Senate Transportation Committee

good afternoon mr. chair and committee members thank you for today as former mayor of Linwood I am honored to present a B 1338 and grateful to the committee and committee staff for the thoughtful engagement so thank you so much for that a between 1338 it's a district bill that would resolve a unique land utilization challenge in the city of Linwood. This bill would allow the city to transfer a public purpose covenant from the city's Imperial Highway property to an adjacent city-owned parcel, allowing for mixed-use development and includes affordable housing. Due to a unique set of challenges, including proximity to the 105 freeway, the property contamination history has made it difficult to develop the land holding the covenant for public purposes. AB 1338 offers a solution that would allow the city to transfer the continent to an adjacent property more suitable for affordable housing development. Testifying in support, I would like to introduce Linwood City Manager Suja Lowenthal. We also have Mr. John Lamb, Linwood's Assistant City Attorney, available for any technical questions.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm Dr. Suja Lowenthal, and I am the City Manager of the City of Linwood here in strong support of AB 1338. Linwood is a fully built-out city. We do not have vacant fields or open land waiting to be developed. Every city-owned parcel we have is precious, and one of them has sat vacant and blighted for nearly a decade because of a deed restriction we cannot resolve on our own. In 2016, Caltrans transferred this property to Linwood with a public purpose covenant attached. Since then, the city has done everything possible to utilize the land, including remediating decades of contamination and complying with Surplus Land Act. After years of obstacles, AB 1338 provides us with the solution we've been looking for. Moving the covenant to an adjoining city-owned parcel allows us to preserve public purpose while freeing the site for 55 units of affordable housing. The city thanks Assemblymember Salace for his strong advocacy. AB 1338 will allow the city and the state to work as partners to expand housing and economic development opportunities. Our region needs this housing, our families are waiting for it, and we urge the legislature to help us clear the final path I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1338 Thank you for being here Technical questions yes Any other support in the room

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. As you and I share local government experience, we know the importance of having these local issues resolved. I'm excited that the City of Linwood my former Council that I served on will address some retail space affordable housing and a better place for our community to enjoy for many years to come So I respectfully ask for an aye vote and as soon as we get a quorum I'll be happy to move your item. Thank you. Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you for being here. Thank you

or Harbidian. Thank you for being here. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Appreciate it. And first, I just want to thank the committee for all their work on this bill. SB 959 by Senator Portantino in 2022 laid out a process for nonprofit tenants in properties owned by Caltrans in the former 710 corridor in Pasadena to purchase their properties. They operate out of many homes that were bought or purchased in the 60s and 70s by Caltrans. And as part of the existence of these nonprofits like Ronald McDonald House, they are trying to purchase these properties. And the bill would allow them to purchase the property for a value in use, which is a price below fair market value. Ronald McDonald, again, is one of those nonprofit tenants. And as everyone knows, they do critical work. They provide temporary housing for children that are dealing with serious illness. They have operated there for decades, and they do life-saving work. They are currently in a negotiation with Caltrans for the three properties that they operate out of, and Caltrans has inserted a provision within the contract that says that after 30 years, Ronald McDonald House would have to pay back a net equity, meaning that in 30 years, they would have to pay back the delta between the use value and the fair market value. That equates to millions of dollars of debt that this nonprofit would have to incur, put on its balance sheet, and it would actually impact their operations. The money would go towards debt service potentially, or at least they would have to accrue some sort of potential satisfaction of the debt in lieu of actually providing critical care for these children. What this bill does is very narrow. It only applies to Ronald McDonald House, and all it says is that the appropriate terms, conditions, and restrictions on the sale should not actually include the net equity obligation on the organization. This will allow the organization to purchase the properties, continue to operate, and won't affect the children that are being serviced by the nonprofit. And just again, I want to thank the whole committee, the chair, and the staff for their work on it. With me today is Richard Lewis, the Executive Director of Real Estate for Ronald McDonald House. Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you, Chair, members of the committee. Thank you. My name is Richard Lewis, Executive Director of Real Estate for the Royal Meadon House Charities of Southern California. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you in support of AB 1594, and thank you to Assemblymember Harabedian for his leadership on this legislation. Royal Meadon House Charities provide children and their families with a home away from home, close to hospitals so they can remain together during treatment Each year our Pasadena house provides nearly 4 overnight states providing a home away from home for approximately 440 children and their family members More than 75 of the families we serve identify as low to moderate income and they travel from throughout California to visit our partners including Huntington Health, Shriners Children's Hospital, and City of Hope. For more than two years now we've been working to complete the acquisition of the Ronald McDonald House Pasadena properties so we can begin much-needed renovation and expansion to serve more families. Completing this acquisition is essential to that effort. AB 1594 addresses a narrow but important issue involving the former SR 710 surplus properties. When the legislature authorized these properties to be sold to nonprofit organizations, its intent was clear to preserve these properties for organizations that provide an ongoing public benefit. For organizations like ours, the current net equity provision creates a long-term financial obligation that makes it more difficult to raise private philanthropic support, secure financing, and invest in facilities that continue to serve their intended charitable purpose. Removing that barrier will allow us to focus our resources where they belong, on caring for families with critically ill children. AB 1594 restores the legislature's original intent, protects the public interest, and helps ensure that charitable organizations can continue to invest in these properties. On behalf of the Ronald McDonald House Charities of Southern California and the families we serve, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote, Mr. Vice Chair. And I'll move it when we get, oh, I'm sorry, someone, I mean Senator, Senator Archuleta, thank you.

So I know it well. As long as I can remember, there's been fights over that property and on and on. And so now here we are with looking at Ronald McDonald's house. And I couldn't think of a better nonprofit than Ronald McDonald's house with so many of our families are affected by cancer and issues and so on. And to have a place where the families can stay and and be there. And that location is near hospitals all over L.A. County, whether the patient is there at L.A. or right down the street at the USC hospital, it's imperative that it's there. The question about Caltrans working with it and the equity, and you're looking at the end not to have to revert back to that original amount, which would be detrimental for the future. And so for those reasons, I think it's a great bill, great opportunity for the state of California to acknowledge what Ronald McDonald is all about. So with that, at the appropriate time, I'll move it. We have a quorum. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, and thank you, Senator, for the time works. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Next up, I believe, is Assemblyman Lackey. Members, we have two items from the Assemblyman. The first one is File Line Number 7, AB 1685. Thank you for being here, sir. You may open when you're ready. Isn it 1685 Yes File number 7 AB 1685 All right, well thank you Chair and Member. This bill will increase the points for gross vehicular manslaughter from two to three points. As former Highway Patrol officer, I've seen the dangers and heartbreak drunk driving can actually bring into people's families. The California DMV uses in the negligent operator treatment system also known as NOTS or NOTs to assign points to a driver's record based on traffic related convictions and violations these points are used to determine whether a driver's privilege to operate a motor vehicle should be suspended or revoked if a person accumulates four points in 12 months six points in 24 months or eight points in 36 months the Department of Motor Vehicles may suspend their license currently a conviction for vehicular manslaughter and vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated in the case you didn't know that means someone died results in a person having two points on their license only two points this is the same number of points assessed for reckless driving and driving a hundred miles an hour but nothing to do with loss of life this is unacceptable taking a person's life should not be equal to just speeding on the freeway this bill 1685 makes the necessary change to the NOTS system by adding three points to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated becoming the first conviction to have this high of a point assessment with me to testify on behalf of this bill is Terry McHale with the California Highway Patrol Association and Justin Fancla on behalf of Safe Roads yeah the California good grief safe California roads coalition I'm so sorry Mr. McHale you have two minutes mr. chairman in your favorite sport they've only made one major change in basketball in the last hundred years and what they didn't change the height of the basket They didn't change the size of the court, but they added the technical foul. There are some fouls that are so egregious they need to be answered. There needs to be a response. Every single day, a California highway patrolman comes up on an accident where an innocent person has been killed by someone driving drunk. It is unacceptable, and it is astonishing with Uber and the other options that the number of drunk driving deaths have gone up 55%. This won't end it, but it sends an absolute clear message that your insurance will go up, that the prosecutors will look at this with greater gravity, and an understanding of teaching of our children and all of society, that there are greater consequences for this avoidable tragedy. We ask for an aye vote. Your next witness, two minutes. Thank you for being here. Good afternoon. Justin Fanslaw on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition. I'd like to say thank you to the author. This is one of a number of bills that our coalition is supporting this year. Among them are stronger rules around ignition interlock. We just heard Senator Archuleta's bill this morning on increased penalties. And one thing that we keep seeing is we keep hearing from witnesses who have endured the ultimate loss, which is what is discussed here, vehicular manslaughter. Endure that because someone was drinking while they got behind the car. Coalition members that I represent call that murder. So to receive one more point seems very, very small in the scheme of things. Lastly, I'll note, MAD issued a report, an update on their national report on state's laws around drunk driving. To no surprise, California, again, received an F. Failure. Eight of the ten top cities in the country that have the worst DUI rates in the country and worst death rates in the country are here in California. Number two, San Jose. Number three, Sacramento. We have to do something, and this is a very measured approach to making sure that people know there are consequences on the other side of an impaired grabbing of the keys and driving a car. Thank you. Thank you. Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers and the other police officer associations listed in analysis, all in support. Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, it goes back to the committee. Senator Archuleta. Thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this forward. Earlier today you said we've got to do something about the DUI epidemic. You said it. I've said it. I think everyone in this room can agree that California must step up to increase its penalties on drunk driving. Lives are taken. I think I've made it publicly clear that I lost my own granddaughter to a drunk driver on Christmas Eve. It's devastated to the family. And bronze law is on the table because of that family losing their son. And Drunk driving, it's an epidemic that has affected so many families in California. And I was in Orange County earlier this year, and there was an office building here, an office building here, and a walkway in between. And hundreds upon hundreds of pictures of our victims were on these walls. And the podium was up front, and people spoke, and I was able to speak. And I spoke on the overall issues pertaining to drunk driving and how it's affecting so many lives. And economically, look what it's doing to our hospitals. The number of law enforcement officers that are involved in a traffic accident where someone dies. Medically, the doctors are filled with these patients that can no longer walk and some onto the morgue. It's devastating. your bill, 685 assembly member is knocking on the door telling us all, telling the DMV they have to be accountable keep the records when these individuals cause a loss of life drunk driving, whatever it is that it should be consequence that is recorded on their license recorded on their record for years to come and so I commend you for bringing this bill forward and I will support it I will move it at the appropriate time and I thank you again Thank you Thank you So we don't have a quorum so we'll move on members to the next item. The Assemblyman Lackey, file item number 8, AB 1687. The Assemblyman you may open. Okay. All right, well, thank you. AB 1687 is my second DUI bill, which will increase the Department of Motor Vehicles' revocation period for, get this, a third DUI conviction and moving the penalty from three years to eight years. This bill also adds that a person may be able to apply for an interlock device after four years with the requirement to have it within their vehicle for two years. A recent DV analysis followed drivers who received a DUI in 2005. Over the next 15 years, over 25% of those drivers were arrested again for another DUI. Among those drivers, 40% already had three or more DUIs at the time of the 2005 arrest. California was once leading the nation against driving under the influence and now has fallen significantly behind. In New Jersey, a person convicted of repeat DUIs cannot get their license back until eight years after their conviction. While in Nebraska, it is 15 years, and Connecticut will permanently revoke the license. However, in California, a person can get their license back after three years and continue to add more DUIs to their record. This bill AB 1687 will require the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately revoke the license of a person convicted of Three DUIs for eight years unless the driver agrees to the installation of an interlock device a year for By expanding the revocation period for repeat offenders This bill 1687 will help make California roads safer by keeping repeat drunk drivers from being behind the wheel With with me to testify on this bill as Rhonda Campbell on behalf of the Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Also like to mention that the author Of the amendments that I have crossed officially naming the bill Irene's law Comes from her sister Irene who was killed by a repeat offender at the age of 12. I also have with me Ryan Sherman Legislative advocate for the California Narcotic Officers Association Association. She'll have a couple minutes each. Thank you. Hello again. My name is Rhonda Campbell. I am the State Victim Services Manager for Mothers Against Drunk Driving California, and I'm here today in support of Irene's law. Drunk driving is not an accident. It's a choice. When that choice is made repeatedly, it becomes clear that some individuals have demonstrated an unwillingness to safely share our roadways. The need for this bill is undeniable. During a recent 12-hour California Highway Patrol maximum enforcement period, officers arrested 505 impaired drivers. That's more than 42 DUI arrests every hour. Many of the tragedies mad sees are not caused by first-time offenders, but by repeat offenders who continue to regain access to our roads. For me, the issue is personal. When I was a child, my 12-year-old sister Irene was killed by a four-time repeat offender. I still remember standing beside my mother as as Irene's casket was being closed. As the lid was closed, my mother let out a scream that I can still hear more than 40 years later That scream was the sound of a mother realizing she would never again hold her daughter or watch her grow up That driver made a choice but my family received the sentence. Today I work with families across California who carry the same lifelong grief because of completely preventable crimes. AB 1687 recognizes that driving is a privilege and not a right. It helps keep California's most dangerous repeat impaired drivers off all roads while still allowing them to earn an opportunity to earn back that privilege through compliance, rehabilitation, and the use of an interlock device. You can't change what happened to Irene, but today you can help prevent another family from experiencing the same heartbreak that mine did. For my sister Irene, and for every victim whose voice can no longer be heard, and for every family that we still have the chance to protect, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Next witness please. Briefly Mr. Chair Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association and a couple dozen police officer associations around the state all in support of the bill. We're very pleased to be able to support the bill and recognize that this allows a DMV to revoke a person's driver's license for eight years if they're convicted of three or more specified impaired driving offenses within a ten year period. We think this is incredibly generous, especially in light of Assemblymember Lackey's testimony about how things are handled similarly in other states. We're pleased to have been able to support this entire package of the DUI bills this year, including Senator Archuleta's legislation, which is being considered today in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. And we'd also like to thank publicly Assemblymember Lackey for his dedication and commitment to keeping those who travel on California's roads safe. I could repeat things and I just concur with my colleague here and with the assembly member and respectfully request your aye vote. All right. Thank you. Appreciate both witnesses. And, of course, we're very, very sorry for your loss and sorry that you even have to come in and give testimony on this topic. It is weighed heavily into the proceedings. Thank you. We're going to ask if there's anyone else in the committee room who wishes to support the measure and we see a line forming at the microphone. Thank you. Mark Vuksovich on behalf of Streets for All in support. Christian Nunez on behalf of Streets for All in support. Juliana Voris on behalf of the League of California Cities in support. I'm Kathy Harris, volunteer for MAD, in support, and I am the mother of Irene Harris. Thank you. Cody Boyles on behalf of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen in support. Jeannie Wardweller for People for Bikes in support. Nicole Wardleman on behalf of San Bernardino County in support. All right, thank you. We'll now move to opposition. Is there anyone who wishes to express opposition on the bill? I see no one come forward. We'll come back to the committee. Senator Archuleta. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and once again, Assemblymember, thank you for bringing this forward. And for the record, I am a co-author, and for the record, I served with the Montemaral Police Department. For the record, I lost my granddaughter to a drunk driver. So I extremely passionate and involved in every bill that comes across this floor pertaining to loss of life And every one of you in this audience if you ever have someone in your family lose their life to a drunk driver you would join us without a doubt when you have attend that funeral when you hug that parent because they lost their child so if i may read Mr. Chair? Yes. Irene Ruth Harris. Irene was 12 years old when she was killed by a drunk driver. The drunk driver ran a stop sign and hit the car she was riding in head on. She was four times. He was a four-time offender and blew up .16 after the crash. Irene was a vibrant, happy 12-year-old with her whole life ahead of her that was stolen by the irresponsible decision someone made to drink and drive. Irene was going to change the world that was stolen from her. She would like to be right here with us and try to help make this a better world, a better way of life for everyone. What an angel. May she be with the good Lord And I am so sorry for your loss And with that Mr. Chair We'll move the bill at the appropriate time Thank you Senator Others who wish to comment or ask questions Seeing none We don't have a quorum established As I understand it So we do have a motion when the time comes That we establish a quorum We'll take the bill up Again appreciate your testimony Thank you for bringing the bill forward Assemblymember Lackey. Thank you. We will now call upon a file item six is is Assemblymember Wilson, AB 1613. Welcome. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Or good afternoon. It's been a long day already. This is where I had it too. Sorry, microphone got turned off. You may proceed when ready. Assemblymember, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. First, I would like to start by noting that I am accepting the committee men's. Thank you for both you and your staff's work on this bill. I'm pleased to present AB 1613, a bill that would create a California off-highway vehicle safety and stewardship course as a self-guided certification of knowledge of safe operating practices of OHVs and require operators of OHVs to take this course in order to access off-highway lands beginning in 2029. Both federal and state statute have standards for the safe operation of an OHV. However, there is no requirement that operators know these existing or other safety standards. Additionally, there is no requirement that they have the ability to demonstrate their knowledge through a certification program. Because of this gap in law, misuse, property damage, accidents, injuries, and even deaths have become a problem in our state parks and other public lands that allow OHV recreation. California has even the highest in fatalities amongst deaths associated with OHVs across the country. As a result of this need, stakeholder conversations, including several safety summits over the past few years with members of the community, law enforcement, and the department have revealed a common interest, a common interest to providing additional training and education to the OHV community. AB 1613 is the culmination of years of work amongst the community and is not only modeled after similar programs in other states like Utah and Arizona, but it is modeled after California's own successful voter ID card that the legislature approved over a decade ago. It is time that California take this reasonable step forward in our OHV lands in order to improve safety and enact the change the OHV community has been seeking. With me today, I'd like to introduce two witnesses. Amy Granat, Executive Director of Sierra Access Coalition, and Diana Mead, Director for California Outdoor Recreation Foundation. Witnesses, you have a couple minutes each and you can proceed. Good afternoon, Senate Transportation Committee. I'm Diana Mead. I am a proud voter in District Number 9, and I'm proud to be here today. Thank you for the opportunity to address you in support of AB 1613. I would like to thank Assemblywoman Wilson for her leadership and commitment to safeguarding our natural resources and ensuring safe, sustainable outdoor recreation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, people felt safer outdoors. Between 2020 and 2023, sales of side-by-side vehicles, among the most accessible and affordable OHVs, increased by a whopping 220%. This rapid growth continues to generate many new riders and drivers with limited experience or understanding of safe riding practices and trail etiquette. Subsequently, we have witnessed unacceptable increases in accidents, injuries, and environmental impacts. In 2022, California's Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division responded. By sponsoring annual safety summits, these meetings brought together law enforcement, industry, OHV organizations, and land managers to explore solutions. The bill you have before you is a result of that inclusive stakeholder process. It reflects a collaborative effort to address the challenges and effect change. The bill is not reliant on commercial interests and incorporates effectiveness metrics to ensure future improvements as needed. The bill mandates a practical, education-first approach to reduce accidents, protect California's natural resources, and save lives while preserving access for responsible recreation. I respectfully ask you to support AB 1613. All right. Next witness, please. Members of the committee, Mr. Chair, Amy Granite. I'm a 20-year advocate for off-road vehicles on public land and a proud Jeeper. I know what it's like to experience the trails and I know what it's like to come across riders and drivers that simply do not understand the rules of the road It become pretty dangerous out there in some cases where we have some overcrowded trails You know that another issue that we need to work on But in the meantime, we need to all come together and make sure that the riders and drivers of these vehicles understand, first, best management practices when they're off-road, trail etiquette when they're off-road, and how to share this commodity, our precious public lands, with everyone else who wants to enjoy it. The public lands allow access to non-motorized activities, such as hiking and biking, and access for motorized vehicles to go off on trails and challenge their vehicles like I tend to do. But it doesn't matter why you're out there. The important thing to understand is that you have to do it responsibly. You have to do it and understand what the capabilities of your vehicle are, whether it's a dirt bike, a side-by-side, a Jeep, or any other vehicle that is capable of traveling on dirt roads. And I have seen Priuses on dirt roads many times and a lot of Subarus with kayaks on top. This will help everyone. And the measure AB 1613, with the help of a staff and Assemblymember Wilson, was really designed for a collaborative approach to this educational mandate. I respectfully ask you to support AB 1613. Okay, thank you for your testimony. Are there others here who wish to express support? Please come to the microphone if you wish to do so. Thank you. Terry McHale with Aaron Reed and Associates, representing a coalition of off-highway vehicle recreationists. I really want to thank the author and her staff, who have been very open and willing to discuss this issue. There are some concerns that remain, but we're going to meet on July 7th, and we'll work those through. and appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the openness of this committee in being so welcoming. Thank you. Good afternoon, Kira Ross, on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, in support of the bill. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Matt Robinson, on behalf of the California Medical Association, in support. Thank you. All right, thank you. Is there any opposition that wishes to come forward at this time? Any opposition testimony at all? All right, seeing none, the committee will bring it back to the committee. Senator, go ahead. Well, we've heard DUI bills all day. I've been involved in that. But I see this, you know, the old saying, for every action is a reaction. This is training. This is involvement. This is giving these young people or anyone who drives these vehicles a sense of responsibility in how someone can hurt. We just heard from the medical side. I'm sure broken bones and all kinds of things happen with the vehicles, maybe not fatalities, but people will learn that when they get out there by themselves, they can start drinking. Who knows? But I see this as an educational opportunity for us to be a safer California. And I think it's a great bill, and I'm going to support it, obviously, and I will move it at the appropriate time. Senator Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to commend the author for bringing this bill forward. I, as a writer, off-road vehicles, enjoying space and all that, I want to believe that everyone will glean from the education, grow from it, and then operate safely out there on the trails and different things like that. I do know this that those that want to be safe they will take advantage of the education and they will operate safely If anything it will protect them from those that don And so just because people there may be some or will be some that don really glean from that, there's no reason why we should not do this. So with that, I appreciate you bringing the bill forward. Thank you. I see no other requests to speak. Let me both give the author an opportunity to close, but before doing so, I do want to make sure that you're on the record taking the technical clarifying agreements that we inherited from natural resources at this time. Thank you. I'm not going to make a big statement because we've gone through this stuff pretty thoroughly, before the committee meeting and I came in here with the support so with that you can go ahead and close at this time thank you yes thank you mr. chair and thank you for you know there's off-road vehicles have an issue of injuries have an issue with fatalities here in the state of California and what we found is that there was a culture around off-road vehicles that was understood and people were being much more safer. And then the pandemic happened and people went outside and had some resources to buy more vehicles, these types of vehicles who've never had written them before. And that's really where a lot of this stuff created. It's a new phenomenon where you didn't grow up with it. Now you have it and there's no rules about it. And so we modeled this after the boater safety law to say there should be some understanding before you get on a vehicle of this type we are still open to as just like the the groups were open over the last three years of talking about this we are still open to making sure we get this right because we want people to enjoy our great outdoors here in the state of California and with that at the appropriate time I respectfully ask for an aye vote all right well we're still trying to put a quorum together and as soon as we have one I'm sure we'll have a motion we'll have an opportunity to take up the vote thank you for being here thank you for your testimony we'll continue in file order we'll move to file item 9 which is some remember ransom on AB 2046 and then the some member wicks will follow some member ransom welcome good afternoon senator chair and members. I'm here today to talk about Assembly Bill 2046, which expands consumer choice by giving California's access to cleaner, more affordable fuel options. Californians, as we know, consistently pay more at the pump than drivers in other states, and gas prices are once again climbing across the state, putting added pressure on working families and commuters. E85 is a blend of ethanol and gasoline. It is a lower carbon fuel option that typically costs less per gallon than regular gasoline. For commuters and working families, it offers a practical way to save money. It's something that you already see in cars who are flex fuel cars they're using. If you're at the gas pump, you'll see the yellow, not the green, that's diesel, but you'll see the yellow, which is flex fuel. But here, California, we remain the only state that prohibits the use of a proven US EPA-approved E85 conversion kit, which therefore limits the access to this affordable fuel option for many Californians a B 2046 will allow these approved conversion kits to operate in California giving families greater flexibility and more affordable choices at the pump At a time when Californians are struggling with affordability, AB 2046 provides real relief for families across the state. This is a consumer choice bill which gives Californians a more affordable, cleaner, alternative option which is better than the status quo. We want to give families more flexibility at the pump instead of being locked into high fuel cost options. So with me today, I have Alessandra Bracchetto with the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance and Mr. Jeff Wilkerson with Pearson Fuels. So I'm going to go ahead and give it to my witnesses. Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Alessandra Bracchetto, on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, proud sponsor of AB 2046. At its core, AB2046 advances three priorities that are central to California's transportation future. Affordability, emissions reduction, and fuel reliability. California drivers continue to face some of the highest and most volatile fuel prices in the nation. Ethanol blends, particularly E85, provide an immediate opportunity to reduce fuel costs. E85 is typically priced $1.50 to $2 per gallon less than conventional gasoline, providing meaningful savings for families, commuters, and small businesses that rely on their vehicles every day. AB 2046 helps ensure consumers know this lower cost fuel option exists and can access it wherever it is available. The bill also supports California's climate goals. E85 can reduce life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 80% compared to conventional gasoline. These emissions reductions are available today using existing flex fuel vehicles and existing fueling infrastructure without requiring consumers to purchase new vehicles or adopt new technology. Finally, AB 2046 strengthens California's transportation fuel supply. California's fuel market remains vulnerable because of limited in-state refining capacity and increasing reliance on imported petroleum products. Ethanol is produced from domestic feedstocks, moves through a separate supply chain, and helps diversify the state's transportation fuel mix, making it less susceptible to global oil market disruptions. Expanding access to ethanol blends improves fuel resiliency while providing consumers with greater choice at the pump. AB 2046 is a practical, consumer-focused solution that lowers costs, reduces emissions, and strengthens California's transportation fuel supply. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Are there others in the committee room who wish to express support? If so, please come to the microphone at this time. Oh, we have a third. The next one is the second. The gentleman is the second witness. Oh, I apologize. You're okay. Wouldn't be the first to try to cut me off. I appreciate it. Let's stand by. We'll cut you off after two minutes. That's fine. I deeply apologize. That's no problem. Please proceed. Thank you.

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

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

Good afternoon, Chair Cortese and members.

Good afternoon, Chair and members.

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

Yes.

Yes. So it's out there. And what is the cost of the apparatus? What do you take out or you put into your vehicle to make this thing work? And what does that cost? I know the answer, but since we do have witnesses, I'll let them.

Yeah, you don't take anything out. You just add a device. there are different manufacturers, but generally $700 to $800 would be the retail cost. So that would well pay itself back before the year is up.

Say that again, sir.

Senator anybody else wishing to express concern or ask questions Seeing none we still aren at quorum I apologize for that but we will ask for a motion I have a feeling I know where it might be coming from. As soon as we have a quorum, we'll take up the vote. Thank you again for your testimony, and thank you for bringing the bill forward.

And you can close.

And before they go, please do the last follow-up question, ma'am. I don't think we're allowed to do that, but we'll make an exception for you, Senator, since you've been carrying the day here. If it's all right with the author, she's not really subject to questions.

Oh, you said if this gets popular. Does the industry have the ability to meet the demand? If it increases, obviously, the production. Yes, I think that's why there's the capacity, which is why we're doing the bill. There's a demand for it already, and that's why we're here because we're the only state that doesn't allow people to have access to these kits. And so this is, again, it's an ethanol-based, ethanol and gasoline-based product, and so ethanol is available, and we want to make sure that people can access this option. With that, I will move the bill at appropriate time.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. AB 2168 makes a series of modest common sense improvements to ensure California's active transportation program funds are spent effectively and efficiently. The ATP is our state's primary funding source for biking and walking infrastructure, supporting projects that increase safety, promote public health, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The program is chronically oversubscribed, meaning our state must be strategic about where and how we direct our limited active transportation dollars. Current ATP guidelines do not adequately prioritize the locations where active transportation investments generate the highest return on investment. Specifically, the program's existing definition of safe routes to transit fails to specify the broader landscape of transit supportive geography, where active transportation improvements can most effectively connect people to transit and reduce vehicle miles traveled. The ATP also lacks meaningful accountability mechanisms for grantees who fail to spend award funds on time. Delayed or stalled projects tie up scarce program resources, preventing other worthy applicants from receiving funding and slowing the delivery of critical safety infrastructure. AB 2168 modernizes the definition of safe routes to transit, shifting focus towards transit-rich corridors, infill opportunity areas, station walk sheds, and underserved or rural areas. It adds transit access as an explicit project selection criteria, aligning with California's broader climate and housing goals. And it establishes a guaranteed, sorry, a graduated penalty structure for grantees who fail to spend funds on time, helping ensure awarded dollars move from paper to pavement without delay. I want to thank this committee and the chair for working closely with my staff and stakeholders to address a series of concerns with the prior version of the bill With your collaboration on amendments adopted last week on the 22nd all organizations except one have removed their opposition and more than 45 state and regional organizations are now in support. Testifying in support today is Kendra Ramsey, executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition, and when the time is right, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Thank you so much. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. I'm Kendra Ramsey, Executive Director of the California Bicycle Coalition. We're the voice of the everyday bicyclist in the state capitol, and we work directly with local bicycle coalitions throughout the state, representing tens of thousands of members. I'd like to thank Assemblymember Wicks for her leadership on active transportation and introducing this bill. We've been deeply engaged with the active transportation program since its inception and are a proud sponsor of the bill. Investments in active transportation infrastructure not only improve safety and mobility, but also support public health, economic vitality, and the state's climate change goals. AB 2168 represents a thoughtful and necessary step, better aligning transportation funds with these goals. The intent of the program has always been on biking and walking as transportation modes. And including safe routes to transit, the focus really is on the full trip someone takes. When the destination is too far to travel by foot or bike alone, many people add a transit ride to complete their journey. The bill modernizes the definition of safe routes to transit within ATP. The proposed change includes more than mass transit and school bus stops, as the original legislation included, lifting up the importance of all types of transit facilities including critical transit facilities in rural communities and small towns the bill also recently added a requirement to consult with transit agencies along a proposed project corridor better aligning planning for active travel and transit from project inception importantly the bill makes two changes to help make the most of limited funding first it strengthens the process to address agencies which are failing to utilize their funds in a timely manner at a time when the lion's share projects go unfunded for example CTC California Transportation Commission just announced that they received 2.9 billion in applications for the current cycle cycle 8 for the 600 million available to award over the four years of the cycle the current application selection process does not adequately address this issue it also the bill also adds a provision to help leverage the small amount of ATP funding available and to bring other transportation funding in to invest in full networks for biking and walking and California's can't wait for safe active transportation infrastructure to make complete multimodal networks in our communities for these reasons we respectfully request your support of this bill thank you okay we have others

on behalf of climate plan people for bikes and NRDC and I've also been asked to add on for a few organizations, so bear with me. Pasadena Complete Streets Coalition, Transform Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, San Diego 350, Move LA, 350 Bay Area Action, CCAJ and the Safe Routes Partnership in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you wouldn't mind,

Christian Nunez on behalf of Streets for All in support. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Opposition? Is there any opposition in the committee room? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee, to the dais. Any questions or concerns? Seeing none, we have to wait for a quorum, but we will let you close. Thank you.

Thanks for bringing the bill forward. Okay, I don't see my friend, Assemblymember Calra, yet. If he's monitoring these proceedings, it would be a good time to come over. Fong, we could use Assemblymember Fong. Or Hadwick. Any of those three. First come, first serve. And other members so we can have a Calra. That's the real issue. Thank you. Thank you. And this is file item 12, AB 2329. Welcome to our committee. Anytime you're ready, go ahead and proceed.

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

Thank you for being here. Next witness.

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

Thank you. It looks like that concludes the support testimony. testimony. Is there any opposition in the room? Are there opposition witnesses in the room? Anyone who wishes to express opposition? Seeing none we'll bring it back to... Okay, great. We have an offer of a motion by Vice Chair Strickland. We are short of a quorum, as you can gather. I do need you to stand on the record. You may have already, if so, I apologize, but that you're taking the amendments so that our motion is complete.

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

Appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Assemblymember Hadwick, looks like you beat Assemblymember Call right here, so you're up. Welcome to you.

Okay. I'll be fast. All right. You may go ahead and proceed when you're ready.

All right, you'll have a couple minutes each and you can go in whatever order you prefer.

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

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

Got it. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Others in support? Seeing none, we'll move to opposition. Is there anyone here who wishes to oppose this bill? We have no registered opposition that I know of any further, and no one seems to be coming forward to the microphone, so we're going to come back to the committee.

Vice Chair Strickland is at the ready with a motion as soon as we can get a quorum. With that, I'm going to give you an opportunity to close. We appreciate you working with our committee and bringing the bill forward. We do not have amendments ourselves, but we appreciate you. going on the record indicating that you're prepared to take some relative to the opposition concerns. So with that, please close if you like.

Okay. Thank you all. Thank you. Hopefully it's going to be appropriate very, very soon. We only have one more bill to hear. That's Assemblymember Calra. I'm rooting for a quorum here. Might have to have some of the Dodgers come in and start voting. Giants fans won't like that. All right, Assemblymember Calra, welcome. You can

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

Thank you again. Next witness, please.

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

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

Well, we don't, again, we have lands available, and so we usually, when we have housing transit-oriented development, private builders come in, so they have the funding.

We have the land, and together it's a perfect relationship.

That is correct. On a certain percentage, that is correct.

Senator, for a certain percentage, otherwise these will be market rate and then there'll be a certain percentage for those of moderate income households working for VTA So it provides a workforce housing while also providing market rate housing as well As you can imagine like a lot of other kind of suburban areas

Yes, very similar in that regard. Correct. But I do congratulate you, Assemblymember, for the leadership role you're taking in this. And I will move the bill when it is appropriate time.

I'll move it when we have it.

And then I'll close if I could.

Mr. Chair and thank you for your many years of leadership and working with VTA and I think we've done a lot of partnerships on different legislation regarding VTA. There's somewhat of a full circle moment for me the year that I was VTA chair was the year that our former general manager Nerea Fernandez got hired and the first thing I said to her of things I wanted done that year is I wanted to audit kind of every parcel of land that VTA had. At that point we didn't really have one place. And so this is many years later, not when we be that was that kind of the beginning of it. And now to be here and actually have such great plans for the for these sites is extraordinary. And so I want to thank you and the members of this committee because I think that if this can work in our county, I think we can replicate this in other places in the state. And so let us be that pilot program let us be that test case and I confident that we can bring something of value that can be replicated in all your jurisdictions With that respect we ask for an aye vote Thank you Assemblymember and it great to have an author that understands his subject matter so thoroughly

The motion is due pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations.