Senate Transportation Committee

The Senate Committee on Transportation is called to order. I want to welcome everyone. We have a total of 22 measures on today's agenda. we're going to allow for two primary witnesses each for the support and opposition each witness will have two minutes I will remind about that along the way any additional witnesses will ask to limit yourselves to name, affiliation and your position on the bill you may hear us refer to that as me too's if you're new around here we will be hearing bills on the agenda in file order and we will be entertaining motions on bills at the appropriate time once a quorum is established we are not going to be able to establish a quorum at this time so we will continue on as a committee of the whole and I should note right at the outset we'll come back to this later but there are eight measures proposed for consent today in case there are early arrivals that were interested in any of these item 1 AB 1569 by Davies Item 3, AB 1599 by Ahrens. Item 6, AB 1756, Assemblymember Gonzalez. Item 8, AB 1913, Soria. Item 11, AB 2372, Hoover. Item 14, AB 2307, Sanchez. Item 15, AB 2437, Chin. And item 21, AB 2788, which is the Committee on Transportation's item. with that we're going to proceed as I said until we get a quorum by calling authors and we're going to try to stay in the sequence of file order even though I know that we're going to be jumping around a little bit so per that file order item number two is AB 1588 Assemblymember Stephanie and you may come forward and present at this time.

You may proceed. You'll have a couple minutes each.

Thank you. Next witness.

All right, thank you. We'll now call others who would like to express a support position to the microphone, and again, name, affiliation, and support.

Chair and members, Carlin Shelby on behalf of the communities of Hayward and Fremont in strong support. Thank you. Eileen Mariano on behalf of bill sponsor Mayor Daniel Lurie in support. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco as well as the Board of Supervisors for the County of San Joaquin. Thank you. Both in support. Good afternoon, Serena Scott, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support. Thank you. Mr. Chair, members, Mike Carpenter on behalf of AAA of Northern California and the Auto Club of Southern California, in support. Mark Friksevich on behalf of Streets for All, in support. All right. Thank you, everyone, who testified on the support side. And opposition, do we have a registered opposition witness? I don't believe so, although there's still listed opposition. Why don't we just call for those who'd like to express opposition, if any, and come to the microphone at this time. Last call in the committee room for opposition on AB 1588. All right, we'll come back to the dais. And there are no questions and comments at this time As you know we still awaiting a quorum Assemblymember I just want to thank you for bringing this forward I think this is long overdue It didn't escape me that you cited the San Jose incident, which is literally a couple blocks from my weekend home, my permanent home. And I think there's a whole lot of other things that go on with this in terms of sort of the cascading effect, which include road rage that we're not even really diving into deeply here. So anything that we can do to take the temperature down on this and get enforcement where it should be in terms of the toolbox is a great thing. And with that, I'll turn it back to you to close, and as soon as we get a quorum, we'll look for a motion. Thank you, Senator. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I know you have a full calendar. Thank you. All right. Thank you to the witnesses as well. Assemblymember Wicks. Assemblymember Wicks is here on file item 12, which is AB 2015. Welcome. You can proceed whenever you're ready. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chair, staff, members. AB 2015, that's what I'm here to present. Third-party navigation apps like Google Maps, Apple Maps, Waze have fundamentally altered how drivers move through our cities and towns. By really optimizing speed as the most important criteria for many of these apps, the algorithms regularly divert traffic off of state highways and onto local streets and roads, often without regard to weight limit, access restrictions, school zones, or other conditions that local governments have established to protect their communities. AB, 2015 requires Caltrans to conduct a study on the impact of third-party navigation apps on the state highway system and local streets and road networks. This assessment, actually this is a very simple bill. Essentially it requires an assessment looking at congestion displacement, local infrastructure, safety metrics, and emergency response. That's basically the bill. We've been tackling this because we're trying to understand the impacts of the map apps. I use the map apps. We all use the map apps. But also they do divert traffic often on local streets that aren't really equipped to address the issue. As we looked into it, we realized it's pretty complicated, actually. So we thought a study would be the best way to look at this to really understand if there's something we want to do for it. And in talking to many of our cities, they grapple with this as well. You know, the map apps have a lot of ability to send traffic down streets that a lot of the DOT directors hadn't anticipated for. So this is really an effort to study the issue and figure out if there's things we can do to make sure that our roads are safe and our streets are safe and keep our pedestrians and cyclists safe as well. And also still get people from point A to point B in the most effective, efficient way possible. So that's the bill. And with that, we have our witness here from Streets for All who's willing to testify. Good afternoon, chair and members. Mark Wixowicz on behalf of Streets for All, proud sponsor. This bill is about a simple principle. The public right-of-way should be governed by the public and our governing agencies, not quietly managed by private navigation algorithms. Google Maps, Apple Maps, and Waze have become increasingly powerful tools. But when they optimize every trip for the fastest possible route, they can shift traffic off of highways and arterials and onto neighborhood streets, school zones, slow streets, and roads, most importantly, that were just never designed for high volumes of throughput traffic. This is real consequences for more cut through traffic, more wear and tear on local infrastructure that changes paving schedules, more conflicts with people walking and biking and kids going to school, and potentially even slow our emergency response time. Local governments built their grids and land use patterns decades ago, well before map apps, and have spent years adopting safety plans, setting traffic rules, and engaging communities on what their transportation system needs to look like. And those decisions should not, but are unfortunately being overridden by private companies chasing these marginal time savings for individual drivers that at scale leads to bigger consequences. So AB 2015 is a modest, thoughtful first step. I don't want to come across as a hater of these map apps. We all use them. They're all very helpful. But it asks Caltrans to study the problem of what these are doing to our transportation grid and our transportation system to see if there's a public policy solution that needs to be recommended. Thank you. All right. Thank you for your testimony. Others who wish to express the support position, please come forward at this time. Thank you. Good afternoon. Steve Wallach on behalf of the Alameda County Transportation Commission and support. Thank you. Good afternoon. Damien Kevitt. Straight talk for everyone in support. Thank you. I'm seeing no other support witnesses. We do not show any registered opposition. Is there anyone here in the committee room who wishes to express opposition? If you do, please come to the microphone at this time. Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee. Comments or concerns by anyone? Okay, we're building up member by member here toward a quorum. Let me just say, this is just almost anecdotal, but the first year I was here on behalf of a neighborhood association that happened to be right on the border, at an intersection right on the border of Campbell and San Jose, a residential intersection that has one of the highest crash rates of anywhere in either city, asked me to try something like this. We actually were trying to go straight to implementation, as I mentioned, sounds like you were too. And it is a little complicated in the study. Hopefully what comes back from the study will create the opportunity to actually implement some change because it is a big problem. Thank you for bringing the bill forward, and we'll let you close. As soon as we get a quorum, we'll take the bill up. Just respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Remember, you may commence whenever you're ready. Thank you so much, Chair. Thank you to Assemblymember Wilson for her kindness and grace. Thank you to the Chair again and to members of the committee for this opportunity to present AB 2717. And thank you to the committee consultants and staff for all their hard work on this bill. California is home to some of the most iconic sports and entertainment venues in the world. We have the Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, the Coliseum in Alameda, and everyone's favorite stadium, the Dodger Stadium in my district, Assembly District 52, just to name a few. And despite its acclaim, many of these facilities need updating. AB 2717 extends an existing sunset date to January 1, 2032, to ensure that professional sports arenas that hold 15 seats or more are able to keep seeking local approval for off advertising displays connected to their operations This extension secures stability as they work to improve the fan experience, increase revenue, and attract visitors. With California set to host major global events like the 2028 Summer Olympics and the World Cup, our stadiums and arenas need every tool and resource to be equipped to meet the moment. Beyond economic benefits, these displays can serve the public good by supporting voting centers, community events, and delivering critical information such as Amber Alerts and emergency notifications. AB 2717 ensures our venues remain both economically viable and responsive to the needs of the communities they are meant to serve. Importantly, AB 2717 reinforces the role of state and local governments in maintaining accountability. It ensures that decisions about outdoor advertising are made transparently with proper consideration for the impacts it makes on neighborhoods, drivers, and the environment. With that, here with me today to testify as my witness is Melissa Cortez on behalf of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Thank you. Melissa Cortez on behalf of the Los Angeles Dodgers. This bill simply extends the now expired sunset to allow our teams, teams like the Dodgers, to erect two off-site billboards. Billboards would be used not just for advertising for Dodger-related events, but for public and civic engagement as well, as we consider our team part of the Los Angeles community. We did work early on to remove the opposition from the Billboard Association and more recently have taken amendments to address some concerns raised by the Clippers and the Sharks. We look forward to your support today, and I'm happy here to answer any questions. And thank you to the chair and the author of the bill. Thank you for your testimony. Do we have registered opposition here? Me too. You can come. I'm sorry. I didn't go to support. My apologies. McKay Carney here on behalf of the San Jose Sharks. Apologies for not getting our letter in time in support, and we thank the author for working with us on our amendments. Thanks. Okay. Thank you for being here. Any other support witnesses, people who want to express support? come up now? If not, we'll move to opposition. Do we have an opposition witness? If not, is there anyone here who wishes to testify against the Dodgers, I mean against the bill? That's not very nice, Chair. With that, we'll come back to the dais. I'll move it when... All right. Vice Chair Strickland is prepared to move the bill when we get that opportunity, and I know We have a diehard Dodger fan. I kind of expected you to raise your hand, Senator Richardson. Please go ahead. Well, that's good that you know I bleed blue. That's a good thing. Spoken as our chair, who's a definite Giants and other fans, but I must say he's an equal opportunity provider and indulges on my fun pictures that I send as I go to the Dodgers stadium and enjoy the game. I just wanted to speak, one, in support of the bill, to request to be listed as a co-author. I don't think I am as of yet, so would like to do so. But in my district, in addition to being a Dodger fan, I also have SoFi in my district. I have Intuit. I have the Forum. I have Dignity, where soccer is played, and many. I think I'm really the entertainment capital district. But that being said, I want to say in Englewood, I've seen the signs also used to help direct traffic to note where congestion occurs There many aspects as has been stated that the information can be communicated And when someone driving in and you know you're going to a major venue where thousands and thousands of people are going, beyond the advertisement and all of that, the other ways that the signage is used is particularly helpful. So I concur with Mr. Strickland to move the bill when appropriate and look forward to supporting it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And it appears to be all the comments, other than the fact that I'll say, all joking aside and all fandom aside, this is an important bill. We obviously took a look at it objectively, and the staff was comfortable that we needed to do the extension on the sunset. So thank you for bringing it forward, and we'll turn it back to you for any closing comments. Thank you so much, Senator. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2717. I was about to say go Dodgers, but you may not vote aye if I do that. But thank you for your support. I'm still suffering from the 1988 World Series, okay? It was a great World Series. There's a long story to that. Where do you see 2026? Thank you, Chair. Not coming down to those two teams, unfortunately, but maybe one of them. So anyway, again, all joking aside, I, again, respect the fact that you brought it forward. Let me let you finish your close. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Chair. Thank you so much. All right. Now, the benevolent Chair Wilson is coming forward. We appreciate you. Your bill 18608 is up first, unless you want to take them in a different order. I know you have to. No, that's particularly fine. And so thank you for recognizing my benevolence, given that my family is a Giants fan, family household. You know exactly how benevolent I can be. We Bay Area folks try to stick together, right? Yes, we are kind people. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of this committee. I am really excited to be able to present AB1608 to you all. Now, this makes changes to the Office of Inspector General, OIG, High Speed Rail, and it strengthens independence and oversight capabilities of this office. I am a strong supporter of California High Speed Rail Project because of the potential transformative value it can bring to the state by simultaneously improving mobility and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, the project is having a strong positive economic impact in my hometown in the Central Valley, and I'm confident it will ultimately bring these benefits statewide. However, we all know that this project has faced many challenges during the construction. And some of that relates to the lack of funding to complete the project. Some of that relates to acquiring rights of weight and moving utilities. These challenges have resulted in project delays and unnecessary cost increases. And every dollar on this project counts because we have lost a federal funding partner and at this time are completely reliant on state funding to deliver this significant infrastructure project. So independent effective oversight is absolutely critical to the success of not only this project but of any large infrastructure project And we have to ensure that every single dollar spent is spent wisely In 2022 the legislature created the Office of Inspector General And we know that it has already proven its value in the short time that it's been in operation. As a reminder, the Office of Inspector General is our eyes and ears, not only the legislature, but the members of the public. And then when the office was created, the legislature did not include provisions requiring the office to make its reports public or protections to ensure that the inspector general could keep confidential for a period of time information that could harm the state and jeopardize whistleblowers. Concerns were initially raised that this bill would keep information confidential, not our intent. In fact, this bill does the exact opposite by requiring the inspector General to make its reports public, which is not currently required by law. Moreover, this bill does not go beyond providing any protections for the Inspector General that are in excess of the current protections that the State Auditor and Inspector Generals within the state for other departments have. My office and the Inspector General have worked closely with the First Amendment Coalition, you'll hear from them very shortly, to make as much information as possible available to the public without jeopardizing the project. So in response to our amendments, the First Amendment Coalition is now in support of this bill, noting that it can balance legitimate confidentiality needs with the public's right to know about government activities. And you can best believe myself and my colleagues in the assembly firmly believe that the public has a right to know about government activities. And so I appreciate their contributions to help us draft legislation that appropriately balances that legitimate confidentiality with the public's right to know. And so I ask for your support on this bill that will improve transparency and oversight for a very complex and large infrastructure project here in the state. And I'll remind everyone, no matter how you feel about this project. You should feel very hopeful and optimistic about having eyes and ears looking at this project. And so my first witness is Ben Belknap. He's the Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General High Speed Rail, and then Donnie Kondo-Kaiser representing the First Amendment Coalition. Please proceed, Mr. Belknap. Welcome. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee. My name is Ben Belknap, Inspector General for the California High-Speed Rail. The passage of AB-1608 will result in more timely, robust oversight of California's high-speed rail project. My office provides independent oversight of the project and is an important resource to state lawmakers as they make critical decisions regarding the project. Earlier this year, my office published a review of the authority's procurement processes, and we are currently reviewing the accuracy and completeness of the authority's business plan. When that review is complete, my office will finish a review requested by Chair Cortese of the costs and benefits of implementing various project reforms proposed by the authority. We also plan to complete our review of the authority's construction quality program and review the authority's change order process. However, my office has been slowed in its effort to complete these reviews by a lack of access to job classifications that match the skill set required of my staff. As a result, my office has, despite year-round recruiting efforts, only been able to fill around half of its staff positions. Further, a lack of purchasing authority has delayed by roughly two years our ability to obtain commonly used off-the-shelf software products that would securely receive and allow us to investigate whistleblower complaints. And this lack of purchasing authority has increased the cost of procuring this software by tenfold. This lack of purchasing authority has not allowed my office to hire expertise when needed in a timely manner. In addition to establishing reporting requirements and work paper retention framework that Chair Wilson referred to, AB 1608 would grant my office access to job classifications already in use by other oversight agencies and would provide my office with purchase authority up to a million dollars. Absent AB 1608, my office can develop its own classifications through SBB and can seek a purchasing delegation through DGS, but both of these tasks take years and would require more administrative resources than my office presently has. For these reasons, I urge your support of AB 1608. Thank you. Next witness, please. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Danny Kando-Kaiser here on behalf of the First Amendment Coalition in support. First Amendment Coalition is a California nonprofit that promotes and defends free speech, a free press, and the people's right to know. FAC works with members of the public and press to exercise their rights of access under the California Public Records Act. We thank Assemblymember Wilson and the stakeholders for the productive dialogue on the amendments that were introduced on March 10th. With these amendments addressing our concerns, we're pleased to support. The bill provides what we think is a model framework for how independent offices of Inspector General can balance legitimate confidentiality needs to perform watchdog duties with the public's right to know about government activities. AB 1608 makes clear that the IG's office has a mandate to produce and publish reports of its reviews and investigations on its website, subject to only limited withholding provisions. The withholding provisions are narrowly tailored, require the IG to provide an explanation of the reason for any withholding or redaction and allow for withholding or redaction only if it would pose a substantial and articulable risk to the project or to the state's operations. Additionally, withholdings pursuant to that provision are not indefinite. Again, we thank Assemblymember Wilson and stakeholders and we urge your aye vote. Thank you. Others who would like to express support, please come to the microphone at this time. seeing no one step forward from the committee room. Do we have opposition here wishing to testify? Anyone in the committee room wishing to express opposition? All right, seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais, and Vice Chair Strickland. I'll be brief because I'm not going to go over all the reasons why I'm against this project, one being I commend the federal government for coming forward and stripping the funding because they're actually saving federal tax dollars that I think are being wasted that currently is a California resident. I think California should pull the plug. It would be better spent this money on local projects. That's just my viewpoint. But in terms of this bill specifically, I did talk to the inspector general, and he says that this is, you know, better than what's in current law. However where we are in this language it says we cannot release to the public if it jeopardizes the public project if it jeopardizes the project And then also they can you know keep it confidential And the only reporting will be to the chairs of the Assembly Committee on Transportation and Senate Committee chair So if it was truly transparent, wouldn't you want the vice chairs of these committees and all the committee members of both the Assembly and the Senate Transportation Committee to be notified on all this information? Is it okay to answer this question? Sure. Thank you. And thank you for your comments. And I recognize that not everybody is a supporter of high-speed rail. And, you know, absolutely your prerogative as not only a member of the community, but a member of this legislature to have that view. And a taxpayer. And a taxpayer. But that's what I meant by member of community. But noting that, you know, this particular legislation is around the inspector general who provides the oversight and accountability. And you had two questions around transparency. And so I'll start with the first one about holding things confidential that could jeopardize state operations. I'm sorry, the operations of high speed rail. And so we've been pretty clear in the bill and the bill and language around what that is. And it's talking about security, whether that be something that is information security, physical security, things of those natures is what is being held that would expose that would give the opportunity for the high speed rail authority to resolve that issue prior to being released. And that would be in the if it's held confidential, it would be noted on the website and a part of the report that this was held confidential with the articulable reason around what that not the specific weakness of the security, but noting there was a security issue. And then once that issue was resolved, it then would be made public. And the public can assess whether that was justifiable or not and give, you know, a fuss to the inspector general if they want to. And then legislatures, if they didn't like that, could tighten up that law. But the intent is, is that if I tell you how to break into my house, I'm going to use my house as an example. If we find a weakness of how to break in the house before you tell everybody how to break into my house, I should be allowed to fix how to break in my house. And then you can tell everybody this is how you could have broken in the house. And that is the intent primarily of the confidentiality portion. Then when it comes to who gets notified. notified. So when there is a confidentiality report, the bill says that the Office of Inspector General, at their discretion, may give to a certain set of individuals, but not limit it to. So they can give it to whomever they deem can resolve the issue. So the legislature is not always going to get notified. They might simply just be seeing that there's something that's held confidential. If there is a reason to give it to the legislature, it is because the legislature can do something about it, which is then given to who has authority and oversight to the high-speed rail. It is the chairs of those committees. It is not the vice chairs. And so that's why we noted that, that it is the chairs of the committee that provide oversight to the high-speed rail authority. And as noted, it is a May. They don't have to get it. They would only get it if the Office of Inspector General determines that that is the best person to give it to to be able to resolve the specific issue that they're holding confidential. And so that is I would say likely rare that we would have to do legislation to resolve a security risk Primarily that will be the high speed rail authority But we put that language in there to ensure that the legislature if had the opportunity to resolve an issue is included And like I said, we kept it on who had the authority to do something about it, and that would be the chairs of the committee. And in all due respect, if the chair had the authority, wouldn't need the members of the committee, it's a majority vote. That's why I think the way it's written is highly partisan that you're only giving it to the chairs. that you're not giving it to actual members of the committee because you need a majority of the members of the committee. The chair can't decide on its own, both in the Assembly and the Senate. You need a majority of the membership of this committee. And I think every member of the Transportation Committee, if drafted, it should be every member of this committee should be notified, regardless of party and every member of the committee, both in the Assembly and Senate, in my opinion. Understood. And just note that it's not partisan. It doesn't say majority party. It says the chair, which is the majority party, which happens to currently be. OK, well, I'm just going to ask again. Sorry, my apologies. So you're welcome to include further responses in your clothes, as you know, chair. So make sure he has the floor. So, again, if it wasn't, I firmly believe it should be every member of this committee, because, again, you need the majority of every member of the committee, both in the Assembly and Senate, to act, as you said. And then also, I just think this takes us in a step in the wrong direction on a project that has been suspect, that's had many change orders. Again, we can go into the larger thing and talk about how just a few weeks ago we had an informational hearing that we walked away with more questions than we did answers. We're nonpartisan legislative analysts use the term unrealistic when it comes to this plan. And this bill moving forward that has less transparency I think is not good for the taxpayers because, again, it's their money that we're spending. They have a right to know how much their money is being spent, in my opinion. Thank you, Vice Chair. Other comments? Senator Richardson? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for my colleague, if would be allowed. For your colleagues? Yeah, my colleague here, the Vice Chair. Would the vice chair support and recommend to the body to support if vice chairs were included? I don't say vice chairs. I think every member of the committee. Well, let me – I'll get to that point. I'm saying if the authors were to consider that, would you consider being supportive? No, not just vice chairs. I think every member of the committee. I'm going to have to interrupt because by rule we can't negotiate amendments on the dais anyway. But I appreciate the sentiment of the inquiry to get to the vice chair's actual interest that he's trying to solve or satisfy here. But at the end of the day, we're not going to be able to fashion an amendment here. Right. Well, to be helpful to the author is the reason why I asked that question, and I'm sure the author will follow up. what I wanted to do to assist the author of maybe the question of why not every member. When I served in Congress, we had what was called, you know, the Gang of Five. And so, for example, particularly regarding the Intelligence Committee, and I believe the author spoke to safety and confidentiality and all of that. Sometimes, you know, I'm not a chair, but, you know, sometimes, you know, of course all committees want to know something, but sometimes things need to be first held at the chair and the vice chair level. And then when it deemed appropriate to cascade it down to everyone it happens But sometimes you can always do all members just for the sake of confidentiality security and so on And that a very commonly held practice for example in Congress as you know where they have the Gang of Five, or particularly, as I said, with intelligence, where they restrict it to the chair or the vice chair, you know, of both ends. So for the sake of the author, I'm sure she heard the comments and the questions, But I just wanted to say maybe one of the reasons why it's not extended to all. And I'm sure she heard your questions also regarding the role of both parties. I can say having been a part of the minority in the past, I've experienced that. You know, I understand your comments. But back to the issue of the bill. I think the issue of being able to have information, being able to have transparency and accountability, especially in light of the significant amount of investment that the public has made in this particular project. When the time is appropriate, I'll move the bill. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Anyone else? Thank you. We will then turn back to the author. I appreciate you bringing this forward. I do appreciate the OIG's willingness to work with you to get to the right numbers. I don't know if a million on the appropriation piece of it is the right amount or not. I think we've received some inquiries about that. I do know that you have a lot more staff, a lot more folks than the rest of us see from time to time, only because the CEO indicates to me that you work well, that there are people working pretty regularly together to try to get to the right conclusions, which I think is probably appreciated by all of us. Directing my comments for the record to the inspector general as a witness, but I'm not asking for a response to that. I just would acknowledge that that may come up at some point, obviously, down the road, as it always does with appropriations issues. So with that, Assemblymember Wilson, you're welcome to close. We still don't have a quorum, but we're getting close, and then we'll entertain a motion at that time. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the dialogue surrounding this bill from both senators, the vice chair, and a member of this committee. And here's where I can say we probably all agree is that the public has a right to know how the money, how their money is being spent from every single department, including high speed rail. And they're with such a large and complex project. They absolutely should have proper accountability, proper oversight and proper insights. And I believe that's what the Office of Inspector General provides us, is proper accountability, proper oversight, proper insight. Just recently in a hearing that we had, it was revealed or talked about the almost half a billion dollar purchase order that they had to review that was likely done improperly. We only know that because the Office of Inspector General. And so I want to be sure that we equip them with everything they need to ensure that the high-speed rail construction project is one of success and that it's delivered as efficiently and as effectively as possible with oversight, accountability, and insight. So I ask for your support on this important bill to give the Inspector General the tools it needs to perform the critical oversight that this project needs with I respectfully ask for an aye vote. All right. Thank you, Assemblymember. And as I said, we'll, as soon as we have a quorum, we'll start taking up motions on these bills. We'll let you move on to item, file item 5, AB 2346 at this time. And thank you to the witnesses.

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

Chair Cortese and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jason Schaefer, and I am a 22-year veteran police officer with the Irvine Police Department. For the past several years, I've worked extensively on e-bike safety, education, and enforcement issues in our community. I am here today in support of AB 2346. Like many communities across California, Irvine has experienced a dramatic increase in e-bike use, particularly among youths. While e-bikes provide tremendous mobility benefits, we've also seen increased complaints regarding unsafe riding behavior, conflicts on shared use paths, and confusion among riders and parents about California's e-bike laws. AB 2346 takes a practical and balanced approach to these challenges. The bill improves education and consumer awareness by requiring retailers to provide clear information regarding e-bike classifications, speed capabilities, age restrictions, helmet requirements, and California law. In our experience, many parents and riders simply do not know the rules. The bill also strengthens labeling requirements, making it easier for riders, parents, and law enforcement officers to be able to identify an e-bike's classification, assisted speed, and motor wattage. In addition, common sense equipment requirements, including the front and rear lighting, help to improve visibility for all roadway and trail users. AB 2346 also provides local agencies with flexibility to address conditions unique to their communities. The City of Irvine recently adopted an e-bike ordinance that includes a 10 mile an hour sidewalk speed limit and other safety measures We have seen firsthand how clear understandable rules help promote safer riding behavior and improve safety for both riders and pedestrians AB 2346 is not about discouraging e-bike use. It is about promoting responsible operation, improving public awareness, and giving local communities responsible tools to protect the safety of everyone using our roads, sidewalks, and shared pathways. For all those reasons, the City of Irvine is proud to support AB 2346 and thanks the author for her leadership on this issue.

Thank you, Chair. Angela Hill with the California Medical Association, sponsor of the bill. We thank the author. I'm here for technical assistance as well if needed. And also doing a Me Too for the California Orthopedic Association, another co-sponsor. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon. Kelly Macmillan on behalf of the Children's Specialty Care Coalition and the American Academy of Pediatrics California and support good afternoon Ethan Nagler on

thank you mr. chair Mike Carpenter on behalf of AAA of Northern California and the Auto Club of Southern California in support

All right. Thank you all. I think we do have opposition witnesses. You can come forward if you like. I think there's plenty of room. Yeah. Good for you to all stay here in case there's questions, if you don't mind. Thank you.

We have a couple minutes. Good afternoon, Chair and members.

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

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

I go out on patrol especially going around schools during drop-off and pickup hours I do see a lot of young riders either not wearing a helmet or improperly wearing their helmet the most common is the helmet would be on their head and not strapped underneath their chin. A lot of this goes back to the parents,

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

Well, thank you, Senator Artuleta.

Senator Richardson.

I thank you.

You may have a 250 electric bicycle that can go up to 20 or you may have 1 watt which would not qualify as an e could go 20 as well So I think it just depends on the particular brands, and that's just from what I've seen out in the field.

Would love to have you weigh in on this as well, maybe before I ask some questions about speed. Yeah, just quickly, on behalf of the manufacturers that make these, the responsible bicycle manufacturers put a governor on the bicycle that actually prevents it from going over the legal speed. So the motors are capable. They're up to 750 watts. That's what defines a legal electric bicycle. That motor could power the bike faster, but it's actually cut off. And the reason for that is sometimes you have to go uphill. Maybe you're carrying more weight on the bike. So you need more power in the motor to be able to do those things. But the responsible manufacturers will make it so that the bikes cannot be tampered with, and they shut off providing more power to you at 20 miles per hour. Or if it's a Class 3, the higher-powered ones can go up to 28. But to be a legal e-bike, they have to shut off at 20 or 28 miles per hour. Otherwise, they fall into this e-moto category, which is a motorcycle or a moped, in terms of the bill that Senator Blakespear has been moving.

The wattage is an issue, and we had a bill going through the Assembly that we're hoping to address that, and that still is an issue that needs to be addressed, is that certain wattages allow you to go to a higher speed as testimony provided, But we focus more on the ability for our locals to have a statewide speed limit and then for our locals to also be able to address that pathway by pathway.

Is that just a starting point? So there have been cities that have done 10, as the city of Irvine has noted. There's been a few cities that have done 10. And when you think about it, because the sidewalk is a shared pathway, like you said, is somebody could be pushing a stroller, walking the dog, people of all ages. And so if you're on a shared pathway, 10 is like an appropriate speed where you can go and react. Think about being in a car. Why we set speed limits is because we say, can you stop? If you can see something, can you stop in time? If you're going 60 miles an hour on a regular residential road and a kid jumps out in front of you, you are not likely to stop, which is why we typically set it to about anywhere from 15 to 35, depending on the jurisdiction. So the same thing on a sidewalk is what we're saying is you can if you're going 10 miles an hour, you can reasonably foresee a need to stop or avoid an incident. And then also every pathway is different. You think about a sidewalk that's just, you know, trying to think of one across the street, but, you know, there's your standard sidewalk. But if you go in front of our building, that sidewalk is wider. So a jurisdiction, a local jurisdiction can say, well, it's a wider pathway. I like to be able to get flexibility because you can go faster because you have a greater chances of being deviating and still being on concrete versus like deviating into the grass Got it And I think there still a lot of work to do in this area you know especially around education You know I think you should have

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

I don't have a lot to say other than this issue has grown on me as an important issue because the area I live is very poverty-slash-affluence integrated, and I think because of that it has sort of adopted the community's affordability quotient is pretty low at times. But we're starting to see that. We're starting to see e-bags a lot more. But what really convinced me was a couple trips to Southern California. Last spring to Carlsbad in Senator Blakesburg's district, More recently, I was down in Los Angeles two consecutive weekends with an e-bike going right down Sunset Boulevard at night with no lights. And the kid who was riding it couldn't have been more than, you know, four feet tall. And, you know, one of the things I appreciate that all the work to protect them, to protect the children, to protect the riders themselves, you know, protect the community who want to call them cyclists or not. There's also the distraction effect here, which is true of everything we do and we try to regulate on our roads. You know, it's not just about that individual on that unit being safe, but what's going on relative to drivers being distracted and merging and all the things that occur, braiding and weaving and everything else. So I think we do have a lot of work to do, and I think there's a lot of registration and that type of work to do as well. But in the meantime, I think this has been a great body of work that's come through this committee this year, a huge leap forward, and hopefully it results in enrolled, enacted legislation. I'll turn it back to you.

I really appreciate the robust discussion. Thank you to those that have testified as well as to opposition. We've worked with them throughout this bill and have made adjustments and changes and recognize there's still two things that they're concerned about. And we'll see if there's a pathway. One of the things we try to address with the integrated versus attached, being able to sell attached light, didn't have to be integrated, which was where we started. And recognizing the disclosure, particularly around the age 16, that was one that originally was a part of the bill as if you had, it was part of law enforcement, that law enforcement could stop someone under the age of 16 for something. And so we had heard concerns from members of the community, not one of people to be criminally justice involved and lots of things. And so we moved it to a disclosure to be able to say, because a lot of times grandparents, parents are coming in and buying these bikes to say, hey, maybe you shouldn't buy a bike that's, you know, for somebody under age 16 that can go faster than 15 miles an hour or making them aware. So they're telling their child, you're not allowed to go more than 15 miles an hour, but you don't have to involve law enforcement because part of it, to your point, Senator, is about education and we have to do more. And we have a pilot that existing right now and potentially another pilot being added, another city being added that pilot to talk about what does it look like to be able to have an education policy prior to being able to ride a bike. But I will say this is, I consider this almost the omnibus bill because it has been bipartisan as it relates to e-bikes. We want e-bikes to be used, but we also want, you called it apparatus center bicycle shaped devices that are not e-bikes to not be used, right? We want safe communities and everybody who's using a pathway or bikeway to be safe. And I think this bill drives at keeping existing riders who are doing the right thing. It protects them, but it also, you know, puts some serious guidelines around folks who are not doing the right thing. And with that, at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I know.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chair and Senators. In 2022, the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Metro worked with communities across its service territory to plan a network of bus services, dubbed Reimagine Metro, that would be faster, more frequent, and reliable in areas of high transit demand. Reimagined Metro Phase 1, launched in December of 2023, implemented new higher-frequency routes from Watsonville to Santa Cruz. Reimagined Metro Phase 2, which began implementation in March of 2024, expanded Metro's network of frequent routes and increased ridership by 43%. Reimagined Metro Phases 1 and 2 were funded by a one-time infusion of $28.3 million in 2023. This funding will run out in 2026. To prevent service and job cuts after this funding runs out, the Metro must secure additional state or local funding. Failure to secure additional funds will impact service to residents of Santa Cruz and Watsonville and will lead to significant Metro employee layoffs. AB 1919 would simply add election procedures to address the gap in current law, which fails to outline how a qualified voter initiative for a local jurisdiction without elections procedures like Metro may be placed on the ballot. This Central Coast Caucus Legislative Priority Bill simply gives voters in my district the power to decide the future of their transit system while protecting union jobs through a citizens initiative. With me to testify in support is Michael Pimentel Legislative Advocate at SYASL Partners and Bus Operator Bonnie Bernard Okay thank you Mr Pimentel you may proceed when ready All right Mr Chair and members good to be with you this afternoon

Thank you. Thank you. Next witness. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

since we have implemented the Reimagine Metro. It has made it more reliable and more service available. I've had first-time riders become regulars because of the fact that they can get to work now and not have to go through all the traffic in our county. Our high cost of living has put a burden on fuel, and also we have not a lot of parking. I'm sure you guys get that here too. We have a very diverse rural routing system within our county. In there, we are the only public transportation for seniors, low-income, disabled, and the youth in our county. We service 67 schools as their school transportation. That's 90% of our schools in the county. Without a new source of revenue, a reliable source of revenue, we will stand to lose 100 jobs within our agency. Their employment would also put a further burden on our community and our county. With that, many of us have gone to work alongside the Friends of Santa Cruz Metro to collect signatures in support of this measure. I'd like to thank you for your time and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Well, thank you for your testimony. Do we have others here who wish to express the support position? Please come on forward. Good afternoon. Brian Ramos, bus operator, Santa Cruz Metro, member Local 23 in support. Mr. Chair and Members, Louie Costa with Smart Transportation Division, Safety and Legislative Board, and proud support. All right. Seeing no one else come forward, do we have registered opposition? Anyone wishing to testify? Anyone wishing to come forward and express opposition at the microphone? Seeing none of that, we'll come back to the dais. Do we have questions or concerns here? We don't have a quorum yet, do we? We have not established it, I know. If we had it here, I would establish it right now. That said we come back to the author Thank you very much for bringing the bill forward Obviously we neighboring communities so I know in a different sort of way as a chair here what you dealing with what you're proud of, what's going on in your district. So thank you for bringing the bill forward. And you have an opportunity to close at this time. Sure. I'm sure when you all come visit Santa Cruz, you'd like to see less congestion on the streets and highways. and when you do come visit our beautiful beaches and redwoods and this simple bill, so simply ask to let my people vote. Thank you so much. Thank you all for being here. Okay. Oh, yeah, Assemblymember Hoover. Please come on up. This would be file item 10, AB 2012. You're welcome to start whenever you want. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, AB 2012 simply clarifies that a special permit is not required to move a manufactured home if the applicant has obtained an annual permit. California's housing crisis requires creative solutions to increase affordability and availability. Factory-built housing and manufactured homes offer an innovative approach to alleviating our shortage across the state. This will help lower transportation costs for these homes. And with me today is Graciela Castillo-Krings on behalf of the California Housing Consortium. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium. AB 2012 is one bill in a package that is being moved forward this year to really look at innovative ways of lowering construction costs in the state of California. What we are hoping to do with this piece of legislation is make it a little easier, streamline how we move some of the modules and units throughout the state. We are not eliminating any of the protections that are already in state law. We are just asking that instead of multiple permits, we are able to apply to one and just ensure that we're working closely with both CHP and Caltrans. And we are very grateful to the author for all the work that his staff and he are doing on this bill. So with that, we respectfully urge and I vote. Thank you for your testimony. Are there others here who wish to express support? Please do so. Good afternoon, Chair, members. We appreciate this bill. California Conference of Carpenters are in strong support. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Anyone else on the support side? Seeing none. Do we have opposition here present wishing to testify? Does anyone wish to express opposition as a Me Too? Seeing none. We'll come back to the dais. Does anyone wish to comment amongst colleagues? Senator Archuleta? I see that if the individual who transports has a permit, an annual permit, he's able to use that permit rather than having to get a permit for each movement. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So it's an umbrella permit per se. Yeah, it's essentially streamlining a process that already exists, and I think it's going to help at least reduce costs a little bit for transporting these homes, which we're already using to build a number of projects in California. And I call it an umbrella permit, and I think that would work. It's a good way to look at it. That way you don't have to do it every – Correct. Each and every item that you move or mobile. Yeah, correct. Okay. Well, I'll go ahead and move it at the appropriate time. Thank you. All right. Well, we have an offered motion by Archuleta, which we can't take up right now. An eye recommendation from me and you welcome to close Thank you Appreciate the conversation Would respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time Thanks so much Mr Chair Thank you Thank you for being here And we have Assemblymember Nguyen here on AB 2024. You may come up and testify, excuse me, and present at this time. If you have witnesses, they can come up. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here to present AB 2024, a narrow cleanup bill to address delays in permitting process under the Outdoor Advertising Act. I want to note that this is in no way approval of any request, but more so just streamlining the process, so that way when a request is submitted in that it's accepted and not acted on, but that the application moves through the full process. What we're finding now is that when they're submitting an application, it's just sitting there, and it delays. So what we're asking is so that way this is to reduce delays, make sure the process is working as intended. And here to testify in support is Amy on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association. Thank you. Amy Lerseth, here as the Assemblymember said, testifying on behalf of the California State Outdoor Advertising Association in support of AB 2024. This is a straightforward cleanup measure that provides important technical clarifications to ensure consistent implementation of California's Outdoor Advertising Act. Under current law, the billboard relocation is allowed as an alternative to monetary compensation when displays are moved for public projects. However, inconsistent administrative practices have created confusion, delays, and in some cases, unnecessary costs. This bill simply reinforces what the law already intends. It ensures that the relocation remains a viable option where permitted, clarifies that one-for-one relocation should not be subject to additional requirements, and help ensure that accepted permit applications are processed in a timely manner. These changes are important because relocation in lieu of compensation is a tool that helps reduce public costs and avoid project delays. When relocation is limited or delayed, it can increase costs for public projects and create uncertainty for all parties involved. AB 2024 targets common sense updates that improve regulatory certainty, streamlines permitting, and supports more efficient project delivery without expanding existing law. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you for your testimony. Do we have others that wish to express support? Please come forward. I'm seeing none. Oh, yes, we do. Please come on up. Good afternoon. Anna Buck on behalf of the California Association of Realtors and Support. Great. Thank you. Anybody else on the support side? All right. Seeing none. Any opposition witnesses? Any opposition testimony? Please come forward. Seeing none. We'll come back to the committee. Okay. All right. So we have a standing motion from Senator Archul at the appropriate time to be in a complete sentence here. The appropriate time? It's no joke anymore. We have a quorum. Oh. We do. We've been waiting on you, man. All right. Assemblyman, we're going to pause for a moment so we can actually vote on your bill. And we'll ask the assistant to call the roll. Senators Cortese? Here. Cortese here. Strickland? Here. Strickland here. Archuleta? Here. Archuleta here. Aregine? Blakespeare? Daly? Gonzalez? Here. Gonzalez here. Grayson? Medjavar? Richardson? Here. Richardson here. Sayyarta? Here. Cerato here. Valaduras? Here. Valaduras here. Wiener? All right. We have a quorum. We'll come back to the assembly member for a close. Thank you very much. Now is the appropriate time. It's a very simple bill that once an application is submitted, it goes through the full process and a determination is made. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. All right. Thank you. A motion by Archuleta. Roll call vote, please. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Adagin, Blakespeare, Daly, Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson, Menjivar, Richardson. Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayurto, Valladouros. Aye. Valladouros, aye. Wiener. All right. The vote is 6-0. At this time, we'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. I'll move the consent calendar. Consent calendar has been moved by Senator Archuleta. Roll call vote, please. to adopt the consent calendar, which consists of file items 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 21. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Araguin? Blakespeare? Daly? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson? Medjavar? Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Cerato? Valladouris? Aye. Valladouris, aye. Wiener? All right. Consent's also sitting at a 6-0 vote. We'll leave that open for absent members as well. We're going to go back to presentations at this time. I've said that twice in a row. We have Assemblymember Schultz here, AB 2560. I'm sorry. False alarm. Assemblymember Alvarez. Assemblymember Alvarez. You are next. profile order AB 2560. You're welcome to begin your presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senators, for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 2484, which would allow voters in San Diego to have the authority to decide the future of their public transit system. This bill would impact the ability of MTS, the Metropolitan Transit System, from being able to have a ballot measure in 2028. The bill clarifies that voters may propose and approve a local transactions and use tax of up to 0.5 percent dedicated to MTS for the initiative process. It also ensures that any voter approved MTS tax is excluded from the existing statutory cap on local sales taxes protecting local funding priorities that are not MTS related. MTS is It's not just a transit provider, like in many other regions, it is the backbone of our economy, of our workers, of our families. It serves approximately 3 million residents across 10 cities and unincorporated communities in San Diego County. In fiscal year 2025, MTS delivered over 81 million trips and has recovered more than 95% of its pre-pandemic ridership levels and it ranks 13th in the nation. Really proud that in my district specifically, MTS is a strong ridership market with almost 80% of the MTS ridership in the southern part of San Diego. But despite that success, like many other transit agencies, they are facing a structural deficit in the year 2030 and beyond, driven by rising operating costs, workforce needs, and limited local funding sources. So that's four years away, and we're trying to do some planning ahead of time and allowing them to bring forward again through a ballot initiative put on by the citizens the opportunity to vote on a potential increase and if we don do this now obviously there will be more repercussions to the system we're already seeing some for example fare increases having to happen in order to ensure that the system maintains stability we are seeing some significant rise in youth ridership that is good news for the future it has increased 71 percent youth ridership between 2022 and 2025 demonstrating that younger generations are choosing public transit and reinforcing the future of a system that can meet their needs again this aligns with the agency's long-term planning efforts and ensures that there's enough time to prepare for a potential 2028 ballot does not ask voters to say yes to anything in particular but does give them the the right to be asked through the initiative process. Today we have Mr. Ezra Chaban with Chaban's Strategies representing the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System, the MTS system, to provide additional testimony. Please proceed. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the committee staff for the thorough analysis and Assemblyman Alvarez for his leadership in authoring this important legislation. want to underscore that this is not abstract this is critical to the daily lives of those in the San Diego region MTS's service and without a new sustainable funding source the system would be forced to make some significant decisions which could include illuminating routes or frequencies which which would disproportionately impact those who need transit most. This bill does not, as the Assemblymember said and confirmed, does not impose a tax. It allows the voters to decide which other jurisdictions throughout the state have that authority. Under current law, the voters of San Diego MTS do not have the authority to bring that forward themselves, and we are looking for that same opportunity. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the committee room who wishes to offer a support position? This is a time for support positions. Please come on up the microphone. John McHale on behalf of the city of Chula Vista here in support. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Anybody else? All right. Opposition? Do we have anyone who wants to express opposition? Seeing no one come forward, come back to the dais. Anyone who wishes to comment or ask questions on the dais? see none we'll come back to you assembly member for your close thank you mr. chair mts plays a real critical role in the district that i represent as you all know i represent a border district at the san jacob border crossing which is the largest most transited border crossing in the world roughly 70 000 people cross by foot and many of them are seeking transit opportunities they get to work really early they start at three o'clock in the morning so the transit system is really important for our regional economy. And again, the highest ridership of our trolley system, which is our light rail system, runs and begins at the border in my district. And that's why this issue really matters to our, again, our regional economy, our employers, and the people of our community. For that reason, respectfully ask your aye vote in allowing the voters to make this decision in 2028. All right. Do we have a motion on this bill? Senator Archuleta beat you to it. Senator Richardson he a motion person today and we will call the roll now on the vote The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations Senators Cortese Aye Cortese aye Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Araguin? Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Daly? No. Daly, no. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson? Menjivar? Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Ciarto? Valladouris? Wiener? All right. We're at 5 to 2, but we'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you very much. Thanks for your testimony. Now we have Assemblymember Schultz. I'm patiently waiting. Appreciate your patience. AB 2560, file item 17, if you're counting. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I'm pleased to present AB 2560 today, which would codify the principles of the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure, or CAPTI, which I call it for short, that the California State Transportation Agency has already adopted. First, a little bit of background. In 2021, CalSTA first published the CAPTI principles to target the reduction of GHG, that's greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, while reaffirming commitments to fix-it-first economic prosperity, equity, and environmental justice. CAPTI sets 10 wide-ranging goals codified by this bill, including building an integrated rail and transit network, investing in bicycle, pedestrian, and zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, promoting projects that reduce vehicle miles traveled, strengthening our commitment to equity, and protecting natural working lands. Transportation, as we all know, remains California's largest greenhouse gas-emitting sector, accounting for approximately one-half of the state's greenhouse gas emissions. We've also witnessed the devastating impacts of administrative transitions at the federal level over the course of the last two years, once well-established programs and goals are now being dismantled. As California approaches a similar transition period in our very near future in our state's leadership, it is critical, it is essential, I would argue, to enshrine the values that we wish to see persevere, values including all of the goals that I just mentioned. With me today to speak in support of AB 2560 is Jeannie Ward-Waller with the Climate Plan, and at the appropriate time, I'll ask for your aye vote. Welcome back. Thank you. Good afternoon again, Chair and members. Jeanne Wardwaller representing the sponsor Climate Plan, and I want to thank the author for carrying the bill. Many organizations in the Climate Plan Coalition have been engaged in the development and implementation of CAPTI since its conception in 2019 and are deeply invested in codifying the goals in law. CAPTI established a new paradigm for transportation projects to reduce climate impacts while improving public health, safety, and equity. The 10 goals established a balanced approach to state investment and transportation programs. In response to CAPTI, we've seen significant shifts towards funding more transit, rail, and active transportation projects. These CAPTI-aligned projects will help to alleviate the affordability challenge for families by creating options to avoid driving and gas prices. We urge an aye vote on AB 2560. Thank you. All right, thank you. Do we have others in the committee room who wish to express the support position? I see them coming forward. Mark Fixovich on behalf of Streets for All and support. Thank you. Marissa Rodriguez with the Planning and Conservation League and also on behalf of CalBike Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, National Resources Defense Council, and Transform. Thank you. All right. Any other supporters? Seeing none, we'll ask for opposition. Does anyone wish to express opposition? Please come forward. Thank you Mr Chair and members Moira Topp here on behalf of the Orange County Transportation Authority in opposition Thank you Anyone else on the opposition side We come back to the dais Any comments or questions here Senator Archuleta, no motion? I no motion as well, but I'd like to comment on the fact that this is more of a safety-oriented bill that I think transportation is always looking for. I know some of the bills that I have had in the past in transportation always zero in on safety. And this bill does that, and I see that Labor has also removed any opposition. So I think it's a great bill in that right direction. So as I mentioned, I've moved the bill, and I think it's a good one. Thank you, Senator. All right, thank you. Others? I see no other comments or questions. We'll come back to the author for your close. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. All right. Thank you. Motion by Senator Archuleta. We'll call the roll at this time. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Adagane? Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Dally? No. Dally, no. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Grayson? Minjavar? Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Cigarto? Valadez? Wiener? Thank you, everyone. All right, your vote count's 5 to 2, but it's open for absent members. Thank you. All right, Assemblymember Papin, who's also been waiting quite a while, might want to hurry up and come up to the podium before your colleagues get here. Yes. Not that I was rooting or anything, but welcome to commence. Good advice. Whenever you like. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Pleasure to be with you all today to present AB 2595, which is a district bill for my county, San Mateo County, and its cities to adopt an ordinance prohibiting children under the age of 12 from riding e-bikes. I want to preface my remarks with this simple premise, and it is that this is not an all-or-nothing bill. We can absolutely still have e-bikes and keep things safe for kids. So e-bikes have grown increasingly popular across the state, particularly among young people and particularly in my district. So if I could describe for you just a few things about my district, it's tech heavy. There's money in my district and the topography of my district really lends itself to e-bikes. We have houses in the hills and so it's a great way for kids, e-bikes are a great way for kids to come down from the hills, do their activities and get back home without, say, being driven in a minivan. So there really is a great need for them. But unfortunately, these devices of convenience and mobility have also raised serious safety concerns. And in my district, we've had two deaths. So I've got a lot of outcry from my district. They've been devastated by these losses. and they've asked repeatedly for us to see if we could not get a pilot study on limiting the age-based regulations for riding e-bikes, as we have done before in the counties of Marin and in San Diego. So that's why I promulgated 2595. This issue isn't unique to California. I just would note Alaska has a 14-year minimum wage for electric bikes. Minnesota has a 15-year minimum wage. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C. each have a 16-year minimum wage. And when states didn't take action, we've seen cities do it. So Highland Park, Illinois, established a minimum age of 16 for all classes of e-bikes. Colleyville, Texas. restricts riders under the age of 10 to class 1 and 2 e-bikes, and Phoenix, Arizona has adopted a 16-year age requirement for all e-bikes. Here in California, we've seen, as I mentioned, in Marin and in San Diego, similar e-bike programs. So the residents of San Mateo County are asking for the same authority and tools that have been provided to both San Diego and Marin counties. It doesn't mandate that any jurisdiction within the county actually adopt an ordinance. Instead, it simply gives cities and the county the option to establish a reasonable age restriction if they determine it's necessary to create a safer environment for drivers, pedestrians, and e-bike riders alike. Before I turn to my witnesses, I do want to say that we accept the committee's amendments. Just wanted to get that administrative matter out there. So without further ado, I have San Carlos mayor from one of the cities in my district, Pranita Venkatesh, and Dr. Timothy Browder, who is chief of trauma at UCSF Hospital, whom you heard from on an earlier e-bike bill. That's right. Thank you. And you can proceed in whichever order you like. You'll have a couple of minutes each. Thank you. Good afternoon Chair and members. My name is Preenita Venkatesh and I am the Mayor of San Carlos. I'm here on behalf of my community and the City of San Carlos in strong support for AB 2595. In San Carlos and across San Mateo County, we have seen a dramatic surge in e-bike usage. While we support green transit, we cannot ignore the safety crisis it has created in our children. The statistics are alarming. E-bike related ER visits have tripled, aged 10 to 17, more than tripled since 2019. Unlike traditional bikes, e-bikes are motorized and can reach speeds up to 20 miles per hour. Yet, for Class 1 and 2 e-bikes, there are certainly no age minimum and no safety training required by state. In our city, we have seen children weaving through traffic, riding on sidewalks, without a basic understanding of the rules of the road. This isn't just an injustice, it's a public health risk. AB 2595 provides San Mateo County with the same protective tools already granted in Marin and San Diego counties. It authorizes us to adopt local ordinances, setting a minimum age of 12 for these motorized devices. This bill is not a ban, it is a pilot program designed to protect our youngest and most vulnerable children. Given local flexibility to manage our specific street safety needs, in San Carlos we have tried education, we have made safety videos and updated our master plans, but education without authority to elaborate is not enough. We need the tools to keep our kids safe. I respectfully urge you to vote A for AB 2595. Thank you. Next witness, please. Good afternoon again, Chair and members of the committee. For the record, my name is Dr. Timothy Browder, Professor of Surgery at UCSF and Trauma Medical Director at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. I return before you today in strong support of Assemblymember Papen and AB 2595. As I shared earlier our trauma center is facing a surge in e casualties treating over 100 related injuries in a single year with the majority requiring hospital admission or intensive care Because ZSFGH receives major trauma patients from the northern half of San Mateo County we are acutely aware of the devastating local impact Many of you are likely familiar with the highly publicized tragic fatalities of young people in San Mateo County that were directly linked to these devices. The safety standards regarding youth operation are clear. The Consumer Product Safety Commission explicitly recommends that children under the age of 12 should not operate any device that travels more than 10 miles per hour. This critical safety threshold encompasses all three classes of legal e-bikes. Developmentally, young children simply do not possess the motor reflexes, visual tracking, or situational awareness required to safely navigate traffic at these elevated speeds. We know that targeted legislation works. When a similar measure was adopted in San Diego in 2024, it was highly effective. That action not only established necessary boundaries, but also raised critical public awareness and catalyzed strong collaborative safety initiatives across the media, local law enforcement, and legislators. AB 2595 incorporates these vital consumer product safety commission recommendations and gives San Mateo County the necessary tools to prevent further tragedies before they happen. Having seen the lifelong physical toll these preventable accidents take on our youth, I respectfully urge an aye vote on AB 2595. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Support witnesses? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson, again, on behalf of the San Mateo City County Association of Governments, our members include all 20 cities in the county as well as the county of San Mateo. Thank you. Oh, sorry, in strong support. Angela Hill with the California Medical Association in support. Ethan Nagler on behalf of the cities of Foster City, Redwood City, San Mateo, and the town of Hillsboro in support. Jeannie Ward-Waller on behalf of People for Bikes, where support if amended. We think a countywide approach would be better than jurisdiction by jurisdiction on this one. Thank you. Okay. Opposition, please. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee. Mark Fokcich on behalf of Streets for All. I'm just going to make some brief comments from the mic stand here. We have concerns about expanding the pilot program that has been done in Marin and San Diego, seeing that there's been no data that has come out from those. I have yet to see the data that's come out from those, expanding it to further places. Moreover, the thing that we fundamentally believe is that it's a parental decision in terms of what is appropriate to allow for a child to be riding. I think there is many circumstances where it's not appropriate for a child, a 12-year-old child, to be riding an e-bike. But there's also circumstances where it is, and I think that should be a parental decision. And lastly, I think the point we want to raise is that the things that we know keep children safe are protected bike facilities, wearing helmets, ending this Emoto problem where parents are buying inappropriate devices for their non-legal devices for their children, and also ending distracted driving and speeding drivers and also bike riders themselves. And so our worry is that this policy and this pilot doesn't solve that and adds confusion to the roadway of different rules in different places. Thank you. Excuse me, just a question for you. I'll treat you as the opposition witness here. isn't it possible that the pilot itself will shed light on some of what you concerned about whether or not parents rebel in this jurisdiction and you know come forward and ask for changes or whether or not the study itself perhaps surfaces a different age cutoff or some other kind of adjustment that should be made. I'm just wondering how it might inform us, you know, in terms of statewide decision making as we go forward. And if not this way, how would you do it? It's a great question. You know, we live in an attention economy that we're constantly being drained of in terms of our phones and social media, you know, being told warning labels of this and that. And as parents, I think I'm not a parent, but as parents, everyone's trying to do their best. And I think if there's one message I would love the government to scream from the rooftops is buy your children legal e-bikes of the three class system. Don't buy your kids an e-motorcycle that is being falsely labeled to you. And what I worry is that this is mixing the message and that this is not going to be the most important message that our parents need around electric two-wheel bicycle-shaped devices, as Chair Wilson said earlier. That would be my response to you, Chair Kortesi. It's a good response. I have to say I still find myself leaning, given where we are, in terms of bills that haven't even been enacted yet to screen from the rooftops what's okay and what's not okay and what classifications are what. And all the stuff that's starting to come forward, I don't blame you or anyone else for looking at all that and saying, hey, we're right on the precipice of, you know, some framework here, which should cause us not to have the need for a strict cutoff on age. but the other side of my brain is telling me we don't have that yet and a pilot may very well be appropriate and you're welcome to respond to this. Let's just frame this as a question. Again, during a period of time when we still have not only frameworks hopefully waiting to be enacted, we don't even know if we're getting signatures on these things yet or whether they'll pass through both houses, But while we're waiting, what should we do, I think, is really this fundamental question that's kicking around in my head. And I don't say that I have the answer, but this seems like an attempt to do something to put some effort. By the way, my recommendation on this bill was let the committee decide, you know, in that recommendation. But I'm asking these questions in good faith, not as the leading questions they sound like. I don't have the answer. Obviously, the author will have an opportunity to respond as well. I don't fault the author whatsoever for running with this approach or doing anything for her district, which I think is experiencing a ton of growing pains on the roadway when it comes to e-bikes and e-motorcycles that are rapidly expanding across the state of California, especially in first and foremost in affluent areas. I think what I would say is that I would love to see even just some of the most basic rudimentary data coming out of Marin and San Diego and even some even like piloting more data that we can get one of the one of the just to just to answer you earnestly like one of the bills that I wanted to try to get authored this year that it just didn't work this is a tough budget year and hospitals couldn't do it is asking every single person that comes into a hospital what is the brand of device that you were writing at some point and we could figure out what is the real problem? What is the problem device? Were you writing it at night Understanding just even a month of data could get us all of those answers to those questions And I think what I just worry about is it premature to be acting on policy But I respect your opinion That too is a great answer and also is an answer I think some of us have had on any number of issues where we just can get data especially from private sector partners But I appreciate your response. Sorry to dominate the conversation at the front end of the committee discussion. Let me clarify. I do not want to create shock over here with the author. The official committee position on this is support of this committee. Thank you. I'm looking at my staff and he's having a heart attack. Trying to indicate to the witness that I'm open to his. Okay. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I'm open to his responses. I appreciate that. If I may respond. Well, first of all, I want to be very. We still have some discussion up here. Absolutely. No, I just want to move the bill. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. All right. We'll come back to you. We'll come back to you all. Senator Richardson? We're going to let the vice... Can you do it in your close? Absolutely. Okay, thank you. Senator Richardson? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't say repeat all of my comments again, but I do want to say for the record, clearly this is an important issue to all of us because we've seen now three bills in one hearing, all related in some aspect to these what seems to be bicycle-looking vehicles. But I can completely concur with your concerns in your district. It's a concern in my district. One, I concur. I don't believe that a lot of parents are aware, in fact, of what they're actually purchasing for their children, the ability that these bicycle-looking vehicles convey. and number two, I really don't believe they're bicycles given the speed of how they're utilizing them and what I see in my community. So thank you for bringing it forward. Okay, now I'm going to move in this direction. Senator Archuleta was first. We'll just go right down the line. Yeah, would you, for educational purposes, I don't know what a difference is between class one or class two. I wonder if anyone can answer that. because it obviously pertains to that 12-year-old child. I'm happy to answer if that's helpful. Is it helpful? Go for it. Okay. I don't care, but you go for it. Every legal electric bicycle must be capped at 750 watts, so that's 1, 2, and 3. A class 1 and class 2 can both go 20 miles per hour max, but a class 2 can do so with a throttle. so you can press your thumb down and throttle your way up to 20 miles per hour without pedaling whatsoever. That's what distinguishes a Class 2 from a Class 1. They both go 20, but the Class 2 has a throttle. If I may, one of the things that has to be remembered in all of this is parents may be buying a Class 1 and a Class 2 e-bike, but they can be very easily altered by way of just an app on your phone. So and they will while there's still 750 watts, they're actually sold and it will say peak power is 2300 watts. And that is a motor that is capable of going much, much faster, even though the parent might have thought they bought a class one e-bike. So I just want to when we talk about these things, we say, geez, if a parent would just buy the e-bike and not the e-moto, everyone's getting misled and it's causing accidents. I can see having that young child under 12 never to drive or ride a bike with that type of speed. But the parent, once discovered, by an officer and cited. I think the parent needs to be brought in. Do we have that in your future? I know there are some movements afoot. In the East Bay, there was an accident where they did turn to the parents for liability. So we'll see. That's not this bill, maybe for another day. I know one of my witnesses can say something, but there was no question pending, so I want to be careful. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Gonzalez. Yeah, thank you. I'm sorry. I'm just going to get this gets really personal for me because my nephew actually passed away last year for this very issue. And I'm trying to hold it together. But this is even more reason why we need these types of legislation. Because you should never have to go to a funeral of a 14 year old, let me tell you. And I'm grateful for the work that Senator Blakespear and you have done. I do worry, though, you know, with the parental issues, because I think my in-laws didn't realize that it was an Emoto. And I think there is a lot of education that we have to do for parents to ensure that they know exactly, I think to Mark's point, that they know exactly what they're purchasing. I also to his point to wonder because there's all these pilot programs happening that have been very successful and I'm very supportive of your bill. But how do you stitch them together to be able to then you know when kids get out of San Mateo County and they're in L.A. County that doesn't have a pilot program or somewhere else. How do they know the rules and I know this is all being built and all of that but I just want to say thank you. this is important and I think I'm appreciative of your witnesses for stating the actual facts that these kids are very vulnerable and anything we can do to sort of age gate to some extent not giving kids less tools and saying you cannot ever ride these e-bikes or not e-motors but e-bikes what you're doing I think is great but I just worry about those two different issues. Thank you, Senator. And I'm so sorry for your loss. And I'm sorry for getting emotional. Fair enough. Senator Blakesburg. Yes, thank you. I appreciate this bill, and I just want to give support to the idea that kids under age 12, so that would be kids who are in 6th grade, mostly in 6th grade or less, that them being on a vehicle that goes 20 miles an hour without having any training or any type of direction is really, I think, is unsafe. And so there are kids and families that are going to be teaching kids how to be responsible, but there are also a lot of others who aren't. And even it's just the rules of the road, flying across all lanes of traffic to make a left turn or having multiple kids on a bicycle at once. so I you know and and you know mark did a great job of describing the the three types of bicycles the third type is the one that goes up to 28 miles an hour which is already prohibited for those under age 16 so this is in effect of the city could choose to have a ban on anyone under age 12 from riding an e-bike which I think is a good thing and even though I'm we're all in the process of figuring out where is the right place to put these lines. I recently had an e webinar that had almost 300 people participate and we had a council member from Carlsbad who they have implemented this ban and one of the things that came through for me from participating in the e webinar is that the combination of law enforcement schools and city those three working together are how you actually create a community that has an effective e approach because, and I noticed this in the bill, it's prohibited. A city could say that kids under 12 can't ride e-bikes, but the penalty is first a warning, then $25, and then basically having to go to a course, an electric bicycle safety and training program, unless things have changed from what is printed in here. And so I think that the quality of the course and the ease to register for it, that it's not full, that it's available, like some of the just realities of taking a course, and to have the course available and connected through the school so information is distributed that way. Like, you know, this, if somebody happens to be stopped and get three times, you know, this would be on the third time. I think, you know, basically driving toward having more education is really important. And then there are, of course, some bad actors. Like in Orange County, the district attorney, Spitzer, he has charged a parent with, I think it's reckless endangerment. I mean, somebody was hit and killed. And so and and there were other examples of the bicycles being confiscated because the parent was told and warned this kid cannot have this bicycle. And the parent said, oh, don't worry about it. We were thinking about selling it and then actually didn't sell it and let the kid ride it again. And then there was an accident. So, you know, having that law enforcement involvement, as well as the schools involved with the courses and the training and the city supporting it with their ordinances. To me, that's the trifecta of having an effective way to create e-bike usage that's safe, but also prohibiting it in areas and places where it's not as safe. So I do really appreciate this bill, along with multiple bills that was mentioned that we've seen in this committee, and I have a bill on this that's also over on the Assembly side. But I think we are driving toward creating a framework that I think will be durable in California. And I do also appreciate that you're setting it at 12 and not 16 because for our family, we're a five e-bike family, as I mentioned, with my 80-year-old mom having an e-bike that she rides to her workout every week. And our kids really rode their bicycles, particularly our daughter, from that seventh grade age, so just at 12 to 16. And then when there was the ability to have a car, she like almost never rides her e-bike again, except for if it's really trafficky and crowded and she wants to get down to somewhere fun quickly and then she'll jump on her e-bike. And she's now 18. So I think I am so grateful we made it through those years with the tragedies that happened for other families. And I recognize how just the variables of life can result in those types of tragedies. But it is important that we set up the framework here in the state of California for success and safety most predominantly. And so I'm grateful for the testimony today from both of you and to the author, and I'll be supporting it today. Thank you, Senator. All right. Thank you. I think we covered everyone on the dais. Assemblymember if there a technical question that you want the witness to answer we will go there because that your right to call upon them i didn pick up on that earlier but otherwise you can cover whatever you want to cover now in your clothes uh i would like to hear from the witness if that's okay with you uh mr chair okay thank you i just want to speak to um the two issues that were mentioned by the opposition. So the first one was about the San Diego and data. That passed in 2024, and the city ordinances didn't go into effect until 2026. So many of those cities have just begun their programs. March, I think, I forget the exact cities, but March was one of them, and May was the other one, so there's not going to be any data yet. But one of my roles is that I represent the American called is the College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma for Region 9, which is all of California, Arizona, Hawaii, and Nevada. And so I'm in close contact with advocacy efforts in all of those states, so particularly California, all of California. And I hear and I know what's going on in San Diego, and they are already feeling the changes positively from that being implemented there. So just speaking to the data thing, the data is not going to come for a while because it's just starting. Understood. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank the committee for the robust discussion and the support along the way. You know, I know e-bike folks have some, you know, kind of innate objections to having the e-bikes restricted, but I think kids are dying, kids are getting hurt, And I think that this is a very reasonable approach and a tailored protection until we do get the data from the pilots and get a statewide ordinance in effect, or a statewide bill. So I thank you very much, and I respectfully request an aye vote. All right. Thank you. We have a motion by Archuleta. No surprise there. Strickland. There it is a surprise. I wonder I didn't get that right. No, in all seriousness, we appreciate his motion, and that allows us to call the question, so we'll call it one call. The motion is due passed. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Adagin? Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Daly? Aye. Daly, aye. Gonzalez? Grayson? Menjavar? Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarto? Valadares? Wiener? All right, we're at 6-0, and the roll's open, and I'd really be remiss. I know she stepped out, but if I didn't acknowledge our colleague's powerful testimony, Senator Gonzalez, in her own right. Thank you all for being here. Do you want to go through the notes? Yeah, I'm going to hand the gavel over to the vice chair for a few minutes because he could really speed things up, which he's known to do. And I will be back in a few minutes and be ready to take over again. I don't see any authors in the audience, so we'll just go through votes that we already... We're going to go through. I'll stay here. Go ahead and call through this. Okay so we going to go through all the bills that we heard members and so we going to start with I believe file item 2 AB 1588 Do I have a motion Motion Moved by Archuleta Let the clerk call the roll The motion is due pass to the Committee on Public Safety. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Adeguin? Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Dally? Aye. Dally, aye. Gonzalez? Grayson? Mendovar? Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Ciarto? Valadez? Wiener? That's 6-0. It remains on call. Next members, file item number 4, AB 1608 by Wilson. Do I have a motion? Motion. Motion by Archuleta. Clerk, call the roll. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Judiciary. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Added gain. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Daly? No. Daly, no. Gonzalez? Grayson? Menjivar, Richardson. Aye. Richardson, aye. Ciarto, Valadez, Wiener. That's 4-2. Remains on call. Next members, file item number 5, AB 2346. Motion by Archuleta. Clerk, call the roll. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Judiciary. Senators Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland. Aye. Strickland, aye. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Adagin. Blakespeare. Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Daly. Aye. Daly, aye. Gonzales, Grayson, Mungavor, Richardson. Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarto, Valadez, Wiener. Sigso, that remains on call. Next members, we heard file item number 9, AB 1919. Archuleta moves the bill. Clerk, call the roll. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriation. Senators Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland. No. Strickland, no. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Adagin. Blakespeare. Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Daly. No. Daly, no. Gonzalez, Grayson, Mangevar, Richardson. Aye. Richardson, aye. Ciarto, Valadez, Wiener. That bill is 4-2. Remains on call. Next members, file item number 10, AB 2012 by Hoover. Moved by Archuleta. Aye. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland. Aye. Strickland, aye. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Adagane. Blakespeare. Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Daly. Aye. Dally, aye. Gonzalez, Grayson, Mungovar, Richardson. Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarto, Valdarius, Wiener. The bill 6-0 remains on call. Next members, file number 12, AB 2015 by Wicks. Moved by Archuleta. Clerk, call the roll. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland. No. Strickland, no. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Adagane, Blakespeare. Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Dally. No. Dally, no. Gonzales, Grayson, Mandivar, Richardson Aye Richardson, aye Sigarto, Valadez, Wiener The bill is 4-2, remains on call Next members, file number 19 AB 2717 Moved by Archuleta The motion is due passed As the committee on appropriation Serves Cortese Aye Cortese, aye Strickland Aye Strickland, aye Archuleta Aye Archuleta, aye Adeguin Blakespeare Aye Blakespeare, aye Daly Aye Daly, aye Gonzales Grayson Menjivar Grayson, aye Menjivar Richardson Aye Richardson, aye Sayarto Valdez Wiener That bill is 7-0 Remains on call Members If we can have people call We still need to hear File item number 20 File item number 22 And file item number 7 So please call Authors. So, members, we're going to call up file item number 19, AB 2717. Clerk, call the roll. Senators, Ida Gein. Blake Spear? No. Blake Spear, Ida, no. Gonzalez Menchivar Ciarato Valdeiros Wiener What? Grayson Grayson I So that's 6-1 So that bill 6-1 remains on call Thanks members Thank you. Thank you. 11, 14, 15, and 21. Call the roll. The motion to adopt the consent calendar, the current vote is 6-0. Senators are at a game. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Dally? Aye. Dally, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjavar? Sayarto? Wiener? That's 9-0. Remains on call. Next, file item number 2, AB 1588. Clerk, call the roll. Motion is due passed with the Committee on Public Safety. The current vote is 6-0. Senators Aragin, Gonzalez, Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjivar, Sayarto, Valadez, Wiener. 7-0 remains on call. Next up is file line number 4, AB 1608 by Wilson. Motion is due passed with the Committee on Judiciary. The current vote is 4-2. With the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no, Senators Aragin, Gonzalez, Grayson. Aye. That's 5-2, remains on call. Next up is file number 5, AB 2346 by Wilson. The motion is due passed with Committee on Judiciary, the current vote is 6-0. Senators Adeguin Gonzalez Grayson Aye Grayson aye Menjivar Ciarato Valadez Wiener That 7 members Remains on call Next up is File Item No 9 AB 1919 The motion is due pass with the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 4-2, with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Adeguin, Gonzalez, Grayson? Aye. Grayson? Number 9? Yes. Not voting. Grayson, Menjivar, Sayarto, Valadarius, Wiener? That bill is 4-2, remains on call. Next up, file item number 10, AB 2012 by Hoover. The motion is due pass with the Committee on Appropriation. Senators Ida Gein, Gonzalez, Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjivar. Teyarto. Valadaris. Wiener. File item number 12, AB 2012. item 10. We'll come back. We'll come back. Next up, members, file number 12, AB 2015 by WICs. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 4 to 2 with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Aragon, Gonzalez, Gonzalez, I, Grayson, Grayson, I, Menjivar, Ciarato, Valadez, Wiener, I, Wiener, I, 7-2 remains on call. The next up is AB 2024 by Wynn. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 6-0. Senators Adeguin, Blakespear, Daly, Grayson, I. Menjivar, Sayarto, Wiener, I. That's 8-0 remains on call. Next up, members, file I am number 16, AB 2484 The motion is due pass, it can be on appropriations The current vote is 5-2, with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no Senators Adegeen, Grayson, Menjivar, Cerato, Valadez, Wiener Aye Wiener, aye Red Bill is 8-2, remains on call Oh, I'm sorry. The bill is 6-2. Remains on call. File number 17, AB 2560. Clerk, call the roll. Motion is do passed. The committee on appropriations. The current vote is 5-2. With the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators, Ida Gain. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjavar? Sayarto? Valadaris? Wiener? Yes. Aye. Wiener, aye. The bill 7-2 remains on call. Let's just go through two more. File number 18, AB 2595 by Papen. The motion is due passed. The current vote is 6-0. Senators Adeguín, González? Aye. González, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjivar? Ciarto? Valadaris? Wiener? The bill is 8-0, remains on call. The next one is 519 AB 2717. Clerk, call the roll. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 6-1, with Senators Cortese and Senators Strickland voting aye. Senators Aragon, Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Menjivar? Cerato? Valadez Wiener Aye Wiener aye Clerk, I'll open up the consent rule really quick one more time. And the consent is filing 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 21. The current vote is 9-0. Senators Adagin, Menjivar, Ciaro, Wiener? Menjivar is aye. Menjivar, aye. Ciaro, Wiener? Consent. It's consent. 11-0. That remains on call. Members, we do have an author. Thank you for coming in. Members, it's file item number 20, AB 2761. By the way, this is a port support bill. Just letting you know. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair,

Great presentation. Any witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, Archuleto will move the bill. Clerk, call the roll. The motion is due pass at the Committee on Public Safety. Seres Cortese Strickland Strickland aye Archuleta Archuleta aye Adagine Blakespeare Dally Dally aye Gonzalez Aye Gonzalez aye Grayson Aye Grayson aye Menjivar Aye Menjivar aye Richardson Aye Richardson aye Sayarto Valadez Wiener Aye Wiener aye The bill is 8-0, remains on call. Thank you for being here.

Thank you. So we still have file item number 7 and 22 to present. Thank you MR PRICE Here I sorry Members we on file item number 22 ACR 162 by Hadwick

for the North State with them the best way to describe Doug is simple he was a good man he loved people he loved his district and he never forgot who he was working for members I would love to be able to honor the late congressman LaMalfa for this lifetime of service to our North State with a memorial highway thank you and I respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you Witnesses, support. Support or oppose? Seeing none, come back to the committee. Bill's been moved. Would you like to close? I just thank you for hearing this, and I took this over for James Gallagher. Thank you. I'm happy to hopefully have the aye vote. Thank you. Clerk, call the roll, please. The motion is to be adopted, but first referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, I. Archuleta? I. Archuleta, I. Adagin? Blake Spear? Dali? Dali. Aye. Gonzalez. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjivar. Richardson. Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarto. Valderas. Aye. Valderas, aye. Wiener. The bill 7-0 remains on call. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. We appreciate your help again, once again, with this committee. We are waiting for one more author, one more bill, and we will be ready to adjourn once we get through it. Okay. In the meantime, we'll ask the assistant. to lift the call. Thank you. File item 2, AB 1588 by Assemblymember Stephanie. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Public Safety. The current vote is 7-0. Senators Adeguín. González. González, aye. Menjivar. Menjivar, aye. Ciarto. Valadariz. Valadariz, aye. Wiener. Wiener, aye. 11-0 is on call. File item 4, AB 1608 by Assemblymember Wilson. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Judiciary. The current vote is 5-2 with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Adagin? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Ciarto? Valadaris? No. Valadaris, no. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 8-3. It will remain open. File item 5, AB 2346 by Assemblymember Wilson. The motion is due to pass. The committee on judiciary. The vote is 7-0. Senators Aragon. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Menjivar. Aye. Menjivar, aye. Ciarto. Valadaris. Aye. Valadaris, aye. Wiener. 10-0. It will remain open. File Item 9, AB 1919 by Assemblymember Pellerin. The motion is due to pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 4-2. With the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Aida Gein, Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Ciarto? Valderas? I'm sorry, what item number is this? Number 1919. Pellerin 1919. File Item 9. Valadez, no. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 7-3. That will remain open. File item 10, AB 2012, by Assemblymember Hoover. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 7-0. Senators Araguin. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Ciarto? Valadaris? Aye. Valadaris, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. 11-0 and open. File Item 12 AB 2015 Bison Member Wicks The motion is due to pass with the Committee on Appropriations The current vote is 7 with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no Senators Adegine Menjivar Sayarto Valaduras Menjivar aye Valaduras 8-2 and open. Aye. Do you have a question, Senator? File item 13, AB 2024, Vice President-Member Nguyen. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 8-0. Senators Adegine, Blakespeare, Dali. Aye. Dali, aye. Menjivar. Aye. Menjivar, aye. Sayarto. 10-0. Remains open. File item 16, AB 2484 by Assemblymember Alvarez. The motion is due to pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 6-2, with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Adagin, Grayson, Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Ciarto, Valadaris? No. Valadaris, no. 7-3. Rolls open. File Item 17, AB 2560 by Assemblymember Schultz. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 7-2 with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Adagin? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Ciarto? Valaduras? No. Valaduras, no. 8-3. It's open. File Item 18, AB 2595 by Assemblymember Papin. The motion is due passed. The current vote is 8-0. Senators Adegine, Menjivar, Ciaro, Valadaris, Valadaris, aye. Weiner, 9-0. The ROLL IS OPEN. FILE ITEM 19 AB 2717 BISALMEMBER COLOSA. THE MOTION IS DUE PASSED WITH COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS. THE CURRENT VOTE IS 8-1. CENTERS ARAGIN. MENJIVOR. MENJIVOR. I. CIARTO. VALADARIS. I. VALADARIS. I. 10-1 ROLL IS OPEN. FILE ITEM 20 AB 2761 BISALMEMBER PICHE NORTH. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Public Safety. The current motion is, no, the current vote is 8-0. Senators Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Adeguin? Blake Spear? Cierto? Valideris? Valideris, aye. All right, we're at 10-0 and that's open. File the item 22, ACR 162, Vice-Number Hadwick. The motion is to be adopted, but first we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 7-0. Center is Adagine, Blakespeare, Gonzales, Menjivar, Sayarto, Wiener. 7-0. It remains open. All right, so we're going to take up our last bill on the agenda to AB 1837. Author is Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez. The presenter will be Senator Wehner Thank you Thank you Mr Chairman I presenting AB 1837 on behalf of Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez This bill will extend the authority for transit agencies to use readily available camera technology to discourage illegal parking in transit-only lanes and transit stops where parking is already prohibited under existing law. The bill does not create any new parking violations and includes extremely important privacy, data collection, data retention, and data sharing standards for agencies to use this program. Additionally, existing law ensures specific protocols are in place to assist low-income violators, such as payment plans, waiver of payment, and community service, before an agency may undertake a program. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. All right. Witnesses, you may proceed in whatever order you wish. A couple minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of the California Transit Association. We are one of the sponsors of the bill. Just want to thank your committee staff for working with us to clarify a few things. Also, shout out to former Chair Senator Gonzalez, who worked on this with us in 2021 extensively to put a lot of those protections in place on privacy, on data sharing, et cetera. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Michael Pintel here for Shaw Yoder and Tui Schmalzer and Lang on behalf of a number of clients, including the City of Santa Monica, Monterey-Solinas Transit, Sunline Transit Agency, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, Sam Transit California, Cities Transportation Initiative, and the City and County of San Francisco. All in support. Thank you.

No one's coming forward We'll come back to the committee Any committee? We have a motion by Senator Archuleta Anything else? Hearing none We'll come back to the author You can close He's requesting an aye vote We will Call the roll On Archuleta's motion The motion is due pass to the committee On privacy, digital technologies, and consumer Protection, Senator Cortese Aye Cortese, aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Adagin? Blake Spear? Daly? No. Daly, no. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Grayson? Grayson, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Cioto? Valadaris? No. Valadaris, no. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. Okay, we're at 7 to 3, and the roll's open. Thank you. Thank you who are tied up in one of our other committees. Stand by. We're going to go ahead and let the call again and get back to roll call votes to allow any members who are here to keep moving. Assistant? File item 7, AB 1837, by Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez. The current vote is 7 to 3. Senator Adagin, Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Sayarto? All right. We're at 8 to 3. Rolls open. File item 13, AB 2024, by Assemblymember Nguyen. The current vote is 10-0. Senators Adegeen, Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Ciarto? 11-0, rolls open. File item 20, AB 2761, by Assemblymember Petrie-Norris. The current vote is 10-0. Senators Adegeen, Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Ciarto? 11-0, rolls open. File item 22, ACR 162 by Assemblymember Hadwick. The current vote is 7-0. Senator's Adegeen. Blakespear? Aye. Blakespear, aye. CR 2? 8-0, rolls open. Roll set. Thank you. We're going to probably be recessed just for another couple minutes until the next member gets here. All right, we're going to open up the roll again. It is open, but we're going to call the roll. Is he on his way? Oh, wonderful. All right. Thank you. All right, assistant. The consent calendar consists of file items 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 15, 21. The crime vote is 11-0. Senators Adagin? Aye. Adagin, aye. Sayurto? Aye. Sayurto, aye. 13-0. The bill is out. File Item 2, AB 1588 by Assemblymember Stephanie. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Public Safety. The current vote is 11-0. Senators Adagin? Aye. Adagin, aye. Ciarato? Aye. Ciarato, aye. 13-0. The bill is out. File Item 4, AB 1608 by Assemblymember Wilson. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Judiciary. The current vote is 8-3 with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Adagin? Aye. Aragene aye. Sayarto? No. Sayarto no. 9-4. It bills out. File item 5, AB 2346, by Assemblymember Wilson. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Judiciary. The current vote is 10-0. Senators Aragene? Aye. Aragene aye. Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto aye. 12-0. It bills out. File item 7, AB 1837, by Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protections. the current vote is 8 to 3 with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no senator is arogin aye arogin aye so you are No. C.R. 2, no. 9-4, bills out. File Item 9, AB 1919, by Assemblymember Pellerin. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 73. With the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators, add a gain. Aye. Add a gain, aye. C.R. 2? No. C.R. 2, no. 8-4, bills out. File Item 10, AB 2012, by Assemblymember Hoover. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 11-0. Senators, add a gain. Aye. Aragene, aye. Cerato? Aye. Cerato, aye. 13-0. Bills out. File item 12, AB 2015. Vice-Number Wicks, the motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 8-2. With the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Aragene? Aye. Aragene, aye. Cerato? No. Cerato, no. 9-3. Bills out. File item 13, AB 2024. Vice-Number Wynn, the motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 11-0. Senators Aragain? Aye. Aragain, aye. Cerato? Aye. Cerato, aye. 12-0. The bill's out. 13-0. 13-0. The bill's out. File Item 16, AB 2484, by Assemblymember Alvarez. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 73, with the chair voting aye, and the vice chair voting no. Senators Aragain? Aye. Aragain, aye. Cerato? No. Cerato, no. 8-4. Bill's out. File Item 17, AB 2560, by Assemblymember Schultz, the motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations The current vote is A to 3 with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no Senators Adagin Aye Adagin aye Cerato No Cerato no 9 9-4. The bill's out. File item 18, AB 2595 by Summer Pappen. The motion is due, passed. The current vote is 9-0. Senators, Adagin? Aye. Adagin, aye. Cerato? Not voting. 10-0. The bill's out. File Item 19, AB 2717. By Senator Colosan, the motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 10 to 1. Senators Adeguene? Aye. Adeguene, aye. Cerato? Aye. Cerato, aye. 12-1. Bills out. File Item 20, AB 2761. By Senator Petrie-Norris, the motion is due passed to the Committee on Public Safety. The current vote is 11-0. Senators Adeguene? Aye. Adeguene, aye. Cerato? Aye. Cerato, aye. 13-0. Bill's out. File item 22, ACR 162 by Assemblymember Hadwick. The motion is to be adopted, but first referred to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 8-0. Senators Adeguene? Aye. Adeguene, aye. Cerato? Aye. Cerato, aye. 10-0. Bill's out. All right. That concludes all the bills on hearing today. the Senate Transportation Committee is hereby adjourned. Thank you all.