Senate Transportation Committee

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much for taking my bill out of order. And good afternoon, colleagues. It's my pleasure to present SB 1408, a district specific bill to address the transportation needs for the county of Contra Costa. This bill would authorize the Contra Costa Transportation Authority or CCTA to place a countywide sales tax measure of up to 1% on the ballot in Contra Costa County to continue to fund transportation programs. Currently, CCTA is receiving funding for measure J, half cent transportation sales tax that was approved by the voters in November of 2004. That measure is set to expire in 2034. And through a stakeholder process, CCTA has adopted an expenditure plan for Measure J, which funded major freeway and interchange improvements, such as Interstate 680, in addition to local street repair programs, bus and rail infrastructure, and paratransit for seniors and persons with disabilities. And CCTA seeks to put a measure in advance of the prior funding lapsing because early renewal ensures a smooth transition between the new measure and measure J to allow for project certainty as transportation projects have a long lead time Similarly to measure J, CCTA will prepare an expenditure plan in coordination with local agencies, stakeholders and the public and it's anticipated the revenues generated by this new sales tax will continue to fund state highway construction upgrades, local road maintenance and improvements, biking and pedestrian infrastructure, public transit, and mobility expansion programs. And with me to testify on behalf of CCTA is Tim Hale, its executive director.

Thank you. Before we call for opposition witnesses, or anyone here who wishes to speak in support, please come up now. The usual. Thank you.

Anyone else? Name, affiliation, and support. Now is the time for that. Seeing none. Is there a lead opposition witness to speak? You can come up to the front table, that would be fine. Take your time.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak in opposition? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee at this time. Senator Archuleta, then Senator Grayson.

Senator Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for bringing the bill forward. Transportation is vitally important, especially I live right in the middle of the commute that you spoke of from Brentwood to the places of work that people have to go to make a livable wage. They spend literally hours on the road. And so I am supportive of the efforts of Contra Costa Transportation Authority, who has done exemplary at providing transportation modes for us. However, I just want to clarify and state the obvious today. Forgive me, Chair, for having to do this. I just want to state the obvious. The vote that we make today is not to approve a tax. The vote that we make today is to put it before the people so that the voters can decide for themselves whether to tax or not. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you, Senator Strickland. I let the record show. Vice Chair Strickland has arrived. Any comments on this is an arrogant bill. We took it out of order. It's file order number nine. I just want to give you appropriate heads up on that in case you had a comment on the bill. And then we're going back to file order at the top of the file. No comment. Okay. It looks like that's all the comments from committee. Just thank you, Chair, for bringing a good bill forward. And we can entertain a motion from the good Senator at this time, Senator Archuleta. Got it. All right. Motion by Archuleta. And we can't actually take a vote because we don't have a quorum. So we'll come back to that motion when we do have a quorum. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Senator Grove thank you for your patience You are file number one and I know the previous presenter asked me to thank you for allowing him to get over to Chair Housing Committee I appreciate you being here. No, absolutely, sir. You can proceed whenever you're ready with SB. I'm going to wait for my witnesses to join me up here. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I guess I should get to the beginning of this. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Today's Senate Bill 990 improves highway exit information along a key rural corridor to better connect travelers with essential services and local businesses. In the Ridgecrest area in the east part of Kern County, there's Highway 395, which has beautiful Red Rock Canyon and miles and miles, over 125 miles worth of the most beautiful desert that you've ever seen. There's a beautiful little community that's isolated just off of 395 in the middle of that 120-mile stretch that offers excellent amenities and hotel reservations or accommodations that are just beautiful brand-new hotels. You have museums that depict our national security issues. When you look at our base, which is the China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center, that gives great opportunities for kids to stop and travel and look at the beginnings of where we started in the space and the warfare industry and all the planes and everything that are available. It's a great little isolated community, and there's no signs on 395 to tell the people driving down that road on their way to Bishop that this community is available. Existing law already authorizes similar signage in rural areas to help drivers locate fuel and food and lodging and other essential services. However, certain statutory limitations have prevented signage in this specific location. Travelers specifically that are unfamiliar with the area don't even know we exist out there. SB 990 supports both public safety and public health. We have an excellent hospital in the area in case that's needed as well. and importantly this program is fee supported, meaning that businesses that wish to advertise on that sign will pay for the installation and the signage itself on that and there will be no expense to the California taxpayers. By enhancing access to these essential services along this corridor, SB 990 helps to ensure safer and more efficient travel experience. Today, in support with me of SB 990 is Carrie Crutcher. She's the executive director of the Ridgecrest Area Convention and Visitors Bureau, and Mario Isit, who's the chief police of Ridgecrest. All right. I don't know if you walked in after the announcements, but it's two minutes each for lead witnesses, and please proceed. Great. Thank you. Like Senator Goff said, my name is Carrie Crutcher. I'm the executive director of the Ridgecrest Area Convention and Visitors Bureau, and I appreciate the opportunity. Ridgecrest is asking for support for a targeted exemption to Senate Bill 990 because this is ultimately an issue of safety, visibility, and rural access. Our community is more than a stop along the road. Ridgecrest is a regional service center that provides hospital care, medical services, lodging, restaurants, fuel, and other essential amenities to travelers. Yet, under current signage restrictions, too many drivers are never clearly informed when they are making travel decisions that those services are available just minutes away. That matters because Ridgecrest is already recognized by the state as an essential traveler waypoint. Ridgecrest is home to an official California Welcome Center within Visit California. statewide network of welcome centers demonstrating the important role our city plays in serving travelers and connecting them with lodging, food, travel services, and location destinations. Our contention is that the problem is not traffic volume, but missed opportunities with both safety and economics. Even a modest 1% increase in traveler capture could generate meaningful new annual spending for local businesses. In a rural city, that kind of impact supports jobs, tax revenue, business stability, and the services both residents and travelers depend on. California has already made similar allowances for Lincoln and Truckee. Ridgecrest is asking for the same thoughtful consideration. The proposed amendment is narrow and practical, authorizing information signs at two specific State Route 395 locations through January 1, 2037. This is not a broad exemption. It is a disciplined fix for a real rural economic and public service need. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for having me. My name is Mario Wissett. I'm the chief of police for the city of Ridgecrest. It's always hard to follow Cary, but realistically, the Highway 395 corridor, especially the 120 miles that we're talking about, has a number of crashes since 2020. 2020 to 2024, there have been thousands of crashes along the 395 corridor, a portion of which is near the Ridgecrest community. Those are often attributed to people who are driving tired. They don't realize that we're just off the highway with lodging, medical services, and things of that nature. That's why, as the police chief, I think it's critically important that we give those folks an opportunity to realize there is someplace safe. If you've ever been driving along that corridor, you don't want to stop and pull over and take a nap. It's literally the middle of nowhere. When I took the job there, I thought I was lost because we weren't there yet. It was just a little further. So I understand how people can think there's just no option for them. We want to make sure that they understand that Ridgecrest is an option for them and that we have the services that can make their travel safe. Thank you very much for having us. Thank you. We'll call now for others who wish to speak in support of the bill. Please come on up. Name, affiliation, and support is what's allowed at this point. Thank you. Travis Reid, City Manager for the City of Ridgecrest, in support. Thank you. Anyone else in support? Okay, seeing none, do we have a lead opposition witness on this bill? Seeing none. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Seeing none. We'll come back to the committee. Senator Archuleta. Oh. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. Your committee, I know, is very, very important to you. When you mentioned out in the middle of nowhere, what would it be a sign? What would the sign do? Would it be able to light up? Are you going to be able to direct people? How is that going to help? I can see the importance of it. There's no doubt. I've got family out that way, so I agree. Yeah, no, thank you. This simply would allow Caltrans to install the business logo signs. So think of when you're traveling on the freeway and you see the Caltrans sign with the business logos of what businesses are at the next exit. That's what we're requesting. And so we don't currently qualify under the Caltrans regulations. So that's simply what we're asking for is an exemption to put those Caltrans signs in two locations on our highway. And that's because we're not considered a rural community. We an isolated community So there legislation and there regulatory processes around a rural community but we have a large population in an isolated location And it just a few miles off the freeway but it very isolated and people don know it there So when they drive down the freeway, you'd see a Caltrans, and it would say Starbucks and Taco Bell and the steakhouse and different things that are available. The hospital. The hospital. Ah, good. Well, I can see how important it is. My God. Well, I'm glad you're proud of the deal forward. And again, at the appropriate time, I'll move it. Thank you, sir. All right. We aren't at the appropriate time because we don't have a quorum, but is there any other comments or questions from committee members? Seeing none. Good bill. Good bill. We got a good bill comment. That's always a good sign. Thank you, Senator Grove. And as soon as we have a quorum, we'll take up a vote on the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this district bill is really important and I really appreciate your support on the bill. Thank you. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. I appreciate your close. I should have given you that opportunity. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Is Senator McNerney in the house? How about Senator Blakespeare? I see her over here to my right. All right. You may present as soon as you're comfortable and ready, Senator. This is file item 6, SB 1167. I do have two witnesses. Should I invite them up now? Yes. Okay. Well, thank you, Chair and colleagues. I am pleased to author SB 1167, which is sponsored by four of the biggest groups working on e-bike issues, Cal Bike, People for Bikes, Streets for All, and Streets are for Everyone. I gladly accept the committee's amendments. Thank you for working with us on this bill. This bill addresses misrepresentation in the e-bike marketplace and strengthens consumer protections around how electric bicycles are marketed and sold. Often, any bicycle-shaped device with an electric motor is labeled an e-bike, regardless of power and speed capabilities. This can lead consumers to think that they're all similar and that there's no real difference between the vehicles, the speeds they go, and the danger that's involved or the safety requirements. But that's simply not true. And that's why California law already clearly defines what qualifies as an e-bike. An e-bike can have no more than 750 watts of power and go no faster than 20 miles per hour on a throttle or 28 miles per hour when it is pedal-assisted. Due to the popularity of e-bikes, manufacturers and sellers have not held fast to this legal definition. They have blurred that distinction, advertising more powerful motor vehicles as e-bikes. This false advertising can cause consumers to underestimate the danger of using these faster motor vehicles. Just to illustrate e-bike popularity, according to People for Bikes, e-bikes are the number one growth driver for the bike industry over the past five years, responsible for 63% of the growth in dollar sales of all bicycles between 2019 and 2023. In my hometown of Encinitas, indeed throughout my entire district in Southern California, e-bikes are hugely popular and they are everywhere on the street. We see people of all ages using them, and I also receive complaints about them from throughout my district. We've heard or read about e-bike crashes and kids getting hurt. In San Diego County research released from Rady Children Hospital showed there were 262 traumatic emergencies on electric two devices that were handled by the hospital in 2025 SB 1167 will address the lack of clarity in the e-bike marketplace by better regulating motor vehicles that look like e-bikes so purchasers are aware of safety risks and manufacturers and sellers are held responsible for misleading advertisements. Specifically, SB 1167 will clarify the definition of e-bikes and specify that motor driven cycles, mopeds, and other motor vehicles are not e-bikes. Require manufacturers and sellers to disclose if a device is not an e-bike, including advising consumers that vehicle registration and rider licensing is required. Failure to do so would constitute false advertisement and unfair competition under the Business and Professions Code. The bill would standardize the location of e-bike labels so they are easily seen without turning the bicycle upside down or requiring law enforcement officers to look underneath a bicycle seat in order to find the label. The bill also requires law enforcement officers to include label information on incident reports so we can actually track what's happening with e-bikes. It would also prohibit any two or three wheeled devices that can exceed 20 miles per hour from being used on public roads unless it meets the requirement of advice explicitly authorized for use on public roads. With me today, I have Jeanne Ward-Waller on behalf of People for Bikes and Kendra Ramsey on behalf of CalBike. Thank you. You may proceed in whichever order you prefer. Great. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Kendra Ramsey, and I'm the Executive Director of the California Bicycle Coalition. We're the voice of the everyday bicyclists 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 Senator Blakespeare for her leadership on this issue, and I'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill. I want to share with you why legal e-bikes are an important part of our transportation landscape. Simply said, legal e-bikes are sustainable transportation options that open up bicycling for more trips for more people. Legal e-bikes are bicycles. They provide a way for people to go further for more types of trips than a traditional bicycle might. E-bikes are an option for people who might not be physically able to bicycle at all or for more than a short distance, who may need to carry a passenger or cargo, or who may need to travel on hilly terrain. E-bikes help older adults ride to get coffee with friends, maintaining connections, and having physical activity. They help workers get to jobs on time when their family can only afford one vehicle. Car ownership can cost around $12,000 per year, and e-bikes can afford a huge cost savings for families when they are able to replace a car. People who bike get more physical activity, which helps reduce chronic health conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and some cancers while improving mental health. More bikes on the road means fewer car trips. That means cleaner air, less traffic congestion, which is great for all of our communities. It also means that drivers see more people on bikes, which helps drivers expect to see people on bikes, which creates safety for all of us. I respectfully request your support on this bill. Thank you. Next witness, please. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Jeannie Ward-Waller representing People for Bikes. People for Bikes is the national advocate and trade association for manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors of bicycle products, including electric bikes. People for Bikes worked with 45 states and the federal government to create consistent electric bicycle standards across the U based on California three law We thank Senator Blakespeare for her authorship and are proud to co this bill to address the explosion of high e and their impacts on safe streets. Electric bicycles are the only reliably growing segment of the bicycle market, and they expand access to affordable, sustainable transportation at a time when the cost of driving is climbing fast. Protecting the integrity of what qualifies as a legal electric bike and access to them is essential to maintaining safe streets and public confidence in this important mode. However, consumers are increasingly encountering e-motos instead of e-bikes that are marketed as e-bikes that do not meet California's legal definition. Some e-motos have motors with thousands of watts of power and can reach highway speeds of 65 miles per hour. Particularly terrifying are the growing safety risks to children and teens as e-motos are marketed to younger riders on social media. Recent research tallied devices in bike racks at San Mateo and Marin County schools and found that 90% were actually e-motos. Reports from the medical community and in local news about increasing crashes do not make the distinction between legal e-bikes from e-motos. By clarifying the definition of what is not an electric bicycle, SB 1167 ensures that e-motos cannot legally be marketed as e-bikes. The changes in this bill will help consumers make informed decisions, provide a clear framework for e-moto regulation, and align vehicle use with safety standards. We urge your support. All right. Thank you for your testimony. We have others I see lining up to express support. And anyone else who wants to do that, please line up now. Thank you. Mark Vuksevich, Director of State Policy for Streets for All. We're one of the sponsors of the bills. Proud to be doing this with Senator Blakespear, with the e-bike industry, our fellow advocates. Evidence-backed policy. Appreciate it. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of the California Medical Association in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Kiara Ross on behalf of the City of Carlsbad in support. Hi there. Elisa Arcidiacona with Townsend Public Affairs representing the City of Oceanside in support. Thank you. Tim Chang with the Auto Club of Southern California in support. Good afternoon. I read Arapi-Chang on behalf of AAA Northern California in support. All right. Thank you. Looks like that's it for support witnesses. Do we have a lead opposition witness on this bill? Seeing none. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? You may come up to the microphone now if that's the case. Seeing none. We'll come back to the committee. I'd like to move the bill and I want to thank the Senator for all our hard work on this very important issue. It's an important issue in my district and throughout the state of California. So I'll move it at the appropriate time. Thank you, Vice Chair. Senator Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and also thank you, Vice Chair. Excellent bill, and this is something so vitally important for parents. I've been battling this in the district for over a year now. And something vitally to have the bikes appropriately labeled. For parents, it's an educational issue and knowing what's appropriate for their child that they're buying this bike for for Christmas or a birthday. So it's not only educational for the parents, but it's safety for the children and young people. So with that, if the author is okay, I'd love to become a co-author at an appropriate time. Senator Arceleta. Yes, Senator, I know you've been working on bills like this for years, it seems. I know San Diego's very, very supportive of the work you've been doing. Does the bill address, to your satisfaction, reckless driving, having someone alter the bike in such a way that it'll exceed what it was built for? Tell me about that. Well, the bill is trying to recognize that the DMV is at times reluctant to take on more work. So having the DMV need to be involved in licensing different types of e-bikes doesn't seem like it would be a successful bill. So this bill is really focusing on the reality that when you look at an e-bike, and there's a great chart that was put out by the Mineta Institute that shows it's about 25 different bicycles in little boxes, and it is impossible to tell which ones are actually e-bikes versus e-moto, some version of a motorcycle. But many of them you don't pedal at all. It's just all throttle. And, you know, focusing on the fact that parents don't know what they're buying, they want their kid to have independence. They want them to be able to go to their soccer game or to school from ages about maybe 10 or 12 to 16 before they can get a driver's license. and so they end up buying these devices that are so overpowered and they don't actually know what they're buying. So the bill is really focusing on that particularly because we do see that as an area that has exploded in popularity and is essentially the Wild West. So we're focusing on that and not on things related to reckless driving or DMV categories in that way. I think it's also important to note that there is a role for local governments And you see Huntington Beach and other cities, Oceanside and my district, doing this where they're empowering law enforcement to stop reckless riding, to confiscate the bike, to call the parents, to mandate that there be a safety course that's taken. There are things happening at the local government level around e-bikes that are really important, but this is just one piece of that puzzle. Thank you for clarifying that and definitely supporting the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, seeing none others, thank you very much. I want to acknowledge your efforts as well. Senator Archuleta mentioned you've been working in this space for a while. And it does give the committee, I think, I'd want to speak for the entire committee, the consultant that did so much work on this. I'll speak for myself as a chair. Some comfort to know that when you bring in a bill in that is modifying the law literally in 100 different ways, that you've taken a deep dive, that you have this background in it as do your sponsors. So we're charting new territory here, and I don't mean this to be dismissive of the bill in any manner, but maybe it's not perfect somewhere. And I didn't feel like that was our charge here in the Senate Transportation Committee to try to figure out what the perfect bill is today, but to get the law going in the direction of a significant framework, and you've done that. I hope you continue the work in this area. And as you mentioned, there's other things going on that aren't included in this bill. And as somebody who is a runner and a dog walker and who deals with the interface out there, Frankly, not in my district, because I think my district is too poor still to afford these things. But here in Sacramento it feels perilous as recently as this morning because they very quiet It almost the same kind of signaling issue that we get with very quiet EVs coming up on an intersection And folks don't always have the courtesy to let you know what's happening or that they're coming along. So all of this is going to have to be worked out in the future. have been down in your district and have seen firsthand some of what goes on and what would otherwise be ordinary cul-de-sacs and sidewalks and what have you. So I can understand why you've taken this on. So I certainly support the bill as well. And as soon as we have an opportunity to formally entertain the motion, take a vote, we will. Okay, thank you very much. Yes, and just to close. Sorry, I didn't mean to cut off your clothes. Oh, no, it's okay. I very much appreciate the testimony today and just want to say how important it is to have these four major groups that work on bike issues and e-bike and safe streets be focused on what we can do to firm up the laws and tackle this one particular area. Because it is a clear area that needs attention. And there are a lot of other things to do in the e-bike space in order to make our roads safer. But I'm grateful for the partnership, and I appreciate the help of the committee, and I have high hopes for this bill being successful. So thank you very much again, Chair. All right. Thank you. We'll welcome you back to the dais. And thank you to the witnesses. We'll move on now to actually go to file item three, which we kind of leaped over. Senator McNerney is here, and you're welcome to come forward and present if you're ready, Senator. This is SB 1034, File Item 3. Welcome. Good afternoon, Chair Cotese, Vice Chair Strickland, distinguished members of the committee. I'm here this afternoon to present SB 1034. I want to thank the committee staff for their work. There weren't any amendments proposed, but we are open to working with veterans groups and others to improve the bill at all times. SB 1034 is a common sense measure. Right now, it's more difficult for disabled veterans to get a parking placard than disabled non-veteran civilians. So I'll repeat that. It's more difficult for veterans that are disabled to get parking placards than it is for civilians that are disabled. That doesn't make sense. We need to change that. Because of this, many eligible veterans don't even apply for benefits that they've earned. This bill aligns the state law, federal standards, and existing rules for civilians. SB 1034 recognizes that veterans often have multiple disabilities and ensures that veterans aren't excluded just because of a condition that isn't labeled as service-connected if they are already rated as 100% permanent and total disabled. For veterans on fixed incomes, these parking benefits provide important cost savings and gives them their independence. Reliable access to a car is essential especially for those who struggle with public transit as a result of post stress This bill removes barriers so disabled veterans can access care and maintain their quality of life With that I will introduce my testimony What do you call them? Testifiers? Witnesses. Read witnesses. J.R. Wilson on my right here is the legislative director for the Department of California Disabled Veteran Americans and Hector Soto, a veteran advocate for my district. And with that, I will yield to Mr. Wilson. All right, you'll have a couple minutes each. Thank you. Thank you. My name is J.R. Wilson. I'm the legislative director for the Department of California of Disabled American Veterans. A little bit about my background. I started with the DAV in 1997 as a National Service Officer and eventually becoming a supervisor in our Roanoke, Virginia office in Reno, Nevada, and San Diego National Service offices. In 2016, I was elected as the Department of California DAV State Commander, and I have been the Department of California DAV Legislative Director since 2018. I am here today in strong support of Senate Bill 1034. This bill is about administrative alignment and eliminating unnecessary barriers. California recognizes disabled individuals through the DMV-issued placards and plates based on medical certification. At the same time, the federal government, through the Department of Veterans Affairs, operates the most comprehensive disability evaluation system in the nation. Within that system, a designation of permanent and total disability has two distinct and equal important meanings. Permanent means the condition is not expected to improve and the veteran will not be subject to future examinations by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Total means the veteran is disabled at the 100% level and compensated at the maximum VA disability rate. Both matter. Together they represent a final, lifelong federal determination of severity of disability. However, current law does not fully recognize that that federal determination. Veterans who have already been deemed permanently and totally disabled must still navigate additional duplicative verification requirements to access certain DMV related benefits from a policy standpoint. This creates inefficiency and inconsistency between the state and federal system. It is also important to be clear of what this bill does not do. SB 1034 does not eliminate the requirement for a California disabled person placard. Veterans must still meet California medical eligibility standards and obtain verification from a licensed physician. A doctor must still certify a mobility-related disability required under California law. This bill simply ensures that once a veteran has a verified medical condition under California standards and a federal designation of being both permanent and total, they are not subject to additional redundant barriers beyond that point. Let me briefly illustrate. Maria, is a veteran rated on? We have to wrap up so we don't have too much time for case studies right now. You're at two and a half minutes. You're very good. From a transportation and DMV perspective, this is common sense reform. It reduces duplicative and medical clarification, improves administrative efficiency and align state processes with federal determination. It ensures a consistent treatment and consistent similarly situated disabled veterans. On behalf of the 72,000 DAV Life members of California, we respectfully ask for an aye on vote SB 1034. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for your testimony. We do appreciate it. Next witness, please. Good afternoon everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Hector Soto. I'm here in support of SB 1034. As a disabled veteran myself I also spent time advocating for fellow veterans and helping them navigate the Veteran Benefits Administration the Department of Veteran Affairs amongst various organizations Through that work I have seen firsthand how California current law creates confusion inconsistency and unfair barriers for disabled veterans seeking parking benefits they rightfully deserve. SB 1034 is important because it helps bring fairness and clarity to law. Right now, disabled veterans can face stricter eligibility requirements than other disabled Californians when trying to access parking-related benefits. That creates an unnecessary barrier for veterans who already live with serious mobility challenges. This bill helps correct that by aligning the rules for disabled veterans more closely with the standards already used for other disabled individuals. It provides clearer descriptions of qualifying mobility limitations, makes the law easier to understand, and helps ensure that veterans with legitimate disabilities are not left out simply because the current statute is too narrow or too vague. SB 1034 also matters because it recognizes the real-life challenges disabled veterans face. For many veterans, access to parking benefits is not a minor inconvenience. It can affect their ability to attend medical appointments, among other quality of life challenges. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Are there others here who wish to speak in support of the bill? If so, please come forward to the microphone. It's an opportunity for name, identification, and support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Seth Reeb with Reeb Government Relations, representing American Legion Department of California, AMVETS Department of California, the California State Commanders Veterans Council, Military Officers Association of America, and the Vietnam Veterans of America, all in strong support, representing nearly three-quarters of a million veterans. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Anyone else here to speak in support? I'm seeing none. Do we have a lead witness in opposition? Seeing none. Is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition? Seeing none. Vice Chair? I've answered the great bill. I'll move it once we get a quorum. Senator? Well, thank you, gentlemen. And Senator, supporter of veterans that you've been, and I'm just so proud of the work you've been doing. As the chair of the Military and Veterans Committee, and I think that the work you do is fantastic. But let me just ask you a question. I have to scratch my head. How is it that a disabled veteran who has documentation from the VA that he's 100% disabled just can't walk into DMV and say, I'd like to apply for the placard? And then at that point, DMV is giving him a hard time. Why wouldn't DMV just say, we've got the 100% rating. Why wouldn't you be approved right then on the spot? I'll let my witness take that. I think one of the distinctions here is the permanent and total status. It actually streamlines the DMV's requirements. Currently, a veteran that is 100%, and not all veterans that are 100% have that separate distinction. So currently, what they must do is go out and get the disabled placard application, go into their county veteran service office, get the verification that the mobility issue is service-connected. This creates an easier streamline for that veteran that is permanent and total that is also required to get a California disabled. So the technicality is the verbage, the word permanent and total. That's what it is. Okay. So obviously this bill will take care of that and eliminate that and take care of our veterans. Well, it's about time. Thank you so much. Thank you for your service and the veterans in the room. Thank you for your service and welcome home. Please continue the fight and God bless you for your service. and obviously I'll support the bill. Any other questions or comments from the dais? I see none. Still short of a quorum, just barely, I guess. All right, so we'll take up a motion and a vote on the bill. Obviously, you have an offer of a motion already, and as soon as we have a quorum. We're a little short right now. All right, thank you. Did you want to close, Senator? I didn't mean to cut you off on your clothes. You're welcome to say a few more words. I was just going to ask for an aye vote. Great. Thank you. Great vote. Senator Gonzalez. Perfect timing. Can you do that? Perfect timing. Good stuff. We can provide witnesses if you need them. They're here. Just kidding. That was just humor, attempted humor. Please come on forward, make yourself comfortable. And Senator, you can present whenever you're ready, of course. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon and members. I'm here to present SB 1279, which authorizes the city of Long Beach to place speed safety cameras along the Pacific Coast Highway. In 2023, I worked as chair of transportation, as the former chair of transportation with Assemblymember Friedman, authoring AB 645, in which we authorize six cities, including Long Beach, to use speed camera safety systems to reduce speeding. This pilot program has strict guidelines for privacy and equity, requiring non-punitive warnings for the first 60 days of violation, and ensuring that there are fines starting at only $50 and so many other options for low-income recipients of fines as well. And since implementation, San Francisco, which is one of the pilot program cities, has seen a drop of 72% in speeding, which has been incredible. And in implementing its own safety camera program, Long Beach identified a high-injury corridor where they could not place cameras, which is the Pacific Coast Highway. And as you may know, unfortunately, Long Beach is ranked among the deadliest cities in California for traffic collisions per our own California Office of Traffic Safety. And specifically, PCH accounts for 20% of Long Beach's crash fatalities, yet makes up just 1% of its arterial roadways. And the eight-mile stretch runs past parks, elementary schools, and Long Beach City College. SB 1279 would address this gap by authorizing Long Beach to place speed cameras along this highway with the same guardrails it follows through the pilot program. And we're continuing to work with many of our stakeholders. And testifying in support of the bill today, I welcome Councilwoman Dr. Suli Saro from Long Beach's 6th District and Paul Van Dyke, the City's traffic engineer. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. You may go ahead and proceed. You'll have a couple minutes each. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I am Councilwoman Dr. Suli Saro from the very cool city of Long Beach. Thank you to Senator Gonzalez for authoring SB 1279. I am very proud to support it because it is ultimately about saving lives. As the Councilwoman representing the specific section of the Pacific Coast Highway corridor in the bill, I hear directly from residents who are concerned about speeding and traffic safety every single day. I hear from parents who are afraid to let their children walk to school, from seniors who feel unsafe crossing the street, from small business owners who worry about the constant risk that a high speed traffic will bring a car right into their storefront And I hear from families who have witnessed crashes and near misses For too many in the 6th District, PCH has become a source of fear and loss. While it makes up less than 1% of our roadway miles, it accounts for 20% of traffic fatalities in our city. So one in five traffic fatalities in Long Beach happen on this highway. That alone should compel us to act. And as said, this bill simply allows Long Beach to include its portion of PCH in the existing speed camera pilot program. Right now, we are excluded from using this proven safety tool on one of our most dangerous roads. This bill closes that gap and gives us the ability to act where it's most needed. On behalf of the City of Long Beach, the 6th Council District, I strongly urge an aye vote on this item. Thank you. Thank you. Next witness, please. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, committee members. My name is Paul Van Dyke. I'm the City Traffic Engineer for the City of Long Beach. My team is tasked with rolling out our Speed Safety Pilot Program authorized by AB645, and I am excited about the possibility of expanding the pilot to include Pacific Coast Highway within the city of Long Beach. Pedestrian exposure is my primary concern on PCH. 30 of the 39 fatal crashes since 2020 have involved pedestrians. As mentioned by the senator and our council member, PCH in Long Beach is not a waterfront open road like most people think of when they think of PCH. It runs through the heart of our city, touching the largest park in central Long Beach. Its crosswalks lead directly onto the platform for the A-line light rail station, and its sidewalks bring kids to school at Cabrillo High School and Long Beach Poly High School. And so really making sure that our streets are safe for the communities in Long Beach, for the people in Long Beach that are walking along these streets is why we're here asking for your support for this bill. I'm available for questions, technical questions, and thank you for your interest and support of SB 1279. Thank you. Thank you for being here in Sacramento. Those who wish to speak in support can come up now. Mark Fuxovich, on behalf of Streets for All, we were one of the sponsors of AB 645 by Assemblymember Friedman and proud to see this expanded. Thank you. Bernie Ojeda, Alley County Sheriff's Department on behalf of Sheriff Robert Luna in support. Good afternoon, Tim Chang for the Auto Club in support. Jeannie Ward-Waller on behalf of People for Bikes in support. Kendra Ramsey, California Bicycle Coalition in support. All right, looks like that's it for support. Do we have any lead opposition? Seeing none, does anybody wish to speak in opposition? You can come to the microphone now. Mr. Chairman, Terry McHale with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the California Association of Highway Patrol. After really excellent discussion with the Senator's office and appreciation for the committee amendments that are being taken, the Highway Patrol Association has removed their opposition and are neutral on the bill. Thank you very much. Just to clarify, my understanding is that the author intends to take amendments in the next committee, in privacy committees. So just to avoid confusion here there no limits being taken here Well But we do understand what those She has a great staff We confident they do what they promised to do So they promised to do We are as well Thank you Thank you Anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition or tweener like we just heard Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee at this time. Senator Archuleta is prepared to move the bill, but I think we need one more member, if my accountant is right. So as soon as we get one, we'll establish a quorum, and then we can vote on the bill. But we'll give you an opportunity to close. You can do that now. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank Dr. Sorrow as well as Mr. Van Dyke for being here. This also includes the City of Signal Hill's support, I should say, because Signal Hill is shared by PCH with Long Beach. And we just want to thank you and our stakeholders for the insightful information, and we're looking forward to bringing safety back to the City of Long Beach. Thank you. I ask for an aye vote. Thank you. All right, members, we're now going over to the chairman's bills. We'll start with File Item 18, SB 1177. Thank you, Chair. May I proceed? Please, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm here to present SB 1177. As was pointed out, this bill will ensure that the legislature continues to consistently receive critical data on the California High Speed Rail Project. The High Speed Rail Project Update Report also known as the PIRR provides the public and the legislature an opportunity and an important progress check-in every two years and that is to ensure that the High Speed Rail Authority is on track to meet its goals. Current law requires a PIRR to include specific information related to the project's budget schedule and potential risks. Past PIRRs have gone above and beyond include additional information such as potential revenue options, project timeline comparisons, and background from other international high-speed rail projects. This bill will codify the additional information into statute to preserve crucial data for future analysis and ensure long-term transparency and accountability in our high-speed rail transformation. With us here today to testify in support is Robert Pearsall, who is with our sponsor, the U.S. High Speed Rail Association. At the appropriate time, I'll respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Robert Pearsall. I'm the California Political Director at U.S. High Speed Rail. We are the proud sponsors of Senate Bill 1177. U.S. High Speed Rail is a coalition of over 50 leading unions, public agencies, and companies. USHSR works with its members and allied progressive environmental groups to advocate at the federal and the state level for public support for world high rail projects across the U California high rail project will not only revolutionize our transportation system, it will also be a boon to our economy. In the 2024-2025 fiscal year alone, the high-speed rail project produced $2.9 billion in economic output and investment. In 2025, the California High-Speed Rail Authority announced it was conducting a comprehensive review of the high-speed rail project including design criteria, scope, cost, procurement strategy, ridership and schedule. The review could identify new ways to accelerate construction, manage costs and bring in additional revenue but the legislature will need consistent detailed updates on the authorities progress to ensure those outcomes. As the Senator said, the project update report is currently required to keep the public and legislature informed about specific project information including budget, scope, and risk. And it's worth noting historically the authority has gone above and beyond to supplement the PUR with additional information. The additional information we're discussing, the ancillary revenue options, comparative analysis of past project timelines, and background information about international high-speed rail projects provides crucial insights into the authority's strategy and efficiency. SB 1177 will maintain consistency for stakeholders, legislators and the public by ensuring that the additional elements from recent PURs are codified in statute and continue to be included in future project update reports. That's why we're sponsoring this bill. We're thankful to the chair for authoring SB 1177 and I'm happy to answer questions here any time after the hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Other witnesses in support? For identification purposes, support? Witnesses in opposition? Are you a tweener? Yeah, please come forward. Good afternoon. Kiera Ross on behalf of the City of Burbank in opposition to the bill. Okay. Members, anything? All right. This is one issue where I know the chairman and I disagree. I wouldn't be doing my job if I just didn't say, instead of requiring another report, from my standpoint, I think it's time that we cut bait and just shut down the project personally. But I know I'm in a minority on this committee, but I just want to put those two cents in. on this. Any other things? We don't have a quorum, so, Chairman, when the time comes, Mr. Archuleta will move the bill. Mr. Chairman, would you like to close? And just to respect your position, and always have, in the robust debates we've had over time, this bill, as we're putting it forward, is really to create a historical record that's in statute that can't be moved, and And ironically, I thought of you when I was first looking at the bill because there's been times I know you've appropriately pointed out some of the history of the bill, some of your own comments on the record about the bill. And hopefully in its best version here, this bill would document all of that, pros, cons. Whether the project were to continue to fruition, I hope it does. You hope it doesn't. The question, I think, really becomes, does it hurt to have a very, very clear audit trail as to just what the heck happened along the way? So that's all we're trying to do. But again, thank you very much. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, members, now we're going to move to the chairman's next bill, file item 19, SB 1246. How are you doing? Good. How are you doing? Mr. Chair, whenever you're ready to open. Do you have another witness that wants to come up? All right. Can I pull up here, Megan? I can move up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you again, Mr. Chair and members. Next, I'd like to present SB 1246, which will establish stronger remote operations, standards, and emergency response protocols for autonomous vehicle operators. Autonomous vehicles are rapidly expanding operations in California, I think, as we all know. And although Waymo leads the industry with approximately 3,000 deployed vehicles, 30 more companies are going through the DMV's permitting process to enter into the market. Unfortunately, reports of AVs obstructing traffic, competing first responders, and driving through active law enforcement activities have continued to abound. While human drivers can react to ambiguous situations in real time, AVs often require input from remote human operators. So as has been said recently in one of our hearings, there are humans involved, even with autonomous vehicles. But when remote assistance gets delayed, AVs can freeze in intersections, they can jam traffic, they can block emergency responders. In some scenarios, it's our public sector workers, our first responders, firefighters, paramedics, law enforcement, who then must step in despite the strain it puts on our public resources. To standardize these remote operations, SB 1246 requires remote drivers and assistance to be based in the U.S. and hold a valid California driver's license. SB 1246 also implements a ratio of one employee to every three vehicles. Our goal is to ensure AV companies have the capacity to respond immediately to emergencies like the San Francisco power outage last December. Furthermore, SB 1246 gives our first responders the tools and assistance they need. Under this bill, a trained autonomous vehicle worker must arrive to assist first responders on scene within 10 minutes. SB 1246 also requires every autonomous vehicle to include a manual override system. And under this bill, these override systems must be approved by the California Highway Patrol in collaboration with the state fire marshal. And all autonomous companies must provide proper standardized training. Finally, in addition to mandating monthly reporting on immobilizations and response times, SB 1246 establishes clear penalties that go back to local jurisdictions for vehicles that block traffic or interfere with emergency responses. This bill is still in its early stages, but we've already begun conversations with industry stakeholders to find ways to collaborate toward our common goal, keeping our roads safe. I respectfully ask for your aye vote so we can continue our work on this important set of issues. And with us here today in support, we have Megan Subers with the California Professional Firefighters and Sterling Haywood, a parking control officer and member of SEIU 1021 in San Francisco. Matt Legge with our sponsor SEIU California is also available for technical questions and I may defer to him at that point Thank you Thank you Who would like to start I happy to go first Thank you Thank you Mr Chair Megan Subbers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, who represent about 37,000 rank-and-file firefighter EMTs and paramedics across the state. Just pleased to be in support of this bill and would like to thank the author for continuing to focus on these AV safety issues. As you've heard me and my members say in front of this committee before, We do think it's important for California to have a set of rules and protocols for AVs to operate safely in California. The analysis does a great job, and the author mentioned some of the issues that first responders have faced on the streets and parts of California where AVs are operating today, interfering with emergency response situations, parking on top of fire hoses, blocking fire station exits, and creating more dangerous situations than we think is appropriate. My San Francisco local noted recently in a public hearing that ever since San Francisco became California's laboratory for autonomous vehicles, the San Francisco Fire Department's command staff and labor representatives have asked the AV companies for a public safety manual override option that would allow a police officer or firefighter or other first responder to immobilize an AV without the need to contact a remote operator. They hope the companies would agree to this common sense solution voluntarily, but the years have gone by and here we are. Instead, companies have encouraged first responders to use a hotline that is dedicated for first responders, but unfortunately that communication has lacked and not always been quick or effective. In December of 2025, the power outage affecting large portions of the city stranded many people across San Francisco. These vehicles blocked intersections and streets and could not be moved without assistance from the company. The hotline that was supposed to be a resource in these situations was not quick or responsive. of the city had reported that emergency dispatchers made a total of 31 calls to the hotline and were placed on hold for long stretches with one dispatcher waiting on hold for 53 minutes. SB 1246 would ensure that in the event of an emergency, first responders can get the immediate response and attention from remote assistance that is needed and will ensure that AVs operating on a highway are equipped with manual override systems accessible to first responders and we would ask for your support today. Thank you. Next testimony. Good afternoon. My name is Sterling Haywood. I'm a SCIU member, a parking control officer of 18 years. I'm here to share what's happening in our streets right now and why it's urgent to have legislation to make autonomous vehicles operate safely along the workers who keep our city moving. In my work, I support street cleaning crews, manage traffic congestion, and try to keep people safe while directing traffic. And more and more, the autonomous vehicles are getting in the way of the work. Despite clearly posted signs street cleaning schedules, I rarely find ATVs where they shouldn't be. And because there's no driver, there's no way to resolve it, I end up having to cite these vehicles. Also, while directing traffic, the risk is even more serious. On fifth admission, I saw an ATV stop in the middle of an intersection and make a legal U-turn and nearly hit another vehicle. Near the Moscone Center, I watched one star ATV block a lane, then another pull up right behind it, then another one until there was four vehicles stuck backing up traffic on a busy street. This isn't my experience during, well, actually during the Super Bowl weekend, a fellow officer had to physically get into an AV and move it after calling customer service just to clear the road. And during December storms, an autonomous vehicle blocked the emergency responses. City workers and first responders had to stop what they were doing to move these vehicles manually. Senators I proud to serve the City of San Francisco and its residents but city workers and first responders shouldn be treated as roadside assistance for private AV companies SB 1246 is about accountability and to make sure that these companies take responsibility for these fleets and don't rely on already stretched public workers to fix these problems. It protects the ability of first responders to do their jobs without delay. I respectfully urge you to vote yes on SB 1246. Thank you. Other witnesses for identification purposes? In support. Matt Broad on behalf of Teamsters California in support, thank you. Thank you. Elmer Lazardi on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support, thank you. Chair and members, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association in support. Sean Flanagan on behalf of the Dawn Project in support. Good afternoon, Louis Costa with Smart Transportation Division in support. John Mejia, a gig driver for 11 years, representing 800,000 drivers in California in support. Hi, Margarita from Los Angeles, driver for Uber and leave for eight years. Please vote yes on support of SB 1246. Thank you. Hi, I'm Janice Jackson, and I've been driving for Uber for 10 years, over 10 years, and I'm in support of SB 1246, and I'm hoping that you are too as well. Hi, Hector Castellanos with California Geek Workers Union and also 100,000 drivers in support of SB 1246. Joseph Augusto, ride share driver for 10 years in the San Francisco Bay Area, urging you to support SB 1246. Hi, my name is Vikash Junker, I'm a ride share driver for 10 years. I'm at Frazzo County and I'm in support of SB 1246. Nicholas Cavillar, Stockton, California, driver for 10 years. Please support SB 1246. Urge you for that. Thank you. I'm Jaleel Mahdabi from Fresno, California. I'm five years and ride share driver, and I'm in support of SB 1246. Thank you. Hi. I'm requesting support to SB 141246. I'm a member of California Ajit Workers Union. Thank you. Hello, this is Harvey Melendez coming from Los Angeles. Please support SB 1246. I'm Mike Robinson, and I support SB 1246. Jason Eames, San Jose, Cyclist Commuter, I support SB 1246. Simon Washburn, Sacramento, also support SB 1246. Samuel Burdick, Paradise, California, I support SB 1246. Rosemary Shaham, President of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, proud to support SB 1246. Thank you. Thank you. Now, witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Thank you. Two minutes each. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Sarah Boot testifying on behalf of the Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association in respectful opposition California has already made significant updates to its AV safety framework that have not taken effect yet These new requirements will address many of the issues raised today. In 2024, the legislature enacted AB 1777, which was developed in coordination with first responders. Once it takes effect this July, companies operating AVs must, among other requirements, Continuously monitor each AV and answer calls from first responders within 30 seconds. Have remote human operators who can stop or move an AV as directed by first responders, and direct AVs to leave or avoid an emergency situation within two minutes of a geofencing message initiated by first responders. And if companies can't meet those requirements, first responders can then issue notifications that will be reported to the DMV, and the DMV can then limit or revoke their licenses, their operating permits, excuse me. Meanwhile, the DMV just overhauled its AV regulations after a years-long public process, and they're expected to take effect this summer. They govern remote support personnel, first responder interactions, incident response, and data reporting, and they will be the most comprehensive in the country. In addition, key definitions in the regs differ from those in this bill, and that creates compliance conflicts. We should not layer on a second overlapping system before the first one is even implemented, especially after the companies have spent the last two years building up their compliance programs to meet these new requirements. A better approach is to allow AB 1777 and the DMV's new regulations to take effect, evaluate how they work, and then address any real demonstrated gaps. Finally, SB 1246 pairs a three strikes you're out rule with very prescriptive mandates. even when the violations stem from unrealistic requirements like a 10 minute response time in person. On its face, this bill is not a ban on AV technology in California, but it could act like a de facto ban, shutting down operations based on rigid rules rather than actual safety outcomes. So for these reasons and more, we respectfully request a no vote. Thank you. Next witness. Chair Cortese and members of the committee, my name is Chris Childs and I am here today to express my opposition to Senate Bill 1246. I am a native Californian and a retired assistant commissioner with the California Highway Patrol. During nearly 28 years with the CHP, I spent the entirety of my career in the pursuit of enhanced traffic safety. As an assistant chief alongside my counterparts at the DMV, I oversaw CHP's regulatory responsibilities toward the autonomous vehicle industry. My team and I dove deep on AV issues on behalf of the people of this state. We personally visited AV companies across California and developed a strong understanding of how these vehicles support traffic safety on California roads. Based on the many existing requirements for first responder interactions under California's existing AV law and regulations, I know we all share the goal of giving first responders effective tools to respond to activities involving AVs. However, this bill does not achieve that goal. Instead, it would create requirements that are out of touch with reality. Requiring local AV technicians to be present on a scene within 10 minutes is simply not possible, given California's urban conditions and long stretches of highway between exits. As a tenured member of law enforcement, I have responded to hundreds, if not thousands, of emergency calls rolling code 3. Even with the benefit of lights, sirens, and the ability to drive much faster than other vehicles, I found that my response times were often longer than 10 minutes. Requiring commercial AVs to be equipped with manual override control systems for first responders is also not necessary, as this approach puts first responder safety in jeopardy. The safest procedure is often for vehicles to remain where they are and to be towed with specialized equipment by highly trained recovery operators. Never in my 28 years of service did I move a big rig truck or witness a fellow first responder move one. AV companies have a vested interest in working closely with first responders. responders and they have been doing so for many many years. I know they take this role seriously because I have worked with them as a regulator on behalf of the people of the state. Creating arbitrary regulations before new and significant requirements go into effect in a few short months will create confusion and will not make our roads safer. For these reasons I urge the committee to vote no on SB 1246. Thank you. Thank you. Other witnesses in In opposition? For identification purposes. Good afternoon, John Kendrick, California Chamber of Commerce. In opposition? Robert Singleton with Chamber of Progress, also strongly opposed. Good afternoon, Peter LaRue Munoz with the Bay Area Council, respectfully opposed. Ashanti Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and also on behalf of Aurora Innovation and very respectful opposition. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Jose Torres with TechNet in strong opposition. Thank you. Members, any questions? Senator Jim Jabbard. Thank you. You mentioned one of the last things you mentioned, that it would put emergency responders, first responders in jeopardy. But we have a representative of first responders, and they didn't claim that it would put them in jeopardy. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on if you're advocating for something, how do you think it would put first responders in jeopardy? Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the question. The engagement that I've had on this issue, not only specific to this bill but bills in the past, are relevant to the jurisdictions where they're either already on the roads or have a testing permit. and every local that I have talked to, every firefighter that has had to interact with these vehicles in one way or another, has said to me their number one request has always been the ability to override the system and be able to move the vehicle themselves. They have said to me also, I don't want to be AAA. I don't want to be AAA for AVs, but some situations dictate that we need to quickly move this car. and sometimes it's not realistic to wait for someone to come from the company and move it themselves. So I don't know exactly what it means to say that this would put first responders in jeopardy. I hear what the witness said about being able to move a big rig. That's not what I'm envisioning in this situation, but I do think first responders are equipped enough to move a Waymo or a vehicle of that similar size. I think it's dangerous if they come up to a vehicle and they've said that some multiple situations happen. Sometimes they're shut down completely. The vehicle's not on. If I could cut you off, I'm sorry. We've been waiting forever for a quorum. Please. So I want to establish a quorum so we can move forward and get this committee done. Clerk, please call the roll. Senators Cortese. Here. Cortese here. Strickland. Here. Strickland here. Archuleta. Here. Archuleta here. Arrigin. Blakespeare. Here. Blakespeare here. Daly, Gonzalez? Here. Gonzalez here. Grayson? Here. Grayson here. Medjavor? Here. Medjavor here. Richardson, Tejorto, Valaduras, Wiener? So we now have a service transportation. I'm sorry about that. Thank you. Yeah. Of course, yeah. I think the situation where they approach the car and the vehicle is not on is, oh, sorry, where the vehicle is not on and not operating is one thing. What my members say is sometimes they approach the vehicle, it's not moving. They don't know why it's not moving, but it's on. And that is when they concerned about it doing something that they go in the wrong direction being more dangerous in the community And that is when they wish they could have that option to be able to override it and have that manual override system I'd love to hear your response to that. And I'm going to add another question to you. Well, you mentioned this regarding the times, but we heard from the sponsors, gave some examples, 53 minutes, I think, waiting with an operator. You countered with some of your time. So I'm wondering if you can expand a little bit more also. on how are you then responding to these long waits that continue to exist? Well, I'll just speak to the, I think if I recall correctly, that that particular time was referring to the San Francisco incident. And I'll defer that to this other witness to answer that. But with respect to the times when the new laws come into effect this summer, AV companies will have to respond to first responders, like either calling their line or a two-way radio that has to be attached to the car now within 30 seconds. And if they don't do that, they're in violation of the law and they can suffer significant consequences for that. They have to have somebody that would answer those calls and then enable a first responder to move the car themselves if it makes sense for that type of car or to do it themselves. And if they can't do that, they're in violation. There's some cars like a Neuro or a Zoox that don't have like steering wheels and that type of a thing. So it's like it doesn't make sense for every type of car. And so that's part of the issue. But these new rules, when they come into effect, should address a lot of those situations. And if they don't, these companies will be facing consequences for that. Would you want to speak to the wait times? Absolutely. And I can testify that police officers across the country move cars all the time. And my testimony was more revolving around big rigs. And I've never seen a police officer move a big rig ever. Even officers that I know hold Class A commercial driver license, They insist that they won't move a big rig on duty because it puts themselves at risk, especially if they don't know what's wrong with the big rig, which is why there's a lot of specialty equipment to move those big rigs. I mean, respectfully to the other witness, I've never, ever seen a fire department personnel ever move any type of vehicle that usually is given over to the police officers on scene, which is typically the way it goes. Mr. Vicer, I have one more question to the author. Senator, DMV is going to be coming up with these guidelines. Does your bill go above that? Are there gaps that you anticipate these guidelines are we going to have as to your bill, the purpose for your bill? Because the opposition says, is asking that we wait because DMV is coming up with their guidelines. So I'm asking, does your bill go above the guidelines that are coming up because you think a gap would still exist? Yeah, that's a great question. And so AB 1777, the Ting Bill, was in effect a subset of what's going on here. It did not address these issues. For example, it did not address the issue of remote operators and what qualifications they should have. It did not address response time. As you know in your own communities that EMTs and fire, for example, for good reason, have mandated response times, contractual response times, and if they don't meet those, it's a big problem, including ambulance services, private ambulance services. Those kinds of things just haven't been addressed so far. So that direction has not been given to DMV. If they go beyond, certainly during the course of this year as we're moving the bill forward, assuming we can keep moving it forward, obviously I'm willing to make adjustments, amend out areas that are redundant or don't need to be addressed. But the legislative direction so far has not has only touched on a couple of issues frankly And we just think there a lot more that needs to be done and things are moving very very quickly So kicking the can down the road from a legislative standpoint and waiting for rulemaking to happen, you know, might be awfully late. Thank you, Senator. Anybody else? Go ahead. Senator. Senator Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the offer for bringing it forward. But I do have a question on the coordination among state agencies because, you know, AVs in general, as I've worked on this work as well, it can be very confusing. And it's brand new. It's sort of still nascent technology. but how do you see the coordination amongst the state agencies working and actually ensuring that there is, you know, the accident data reporting, that you have all of the, that we do have the true enforcement that is the intent of the bill. So, you know, the DMV obviously regulating the vehicles and then PUC, the robo-taxi side of things. So how do you see that? How do you envision that? And then so this could be the best bill possible. Yeah, uniformity is going to be a big issue, and the bill starts to address that. I'm not sure one bill is going to get all the way. There is no uniform guidelines that have been established by anyone in the state of California in terms of the issues that we've been talking about here, response times training. So we have called for CHP to be the agency that, given it's a statewide law enforcement agency, that takes responsibility for trying to bring uniform guidelines into play in terms of fundamental law enforcement issues, rules of the road issues in terms of training. You know, as it stands right now, we don't have coordination with dispatch. I know you know this as a former chair of this very committee. To this day, there's no dispatch coordination. So all the work that we've done in local governments and at the state level to make sure that when someone calls 911 and says, I've got a problem out here, somebody's trapped under a car, we have not only mandated response times, but we have dispatch, as some of us know from dealing with emergencies, working right through with us all the way to the point of actual response. Right now, our AV industry is in a separate universe. So that needs to be coordinated. It absolutely needs to be coordinated. I think the beginning point here was to say there needs to be a set response time. And I want to just say I'm open to moving the 10 minutes, but I would just say even to the opposition, let's discuss that. Because there's very few first responder agencies that are allowed 10 minutes. And I'm not sure what the liability issues are going to be, you know, if we're not synced up with those response issues. For example, a fire coming out because someone's trapped under a car could be no responsibility, no direct responsibility of the AV company, of the industry itself. But what may become the problem, the liability problem, is they don't show up for 15 minutes, and you've got first responders there that are unable to take any kind of meaningful physical control of the vehicle. That's not good. And I beg to differ with the opposition witness that says that or implies that first responders of any type don come out and immediately call heavy equipment and tow companies This bill is not about tractor rigs We all know what the vehicles look like The ability to move one of those as quickly as first responders need it to be moved or to override it, it just seems critical to life-and-death situations. Anyway, sorry about the long response, Mr. Chair. Well, I appreciate it, and I would say I know sort of in addition to that is the data as well. I know that we have been talking about some AV companies do provide data, some definitely do not, as we've known. And the DMV has not been great in some cases in ensuring that we're getting that data on crash accidents. And, you know, NHTSA sort of nowadays sort of seems like a black hole. and we don't understand which is doing what. So the data is certainly very, very important. I'm wondering, and maybe this is for public safety on either side, on whether, you know, looking ahead, how there will be categories for this specific issue, maybe not even just on the crash data injury side, like the death or injury side, but also on the, you know, just having to be like the AAA, like you said, which we should not be having our public safety personnel do. So I'm wondering what the data will maybe evolve into after this bill or as you're waiting for DMV additional reporting. As is widely known, the safety rating of autonomous vehicles is far superior in terms of deaths per million miles, which is the mileage death rate, as opposed to human drivers and human error-related crashes. So I think we all envision a future where there's better traffic safety for everybody. But on the data side, how is that going to? Yeah, thank you, Senator. I don't know if I have an exact answer to your question, but I think we're also very interested to see that data as well, not necessarily just for incidents where, you know, somebody may die in an accident, but just like the number of incidents reported of, you know, a disabled car in a dangerous location or the ability to block a fire engine from leaving the station, like those kinds of things we're hoping get reported as well, and that will hopefully inform our operation and the training that our members do to interact with the vehicles, but also hopefully the way that the vehicles continue to evolve in their rollout as well. That's helpful, yeah. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. So I just have a couple things before we go to the chairman to close. I agree with the senator from Long Beach. When we look at the data, I hope when we look at the data, we compare apples to apples. Just like when we talk about accidents. What is it, accidents from these AV vehicles versus accidents that are normal people driving the car? The data I've seen that the AVs are actually more, are safer. And again, going into wait times, more blocking. I understand first responders, they're there to try to help keep us safe, the most essential role in government's public safety. But I can tell you many times where I've seen cars that broke down, that were in the middle of the road, and it takes a tow truck 15, 20 minutes. So I want to know, like, when we look forward on this and data, let's compare apples to apples. Because a lot of times, oh, 10 minutes is too long. Yeah, 10 minutes is way too long in an emergency situation. But someone driving a car that breaks down that car, a lot of times it's longer than that 10 minutes. You're expecting an autonomous vehicle to be better than what we have currently today on everyday life. And so those are the kinds of things that we need to take a look at. I'm actually excited about that. about this because I think we're going to have a major reduction in car accidents through these kinds of vehicles. Now, it's not perfect yet, but it's going to get better and better as technology gets better and better. So, members, I always caution everybody. Let's not kill industry before it gets going. And when we talk about data, let's look at apples to apples in terms of data. So those are my two cents. Oh, Senator, did you have something? I'm sorry. On my left. It's quite all right. My first hearing as a member of this committee. Go ahead. So, first of all, I want to thank, I know there were San Franciscans who came up today and some of our amazing city workers. I think maybe some parking control officers who came up. Thank you for managing our roads and doing hard work and dealing with angry people all the time. So I'm very appreciative of that. And I know there's been talk about December 20th in San Francisco, a day that will live in infamy. And I was there also in the middle of it. I was there in the sunset having a slice of pizza when the lights started flickering, which was the start of an absolutely catastrophic multi-day blackout, a complete disaster that was not caused by anyone or anything other than Pacific Gas and Electric Company. And I think we have to always remember that what happened, it was initiated by PG&E, by their failure to maintain their substations, which over a multi-decade period keep catching on fire because they're not doing their job. and it was horrible for small businesses. It was horrible for everyone. And it was just right on the cusp of the holiday. The holiday, just terrible. And I'm going on and on because I want us to remember that it was PG&E that triggered all of this. I was also there in the middle of the city when I saw a large number of Waymos who were stopped at stop signs, mostly at stop signs and just not moving. And I think like a lot of people, I was super confused. And I know it was not a good situation at all. And I think it was definitely a fail by Waymo. And I know there were explanations and rationales, but it caused a lot of problems triggered by PG&E's complete and utter failure. I have been supportive of various regulations of AVs. I supported the Ting Bill a few years ago. I supported the large truck bill that the governor has repeatedly vetoed. There are pieces of this bill, and I want to thank the author for taking this on. There are pieces of this bill that I think are not just reasonable but good, like reshoring the folks who you're going to need to call. Since there's no driver, you have to be able to speak to someone and reshoring that. There are other pieces of this bill that I think are really good and that I support 100%. There are some other pieces of the bill that I think need work. The 10-minute piece is one of them. I wish I could get around San Francisco in 10 minutes. I can't. And so I'm going to lay off the bill today. I am not ruling out supporting it on the floor and I would like to even be part of those conversations if that possible and then see what the bill looks like on the floor So again, I want to thank the author. I want to thank the folks who have come out in support. Like I said, there are some really good and important pieces of this bill, and I'm going to keep watching it, and I'm not rolling out supporting it in the future. So, Mr. Chairman, would you like to close? Yes, thank you very much. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Senator Grayson, I didn't, sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair, and I apologize, but I was going to speak earlier. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the bill and where it's going. I think it's, again, I'm just making obvious statements today. It's obvious we have a true, real issue here. It's also obvious that both sides, your main primary goal is safety. And so I would just encourage, I'm going to go the other way than my colleague. I'm going to support the bill today, but with the urgent request that the chair and opposition, you work together to try to find that landing spot and that point, working on the time. And the author's already stated that there's interest in working on the time and all of that. There's got to be a better landing spot than where we are right now. So with that, I am going to support the bill today, but looking forward to more collaboration. Thank you. I just realized we need a motion for the bill. Okay, by Senator Archuleta. Chairman, would you like to close? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oh, all right. Go ahead. Senator Richardson. Thank you. Sorry, I was presenting some bills just next door, so excuse my delay. I just wanted to commend the author for taking on this very important issue. I think what everyone saw over the holidays, I actually went up to the chairman on the floor and said, you know, and I sent the clip to the PT about what was happening with Waymo and when the systems went out and how it impacted traffic. And it's not popular sometimes to take on tough issues, and you haven't shied from that. and I look forward to us all working together and getting to the right place. But thank you for nudging us along because I do think this industry is here. It's here to stay, and so we need to figure out how we better can provide that oversight and make sure that it is safe in our communities. I hear a lot in Santa Monica people complaining about the charging locations and all of that, So we do have many things to work on if this is going to be a system that we have. But thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your work on this issue. Okay, the bill's been moved by Senator Archuleta. Now, Mr. Chairman, you may close. I'll be brief. I do appreciate all the comments, supportive or not. I very much appreciate Waymo representatives being here. We do want to work in collaboration. When you're at this stage of emerging technology, there's nothing better than to have collaboration with the industry partners who understand their own product the best, they understand what their capabilities are the best. That may continue to improve. As it improves, we most certainly should have their collaboration, I think, at the legislative level, not just at the agency level. And Senator Weiner I very much appreciate all your comments And I just I don expect everyone to share this specific concern of mine but it comes from years and years of local government. And I know you and several others here have served in local government. We will have superseding causes, you know, things like PG&E that have nothing to do with the industry, have probably nothing to do with the legislature per se. But when something happens on the streets of one of our cities that implicates the literal police powers of the city, 80 to 85 percent of our municipal budgets and our county budgets are going to police and fire, and there is no local control of our municipal and our county streets, literally. That's stunning. If you really think about it, it's stunning that even in the situation that occurred, it was well documented that there was literally no municipal control for a time of the streets of San Francisco. I don't blame that on San Francisco. I blame that on we haven't caught up with the emerging technology and figured out how to make sure that standard, ordinary response powers, police powers, are available as immediately as possible. So if that's not 10 minutes, we'll figure out what it is. I, again, appreciate the robust discussion. I would appreciate all your individual input along the way because I'm not sure anyone's a real absolute expert on this going forward, and we would really like to get something done here. And I would respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Clerk, call the roll. The motion is due pass with Committee on Rules. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Adagin? Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Daly? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarto? Valadarez? No. Valadarez, no. Wiener? That bill is 7-2. We'll remain on call. Members, if you don't mind, let's go really quick to the consent calendar. It's file item 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. Does any member want to pull anything off the consent calendar? If not, entertain a motion. It's been moved by Senator Grayson. Please call the roll on the consent calendar. The motion to adopt the consent calendar, Senators Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Arrigan? Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Daly, Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarto, Valadares? Aye. Valadares, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. So it's 10-0. They'll remain on call. Now, members, we're going to file item number 20 by the chairman, SB 1250. Thank you again, Mr. Chair and members. Wildlife vehicle, this, I'm sorry, I'm presenting SB 1250, and wildlife vehicle collisions are a real and growing safety issue on California roads, costing hundreds of millions of dollars annually and putting drivers at risk. SB 1250 ensures we plan for these hazards as part of our transportation system and not after the fact So can we Please close the door Across California drivers regularly encounter animals in the roadway with little warning These situations can lead to serious collisions and do injuries and significant vehicle damage as well. Wildlife-related incidents are not isolated events. They occur by the thousands each year and are concentrated in specific, well-documented locations on our highway system. In many cases, it's not only the initial collision that poses a risk. Drivers may break suddenly or swerve to avoid an animal, creating dangerous conditions for surrounding vehicles and increasing the likelihood of secondary crashes. These are recurring, avoidable costs that place ongoing demands on public resources and on California drivers. Importantly, these incidents are not random. We now have strong data identifying collision hotspots, specific stretches of highway where these events occur repeatedly over time. And I've heard directly from rural transportation commissioners across the state who are dealing with these exact conditions on the ground. For example, along U.S. Highway 50 in El Dorado County, one of the primary evacuation routes connecting the Sacramento region to Lake Tahoe, wildlife vehicle collisions are not just an environmental concern, they're a serious public safety issue. This corridor is one of the highest ranking in the state for wildlife collisions. and when the incidents occur, they can shut down the entire route with no visible detours, impacting commuters' emergency response and evacuation capacity. Because these locations are known, they can be addressed in a targeted and strategic way using the same planning tools we already apply to roadway safety risks. And I do want to emphasize this is a planning bill. We also know what works. Wildlife crossings combined with appropriate fencing and design features have been shown to significantly reduce collisions in many cases by well over 80%. These are established engineering solutions that improve roadway safety outcomes when displayed in the right locations. I want to be very clear. SB 1250 does not take funding away from other transportation priorities or create new hurdles for projects to move forward. It simply integrates wildlife connectivity into the same planning process we already use. As you know from reading the analysis, there's already been some bill history on this topic that has moved this issue forward. So when the state is investing in a corridor, we need to be able to address multiple safety needs at once rather than coming back later and spending more time and more money to fix the same stretch of road twice. Right now, however, these improvements are often treated as standalone projects, separate from routine highway planning and investment. And I think there's reasons for that, and the bill tries to address those reasons. As a result, we miss opportunities to address known safety risks during scheduled roadway work, leading to delays, duplication of effort, and less efficient use of transportation resources. The bill addresses a gap by integrating wildlife connectivity into the state's transportation asset management framework. That's the planning we want to have happen. This builds on the work Caltrans is already doing, as I mentioned a minute ago. We do have legislative history that's been enacted on this. It's right there in the analysis. This is fundamentally about planning smarter. And for rural regions in particular, this matters because these are often high-speed corridors with limited alternatives where a single incident can disrupt an entire region. By allowing known collision risks, by aligning them with existing transportation planning and funding processes, the state can improve roadway safety outcomes, reduce the frequency and severity of avoidable incidents, and deliver infrastructure improvements. in a more coordinated and cost-effective manner. This bill reflects a practical approach. I want to briefly address the concerns raised by the one opposition letter that we have. We recently had the opportunity to connect with CBIA. I appreciate the productive conversation. I typically have very productive conversations with him, particularly over the last five-plus years. It appears some concerns stem from a misunderstanding of the bill's intent. We will work with them to make sure that there's whatever additional clarity there needs to be. But they are currently refining proposed amendments and I remain committed, as I said, to work that out with them. Here with me today to testify in support of the bill, we have Michael Jarrett on behalf of the Nature Conservancy. And I believe we have Jeanne Ward-Waller on behalf of Pew Climate Plan and National Wildlife Federation. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Michael Jarrett, Associate Director at the Nature Conservancy, and we are proud to sponsor SB 1250, which would support better planning and agency coordination for wildlife connectivity. TNC thanks Senator Cortese for his leadership on this important issue. TNC's leadership in connectivity conservation spans more than 25 years and includes the landmark California Missing Linkages effort launched in 2000. This body of work, together with our partnership in the California Wildlife Reconnected Network, supports the alignment of ecological movement corridors with planned highway upgrades to deliver safe roads and resilient landscapes. California's highways connect our communities and carry millions of drivers safely to work, school, and home every day. Too often, those same roadways become places where drivers encounter animals with little warning, creating dangerous situations that can lead to serious crashes, injuries, delays, and costly damage. We know these collisions are preventable with the right planning. SP-1250 adds wildlife connectivity to the Transportation Asset Management Plan, which would change a piecemeal approach to wildlife connectivity to one that is systematic and consistent with other aspects of transportation planning, helping Caltrans to streamline and accelerate work they are already doing. vehicle wildlife collisions are a preventable safety problem on California's roads. Analysis by the UC Davis Road Ecology Center documents an annual statewide cost of above $250 million. Studies show that wildlife crossings paired with continuous fencing typically cut large mammal collisions by 80 to 97 percent. There are examples of successes that SB 1250 will build on, such as Caltrans District 9 Highway 395 Sonora Junction, During the development of a broader safety project, Caltrans staff integrated two wildlife underpasses into a transportation project in an area where over 50% of collisions involved deer with only a 1% increase in cost. Thank you. I'll wrap up. Many of these projects are eligible for funding through the Wildlife Conservation Board, federal funds, and private funds. With the right planning, there's a huge opportunity to leverage funds and to make our roads safer, reduce traffic congestion, and benefit our wildlife. For all these reasons, TNC urges your support of SB 1250. Thank you. Thank you. Next witness. Good afternoon again, Chair and members. Jeannie Ward-Waller representing Pew Climate Plan and National Wildlife Federation. I also served at Caltrans for a number of years and oversaw in the planning program. So I understand how this issue functions internally. SB 1250 is about bringing structure and accountability to Caltrans efforts to make highways safer through upgrades coincident with planned projects while protecting our unique natural systems As Michael said wildlife vehicle collisions have real and significant costs emergency response, medical bills, vehicle repairs, and traffic delays that show up in both the state and household budgets. Well-designed wildlife crossings paired with fencing should be treated as the highly effective safety treatments they are, not optional enhancements. That's why the state enacted AB 2344 in 2022 to set the policy direction to identify and address the most significant hotspots. SB 1250 doesn't mandate any new projects or create a new funding program. Instead, it does something practical and fiscally responsible. It establishes performance goals for wildlife connectivity alongside other transportation objectives to plan, track, and manage over time. This bill helps the state address wildlife crossings on routine road maintenance projects through the shop, digging once to address all priority needs at a location at one time. And to be clear, the types of improvements we are talking about may be as minor as replacing a drainage culvert that already needs to be replaced with a slightly larger culvert that can accommodate key species. The alternative is an expensive and piecemeal approach where wildlife crossings are implemented as standalone projects that could involve coming back to a location where a recent pavement project was just completed, disrupting and frustrating the public with traffic closures a second time to tear up the road for a new project. Ten seconds. In a time of significant pressure on the transportation budget, SB 1250 ensures that limited dollars are spent efficiently on multi-benefit projects that address all the goals. We urge your aye vote on SB 1250. Thank you. Thank you. Other witnesses in support for identification purposes? Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. Paroud to support a bill that is a good idea and not always in our wheelhouse, but happy to support. Mark Fokasich on behalf of Streets for All in support. Jake Schulz on behalf of the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County, Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, and the California Habitat Conservation Planning Coalition in strong support. Thank you. Kim Delfino on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife and California Native Plant Society, but also been asked to read the support for El Dorado County Transportation Commission, Climate Center, San Diego 350, Planning and Conservation League, Road Ecology Center, UC Davis, 350 Bay Area Action, Wildlife Conservation Network, Endangered Habitats League, Pathways for Wildlife, Eco San Diego, Wildlife Habitat Conservation Coalition, the Native American Environmental Protection Coalition, and the Trust for Public Land. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Jennifer Fearing on behalf of San Diego Humane Society and our Project Wildlife in strong support. Nicholas Sackett on behalf of Social Compassion in legislation and our thousands of supporters in California, thank you. Good afternoon, Mari Galloway on behalf of Wildlands Network in strong support. Karen Schock on behalf of Climate Action California in strong support. Good afternoon, Tasha Newman on behalf of Peninsula Open Space Trust and the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority in support. Good afternoon, Chair and members, Jordan Grimes on behalf of Greenbelt Alliance in strong support. Thank you. Kendra Ramsey for California Bicycle Coalition in support. Hi, Jamie Goh on behalf of Tree People in support. Thank you committee members My name is Karen Mason and I with Environment California This year we have been working very hard across the state to support Sir only for identification purposes and support We already had testimony Okay, this is the Environment California I support, thank you. Thank you. Chris Lee on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you. Witnesses in opposition? Hi, Audrey Witejek. I'm here, sorry, with a cold. On behalf of CBIA, and we appreciate the author and the sponsors for working with us and their willingness to engage. We're actively working with them to address our remaining concerns. It would be helpful for the committee to know that we've also clarified some of the items that are in our letter, and we're currently working with them, as the senator mentioned, in good faith. The only outstanding issue we think we have right now is the definition of wildlife connectivity asset, and we're working through. We think it might be interpreted a little bit more broadly than intended, so we're working to address that and think we'll get to a good spot. So thank you. Thank you. Members, any questions? Senator Blakespeare. Yes, thank you. I'm a proud co-author on this bill. I appreciate that you are bringing this forward, and I want to recognize how great it is that we have multiple legislators that are seeing the need to focus on coexistence, wildlife coexistence. We just had Laura Richardson presenting her bill on grizzly bears over at Natural Resources. And I also have a bill that complements this. It's SB 1135, and it would reestablish the wildlife coexistence program within the Department of Fish and Wildlife in order to better manage and reduce human wildlife conflicts. And so I just want to recognize that it's so important that we think about our major transportation systems systems and wildlife and so to have the chair of transportation focusing on safety but also on wildlife health and biodiversity and championing this bill is just critically important and I really when I read this bill and saw it as an idea it was such a natural next step after requiring Caltrans to think about bicycle and pedestrian planning before when they're doing projects because it's the same idea that was also mentioned by your supporters here, that we want to dig once, you know, we want to build once. And if you could build a little bit bigger culvert, why not do that? And then also thinking ahead about what it is that's creating the safety problems on the roads, and it's just a win-win in every way. So I want to express my full participation and support and enthusiasm for this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else? Senator Menjivar. Thank you. I mean, I don't disagree with anything that my colleague mentioned, you mentioned the importance of it. I do have some concerns, given especially that Assemblymember Schultz had a bill in this hearing. And the analysis from approbts kind of worried me regarding the potential of hindering projects from being fulfilled, given the increase in cost to it. So if I have infrastructure, highway infrastructures that need to be addressed, which I do, I have one of the worst highways in California. Is this going to hinder them getting maintained and upgraded if there's not enough funding to do the extra part that your bill is asking to do? This bill fundamentally does nothing in terms of the funding side, what we would call the fiscal side at all. So it's literally requiring institutionalizing awareness at the planning document level. And that's where there's really been a problem. So if I can just use a quick case study In Santa Clara County if you ever tried to go from San Jose to Santa Cruz you go over Highway 17 There a huge reservoir on one side of Highway 17 and there you know, Redwoods and open space on the other side. And there's a project there that was being worked on for years by Open Space Authority folks who have some jurisdiction on both sides. Well, Caltrans was somewhat aware of what they were doing, the money they were raising, the grant funding that they had, but there was absolutely nothing in the planning process that even demonstrated that there's a pedestrian bridge going over Highway 17 and a new box culvert for the wildlife, the pedestrian bridge for humans, and a box culvert under. When I first met with the folks five years ago, I said, have you gone through the transportation planning process? They had no idea what I was talking about, not because they're stupid or anything, but they know a lot about outside of the right-of-way, how to navigate funding issues and right-of-way issues, purchase property, acquire easements on private property, and so forth. None of that is what this bill implicates. This bill is just saying that when people are coming into that literal intersectionality with one of our highways, that the CTC in this town process should have an inventory of that. They should have that mapped and it should be logged in that planning process. That Highway 17, to my knowledge, other than routine maintenance, would have never had any other project there. So whatever comes of that, ultimately, and the project's not complete now, would either be from the open space folks investing. Without going into the details, we have an even more graphic example on Highway 152 going from San Jose over to the Central Valley, major goods movement corridor with elk, Tule elk, on both sides of the highway and no institutionalized crossing. and there's going to be road work going on there to accommodate St. Louis Reservoir expansion now, but there's no corresponding planning document that shows that the Habitat Conservation Plan, which is putting a trail again right underneath 152, even has a project that exists. It's as if on the transportation world that project doesn't even exist. So this is what we're trying to do is just raise awareness. I think there's actually an argument that in those cases, like the last one I just mentioned, it's actually going to create efficiencies so that the engineering is factoring in what needs to be done to either get people or wildlife or both back and forth. And both those examples, by the way, they're human pedestrian crossings. They're basically ATV projects, active transportation projects, as well as wildlife accommodation projects. I'd like to, because I don't think I, I apologize, Senator, that I feel like my question didn't really get answered here. Because the sponsor talked about, you know, efficiency, we should do one project versus two instead of coming back. When I hear that, that means at the get-go of that first project, it won't be completed unless you're incorporating what we're asking this bill to do. And the Senate Appropriations message of the previous bill, very similar to this, said, adding costs to individual projects may result in the funding of fewer overall transportation infrastructure improvements. And that's what I'm worried about. I think that was a very inappropriate comment in the analysis because it was thoroughly explained. you know, to the staff in this committee that there's no mandate in this bill. In fact, we invited amendments to the bill from this committee staff that would make that even more clear. I'm more than happy going forward to make that more clear, Senator. But there's no funding mandate in this bill whatsoever. So, and in fact, those projects, you know, unless, unless you, for purposes of efficiency, are going to be individual projects, they're not well, they're not, This bill does not force the merger of a wildlife crossing project with an existing project. And obviously we have a competitive system. I serve on the CTC. We have a competitive system, a formula-based system that rewards the highest and best project. So it's possible if the CTC looks at we have a wildlife project here, we have this highway project we absolutely have to get done for goods movement. we have X amount of dollars that they move forward with Project A and not Project B, and you lose the efficiency of building the corridor at the same time, but so be it. That's how the process works. And we're all in competition with each other in that way, and our projects, of course, in our own districts are in competition with each other, and so it's very Darwinian in that way. But nothing in this bill says that somehow these projects leap ahead ahead or even onto an equal footing with a project that's either shovel-ready or more critical to transportation infrastructure. So it doesn't prioritize, so I get that point. Thank you for that. And is it the intent of the bill to not also say one project now gets assessed and there is opportunity to do a wildlife connectivity? there's enough funding for that project, but it cannot address or include funding for wildlife connectivity, can it still move forward without including that connectivity? I think you're here nodding heads. I'll let them answer. I'm happy to speak to it. I know I won't prioritize. I got that. As the author, I know you want author's commitment. Yeah. I want them to answer the question, and I will tell you I'll commit to it the sponsor's answer. I'll just describe a little bit of how this works internally to Caltrans now. The asset management plan is where Caltrans sets broad statewide targets. So they've built in things like bike and pedestrian connectivity in recent years. They've also built in things like climate resiliency. So in a lot of cases culverts, drainage culverts, and bridges are already being upsized because we're seeing bigger storms, more precipitation. What our bill does is say also consider the wildlife connectivity needs in priority locations based on a list that Caltrans has already identified. And while you're already doing that work, either include the connectivity or at least consider it. It's not going to delay projects. It's setting this as a goal at a statewide level, so future projects will consider this. It's not going to impact existing projects that are moving forward now. Nothing will get delayed that is already in the pipeline. Okay, okay. Thank you. As I said, we've requested language to help clarify that taking the comment and the analysis in good faith, we don't think the problem exists in the first place, but to the extent we need to call that out so there's no confusion, I'm happy to do that going forward. So I need a motion, I assume Senator Blakespeare? It's been moved. Anything else, members? If not, Chairman, would you like to close? Would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Secretary please call the roll The motion is due passed to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water Senator Scortese Scortese aye Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye. Araguin? Aye. Araguin, aye. Blakespeare? Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Daly, Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Menjavar? Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarto? Valadez? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. The bill's 8-1, remains on call. Mr. Chairman, your last bill, File Item 21, SCR 129. Okay, thank you again, Mr. Chair, one last time. I assure this is the last one. I'd like to present SCR 129, the Rusty Arreyes Highway Resolution, which recognizes the extraordinary contributions of Rusty Arreyes, a former Assemblymember and former director of the Department of Parks and Recreation for the state of California. I'm not sure that's exactly the title of our state parks department, but I apologize for that. Rusty Arreyes spent 12 years in the State Assembly, where he was widely recognized as a leader on transportation, agriculture, land preservation issues, and more. He authored over 100 pieces of legislation that were signed into law by two Republican governors. During his tenure on the Assembly Transportation Committee, Mr. Reyes was instrumental in securing $150 million for improvements to State Route 152 over Pacheco Pass Highway. That's the same highway I was just referring to on the prior bill. I do want to, of course, point out that $150 million in terms of present value today would be a much more significant contribution to our transportation infrastructure. Later, as director of the California Department of Parks, Mr. Arreyes oversaw the passage of $6 billion in park bonds and raised park attendance by 23 million people. That's documented. It was also critical in securing 300 acres of farmland in an area I'm very familiar with, within Senate District 15, during the time that he served as our parks director. That is now called Marshall Cottle Park in Santa Clara County. This was approximately $500 million of land surrounded by residential development in the heart of San Jose. Again, 300 acres, which was successfully acquired by state parks as a direct result of Mr. Arreyes' efforts to meet with and get the landowner to agree to dedicate that property to the state of California. SCR 129 pays tribute, and by the way, that property is being fully utilized now as a working farm, a 300-acre working farm, which accommodates students and field trips and everything else you can imagine. SCR 129, as a resolution, pays tribute to a career of service by designating a portion of Highway 152 in Santa Clara County as the Rossi-Reyes Highway. The resolution is co-authored by 21 members of the legislature and supported by former director of Caltrans, Will Kempton, former Speaker Willie Brown, and Congressman John Garamendi. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Witness Mr McHale Mr Chairman members of the committee I be brief Many years ago 40 years ago I got started in this business working on the fifth floor of the annex And two doors down was Assemblymember Dominic Cortese's office. And I could hear Dominic Cortese coming to work every day. He had no understanding of rank. And whoever he crossed, it was always a funny comment, usually irreverent. And it was great to know him. And while I think his son inherited his mother's personality, I do believe that he got his father's sense of commitment to public safety. Senator Cortese has seen for over 45 years the work of the person that I worked for, Rusty Arreyes, and the extraordinary contributions that he has made to California. The offices Mr. Cortese and Mr. Arreyes were adjacent, although the district that Mr. Arreyes represented was more rural. Mr. Arreyes fit his district. He was an outstanding young farmer in America, and he was also a vibrant leader in a very active rural caucus. And while it is true that he tended to wear the new Calvin Klein jeans more than the traditional Wranglers, and there was probably more snakeskin in his boots than there was cowhide, it would be absolutely wrong to suggest that there was more flash than substance. It is a matter of record that two Republican governors signed Rusty Arreus legislation, moderate Democrat more than any other. As part of the Gang of Five, he came within a heart attack. Richard Longshore, flying to Sacramento from San Jose, had a heart attack on the morning that he was to give the 41st vote to change the speakership. And because he died, the speakership of Willie Brown continued for 15 years. Subsequent to that battle, Willie Brown and Rusty Oreos became have for a generation worked together on projects. And it is a matter of record that Willie Brown is one of the strongest supporters of this resolution. As the Chair of the Emergency Response Committee, Rusty led the response to the Loma Prieta earthquake and modernized how we respond to emergency services. And he was personally asked by the firefighters of California to be the sponsors of the California Firefighter Memorial that is in our capital park. As Chair of Agriculture, he wrote the legislation that delineated and outlawed the six most onerous and despicable pesticides in the state of California, which made our food safer and made it safer to work in the fields. In education, he wrote the seminal document that created the University of California, Merced, and has subsequently, in a move and a nod to the people of the Central Valley, And to Rusty Arreyes' work in particular, the governor has appointed him as a regent to the University of California system. He was the chair of the Coastal Commission and in rooms where rancor often reigns. He was a reasoned and reasonable voice and that area thrived economically, while at the same time our precious coastal environment was preserved. As director of parks, he cut fees so that inner city kids could enjoy parks that they had never seen before. It is on transportation that we remember him today. Highway 152 was considered perhaps the most dangerous area to drive in California. Yet urban legislators wanted to focus on congestion issues. Rusty Arreyes brought up busloads of young people to the capital to talk about the dangerous drive they made every single day. And consequently, $150 million was set aside to make that road more accessible. Rusty John Arreyes is in the twilight of a career of public service that is rare and long The late John Burton said to me that he had been asked by hundreds of people for favors He said the only time Rusty Arreyes ever asked for a favor was when he was asking for someone else. His joy and boundless personality that Rusty brought to public service was backed up by doing the hard jobs that needed to be done. to steal from a great Irish poet, Rusty walked the road less traveled so that those of us who followed him would have an easier pathway to go. I believe this resolution is well written, and I hope that you will support it. Thank you for the testimony. I would like to, just a point of personal privilege, move the bill to a point that you mentioned. As you know, I spoke on behalf of Senator John Burton in his passing. at a different time in this legislative body where everybody got along and could agree to disagree without being disagreeable. I knew the assemblyman. He was a champion. He's someone who really fought for California to the point where I got a call today from Senator Jim Brulte urging me to support it. I was already supportive before he called, but it just goes to show you the bipartisan nature that we used to have in this body that we can bring back again. And so I would like to be the person who moves this bill on that note. But Senator Menjewar?

We already do our comment. You know? Okay. I'll talk to you offline on some of this stuff, if you don't mind. So, Senator, as an example of bipartisanship, even though Rossi Reyes was part of the Gang of Five trying to take out Willie Brown, we have a letter of support from Willie Brown in support of this resolution. I'm a proud co-author and happy to support the bill today. Go ahead. Senator Siarga.

Senator Valadaris.

I'm not sure if you can move the bill.

Go ahead. Because you're the chair. Right. Okay. So is that it? All right. The bill has been moved. Would you like to close?

The motion is to be adopted, but first referred to the Committee on Appropriation. Senators Cortese?

Cortese, aye. Strickland?

Strickland, aye. Archuleta?

Archela aye. Arrigin. Arrigin aye. Blakespeare. Aye. Blakespeare aye. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez aye. Daly. Grayson. Aye. Grayson aye. Menjivar. Aye. Menjivar aye. Richardson. Aye. Richardson aye. Ciarto. Aye. Ciarto aye. Valadirez. Aye. Valadirez aye. Wiener. Aye. Wiener aye. The bill is 12-0 and the bill is out. File item 1, SB 990 by Senator Grove. The motion is due passed. The committee on appropriation. Senators Cortese.

Senators Cortese.

Cortese, aye. Strickland.

Strickland, aye. Archuleta.

Archuleta, aye.

Aye.

Blakespeare.

Blakespeare, aye.

Gonzalez.

Gonzalez, aye. Grayson?

Grayson, aye.

File item one.

Richardson?

Richardson, aye. Ciarto?

Ciarto, aye. Valaduras?

Valaduras, aye. Wiener?

Wiener, aye. The bill is out, 12-0. File item... It really means 12-0. It has to be 12. You want to call? If you need a motion, just tell me it'll call. He got them here too The consent calendar to adopt the consent calendar Senators Adagin Adagin aye Daly, Sayarto. I'm sorry, what now?

Consent. What I asked for, yes.

Bill's out 12-0. I'll move it. File item 3. File item 3, SB 1034 by Senator McNorney. The motion is due pass with Committee on Military and Veteran Affairs. Senators Cortese?

Cortese, aye.

Aye.

Archuleta?

Archuleta, aye.

Aye.

Blakespeare?

Blakespeare, aye.

Gonzalez?

Gonzalez, aye.

Aye.

Menjivar?

Menjivar, aye.

Aye.

Sayarto?

Sayarto, aye.

Aye.

Weiner?

Weiner, aye. 12-0. 12-0. Bill's out. Move. File Item 6, SB 1167 by Senator Blakespeare. The motion is due passed as amended to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water. Senators Cortese?

Cortese, aye.

Aye.

Archuleta?

Archuleta, aye.

Aye.

Blakespeare? Aye. Dally, Gonzalez?

Gonzales, aye.

Menjivar, aye.

Aye.

Sayarto, aye.

Aye.

Wiener?

Wiener, aye. I believe 1279 Gonzalez is next. Yes. And yes, Senator Archuleta offered to move that. Is that motion still standing? Yes it is All right The motion is due passed to the Committee on Privacy Digital Technologies and Consumer Protection Senators Cortese Aye Cortese aye Strickland This is 1279 correct Yes. I'm a no.

Aye.

Arrigin.

Arrigin, aye.

Aye.

Daly.

Aye.

Grayson.

Grayson, aye.

Richardson.

Richardson, aye.

Sayarto.

Aye.

Weiner?

Weiner, aye. Bill's out, 10-1. File item 9. I didn't say bipartisan, I didn't say get along. SB 1408. We have, again, Senator Archuleta has offered the motion on a motion on Aragene 1408. This still stands. Motion by Archuleta. Motion do pass with the Committee on Revenue and Taxation. Senators Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Strickland. Archuleta. Aye. Archuleta, aye. Aragene. Aye. Aragene, aye. Blakespeare. Aye. Blakespeare, aye. Daly. Gonzalez. Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Mangevar. Aye. Mangevar, aye. Richardson? Aye. Richardson, aye. Sayarto? No. Sayarto,

Valaduras, no. Wiener? Why don't you run through mine?

Do you want to run through, do you want to report out mine? Sure. Archuleta

Okay. Bill's out, 9-2. The next is 18. The next is file I'm 18 SB 1177 by the chair. Archuleta,

All right. The motion is due pass at the Committee on Appropriations. Senators Cortese?

Cortese, aye. Strickland No Strickland no Archuleta Aye Archuleta aye Adagin Aye Adagin aye Adeguene aye Blakespeare aye Daly Gonzalez aye

Menjivar, aye.

Sayarto, no.

Wiener, aye. That bill is 9-3. It's out. File item 19, SB 1246 by Senator Cortese. The motion is due passed with Committee on Rules. The current vote is 7-2. With the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senators Adagine?

Adagine, aye. Daly?

No. Ciarto, no. That bill is 8-3. It's out. File item 20 SB 1250 by Senator Cortese. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Natural Resources and Water. The current vote is 8 to 1. With the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting. Vice chair would like to move it from no to aye. From no to aye. Senators Daly?

Sayarto?

9-0. That bill is 9-0. 9-0, it's out. All right, Senate Committee on Transportation is now adjourned. Thank you.