca here on behalf of the City of Union City, Emeryville, and Antioch in strong support. And thank you to the author for all of his leadership. My name is Ana Romero. I'm from Richmond. Fe en la acción del Este de la Bahía. I'm support. My name is Rosa Garcia. I support. Thank you. Moving on to opposition. We don't have any testifying or do we? We do. Come on. Come on forward. I want to confirm your affiliation. Sounds good. Thank you. You may begin. And just note that we had given an extra 25 seconds to the other testifiers. So you will also get an extra 25 seconds. Also, before I begin, my understanding is through the chair, I may be able to get four minutes if I'm the only opposition. Is that accurate? Not for this committee. Okay. But the other ones did get two. minutes and 25 seconds each. So you will get two minutes and 25 seconds. Understood. Thank you. Good evening, chair and committee members. My name is Marshall Arnwine. I am a legislative advocate for the ACU California Action. We are here in respectful opposition to SB 1218. The ACU thanks the author and the sponsors for the opportunity to share our concerns with the bill. The ACU understands the bill's intent to address illegal dumping due to public health concerns. The ACLU shares the goal of improving public health. However, we do not share the approach of enforcement mechanisms proposed in the bill to address this problem. Because of that, the ACLU must remain in respectful opposition. We first oppose the bill because it will not solve the root issue. The ACLU respectfully opposes the committee's proposal to give local authorities the authority to immobilize a vehicle for a person who has five or more unpaid citations or fair to appear notices for legal dumping or two or more unpaid citations for legal dumping in commercial quantities, especially if there's no nexus to the vehicle being used for the dumping. This will essentially be a debt collection with similar Fourth Amendment concerns that was raised in the 2021 court case Coalition of Homelessness versus the City of San Francisco regarding towing safely parked vehicles solely because their owners have accrued five or more parking unpaid parking tickets. In 2023, the California Court of Appeal held that San Francisco's policy of towing lawfully and safely parked vehicles without a warrant solely due to unpaid parking tickets violates the California Constitution. The ACU recommends exhausting all non-enforcement mechanisms against community members as a case study to learn if this will improve reducing illegal dumping. The Oakland's Autos Report provides numerous economically viable solutions to prevent illegal dumping that is not economically punitive to Oakland residents. For example, the city should strengthen its commercial enforcement strategies to identify and penalize the thousands of local businesses currently operating without mandatory garbage collection contracts. The city should also address the underlying economic drivers of the crisis by making legal waste disposal less expensive and more convenient for residents to deter the displacement of waste onto public streets. For these reasons, we respect the request and no vote. Thank you. Thank you. Looking to members of the public who would like to add on their opposition to this bill, please come to the mic at this time, noting name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving to members of this committee. We have a motion. I believe we have a motion and a second. Carillo? Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing this measure forward. We know that illegal dumping is an issue across the state. The region that I represent, the Antelope Valley and the Victor Valley, the high desert, we do have a serious problem with illegal dumping. The desert really has become a place where commercial dumping takes place. If you were able to see what's happening over there, you would think that there is a dump site in the high desert in various locations, not just in one, but across the desert. So I'm happy to support this, and I thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you. Jackson. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Senator, you brought in the big guns. That's not right. I think that Madam Chair I think you right on it I mean I more scared of the boot than I am the DMV action I tell you that right now And so I got a boot once and I never did that again So not for dumping, of course, not for dumping. But overall, there's no doubt for those of us also who are districts where we have large vacant lots and we have a lot of land available, So there are certainly, unfortunately, people who are taking advantage of that, and I'm sure creating such a cost at the local level. So thank you very much, Madam Mayor, for highlighting this issue and ensuring that we really offer a real deterrent and something that can really teach a lesson in terms of making sure that people are respecting their neighbors, respecting their communities, and respecting other people's communities who are actually going out further to others to be able to dump. So I look forward to supporting this bill. Thank you. Ransom. Yes, very briefly. So first of all, I want to commend the author on working with the committee because that's hard to have folks tinker with your bill. But I want to say that you ended in, I think, a better place because, one, you could create two double negatives with people now driving on licenses without registration. I think this is definitely an incentive. But I also want to recognize that the opposition had some really good points that could possibly be considered in conjunction to what you have presented here. because there is an opportunity for us to make sure that people who do want to be able to get rid of household waste and things like that can do that. But I want to say that I really appreciate that this bill gets at the heart of the matter, which is disincentivizing folks who are going to, and what we normally see is they go to the poor neighborhoods and they dump off things because they already have blight. And it's just not fair. It's not okay. And I think that this is a great compromise on this bill. And so hopefully you and the opposition can work together to maybe add some of those other things. And thank you for bringing it. Thank you. Seeing no others, just appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this bill. As you know, I had concerns with it being on DMV registration for a couple of things. One of the things that at this committee we always get is this involvement in DMV, adding this extreme cost. And when we have a DMV fund that our—our motor vehicle fund being close to insolvent, it poses a lot of issues, and good bills go to die when you get to a prop's because of that. But also, as my colleague noted, is we want people to register their vehicles. And if you don't register a vehicle because there's this large ticket on there, that means the state doesn't get its resources as it relates to registration, which goes to our motor vehicle account plus our roads. And in addition, six months later, that vehicle can now be towed. And that person is in a worse situation because now they have a towed vehicle and they have to pay fees at a towing facility. Very different than that immediate deal locally with the boot. And so I think that that is a one-time charge versus an ongoing charge. And so it helps. So I appreciate you working with this committee to figure out a way forward and to making that happen. And thank you, Madam Mayor, for your leadership and to addressing the needs of your constituent. And as members on this committee have noted who served in local gov we heard it too and we hear it even as assembly members And so thank you for taking charge at that We have a motion made by Sharp Collins and a second it by Davies I'll give you an opportunity to close, sir. Well, once again, thank you very much, Madam Chair and committee staff for your work in partnership with my office. I think we land in a much better place. That's going to be easier for cities like Oakland to implement. And I want to thank Mayor Lee for taking the time to be here. I think it demonstrates the importance of this issue to the city of Oakland. And I want to thank her for her leadership in tackling this intractable issue. And to the opposition witness, happy to continue conversations. I just want to acknowledge the work that is happening in Oakland, focusing on the three E's of eradication, education, and enforcement. And there's a great deal of work that's happening through not just increasing removal of waste, having partnerships with community-based organizations, the work with the private sector. The mayor was able to secure a multimillion-dollar grant to expand enforcement efforts to address illegal dumping in Oakland. But the enforcement piece is the challenge. That's what this bill gets to. And once again, the penal code already has provisions that allow courts to consider cases of hardship in determining whether to impose these fines. So there already is a mechanism to consider hardship, and this is not dealing with somebody who's just dumping waste at a street corner one time or somebody who's unhoused. It's people, mostly businesses, that consistently dump waste, large quantities of waste in our neighborhoods and on our streets, in our public spaces, causing significant harm and environmental impacts. That's what this bill is seeking to address. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Madam Secretary. SB 1218, the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Aguirre-Curray? Aguirre-Curray, aye. Aarons, Aarons I, Carrillo, Carrillo I, Harabedian, Harabedian I, Hart, Hart I, Hoover, Jackson, Jackson I, Lackey, Macedo, Pappen, Ransom, Ransom I, Rogers, Rogers I, Sharp Collins, Sharp Collins I, Ward. All right. We'll hold that roll open for members to be able to add on. Thank you. So with that, we'll move on to item number five, SB 739. Once our witnesses are set, you may begin at your convenience. Well, good evening once again, Madam Chair, members of the Assembly Transportation Committee. It's my pleasure to present Senate Bill 739. This bill would upgrade the Clean Miles Standard and Incentive Program to ensure that the program is meeting its greenhouse gas emissions and electric vehicle miles travel targets that transportation network companies or TNCs need to comply with. I want to once again thank the chair and the committee for the work with my office and our sponsors on the amendments that were put in print last week. And so we did accept the committee amendments. The bill as amended would allow the California Air Resources Board and the California Public Utilities Commission to adjust the current clean mile standard targets so that they reflect the changing policy and economic landscape relating to electric vehicles As a strong climate supporter it is unfortunate that the current federal government has been so hostile toward California climate targets and the modest adjustments in my bill will allow for the Clean Mile Standard to continue to be on a trajectory to grow the zero emission market for TNC drivers, which was the original goal of the legislation. Without these changes in this bill, we would be placing hundreds of thousands of California ride-share drivers in a difficult position where they could lose platform access if they don't adopt zero-emission vehicles. Many of these drivers are working a second or third job to help make ends meet, and we do not yet provide assistance to these drivers to purchase ZEVs through the Driver Assistance Fund, even though that fund was created several years ago and fees are going towards that fund. Currently, the Clean Miles Standard is requiring TNCs and drivers to meet an electric vehicle's miles travel target of 13% by 2025, and that target more than triples next year to 50%. The bill, as amended with the committee's amendments, would provide for interim targets of 17% by 2027 and 19% by 2028 so that we can continue to make progress on these targets while the respective state agencies work through adjustments. Finally, before I introduce this bill, one of the points of feedback that I received was that the law as written did not provide state agencies with the flexibility that was needed to adjust the targets. As written, the law only allows for either implementing the targets or delaying them. My bill will provide that flexibility expressly. Ultimately, this is about making sure that we are moving towards a transition of our TNC vehicles towards zero emissions, which is an important goal, just like we're moving other vehicle fleets towards zero emissions, but recognizing the significant changes in the economic and policy landscape, the loss of federal incentives, changes to the EV market, which make it more difficult to procure these vehicles. It's not about going backwards. It's about making sure that we can move forwards in a way that's workable for the drivers, the companies, and for the state as well. With me to testify are the co-sponsors of the bill, John Finley representing Uber and Malcolm McFarland representing Lyft. Gentlemen, just a reminder, you have two minutes each. Thank you. Good evening, Chair and members. My name is Malcolm McFarland II here on behalf of Lyft in support of Senate Bill 739. Lyft would like to thank Chair Wilson and this committee for the thoughtful engagement on this issue. California deserves the climate policy that works, and Senate Bill 739 updates the original 2018 Clean Mile Standard targets to reflect the realities of what's achievable today. To be clear, Lyft is committed to supporting California's climate goals and has demonstrated that commitment in action. We have met every EVMT target since the Clean Mile standard took effect, electrifying our platform at over twice the statewide adoption rate since 2023. Also, we have invested over $64 million in driver bonuses, EV rentals, and in-app tools to make driving electric easier. Lyft remains committed to continuing those investments, which this bill appropriately directs the Commission to consider when evaluating any enforcement action. California's Clean Mile Standard targets were set using 2018 data before a global pandemic reshaped rideshare, before the federal EV tax credit was eliminated, and before $5 billion in EV charging infrastructure funding was halted. These are documented and structural barriers. For many drivers, affordability and availability remain real challenges that fall disproportionately on low and moderate income drivers. Notably, the CPUC's own unanticipated. anticipated barriers report recommends pausing enforcement of these targets it acknowledges are no longer achievable senate bill 739 fills that gap and makes reasonable adjustments to the cms program supported by a two-year review process and requires an annual evmt increase to ensure continued progress toward electrification and until new targets are adopted and implemented by the board achieving california's climate goals require targets grounded in current market realities Lyft would like to thank Senator Erdogan for his leadership on this important issue and Assemblymember Jackson for his co-sponsorship. And we respectfully ask this committee for your support on this bill. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair, members. John Finley here on behalf of Uber and strong support of Senate Bill 739. Uber is still deeply committed to a zero-emission future. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in driver incentives, vehicle discounts, education initiatives, and charging partnerships. And it's working. Today, nearly one in five miles on the Uber platform in the state of California is already fully electric. But the current CMS framework is no longer economically or technically feasible. This perfect storm of high electricity costs, rising interest rates, elimination of federal tax credits, and ongoing constraints on EV supply and access to affordable public charging infrastructure led the CPUC staff just last week to recommend a three-year pause on the CMS program. Forcing an unworkable standard on TNCs won't accelerate EV adoption faster than it's already happening. It will simply risk the premature deactivation of thousands of low-income working Californians who cannot yet afford or are otherwise unable to transition to electric vehicles. SB 739 provides a realistic and durable path forward. It provides CARB with the authority to recalibrate the CMS targets in light of existing market conditions and the most up-to-date data. CARB can then more regularly reevaluate and adjust those targets based on future market conditions and policies. Currently, CARB and CPUC only possess the authority to delay adoption or implementation of the existing targets and its trajectory. Despite significant challenges, Uber is not backing away. This year alone, we committed $100 million to expand public fast charging globally and launched a nationwide GoElectric grant program, offering a $4,000 incentive for drivers who make the switch to EVs. We are doing our part, and we ask California to continue to do the same by passing a flexible framework that protects drivers while continuing climate progress. We thank Senator Araguin for bringing this issue forward. Respectfully urge an aye vote on SB 739. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to members of the committee who would like to show their support. Not committee, sorry, members of the public. Name, affiliation, and position. Timothy Byrd, Jr., on behalf of Cal Asian Chamber and TechNet in support. Thank you. Sorry. Moving on to opposition testimony. Good evening, Madam Chair and members. Bill McGavern with the Coalition for Clean Air. We worked with Senator Skinner several years ago on the legislation that required the establishment of the Queen Miles Standard. And the impetus behind that was the fact that the ride-hailing vehicles are taking a disproportionate amount of the miles traveled on our roads and therefore account if they in internal combustion engines for a disproportionate amount of the air pollutants and greenhouse gases emitted So that rationale still holds today However we do agree that we facing challenges to transportation electrification that we did not have before the Trump administration launched its war on California's air quality. I want to thank the committee and the author and the sponsors for last week's amendments, which really do fix a lot of the flaws that we saw in the bill, and so I think we're getting closer together. However, we still have problems with some of the language, particularly the provision the commission shall not adopt or enforce any penalties against TNCs for failure to meet any targets or goals. The legislature should not be immunizing anybody for their noncompliance. We also think the interim targets are too low and that the factors to be considered for the future targets tilt towards non-ambition. But I look forward to continuing to work on this bill. Go ahead. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm Dr. Benjamin Liu, and I'm the Clean Air Advocacy Manager for the American Lung Association. We join the Coalition for Clean Air and Others in Respectful Opposition to SB 739. According to the American Lung Association's latest state of the airport, over 80% of Californians still live in communities impacted by unhealthy levels of air pollution. Fuel combustion in the transportation sector is the primary source for smog-forming ozone pollution and a significant contributor to fine PM2.5 particles. This pollution leads to both acute and chronic health emergencies, such as asthma, heart attacks and stroke, developmental harm, lung cancer, and premature death. These are costly and disruptive health emergencies that strain family budgets and contribute to the affordability crisis in our state. SB 739 seeks to make changes that undermine the effectiveness of the clean mile standard at a time when California's clean air programs are under attack by the federal administration, challenging our ability to protect our health. This program passed in this body in 2018 and was designed to reduce emissions from transportation network companies by making it easier for drivers to switch to zero emission vehicles. TNC vehicles travel significantly more miles per year than equivalent personal vehicles and represent an outsized portion of total light-duty emissions. The latest amendments in print, we appreciate the latest amendments in print as of June 25th. We think they're a step in the right direction, but as my colleague said, we think there's still some more work to do. Specifically, the amendments prescribe decelerating targets in 2027 and 2028, which run counter to the mission of the program. to drive ZEV adoption to meet the state's impending 2030 emissions goals. We support efforts to quickly disperse funds from the existing driver's assistance program for the benefit of transitioning low- and medium-income drivers to EVs and encourage the bill sponsors to do so as well. No text in the current bill as amended gives direction to PUC to this effect. Absent further direction, PUC is on track to begin distributing funds by September of this year. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to vote no on SB 739. With the federal government dismantling clean air policies, it's important for California to uphold its clean air programs. Thank you. Thank you. With that, we'll move on to members of the public who would like to note their opposition, including name, affiliation, and position. Good evening, Chair and members. Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Union and Concerned Scientists in opposition. Thank you ZACHA CARDI NRDC IN OPPOSITION THANK Thank you Moving now to members of the committee Aaron Thank you, Senator, for bringing this really thoughtful bill forward. I appreciate all the work that you've done in this space. And just as a member from the Bay Area as a whole, I appreciate your work on this and your very long experience on the local level, serving as mayor as well. I'd love to be added as a co-author and move the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. All right. Jackson, then Hart. Thank you very much, Senator, for doing this bill. Obviously, I represent this body on CARB, and I believe that this is one of those examples where a cookie-cutter approach does not always solve the problems we're trying to solve. Particularly what's concerning to me with the current regulations is that who's most likely to be a Uber or Lyft driver? What type of income are they trying to achieve? But then also with this regulation, then now say because I can't afford an EV vehicle, am I not able to then provide for my family or whatever else I'm trying to do? And I don't think that that would be appropriate given the population that actually utilize the gig work provided by Lyft and Uber drivers. And such a mandate, I mean, we're having a hard enough time trying to continue to provide subsidies for people to buy new EV vehicles. vehicles. We've yet to really do enough on used EV vehicles. And God forbid you live in an apartment complex and you don't even have the infrastructure to utilize an EV vehicle. So all that around, I think that if we're going to try to mandate these drivers, because that's what's going to trickle down to is what now type of drivers can participate in this type of employment that we got to have a more holistic approach that includes budget items with this. So notwithstanding that, I believe that this is something definitely, this bill is important because it doesn't just affect the companies, but it affects the ripple effects also goes down to people who are struggling, people who are trying to make a, generate income on a daily basis. So thank you very much for this bill. Looking forward to continuing to support it and looking forward to helping it be steered when it gets to the floor. Thank you. Hart, then Ward. Yeah, I thank you, Senator, for carrying this bill and appreciate the comments from Dr. Jackson about the dilemma for drivers, and I really appreciate the comments from the companies about trying to lean into this challenge. We can't abandon the goal. We can adjust the goal, and clearly the goal was unrealistic and needs to be adjusted, but I do think there's a balancing act between a cliff and ambition that needs to be pushed and that the challenge is trying to find that balance point where we making progress We actually addressing the issue and frankly saving drivers money because it is economically advantageous to be operating electric vehicle compared to a combustion fossil fuel vehicle You're going to save money on maintenance and operational costs, too. But that hurdle of getting the electric vehicle is a challenge. And I appreciate that the companies are stepping up, providing some of that financial incentive. And that's the space that I'd like to see us push harder. How can the companies do more? How can we have realistic but ambitious goals? And, you know, I think this bill is on that path and will continue to be paying attention and looking and trying to hear more from the companies and from the sponsors about how we can do that and find that sweet spot and make this effective and have the right impact on the driving community and the air pollution in our communities as well. So thanks for your work together. Ward? that were fully electric. And that was to be celebrated because our incentives are working. They're making it so that that price point is coming into play where more and more Californians are able to be able to choose that as a good option right now. And yes, we were probably on the precipice of being able to do a lot more work on the used vehicle, on the second generation systems right now. And so it's no surprise that slow vehicle ZEV adoption is now the newer normal that we're in, but that was a policy choice. That is failing, I think, these goals that we could be making right now. So I recognize that you're trying to be able to align a program that really started and predated that also had laudable goals about where we're heading right now. And wanted to thank you for taking the committee amendments that I think are starting to be able to really marry them. Because the question that I had, and I wondered if you could respond to this, is that one thing I didn't want to be able to see was somehow a differential treatment right now of one user, one vehicle type over the general public, right? And recognizing in that these are vehicles users that are probably producing a lot more vehicle miles traveled out there right now. It's especially important that we are having parity right now and how we are aligning our program goals, modified that they may be in the new era that we're in. How can you respond to, with these amendments, how things might be moving forward as far as that issue of parity? Certainly. Well, thank you very much, Assemblymember, for the question. The intention of the bill and the amendments is not to suspend the program. It's to phase in implementation of the program with targets that more realistically reflect the availability of ZEVs and the ability of the drivers and the companies to be able to implement this mandate. And one key component of this, as was referenced by opposition, is the fund that the CPUC administers, which a surcharge is collected on every single ride and money is being collected in that fund. And the agency has yet to administer any money towards drivers to provide monetary incentives for them to purchase SEVs. We hope that that will change soon. Of course. Based on my conversations with CPUC, it sounds like that's in progress. So I don't think we necessarily need to prescribe that they have to expend that money as they're in the process of doing that. But that's one step. But, you know, we have electrification goals for light and heavy duty vehicles. We're obviously trying to, you know, increase the private individuals adoption of ZEVs and really focusing on infrastructure, you know, in order to help increase the purchasing and adoption of ZEVs. This is intended to help keep the goal of the Clean Mile Standard moving forward, but to provide the direction and flexibility to adjust the targets to phase in over time so that the implementation can reflect the realities of the current market and the availability of vehicles in the market as well. Thank you very much. Yeah, I think that nuance, that distinction that you're talking about here with where we're at with this bill and the improved amendments that you're having. And just one question for the opposition because I recognize that amendments can sometimes kind of come in meaningful that they are, and I appreciate that you're recognizing those as well as a significant step in the right direction. And I may have mis-transcribed something that you were saying here too about maybe continued concern, something you were looking at. But the idea that I think this is your quote, that CARB still would need to be able to, I think, recalibrate some of its programs. That's something they can already do right now under the existing CMS program. Do you still see a disconnect or a disalignment if in this amended version this now becomes a new standard that the CMS program could still be able to sort of help to kind of like connect these dots? No, I actually did not testify to that because the amendments actually changed that situation. So, no, that was not part of my testimony. Okay. I was talking about the way that this language sets up the future targets. Okay. And, you know, I think some of those factors make sense, but there is a reference there to the rate of adoption in the general public. And this is really a different sector from the general public. So that to me would kind of militate towards a target that's less ambitious than it should be. Would you say that that target is any different than a target that we might be now headed towards given the general public? If we can hold one second just to clarify, the original bill's language had a correlation between the general public and the TNCs. We did remove that language in the amendment. So I'm referring to page 7 of the amended bill, line 38, where it says the review shall include but is not limited to review of. And it says data relative to current and future electric transportation adoption rates for the general public. Okay. So that is what I would call a reason for opening for them to adjust. That could be a reason why they would adjust, but there's no requirement that they then factor that in to that adjustment. And so it's just a reason for opening the book, so to speak, to say, okay, we might need to readjust this because we see a huge disconnect, but we intentionally did not keep language that said that they had to actually consider that when adopting the rule. It's just a reason to start the conversation that the rule might need to be addressed. And that was very distinct. For me as chair is that it could be a reason why you want to adjust the rule but not shouldn be any we really don have a correlation for you to use and considering what the new rule should be The change you made was very significant. I think just maybe going forward, we might want to review this language, make sure we've got the factors right. Madam Chair, I think you answered my question more eloquently, so I appreciate that. I want to thank everyone for working on this bill and look forward to seeing it move forward. Hi, Dr. Sharp-Collins. Hi. So I, too, would like to thank the Senator for bringing forth the bill. I just wanted to share a couple of things as the Assistant Majority Leader for policy and research. I had research done into the challenges facing the state as we worked to reach our ZEV goals. And so we currently have ambitious climate goals that we want to meet, but we must also pair those goals with the reality of our current political and economic situation. When we talk about ZEV sales for 2025, they were significantly below the 35 percent goal for 26, making it nearly impossible to meet the 2030 climate goals. And so I'm sharing that as we continue to move forward and have these conversations. But I do want to appreciate the author's effort to ensure that we can strike some type of balance between meeting goals and the affordability and TNC drivers being able to continue supporting their overall families. So, yeah, so with that, I will be moving forward with the bill. But I just wanted to state the fact that we did have some research done to help highlight some of the key concerns that we will be facing moving forward in regards to reaching these goals. So I just want to share that with you. Okay. Seeing no other comments. First of all, thank you for bringing this forward. I appreciate your work from their staff and the sponsors really to find a viable path forward. Transportation Network companies, or TNC, as you've all heard here from the public, have reshaped mobility across the globe over the past decade. And one of the negative side effects of TNC driver—I'm sorry, is that TNC drivers have an outside impact on emissions due to the number of miles driven without passengers. The state recognized this impact and created the Clean Mile Standard, which is meant to reduce emissions from the vehicle fleets that TNCs rely on. Due to many headwinds facing the zero-emission vehicle market, the targets set in the Clean Mile Standard are no longer achievable at their current rate. So this bill will require TNCs to continue to make progress in cutting emissions while our state agencies revisit the emission targets. So I will be supporting your bill today. A motion has been made by Aguiar Curry and seconded by Aaron. I'll give you an opportunity to close, sir. Well, thank you very much once again, Madam Chair, for your work on this bill. I think it's moving in a much better direction, trying to strike that balance, as members talked about. And thank you to the committee members for the thoughtful comments and to the opposition as well. And we look forward to continuing conversations. I think we have the shared goal of wanting to make sure that this program works. And, you know, the opposition talked about the impact of our clean air policies and clean air goals. As a representative of West Oakland, which is an AB 617 community, you know, They dealing with significant impacts due to the impact of light and heavy vehicles on asthma and other health impacts that my constituents are facing No doubt that the reason that we in this situation is because of actions by this federal administration to suspend incentives and to undermine California clean air policies It's important that we continue to demonstrate leadership. We want to make sure that we adjust targets and implement this program in a way that is setting us up for success and not failure, that we're going to get these funds out the door to help drivers be able to make that transition towards SEV and that we can consider market conditions as we're adjusting and implementing this program. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Madam Secretary. SB 739, the motion is due passed to the Communications and Conveyance Committee. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Aguiar, Curry? Aye. Aguiar, Curry, aye. Aarons. Aarons, aye. Carrillo. Carrillo, aye. Carabedian. Carabedian, aye. Hart. Hart, aye. Hoover. Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. Lackey. Macedo. Happen. Ransom. Ransom, aye. Rogers. Aye. Rogers, aye. Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins, aye. Ward. Ward, aye. All right. We'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. Thank you. All right, to our next author, thank you for your patience. I hope we've been a little bit entertaining for you. Moving on to file item 11, SB 1087. I'm here to wish to share a happy birthday and also incidentally to present SB1087 before rumors get started somebody has been saying it's my birthday I have gotten—it is technically not my birthday today, but it is the early birthday wishes I'm down for. So there we go. We're just—we're less than 30 days away. So from now on, I think from now until my birthday, I'm expecting a happy birthday wish every single day. With that, you may begin. Thank you, Madam Chair. So 18 years ago, the legislature enacted and the governor signed SB 375, which was the landmark law in California and in the country that for the first time integrated transportation planning investments, land use, criteria air pollution control, and importantly in SB 375, climate change and climate objectives. under the theory that if regions could plan and invest for sustainable communities, smart growth, and effective transit systems to support them, that we could deliver substantial climate benefits and meet the state's climate targets. I was here, not in this building, but over in the other one, testifying in support of it because SP375 was based on the Sacramento region's blueprint for the future project, and I was the chair of SACOG. And the bill and the projects throughout the state and all the regions won every possible national award from business, from housing, from the environmental community and others. And there was great expectation about how these would work. Now, the policy is still right. But the system that we have built to get there is fraying a bit, and it consumes more resources in the process than in achieving the goals. And so SB 1087 is an attempt to modernize SB 375 in a way to help to improve our achievement of the sustainability and climate goals by making the process more effective and more aligned with our state and regional goals This is the most, in all my years in the legislature, all one and a half of them, this is the most delicately balanced piece of legislation that I have worked on personally, as we've attempted to bring together over the last now year a broad group of stakeholders from every segment of interested parties. And that's because there have been several other bills in the past, maybe some have been introduced here, to try to deal with issues with SB 375. And the road or the Class 3 bikeway is littered with dead legislation because all the interests have ganged up on each other and we've not been able to get anything done. So our effort this year was to assemble the broadest possible group of stakeholders in order to craft a solution to modernization of SB 375 that would win the broadest support. And so I thank you very much to the chair for both the necessary grace and the necessary termination of grace in order to get to an agreement in which most everybody around the table – and this is months and months, hours and hundreds of hours of time. Most everyone was able to accomplish 30 or 35 percent of what they wanted and only had to give up 15 percent of what they didn't want. So you will not see rabid enthusiasm, like excitement about this bill, because there are a lot of tradeoffs that are involved as we try to make sure that this is an effective and efficient process. Thank you. So just a couple of the key highlights here. The bill really is intended to focus on implementation. Under current law, regions are expected to produce sustainable community strategies, a connection with a regional transportation program every four years. As a former COG chair, I've participated in 100 years of sustainable community strategies by doing four SCSs in that process. This bill would change that to every eight years. As a one-side example, Sandag in San Diego says that in their last SES RTP update, they spent $40 million on the plan. That doesn't deliver any project or implement anything, simply the plan. That's not a sustainable way to do sustainable communities planning. So the bill changes that time window to eight years instead of four and requires an implementation progress report in between to hold the process accountable. It also recognizes that since SB 375, the state has made pretty radical changes to our housing policies, including linking SB 375 implementation in time and space to the RHNA regional housing needs allocation process. And this bill expressly includes housing and housing affordability in the goals that are required to be set in the targets. And the bill requires CARB to reconvene its regional targets advisory committee to balance all of these goals as we achieve the greenhouse gas emission targets. And then finally, the bill tries to earn the trust that is needed by accounting for the existing conditions, some of the electric vehicle conversation that you already – that you just had, and also to preserve CARB's ability to oversee and to guide the process, but also providing real process accountability so that regions can take action in order to succeed. And in doing so, also recognizing that the state has a key role to play and that under SB 375, the regions have made plans, prioritized transportation investments, and sometimes the state does not. do its part and align its own investments within those regions to achieve those goals. And regions cannot achieve the goals that the state's not a good neighbor and a good partner in doing so, and this bill seeks to maximize that alignment. And so, again, I really want to thank the chair and the staff of this committee. We would not be here today without you. And also all of the stakeholders, whether they are here today in support, whether they're here supportive amended, where they're here, respectful, opposed. We have really, a lot of folks have really gone the extra mile in order to try to achieve this level of modernization. This is not the be-all and end-all of every possible thing you can do in SB 375. I know everybody around the table in our stakeholder group has much bigger plans that they'd like to pursue, but this bill provides the foundational modernization of SB 375 to make sure that it is efficient, that allows us to actually achieve those goals and maximize the likelihood that we will do so. And with that, Madam Chair, I would like to ask for an aye vote and introduce our witnesses on the bill today. James Corliss, Executive Director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and Kome Adjise, the Executive Director of the Southern California Association of Governments. Good evening, Chair Wilson and members of the committee. My name is Kome Adjise. I'm the Executive Director of the Southern California Association of Governments. and we are a proud sponsor of 1087, and it's great to be here. I also want to thank Senator Cabaldon for taking on this challenge and leading the effort on 1087. At SCAG, we are charged with what the senator talked about, preparing SESs, and we've done this from the very beginning, and we know the ins and outs of how this is done. We are not walking away from the need to do SESs. In fact, the 375 has strengthened the work we do in regional planning and also strengthened the coordination between land use and transportation. It's done this well. But over time, we've lost effectiveness. And what we're asking for in 1087 is the opportunity to modernize the process. Our last recent SCS, which was in 2024, took us four years to prepare and over $20 million to complete. Now, in the process, we went back and forth with our counterparts at CARB, and we did not improve any project in the process. And it took 309 days to get through it. Now, in all honesty, this has just been overlay, overlay of process over time. And so we find ourselves in a position where we feel like it is good government to, in fact, work on modernizing 1087. With the 2035 deadline fast approaching, the state's four largest MPOs came together and brought together all of these stakeholders that Senator Cabaldon talked about in an attempt to fix what's not working in 375 and spend less time on technical compliance and more time on implementing strategies and delivering results. In the end, this bill reflects a tremendous amount of work that's gone into collaboration, and we sincerely appreciate all of the time that's been put into it because it's enough or not, and it's brought a lot of stakeholders to the table, including this committee's staff, and we appreciate all that effort. Their expertise has really helped to work through all the concerns and hopefully resolve many of the issues and build consensus So I want to thank you for this opportunity and we be happy to answer any questions We humbly ask an aye vote on this bill Thank you Good evening Chair Wilson committee members. I'm James Corliss, Executive Director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, or SACOG, and we're a proud co-sponsor of SB1087. For us at SACOG, the challenge is not just developing a vision for a more sustainable future, but the challenge is actually implementing it. Last November, our board adopted our long-range plan, the 2025 blueprint. It's a plan that prepares our region for 600,000 more people, 260,000 more jobs, 278,000 more homes by 2050. But the adoption of that plan was never intended to be the finish line. It was the starting point for implementation. An example of this implementation that is going to be facilitated by SB 1087 is a very bottom-up program we develop here in this region called Green Means Go. Green Means Go has invested nearly $30 million in backbone infrastructure to unlock infill development in locally designated green zones or infill areas. That came directly out of our last sustainable community strategy. Those investments are expected to unlock 8,000 infill housing units, approximately 6,000 of which will be affordable homes. Today in our region, 28 cities and counties have adopted these green zones, aligning local land use decisions with our regional vision. Thanks to the legislature's action several years ago, we've used our regional early action program REAP funding to help our cities and counties update zoning, remove barriers to housing production, and advance implementation-ready projects. Those implementation efforts are paying off. In 2024, our region saw the highest number of housing production numbers that we've had in two decades. We had more multifamily units built than we've had this century. And one-third of all the units in our region were built in these green zones, and that's a tripling over five years since this program began. So SB 1087 helps us build on that kind of momentum by extending the SES update cycle to eight years, aligning state investments with adopted regional plan. The bill allows us to spend less time on planning and updating our plans and more time delivering housing, infrastructure and transportation projects. It makes the SES a stronger project delivery tool, not just a planning document. And with that, I respectfully request your aye vote on SB 1087. Thank you. With that, we'll move to members of the public to register your support for this bill. Name, affiliation, and position. Good evening, Chris Lee on behalf of the Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority and the Sonoma County Transportation and Climate Authorities, both in support. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Lauren de Valencia representing the City of Rio Vista in support. Thank you, Michaud Ruelcava with Nielsen-Mirksmer on behalf of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors in support. Zach Chiardi of NRDC, a co-sponsor of SB375, in support. Good evening, Chair Vincenzo Caporelli on behalf of the California Association of Council of Governments, in support. Good evening, Chair and members. Kirk Blackburn here on behalf of the San Diego Association of Governments, or SANDAG, one of the co-sponsors of the bill, in support. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair and members. Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance and the Student Homes Coalition. Strong support today. Thank you. Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the city of El Cerrito in support Good evening Chair and members Matthew Baker with Planned Conservation Lake We in a support if amended position We really appreciate all the time and effort that the author and the MPOs and all the stakeholders put into this and look forward to continuing the conversation. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Placitor County Board of Supervisors in support, thank you. Michael Pimentel with the California Transit Association in support, thank you. Julie Snyder with Bill co-sponsor MTC ABAG in strong support. Thank you. Happy birthday, Chair and members. Mark Fuchsevich on behalf of Streets for All. Support if amended. Would love to get to a support position. Totally stole my line. Matt Robinson on behalf of the Solano Transportation Authority in support. Good evening, Madam Chair. Chris Shimona on behalf of the California Trucking Association. Just want to give a huge thank to the author. Thank you to the author and sponsors for working with us on the freight issues in the bill and with the amendments we are neutral. Thank you. Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities. We're supportive of the conversation. We appreciate the collaboration and we'll be hopefully working with the author as the bill moves forward. Thank you. Good evening, Chair and members. Jeannie Ward-Waller for Climate Plan, CalBike, the Nature Conservancy and Wildlife Conservation Network. We are in a supportive amended position. Really appreciate the author and sponsors for the long road we've been on and the chair and your staff for the amendments on the bill. Thank you. Thank you. All right, moving on to opposition. We do have opposition testimony today. You can come over to the dais and begin at your convenience. Oh, press the button. Thank you, sir. Thanks for giving voice to the opposition. Good evening, Chair and members. My name is Ben Turner on behalf of Axiom Advisors for the California Building Industry Association. I'd like to start by thanking the Senator and the MPOs and all the stakeholders for their hours of engagement since the fall on this bill. However, at this point, the California Building Industry Association remains in opposed unless amended position. CBI's primary concern is the bill's incorporation of a new 2045 target into the SB 375 framework without a demonstrated roadmap showing how the target can be achieved while also meeting California's housing obligations. The state has adopted ambitious housing production requirements and CBI members believe those obligations must be reconciled with long-term climate targets before those targets become embedded in regional planning requirements. a minimum stronger language requiring the reconciliation should be added. Second, CBIA remains concerned that the target setting process does not adequately account for all state housing mandates and approved housing planning requirements. Housing elements and related planning obligations are not merely local preferences. They are state-directed requirements that should be explicitly required to be fully integrated into climate target setting decisions. Finally, while CBIA appreciates efforts to broaden the factors considered in greenhouse gas reduction planning, they continue to believe the bill does not sufficiently ensure that emerging technologies changing transportation patterns and other non strategies receive equal consideration alongside traditional land use and vehicle miles traveled approaches For those reasons with great respect for the work that has been done so far we remain opposed unless amended today. Good evening, Chair Wilson, members of the committee. I'm Sophia Fakova with the Coalition for Clean Air. I wanted to thank the author for working with us through the stakeholder process to improve the bill. However, we do have an opposing less amended position, as we still have one major outstanding concern. SB 375 requires MPOs to develop a sustainable community strategy to showcase how the region will meet its regional GG targets. If the region cannot show how it will meet its targets, the MPO is required to develop an alternative planning strategy, APS, instead. While the two plans are fairly similar, there is one key difference. regions can only apply for SB1 funding if they haven't approved SES. And this provision is very similar to what we currently have in the Clean Air Act, where the federal government can choose to withhold highway dollars if California remains in non-attainment. It is here to ensure that regions are doing the utmost to reduce their climate emissions. By getting rid of this provision, SB1087 slackens the duties of MPOs to do their part to help our state become more sustainable. With the Trump administration continuously weakening environmental regulations, we need to do more, not less, to prevent a climate catastrophe. Additionally, SB1087 focuses on the Trade Corridor Enhancement Program and the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program as eligible sources of funding. While there have been efforts to clean up both programs, data by CASTA shows that these are the two most polluting programs within SB1. Giving access to MPOs to these funding sources would push regions further out of compliance, making it harder to get back on track. And finally, amendments to this section have attempted to improve the language by requiring eligible projects to be GHG reducing. We do not believe that this language goes far enough, as we have seen polluting projects be marked as reducing GHG due to inaccurate assumptions in the calculations of induced demand. We have provided alternative language to the author's office that would instead define what types of programs regions within APS would be eligible to apply to. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully urge your no vote. Thank you. Moving on to members of the public who would like to register their opposition as well. Please come to the mic. Now would be an appropriate time. Name, affiliation, and position. Seeing it no other, bringing it back to committee members for any questions, comments, or concerns. All right. Seeing none, and we have a motion, I'll just note first, I want to commend the author for taking on such a complicated issue. I know you and your staff have worked directly, well, diligently and directly with stakeholders to strike a balanced path forward. Now, one issue that everyone at the table seems to agree on is that SB 375 is not producing the results needed for regions to reach their GHG emission targets through land use, housing and transportation planning. Conversations have gone on for years about the right path to institute program reforms to streamline the Sustainable Community Strategy Program, also known as SCS. With the amendments made on June 25th, this bill reflects agreement between many of the stakeholders at the table. As we heard today, some outstanding issues still remain. I encourage the author to continue to work with the relevant stakeholders to alleviate ongoing concerns. With that, though, I will be supporting your bill today. You have a motion made by Aguirre-Curry and a seconded by Rogers. you may now close. Madam Chair, thank you so much. As you can see, we're at that stage where this is actually a perfect distillation of where we are in the stakeholder conversations where there are folks who would like us to go further in different directions, and the challenge, of course, is that the rest of the delicately negotiated compromises would then collapse, and so this is an important first step and i actually agree with both of the opposition witnesses we um sb 375 could be could do even more in incorporating um state housing requirements into it but this is the first time that it will be happening um at a substantial scale this is a very big step forward and sb 375 could be doing more um in terms of the ghc um issues that that that our friends at the coalition for clean hair have also described. But this bill also goes further in terms of achieving those emission reductions and GHG reductions as well. So this is the important foundation for the future. Would encourage other members to take on additional legislation next year to improve it even further. And just the only other thing I would note is that when the bill was first passed, maybe it was the euphoria of the moment. We really did believe that virtually every region would be able to craft a sustainable community strategy and meet the CARB target through that. And the majority leader will note, since you served on the SACOG board with me, when those targets come out and you're like you're one and a half pounds away from the target, like you're doing everything that you can. The regions are trying. It's not that there's a lack of incentives. But we're in a situation today where many regions are not at the SCS stage and may instead be at the alternative planning scenario stage. So carving out much of California from eligibility for SB 1 isn't an equitable approach at this stage. And so it's important that the policies keep driving the performance. The regents do have the incentives. They need the ability to implement and not simply plan. And that's what this bill will do and urge an aye vote. And thank you so much. Thank you. Madam Chair, please call the roll. SB 1087, the motion do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies. Davies, not voting. Aguirre-Curri. Aguirre-Curri, aye. Ahrens, aye. Carrillo. Carrillo, aye. Harabedian. Hart. Hart, aye. Hoover. Jackson. Aye. Jackson, aye. Lackey. Macedo. Happen. Ransom. Ransom, aye. Rogers. Aye. Rogers, aye. Sharp, Collins. Sharp, Collins, aye. Ward. Ward, aye. Aye. We'll hold that roll open for members to be able to add on. Moving on to item 13. Item 12 is being presented by a member of this committee, so we will hold that until there's a break and authors. So item 13 SB 1198. Permission to use a prop. Permission granted. On that note, I'll go a little faster. I know it's been a long night for everyone. How will – oh, Madam Chair, can I begin? Yes, you may. I will be accepting the committee amendments that add a 10-year watchout period to the license, especially penalties for repeat offenses. Colleagues a group of us both in the Assembly and the Senate have a package looking to just address the article the expose that came out on California the license to kill and how there a lot of gaps that exist in our system where people continue to get away with reckless driving constant DUIs, and whether it's the DMV, whether there's gaps in how we address these things, we need to do something. And this is just part of the puzzle here to address the ongoing fatal and serious injury collisions that we're seeing in California. In LA alone, reckless driving increased by 138% from 2023 to 2024. And right now, you as an owner of a vehicle can go and claim your car sooner than its impoundment date by saying that you had no idea that the vehicle was being utilized for reckless driving. My bill right now is looking to limit that ability to three times. After three times, I think it's the responsibility of the owner to preclude or prevent their loved ones from using their car for continuously recklessly driving and causing the life of so many other people that, like my witness here, you'll hear from. Through the amendment, we'll make sure that this only counts within a 10-year period. We also want to make sure that we want to increase the time that their license is suspended at a minimum from the first time, increasing the threshold of a section on the second offense and then so forth on the three offense, still providing some kind of judicial authority when coming down on these consequences. We also want to make sure if the owner of the vehicle is claiming that they did not know that the vehicle was being utilized for reckless driving, that they provide proof, they have to self-attest, that they had no idea that that was being used. This is just one small step forward to closing this gap. I'm going to now turn it over to my witness in support of the bill. Good evening, everyone. My name is Amelia Snyder. Julian Snyder's mother. My precious son Julian was only 17 years old when he was killed on November 16, 2024 due to reckless driving. That night, Julian was on his way to get his youngest brother, whom had just been involved in a crash caused by another reckless driver. Julian trusted the driver. He was a passenger with to get him there safely. Instead, that driver chose to drive 85 miles per hour in a 45-mile-per-hour zone. The truck lost control, spun, rolled three times, and Julian was ejected. He died at the scene. Our lives changed forever that night. Julian's life isn't just a statistic. He was a precious son, a brother, a grandson, a loyal friend, and an amazing loving kid with an entire bright future ahead of him. We have to live with his loss every single day. Every birthday, every holiday, and every family milestone is a reminder that Julian should be here. Reckless driving isn't a mistake or just an accident. It's a choice that ends not only the victims' lives, but affects the family's lives forever. The decisions made behind the will have lifelong consequences for innocent families. We miss our son's vibrant personality, his sense of humor, his amazing hugs, and all things Julian. Every second of the day. This tragedy left us facing many layers of pain. What was especially difficult for our family is knowing that after Julian died the driver was still legally allowed to drive for quite some time We couldn fathom how someone involved in a car crash that took my son life could continue driving while the case was ongoing I believe that when a reckless driving collision results in a fatality, there should be immediate and mandatory suspension of the driver's license. I support SB 1198 because reckless driving should have meaningful consequences. Accountability sends a clear message that these reckless choices have everlasting, lifelong consequences. No law can bring my child back home to me. He doesn't get a second chance. But stronger accountability can save others' lives. I ask you to support and please vote yes on SB 1198 in Julian's name. For Connor, Misha, Grace, Drew, Braden, Chiada, Yui, Lewis, and Braun, and many others, you have the ability to save lives taken by reckless drivers. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and your time. Amelia Snyder, Julian's mom. thank you you may begin good evening chair and committee mark focus veteran streets for all um we learned starting day one that driving is a privilege not a right we learned that we've all heard that i think it's the very first words in the dmv handbook could be wrong about that but it's the thing that's been repeated over and over again. And yet, what the license to kill series has shown, what William's family has shown, is that we have not treated that seriously, that that's not been functionally true, that our laws, our justice system, our court system has really leaned on the opposite side. And this bill begins to fix that problem. It is a multifaceted problem, but this begins to do that work. If you see me come up here, we believe in safer street design. We believe in traffic calming. We believe in automated enforcement. But we also believe that when someone's repeatedly used a vehicle with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others, there needs to be consequences that match that level of danger. And that's the legal bar, will for a wanton. And it is a standard of intent that is hard to actually prove in a court of law. And yet people, you can prove that people are doing that and getting multiple citations for it and still allowed to drive in California. And so it's not a minor mistake. It is the disregard for safety of people and property. And when that behavior is repeated, it's not abstract. It's born in people's lives. It's born by pedestrians, born by people biking. It's born by abuelos and tetas. It's born by workers in the street and in entire communities. This bill is important because it focuses on the driver who've crossed that line. And it creates stronger consequences for repeat reckless driving, authoring as longer impoundments when a vehicle is used in reckless driving. Yeah. And so this bill is not the whole answer. We still need safer roads, slower streets, better infrastructure, all of that good stuff that you hear me coming up here to testify on all the time. But a license is a privilege to operate a powerful machine in a public space. And when someone repeatedly endangers that public space with that privilege, temporary removal from the road is a reasonable and necessary safety measure. For those reasons I urge your aye vote Thank you Thank you Moving on to members of the public who would like to add their support to this bill name affiliation and position Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the City of Burbank in support. Christian Antonio Nunez on behalf of Streets Are For Everyone co-sponsors strongly support. James Snyder, Julian's father, very strong support. Please. Francine Mata, Sacramento Lowrider Commission, California Lowrider Alliance. I, too, lost a nephew due to reckless driving. I'm in favor. Thank you. Moving on to opposition. I don't believe we have any registered opposition to testify, but noting if any member of the public would like to stand, come to the mic in opposition, now would be an appropriate time to do so. name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving to committee. Vice Chair Davies. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to say thank you to the Senator for bringing this forward, and Ms. Schneider, thank you for the courage. I can tell you I've been going on six years now, and in the very beginning, it was hard to make these drivers accountable, and I'm so happy to see the legislation and proud of the members of finally realizing that we can't allow 10, 11 DUIs and have somebody out there and that there has to be accountability and hopefully strong enough accountability that those think twice. So I thank you so much, Senator. Thank you for your courage. I keep you in your prayers. And I'd be honored to be a co-author. Thank you. And I move the bill. I think we've had a motion. We have. We do. But we can have multiple motions. That's okay. Seeing no other members wishing to speak, thank you to the author. You know, we have this whole slew of package-up bills recognizing that we got called out, right? We got called out by CalMatters in their License to Kill investigative series and said that the legislature wasn't doing enough, and it laid it out very clearly where the gaps were. made it undeniable. And we're here today, and families like yours, and we had one testify early, have come and pleaded for years for us to do something, as my vice chair said. And it was laid out so clearly that data supported that we had to do something. I appreciate you taking the committee amends and providing that that violation had to have occurred within that 10-year period. recognizing that people's lives do change. And sometimes if it's beyond that, it could be truly inadvertent with some types of offenses. This is similar, as I was noting before today, like how we kind of went really far with the three strikes, and then we had to kind of pull that back a little bit. So we want to be mindful of that. But to some of the testimony, driving is a privilege, not a right. Simple as that. Period. Stop. We have a motion made by Rogers and seconded by Sharp Collins. I'll give you an opportunity to close. Thank you. Yes, I appreciate the amendment. I definitely, as I'm inching closer to 40, don't want to be judged for what I did at 18 years old. I have grown and learned. But these are serious actions. And I think, you know, like my witnesses have mentioned, one is already too much And even with this, we're giving even a little bit of leeway with three ability to claim that you did not know the vehicle belonged to you. 31 other states already require you proof to show that you did not know the vehicle was being utilized for this kind of behavior. And in the package, this is the only bill that is addressing reckless driving, even though it's a big percentage of the fatalities we're seeing in California. I appreciate the support. I welcome the co-author, Madam Vice Chair, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, Madam Secretary. Upgrading. SB 1198, do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies. Aye. Davies, aye. Aguirre-Curray. Aguirre-Curray, aye. Aarons? Aye. Aarons, aye. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Harabedian? Hart? Hart, aye. Hoover? Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye. Lackey? Macedo? Happen? Ransom? Ransom, aye. Rogers? Aye. Rogers, aye. Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins, aye. Ward? Ward, aye. We'll hold that roll open for members to add on. All righty. We have an author present. Moving on to item number 17, no, 17? Yeah, 17, SB 1392. Okay. All right, you may begin. Oh, second. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I appreciate the opportunity to present SB 1392 Leno's Law, which we think is a common sense update to California's existing smog exemption statute. And this is a bill that I joined authored with Senator Grove. You may remember there was a predecessor bill last year. I want to start off by thanking the chair and committee staff for working on this. Again, I wasn't the author last year. I was a co-author, but I was quite aware and participated in some of the kind of heavy lifting and work that was done by this committee and the guidance of the chair, which is again much appreciated with the chairs support I want to continue discussing the committee's proposed amendment on page four of the analysis of the bill as it moves forward appropriations we understand what the committee is calling out we think appropriations is probably the best place to deal with that because of perhaps beneficial cost implications in terms of the movement of the bill. Last year this committee heard SB 712, which I was referring to a moment ago. That was a broader bill. It was a broader group of vehicles in a little bit of a different set of smog requirements. SB 1392 is narrower. Bill updates existing smog exemption by exterior from 1975 to 1980 Five years And by creating a limited exemption for eligible collector motor vehicles from model years 81 through 86 a second five years so there a five-year tranche and then sort of a waterfall one year at a time of another five years not exceeding 10 years that's what's covered in the bill to qualify that these collector vehicles must be used primarily for display preservation educational or similar purposes and must either be driven less than a thousand miles or less per year or be covered by a collector's car insurance so they're very much validated as collector cars the collector car definition is in the bill you can see it in the analysis as well I believe but you could point to it in the bill it it It is where in that section 259 of the code, you can see what a collector car is defined to be. So these are not daily drivers. These are not vehicles that people are putting 100,000 miles a year on or anything like that. They're very much described as what we used to call show car vehicles. Air quality advocates are concerned about the environmental impact of the bill. Based on the Bureau of Automotive Repair annual reports from 2024 and 2025, less than 1% of California's registered vehicles fall within the model year range covered by this bill, so the overall model year range. Only a fraction of those vehicles would qualify as a collector car under SB 1392. Between the 1,000-mile cap, the requirement that cars be used primarily for charities, parades, and shows consistent with Section 259, SB 1392 will address a small population of usually meticulously maintained vehicles. I'd like to introduce our witnesses, Francine Mata with the Sacramento Lowriders card, and to my immediate left, Victor Munoz of SEMA. at the appropriate time and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Go ahead. Good evening, Chair Wilson and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Victor Munoz with the Specialty Equipment Market Association, also known as SEMA. We are proud co-sponsors of SB 1392, also known as Leno's Law. Thank you to the authors, Senator Cortese and Grove, for their hard work on this bill. and 712 before it. SEMA represents 1,500 automotive aftermarket companies here in California. Our members employ 150,000 Californians, fueling the $40 billion aftermarket economy here. This bill is not about daily drivers. As the senator mentioned, the definition of collector vehicles requires them to be used primarily for shows, parades, charitable functions, and historical exhibitions. And as you will hear soon, they're an integral part of community building and community events as well. SEMA is proud to help keep vehicles legal and emissions compliant. We do a lot of work with our SEMA garage and Diamond Bar here in California, working directly with CARB and EPA to test and certify aftermarket parts. So the mission is first and foremost in what we do. SB 712 by Senator Grove last year passed this committee 14 to 0 last year. And now SB 1392 which is a bit more narrower helps preserve California automotive heritage for the next generation of classic car enthusiasts I respectfully urge your support of SB 1392 and I happy to answer any questions Thank you Good evening. My name is Francine Mata, president and co-founder of the Sacramento Lowrider Commission, also president and co-founder of the California Lowrider Alliance, which has 35 cities in it. I proudly support SB 1392 because lowriders and classic cars are more than vehicles. For me, they're art on wheels, and each one tells a story. I own two personally cars that I love, and it's a form of mental health for me that, you know, I get my time away. It tells our story of our California history, culture, and the generations who built it. Every classic make and model has a story to tell. Our car culture is about family, unity, tradition. It brings together people of every age, culture, and socioeconomic background through a shared passion and respect for automotive history. We've broken barriers by bringing lowrider culture and classic cars to major events like the California Love Exhibit, which had 200,000 visitors at the California State Fair last year. This past weekend, we partnered with the X Games. Never happened. Groundbreaking. And we're going to Japan, which is amazing. These events strengthen communities, create partnerships. They support small businesses, artists, and vendors, and contribute to California's economy. SB 1392 helps preserve this important legacy for future generations. So on behalf of the Sacramento Lowrider Commission, the California Lowrider Alliance, and the families we represent statewide, I respectfully ask for your yes vote. Thank you, and I'm also available if you need any questions. Thank you. Moving to members of the public who would like to add on and register their support for this bill, name, affiliation, and position. Clifton Wilson, on behalf of San Joaquin County Supervisor Robert Rickman, in support. Thank you. Good evening, Scott Cox on behalf of Valley Clean Air Now in support. All right. Moving on now to opposition. We do have opposition witnesses. You may come forward. Thank you. Madam Chair and members, Brendan Tuig on behalf of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. That's the air pollution control officers from all 35 local air districts respectfully opposed to the bill. Local air districts don't administer the smog check program, but we're supporters because it's an equitable way of achieving emissions reductions essential to meeting federal clean air standards, health-based standards, which is much more difficult now with the federal rollbacks. And while we appreciate California's rich automotive heritage, unfortunately, this bill will substantially increase air pollution and harm public health. First, the bill changes the definition of collector motor vehicles to remove the requirement that owners actually be collectors. On top of that, whether a car is a collector is largely self-defined. The bill allows exemptions from the program if an owner obtains collector car insurance and then says to themselves the vehicle will be used primarily in shows parades charitable functions and historical exhibitions So with the words primarily and primary and little accountability associated with collector car insurance it basically 10 years of old cars that could use this as a loophole Hagerty, a major insurer of collector vehicles, says that around 43 million cars in the United States would fit their definition of a collector vehicle. So Hagerty also has a relatively high mileage limit of 7,500 miles a year. California Air Resources Board data shows a 1982 passenger car that passes smog, passes smog, would emit approximately 123 times the NOx emissions of a 2025 car. If the 1982 car is driven just 7,500 miles a year, which is the Hagerty limit allowed under this bill, at 123 times the NOx emissions, it's equivalent of a 2025 car being driven 922,500 miles a year. And so just to give you an idea, too, is that while there are only about 8,200 1982 cars, if they were all on the road in one day – and they may not, of course, but just to think about it. And we'll have to have you wrap up with that. Yeah, for sure. That that would be the equivalent of over 1,000,025 cars. So we're concerned about tampering and the relaxation of these requirements, and thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair and members. Thank you. Go ahead. Good evening. Bill McGavin with the Coalition for Clean Air in opposition. California still, unfortunately, has by far the worst air pollution in the country. We are way in violation of federal and state health-based standards for both smog or ozone and soot, or fine particulate matter. Transportation is the largest source by far of that air pollution. And so smog check is a key program for trying to reduce those pollutants. And unfortunately, it is the oldest cars that are almost always the most polluting. They did not have the benefit when initially sold of having the kind of emission controls that we have now. And those controls tend to degrade over time. So according to CARB data, if you exempt a vehicle in the 76 to 85 time period, you'll have emissions of NOx, oxides of nitrogen, equivalent to adding 30 model year 2020 vehicles. So that's why we're concerned about the lack of controls and enforcement in this definition of classic car. It's not that we have any problem with classic cars. It's just that it could open a loophole to allow a lot more pollution into our air that we cannot afford for health reasons. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to members of the public who would like to note their opposition name, affiliation, and position. Good evening, Chair and members. Rebecca Marcus. In opposition on behalf of the following organizations, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resources Defense Council, California Environmental Voters, Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxic Safety, Sierra Club, California, the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Regional Asthma Management and Prevention Center, and the San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility. Thank you. Benjamin Liu, American Lung Association, Respectful Opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Moving to members of the committee. Seeing none, we have a motion by. Let me find where it is. There we go. Sorry, wrong page. Davies and Sharp Collins. So I want to thank the author for bringing this forward, this bipartisan measure. As it's noted, it was heard and passed out of this committee last time in a bipartisan factor. One thing that was noted from the proponents of the bill is that California has a vibrant automobile culture. And one thing that was noted from those in opposition to the bill, it's also home to some of the worst air quality in this country. And so this bill creates a narrow exemption to provide relief from the states required a smog check program to owners of specified collector vehicles. And I appreciate the author's work to find a balance between supporting car enthusiasts while maintaining the safeguards in place to protect the public from air pollution, which is why I strongly encourage the men's to be taken in appropriations because it does limit the miles driven as was on display through the opponent's testimony. And so I will be supporting your bill today. You do enjoy a motion and a second, so I'll give you an opportunity to close. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, this is, as you said just now in your remarks, and as I think I said earlier, and the witnesses in support said this is a very narrowly tailored bill. We support the small compliance program. We support the overall program that the Bureau of Automotive Repairs requires on cars in general. Now, 1975 for someone like me doesn't seem that long ago. It doesn't. But in 1975, 1975 was 51 years ago. 1980, the year that we're trying to take this up to was 46 years ago. If in 1975, that's the last year of exemption currently, we all subtracted 46 years. And what we would be told, perhaps, is that we should continue to hold cars that were made in 1929 to the emission standards of 1929. It actually makes no sense to hold 1976 vehicles to the emission standards of 1976. You can go through vehicle sale after vehicle sale after vehicle sale of vehicles that have been modified, and they're getting two times the fuel efficiency now because they were allowed to put in a motor that's based on 2026 technology. They're usually fuel injected. They don't have carburetors anymore. It's actually beneficial to have that modified car on the road, but you'd never be able to get a smog compliance certificate on that car. Why? Because the modification wouldn't be allowed. So this is, I think, an appropriate adjustment or correction. five years, and then this waterfall, if you will, of one year after each of those five years, only up to 10 years, we stop. And when we get to that point, it'll be even more years ago. So I just respectfully ask for your aye vote, and thank you again for all of your support. Thank you, Madam Secretary. SB 1392, do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies? Aye. Davis I agree agree agree I Aaron's Aaron's I Korea Korea I have a BD and I part part not voting Hoover Jackson Jackson I lackey Macedo happen happen I ransom ransom I Rogers Rogers not voting Sharp Collins Sharp Collins I ward ward I All right. That bill will hold the will hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. Before we move on, I would instead of taking a recess, given the fact that members would kill me if I delayed this. I'm going to I'm going to go back to item number 12 so we can have a conversation. and that is SB 1156 Caballero to be presented by Assemblymember Ahrens. And I'm going to pass the gavel to – did she leave? Oh, there she goes. Sorry, your green was matching the chair. To Vice Chair Stavies. Thanks. Thank you. I expect that with all of my bills I'm presenting from now on. Thank you. Please go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present SB 1156 on behalf of Senator Caballero. This bill uses education and improvement strategy to prevent the dangers and consequences of drunk driving. For over 50 years, California has struggled to reduce impaired driving. We have increased penalties, funded responsible serving, and required post-conviction tools like ignition interlock devices. Yet the data points to a steady and scary trend. UC Berkeley's transportation injury mapping system shows that DUI-related deaths remain consistent at an average of 25% of all traffic fatalities every year since 2010. The reason is clear. Our current tools work to penalize after a crash or an arrest. SB 1156 changes that. Upon appropriation, the bill can use a DMV mailing insert that state law already requires and will inform every driver of the dangers, the consequences, and the newest DUI laws. It extends the same information to digital systems for digital wallet documents drivers rely on, like driver's licenses and vehicle registrations. We know education can reduce harm in a public safety setting. Friday Night Live and every 15 minutes for teens, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Department's training on the dangers of overseeing, over serving and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator's click it or ticket campaign all point to the same result. Education measurably reduces harmful outcomes. 1156 would require every driver each year keeps the remainder constant and current. With me today to testify in support of this approach is Christian Nunez with Streets are for everyone. Just a reminder, two minutes and it is a support support. brevity is appreciated chair wilson members of the committee thank you and good evening my name is christian nunez i'm here on behalf of streets are for everyone we're a non-profit organization based in southern california working on road safety issues across the state we are also sponsors of the bill i'd like to start with the number which is 1 355 and that's the number of people dead from dui in 2023 according to the california office of traffic safety University of California at Berkeley in partnership with CHP reports traffic violence statistics and they report that one DUI death happens for every 1.8 non DUI death over a 29 year period. Over the last three decades California has tried to prevent DUI through educational campaigns and I for one can attest to my own contributions to this fight In high school I worked with the CHP to help produce an every 15 minutes PSA for my school to protect my peers from drunk driving. However, it's obvious that message hasn't been loud enough for the rest of California. DUI messaging has become lax over the years, and the thousands of deaths each report is evidence of that. SB 1156 will address decreased awareness for DUI to drivers through an expanded educational campaign, arriving in the mail alongside registration renewals. But let's not concern ourselves with numbers alone, because at least one person in this room has lost or knows someone who has lost a loved one to alcohol-impaired driving. I can guarantee it. A smaller reminder, it may seem, DUI awareness saves lives, birthdays, graduations, reunions, and memories that are all at stake when drivers drive drunk. On behalf of so many whose lives are impacted by DUI, we respectfully ask for your A vote for SB 1156. Thank you. We have our Me Too's in support of this bill. All right. I don't believe we have any opposition witnesses. Do we have any opposition Me Too's? All right, seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions? All right. If you'd like to go ahead and— Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. SB 1156, the motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Wilson? Davies? Aye. Davies, aye. Aguirre, Curry? Aye. Aguirre, Curry, aye. Ahrens? Aye. Ahrens, aye. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye. Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, aye. Hart? Hart, aye. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, why don't we go ahead and start from the top if you haven't had an opportunity to vote. Start with the consent calendar. Aguirre-Curray. Aguirre-Curray, aye. Carrillo. Carrillo, aye. Hoover. Lackey. Macedo. Papin, Papin I, Ransom, Ransom I. File item number one, SB 569, do pass. Davies? vote change from not voting to I not voting to I for Davies Aguirre curry I agree our career I career career I Hoover lackey Macedo happen happen I ransom ransom I Rogers No SB 569 file item 1 Aye Thank you File item number two, SB 741, Aguiar-Curri. Aguiar-Curri, aye. Carrillo. Carrillo, aye. Hoover. Lackey. Macedo. Ransom. Ransom, aye. File item 3, SB 1167. Aarons. It was Blake Spear, 1167. Aarons, aye. Carrillo. Carrillo, aye. Harabedian. Harabedian, aye. Hoover. Aye. Hoover, aye. Lackey, Macedo. Macedo, aye. Ransom. Ransom, aye. Ward. Ward, aye. File item 5, SB 739, Hoover. Hoover, I. Lackey, Macedo. Macedo, I. Pappin. Pappin, I. File item 6, SB 1218, Hoover. Hoover, I. Lackey, Macedo. Macedo, I. Pappin. Pappin, I. Ward. Ward, I. File item 8, SB 953, Carrillo. Carrillo, I. Hoover. Hoover, I. Lackey. Macedo. Macedo, I. Ward. Ward, I. File item 11, SB 1087, Harabedian. SB 1087, Harabedian. Not voting. Hoover? Hoover, no. Lackey, Macedo? Macedo, no. Happen? Happen, aye. File item number 12, SB 1156, Wilson, Hoover, Hoover I, Lackey, Macedo, Macedo I. File item 13, SB 1198, Harabedian. Harabedian, I. Hoover. Hoover, I. Lackey. Macedo. Macedo, I. Papin. Papin, I. Thank you. File item 17 SB 1392 Hoover Hoover I Lackey Macedo Macedo I Moving back to the consent calendar. Carrillo. Carrillo, aye. Hoover. Hoover, aye. Lackey. Macedo. Macedo, aye. Ransom. She left. File item number one, SB569, Hoover. Hoover, no. Lackey, Macedo. Macedo, no. Thank you File item number two SB 741 Hoover Hoover, aye. Lackey, Macedo. Macedo, aye. 15 on that. I think you're missing on one. File item number 12, SB 1156, Wilson. Aye. Wilson, aye. Lackey. Aye. Thank you. Thank you All right, item number 24, SCR 129 will not be heard today. I believe we have gone through and dispensed with all the bills. I don't know if there was a call out for each one. Do we need to call them out? Okay. We'll do the call out for each bill. I believe we've captured all the officers that have determined to be present. Starting with a consent calendar, there were 13 bills on consent. I'll let the secretary call them out as final. We had 14 ayes. Thank you. Item number one, SB 569. 13 ayes, 2 no's. Item number two, SB 741. 15 ayes. Item number 3, SB 1167. 15 aye votes. Item number 5, SB 739. 15 aye votes Item number 6 SB 1218 15 aye votes item number eight SB 953 15 I votes item number 11 SB 1087 11 I votes two no votes item number 12 1156 15 I votes item number 13 SB 1198 15 I votes Item number 17, SB 1392 I have I'm sorry Oh yeah Did we get everything on that one? 13 aye votes Okay Is that the full roll? That's the full roll Wonderful There being no further business of this committee The meeting is now adjourned Let me hit that button Sorry I was going to let you do it There we go I was calling you. Thank you.