Assembly Transportation Committee, Monday, March 23, 2026
Derzeit keine Kapitel verfügbar
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Assembly Transportation Committee California State Assembly
Ihren Sitzungen folgenRedner 4
Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Matt Robinson with the California Transit Association. We are one of the co sponsors of AB eighteen thirty seven. I appreciate both the chair and our author working with us on recent amendments to the bill. But as the committee analysis notes, transit agencies have been using forward facing camera technology successfully to enforce and deter illegal parking in certain areas for almost twenty years now.
We led the effort to expand the program to a statewide pilot in 2021. And in doing so, we adopted in statute agency enforcement discretion, meaning our folks can look at the tapes and if they see a hardship, they can go ahead and not issue the violation. We added initial notifications and warning periods before an agency could begin actually citing folks. They had to post signage, do communications outreach efforts, and then issue warning tickets for the first sixty days We also added an appeals process into statute and we put in very important data sharing and privacy restrictions in the law Today, we've got five of our member agencies that have implemented the programs and have found success in both improved on time performance and reductions in parking violations as the committee analysis does a great job of capturing many of these data points that our agencies have seen in this regard. The one point I wanted to close on was that in 2021, prior law had only had our ability to enforce in parking only lane, or I'm sorry, transit only lanes.
We were approached by folks from our elderly riders, our disabled riders who came to us and said, we are seeing folks blocking our bus stops and we can't get the vehicles to the curb. And that makes me have to get off the bus and cross the street essentially to just get to the bus stop. It's hard. There are mobility issues, etc, etc. And so we added the bus stops as one of the areas that could be cited for illegal parking.
It gives me great joy to see that it's actually worked in that regard. The buses have been able to get to the curb in these instances in addition to just deterring these violations from occurring. And so with that, Madam Chair, respectfully ask for your I vote, and I will hand it over to our co sponsor from Streets4All.
Redner 6
Good evening, Madam Chair and members. My name is Mark on behalf of Streets For All. This bill is simple. It makes permanent a pilot program that's already working using cameras to keep bus lanes and bus and now bus stops clear so transit can actually function as intended. Right now, buses across California are routine routinely delayed by vehicles blocking lanes and stops.
It slow down service slows down service, it makes trips unreliable, and it ultimately pushes people away from transit and the reliability it needs. When a bus stop bus is forced to make a stop in the middle of a street or away from its actual stop, it creates a safety hazard or a significant inconvenience to riders, especially disabled riders, and people, seniors, and also, and also children as well, excuse me. This bill addresses this with a proven targeted solution. Camera based enforcement is consistent, scalable, and doesn't require pulling limited law enforcement resources away or from higher priority needs. Ensures that buses are used for an their intended bus lanes are used for their intended purposes, which is moving people efficiently.
This pilot works. We hope we can see it expanded statewide. And lastly, I just want to mention also just from the worker perspective that this is a priority of transit operators as well, who see this as reducing the stress of their job in terms of how they actually have to navigate the roads and avoid collisions at all times of day. And so this is also a big part of transit operators. And we're also kind of still in the middle of a transit operator shortage.
When buses can move quickly, working class people can move quickly and move to the things that they deserve. And that's important equity policy, we hope the committee can support the bill. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Now we'll move on to members of the public who would like to add on their support, name, affiliation, and position.
Redner 8
Madam Chair and members, Michael Pimentel here on behalf of Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority as well as Monterrey Salinas Transit in support. Thank you.
Redner 9
Madam chair and members, Sylvia Solicia here on behalf of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. We've seen the 20% reduction in transit delays and also, wanted to voice support on behalf of the city of Santa Monica and its big blue bus. Thank you. Thank you.
Redner 8
Clifton Wilson on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco in support. Thank you.
Redner 5
Steve Wallach on behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District in support as well as the Napa Valley Transportation Authority and the California Association for Coordinated Transportation and support.
Redner 4
Madam Chair and members, Greg Fishman with Sacramento Regional Transit in support. Thank you.
Redner 10
Chair members, apologies. We just got our position late, but California Police Chiefs Association appreciate the author and support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. We do now have a quorum, so I'm gonna ask, madam secretary, could you please call the roll?
Redner 11
Wilson. Here. Wilson here. Davies. Here.
Davies here. Aguirre Curry. Aguirre Curry here. Aaron's. Carrillo.
Here. Carrillo here. Arabidion. Hart. Here.
Hart here. Hoover. Jackson Here. Jackson here. Lackie Here.
Lackie here. Macedo, Happen, Ransom, Rogers, Sharp Collins Sharp Collins here. Ward here. Ward here.
Redner 1
Thank you. We do have a quorum. Now, moving on to opposition. We don't have any registered on file so there are no witnesses but I wanted to be sure to give members of the public an opportunity to add on. If you are in opposition to the bill, now would be an appropriate time to come forward with name, affiliation and position.
Seeing none, I'll move it to committee. Assembly Member Jackson.
Redner 12
Thank you very much. Can you tell us a little bit about I mean, you stressed the numbers in terms of how much more time you were able to gain by making sure that folks were not in the wrong places. But can you tell me a little bit what the error rate is? Meaning the system captured them and it turned out that it wasn't what the system said it was. What is the error rate on this?
Redner 4
I'd have to get back to you on that, Assembly Member Jackson. I'd have to check with the individual operators. What we have done is had, subject to existing law, reports that are transmitted to legislative staff. Some of those reports, because the pilot programs were so new still, have come in only recently. My understanding is that the error rate is significantly lower than I think what's been reported in other uses of technology out there like this.
But let me get back to you if that's all right. We haven't had anybody raise it as an issue in any of the reports. One of the things that is looked at is that very instance of either errors or privacy issues and whatnot in the specific legislation. And that has not been a thing for the agencies thus far.
Redner 12
Because generally, when I start seeing things in terms of automated type citation stuff, I tend to get a little bit alarmed. Obviously, you know, I got caught by a camera but that's another story. It wasn't me. But I think that but I do appreciate the restraint in this bill, by the way, so I'm not saying I'm opposed to it necessarily. I just want to make sure that we're asking the right questions, too, because I heard a lot of the benefits to it, which are great benefits.
I also want to make sure that we capture the other side as well and that we take equally as serious in terms of convenience versus justice. Yes. Right? And so if you can please share any data that you have about that, I will love to do it before it comes to the floor.
Redner 4
Absolutely. And I would venture to guess that it's going to be different based on the system and how they actually go about capturing the violations. There's the very old school way where in San Francisco MTA's case, would They have two parking enforcement officers that watch rolling video all day. They go, Pshhh, violation. Yeah.
In others, they use more advanced technologies to issue the citation, subject to review by all of their parking enforcement officers. And so we're hoping that that's enough of a backstop to where we don't see a ton of errors. It hasn't been brought to my attention. So I'm, I guess I'm ignorantly saying it's not a thing, but I will get back to you with more certain information.
Redner 3
And will just add that existing law does allow the alleged violators to review the video image evidence of the alleged violation during normal business hours at no cost to the person who received the the ticket.
Redner 1
And also noting, for you as a member Jackson and working through the amends, there was a thought to expand the pilot, I mean, to expand it where you're looking at parking in a bicycle lane or even double parking and those of that nature because of the chance of an error rate more likely with those, we had those stricken from the bill. And the author agreed to those mins, as he referenced earlier.
Redner 12
And I appreciate the author agreeing to them because the level of restraint in this bill is also important. I actually appreciate it. Yep. Thank you. Thank
Redner 13
Yeah, wasn't going to talk about this, but there's I've got some concerns about guilty till proven innocent situation when the data is so insecure. There's have been a lot of complaints about this technology. And as as was just indicated, you can view the video, but these don't go to court, first of all. It's like a hearing. And when you go to that hearing, that's sacrifice just to go to the hearing when you feel like it was an it could be an error.
We we don't really know. We don't have the data. So I I'm just very unsure.
Redner 3
So LA Metro began issuing citations with fines starting in February '25. From February 25 to '26, the system issued 127,437 citations. Over time, the number of citations issued per bus decreased by 33%. And the program ultimately generated 22,000,000 in fine revenues. 75% of that revenue went to LA Metro and 25% went from the city of Los Angeles.
An analysis has proven the bus speed was not conducted at that time. But it does reference the fact that it did go down.
Redner 4
Yeah. And I just add, when we were working through this in 2021, there were emerging technologies that we tried to head off. And in this legislation, what's in the current law that came from a lot of work with our next committee, privacy and consumer protection, we have some of the most stringent data sharing, data destruction requirements in law. In fact, many of them have been modeled in more recent programs on automated speed enforcement, for example. And we have been exempted from more recent legislation that has also tried to take a more stringent approach to data sharing because our provisions are about as strong as you can get.
Redner 6
If I may add as well, Assembly Member, this is treating like a parking ticket. And so this is sort of functionally the same in circumstance. And so there's a technological level of review, and then there's a human level of review from there. And not necessarily trying to convince you, but I want to give you that certainty that we have that overlapping and concentric layers of review that lead to the certainty of the violation. And there's still an avenue to protest and appeal.
Redner 1
a pilot program for twenty years, since 2007. And so we know the data that we have, plus the data from other countries that's shown it to be successful. So I will be supporting the bill today. I'll give you an opportunity to close.
Redner 3
This is a simple bill. When buses move, our communities move. AP eighteen thirty seven keeps it that way. Let's not hit the brakes on progress. Thank you and respectfully ask for your
Redner 1
Sounds good. Is there a motion? So I have Sharp, Collins, and Hart. With that, madam secretary, could you call the roll?
Redner 11
AB eighteen thirty seven, the motion is due passed to the committee on privacy and consumer protection. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, I. Davies?
Aye. Davies, I. Aguirre Curry, Aguirre Curry, I. Arons, Arons, I. Correo, I.
Carabedian, I. Hart, I. Hoover, Jackson, Jackson I, Lackey
Redner 11
Lackey not voting, Macedo, Pappin, Ransom, Rogers, Sharp Collins, Sharp Collins I, Ward, Ward I.
Redner 1
We have 10 votes, and we'll hold the roll open for other members to add on. Alright. Item number two is AB nineteen forty four Lee. I do not see him here, so I will ask the sergeants to make a call to his office. Oh, you're doing his oh, I'm sorry.
You're doing both. I didn't realize. Alright. Well, don't call his office. I was looking for Aaron's because he has a bill item number three.
I was gonna move on. We'll start with item number 2, AB1944. Lee presented by assembly member Aaron's.
Redner 15
Thank you, chair and members. I'm here today presenting on AB nineteen forty four on behalf of our colleague, assembly member Alex Lee. California has set ambitious zero emission goals for our public transit systems, which transit agencies are working hard to meet. In 2015, the legislature passed a b twelve fifty, which set a maximum curb weight of 25,000 pounds per axle for zero emission buses. This limit was designed to decrease by 1,000 every two years with a final maximum weight of 22,000 pounds in 2022.
This approach came from negotiations with cities, counties who raised concerns about the potential impact of heavier buses on trans public transportation infrastructure. This declining schedule was believed to provide sufficient time for advancement in battery technology to reduce weight while maintaining high performance standards. However, improvements in battery weight have unfortunately not kept up pace with earlier expectations. Transit agencies are struggling to acquire buses that both meet the current weight limits and provide the range needed for longer routes, which often require additional batteries. AB nineteen forty four provides a practical responsible solution by postponing the implementation timeline of these axle weight limits while maintaining the final weight cap established in 2015.
This adjustment ensures that transit agencies can continue to provide reliable and quality public transportation while providing while working towards our zero emission goals. And with me today, in support, I have Michael Pimentel, the executive director for the California Transit Association.
Redner 8
Madam chair and members, good to be with you this afternoon. I'm Michael Pimentel, executive director of the California Transit Association, and I'm pleased to voice our support for AB nineteen forty four. The association is the sponsor of this bill, would facilitate, as you just heard, compliance with the innovative clean transit regulation by providing transit agencies and bus manufacturers with additional time to meet the axle weight limits for zero emission buses in current law. As you may know, in December 2018, CARB adopted the ICT regulation, requiring transit agencies to convert their bus fleets to zero emission technologies by no later than 2040. The regulation functions by way of a tiered purchase mandate, which requires that transit agencies purchase a fixed percentage of zero emission buses with each bus procurement.
Under the regulation, this fixed percentage increases every three years until, in 2029, it reaches 100%. Now as ZEB deployments continue to increase and the short range ZEBs are deployed on available shorter routes, transit agencies will soon be forced to procure ZEBs with extended ranges to complete longer routes, account for climate, and protect against battery degradation. With today's technologies, extended range ranges require additional batteries which result in additional weight that meet or in some cases exceed the axle weight limits in current law. This bill simply aims to address this conflict and to provide agencies with additional time to procure buses that exceed today's weight limits. In doing so, this bill would acknowledge, as we heard, the descending schedule of axle weights in current law that we helped establish previously and allow for there to be continued advancements in these technologies.
Importantly, as noted, by leaving unchanged the maximum axle weight limits in current law, this bill would respect the agreement that was struck between the Association of Local Government Interests and AB twelve fifty. I ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Moving on to members of the public who would like to add on their support, name, affiliation, and position.
Redner 7
Madam Chair, Brendan Erpicky on behalf of Monterey Salinas Transit District and County Connection in support.
Redner 5
Steve Wallach on behalf of the Napa Valley Transportation Authority in support, the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District will be considering a support position on Wednesday.
Redner 1
Thank you. We don't have any registered opposition but would like to give an opportunity for members of the public who would like to add on as an opponent of the bill, now would be an appropriate time to do so. You can come to the mic and note your name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving to members of the committee who might have any questions, comments, or concerns. It's moved by Harabedian, second by Davies.
Redner 1
right. With that, we know that California has ambitious climate goals, and so mobile sources are the single largest contributor to the state's greenhouse gas, nitrogen oxide and diesel particulate matter emissions. Technology continues to advance quickly and through zero emission transit bus weights have not declined as fast as we expected. And so I appreciate that this bill provides flexibility for transit agencies to acquire zero emission transit buses that would otherwise be too heavy under current law, and I will be supporting this bill today. We have a motion by Harrobedian and a second by Davies.
I'll give you an opportunity to close.
Redner 11
AB nineteen forty four, the motion is due pass. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies?
Aye. Davies, aye. Aguirre? Aguirre? Aye.
Arons, aye. Carrillo? Carrillo, aye. Harabedian? Aye.
Harabedian, aye. Hart? I. Hoover, Jackson?
Redner 11
Lackey, Masito, Happen, Ransom, Rogers, Sharp Collins, Sharp Collins, I. Ward. Ward, I.
Redner 1
That has 11 votes. We'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. Now we'll move on to item number three, AB fifteen ninety nine, Erins. Move the bill. We have a motion by Aguirre Curry and a second by Sharp Collins.
Redner 15
Thank you. Good evening members. AB fifteen ninety nine requires Caltrans to establish a centralized California transit stop registry with standardized information for all public transit stops in the state of California. Respectfully ask for your I vote for innovation.
Redner 15
Oh, sorry. With me today is Eli Littman, the executive director of Move LA, and David Acevedo, the state director for AARP.
Redner 7
Thank you. Getting set up here. Hi. My name is Eli Littman. I'm the executive director for Move LA.
I use hethey pronouns. I'd like to thank our co sponsors on this, AARP and help from Streets for All. I'd like to thank the assembly member. What we have now is fragmented and inconsistent data, and that's not fun for anyone because transit stop names, locations, identifiers can vary across different agencies, across different datasets, and it creates confusion. I miss my connection on the two twelve bus in Inglewood because I thought I was standing at the right bus stop, and it turned out it was 300 feet north of me.
And and that was because I was looking should have been looking at the world, not my phone, but that's another issue that I'll debate with my children. I also think that we are also seeing huge inefficiencies for transit agencies. They need to maintain and update multiple data sets, and they're responding to data correction requests from third parties, right, from these apps that we're all using. It's also a barrier to seamless trip planning, which is a reason why people don't ride transit as consistently. And this inconsistent stop information is undermining the reliability statewide as well as regionally because with regional mobility apps, and these transfers are just not seamless.
So without a single source of truth, we lack a centralized registry of transit stops, public infrastructure that all agencies can reference. So that's what this bill would simply do, improve data quality and interoperability and create that common frame of reference. Ultimately though, and I want this to highlight this point, this is gonna save Caltrans millions potentially. Because of SB nine sixty requirements, which was passed in 2024, it funds the development, construction, and repair of roads, bridges, and other critical transportation infrastructure in the state, including the State Highway Operation and Protection Program. Caltrans doesn't know where all of these bus stops are.
So this bill fixes that and helps Caltrans do its job, which you've already said for it to do, right, and saves the state millions over time. And it also ensures that all of our transit agencies, all too I'm fun
Redner 16
Good evening. My name is David Azevedo, Associate Director for Advocacy and Community Engagement with AARP California. Thank you, Chair Wilson and members of this committee, for allowing me to speak on behalf of the 3,200,000 AARP members across the state. So we believe at AARP that you can't manage what you don't measure. Reliable data is the foundation of effective policymaking and the ability to monitor and improve results.
That is why AARP is co sponsoring AB fifteen ninety nine and making it a priority bill this legislative session. By standardizing how we collect data about the state's tens of thousands of bus stops, this cost saving bill will help transit riders better find and utilize bus stops, improving the customer service experience, and increasing ridership, which we all want. Older adults depend on public transit. It connects our members with their jobs, family, health care and social activities. Public transit is a fraction of the cost of car ownership these days, and that was before skyrocketing gas prices.
For people on fixed and limited incomes, public transit is not a nice to have. It is the difference between going to work and health appointments, seeing family and friends, or being stuck at home socially isolated. When transit information is inaccurate or inconsistent, it undermines confidence in the system and discourages use. Just this past week, I and millions of other users experienced LA Metro's transit data outage. I was unable to see transit times on my phone and on station screens preventing me from planning my trip effectively.
This specific example shows just how dependent transit riders are on accurate and consistent information, which AB 59 fifteen ninety nine will help address. And as Eli kind of mentioned there very quickly, it's a significant cost saving measure when you look at things like SB nine sixty. We're really excited about that. AARP was a big supporter of that bill. And so for these reasons, AARP has made it a priority piece of legislation this session, and we thank Assemblymember ARENS for sponsoring such an important bill and for our partners at MoveLA and others to help make transit more accessible, connected, and responsive to older adult riders in the Golden State.
Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Appreciate that. So now moving on to folks who would like to add on their support, name, affiliation, and position.
Redner 6
Mark Fooks with Streets for All. We're a proud cosponsor of the bill. Thank you.
Redner 8
Michael Pimtel with the California Transit Association. We don't yet have a position on the bill but did want to express our interest, our willingness to engage with the author and sponsors on this bill, some areas of implementation that we need to continue to improve as the bill moves forward, but appreciate the measure being brought forward.
Redner 1
Thank you. We don't have any registered opposition, and so wanted to give an opportunity for any members of the public who wanted to note their opposition. Now would be an appropriate time to come to the mic, name, affiliation, and position. Seeing none, moving it back to committee. We do already have a motion and a second.
All right. Oh, go ahead, Doctor. Sharp Collins.
Redner 14
I just wanted to thank the author for bringing forth this bill. This is a huge concern also in my district, I would like to be as a coauthor.
Redner 1
All right. I'll note to the author, standardizing stop data will help improve the transit experience for so many, will make it easier for users to navigate across multiple transit agencies. I actually had an opportunity to consider this bill in the fall, but you beat me to the punch. Gotcha. With that, I would like to also be added as a coauthor, if you'll have me.
I appreciate you bringing this bill forward. It's a simple change, even though we do have to work on the areas of implementation, but it really will enhance the transit experience. I'll give you an opportunity to close here.
Redner 1
Thank you. Moving on, we have a motion by Aguirre Curry, a second by Chef Collins. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.
Redner 11
AB fifteen ninety nine, the motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies?
Aye. Davies, aye. Aguirre Curry? Aguirre Curry? Aye.
Arons? Arons, aye. Carrillo? Aye. Carrillo, aye.
Harabedian? Aye. Harabedian, Hart? Heart, aye. Hoover, Jackson, aye.
Jackson, aye. Lackey, aye. Aye. Macedo, Happen, Ransom, Rogers, Sharp Collins, aye. Ward, aye.
Redner 1
That has 11 votes, and we'll hold the roll open for members to be able to add on. Now, I'll be passing over the gavel to Vice Chair Davies. I have three bills, and I will do a call out to our members who are not here and encourage you to start making your way so that we can finish. Thank you.
Redner 1
Sounds good. I'll start talking as my witnesses come up. This is AB sixteen oh eight, file item four. Well, good evening, members. As you all know, I'm a strong supporter of the California High Speed Rail Project because of the potential transformative value it can bring to our state by simultaneously improving mobility and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Currently, the project is having a strong positive economic impact in the Central Valley, and I'm confident it will ultimately bring these benefits statewide. This project has faced many challenges during construction, including lack of funding to complete the project, lawsuits, challenges acquiring right of way and moving utilities. These challenges have resulted in project delays and unnecessary cost increases. Every dollar on this project counts because we have lost a federal funding partner, and at this time, we are completely reliant on state funding to deliver the significant infrastructure project. Independent, effective oversight is critical to the success of any large infrastructure project and ensuring that every dollar is spent wisely.
The legislature created the Office of the Inspector General in 2022, and the Inspector General has already proven its value in the short time that it's been in operation. However, the office has faced challenges hiring necessary staff because it did not have access to the position qualifications and contract authority it needed to hire staff with the appropriate qualifications and acquire specialized services in a timely manner. When the office was created, the legislature did not include provisions requiring the office to make its reports public, or protections to ensure that the Inspector General could keep confidential, for a period of time, information that could harm the state and jeopardize whistleblowers. Concerns were initially raised that this bill would keep information confidential. In fact, this bill does the exact opposite by requiring the inspector general to make its reports public, which is not required in current law.
Moreover, this bill does not go beyond providing any protections for the Inspector General that are in excess of the current protections that the state auditor and inspector generals within the state have. My office and the inspector general have worked closely with the First Amendment Coalition to make as much information as possible available to the public. In response to our amendments, the First Amendment Coalition is now in support of this bill, calling the amended bill a model framework for how independent offices of inspector general can balance legitimate confidentiality needs with the public's right to know about government activities. So I greatly appreciate their contribution to help us draft legislation that appropriate balances legitimate confidentiality needs with the public's right to know. So in closing, I ask for your support on this important bill that will improve transparency and oversight.
So I would now like to introduce my witnesses. First, we have Ben our instructor general for the Office of Inspector General for High Speed Rail, and Jenny LaRoe, advocacy director for the First Amendment Coalition.
Redner 18
Thank you, madam chair and members of the committee. My name is Ben Belknap, inspector general for the California High Speed Rail. The passage of AB 16 o eight will result in more timely and robust oversight of the California's High Speed Rail project. This project is at a critical inflection point. My office estimates that we are only two years away from major schedule delays caused by near term funding shortages.
To avoid these delays, the high speed rail authority must secure financing. At the same time, it is also trying to complete major procurements necessary to keep the project on schedule. Without having yet resolved this immediate problem, the authority has signaled that it plans to expend up to 500,000,000 up to the $500,000,000 cap on spending outside of Merced De Bakersfield segment imposed by SB one ninety eight and is requesting that lawmakers lift this cap entirely. The Office of Inspector General of the High Speed Rail provides independent oversight of the project and is an important resource to state lawmakers at this critical time. Two months ago, my office published a review of the authority's procurement processes and we are currently reviewing the accuracy and completeness of the authority's draft business plan.
When that review is complete, my office will finish a review requested by Senator Cortezi of the costs and benefits of implementing various project reforms proposed by the authority including the suggested changes to SB 198. We also plan to complete our review of the authority's construction quality program, review how compliance with environmental requirements is affecting the project, and review the authority's change order processes. However, my office has been slowed in its efforts to complete these reviews by a lack of access to job classifications that match the skill set required of its staff, and a lack of purchasing authority that would allow it to hire needed expertise in a timely manner.
Redner 18
AB sixteen oh eight would resolve these issues expeditiously, and I plead for your support. Thank you.
Redner 19
Good afternoon. Jenny Lareau with First Amendment Coalition. Couldn't be here, but I am Danny Cando Kaiser with Kaiser Advocacy speaking on behalf of FAC. FAC is a California nonprofit that promotes and defends free speech, a free press, and the people's right to know. We believe that the broadest range of engaged and informed communities is essential to the health of our democracy.
We work with members of the public and press to exercise their rights of access, especially under the California Public Records Act. We're pleased to support AB sixteen oh eight as it was amended on March 10. With those amendments, the bill provides what we think will be a model framework for how independent offices of inspector general can balance legitimate confidentiality needs to perform watchdog duties with the public's right to know about government activities. The bill makes clear that the Inspector General's office has a mandate to produce and publish reports of its reviews and investigations on its website, subject to only limited withholding provisions. With the recent amendments, the withholding provisions are narrowly tailored, require the IG to provide an explanation of the reason for any withholding or redaction, and only allow for withholding or redaction if it would pose a substantial and articulable risk to the project or to state operations.
Additionally, withholdings pursuant to that provision are not indefinite. We appreciate the productive dialogue with the chair and author and the inspector general's office and committee in developing language that appropriately balances legitimate confidentiality needs of the IG's office with the public's right to know. Thank you.
Redner 17
Thank you. All right. We're going to move to public testimony. Me too. Those that are in support, if you'd like to come up to the mic and name, agency, and position only.
K. Seeing none. And I don't believe we have any opposition witnesses. Correct? Okay.
Then we'll also then do public testimony, me too, on opposition. If so, please come up to the mic. Seeing none, then we will move on to members' comments. And if I'd like to just start out, if I may, with a question thank you, madam chair, for your recent amendments. I do wanna ask you about the newest language of would pose a substantial and articulable risk to the project or to state operations for all future IG reports.
I know that is not defined currently in the bill, so I was hoping you could expand on what kinds of things you believe would qualify as substantially risk to the project, and should Californians be given that information regardless since taxpayer dollars are helping fund the project? Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. I'll begin, and then I'll give it over to the IG to also answer this. This really is to prevent the disclosure of information that would reveal weaknesses, including those involving information security, physical security, fraud detection controls, or pending litigations those that could be exploited by individuals attempting to harm or inappropriately benefit from the project. So an example of physical security could be the results of a hypothetical analysis in which the OIG compares the deployment of security resources with the timing of security incidents. If there was, for example, a mismatch in which security personnel were made available and when security threats more often occur, making that finding public before the corrections were actually made could be problematic.
Redner 18
And in regards to the word articulable, we are gonna have to, according to the amended bill, describe what we've redacted and describe why. We will also eventually have to release that and people will have the opportunity to see what was the IG's judgment on that. I will have to show my work. And I think that's a great control over this process.
Redner 20
Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I just want to thank the chair for bringing this and to say to the inspector general, I've really enjoyed our conversations. And I think that you just bring a great approach. And I think all of us are relieved and heartened to see your activity here, and I think this bill will go a long way to boost confidence in the project. So thank you for the bill, happy to support it.
Redner 1
Absolutely. Thank you. We have worked hard to make sure that all stakeholders were engaged and that we ensured that the language matched our legislative intent, and we've been able to do that. This project has had challenges in the past, and we want to make sure going forward it's done in the most efficient and effective way possible. The best way to do that is to equip the OIG for high speed rail, our eyes and ears, to this project with everything they need to be able to do that with the maximum accountability and maximum transportation.
I mean transportation, transparency. With that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 17
Sharp Collins, Winifred. Alright. Thank you. Alright. You wanna go ahead and take roll call?
Redner 11
AB 16 o eight, the motion is due passed to the committee on judiciary. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies?
No. Davies? No. Aguirre? Aguirre?
Aguirre, aye. Arons? Arons, aye. Carrillo? Carrillo, aye.
Arabidian? Arabidian, aye. Hart, heart I, Hoover, Jackson I, lackey? No. Lackey, no, Macedo, Happen, Ransom I.
Ransom I, Rogers, Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins, I. Ward? I. Ward, I.
Redner 17
Alright. We have attended two, and it's out. And we'll leave that open. We're going to move on to Assemblyman Wilson's AB sixteen thirteen.
Redner 1
All right. As my witnesses swap out, I'll go ahead and get started. I'm pleased to present AB sixteen thirteen. This is a bill that would create a California off highway vehicle safety and stewardship course as a self guided certification of knowledge of safe operating practice for OHVs, and require operators of OHVs to take this course in order to access off highway lands beginning in 2029. Both Federal and State statute have standards for the safe operations of an OHV.
However, there is no requirement that operators know these are existing or other safety standards. Additionally, there is no requirement that they have the ability to demonstrate their knowledge through a certification program. Because of this gap in law, misuse, property damage, accidents, injuries and even deaths have become a problem in our state parks and other public lands that allow OHV recreation. California has even ranked the highest in fatalities among staff associated with OHVs across the country. As a result of this need, stakeholder conversations, including several safety summits over the past few years with members of the community, law enforcement, and the department have revealed a common interest in providing additional training and education to the OHV community.
AB sixteen thirteen is the culmination of years of work amongst the community and is not only modeled after similar programs in other states like Utah and Arizona, but is modeled after California's own successful voter ID card that the legislature approved over a decade ago. It is time that California take the reasonable step forward in our OHV lands in order to improve safety and enact the change of the OHV community has been seeking. And so with that, I'd like to introduce my two witnesses: Amy Grenaud, Executive Director of Sierra Access Coalition, and Jane Artega, President of the California Outdoor Recreation Foundation.
Redner 21
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. I am Jane Arteaga, President of the California Outdoor Recreation Foundation, also known as CORF, and we are partners with California State Parks. After a thirty seven year career with the U. S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, I retired as the California BLM Transportation Travel Management Specialist and OHV Program Lead.
You tell up as a government employee. I am here today in support of AB sixteen thirteen, and we thank you, Chair Wilson, for your steadfast commitment and your thoughtful approach to OHV safety and public land management. Over the past several years, we've seen major shifts in outdoor recreation. During COVID, people felt safe outdoors. Between 2020 and 2023, sales of the most user friendly and affordable OHV increased 220%.
This rapid growth invited many new OHVers with no experience understanding the rules of the roads, accidents and injuries and environmental impacts increased. In response, California OHMVR Division convened annual safety summits. AB sixteen thirteen evolved from a collaborative stakeholder process in the summits. It ensures that both new and experienced OHVers are equipped to operate safely and protect lands we all enjoy. Because we know OHV participation will continue to grow, AB 16 strikes the balance to reduce accidents, protect natural resource resources, and save lives.
I respectfully ask you to support, and I thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Redner 22
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Madam Co Chair, and members of the committee. My name is Amy Granite, and I've served as advocate for the off road community for over twenty years. Currently, I serve as Executive Director of Sierra Access Coalition. We have seen personally the increase in off road recreation, and some of the accidents and incidences that have evolved from that increase have been difficult to see, difficult to to watch, and heartbreaking to hear about. The community did get together and with the leadership of California State Parks started these safety summits that have there have been four held to date.
And through the participation of a very diverse group, this language was developed. We thank Assembly Member Wilson for her leadership and her staffs in helping us hone the testimony. To many of us, you know, in the off road community seeing these accidents as unacceptable, so we started asking ourselves, what can we do? And the answer to all of this is education. We have a world class system in California that we love.
Now we have the opportunity to develop a world class educational program to correlate and help us help each other to protect public land. The mandate that is proposed in the bill will wisely apply to all riders and drivers on public land that are designated for off road recreation and in our state parks. This includes hunters. This includes anglers. This includes hikers who are hiking the Pacific Crest Trail, for example.
This includes people who use dirt roads. Everybody has to have the same education. So we respectfully ask for your support for the bill and look forward to continuing to develop the community based mandate and program for to help off road recreation. Thank you.
Redner 17
Thank you. Alright. We're gonna move to public testimony, me too's, in in support.
Redner 18
Ethan Naylor on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts in support.
Redner 17
Any others? Alright. I don't believe we have a witness in opposition, So we will move to public testimony if there's any public against me too? Nope? Alrighty.
Let's move it to members. Comments? Any questions or comments? No? All right.
If you'd like to close.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. I appreciate my witnesses testifying. As you can see from their experience, this is really something that came from the community up and not the top down, which is a great way to do a bill. With that, respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 11
AB sixteen thirteen, the motion is due passed to the Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife. It was moved by Carrillo and seconded by Aaron's. Wilson?
Redner 11
Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies? No. Davies, no.
Aguirre Curry? Aguirre Curry, I. Arons? Arons, I. Carrillo?
Carrillo, I. Arabidian? Carrillo, I. Heart? Hoover?
Jackson?
Redner 11
Jackson I. Lacky? Lacky, no. Moseto? Happen?
Aye. Happen I. Ransom? Aye. Ransom I.
Rogers? Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins I. Ward? Ward, I.
Redner 17
Okay. We have 10 aye votes, and we'll leave that roll open. Alright. We're gonna finish up with a b sixteen sixty two.
Redner 1
I'll start talking about when witnesses is coming up. Right. Final one, AB sixteen sixty two. Members, I'm pleased to present this bill. It is a bill that will require the DMV to assess points on a driver's record for point assessable offenses that are dismissed upon successful completion of a diversion program.
Now, while these programs are useful tools for judges to carry out discretion based upon the details of the specific case and whether the incident rises to criminal behavior, it does not preclude the fact that a point accessible offense or even a deadly collision has occurred. This is why I've introduced this bill to resolve this loophole. This will ensure potentially dangerous drivers will continue to be held civically liable sorry, accountable to the DMV for behavior that endangers Californians, regardless of whether they are diverted from criminal charges. While I recognize that points on the record may carry consequences in the form of higher insurance rates or even the loss of a driver's license, it is also the primary civil administrative tool we have to ensure we are tracking a driver's behavior and keeping potentially dangerous drivers accountable for their driving. I'd like to now introduce my witnesses, Jonathan Feldman, on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, and Justin Fanslaw, on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition.
Redner 10
Okay. Now it's on. Thank you. Chair members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in support of this important bill that we feel is necessary to instill back some of the integrity in our negligent operator point system, as the author had stated, you know, the misdemeanor diversion doesn't necessarily waive the fact that there was repetitive, dangerous, and reckless driving that does endanger all of us when it's not addressed effectively. And so utilizing this administrative tool, not necessarily as a punishment in and of itself, but to identify that behavior to a point where an individual loses their privilege to drive and has to find public modes of transportation.
And I know that this body has done a tremendous amount of work to ensure that there are means for someone to get to work, to pick up their children. But again, if the individual is endangering the public again and again and again, there has to be something that's done administratively to stop that behavior. And so we think this bill is fantastic in terms of its public safety benefits. Request your I vote.
Redner 23
Good evening. Justin Vanzalke here on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition. We are supporting a whole bunch of bills this year, large part because the legislature has responded to the Cal Matters article and a number of you are carrying bills, Ms. Ransom, Mr. Lackey, Mr.
Archuleta in the Senate has a bill, Ms. Petrie Norris has a bill. There's over a dozen bills that we're supporting this year because it pointed to many loopholes. And one of the biggest head scratchers of all is this notion that I could go outside right now, run a stop sign, get a ticket and receive a point on my driving record. If I go outside right now, run a stop sign, kill somebody, get diverted through a diversion program, successfully complete that program, there's no point on my license.
That's amazingly silly. It's something we should fix. So thank you, assembly member, for being part of the package, and we look forward to supporting this all the way through. Thanks.
Redner 17
Any others in support? Alright. We're gonna move it to, opposition witnesses. Thank you. You have two minutes, sir.
Redner 24
Chair members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I am a alleged advocate with ACLU Cal Action. While we deeply appreciate the author's motive in carrying the bill, we believe alternative non punitive measures are best when trying to keep our roads safe. Diversion allows people to complete re rehabilitation programs prosecution, and upon successful completion, their case is dismissed. Diversion is a crucial tool to clear the court calendar and reduce jail and prison overcrowding, and research has shown that diversion programs reduce recidivism by half.
Policies that weaken or remove incentives to complete diversion, such as AB sixteen sixty two, undermine these benefits and place a strain on an overly burdened criminal legal system that will ultimately diminish public safety. Receiving points on a driving record can have devastating impacts on low income Californians, including increased cost of insurance and potentially losing your driver's license. As someone who grew up in Southern California, and as is the case for many in the state, a car is crucial in becoming self reliant. There's no debate how willfully behind our public transit infrastructure is, which is why losing your license makes it incredibly difficult to maintain employment as many Californians commute to their place of work in order to survive our housing crisis. While this committee is prioritizing the need to improve our public transit system, the reality is we have far to go in providing people a real option to become self reliant without the need of a vehicle.
So by increasing the likelihood someone will have their license suspended, resulting in them potentially losing their job, we are effectively dooming them to economic ruin. And it's important to remember that people who complete diversion programs are legally innocent and have not been convicted of any crime. Punishing people who complete diversion cuts against the presumption of innocence that is at the very core of our criminal legal system and contradicts our commitment to rehabilitation. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on a b sixteen sixty two. Thank you.
Redner 17
Thank you. Alright. We're going to have public testimony in opposition. Alright. Seeing none, I'm gonna move it to members, and I'd like to just start off by saying this bill is thank you so much for this.
It's it's long overdue. And I understand what the witness talking about concerns of of basically having transportation. We're talking about murder. We're talking about family members losing their loved ones and and comparing it to, you know, having a point on your record. So I'd like to be considered for coauthor.
And again, thank you so much.
Redner 14
Thank you, Madam Chair. So first of all, I want to thank the author for bringing this bill. I think it's imperative that we create balance. I've spent a lot of my career working in restorative justice, and I completely understand that we have to have balance. However, the data shows that it's important that we do something to curb the epidemic that we are facing.
And a huge part of what it means to be restorative is accountability. You cannot have restorative justice without accountability. And while I appreciate the concerns that were brought, I've also heard concerns from stakeholders. We have to think about the fact that there are victims in people's negligence and in their recklessness. And as we're talking about diversion programs, this bill diverts people from the grief.
We are trying to stop people from being innocent victims of someone else's, whether it's recklessness, whether it is a mental condition or whatever it is. And so there is already, through the diversion programs, there is already opportunities built in for people who maybe they made a mistake and it's just going to be a one time thing. They'll have an opportunity to have their record cleared. But to say that we don't want them to at least have an incentive, all of the incentives are leading to you just get a free pass. There's nothing that says you have to remain accountable in our current system.
And having had friends and family and seen people who were just innocent victims, I think it is wholly unfair that we would stick to the status quo. So with that said, I respectfully support this bill. I ask that we really think about, as we are opposing bills like this, and we know that we're not trying to create additional criminal penalties, This bill does not create additional criminal penalties. This bill says that you do not just get a free pass. And if we really want people to take us seriously when we're talking about being restorative, then we have to think about what we do to ensure that we are disincentivizing reckless, terrible behavior that is harmful to this state and to this community.
So I really ask that you consider that as you show up to oppose bills because it's just really not fair to the families and the people who are losing people to reckless driving. So with that, I would ask to be added as a coauthor. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Happy to have you, if I may, just for a moment between the exchanges, that diversion programs are good. There has to be balance around them, and I think we've wrestled with that as a legislature, is how do you divert, but at the same time not letting really bad folks take advantage of that system. But the point of diversion in this particular aspect is to not bog down the criminal justice system, as you noted as a part of your testimony. This is what we're talking about as an administrative procedure or civilly, getting a point on your record, as was given in the testimony before from Mr.
Vanslaw. I can go out and I can run a stop sign and get a ticket and get a point, or I can run a stop sign and kill someone and not get a point. And that doesn't seem fair. And lastly, I'll say in response to this exchange is that diversion requires the defendant's consent and recognition that something took place warranting their need to complete a diversion program. So, they get all that wiped away on the criminal side, but in order to do that, they had to admit to something.
So it's not like there's no punishment. They get no punishment and they're free to go. I'm saying that they don't get punishment and they are free to go, but on their record is a point. As long as they don't do anything for a certain amount of time, that point just disappears. It's if they repeat the behavior, they will begin to experience the consequences from their initial action.
I know, Mr. Vansal, did you want to note something in regard to what I was saying?
Redner 1
Okay, great. All right. I was about to ask who else had a question, but I will give it back to Vice Chair Davies.
Redner 12
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to thank the Chair for the conversation we had. As she knows, I was one who had that knee jerk reaction in terms of hold on. I thought it was diversion. Why are adding points here?
But I was not aware that you can even not even have a point. I, too, was moved by the CalMatters article and I do believe we need to have more balance when it comes to making sure that people are driving responsibly. And if we find people who are not being driven responsibly, then that privilege should be taken away, especially if they continue to damage property and take away human lives, most importantly. And so I appreciate, I do consider this a balanced approach. We do need to track those who are repeat offenders when it comes to breaking the law.
I'm trying to get a point off myself. And so I think that I appreciate the balance in this and I'm looking forward to supporting the bill. Thank you.
Redner 15
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have to agree with my colleagues. I think this is striking the right balance And I and I was also moved by the Cal Matters article as a freshman legislator knowing that forty thousand people have died in the past decade on California roads. Two million people have been injured. And the status quo is just not cutting it.
And, you know, always respect the dialogue, but Sacramento has gotta stop upholding the status quo and try new things. Doesn't mean it's going to be perfect. We can look at it. But I appreciate the author's willingness to really dig in and try to address some of the more chronic abusers and holding them accountable because what's not acceptable is allowing forty thousand more people to die on our roads in the next decade or or more. And we virtually do nothing in the name of wanting to protect a program that is not working.
So I'd love to be added as co author of this bill.
Redner 13
Yeah. I just wanna say how excited I am to wait twelve years to see this kind of balanced approach. And it's bipartisan. Usually, on my side fight for this stuff and we haven't resonated very strongly. So I'm very, very excited.
I also should mention the opposition. To those of you who don't know in the court system, oftentimes, even though the points amount to a negligent operator and driving privileges are revoked, they can be reinstated to and from employment. So they're not automatically gonna lose their job as alleged. In most instances, the court does not want someone to not be able to support their family. And so it's very strict guidelines, to and from employment and can't even go to the store.
They just gotta go to and from employment, and, that is a a privilege that is granted routinely. And I just wanted to throw that out there for anybody who thought that, people are gonna be losing their jobs over this. So I'm very, very proud to be a co author here, and I'm so excited to see that this is a bipartisan support.
Redner 2
Yeah. Can you help me understand more the the analogy that you made about somebody driving through a stop sign and them getting a point on their license? And if they drive through the stop sign and they hit somebody and there's a horrible injury, they don't get a point if they go through the diversion program. So what would they they wouldn't get just a point in this situation. They would get their driver's license revoked, right?
Redner 1
No. So what would happen is, is because we have created a diversion system, that you can then go through the diversion. So yes, you'd get all the impact that the immediate police would be involved, all of that. Then you would go through a diversion system, and then all of that would go away. On the
Redner 1
On the criminal side. Currently, on the point, you would never get the point.
Redner 1
So with this bill, you could still go through diversion and get the criminal side taken away, but the point, you would still have the point on your driver's record.
Redner 1
No, it's only a point. And then if you get another point within a certain amount of time, then you start facing consequences of that. So there's a period of time, and I'll look to someone knows it here or a staff may know it how long it is. How long is it before if you get another point, then you start to experience the consequences?
Redner 25
It depends. In the first twelve months, if you get four points on your license is when your license can be suspended. And you can always go to traffic violators school within an eighteen month time period and have a point removed for that purpose. And the circumstance the chair is mentioning, the reason you can go to diversion is you can only go to diversion for a misdemeanor offense. If I run a stop sign, it's an infraction.
And so if I kill someone and there's no intent, it's vehicular manslaughter and you get a misdemeanor, then I can go through a diversion case. And that's where you wind up in circumstance where someone goes through diversion and doesn't get any points on their license, versus if I just run the stop sign, I'm going get a point on my license without it. Okay.
Redner 1
And so that's why we talk about this as fixing a loophole. When we created the diversion system, we were trying to keep people out of the criminal justice system that were committing things that weren't intentional. I didn't mean to go run someone over. I didn't mean to look. If you're looking at your phone, we can talk about that.
But if you're doing something reckless, you didn't intend for that person to die, which is very different than if you were intentionally using your vehicle to kill someone. And so we wanted that diversion system in the legislature. And when I say we, the legislature sometime ago set that mechanism up. But I don't think we intended to not track folks and their poor driving. I will say this.
A few people have mentioned the CalMaterza article, which is extremely important, so kudos for good journalism. But in it, it talked about 400 drivers accused of a fatal crash went on to receive another ticket and get into another collision. None of them had the original incident on their driver's record. So 400 folks since 2019. That's a lot of people who did it multiple times, but we have to stop them.
Have to have, as my colleague noted, is that there has to be accountability so that you can change your behavior and then essentially get into that restorative justice system.
Redner 5
Jess would like to be added as a co author. Think this is an incredible bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Redner 1
I love the discussion. We have to ensure that accountability is on our roads. I appreciate the testimony that was provided, including in the opposition. As chair emeritus of the Black Caucus, criminal justice reform is at the top of the work that we do. It's one of our pillars.
And so I recognize that, and that's why I was being really mindful about this bill, to have that balance. And so with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 11
AB sixteen sixty two, the motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Wilson? Aye. Wilson, aye. Davies?
Aye. Davies, aye. Aguirre Curry? Aguirre Curry, aye. Arons?
Arons, aye. Carrillo? Carrillo, I. Harabedian, I. Harabedian, Hart, Hart, Hoover, Hoover, I.
Jackson, I. Lacky, I. Lackey, Masito, I. Happen, Happen, I. Ransom?
Aye. Ransom, I. Rogers? Rogers, I. Sharp Collins?
Sharp Collins, I. Ward? Aye. Ward, I. That's out with six.
Redner 17
Alright. That gets out with 16 votes. And we will go ahead. Anyone else that hasn't voted on the other bills?
Redner 1
Alright. We're gonna go from the top. Are we missing any members that plan to come? Okay. All right.
With that, starting from file item number one, AB1837, Gonzales.
Redner 11
Hoover. Hoover. Hoover, I. Moseto? Moseto, no.
Happen? Aye. Happen, aye. Ransom? Aye.
Ransom, aye. Rogers? Aye. Rogers, aye.
Redner 1
That bill is out. 14 aye votes, one no vote. Moving on to item number two, a b nineteen forty four, Lee. Hoover. Hoover, aye.
Mussito, Mussito, no. Happen?
Redner 1
is out. It has 14 I'm sorry, 15 aye votes, one no vote. Moving on to item number three, AB fifteen ninety nine. Hoover? Hoover,
Redner 11
I. Masito? I. Macedo, I. Pappin?
Pappin, I. Ransom? Ransom. I. Rogers.
I. Rogers. I. That
Redner 1
bill is out. It has 16 aye votes. Moving on to item number four, a b 16 o eight, Wilson. Hoover?
Redner 11
Hoover? No. Macedo? Macedo? No.
Happen? Happen, I. Rogers? Aye. Rogers, I.
Redner 1
That bill is out. It has 12 aye votes and four no votes. Moving on to item number five, AB1613. Wilson. Hart
Redner 11
Hart not voting. Hoover. Hoover, no. Macedo. Macedo, no.
Rogers. Rogers, I.
Redner 1
Eleven four. That bill is out. It has 11 I votes and four no votes. Alright. Item six was already reported on.
With that, the Assembly Transportation hearing is closed. What is Jerked. Jerked. I was like, what's the word? I'm tired.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.